It is a fact that most jivatmas, the great majority, never ever fall down from Vaikuntha even though they can if they choose to do so.
The main point made by those who believe the jiva originated from Vaikuntha is the jiva can "choose to leave Goloka" if they want however, the majority of jivas NEVER leave or fall down from Goloka or Vaikuntha.
If devotees are genuinely wanting to know the truth and not just do everything to "win the argument" (because such an approach is not worth getting involved with) the knowledge decorated with selfless devotional service CAN be "realized"
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that saralatā, or simplicity, is the first qualification of a Vaiṣṇava, whereas duplicity or cunning behavior is a great offense against the principles of devotional service.” (C.c. Antya. 2.117 – Purport)
A devotee once asked Srila Prabhupada what he had been praying for, and Srila Prabhupada said, “I was praying that I may not fall down from devotional service.”
The devotee responded, “But Srila Prabhupada, a pure devotee like you never falls down.” Srila Prabhupada replied, “A pure devotee never falls down because he is always praying that he may not fall down.”
Srila Prabhupada – “By the grace of Krishna, we have complete freedom. Because the Lord is kind to us, we can live anywhere, either in the spiritual sky or in the material sky, upon which ever planet we desire.
However, misuse of this freedom causes one to fall down into the material world and suffer the threefold miseries of conditioned life.
Milton in Paradise Lost nicely illustrates the living of a miserable life in the material world by dint of the soul’s choice.
Similarly, by choice, the soul can regain paradise and return home, back to Godhead.” (Caitanya-Caritamrita, Adi Lila 5.22, Purport)
We have to realize that being marginal and jiva tattva means free will, even in Goloka and without that free will and ability to choose there can NEVER be genuine Love.
Some comments by one Swami is controversial because he also just sees one side only which is exactly his criticism is of the the other side also.
This Swami in particular who left this world in the mid 1990s in Mayapur claimed he new the answers of sastras and of our previous acaryas but did he understand what Prabhupada said and the conclusions he chooses to accept there are other ''conclusions'' Prabhupada also gives?
We know of minor comments in some of Prabhupada's purports that are different in other purports.
This is a small point but still makes a point Prabhupada says slightly different things on the same subject, like the length of Brahma's 12 hour day-time.
Prabhupada says 4 billion 300 million in some places while in other places in his purports, he says 4 billion 320 million.
Also in some letters, morning walks and lectures, the same thing is there, Prabhupada often explains scriptural view points in a different ways like the conclusion of the jiva's origin.
He has clearly said, it was NOT from the effulgent impersonal aspect of Brahman the jiva originated, even though in other places he has said it lis like here -
Srila Prabhupada - "The conclusion is that the origin of all life is the bodily effulgence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." (SB 4.30.5 purport)
But then Prabhupada says this -
Srila Prabhupada - ''Existence in the impersonal brahman is also within the category of non-Krsna consciousness. Those who are in the brahman effulgence are also in the fallen condition, so there is no question of falling down from a fallen condition. When fall takes place, it means falling down from the non-fallen condition. The non-fallen condition is Krsna consciousness''. (Letter to: Revatinandana — Los Angeles 13 June, 1970)
Srila Prabhupada also gives the following conclusion regarding the origin of the jiva.
Srila Prabhupada - "The conclusion is that no one falls from the spiritual world, or Vaikuntha, for it is the eternal abode." (SB 3.16.26 purport)
But then says this -
Srila Prabhupada - ” So, even in the Vaikuntha, if I desire that ‘Why shall I serve Krishna? Why not become Krishna?’ I immediately fall down.” (July 8, 1976 in Washington, D.C.)
Srila Prabhupada - "In the broader sense everyone comes from Krishna Loka. When one forgets Krishna he is conditioned, when one remembers Krishna he is liberated". (Letter to Mukunda, June 10, 1969)
Srila Prabhupada – These spirit souls and all spirit souls are coming from Vaikuntha. There is no “ NEW” soul. “New'’ and “old'’ are due to this material body, but the soul is never born and never dies, so if there is no birth how there can be new soul''. (Letter to Jagadisa 7/9/1970)
Srila Prabhupada - "In the broader sense everyone comes from Krishna Loka. When one forgets Krishna he is conditioned, when one remembers Krishna he is liberated". (Letter to Mukunda, June 10, 1969)
Srila Prabhupada - "We cannot say therefore that we are not with Krsna. As soon as we try to become Lord, immediately Maya covers us.
Formerly we were with Krsna in His lila or sport. But this covering of Maya may be of very, very, very, very long duration; therefore many creations are coming and going". (Letter to Madhudvisa Swami June 1972 Australia)
Srila Prabhupada – ''Regarding your questions about how and from where did the conditioned souls fall, your first question if someone has a relationship with Lord Krsna on Krsnaloka, does he ever fall down?
