Search:
Bhakti List Archives

FW: Re : Our Original Position

From the Bhakti List Archives

Krishna Kalale • October 29, 1999 


-----Original Message-----
From:	Krishna Kalale [SMTP:kkalale1@san.rr.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, October 05, 1999 3:00 AM
To:	'HRID'
Subject:	RE: Re : Our Original Position



-----Original Message-----
From:	HRID [SMTP:hrid@ivs.edu]
Sent:	Sunday, October 03, 1999 11:10 AM
To:	kkalale1@san.rr.com
Cc:	'hrid@ivs.edu'
Subject:	Re : Our Original Position

Dear Sri Krishna Prasada,
	Thank you for your letter.

>WITH THIS,  I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO RETURN FROM MOKSHA...AND
>THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR THE CONTRARY

	This was not our point. The scriptures talk about souls that
are ALREADY fallen in the material world, and state that once they
become free from such conditioning, they don't return. This does not
refer to those who are coming down to the material world. Thus your
point does not address the specific topic.
[Krishna Kalale]

Dear Sri Hridayananda Goswami,

*******

I would like to know who are meant by "those who are comin down to the 
material world"?  whoever they may be, they are definitely not coming due 
to karma or even their choice.  It is purely because to serve sriKrishna or 
due to Sri Krishna's orders to be carried out in this world.  Even if they 
come like that, they are not bound by karma;  Hence it is not a big issue. 
 The problem is clearly if you state that "in general, jivas were with Sri 
Krishna and they fell down from that state,  then it does not agree with 
the position of Sri Baladeva Vidya Bhusana.  Those who are beyond karma are 
not addressed by a "sadhana ( or practical) " scripture such as Vedanta 
Sutras.

Jaya Vijaya did not fall due to their choice,  it was due their wrong 
karmas of stopping the sages.  Such karmas cannot be done in vaikunta 
which, by definition is completely rid of all sins. sins of no kind can 
exist in vaikunta.

>The theory of karma cannot explain the inequality and cruelty seen in this
>universe, because when the creation first started there was no distinction
>of souls and consequently of karmas  -  this is the objection
>
>the answer from the vedantic siddhanta or conclusion is :
>
>jivas and karmas are beginningless, just like Brahman.
>if you state that karma-begginingless theory is tainted,  with the fault 
of
>regresses in infinitum, we say that it is not so because we find authority
>for it in reason also.  The explanation is given in the book..  I will not
>go into details to write down the whole thing.
>
>Please let me know what you feel regarding these statements of Srila
>Baladeva Vidya Bhusana.

	Baladeva states that the argument of infinite regress is
answered "in the book", but since you did not cite that answer, how
can I evaluate it?
[Krishna Kalale]

******

I was under the impression that you do have the book The Vedanta Sutras by 
Sri- Baladeva Vidya bhusana, ( I guess I  remember having seen the same Sri 
Baladeva Vidyabhusana's sutras quoted in your book) translated to english 
by Srisha Chandra Vasu.  I guess you may not have this book. ( this book is 
published by Munshiram Manoharlal das, Delhi)

I will quote what he has written. (p. 270) :

"  If you say that    karmas being beginningless, the theory is tainted 
with the fault of regressus in infinitum, we say it is not so, because we 
find authority for it in reason also.  The well known case of the seed and 
the trree is in oint.  Is the seed first or the three? notit is any 
objection that God being bound to create according to the karmas of the 
souls, loses His independence.The lord certainly is independent, but He is 
not capricious and whimsical.  Had He created the world with perfect 
disregard t the karmas of the Jivas, He might have proved His omnipotence 
to some minds, but to the majority, His act would have appeared capricious 
and cruel.  In fact, the autorities clearly show that the substance and 
karma and time are equally co-eternal with the Lord, and He creates the 
universe, with a full regard to all these three.  It is not only the karma 
that conditions the universe, but the substance (or the matter stuff), and 
time are also important factors in creation.  Of course, these three are 
subordinate to Isvara but He never discregards their existence in His act 
of creation.  The Lord is not partial or cruel, or wanting in omnipotence. 
 In fact, the theory of karma and the beginninglessness of creation 
reconcile all the difficulties.  You cannot say that this theory is open to 
the same objection of theory of specific creation.  You cannot say it is 
the falling of the smugglers unwittingly into the hands of the 
tax-collectors :

