Narasingh Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 You missed my point, but it is all good. I'll re-establish it here: You seem to have done away with the validity of Sonic Yogi's emphasis on the word "attain". Sonic Yogi is insisting that the word "achieve" indicates that it is something to attain to in just the same way as your insistence are words such as "long, long ago you were with Krsna". Both are taking it literally. For you to specifically target Sonic Yogi's use of the word "attain" as simply a tool to "point to the moon" while not "being the moon itself" (which is what you did) in effect does away with the definition of the word itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 There is a recurring accusation that Bhagavan would have to be cruel because of the nature of the Jiva. That is not the accusation. The accusation by the purva-pakshin is that God is partial and cruel because people start off unequal/with different karmas. And Vyasa answers the accusation by stating that the karmas are beginningless, hence there is no question of God being cruel since there is no question of the living entities "starting off" unequal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Thank you raghu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 That is not the accusation. The accusation by the purva-pakshin is that God is partial and cruel because people start off unequal/with different karmas. And Vyasa answers the accusation by stating that the karmas are beginningless, hence there is no question of God being cruel since there is no question of the living entities "starting off" unequal. I thought the argument was that God is not partial because everyone starts off with no karma? Who is saying that God is unfair because everybody starts off with different karma? God is fair because everyone starts material existence with NO karma and free will to pursue their own karma according to their desire. If everybody starts off with karma, as you say karma has no beginning, then that itself is not fair because the jiva doesn't get a fair chance but has to exist in beginningless karma. If karma is beginningless, then God is very cruel because he didn't give the jiva a fair chance to accept devotional service before he had to accept karma. So, the beginningless karma theory means that God is cruel and not willing to give the jivas a chance before they are dispatched to Maya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted January 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 You missed my point, but it is all good. I'll re-establish it here: You seem to have done away with the validity of Sonic Yogi's emphasis on the word "attain".Sonic Yogi is insisting that the word "achieve" indicates that it is something to attain to in just the same way as your insistence are words such as "long, long ago you were with Krsna". Both are taking it literally. For you to specifically target Sonic Yogi's use of the word "attain" as simply a tool to "point to the moon" while not "being the moon itself" (which is what you did) in effect does away with the definition of the word itself. This was covered in a post of mine where I quoted beggar. It was just a few posts ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 This was covered in a post of mine where I quoted beggar. It was just a few posts ago.You covered it in your post according to your perspective. See, the issue at hand is that there are at least two perspectives. One being nitya baddha needing to attain to a liberated status (I am using liberated, liberally, not intending to get in to moksha and prema). The other being nitya baddha as actually being nitya siddha and needing to uncover this aspect. One says you got it in you, just find it, the other says you got to go get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted January 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 post #68 This has been my position since the 70's. <hr style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote: <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by Beggar Ireally don't understand why so may of the posters here insist on beingso doctrinaire on this subject. From one angle of vision the spiritualbody must be obtained from another angle of vision it is something thatalready exists (from the viewpoint of eternity). It is acintya, orinconceivable how apparently opposite truths can simultaneously betrue. Debating will not give anyone the real answer and that will comeby bhakti, alone. Then when the real truth will come in our hearts wewill find that it is really not really knowledge or jnana but bhakti.When bhakti comes into our hearts we will see what is what but thatwill not be our real focus - not the desire to know Krsna, but ratherthe desire to please Krsna. </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> This is right. From our current angle of vision conditioned by time wesee spiritual realization as something to attain. From the realizedposition it has never been lost. It's not hard to take in the conceptreally on an intellectual level . That should make us patient enough towait on the realization for confirmation. Just like the origin debate. When