Jiva Falls Down- The Conclution

[Guest guest]

 

Perhaps they simply blinked their eyes.

this concept must be supported by shastra.

 

please show your supporting shastra.

[gHari]

 

this concept must be supported by shastra.

 

please show your supporting shastra.

I said 'perhaps', so I ain't gotta show nothing. Cause I just don't care.

[Guest guest]

In fact, I don't know and have never heard of any evidence from shastra that gives detailed explanations on these matters.

 

However, we do have many statement from shastra that says that no devotee falls down from the spiritual planets once he has attained svarupa-siddhi.

 

don't ignore the fact that in fact there are billions of living entities existing in the the brahmajyoti as sparks of spriitual energy.

 

the brahmajyoti is real.

 

there are billions of souls there and sometimes they fall to the material world.

 

shastra gives no example of any devotee falling from Goloka and svarupa-siddhi.

The concept cannot be supported with shastra.

 

svarupa meand "eternal form".

 

if one can fall from that form and go to Hell, then there is no such thing as "svarupa".(eternal form)

[gHari]

 

 

shastra gives no example of any devotee falling from Goloka and svarupa-siddhi.

We were speculating about Jaya-Vijaya and what may have happened to their Vaikuntha forms during their earthly romps. Whether that was a fall or lila, what happened to their roles in Vaikuntha is puzzling. Perhaps you have some sastra?

 

Perhaps we can find sastra explaining the mechanics of the incarnation of empowered incarnations from the spiritual world? Do they continue to fully engage in Goloka while also manifesting on the earthly platform? How does eternity work anyway?

 

In a lecture, Srila Prabhupada noted: "The words caitanya caritamrta, then, may be translated as 'the character of the living force in immortality'". Perhaps this book will provide some insight.

[gHari]

How do we view the following Bhagavatam verse in light of this purport to Brahma-Samhita 5.38?

 

Nowadays also the devotees see Him in Vraja in their hearts, saturated with devotion although they do not see Him with their eyes.

The eye of devotion is nothing but the eye of the pure unalloyed spiritual self of the jIva

. The form of KRSNa is visible to that eye in proportion to its purification by the practice of devotion. When the devotion of the neophyte reaches the stage of bhAva-bhakti the pure eye of that devotee is tinged with the salve of love by the grace of KRSNa, which enables him to see KRSNa face to face.

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/6/22/en

[Guest guest]

 

How do we view the following Bhagavatam verse in light of this purport

 

I already posted on some thread here a very scholarly and detailed dissertation by B.B Vishnu Swami (who had a masters degree in physics before he joined ISKCON), about the siddhanta of the jiva fall issue.

 

I can't say anything better than how he has already covered the issue.

 

If after reading his detailed essay on the issue you still don't get the picture, then there is certainly nothing I can say that will open your eyes to the true siddhanta of svarupa-siddhi.

[gHari]

Yes, I doubt you could open anyone's eyes, including your own.

[gHari]

Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, in this regard, writes in his commentary on <a href=http://vedabase.net/sb/10/2/33/en target=new>Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.2.33</a>,

 

Even if they fall, they become more attached to You, just as when King Citraketu, Bharata Maharaja and King Indradyumna had a so-called fall down. In their fallen forms, such as Vrtrasura [previously King Citraketu], their love multiplied hundreds of times. Therefore, the fall of a devotee causes his love to increase.

 

In <a href=http://vedabase.net/sb/10/2/33/en target=new>Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.2.33</a>, it is stated that devotees do not fall like non-devotees for the Lord protects them. In the purport Srila Prabhupada writes,

 

In history there are many instances of devotees like Citraketu, Indradyumna and Maharaja Bharata who circumstantially fell down but were still protected. Maharaja Bharata, for example, because of his attachment to a deer, thought of the deer at the time of death, and therefore in his next life he became a deer (yam yam vapi smaran bhavam tyajaty ante kalevaram ). Because of protection by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, however, the deer remembered his relationship with the Lord and next took birth in a good brahminical family and performed devotional service (sucinam srimatam gehe yoga-bhrasto 'bhijayate ). Similarly, Citraketu fell down and became a demon, Vrtrasura, but he too was protected.

[Guest guest]

 

Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, in this regard, writes in his commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.2.33,

 

Even if they fall, they become more attached to You, just as when King Citraketu, Bharata Maharaja and King Indradyumna had a so-called fall down. In their fallen forms, such as Vrtrasura [previously King Citraketu], their love multiplied hundreds of times. Therefore, the fall of a devotee causes his love to increase.