Note : Certain merchants, in order to avoid the customs duties, went by a 
round about way, to avoid the customs house.  In the dark night, they 
missed their way, and after wandering for some time, they took shelter in a 
roadside house.  In the morning, it was found that the house they took 
shelter, was the customs house which the traders were trying to avoid. 
 Thus they had not only to pay the tax, but punished also for trying to 
cheat the customs.  This maxim is called "morning in the customs house"

Our theory is not open to this objection of "morning in the customs house". 
 In order to avoid the imputation of cruelty and inequality to the Lord, we 
have explained eternity of creation, and you cannot say that since the Lord 
is not bound to regard the karmas, because He is independent, His creating 
a world full of misery, simply to punish the souls for their karmas, bring 
you back to the same difficulty, which you were trying to avoid   The Lord, 
being perfectly independent, certainly could have created a world full of 
joy, and with complete disregard to karma of jivas.  But then His actions, 
instead of being regulated by any law, would have been lawless, and it 
would not be a creditable attribute of the lord.  Therefore, His creation 
of world with erfect regard to the karm of the jivas, and to time and 
substance, does not detract from his omnipotence.  But it rather shows 
forth His gerat wisdom and compassion.  Though He can act against all the 
laws of matter, spirit and karma, yet He is not soing so, and His making 
the jivas act in accordance with the tendencies generated by their 
beginningless karma, is a matter of HIs glory, and not an instance of His 
partiality.  "  - finish quote


>With regards to "fall of jaya vijaya",  it is usually explained by
>vedantins as :
	By all Vedantins, or some of them? Does Sridhara Swami, the
authorized Bhagavatam commentator, explain it that way?
[Krishna Kalale]

I am surprised by another unique characteristic of sri chaitanya 
sampradaya.  Srila Jiva Goswami states in the Krama Sandarbha that his 
commentary was intended to elucidate the commentary of Sridhara, where it 
was felt that it was somewhat difficult to understand. (In other words, 
 Sridharaswami's commentary is taken to be authentic.  There is no doubt 
that Sridharaswami's commentary is excellent,  However,  Sridharaswami is a 
staunch follower of Sri Sankara's advaita philosophy.  He (Sridhara) says 
that he wrote his commentary, Bhavartha dipika by name in strict adherence 
to the old tradition and followed the footsteps of  Chitsukhacharya 
(another famous advaitin).

On the otherhand,  It is well known that in Srila Prabhupada's works, 
 mayavadins / advaitins are criticized in many places,  This seems a little 
odd.

Coming to the point of the episode of jaya vijaya,  it is clear that 
Sridhara swamy's views are no different from the classic advaitic position. 
 ie.  Vaikunta is taken to be within the realm of maya, since saguna 
brahman is also subject to maya.  Obviously,  vaikunta mentioned in 
bhagavatam where jaya vijaya were cursed,  is not the real higher vaikuntam 
where there is no question of curse of mistakes,  even though vaikunta is 
within the realm of maya and the abode of saguna brahman. In advaita Lord 
Krishna with all is infinite excellent auspicious qualities is taken as 
saguna brahman and definitely classified as pure.  Hence the abode vaikunta 
is also taken to be perfect in this relative world.  from there, there is 
no return; hence jaya vijaya were in a different lower vaikunta planet. 
 According to advaita,  nirguna brahman is the real reality and different 
from the vaikunta which is within maya since there is still duality there.

**********

by the way,  the idea that our original position is to be with Krishna is 
to be understood differently.  Not that we were with Godhead earlier and we 
fell down from that place.  It is to be perceived differently:

souls intrinsically are pure and their real purpose is to be serving Lord 
Srikrishna eternally.  They are mixed up in matter by association.  Even if 
they are associated here in matter,  their intrinsic nature is to be pure 
and a servant of lord.  it is like how oil and water dont mix,  even here 
jiva is pure but his knowledge is polluted by association of matter which 
deludes that jiva. We need to come to the pure state of unmixed oil.   In 
that sense,  it is ok to state that we need to go back to Godhead. 
 however, this should not be misconstrued that we were with God once and 
then we fell to this to matter leaving that original state and we need to 
go back to that state from here.  Another analogy given in the shastras is 
:  souls are diamonds dirtied by association with matter.  You dont need to 
purify the diamonds.  If you wash the external dirt off, the diamonds are 
restored their original position which is purity and eternal service to sri 
krishna.  The diamonds themselves dont need to be purified.

  With best wishes,
Hridayananda das Goswami
[Krishna Kalale]
Yours humble servant Krishna Prasad

haribol.