The Soul's Fall... The Final Word

[Guest guest]

On 13 Jul 1999, Virender Dayal wrote:

> The purport of that same verse made the point even clearer for me as it

> explains our activities in the spiritual world prior to our choosing.

 

The purport does not explicitly say that the events in the spiritual

world are "prior to our choosing." In particular, Srila Prabhupada

comments: "The original home of the living entity and the Supreme

Personality of Godhead is the spiritual world. In the spiritual world

both the Lord and the living entities live together very peacefully.

Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord,

they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when

the living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the

material world. Even while in that position, the Lord remains with

him as the Supersoul, his intimate friend. Because of his

forgetfulness, the living entity does not know that the Supreme Lord

is accompanying him as the Supersoul. In this way the living entity

remains conditioned in each and every millennium."

 

The first part of the quote echoes the same themes seen earlier in the

quote saying that neither duality nor hate exists in the spiritual

world (SB 4.28.53). The question of falling starts with the words

"However, when the living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down

into the material world." With regard to the phrase "when the living

entity wants to enjoy himself", this is not necessarily ascribed to

any specific point of time; the introduction to TLC says "Although we

speak of 'when' Krishna desires, just when He did desire we cannot

say." Further, OED says that "when" can also mean "in what case or

circumstances" or "on any occasion that" (the latter suggests that

"whenever" is just a special case of "when"). In any case, there is no

reason to assume that the "when" means at a specific instant in time

before which the living entity was in the spiritual world.

Additionally, "fall into" is often used as an idiom to mean "comply"

or "accomodate onself to".

 

> There

> is no need to talk about choosing if we were always here in the material

> world.

 

This is a non-sequitur; choosing can take place at any point.

Further, choice in general is neither as free nor as explicit as we

might want to believe. Consider, for example, the case of Arjuna and

Duryodhana. Both wanted to petition Lord Krishna for help before the

Mahabharata war. Krishna was napping when they approached

him. Duryodhana came first, so he sat by Krishna's head, and Arjuna

came second, so he sat by Krishna's feet. When Krishna arose, He saw

Arjuna first and thus gave Arjuna the first choice whether to ask

Krishna to personally join His side or to take Krishna's

army. Naturally, Arjuna took Krishna. The question might arise,

though, as to what would have happened had Arjuna come to the room

first. Even if Duryodhana had been asked first, the end result would

not have changed -- the non-devotee Duryodhana would have taken the

army anyway. The "choice" had actually been made implicitly long

before, with Arjuna's decision to be a devotee and Duryodhana's

opposite decision.

 

I don't see why such an implicit system of choice would be

inconsistent with these Bhagavatam verses and purports. Certainly an

explicit system of choice from within the spiritual world would not

jibe very well with such quotes as: "The material activity of the

living being is beginningless, but it can be rectified by transferal

into the spiritual quality. Thus it can cease its material qualitative

reactions" (SB 1.15.27 purp.). Given that this purport refers to

beginningless material activity, we must consider what are the

requirements for such activity. Action takes 5 factors: the place (the

body), the performer, the senses, the kinds of endeavor, and the

Supersoul (BG 18.14). Of particular importance in this case are the

first, third, and fourth; without a material body, material senses,

and materialistic demeanor, the Bhagavad Gita makes no provision for

the possibility of beginningless material activity. This is why it

seems reasonable to hold that Srila Prabhupada does accept that the

jiiva has been in the material world beginninglessly, since he definitely

accepts that jiivas have had material activity beginninglessly.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay S. Pai