Guest guest Posted July 26, 1999 Report Share Posted July 26, 1999 Gerald Surya wrote: > > Actually the analogy works better in reverse: It is very easy to show that > Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Baladeva and their secondary commentators show > that the phrase anadikarma in Vedanta refers to literally beginningless > material activity as applied to every individual soul. Perhaps it might be so, I have to admit not to be so familiar with the commentaries on Vedanta of other Acaryas. But then, why don't you discuss and refer the the works of those acaryas instead, and not Srila Prabhupada's? If you study Srila Prabhupada's books, you find no explicit information telling us that there had been no prior spiritual experience of ours since the very existence of the soul. But there is quite some information on the opposite case. > OOP tries to > interpret it to refer to spiritual activity prior to the fall to bring it > in line with the fall theory. It is this novel interpretive way that > greatly resembles rtvikvada. Some supporters of exclusive "no-fall-from" theory, when faced to the undoubtedly clear statements from Srila Prabhupada that give the information on "begginninglessly conditioned" souls' prior spiritual activities, give a kind of explanation: "Srila Prabhupada deliberately misinformed us all, knowing that we were not ready to accept the truth". Now, an another version seems to be appearing: "A novel interpretative way that greatly resembles rtvikvada". This is your(anybody's) big problem as soon as you become an exclusive protagonist of "no-fall" theory -- Srila Prabhupada. You got to go around him somehow or other. Either by giving some "explanation" on why he was telling us something that isn't true, or to assume some of "OED" methods when reading his books: you first read the verse, then the Translation (word-by-word optional), then the Bhaktivedanta Purport, and then -- the Oxford English Dictionary. - mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 1999 Report Share Posted July 26, 1999 In a message dated 7/26/99 2:47:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Mahanidhi (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes: << This is your(anybody's) big problem as soon as you become an exclusive protagonist of "no-fall" theory -- Srila Prabhupada. You got to go around him somehow or other. >> I think Ravindra svarupa Prabhu gives a good resolution: in pure material-linear time, we have been conditioned since "time without limit" or in other words literally eternally. But if we step out of material time, we can speak of eternal ongoing events as discrete points or acts (as in "Krishna expanded as Balarama"). Then we can say that the soul fell. But speaking in ordinary time, the soul (his conditioned aspect) has always been here eternally, and his svarupa is always there eternally. This is *very* different from the OOP explanation, that the soul (at material time A) dropped from there, and after some duration of material time will go back (at material time B). This OOP explanation tries to squeeze both truths of fall and no fall onto a linear time scale, leading to a figurative understanding of beginningless-anadi. Vijay's explanation of beginningless is similar to Ravindra svarupa's but not to OOP's. So if Vijay is giving an explanation of the word beginningless that is both consistent with one by a good standing SP disciple ("from time without limit"), as well as consistent with Vedanta, what is the problem in it? (I concede I am again referring to a source other than SP's books for an explanation, which was your original criticism.) Gerald Surya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 1999 Report Share Posted July 26, 1999 > > Vijay's explanation of beginningless is similar to Ravindra svarupa's but > not to OOP's. So if Vijay is giving an explanation of the word > beginningless that is both consistent with one by a good standing SP > disciple ("from time without limit"), as well as consistent with Vedanta, > what is the problem in it? > You are avoiding the issue. You are simply going on turning around some "henceforward". Just as I thought. Already in the purport to the third verse of Srimad-bhagavatam (SB 1.1.3), Srila Prabhupada gives us the explanation of various rasas in this material world as the perverted reflection of the rasas in the Spiritual World. He says "In the material existence, the rasa is experienced in the perverted form, which is temporary." He is saying this after giving us one very important and very relevant information: "But as far as the spirit souls are concerned, they are one qualitatively with the with the Supreme Lord. Therefore ***the rasas were originally exchanged*** between the spiritual living being and the spiritual whole, the Supreme Personality of Godhead". Now you tell us that "rasas were NEVER exchanged with the SPG", that there were NO previous spiritual