The Soul's Fall... The Final Word

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

>

> 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?

..