the realized souls try to explain eternal things to us they mustuse lanuage we understand which are based on temporary concepts. Weshould not get hung up on the words. Like Lao Tzu's finger for the moon example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarva gattah Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 In this case the word attain. Quote:<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: rgb(102,102,102) 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: rgb(102,102,102) 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(102,102,102) 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: rgb(102,102,102) 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Beggar Ireally don't understand why so may of the posters here insist on beingso doctrinaire on this subject. From one angle of vision the spiritualbody must be obtained from another angle of vision it is something thatalready exists (from the viewpoint of eternity). It is acintya, orinconceivable how apparently opposite truths can simultaneously betrue. Debating will not give anyone the real answer and that will comeby bhakti, alone. Then when the real truth will come in our hearts wewill find that it is really not really knowledge or jnana but bhakti.When bhakti comes into our hearts we will see what is what but thatwill not be our real focus - not the desire to know Krsna, but ratherthe desire to please Krsna. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> nitya-siddha — eternally perfected; CC Madhya 6.12 nitya-siddha — eternally established; CC Madhya 22.107 nitya-siddha — eternally liberated; CC Antya 5.49-50 nitya-siddha — eternally LIBERATED Srila Prabhupada – “You are NOT eternally conditioned (NITYA-BADDHA). You are eternally liberated (NITYA-SIDDHA) but since we have become conditioned on account of our desire to enjoy materialistic way of life, from time immemorial, therefore it appears that we are eternally conditioned (NITYA-BADDHA)’ Letter to Aniruddha, dated November 14, 1968, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 The Closer is here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beggar Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Srila Prabhupada – “You are NOT eternally conditioned (NITYA-BADDHA). You are eternally liberated (NITYA-SIDDHA) but since we have become conditioned on account of our desire to enjoy materialistic way of life, from time immemorial, therefore it appears that we are eternally conditioned (NITYA-BADDHA)’ Letter to Aniruddha, dated November 14, 1968 Talking about being doctrinaire! If the statement that Gauragopal is quoting was the was the primary meaning and only definition [of nitya siddha - eternally perfect, and nitya-baddha - eternally conditioned or bound] then there would be no reason for the word nitya-baddha to exist. But it does exist therefore the primary understanding is that the jivas in this world are bound by the three modes of material nature. A secondary meaning of nitya-siddha is that from the eternal perspective, that everyone is really eternally liberated. From this angle of vision, nitya in the context of nitya-baddha means, almost eternal and therefore from the eternal perspective the jivas are already nitya-siddha and only lacking realization. But Gauragopal wraps himself in the flag of Srila Prabhupada with his avatar and pounds us with only one perspective ad infinitum, somhow implying that those who do not accept this as the only viewpoint are not as loyal to Srila Prabhupada as he. I'm sorry but such fanaticism and a refusal to look at any other perspective, even directly from Srila Prabhupada's books must be symptomatic of some kind of personality disorder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Liberation includes merging into the brahmajyoti. So, to say nitya-siddha does not necessarily imply anything more than impersonal liberation into brahman. Nitya-siddha does not strictly means one of the higher active devotional rasa with Krishna. CC Adi 3.18 To attain sāyujya, or merging into the Brahman effulgence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the aspiration of the impersonalists. A devotee never cares for sāyujya liberation. Sayujya mukti is in fact the "nitya-siddha" platform from where jivas come down into maya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted January 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 But at least the are not offensive like the last one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Rasa tattva and regular tattva are not the same. Indeed, which reality is more real to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beggar Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Indeed, which reality is more real to you? Unfortunately the only reality I actually know is the phantasmagoria of this material world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 nitya =mf(%{A})n. (fr. %{ni} ; cf. %{ni-ja}) innate , native MBh. iii , 13941 ; one's own (opp. to %{araNa}) RV. ; continual , perpetual , eternal RV. &c. &c. ; ifc. constantly dwelling or engaged in , intent upon , devoted or used to (cf. %{tapo-n-} , %{dharma-n-} , %{dhyAna-n-} , %{zastra-n-}) Mn. MBh. &c. ; ordinary , usual , invariable , fixed , necessary , obligatory (opp. to %{kAmya} , %{naimittika} &c.) Br. S3rS. Mn. &c. (with %{samAsa} m. a compound the meaning of which is not expressed by its members when not compounded Pa1n2. 