experience of the (temporary conditioned) living entity. And then ask "What's the problem with such explanation?" And, on top of it, tell us how we got NO reason to "assume" something else than your conclusion is offering. > (I concede I am again referring to a source other than SP's books for an > explanation, which was your original criticism.) That is not the point. I am not criticizing "referring to a source other than SP's books". The point is that you got to leave Srila Prabhupada and his books in order to establish "no-previous-spiritual-experience". But then you come back to the same books in order to implement such conclusion (derived form some another sources) into SP's books. So, if you ignore SP's books on the first place, then at least it would be fair to keep ignoring them all way along. Your "referring to a source other than SP's books" is simply the indication that you got just nothing in SP's books that will clearly tell us how we had never had any experience of some spiritual activity prior to our conditioning. - mnd PS. Does Ravindra Svarup prabhu actually supports the "no-previous- spiritual-experience" conclusion? If not, then it would not be fair to push him into your and Vijay's "swimming pool". RS prabhu apparently interprets "begginningless" as literal in term of *material-linear* vision of time. Not the *absolute* vision of time that would cover the entire existence of the soul, but only his temporal period of material conditioning (when he imitates the Lord, trying to enjoy his perverted rasas). See any difference? .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 1999 Report Share Posted August 7, 1999 Previously, when I was participating in this discussion, I quoted a Vedaanta-Suutra along with Baladeva Vidyabhuushana's commentary which established that the living entity's material activity was beginningless. I made it a point to quote Baladeva's commentary and the context to explain why this beginninglessness (is that even a word?) had to be taken as literal. Despite all the trouble I took to type out the entire commentary, I never received a satisfactory answer as to how one could have beginningless karma and yet have fallen from Vaikuntha. All I got were a lot of accusations of being "insincere,speculator,mayavadi," etc. I think the most that was ever said about the evidence I provided was that it had to have been a Gaudiya Math translation, and thus was unacceptable. In fact, it was not a Gaudiya Math translation, and I pointed this out too, but I believe I never received a response to that either. Similarly, I don't think I ever saw a very good response to the point brought up much earlier (and from Srila Prabhupada's Bhaagavatam purport, also) that except for Jaya and Vijaya, no one falls from Vaikuntha. Again, a lot of what I am seeing fits the same pattern - the person who brings up the inconvenient facts gets derided as "mayavadi,speculator," etc. This makes me wonder what the point is of even having this debate on this forum. A sign of true intellect is that one feels obliged to provide answers to difficult questions, or at least to admit when he has no answers. There doesn't seem to be much point in arguing with people who feel that the correctness of their conclusions is predestined. So far as ISKCON is concerned, the only forum in which I have seen any desire to debate things like this rationally is VAST. May I suggest that all interested parties who actually want to talk about this transfer the discussion there? Of course, by "interested parties" I am referring to those who are prepared to discuss facts rather than perform character assasinations of their opponents. regards, Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 1999 Report Share Posted August 7, 1999 Previously, when I was participating in this discussion, I quoted a Vedaanta-Suutra along with Baladeva Vidyabhuushana's commentary which established that the living entity's material activity was beginningless. I made it a point to quote Baladeva's commentary and the context to explain why this beginninglessness (is that even a word?) had to be taken as literal. Despite all the trouble I took to type out the entire commentary, I never received a satisfactory answer as to how one could have beginningless karma and yet have fallen from Vaikuntha. All I got were a lot of accusations of being "insincere,speculator,mayavadi," etc. I think the most that was ever said about the evidence I provided was that it had to have been a Gaudiya Math translation, and thus was unacceptable. In fact, it was not a Gaudiya Math translation, and I pointed this out too, but I believe I never received a response to that either. Similarly, I don't think I ever saw a very good response to the point brought up much earlier (and from Srila Prabhupada's Bhaagavatam purport, also) that except for Jaya and Vijaya, no one falls from Vaikuntha. Again, a lot of what I am seeing fits the same