The Jiva Did Not fall From Goloka?

[Guest guest]

Muralidhar prabhu:

"I cannot find anything like it at all"

 

I searched also. And I cannot find the whole part of the text. There has to be another Prema pradipa. I don't understand the situation. This translation of Kusakratha pr is quoted on many pages. (not only on ISKCON pages). So I don't understand why is this difference. Unfortunatelly I haven't got Kuskratha prabhu's translation. I have downloaded the same vesion, you pasted, from another site. But I didn't find Kuskratha prabhu's vesion. sorry

[muralidhar_das]

When it comes to translations of scripture, it is always best to have translations that are like Srila Prabhupadas, where you have the original Bengali or Sanskrit, a word for word listing, and then the English translation.

 

At the very least we need to have the original Sanskrit/Bengali and then the English. Without the Sanskrit we cannot trust that the translation is correct.

[Guest guest]

Devarsirat pr:

 

I think we have to see the texts like a coherent text.

- So in the Jaiva dharma Bhaktivinoda Thakura speaks about the SAME jivas when he describes the way to the material world, and the eternally liberated jivas

- just like in the Kalyana Kalpataru.

 

There is no mark (or sign - sorry i don't know the appropriate word), that He speaks about another group or type of jivas. Morover from the grammatical construction of the sentences we have to conclude that he speaks about the same jivas.

[Guest guest]

Muralidhar pr:

"At the very least we need to have the original Sanskrit/Bengali and then the English. Without the Sanskrit we cannot trust that the translation is correct."

 

Yes, that is my opinion also. But I haven't got the bengali (sanskrit?) version. And I'm serching for the whole english version of Kuskratha pr.

[Guruvani]

 

Devarsirat pr:

 

I think we have to see the texts like a coherent text.

- So in the Jaiva dharma Bhaktivinoda Thakura speaks about the SAME jivas when he describes the way to the material world, and the eternally liberated jivas

- just like in the Kalyana Kalpataru.

 

There is no mark (or sign - sorry i don't know the appropriate word), that He speaks about another group or type of jivas. Morover from the grammatical construction of the sentences we have to conclude that he speaks about the same jivas.

 

NIce theory, but no scholar devotee who actually knows Sanskrit and/or Bengali says that the fall from Goloka theory is correct.

 

All scholar devotees who know Sanskrit, do not accept the fall from Golok theory. That is something only western devotees who don't know how to read the Sanskrit text are saying.

 

Shastra gives clear information about how the Jivas are impregnated into Prakriti by Maha-Vishnu and that these Jivas are not complete Jivas because they are not properly enriched with Chit-shakti.

 

Inside the chit-shakti of Goloka no soul can fall down from within the chit-shakti, but you ignore the teachings of shastra and have some childish idea about fall from Goloka.

 

Your theory cannot be supported with shastra.

It's just make-believe fairytale.

[Guest guest]

jiva is either eternally liberated or eternally conditioned. Vedanta Sutra is very clear on this issue. Karma is anadi - no beginning.

 

You have the 'potential' to live in Goloka - but for that you need mercy. Having once gone - he never returns - so says scripture.

 

So many things may be said to engage a person or attract their attention. If you look at Srila Prabhupada's books and correspondences you will find references to both fall and no fall. It isn't both - so his words have to be looked at in the light of scripture and the apparent contradiction reconciled.

 

Even in the story of Gopa Kumara we find that Krsna embraces him and asks why he stayed away for so long - but the conclusion is that he is 'new' to the group - he is not 'returning' after having been away for a long time. It may be talked about like that - but the siddhanta is clear that no one falls from Vaikuntha and that conditioned souls have always been so. We have been in this for eternity - now we have a chance to get out - chant and cry - do and die.

[Guruvani]

For those that need emphasis on the crucial points that shastra explains in regards to the fallen jivas and how they are nitya-baddha jivas, we will quote the translated meanings (Jagadananda das) of Jaiva Dharma.