 

In Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.2.23, it is stated that devotees do not fall like non-devotees for the Lord protects them. In the purport Srila Prabhupada writes,

 

In history there are many instances of devotees like Citraketu, Indradyumna and Maharaja Bharata who circumstantially fell down but were still protected. Maharaja Bharata, for example, because of his attachment to a deer, thought of the deer at the time of death, and therefore in his next life he became a deer (yam yam vapi smaran bhavam tyajaty ante kalevaram ). Because of protection by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, however, the deer remembered his relationship with the Lord and next took birth in a good brahminical family and performed devotional service (sucinam srimatam gehe yoga-bhrasto 'bhijayate ). Similarly, Citraketu fell down and became a demon, Vrtrasura, but he too was protected.

 

 

none of your examples fell from Vaikuntha or Goloka.

 

they fell down from the material world not the spiritual world

[Kulapavana]

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by gHari

Letter from ACBSP: "So when I say Yes, there is eternal lila with Krsna, that means on the evidence of Jaya-Vijaya. Unless one develops full devotional service to Krsna, he goes up only up to Brahmasayujya but falls down. But after millions and millions of years of keeping oneself away from the lila of the Lord, when one comes to Krsna consciousness this period becomes insignificant, just like dreaming.

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."

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

a few thoughts:

 

1. Jaya and Vijaya's case is without doubt unique and part of the leela. There are no other examples of such fall-downs in the Bhagavatam or other shastras, at least as far as I know. To conclude that everybody here in material world fell down from Vaikuntha like Jaya and Vijaya is quite radical, to say the least.

 

2. Prabhupada is saying that first we fell down from Vaikuntha, then - and only then - we fell down from Brahman. That resolves the first part of apparent inconsistency with the pretty much universal view of the previous acharyas as presented in the quote from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta (we all fell from Brahman).

 

3. The second apparent inconsistency (Bhaktisiddhanta clearly says that our original position is shanta or indifference, Prabhupada says it is dasya, or service) can be solved using the construct of subsequent falls (as in the second point) or argued that SP said so to make a point in his preaching efforts. Surely it is easier to induce people to take up devotional service if that is supposed to be our original position. But the devotional service is our intended position - a relatively minor and subtle difference. After all, what is the use of us returning to Brahman? Only to fall down again?

 

 

Prabhupada did not shy away from telling people things that were not "the whole truth, and only the truth" in order to keep them inspired in devotional life. Perhaps this "controversy" is one of them. It seems that way to me, anyway. Perhaps SP used the Jaya and Vijaya story to construct an inspirational rather than a purely scriptural explanation to the fall of jiva question.

 

For me, it is a mute point to a large degree. I'm not more inspired by one version or another, but the Brahman version seems a lot more plausible to me.

 

And btw. Jaya and Vijaya did NOT fall down - they were cursed to fall down, and they were most certainly not envious or jealous of Lord Vishnu...

[Guest guest]

In Vaikuntha the body and the self are non different, so when Jaya and Vijaya "fell" whoever they are went to take birth in the body of the three sets of demons. Safe to assume that their Vaikuntha forms only manifest when they are in Vaikuntha in their role as gatekeepers. Anyway it is not a crucial point re the svarupa of the jiva and was arranged by Yogamaya.

 

 

". . . This discussion between Maitreya Muni and Parasara Muni centered on whether devotees come down into the material world in every millennium like Jaya and Vijaya, who were cursed by the Kumaras to that effect. In the course of these instructions to Maitreya about Hiranyakasipu, Ravana and Sisupala, Parasara did not say that these demons were formerly Jaya and Vijaya. He simply described the transmigration through three lives. It is not necessary for the Vaikuntha associates of the Supreme Personality of Godhead to come to take the roles of His enemies in all the millenniums in which He appears. The "falldown" of Jaya and Vijaya occurred in a particular millennium; Jaya and Vijaya do not come down in every millennium to act as demons. To think that some associates of the Lord fall down from Vaikuntha in every millennium to become demons is totally incorrect. . . "

 

 

 

TEXT 36

 

TEXT

 

yad arinam priyanam ca

prapyam ekam ivoditam

tad brahma-krsnayor aikyat

kiranarkopama-jusoh

 

SYNONYMS

 

yat--that; arinam--of the enemies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; priyanam--of the devotees, who are very dear to the Supreme Personality of Godhead; ca--and; prapyam--destination; ekam--one only; iva--thus; uditam--said; tat--that; brahma--of impersonal Brahman; krsnayoh--and of Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead; aikyat--due to the oneness; kirana--the sunshine; arka--and the sun; upama--the comparison; jusoh--which is understood by.

 

TRANSLATION

 

"Where it has been stated that the Lord's enemies and devotees attain the same destination, this refers to the ultimate oneness of Brahman and Lord Krsna. This may be understood by the example of the sun and the sunshine, in which Brahman is like the sunshine and Krsna Himself is like the sun."