2-1 , 3 Sch. ; with %{svarita} m. = %{jAtya} , the independent Svarita TPra1t. ii , 8) ; m. the sea , ocean L. ; (%{A}) f. a plough-share Gal. ; N. of Durga1 BrahmaP. ; of a S3akti Tantras. ; of the goddess Manasa1 L. ; n. constant and indispensable rite or act W. ; (%{am}) ind. always , constantly , regularly , by all means RV. &c. &c. (%{na@nityam} , never ; %{nityam@an-AdAta} , never a receiver Mn. vi , 8). siddha=2 mfn. accomplished , fulfilled , effected , gained , acquired MBh. Ragh. ; one who has attained his object , successful BhP. ; one who has attained the highest object , thoroughly skilled or versed in (dat. or comp.) MBh. R. &c. ; perfected , become perfect , beatified , endowed with supernatural faculties (see 2. %{siddhi}) ib. ; sacred , holy , divine , illustrious W. ; hit (as a mark) Katha1s. ; prepared , cooked , dressed (as food) Mn. MBh. &c. ; healed , cured Pan5cat. ; valid (as a rule in grammar see %{as-}) ; admitted to be true or right , established , settled , proved Pat. Mn. Sa1m2khyak. Sarvad. ; resulting from W. ; adjudicated , decided , terminated (as a lawsuit) W. ; paid , liquidated , settled (as a debt) ib. ; ready for payment(as money) Hit. ; well-known , notorious , celebrated (= %{prasiddha}) A1s3vS3r. R. &c. ; effective , powerful , miraculous , supernatural Ca1n2. Ra1jat. ; Vet ; subdued , brought into subjection (by magical powers) , subject or obedient to (gen.) Pan5cat. Katha1s. ; peculiar , singular Ma1lati1m. ; invariable , unalterable Pat. ; m. a Siddha or semidivine being of great purity and perfection and said to possess the eight supernatural faculties (see 2. %{siddhi} ; accord. to some , the Siddhas inhabit , together with the Munis &c. , the Bhuvar-loka or atmosphere between the earth and heaven ; accord. to VP. eighty-eight thousand of them occupy the regions of the sky north of the sun and south of the seven R2ishis ; they are regarded as immortal , but only as living to the end of a Kalpa [q.v.] ; in the later mythology the are some times confused with the ; Sa1dhyas [q.v.] or take their place) A1s3vGr2. MBh. &c. ; any inspired sage or prophet or seer (e.g. Vya1sa , Kapila &c.) ib. ; any holy personage or great saint (esp. one who has attained to one of the states of beatitude cf. %{sAlokya}) MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; any great adept in magic or one who has acquired supernatural powers ib. [1215,2] ; (with Jainas) a Jina or Arhat ; N. of the number 24 (ci. %{jina} ; the 21st of the astron. Yogas. L. ; a lawsuit , judicial trial (= %{vyavahAra}) L. ; N. of a Deva-gandharva MBh. ; of a Ra1jarshi ib. ; of a king Ra1jat. ; of a brother of Jajja ib. ; of a Bra1hman Buddh. ; of an author Cat. ; a kind of thorn-apple L. ; another plant or a sort of hard sugar (= %{guDa}) L. ; (pl.) N. of a people MBh. VP. ; (%{A}) f. a Siddha1 or semi-divine female R. (cf. comp.) ; N. of one of the Yoginis (q.v.) L. (accord. to Sa1h. %{siddhA} is also used at the end of names of courtezans) ; a kind of medicinal plant or root (= %{Rddhi}) L. ; (%{am}) n. magic , supernatural power Pan5car. ; sea-salt L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 But at least the are not offensive like the last one. What do you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 I thought the argument was that God is not partial because everyone starts off with no karma? No, the argument by Vyasa is that God is not partial because the living entities' karmas are beginningless. There is a lot of crass speculation in your post, and rather than me explaining to you why Vyasa (who is supposedly in your "parampara") is right, it might be better for you to actually read the sutras and understand the flow of the arguments. Otherwise, you will just continue to repeat assertions that are just blatantly incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarva gattah Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 the jivas are already nitya-siddha and only lacking realization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 No, the argument by Vyasa is that God is not partial because the living entities' karmas are beginningless. There is a lot of crass speculation in your post, and rather than me explaining to you why Vyasa (who is supposedly in your "parampara") is right, it might be better for you to actually read the sutras and understand the flow of the arguments. Otherwise, you will just continue to repeat assertions that are just blatantly incorrect. Well, Vyasadeva gave Srimad Bhagavatam as the commentary on Vedanta Sutra because the codes of the sutras are easily speculated upon and misconstrued. So, I am not concerned really with the Brahma-sutra. I take my spiritual understanding from Srimad Bhagavatam as it has been rendered into my language by the guru that I have accepted. In that Srimad Bhagavatam I am not finding the conclusion that karma is beginningless but is so old and predates the universe that it cannot be traced to a specific date and is therefore called