(note: I prefer the translations of Jagadananda das over the translations of others)

Here is the shastric version on the fallen jivas that are ensnared in maya.

 

 

When He glances at Maya,

Lord Karanodakasayi Visnu sends numberless atomic spirit souls to

the material world. Because they are now on Maya's side, the many

creations of Maya now enter the pathway of their eyes. These souls

have all the qualities of the soul I have already described.

However, because they are atomic in size, from the border of matter

and spirit (tatastha) they must place their glance on either the

spiritual world or the material world. The individual souls are

very weak. How can this not be? These souls did not obtain the

spiritual strength that comes from the Lord's mercy, mercy that

comes from properly serving Him. That is why these souls develop a

desire to enjoy the pleasures that Maya offers. These souls enter

Maya's world, and there Maya imprisons them for what seems an

eternity. When these souls again turn to spiritual life and

service to the Lord, they can attain the Lord's mercy, which will

give them spiritual strength. Then they can return to the

spiritual world.

this is the shastric conclusion.

the jivas of the Mahat-tattva are weak.

they have not sufficient chit strength to resist maya.

it is not the fault of God - we have our free will - the greatest gift that makes us individual souls.

 

Karanadakashayi Vishnu glances at Maya (that glance is Shambhu - Lord Shiva), then numberless jivas are sewn into the soil of the Mahat-tattva where they are cultivated to become mature souls eligible to participate in the service of Godhead in a personal capacity.

 

Like a farmer plants seeds and produces a crop of bounty, the Lord sews the seeds of Jivas into the Mahat-tattva (cosmos) and cultivates a nice crop of souls who can join him in his eternal pleasures.

 

How nice.

 

The Mahat-tattva is like Krishna's greenhouse where he grows the seeds of jivas into the full plants of devotion to produce the fruit of love of Godhead.

 

We start out as upstart rebels with insufficient knowledge and experience, but the Lord tends to his crop of souls very nicely until they are all fully matured and eligible for harvesting into the nitya-lilas he enjoys so much.

 

We are God's babies.

Babies grow up and become adults.

When they are adults, they become mature and responsible.

Then, they can join God in his sports and games and have unlimited pleasure and happiness for eternity........how nice!

[muralidhar_das]

 

NIce theory, but no scholar devotee who actually knows Sanskrit and/or Bengali says that the fall from Goloka theory is correct.

 

 

I know of one. Gopiparanadhana.

 

In his translation of Brhadbhagavatamrtam he has included the commentary (tika) of Srila Sanatana Goswami, but he didn't present the commentary "as it is" rather he has written his own commentary on the basis of Sanatana's tika.

 

Gopiparanadhana has many "we fell from Vaikuntha" statements in his translation, but then if you check it against the original (I have the original Sanskrit and Bengali, and a Bengali friend who knows sanskrit who can translate it for me) and we have found MANY instances where Gopiparanadhana has mis-represented what Sanantana Goswami is saying.

 

When I first got this translation of Brhadbhagavatamrtam I was excited and I still recommend that devotees read it. But there are a large number of mistranslations in the book. Sad to say this, but it is a fact.

[Guruvani]

 

I know of one. Gopiparanadhana.

 

In his translation of Brhadbhagavatamrtam he has included the commentary (tika) of Srila Sanatana Goswami, but he didn't present the commentary "as it is" rather he has written his own commentary on the basis of Sanatana's tika.

 

Gopiparanadhana has many "we fell from Vaikuntha" statements in his translation, but then if you check it against the original (I have the original Sanskrit and Bengali, and a Bengali friend who knows sanskrit who can translate it for me) and we have found MANY instances where Gopiparanadhana has mis-represented what Sanantana Goswami is saying.

 

When I first got this translation of Brhadbhagavatamrtam I was excited and I still recommend that devotees read it. But there are a large number of mistranslations in the book. Sad to say this, but it is a fact.

