Do all fallen souls eventually achieve liberation?

[cbrahma]

Chapter 16, Verse 19.

Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, I perpetually cast into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life.

Chapter 16, Verse 20.

Attaining repeated birth amongst the species of demoniac life, O son of Kunti, such persons can never approach Me. Gradually they sink down to the most abominable type of existence

 

The words 'perpetually' in verse 19 and 'never' in verse 20 have a daunting finality. I recently spoke to a devotee who was convinced that everybody makes it to the spiritual world. I'm not so sure.

[mahak]

Yeah, the fallen achieve liberation, then they fall down.

 

It is truely a wierd dimension we find ourselves in, where eternal means temporary, where never means maybe sometime. No wonder confusion, chaos and quarrel is all that is left.

 

mahak

[theist]

 

Chapter 16, Verse 19.

Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, I perpetually cast into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life.

Chapter 16, Verse 20.

Attaining repeated birth amongst the species of demoniac life, O son of Kunti, such persons can never approach Me. Gradually they sink down to the most abominable type of existence

 

The words 'perpetually' in verse 19 and 'never' in verse 20 have a daunting finality. I recently spoke to a devotee who was convinced that everybody makes it to the spiritual world. I'm not so sure.

 

I hear this differently than you. Afterall those who are cast down into animal forms we are told make a natrural upward progression once again. The demonic are always cast down but does one always remain demonic?

 

I would not worship out of love a God who left His own children eternally in hell. This is what I have always told the Christians and what I sometimes must tell the devotees. Who could love such a thoughtless monster. I might be forced to worship out of fear but never could I love someone like that.

[sanatan]

I'll go back to Madhvacarya on this one.

 

A percentage of souls are eternally un-liberated, and happy that way.

[theist]

 

I'll go back to Madhvacarya on this one.

 

A percentage of souls are eternally un-liberated, and happy that way.

 

And how could "they" be happy that way when every "they" is a part and parcel of Krsna? There is no happiness without love for the Supreme Lord.

 

I have to reject Madhvacarya on this one if indeed this is his position.

[cbrahma]

Demoniac mentality means just that, whether one takes animal birth or not.

And are these abominable forms - animals?

It begs the question about how one can maintain a 'mentality' from birth to birth where one can't remember from one body to another.

If Krsna is just talking about karma, why make a separate statement about demons when it applies to all living entities? Karma just goes round and round - no guarantee of liberation. The material world is tantamount to hell.

In fact to make such a guarantee is to predict all the choices living entities could make - or to deny them free choice altogether.

[sanatan]

 

And how could "they" be happy that way when every "they" is a part and parcel of Krsna? There is no happiness without love for the Supreme Lord.

 

I have to reject Madhvacarya on this one if indeed this is his position.

 

To put it simply, I'm willing to consider any position that makes sense. That attitude is what successively transitioned me from my Christian upbringing to impersonalist yogic philosophy to Srila Prabhupada's presentation of Dvaita-vedanta, where I've rested my case for many years.

 

I can entertain Madhvacarya's position because I've spent a lifetime hearing and reading contemporaneous news, in personal observation, in hearing the accounts of others, and in reading historic accounts. This collective experience has has led me to a hypothetical conclusion that there is indeed a class of human-level or greater living entity that is irredeemably demoniac, and whose sustained and eternal happiness comes from personal power and infliction of pain and distress on others.

 

Regarding happiness...it's relative. I'm very happy with my present material situation. The problem is that I know it's all going to be over in 25 years max, possibly much, much sooner. I also know, from personal experience, that spiritual happiness is indeed incalculably superior to the greatest material happiness, but IMO it's not the only happiness.

 

If I do "luck out" and live into my 80's, a good number of those coming years could be spent in the worst kind of material misery. I've previously seen and am presently seeing this in the slow, agonizing declines of elderly kinfolk.

[Guruvani]

[Guruvani]

But, Lord Caitanya is much more merciful than Lord Krishna.