beginningless because it predates even the universe. But, as far as absolute beginningless is concerned I am not finding it in the Bhagavatam as explained by my guru and therefore am not going to accept it just because of some unsubstantiated claims you are making on the forum. You have really failed to prove your claims. You just make assertions and expect everyone to just accept your anonymous conclusions blindly. In fact, here is how we are taught by our guru, despite what you might claim about anything in the Brahma-sutra Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 20.117 kṛṣṇa bhuli' sei jīva anādi-bahirmukha ataeva māyā tāre deya saḿsāra-duḥkha SYNONYMS kṛṣṇa bhuli' — forgetting Kṛṣṇa; sei jīva — that living entity; anādi — from time immemorial; bahir-mukha — attracted by the external feature; ataeva — therefore; māyā — illusory energy; tāre — to him; deya — gives; saḿsāra-duḥkha — miseries of material existence. TRANSLATION "Forgetting Kṛṣṇa, the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time immemorial. Therefore the illusory energy [māyā] gives him all kinds of misery in his material existence. PURPORT When the living entity forgets his constitutional position as an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, he is immediately entrapped by the illusory, external energy. The living entity is originally part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa and is therefore the superior energy of Kṛṣṇa. He is endowed with inconceivable minute energy that works inconceivably within the body. However, the living entity, forgetting his position, is situated in material energy. The living entity is called the marginal energy because by nature he is spiritual but by forgetfulness he is situated in the material energy. Thus he has the power to live either in the material energy or in the spiritual energy, and for this reason he is called marginal energy. Being in the marginal position, he is sometimes attracted by the external, illusory energy, and this is the beginning of his material life. When he enters the material energy, he is subjected to the threefold time measurement — past, present and future. Past, present and future belong only to the material world; they do not exist in the spiritual world. The living entity is eternal, and he existed before the creation of this material world. Unfortunately he has forgotten his relationship with Kṛṣṇa. The living entity's forgetfulness is described herein as anādi, which indicates that it has existed since time immemorial. One should understand that due to his desire to enjoy himself in competition with Kṛṣṇa, the living entity comes into material existence. So, we are taught that karma exists since "time immemorial". That is not exactly the same as "beginningless" as far as I am concerned. im⋅me⋅mo⋅ri⋅al /ˌɪməˈmɔriəl, -ˈmoʊr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [im-uh-mawr-ee-uhl, -mohr-] –adjective extending back beyond memory, record, or knowledge: from time immemorial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Here are all the references to "anadi" that can be found in the Bhagavad-gita, Srimad Bhagavatam and Sri Caitanya Caritamrita. anādi — without beginning; BG 11.19anādi — beginningless; BG 13.13 anādī — without beginning; BG 13.20 anādi-nidhanam — without beginning and end; SB 1.8.28 anādi — without any beginning; SB 2.6.40-41 anādi — without beginning; SB 2.10.34 anādi-mān — the subtle body (existing since time immemorial); SB 4.29.70 anādi-saṃsāra-anubhavasya — of the perception of the beginningless process of transmigration; SB 5.14.1 anādi — from immemorial; SB 5.25.8 anādi — from time immemorial; SB 5.26.3 anādi — existing since time immemorial; SB 6.5.11 anādi — from time immemorial; SB 8.24.46 anādi — beginningless; SB 10.77.32 anādi — without beginning; SB 11.3.8 anādi — without beginning; SB 11.16.1 anādi — without beginning; SB 11.22.10 anādi — without beginning; SB 12.4.15-19 anādi-anta-vatā — without beginning or end; SB 12.4.37 anādi — who has no beginning; SB 12.6.2 anādi — from time immemorial; SB 12.10.41 anādi — beginningless; SB 12.11.29 anādi — without beginning; SB 12.11.50 anādi — from time immemorial; CC Madhya 20.117 So , the readers can study them for themselves and make their own conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 In fact, the Gaudiya texts do say that the living entity has been involved in this karma in terms of "anadi". In places regarding anadi referring to the Supreme Lord, it always means "beginningless" as in absolute beginningless. When anadi is used in terms of the living entity being involved in material existence Srila Prabhupada translates it as "since time immemorial". So, is this a case of Srila Prabhupada trying soften the siddhanta for better ease of reception by his western audience, or does "anadi" not always mean absolute beginningless? Here again, we might have some evidence that Srila Prabhupada indeed softened the tone of the shastric conclusions to make things more understandable for the audience that he was trying to reach. But, then again, if he did not foresee that future teachers might come along and say that "anadi" always means absolute beginningless, he was setting