The subject of the sufferings of the jiva is a very touchy and complicated subject, because if it is not dealt with in a very strategic way, the student of Vedic knowledge can end up going away blaming God for all his sufferings.

So, great acharyas who have been preaching in the material world since time eternal are very expert in presenting siddhanta in a way that neophyte souls don't go away blaming God for all their sufferings.

That is Srila Prabhupada.

 

Besides that, when we attain to nitya-siddha then the concept of past, present and future with not exist.

 

So, just like adults don't tell little children about all the details of sex life and how children are begotten, the great acharyas prefer to avoid the deepest parts of spiritual knowledge, and how the jivas came to be conditioned souls, when they are preaching on a broad scale.

 

There is a common saying "KISS", whicn means "keep it simple stupid".

 

So, when it comes to neophyte devotees, the best policy is to try and keep things as simple as possible so as not to confuse the already confused and agitated souls of the material platform.

 

But, after more than 40 years of the KC movement in the western world, sooner or later the higher meanings of shastra are going to have to be understood in order to establish a proper shastric foundation beyond the pre-school instructions of Srila Prabhupada's letters and conversations.

 

To avoid complicated and advanced discussions of siddhanta with unfit and unprepared neophytes, Srila Prabhupada kept with the "KISS" policy of "keep it simple stupid".

 

But, we are way past the days of being able to "KISS" off the siddhanta and there is a need for something more substantial than pre-school education for the devotees of the KC movement.

 

Pre-school is important, but you can't stay in pre-school forever.

 

Sooner or later you have to go on to elementary school and understand that we didn't fall from Goloka.

 

It will always be a delicate subject when we deal with the eternal damnation of the jiva. So, to avoid making it any more complicated than it already is, the great acharyas dance around the issue as long as they can get away it.

It's for the good of the little souls who aren't able to digest the full meal of shastric siddhanta which can sometimes be a little much for the conditioned mind of the baddha-jiva.

[Devarsirat]

Because he falls down from Brahmasayujya, he thinks that may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even he was with Krsna. So the conclusion is that whatever may be our past, let us come to Krsna consciousness and immediately join Krsna. Just like with a diseased man, it is a waste of time to try to find out how he has become diseased; better to spend time curing the disease. Srila Prabhupada

We have always been with Krishna, thats alright, there was never a time when we have been seperated from Krishna, but this also does not tell me that we have had a personal realationship with Krishna as His direct servants in His Lila.

 

" it is a waste of time to try to find out how he has become diseased; better to spend time curing the disease. Srila Prabhupada "

 

I think what Srila Prabhupada is saying is, that no matter what version we beliefe in, it has no influence on the successful outcome of our spiritual journey as long as we sincerily try to cure the material disease.

[theist]

 

Because he falls down from Brahmasayujya, he thinks that may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even he was with Krsna. So the conclusion is that whatever may be our past, let us come to Krsna consciousness and immediately join Krsna. Just like with a diseased man, it is a waste of time to try to find out how he has become diseased; better to spend time curing the disease. Srila Prabhupada

We have always been with Krishna, thats alright, there was never a time when we have been seperated from Krishna, but this also does not tell me that we have had a personal realationship with Krishna as His direct servants in His Lila.

 

" it is a waste of time to try to find out how he has become diseased; better to spend time curing the disease. Srila Prabhupada "

I think what Srila Prabhupada is saying is, that no matter what version we beliefe in, it has no influence on the successful outcome of our spiritual journey as long as we sincerily try to cure the material disease.

 

It's about time!

[Guruvani]

The author has referred to Maya Devi as the "wife of Maha Vishnu", and such bogus terms as "Maya Devi's shakti, the wife of Maha Vishnu".

 

This is a slightly altered version as I have seen on other websites where he simply refers to Maya Devi as the wife of Maha Vishnu".