And, more merciful than Lord Caitanya is Lord Nityananda.

 

The most merciful of all is their devotees.

 

So, Lord Krishna's tough stance against the evil doers is much relaxed in Guara-Nitai and their followers.

 

I heard once somewhere that when Mahaprabhu avatar comes all the living entities in the universe get liberation and the universe is immediatly filled-up again.

 

I don't have that reference right off.

 

I am not sure if it is in the books or a lecture or if my memory is faulty and the statement doesn't exist.

 

But, I do remember hearing that somewhere.

[theist]

 

But, Lord Caitanya is much more merciful than Lord Krishna.

And, more merciful than Lord Caitanya is Lord Nityananda.

 

The most merciful of all is their devotees.

 

So, Lord Krishna's tough stance against the evil doers is much relaxed in Guara-Nitai and their followers.

 

I heard once somewhere that when Mahaprabhu avatar comes all the living entities in the universe get liberation and the universe is immediatly filled-up again.

 

I don't have that reference right off.

 

I am not sure if it is in the books or a lecture or if my memory is faulty and the statement doesn't exist.

 

But, I do remember hearing that somewhere.

 

That comes from Vasudeva Datta expressing His willingness to suffer eternally in place of all fallen souls in the universe I believe. I have heard it also many times but I don't believe that is what is actually said there. There may be another source for it.

 

Eternal hell for some souls? I cannot even entertain the thought.

[sanatan]

 

That comes from Vasudeva Datta expressing His willingness to suffer eternally in place of all fallen souls in the universe I believe. I have heard it also many times but I don't believe that is what is actually said there. There may be another source for it.

 

Vasudeva Datta...I remembered, had it written down!

 

So what would be the difference between Vasudeva Datta and Jesus Christ, assuming for argument's sake that JC did perform an act of universal karma-negation in being crucified?

 

None that I can see.

 

 

Eternal hell for some souls? I cannot even entertain the thought.

 

In considering Madhvacarya's position, I'm not thinking of the demoniac being in eternal hell in the sense of a suffering or punishing hell...rather as in an eternal situation which they are bound to and are content in. Extreme evil is necessary in a dualistic world. It's a nasty job, and someone's got to do it.

 

I can't entertain the standard Christian concept of automatic eternal hell for nonbelievers, either.

[stonehearted]

 

So what would be the difference between Vasudeva Datta and Jesus Christ, assuming for argument's sake that JC did perform an act of universal karma-negation in being crucified?

 

None that I can see.

The way we learn it, JC's sacrifice was for those who believed in him. Vasudeva Datta's offer was truly universal--no conditions as to creed, or even species. Seems like a big difference to me.

[theist]

 

The way we learn it, JC's sacrifice was for those who believed in him. Vasudeva Datta's offer was truly universal--no conditions as to creed, or even species. Seems like a big difference to me.

 

I have never been able to accept this premise. It totally negates the free will of living being. Do you mean to say that if some in the universe did not want to be liberated they would be forced to accept it anyway?

 

The way I see it is that the simply due to the fact the the soul is part of Krsna it will never be able to find satisfaction in matter and as Queen Kunti taught when the soul comes to the point of material exhaustion it can turn to the Lord with real real feeling. Not before this.

 

Bhaktisisddhanta's point that Vasudeva Datta is millions of time more advanced than Jesus Christ because he only saved those that believed in him makes no sense to me because it presupposes that Jesus was unwilling to save everyone when the fact is the devotee saves only those that Krsna brings to him.

 

This would be a good point to come to clarity on because I don't see uniformity in the Vaisnava position at all.

[theist]

 

In considering Madhvacarya's position, I'm not thinking of the demoniac being in eternal hell in the sense of a suffering or punishing hell...rather as in an eternal situation which they are bound to and are content in. Extreme evil is necessary in a dualistic world. It's a nasty job, and someone's got to do it.