his books and ISKCON up for criticism and the situation of being dated and outdated. Does anadi always mean absolute beginningless? If so, did Srila Prabhupada modify the siddhanta thinking that western people should hear a softened version of the truth as given in the Vedic texts? I am certainly open to that possibility and see evidence in how ISKCON has failed so many followers of Srila Prabhupada and come to be a splinter in the side of the Gaudiya culture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beggar Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Srila Narayana Maharaja: The answer has been given in the word anadi. Anadi means ‘no adi', or ‘no beginning'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Well, Vyasadeva gave Srimad Bhagavatam as the commentary on Vedanta Sutra So, in other words, you are going to ignore what the Vedanta-sutra says, right? because the codes of the sutras are easily speculated upon and misconstrued. So, I am not concerned really with the Brahma-sutra. Nope. This particular section regarding anAdi-karma is very clear and there is very little difference of opinion between the different commentators. Even your own Baladeva Vidyabhushana accepts the idea. You do know that Baladeva is supposed to be in your parampara, right? And that you cannot really claim to represent the views of the parampara when you make statements that disagree with Baladeva? I take my spiritual understanding from Srimad Bhagavatam as it has been rendered into my language by the guru that I have accepted. Well your understanding of Srimad Bhagavatam is in conflict with the statements of Vedanta-sutra and your own Vedanta commentator. So, is Srimad Bhagavatam wrong? Or, could it be that you are wrong? In that Srimad Bhagavatam I am not finding the conclusion that karma is beginningless but is so old and predates the universe that it cannot be traced to a specific date and is therefore called beginningless because it predates even the universe. The idea that karma has a finite beginning is not found the verses of the Bhagavatam. But, as far as absolute beginningless is concerned I am not finding it in the Bhagavatam as explained by my guru and therefore am not going to accept it just because of some unsubstantiated claims you are making on the forum. Vedanta-sutra 2.1.34-36 contains the relevant sutras in very clear detail explaining that karma is beginningless. You have really failed to prove your claims. Guilty as charged. I cannot succesfully prove anything to someone who closes his eyes and refuses to acknowledge the evidence that contradicts his views. You just make assertions and expect everyone to just accept your anonymous conclusions blindly. As I said, feel free to disagree with Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Sri Vedavyasa, etc. I don't expect you to be consistent with the parampara you claim to follow because my observation is that most so-called gaudiyas on this forum often make claims that are not supported by their own acharyas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 So, in other words, you are going to ignore what the Vedanta-sutra says, right? I am going to ignore what you say it says because I don't blindly accept as absolute truth things that anonymous people on forums are posting. You could be chewing on a sausage and washing it down with whiskey as far as I know. Why should I accept your claim to know the meaning of Brahma-sutra? Do you always expect people on forums to blindly accept everything you post anonymously in an arrogant attitude? As I said before, if the jiva didn't falldown to the material world from the brahmajyoti he certainly fell down once he got here, so either way, the jiva fell down. Consciousness was pure in the beginning. I already quoted that evidence from the Bhagavat. When the jiva came into prakriti he was originally pure and then he fell into the karmic cycle upon entering the material energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanatan Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I'm still partial to Srila Madhvacarya's philosophical idea of the Tripartite division of souls or jivas, to wit: A. Nitya Siddha: Purely spiritual and never conditioned, ever. Cannot fall from this position under any circumstance. B. Nitya baddha, ordinary: Regular folks. The vast majority of conditioned Jivas. Never were in position of A's, never will be. I assume animals fall into this category along with human bings. C. Nitya baddha, extra-ordinary: Demons. The Hitlers, serial killers, child molesters, psychopaths, all-round complete incorrigibles and purveyors of misery. Will never rise to the position of B, much less A. The existence of C's as an eternal reality resolves the problem of "evil", as they exist to make life miserable for B's, who are "good" in an ordinary sense. The question: Is there any mobility from B to A, from B to C, or from C to B ? Observation suggests to me that there is some: very little in the B to A, somewhat more in the B to C. If so, is it temporary or eternal? Regarding the possibility of C to A, Bhagavad-gita states that "they © can never approach Me (Krsna)". 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.