 

 

Such temporary ethereal and biological bodies are provided by the presiding Deity of the mahat-tattva, Maha-Vishnu and guided (constantly tempted through the mahat-tattva by Maya-Devi’s sakti, the wife of Maha-Vishnu.

 

It's in post #114.

 

Anybody who is going around saying that Maya Devi is the wife of Maha Vishnu certainly has no business writing thesis papers on the fall of the jiva.

 

It's obvious that his knowledge of siddhanta is lacking in areas other than the fall of the jiva subject.

 

I am sure there are dozens of bogus statements in his writings are they are about 95% his own words and about 5% shastra. (that is a generous figure)

 

I have never seen such an flimsy thesis as this one.

 

It's almost all speculation and fabrication based on misinterpretation of a few statements of Srila Prabhupada.

 

These are the kinds of Swamis that are going to be leading ISKCON someday.

It's really sad to think about that.

[Guest guest]

Haribol prabhus! I'm here again with something we did not discuss:

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakura: Kalyana Kalpataru:

 

(13)

cid-dhama-bhaskara krsna, tanra jyotirgata

ananta citkana jiba tisthe avirata

Krsna is the shining sun of this all-cognizant spiritual abode, and within His effulgence dwell innumerable FINE PARTICLES OF PURE COGNIZANZCE CALLED JIVA.

(14)

sei jiba prema-dharmi, krsna-gata-prana

sada krsnakrstha, bhakti-sudha kore' pana

THESE JIVA SOULS are by very nature full of pure ecstatic love and are all the dearly beloved of Lord Krsna. Always being attracted by Krsna, they continuously drink the ambrosial nectar of devotion.

(15)

nana-bhava-misrita piya dasya-rasa

krsner ananta-gune sada thake basa

Enjoying a mixture of various moods in the mellow of servitude, the jivas eternally remain subjugated and controlled by Krsna;s unlimited virtuous qualities.

(16)

krsna mata, krsna pita, krsna sahka, pati

ei sab bhinna-bhava krsna kore rati

They also love Krsna in all the different moods of being related to Him as a mother, father, friend, or husband.

(17)

krsna se purusa ek nitya brndabane

jiba-gana nari-brnda, rame krsna sane

Eternally in Vrndavana Krsna is the only male (purusa), and all the jivas there enjoy pastimes in His company in the role of females (prakrti).

(18)

sei to' ananda-lila ja'r nai anta

ataeva krsna-lila akhanda ananta

There is no end to all of these blissful pastimes; therefore Krsna's pastimes are known for being undisputedly supreme and unlimited.

(19)

je-sab jiber 'bhoga-banca upajilo

purusa bhavete ta'ra jade paravesilo

ALL THE SOULS, in whom the desire to enjoy separately awakens, have to enter into the material world under the false conception of being a male (a purusa).

(20)

maya-karya jada maya--nitya-sakti-chaya

krsna-dasi sei satya, kara-kartri maya

Illusory material activities as well as maya herself are both the shadow reflections of the eternal potency. In reality, maya is the eternal maidservant of Krsna, but her job is to be in charge of operating the prison-house of the material world.

(21)

sei maya adarser samasta bisesa

loiya gathilo bisva jahe purna klesa

This illusory energy maya, has created the material universe exactly like an imitation model of the real spiritual variegatedness, but with the added feature of being full of various miseries.

(22)

jiba jadi hoilena krsna-bahimukha

mayadevi tabe ta'r jachilena sukha

If by chance a living entity becomes averse to the Supreme Lord Krsna, then Mayadevi's duty is to voluntarily offer her temptations of material happiness.

(23)

maya-sukhe matta jiba sri-krsna bhulilo

sei se avidya-base asmita janmilo

Intoxicated by maya's illusory happiness, the living entity then forgets Krsna. Under the influence of such ignorance, false egoistic selfishness arises.

(24)

asmita hoite hoilo maya-bhinivesa

taha hoite jadagata raga ar dvesa

From such selfishness she becomes raptly absorbed in illusion, and then she develops angry grudges and envious hatred towards other living entities.