The souls are endowed with minute independence as part of their nature and this minute independence may be utilized rightly or wrongly at anytime, so there is always a chance of falling down by misuse of one’s independence''. (Letter to Jagadisa Prabhu, 4/25/1970.)
Srila Prabhupada - “Usually anyone who has developed his relationship with Krsna does not fall down in any circumstance, but because the independence is always there, the soul may fall down from any position or any relationship by misusing his independence.
But his relationship with Krishna is never lost, simply forgotten by the influence of maya so it maybe regained or revived by the process of hearing the Holy Name of Krsna and then the devotee engages himself in the service of the Lord which is his original or constitutional position.
The relationship of the living entity with Krsna is eternal as both Krsna and the living entity are eternal; the process is one of revival only, nothing new'' (Letter to Jagadisa 02/27/1970)
No past Acharays, it is claimed, believe the jivas can ever fall down from Goloka or Vaikuntha"
They could possibly be referring to the many sakti tattva and Vishnu tattva "direct" expansions of Krishna playing different roles, who all have 93% of Krishna's qualities.
They are therefore NOT jiva tattva who have 78% of Krishna's qualities that includes us.
Even Lord Brahma has Only 78% of Krishna's qualities.
Shiva has 84%, in his own unique category
While Narayana and Vishnu expansions have 93% of Krishna's qualities, making them actually Krishna Himself just playing a different role in Krishna's pastimes.
So obviously they NEVER fall down.
And there are many "Vishnu Sakti tattvas" who seem like ordinary personalities too, like gopas, gopis, street venders, so many "ordinary looking personalities live in Goloka Vrindavana, but are all also "direct expansion" of Krishna.
This means they ARE Krishna Himself playing a part.
93% of Krishna's character IS Krishna.
It was also like this when Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu appeared, many expansions that were NOT jiva-tattva, also appeared.
In the Pancha Tattva, only ONE out of the 5 is jiva tattva (Srivas, Narada Muni), the rest are "Vishnu Sakti Tattva" or Krishna Himself.
But what is Srila Prabhupada’s conclusion?
Why is this Swami accepting only these two comments? -
1 - Srila Prabhupada - "The conclusion is that no one falls from the spiritual world, or Vaikuntha, for it is the eternal abode." (SB 3.16.26 purport)
2 - Srila Prabhupada - "The conclusion is that the origin of all life is the bodily effulgence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." (SB 4.30.5 purport)
When Srila Prabhupada also made these conclusions -
1 - Srila Prabhupada - “We have also come down from Vaikuntha some millions and millions of years ago.” - (Lecture on Bhagavad-gita on August 6, 1973)
2 - Srila Prabhupada - ‘’These spirit souls and all spirit souls are coming from Vaikuntha”. (Letter to Jagadisa das)
3 - Srila Prabhupada - "The jiva is originally with Krsna. But even with Krsna “there is a dormant attitude for forgetting Krsna and creating an atmosphere for enjoying independently.” (Letter to Madhudvisa Swami June 1972 Australia)
4 - Srila Prabhupada - “As living spiritual souls we are all originally Krsna conscious entities, but due to our association with matter from time immemorial, our consciousness has now become polluted by the material atmosphere.” (Original Hare Krsna "Happening record album" New York City New York State December 1966)
Others, like the the late Swami above and his followers, will also not accept these "other conclusions" Prabhupada also gives us.
They claim such comments by Prabhupada are only said for the benefit of the immature neophytes and faithless upstarts born into a Christian based society who are like children in a kindergarten nursery who believe in the tooth fairy and santa claus as a ploy in his preaching which is silly nonsense that is insulting to Srila Prabhupada's intelligence.
And if that does not work they again claim "We only accept what's in Prabhupada's Books and not his letters, lectures and morning walks" not realizing that many Books are made up from his lectures.
The Brochure (small book) "Crow and Tal Fruit Logic" is an interesting read sent to all Temples.
Crow and Tal Fruit Logic.
In 1972, a devotee in Australia (Siddharsvarupa Swami) began saying that the living entities in this material world were originally situated in the brahmajyoti.
According to Madhudvisa Prabhu and Caru Prabhu, who were both in Australia at the time, this caused some fairly widespread disturbance.
Srila Prabhupada therefore dictated a response, a typed copy of which was retained by Madhudvisa Prabhu. This is the famous crow and tal fruit message.
Madhudvisa has said that it was distributed to the Australian temple presidents.
In this statement, given in direct response to inquiries from his
students on the question of the origin of the jiva, Srila Prabhupada gives many definitive answers to the questions facing us.
He intended these not just as answers to a particular devotee but as his official answer to a philosophical controversy that had arisen in the Society:
Srila Prabhupada - "We never had any occasion when we were separated from Krsna. Just like one man is dreaming and he forgets himself.
In dream he creates himself in different forms: now I am the King discussing like that. 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.
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.
There is a dormant attitude for forgetting Krsna and creating
an atmosphere for enjoying independently. Just like at the edge of the beach, sometimes the water covers, sometimes there is dry sand, coming and going.