 

 

Yes I understand your point sanatan and am taking your word that it is madhva's position also. My objection tothis is that it is not possible for any soul to be content aprt from Krsna because every soul is part and parcel of Krsna.

 

There is NO eternal contenment apart from Him for any soul. It simple is not possible.

[Kulapavana]

 

I'll go back to Madhvacarya on this one.

 

A percentage of souls are eternally un-liberated, and happy that way.

 

IMO it is not quite the matter of simply "being happy" with the life in the material world, but a matter of taste for a particular type of life.

 

Just like we accept the cost and sometimes very painful side effects of various forms of ejoyment, such as surfing, skiing, or drag-racing - some living entities prefer to live self-centered lives even as they have to deal with the various miseries of such a life.

 

As to "eternality" of such a life... that is a figurative speach, as you simply cant tell whether they will ever develop a taste for liberation because eternity is still ahead of us

[theist]

 

As to "eternality" of such a life... that is a figurative speach, as you simply cant tell whether they will ever develop a taste for liberation because eternity is still ahead of us

 

 

Yes.

 

And one may be seemingly content with his material life for the time being but the material nature is endlessly mutable. Any content situation is doomed to disappear and that soul will then again become discontented. This is a most basic understanding of why the spiritual self can never be happy in the material atmosphere. The self, being eternal, outlives every material circumstance even the universe itself. Actually this whole universal situation is nothing but a blip on the radar screen of eternity. So how will some soul be eternally content within the material atmosphere?

[Guruvani]

 

These twelve (disciples) Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."

Matthew 10:5-6

 

He (Jesus) answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Matthew 15:24

 

Jesus himself said he came only for the lost SHEEP of Israel.

Actually, Jesus was a shepherd whose main concern was finding lost sheep in Israel.

 

Many people of the Christian cult have tried to make him a universal saviour, but Jesus himself never made that claim.

 

Jesus was nowhere near Vasudeva Datta.

 

The apostle Paul obviously did not get the message Jesus was sending and did a good job of making a Jesus into a universal saviour that Jesus never wanted to be.

[theist]

 

Jesus was nowhere near Vasudeva Datta.

 

 

 

LOL. And how the hell would you know? You like the rest of us don't even know who we are and now you are weighing such personalities against each other.

 

This is the leftover iskcon mentality that should be gotten rid of.

[cbrahma]

How did Jesus get into the discussion again? The topic pertains to the Bhagavad Gita and vaisnava concept of liberation.

[Guruvani]

 

How did Jesus get into the discussion again? The topic pertains to the Bhagavad Gita and vaisnava concept of liberation.

 

What?

A voice of reason?

 

Somebody suggested that the only hope for ISKCON was Jesus.

I guess that started the Jesus rant going.

 

[rsrowland]

>>>And one may be seemingly content with his material life for the time being but the material nature is endlessly mutable. Any content situation is doomed to disappear and that soul will then again become discontented. This is a most basic understanding of why the spiritual self can never be happy in the material atmosphere. The self, being eternal, outlives every material circumstance even the universe itself. Actually this whole universal situation is nothing but a blip on the radar screen of eternity. So how will some soul be eternally content within the material atmosphere?<<<

 

Well, right off of the top of my head...by NOT whining and pining for some spiritual pipe dream. This is not to say that the flow and flux of material life doesn't have its eventual end...but rather that we should embrace Krishna's gifts in a dharmic way and not to hate and despise them. All souls make their own ships to sail the ocean of Brahman...is it really that surprising that some ships prefer to be anchored to the shore while floating on the water?

[theist]

I am happy to leave this to others to wrangle over. Since no one has commented on the points I already made no need for any further input from me.

[sanatan]

Actually, theist, I was just getting around to a reply.

 

 

I have never been able to accept this premise. It totally negates the free will of living being. Do you mean to say that if some in the universe did not want to be liberated they would be forced to accept it anyway?