pattern - the person who brings up the inconvenient facts gets derided as "mayavadi,speculator," etc. This makes me wonder what the point is of even having this debate on this forum. A sign of true intellect is that one feels obliged to provide answers to difficult questions, or at least to admit when he has no answers. There doesn't seem to be much point in arguing with people who feel that the correctness of their conclusions is predestined. So far as ISKCON is concerned, the only forum in which I have seen any desire to debate things like this rationally is VAST. May I suggest that all interested parties who actually want to talk about this transfer the discussion there? Of course, by "interested parties" I am referring to those who are prepared to discuss facts rather than perform character assasinations of their opponents. regards, Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 1999 Report Share Posted August 7, 1999 > Yes ,Krishna Susurla, VAST is the most suitable place for you. You will certainly fit in there perfectly. The problem is, arrogant, over intelligent people like you only disrupt the lives of sincere devotees who are never interested in the type of mood you repeatedly present when someone tries to discuss philosophy around you. The same thing happened on BTG Digest newsletter. You and your other cerebral friends would lie in ambush for anyone to say anything that was contrary to your teeny conceptions, and do you best to ridicule them and force them offline, with your arrogance and intellectual snobishness. A devotee is always warned about the disruptive influence of association with logitians and argumentative persons like yourself. You may not like my words, but I for one will not be sorry if you do not want to continue here because your total lack or humility and mode of association is most undesirable. Your attempts at trying to minimize Srila Prabhupada might find fertile grounds there on VAST, since that type of offensive speculation is welcome there. Remembering you all too well, Mahananda dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 1999 Report Share Posted August 7, 1999 > Yes ,Krishna Susurla, VAST is the most suitable place for you. You will certainly fit in there perfectly. The problem is, arrogant, over intelligent people like you only disrupt the lives of sincere devotees who are never interested in the type of mood you repeatedly present when someone tries to discuss philosophy around you. The same thing happened on BTG Digest newsletter. You and your other cerebral friends would lie in ambush for anyone to say anything that was contrary to your teeny conceptions, and do you best to ridicule them and force them offline, with your arrogance and intellectual snobishness. A devotee is always warned about the disruptive influence of association with logitians and argumentative persons like yourself. You may not like my words, but I for one will not be sorry if you do not want to continue here because your total lack or humility and mode of association is most undesirable. Your attempts at trying to minimize Srila Prabhupada might find fertile grounds there on VAST, since that type of offensive speculation is welcome there. Remembering you all too well, Mahananda dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 1999 Report Share Posted August 7, 1999 > > Despite all the trouble I took to type out the entire commentary, I never > received a satisfactory answer as to how one could have beginningless > karma and yet have fallen from Vaikuntha. I doubt that one will ever receive some "satisfactory answer" on the logical questions that got to satisfy our intellectual hunger with the answers on something incomprehensible to the very intellect. In other words, once you are really able to grasp the literal meaning of "beginningless", which is something unlimited, with your limited intellect, then ask such rhetoric questions that the answers on will be satisfying your intellect. What you are trying is to intellectually master the understanding of Kala, the eternal Time. I could very easily ask a dozen of similar "questions" right on the spot, that none will be able to give me a "satisfactory answer". > > Similarly, I don't think I ever saw a very good response to the point > brought up much earlier (and from Srila Prabhupada's Bhaagavatam purport, > also) that except for Jaya and Vijaya, no one falls from Vaikuntha. Again, > a lot of what I am seeing fits the same pattern - the person who brings up > the inconvenient facts gets derided as "mayavadi,speculator," etc. That person who "brings up the inconvenient facts" accuses others for speculation if they "assume" something else than what his exclusive reasoning is. At the moment he calls someone else a "speculator", that moment he gets it straight back. Have you followed closely the exchanges here? I doubt. What is that "inconvinient fact" exactly, Krsna Susarla prabhu? According