 

PURPORT

 

This verse is from the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.278) of Srila Rupa Gosvami, who further discusses this same topic in his Laghu-bhagavatamrta (Purva 5.41). There he refers to the Visnu Purana (4.15.1), where Maitreya Muni asked Parasara, in regard to Jaya and Vijaya, how it was that Hiranyakasipu next became Ravana and enjoyed more material happiness than the demigods but did not attain salvation, although when he became Sisupala, quarreled with Krsna and was killed, he attained salvation and merged into the body of Lord Krsna. Parasara replied that Hiranyakasipu failed to recognize Lord Nrsimhadeva as Lord Visnu. He thought that Nrsimhadeva was some living entity who had acquired such opulence by various pious activities. Being overcome by the mode of passion, he considered Lord Nrsimhadeva an ordinary living entity, not understanding His form. Nevertheless, because Hiranyakasipu was killed by the hands of Lord Nrsimhadeva, in his next life he became Ravana and had proprietorship of unlimited opulence. As Ravana, with unlimited material enjoyment, he could not accept Lord Rama as the Personality of Godhead. Therefore even though he was killed by Rama, he did not attain sayujya, or oneness with the body of the Lord. In his Ravana body he was too much attracted to Rama's wife, Janaki, and because of that attraction he was able to see Lord Rama. But instead of accepting Lord Rama as an incarnation of Visnu, Ravana thought Him an ordinary living being. When killed by the hands of Rama, therefore, he got the privilege of taking birth as Sisupala, who had such immense opulence that he could think himself a competitor to Krsna. Although Sisupala was always envious of Krsna, he frequently uttered the name of Krsna and always thought of the beautiful features of Krsna. Thus by constantly thinking and chanting of Krsna, even unfavorably, he was cleansed of the contamination of his sinful activities. When Sisupala was killed by the Sudarsana cakra of Krsna as an enemy, his constant remembrance of Krsna dissolved the reactions of his vices, and he attained salvation by becoming one with the body of the Lord.

From this incident one can understand that even a person who thinks of Krsna as an enemy and is killed by Him may be liberated by becoming one with the body of Krsna. What then must be the destination of devotees who always think favorably of Krsna as their master or friend? These devotees must attain a situation better than Brahmaloka, the impersonal bodily effulgence of Krsna. Devotees cannot be situated in the impersonal Brahman effulgence, into which impersonalists desire to merge. The devotees are placed in Vaikunthaloka or Krsnaloka.

This discussion between Maitreya Muni and Parasara Muni centered on whether devotees come down into the material world in every millennium like Jaya and Vijaya, who were cursed by the Kumaras to that effect. In the course of these instructions to Maitreya about Hiranyakasipu, Ravana and Sisupala, Parasara did not say that these demons were formerly Jaya and Vijaya. He simply described the transmigration through three lives. It is not necessary for the Vaikuntha associates of the Supreme Personality of Godhead to come to take the roles of His enemies in all the millenniums in which He appears. The "falldown" of Jaya and Vijaya occurred in a particular millennium; Jaya and Vijaya do not come down in every millennium to act as demons. To think that some associates of the Lord fall down from Vaikuntha in every millennium to become demons is totally incorrect.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead has all the tendencies that may be found in the living entity, for He is the chief living entity. Therefore it is natural that sometimes Lord Visnu wants to fight. Just as He has the tendencies to create, to enjoy, to be a friend, to accept a mother and father, and so on, He also has the tendency to fight. Sometimes important landlords and kings keep wrestlers with whom they practice mock fighting, and Visnu makes similar arrangements. The demons who fight with the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the material world are sometimes His associates. When there is a scarcity of demons and the Lord wants to fight, He instigates some of His associates of Vaikuntha to come and play as demons. When it is said that Sisupala merged into the body of Krsna, it should be noted that in this case he was not Jaya or Vijaya; he was actually a demon.

In his Brhad-bhagavatamrta, Srila Sanatana Gosvami has explained that the attainment of salvation by merging into the Brahman effulgence of the Lord cannot be accepted as the highest success in life, because demons like Kamsa, who were famous for killing brahmanas and cows, attained that salvation. For devotees such salvation is abominable. Devotees are actually in a transcendental position, whereas nondevotees are candidates for hellish conditions of life. There is always a difference between the life of a devotee and the life of a demon, and their realizations are as different as heaven and hell.

Demons are always accustomed to be malicious toward devotees and to kill brahmanas and cows. For demons, merging in the Brahman effulgence may be very glorious, but for devotees it is hellish. A devotee's aim in life is to attain perfection in loving the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Those who aspire to merge into the Brahman effulgence are as abominable as demons. Devotees who aspire to associate with the Supreme Lord to render Him transcendental loving service are far superior.

[Guest guest]

ref from Cc. Adi 5.35

[Guest guest]

so, from scripture we understand that even the gatekeepers of Vaikuntha became ther most powerful demons in the history of the universe when they "fell" to the material world.

 

So, what posswibly would the parshadas of Krishna become if THEY fell to the material world?

 

The idea that a parshada of Krishna falls to the material world and becomes a microbe or a worm in stool is the most laughable, absurd and ridiculous idea that ISKCON neophytes have ever manufactured.