 

Question is:

If "within Krishna's effulgence dwell innumerable FINE PARTICLES OF PURE COGNIZANZCE CALLED JIVA, and THESE JIVA SOULS are by very nature full of pure ecstatic love and are all the dearly beloved of Lord Krsna..."... than where do the other jivas come from (You know: the jivas who never where with Krishna.) Bhaktivindoda Thakura clearly explain that ALL THE Jivas were with Krishna.

 

Ok we've got the solution - this is the end.

[Guruvani]

 

Bhaktivindoda Thakura clearly explain that ALL THE Jivas were with Krishna.

 

Ok we've got the solution - this is the end.

maybe you have yourself fooled chumly, but before some ISKCON neophtyes butchered the philosophy the Gaudiyas never preached this nonsense apasiddhanta.

 

Besides that Bhaktivinode never said that all the jivas were with Krishna.

Please show us which verse says that.

or, quit twisting the philosophy to fit your distorted understanding.

[stonehearted]

There's nothing in that section of Kalyana-kalpataru that says that jivas situated with Krishna in Goloka develop a desire to enjoy apart from Krishna. That is simply antithetical to the way those souls are. Who lives in Goloka? Siddhas who have attained prema, those who are svarupa-shakti, and no one else. Certainly you don't propose that the svarupa-shakti can fall! But what sort of siddhas, those who have attained Krishna prema through the progression described by Srila Rupa Gosvami, would decide, "Nah--this is bogus! Let me try to be the center again"? And if that were possible, why would anyone bother to strip away all anarthas and cultivate that rarest of mentalities, if they could just nod out for a minute and have to go through the whole thing again. Moreover, doesn't Krishna assure us in Bhagavad-gita that it's not possible?

 

Maybe you think verse 19 above provides support for your asssertion. However, if you get rid of the misplaced comma (a very common mistake among devotees, especially those for whom English is not their first language), what it really says is that those jivas (constituted of tatastha-shakti) who somehow choose to turn from Krishna rather than toward him find themselves imporisoned under the illusion that they're some kind of enjoyer. The words you've capitalized in 19 do not refer to the same groups of souls mentioned in the earlier verses. 14 just describes generally the jiva's inherent, which is saccidananda, always blissfully serving Krishna. 17 describes how, in Goloka, everyone lives to give pleasure to Krishna, the only purusa, and for nothing else. The following verses explain something of the nature of that custody, under the influence of the maya-shakti.

 

The song you've excerpted is a long song meant to explain sambandha, establishing our relationship with Krishna. It starts out by telling us that, although it's our nature to serve Krishna in His blissful pastimes, in which He is the cynosure of all, the focus of everyone's love and attention, and therefore to be always blissful in such pastimes, some of us who emanate from the tatastha-shakti turn the wrong way. (Why this is so seems to remain inexplicable; it just is the way things are.) When we make that wrong turn, we have to suffer in so many ways under the influence of the material energy, which are briefly summarized in this song. However, if such wandering souls somehow come in contact with vaishnavas, our inherent nature as blissful servants of Krishna may become aroused, and we may engage in the processes of devotional service as that nature becomes gradually and progressively awakened.

 

It's best to read these things with an open heart, free from any extraneous agenda. If we do so, our hearts will become attracted once again to serving Krishna and His devotees, and we will find pseudo-intellectual wrangling repulsive.

[Guruvani]

 

There's nothing in that section of Kalyana-kalpataru that says that jivas situated with Krishna in Goloka develop a desire to enjoy apart from Krishna. That is simply antithetical to the way those souls are. Who lives in Goloka? Siddhas who have attained prema, those who are svarupa-shakti, and no one else. Certainly you don't propose that the svarupa-shakti can fall! But what sort of siddhas, those who have attained Krishna prema through the progression described by Srila Rupa Gosvami, would decide, "Nah--this is bogus! Let me try to be the center again"? And if that were possible, why would anyone bother to strip away all anarthas and cultivate that rarest of mentalities, if they could just nod out for a minute and have to go through the whole thing again. Moreover, doesn't Krishna assure us in Bhagavad-gita that it's not possible?