to Vijay, the soul "from this world" had never experienced any spiritual activity prior to this conditioned state. According to Srila Prabhupada (there are clear statements, ask me if you are really interested), he DID have experience of it. This is to be found through out Srila Prabhupada's books and his preaching. > > This makes me wonder what the point is of even having this debate on this > forum. A sign of true intellect is that one feels obliged to provide > answers to difficult questions, or at least to admit when he has no > answers. There doesn't seem to be much point in arguing with people who > feel that the correctness of their conclusions is predestined. I have concluded the same upon facing Vijay's exclusivness regarding how we all got to read Srila Prabhupada's purports - "we got no reason to assume other way" than what he, Vijay, tells us. I am asking: Since we find how Srila Prabhupada tells us repeatedly that we were experiencing the spiritual relationship with Krsna, why not to belive him on that? On the other hand, Prabhupada never gave any explicit statement that we never had relationship with Krsna, but some will still claim that's what Prabhupada means through out his purports, even ig he clearly states sotherwise. That's all. Personally, I am not interesting in "debate" on jiva's fall, otherwise, at the moment. Not here, nor else. Yes, why not have it there where everybody is on that same intellectual wave. I have seen a looot of such debte. Good as an intellectual gymnastic, though. Otherwise pretty meaningless. No need to "drop" from "there" to "here" to pursue it. Endlessly. - mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 1999 Report Share Posted August 7, 1999 > > Despite all the trouble I took to type out the entire commentary, I never > received a satisfactory answer as to how one could have beginningless > karma and yet have fallen from Vaikuntha. I doubt that one will ever receive some "satisfactory answer" on the logical questions that got to satisfy our intellectual hunger with the answers on something incomprehensible to the very intellect. In other words, once you are really able to grasp the literal meaning of "beginningless", which is something unlimited, with your limited intellect, then ask such rhetoric questions that the answers on will be satisfying your intellect. What you are trying is to intellectually master the understanding of Kala, the eternal Time. I could very easily ask a dozen of similar "questions" right on the spot, that none will be able to give me a "satisfactory answer". > > Similarly, I don't think I ever saw a very good response to the point > brought up much earlier (and from Srila Prabhupada's Bhaagavatam purport, > also) that except for Jaya and Vijaya, no one falls from Vaikuntha. Again, > a lot of what I am seeing fits the same pattern - the person who brings up > the inconvenient facts gets derided as "mayavadi,speculator," etc. That person who "brings up the inconvenient facts" accuses others for speculation if they "assume" something else than what his exclusive reasoning is. At the moment he calls someone else a "speculator", that moment he gets it straight back. Have you followed closely the exchanges here? I doubt. What is that "inconvinient fact" exactly, Krsna Susarla prabhu? According to Vijay, the soul "from this world" had never experienced any spiritual activity prior to this conditioned state. According to Srila Prabhupada (there are clear statements, ask me if you are really interested), he DID have experience of it. This is to be found through out Srila Prabhupada's books and his preaching. > > This makes me wonder what the point is of even having this debate on this > forum. A sign of true intellect is that one feels obliged to provide > answers to difficult questions, or at least to admit when he has no > answers. There doesn't seem to be much point in arguing with people who > feel that the correctness of their conclusions is predestined. I have concluded the same upon facing Vijay's exclusivness regarding how we all got to read Srila Prabhupada's purports - "we got no reason to assume other way" than what he, Vijay, tells us. I am asking: Since we find how Srila Prabhupada tells us repeatedly that we were experiencing the spiritual relationship with Krsna, why not to belive him on that? On the other hand, Prabhupada never gave any explicit statement that we never had relationship with Krsna, but some will still claim that's what Prabhupada means through out his purports, even ig he clearly states sotherwise. That's all. Personally, I am not interesting in "debate" on jiva's fall, otherwise, at the moment. Not here, nor else. Yes, why not have it there where everybody is on that same intellectual wave. I have seen a looot of such debte. Good as an intellectual gymnastic, though. Otherwise pretty meaningless. No need to "drop" from "there" to "here" to pursue