The Soul's Fall... The Final Word

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jul 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

> Why not read the purport to the verse? See if Srila Prabhupada

> describes a living entity in term of "American-born Indian" that

> himself has never been in the spiritual world ("India"), though

> his "ancestors" (??) that once left "India" have been there.

 

To give some context, I've been writing very little new material

here. Most of my posts on this topic so far have just been clipped

from my 2 or 3-year old notes on the book _Our Original Position_.

One of the analogies they use in the book is the "specific Indian" --

I found the analogy to be quite apt, and indeed very good for

the purpose of excluding some other items that might otherwise

have been considered evidence for the no-fall case. The

"American-born Indian" was just a reverse response from me. It's

also a situation that I understand well, just as Madhava Gosh

prabhu aptly utilizes the "kanistha soccer coach" analogy in

his own writings on this conference.

 

> So,

> that hence one could say "original abode" but mean that jiva from

> this world has never been there on the first place (his "ancestors"

> that came to this world and "produced" the future generations of

> jivas were there, though).

 

Now that's ridiculous; there are no ancestral jIvas producing other

jIvas. Let's not get carried away with the analogy.

 

> First read the Bhaktivedanta

> purport. Prabhupada clearly describes how both living entity and

> the Supreme Personality of Godhead are originally (if I may use

> this word) in the spiritual world. Then the living entity decides

> to leave, and the Lord accompanies him. What OED has to tell us

> that it is not so?

 

The OED tells us that "originally" often means "naturally" and that

"when" often means "if". These may be secondary meanings, but we must

accept a sensible secondary meaning over a contradictory primary

meaning. In particular, SB 4.28.53 makes it clear that there is

no duality in the spiritual world. Since the living entity

described by "when the living entity wants to enjoy himself"

is cleary experiencing a consciousness of duality, this living

entity cannot be a spiritual world resident. Thus, "when" here

must mean "if" and "originally" must mean "naturally."

 

> And what "American-born Indian" has to do with this? You base your

> theory on your premiss that the living entity is a material-world

> born.

 

This is not a premise; this is from Srila Prabhupada: "The material

activity of the living being is beginningless." If there is a

prior spiritual world experience, then the material activity would

not be beginningless.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay S. Pai