Maybe you think verse 19 above provides support for your asssertion. However, if you get rid of the misplaced comma (a very common mistake among devotees, especially those for whom English is not their first language), what it really says is that those jivas (constituted of tatastha-shakti) who somehow choose to turn from Krishna rather than toward him find themselves imporisoned under the illusion that they're some kind of enjoyer. The words you've capitalized in 19 do not refer to the same groups of souls mentioned in the earlier verses. 14 just describes generally the jiva's inherent, which is saccidananda, always blissfully serving Krishna. 17 describes how, in Goloka, everyone lives to give pleasure to Krishna, the only purusa, and for nothing else. The following verses explain something of the nature of that custody, under the influence of the maya-shakti.

The song you've excerpted is a long song meant to explain sambandha, establishing our relationship with Krishna. It starts out by telling us that, although it's our nature to serve Krishna in His blissful pastimes, in which He is the cynosure of all, the focus of everyone's love and attention, and therefore to be always blissful in such pastimes, some of us who emanate from the tatastha-shakti turn the wrong way. (Why this is so seems to remain inexplicable; it just is the way things are.) When we make that wrong turn, we have to suffer in so many ways under the influence of the material energy, which are briefly summarized in this song. However, if such wandering souls somehow come in contact with vaishnavas, our inherent nature as blissful servants of Krishna may become aroused, and we may engage in the processes of devotional service as that nature becomes gradually and progressively awakened.

It's best to read these things with an open heart, free from any extraneous agenda. If we do so, our hearts will become attracted once again to serving Krishna and His devotees, and we will find pseudo-intellectual wrangling repulsive.

 

[stonehearted]

 

 

???

[Guruvani]

 

???

 

sorry, I was being a little melodramatic.......

 

In other words, I was inspired by your post.

 

(but, crocodile tears have their purpose:crying2:)

[Guest guest]

In a lecture on the Bhagavad-gita given in London on August 6, 1973, Srila Prabhupada explains:“We have also come down from Vaikuntha some millions and millions of years ago”

[stonehearted]

He also said, in a Bhagavatam purport, "Otherwise it is a fact that no one falls from Vaikuntha." He told one of my Godbrothers, Sadhanananda das, that if it isn't in his books, "I did not say it."

 

Using quotations from letters (which are often very context specific), lectures (somtimes context specific) and conversations (also context sensitive and often somewhat casual), and the like can be problematic when discussing siddhanta, the ultimate philosophical conclusions given by the previous acharyas.

[Guest guest]

Srila Prabhupada said on April 20, 1972, in Tokyo, Japan - “no one falls from Vaikuntha.” Srila Prabhupada says that we were originally with Krsna and are now in a situation where “we think we have fallen’.

 

Srila Prabhupada – “Just like one man is dreaming and he forgets himself. In the dream he creates himself in different forms: now I am the King discussing like that”.

 

Srila Prabhupada - “This creation of himself is as seer and subject matter or seen, two things. But as soon as the dream is over, the "seen" disappears. But the seer remains. Now he is in his original position”.

 

Srila Prabhupada – “Our separation from Krsna is like that. We dream this body and so many relationships with other things. First the attachment comes to enjoy sense gratification. Even with Krsna desire for sense gratification is there”.