it. Endlessly. - mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 1999 Report Share Posted August 8, 1999 In a message dated 8/7/99 5:59:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Mahanidhi (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes: << I am asking: Since we find how Srila Prabhupada tells us repeatedly that we were experiencing the spiritual relationship with Krsna, why not to belive him on that? One strong reason is this: Every single Indian spiritual leader clearly says the opposite: Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka sampradaya, even Shankara and his followers, and even the atheistic Jains! I would guess the Buddhists too, in their own way. Furthermore the Vedantists (including ours Baladeva) have specifically explained it rationally based on the Vedanta sutras. There is no controversy on this. Therefore to say that Srila Prabhupada taught fall-vada is to indicate he does not know Vedanta, thus making his name a big farce. However, the idea of a temporal sequence of perfection, fall, liberation is a useful way to think about the concept of the jiva's origin and constitutional position. Ravindra svarupa explains this last point in his BTG essay (at http://www.rsdtm.com). G erald Suryla On the other hand, Prabhupada never gave any explicit statement that we never had relationship with Krsna, but some will still claim that's what Prabhupada means through out his purports, even ig he clearly states sotherwise. That's all. >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 1999 Report Share Posted August 8, 1999 In a message dated 8/7/99 5:59:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Mahanidhi (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes: << I am asking: Since we find how Srila Prabhupada tells us repeatedly that we were experiencing the spiritual relationship with Krsna, why not to belive him on that? One strong reason is this: Every single Indian spiritual leader clearly says the opposite: Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka sampradaya, even Shankara and his followers, and even the atheistic Jains! I would guess the Buddhists too, in their own way. Furthermore the Vedantists (including ours Baladeva) have specifically explained it rationally based on the Vedanta sutras. There is no controversy on this. Therefore to say that Srila Prabhupada taught fall-vada is to indicate he does not know Vedanta, thus making his name a big farce. However, the idea of a temporal sequence of perfection, fall, liberation is a useful way to think about the concept of the jiva's origin and constitutional position. Ravindra svarupa explains this last point in his BTG essay (at http://www.rsdtm.com). G erald Suryla On the other hand, Prabhupada never gave any explicit statement that we never had relationship with Krsna, but some will still claim that's what Prabhupada means through out his purports, even ig he clearly states sotherwise. That's all. >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 1999 Report Share Posted August 9, 1999 At 13:01 -0800 8/7/99, WWW: Mahananda (Dasa) ACBSP (Alachua FL - USA) wrote: > >The problem is, arrogant, over intelligent >people like you only disrupt the lives of sincere devotees who are never >interested in the type of mood you repeatedly present when someone tries to >discuss philosophy around you. Whoa! If you have to write such nasty statements to a devotee, would you please confine them to private letters, *not* in a public conference, so the rest of us don't have to stumble across them? Thank you. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 1999 Report Share Posted August 9, 1999 At 13:01 -0800 8/7/99, WWW: Mahananda (Dasa) ACBSP (Alachua FL - USA) wrote: > >The problem is, arrogant, over intelligent >people like you only disrupt the lives of sincere devotees who are never >interested in the type of mood you repeatedly present when someone tries to >discuss philosophy around you. Whoa! If you have to write such nasty statements to a devotee, would you please confine them to private letters, *not* in a public conference, so the rest of us don't have to stumble across them? Thank you. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 1999 Report Share Posted August 9, 1999 > Whoa! If you have to write such nasty statements to a devotee, would you > please confine them to private letters, *not* in a public conference, so > the rest of us don't have to stumble across them? > > Thank you. > > Ys, > Madhusudani dasi > > Well I wasn't trying to be nasty. I actually held back what I really wanted to say, and just tried to be matter of fact as to what I think of his arrogance and total lack of humility in his dealings with devotees. He is a grown boy and can speak for himself. You sent your e mail to me with your suggestion that I should have sent my note to him by e mail, but then you also posted it publicly. So, as they say, example is better than