 | by Gopīparāṇadhana dāsa Adhikārī
|
| This article was written before the book Leaves appeared. It was written as a comment on the first draft of the first chapter of that book. Therefore it is not a complete, nor an exhaustive analysis of the book. But it has many useful points that should be considered, and therefore we include it in this presentation.
|
| The intention of these comments is limited—to critically examine part of the Leaves authors’ new manuscript on the issue of the jīva’s fall. Although the Leaves authors state their thesis in terms of there being no fall from Vaikuṇṭha, we are going to not take any stand here on the issues of from where and when the jīva fell; our counter-thesis is simply that the conditioned jīva has suffered a real fall from his original Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We will deal only with the Leaves authors’ first chapter,”The Origin of the Jīva According to Bhaktivinoda.” Everything we quote from the Leaves is set in small type. We have referred to the current Bengali editions of Jīva-dharma and Śrī Caitanya Śikṣāmṛtam published by Caitanya Maṭha, providing our own translations for passages that the Leaves authors do not present.
|
| The Leaves authors state: "When we study the writings of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura we find that whereas other ācāryas previously explained anādi in philosophical terms he explained it in a novel way. Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s explanation is more for the common man. His explanation is misunderstood by some as support of the theory that the jīva falls from the Lord’s nitya-līlā in Vaikuṇṭha, but close scrutiny of his writings show[s] that he does not explicitly state this anywhere."
(Leaves, pp. 4–5)
|
| In the same texts of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura which the Leaves authors quote, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda gives his own reason for not trying to identify the where and when of the jīva’s fall; we will look at this at the end of these comments. First, however, let us consider the more general question of whether the conditioned jīva has fallen down at all. The Leaves authors cite two passages from works of Bhaktivinoda’s which explain the term anādi (“beginningless”). The first is from Jīva-dharma, Chapter One:
|
| Service to Lord Kṛṣṇa is the eternal duty, nitya-dharma, of the jīva. Forgetting that, the jīva becomes possessed by māyā. From then on the soul turns his face away from Kṛṣṇa. Because this non-devotion to Kṛṣṇa is manifest only at the time he enters the material world, there is no history of the jīva’s fall within the time of the material world. For this reason the words anādi bahirmukha (the living entity’s nondevotion to Kṛṣṇa is beginningless) are used. From the time of nondevotion to Kṛṣṇa and entry into māyā the eternal duty of the jīva becomes perverted.
(Leaves, p. 5)
|
| This passage begins with what is obviously a paraphrase of Lord Caitanya’s instructions in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya 20.108, 117) which Premadāsa Bābājī Mahāśaya, the speaker of this passage of Jīva-dharma, cited just two pages before:
|
| jīvera 'svarūpa' haya-kṛṣṇera 'nitya-dāsa'
Kṛṣṇera 'taṭasthā-śakti', bhedābheda-prakāśa
kṛṣṇa bhuli' sei jīva anādi-bahirmukha
ataeva māyā tāre deya saṁsāra-duḥkha
|
| “It is the living entity’s constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa because he is the marginal energy of Kṛṣṇa and a manifestation simultaneously one and different from the Lord. 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.”
(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s translation)
|
| Both these original verses (not referred to by the Leaves authors) and their paraphrase in Jīva-dharma seem to describe the falldown of a living entity who knew Kṛṣṇa and was serving Him but then intentionally forgot Him and came under the control of māyā. However, after citing a second, similar passage from Śrī Caitanya Śikṣāmṛtam, the Leaves authors comment:
|
| “'This is pretty conclusive for the fall down theory,' fall-vādīs say, thinking that prior to having karma the jīva was somewhere else and that somewhere else was Vaikuṇṭha, but this is only because of a deep bias and a lack of proper deliberation."
(Leaves, p. 5)
|
| In at least this first chapter, the Leaves authors offer no explanation of how “forgetting Kṛṣṇa, the jīva is anādi-bahirmukha” does not describe an event of falling down. In personal discussions with us, however, Satya Nārāyaṇa Prabhu has supported his view that there is no falldown by interpreting kṛṣṇa bhuli’ in this statement by Lord Caitanya to mean that the jīva has always been forgetting Kṛṣṇa, rather than that there was some event of his changing from knowing Kṛṣṇa to forgetting Him. This is grammatically feasible, since the present participle “forgetting” can theoretically indicate either an event causing some change or else an unchanging state.
|
| But apart from grammatical possibilities, we have to firmly disagree with this view, simply because Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura does in fact believe the conditioned jīva has suffered a real falldown from Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He states this in no uncertain terms in a number of places in his writings. For example, in the Second Chapter of Jīva-dharma, just a few pages after the passage cited above:
|
| “The jīva has two states of being: the pure and bound states. In his pure state, the jīva is exclusively spiritual. At that time he has no connection with inert matter. Even in this pure state the jīva is an infinitesimal entity. The jīva possessing this quality of being infinitesimal can possibly change into the other state. The infinite Self of all living force, Kṛṣṇa, never undergoes any change of state in His manifest nature. He is in substantial essence infinite, complete, pure and eternal. The jīva is in substantial essence infinitesimal, fragmental, capable of being impure and newly manifest. But in his functional, manifest nature the jīva is also infinite, pure and eternal. As long as the jīva is pure, for that long his nature manifests as perfectly pure. But when by contact with māyā the jīva becomes impure, then a distortion of his proper functional nature occurs and he becomes impure, devoid of shelter and pummeled by happiness and distress. As soon as the jīva has forgotten his servitude to Kṛṣṇa, the paths of saṁsāra confront him.”