Our position is like that, sometimes covered, sometimes free, just like at the edge of the tide. As soon as we forget, immediately the illusion is there. Just like as soon as we sleep, dream is there.
We cannot say therefore that we are not with Krsna. As soon as we try to become Lord, immediately we are covered by Maya.
Formerly we were with Krsna in His lila, or sport. But this covering of Maya may be of very, very, very, very long duration, therefore many creations are coming and going.
Due to this long period of time it is sometimes said we are ever-conditioned. But his long duration of time becomes very insignificant when one comes to Krsna consciousness. Just like in a dream we are thinking very long time, but as soon as we awaken we look at our watch and see it has been a moment only.
Just like with Krsna’s friends, they were kept asleep for one year by Brahma, but when they woke up and Krsna returned before them, they considered that only a moment had passed" End of quote.
The idea that we were always conditioned is directly rejected.
Some on "both sides of this argument" will only retain "their side" of what Srila Prabhupada has said yet forget all his other statements he says in Books, letters, morning walks, lectures
Sadly this is what's been is going on.
Drutakarma Dasa has a deeper understanding and his Paper "The origin of the Soul" is the standard for Iskcon
Drutakarma Dasa - "The conditioned souls now in this material world were originally engaged in a direct and developed relationship of devotional service to Krsna in a spiritual planet in the spiritual world. They fell from that position by misuse of free will, and by properly using free will they can regain their original position.
At times, Srila Prabhupada said the question of the origin of the jiva is not as important as trying to go back to Godhead. Nevertheless, he always answered the question.
However, it is not the origin of the jiva itself that is so important
here but the larger issues of how Srila Prabhupada’s teachings are to be understood and applied and how the teachings of the previous acaryas (and current acaryas outside ISKCON) are to be approached.
These larger issues have an importance that goes far beyond the jiva question.
They also have relevance to many other important
philosophical and practical questions facing ISKCON, such as the establishment of varnasrama, the practice of raganuga-sadhana, etc.
If we accept the views of some advocates, or allow them to spread unchecked, this will set a precedent in ISKCON for interpreting thousands of Srila Prabhupada’s statements in a way that was not directly done by Srila Prabhupada himself.
HOW SHOULD WE ARRIVE AT AN ANSWER?
Any philosophically inclined devotee with good writing ability, logical skills, and a broad acquaintance with the books, letters, and conversations of Srila Prabhupada, as well as the works of the previous acaryas, can put together a convincing (to some) case for any of the 5 answers to the origin of the jiva question.
Practically speaking, we have seen this to be true. And it is this situation that has caused some confusion among devotees.
The statements of Srila Prabhupada, the Vedic scriptures, and the previous acaryas seem to provide ample materials for the advocates of all the above mentioned views.
tarkos ’pratisthah srutayo vibhinna
nasav rsir yasya matir na bhinnam
dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam
mahajano yena gatah sa panthah
“Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great sage.
Simply by studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which religious principles are understood.
The solid truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated self-realized person.
Consequently, as the sastras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahajanas advocate.”
Given that argument and reason can lead to different conclusions, that the sastras and sayings of the previous acaryas contain many apparent contradictions, the safest thing is to follow the statements of “an unadulterated self-realized person.”
I would suggest that for members of ISKCON Srila Prabhupada.
The previous acaryas may also have a role to play, but Srila Prabhupada said in a Srimad-Bhagavatam lecture given in Los Angeles on December 8, 1973:
Srila Prabhupada - "You cannot imagine what my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me. This is called parampara system. You cannot jump over to the superior guru, neglecting the next acarya, immediate next acarya. (Los Angeles on December 8, 1973)
This would mean that in answering any difficult question, where there are apparent contradictions that cannot be easily resolved, our primary resource should be the words of Srila Prabhupada—our “immediate next acarya.”
We should not immediately go to the previous acaryas and various Vedic texts to resolve the contradictions. Sastra undoubtedly has an important role, but our approach to it should be through Srila Prabhupada.
If we were capable of independently absorbing sastra, why did Srila Prabhupada write purports to all of his translations? So the first resource should be Srila Prabhupada’s words.
But what if Srila Prabhupada’s words appear to be contradictory?
We have seen in practice that different devotees with good writing abilities, some familiarity with logic, and broad acquaintance with Srila Prabhupada’s teachings can competently produce statements in support of contradictory conclusions, even if they use only Srila Prabhupada’s teachings.
Everyone claims to have Prabhupada on their side of the question.
So what can be done?
I propose that we have to look carefully at the kind of statements from Srila Prabhupada being presented by different advocates.
If we can see that some statements made by Srila Prabhupada have greater weight than others, then perhaps it will be possible to say that one advocate has presented a more conclusive statement of Srila Prabhupada’s views on a controversial topic than another''.
End of Drutakarma Dasa quote
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.