[Guest guest]

 

There's nothing in that section of Kalyana-kalpataru that says that jivas situated with Krishna in Goloka develop a desire to enjoy apart from Krishna. That is simply antithetical to the way those souls are

 

from therealexplanation.org/article/before_even.html

 

"When the living entities desire to enjoy themselves, they develop a consciousness of duality and come to hate the service of the Lord." Srimad Bhagavatam 4.28.53 (purport)

 

"When the living entity thus turns away from the Supreme Lord, he also forgets his own constitutional position as a servant of the Lord." Srimad Bhagavatam 11.2.37 (purport)

 

 

 

How can you hate (dveshya) the service of the Lord (seva) and turn your face away from that service (bahirmukha) when you are not engaged in any service whatsoever while floating around in the brahmajyoti? Even in shanta rasa in Vaikuntha, there is at least some kind of service. There is no service at all, however, in the brahmajyoti.

 

-------------

 

 

so from that purport, Srimad Bhagavatam 4.28.53, one might ask, how could we "come to hate the service of the lord", if we had never been engaged in the service of the lord

[stonehearted]

"So the conclusion is that whatever may be our past, let us come to Krsna consciousness and immediately join Krsna. Just like with a diseased man, it is waste of time to try to find out how he has become diseased, better to spend time curing the disease. . . . But we should think that because I am now covered by this clay, I am diseased, and we should think that I must get to business to get myself uncovered, not wonder how I got this way. Now the fruit is there, take it and enjoy, that is your first business. God is not bound by cause. He can change, He is the Cause of all Causes. Now don't waste your time with this"Kaka taliya nyaya," crows and tal-fruit logic."

Oops--I think it's go-dhuli time! Are those the cows I hear?

 

[Guest guest]

Please stay at the concrete arguments, and conrete words of the verses.

 

The text is a coherent text . There's no sign that Bhaktivinoda Thakura speaks about another group of jivas when he describes the falldown of the jivas.

 

You are acting like this:

 

stoneharted said:

"It's best to read these things with an open heart, free from any extraneous agenda. If we do so, our hearts will become attracted once again to serving Krishna and His devotees, and we will find pseudo-intellectual wrangling repulsive."

I could say so:

You are not speaking of the reading with open heart when you say "If we do so..." This is a separate sentence, and actually you wanted to say: without open heart. - "If we do it without open heart..." Because what is your proof that there is a connection between these two sentences...?

 

So what is your proof that Bhaktivinoda Thakura speaks about another type of jivas. Because there are many signs that that he don't speak of another grup of jivas. (text structure, grammar, concrete commitments... )(I think the only REAL thing that can mentioned, is your preconception...)

[stonehearted]

I have nothing to prove. You talk about some preconception you ascribe to me. The fact is that, although I was for many years, perhaps decades, an advocate for the position ISKCON has officially taken, my rereading of Srila Prabhupada's instructions, as well as discussions of this issue by previous acharyas has changed my position somewhat. I'm much more interested in how this and other issues are discussed than I am in arguing a particular position. My own conclusion is the one Srila Prabhupada gives repeatedly in what is called the "Crow and Tal Fruit" letter: There's little of real substance to gain by focusing too much attention on this issue. The real business at hand is to apply ourselves to the process of cultivating love for Krishna given by Lord Chaitanya and His followers.

 

I've already given a broad-strokes analysis of this particular song's structure. I've also pointed out one grammar problem that is bound to cause confusion. (BTW, the version you posted had two misplaced commas; the version in the VedaBase has one misplaced comma.) I don't care very much whether you think siddhas can become lusty. I know that's the official ISKCON position. I've read Drutakarma's and Hridayananda Maharaja's essays on the issue, and I have my own opinion of those documents. I like both writers personally and respect their intelligence. You are clearly swayed by their arguments to read Srila Prabhupada's comments on this in one way. Fine. That has nothing to do with me. I generally avoid arguing this issue and the ritvik issue with anyone because such discussion is ultimately pointless.

 

You wrote: " You are not speaking of the reading with open heart when you say "If we do so..." This is a separate sentence, and actually you wanted to say: without open heart. - "If we do it without open heart..." Because what is your proof that there is a connection between these two sentences...?"

 

I don't know what to make of this, except that you think I'm a liar. If that's the case, there's nothing for us to discuss anyway.