 

That's why I proposed that for argument's sake JC's offer was on an equal level as V Datta's. If all have free will, one would have to be first desirous of liberation to accept either offer.

 

 

The way I see it is that the simply due to the fact the the soul is part of Krsna it will never be able to find satisfaction in matter and as Queen Kunti taught when the soul comes to the point of material exhaustion it can turn to the Lord with real real feeling. Not before this.

 

A basic tenet of Vaisnava theology...we can't be happy outside of a reciprical relationship with Krsna; if I say I'm happy with my current material situation it is with the stomach-churning knowledge that it's all a house of cards.

 

 

Bhaktisisddhanta's point that Vasudeva Datta is millions of time more advanced than Jesus Christ because he only saved those that believed in him makes no sense to me because it presupposes that Jesus was unwilling to save everyone when the fact is the devotee saves only those that Krsna brings to him.

 

Vasudeva Datta expressed the desire to save all, but then what happened? I've heard the story only up to that point.

 

..the fact is the devotee saves only who Krsna brings before him... Lost me there.

 

 

 

This would be a good point to come to clarity on because I don't see uniformity in the Vaisnava position at all.

 

I don't see uniformity either; or rather see several important and unresolved philosophical points, starting with Madhvacarya's.

 

Regarding Jesus Christ, I'll still go with SP's statements that he was a saktavesaya-avatara.

[theist]

 

Vasudeva Datta expressed the desire to save all, but then what happened? I've heard the story only up to that point.

 

..the fact is the devotee saves only who Krsna brings before him... Lost me there.

 

Lord Caitanya said there was no need for Krsna to make him suffer to save everyone and that because off his desire they would be saved. My objection is to the notion that Christ did not also have such a desire. I don't accept that Vasudeva Datta was the only soul to have such a desire which means everyone else is tinged with selfishness or weak compassion.

 

Anyway it is not the main point.

 

It is always Krsna who is the savior ultimately. "By the grace of Krsna one gets guru, by the grace of guru one gets Krsna." Such an eloquent statement. The devotee is not acting outside the direction of the Supreme Lord.

 

I can't accept the idea of Madhvacarya's that there is a disctinct class of souls that can be content living apart from loving Krsna. To me that stands the definiton of what is a soul on it's head.

[sanatan]

 

Lord Caitanya said there was no need for Krsna to make him suffer to save everyone and that because off his desire they would be saved. My objection is to the notion that Christ did not also have such a desire. I don't accept that Vasudeva Datta was the only soul to have such a desire which means everyone else is tinged with selfishness or weak compassion.

 

Anyway it is not the main point.

 

It is always Krsna who is the savior ultimately. "By the grace of Krsna one gets guru, by the grace of guru one gets Krsna." Such an eloquent statement. The devotee is not acting outside the direction of the Supreme Lord.

 

Now I clearly understand what you were saying.

 

 

I can't accept the idea of Madhvacarya's that there is a disctinct class of souls that can be content living apart from loving Krsna. To me that stands the definiton of what is a soul on it's head.

 

In accepting the idea that the myriad desires of every lost soul are actually the covered desire to reconnect with and love Krsna, I also have to reject Madhvacarya's ideas.

 

However, in a purely objective sense Madhvacarya's ideas are a rational theory for the existence of absolute evil and the destination of souls, much more so than the Christian version.

 

The statement that the eternally-demoniac souls are content is my own assumption...in such a scenario, they would have to be.

 

This brings up another speculative question, perhaps you have an opinion or an answer from scripture:

 

Where do the rank and file entities that man the hellish regions and administer punishment to those condemned to a term there stand in terms of self-realization...are they in illusion or are they spiritually-aware devotees?

 

It seems logical to me that they are in illusion, since a self-realized soul doesn't wish to inflict suffering on anyone, and a self-realized soul in the most advanced stages will not even differentiate between saint and sinner.