precept. What do you think? Then on second thought, maybe my post was nasty. Or at least facetious, considering my sarcasm about VAST. I've gotten better about this, having once been hell on the keyboard when it came to sarcasm. I uses to go to bed so tickled with myself for what I thought was a piece of award-winning sarcasm, gloating over my imagined foe's discomfort. But I gradually gave up this literary art form for the better example of compassion and humility. But what can I say? I had a relapse. Just seeing my chance at taking a bite out of Krsna Susurla was too much to resist. But still, I think he and Vijaya are doing a great disservice to Srila Prabhupada's humble followers by their stubborn insistence on propounding their creative interpretations that just cause discord and confusion. There is no place in the association of submissive devotees for hardened logicians who are hell-bent on propagating their own philosophy based on their logic, and nothing more. There is a trend towards taking a liberal attitude and tolerance towards such intrusions, but somewhere we have to draw the line and speak up against these philosophers who are interested in proving their logical arguments rather than giving up speculation and being submissive to the realized souls.affectionately Mahananda dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 1999 Report Share Posted August 9, 1999 > Whoa! If you have to write such nasty statements to a devotee, would you > please confine them to private letters, *not* in a public conference, so > the rest of us don't have to stumble across them? > > Thank you. > > Ys, > Madhusudani dasi > > Well I wasn't trying to be nasty. I actually held back what I really wanted to say, and just tried to be matter of fact as to what I think of his arrogance and total lack of humility in his dealings with devotees. He is a grown boy and can speak for himself. You sent your e mail to me with your suggestion that I should have sent my note to him by e mail, but then you also posted it publicly. So, as they say, example is better than precept. What do you think? Then on second thought, maybe my post was nasty. Or at least facetious, considering my sarcasm about VAST. I've gotten better about this, having once been hell on the keyboard when it came to sarcasm. I uses to go to bed so tickled with myself for what I thought was a piece of award-winning sarcasm, gloating over my imagined foe's discomfort. But I gradually gave up this literary art form for the better example of compassion and humility. But what can I say? I had a relapse. Just seeing my chance at taking a bite out of Krsna Susurla was too much to resist. But still, I think he and Vijaya are doing a great disservice to Srila Prabhupada's humble followers by their stubborn insistence on propounding their creative interpretations that just cause discord and confusion. There is no place in the association of submissive devotees for hardened logicians who are hell-bent on propagating their own philosophy based on their logic, and nothing more. There is a trend towards taking a liberal attitude and tolerance towards such intrusions, but somewhere we have to draw the line and speak up against these philosophers who are interested in proving their logical arguments rather than giving up speculation and being submissive to the realized souls.affectionately Mahananda dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 1999 Report Share Posted August 9, 1999 At 19:42 -0800 8/8/99, WWW: Mahananda (Dasa) ACBSP (Alachua FL - USA) wrote: > >You sent your e mail to me with your suggestion >that I should have sent my note to him by e mail, but then you also posted it >publicly. So, as they say, example is better than precept. What do you think? Well, if you perceived my text as being mean-spirited, I would certainly agree with you. It would have been hypocritical for me to post an equally nasty letter back to you in public. However, if you did not perceive my text to be nasty or mean-spirited I don't understand why there would be any reason for my suggestion not to write nasty public letters to be made in private. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 1999 Report Share Posted August 9, 1999 At 19:42 -0800 8/8/99, WWW: Mahananda (Dasa) ACBSP (Alachua FL - USA) wrote: > >You sent your e mail to me with your suggestion >that I should have sent my note to him by e mail, but then you also posted it >publicly. So, as they say, example is better than precept. What do you think? Well, if you perceived my text as being mean-spirited, I would certainly agree with you. It would have been hypocritical for me to post an equally nasty letter back to you in public. However, if you did not perceive my text to be nasty or mean-spirited I don't understand why there would be any reason for my suggestion not to write nasty public letters to be made in private. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.