|
| This passage first states that the jīva can be pure or impure, and that in his pure state he is capable of changing to another state (his other, impure state) because he is very small. What is this but a falldown? Later in the paragraph this falldown is described more explicitly as a sequence of events in some sort of time: “As long as (yata kṣaṇa) but when (yakhana)” he undergoes a change of state. What brings about that change? He “has forgotten his servitude to Kṛṣṇa.” And what is the resultant changed state? He is trapped in material existence. This is not a description of beginningless material life but of a specific event (ha-ibāra-mātra-i, “as soon as”) of falling from Kṛṣṇa consciousness into māyā. (Drutakarmā dāsa has also commented on this passage in Chapter Three of Once We Were With Kṛṣṇa, discussing some different points.)
|
| Again, earlier in the very same paragraph from Śrī Caitanya Śikṣāmṛtam (1.4) which the Leaves authors have cited (without including these sentences):
|
| “All the jīvas, [the Lord’s] separated parts, are prone to enjoying the fruits of karma. For as long as they are interested in serving Kṛṣṇa by their own free choice, they continue to be free from the control of either māyā or karma. But at the very moment when by their free will they deviate by wanting enjoyment for themselves or by forgetting their eternal function of serving Kṛṣṇa, they immediately become bewildered by māyā and subordinate to the control of karma.”
|
| The same sequence of change is described here:”For as long as (yata-dina) but at the very moment (kintu ye kṣaṇe).” In addition we are told the specific reason for this falldown—the jīvas’ free exercise of their own choice. By “their own free choice” (svatantra icchā-krame) they can stay absorbed in Kṛṣṇa’s service as long as they want, and also “by their free will” (svatantra icchāra) they can at any time choose to forget their eternal purpose and fall down into the world of karma.
|
| We propose that this idea of jīva’s fall by misuse of his free will is Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s essential teaching on the subject. The Leaves authors, however, present a contrary theory and claim it is Śrīla Bhaktivinoda’s own:
|
| "The essence is that there are three types of jīvas. Those that originate in Vraja manifest from Lord Baladeva. Those in the Vaikuṇṭha planets manifest from Saṅkarṣaṇa. Those in the material world manifest from Mahā-Viṣṇu. The first two types of jīvas are nitya-mukta and the third type are nitya-baddha." Leaves, p. 7)
|
| This they support by a quotation from Jīva-dharma (Chapter Fifteen) which indeed describes the appearance of jīvas with different manifest natures from different forms of the Supreme Lord:
|
| "All the jīvas have appeared from the jīva-śakti of Lord Kṛṣṇa... Presiding over His jīva-śakti, He manifests His vilāsa form of Baladeva in Vraja. Becoming situated in His māyā-śakti, He manifests the three Viṣṇu forms—Kāraṇodakaśāyī, Kṣīrodakaśāyī, and Garbhodakaśāyī. From His Baladeva form as Śeṣa tattva He manifests the nitya-mukta jīvas, who are associates that render service in eight ways to Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Śeṣī tattva. Again becoming Saṅkarṣaṇa as Śeṣa rūpa, He manifests eight types of eternal associates to render service in eight ways to Śeṣī, Nārāyaṇa. Mahā-Viṣṇu, an incarnation of Saṅkarṣaṇa, becoming situated in the jīva-śakti as Supersoul manifests the living entities of the material world. All these jīvas (coming from Mahā-Viṣṇu) are disposed to māyā."
(Leaves, pp. 6–7)
|
| If this manifestation of the conditioned jīvas from one of Lord Baladeva’s expansions is the ultimate cause of their fallen state, then there is no event of falling down; the conditioned souls were always like that. And their being conditioned is due to the Supreme Lord’s choice, not their own.
|
| The Leaves authors continue, "If there is any doubt about this explanation, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura further writes (Jīva-dharma, Chapter Sixteen): There are unlimited jīvas who are eternal associates of the Lord. In Goloka Vṛndāvana they are manifested by Lord Baladeva for the service of Lord Kṛṣṇa. In Vaikuṇṭha they are manifested by Śrī Saṅkarṣaṇa for the service of Lord Nārāyaṇa, the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha. The atomic conscious jīvas, which come out like rays from Mahā-Viṣṇu’s glance at māyā, are also uncountable. Being in proximity to māyā these jīvas see the variegatedness of māyā. They have all the characteristics of the [ordinary] jīvas as described before, yet because of their atomic nature they sometimes glance [marginally] towards the spiritual creation and sometimes towards the material creation. In this marginal state the jīva is weak, because he has not yet attained spiritual power by the mercy of the worshipable Lord. Out of these unlimited jīvas, the ones who desire to enjoy māyā remain eternally bound by māyā, because of being attached to sense enjoyment. Those who engage in devotional service to the Lord go to the spiritual world getting the strength of cit-śakti by the mercy of the Lord."
(Leaves, pp. 7–8)
|
| Here we have to point out a few distortions in the translation of this last paragraph. The translation says,”In this marginal state the jīva is weak,” implying that only Mahā-Viṣṇu’s jīvas are marginal, presumably in the sense of “fallible” (which is the only sense normally given to this word in reference to the jīvas by Śrīla Prabhupāda and his predecessors). What Śrīla Prabhupāda’s followers naively think is that all jīvas are always marginal. But isn’t that also Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s view, and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī’s as well? Looking at the original Bengali of this paragraph, we find the phrase sarvadā taṭastha-bhāve (“always in the marginal condition”) not at the beginning of the sentence, in which this translation places it, but in the middle of the previous sentence: tathāpi atyanta aṇusvabhāva-prayukta sarvadā taṭastha-bhāve eijagatera dike evaṁ māyājagatera dike dṛṣṭipāta karite ṭhākena. “Nonetheless, in their perpetual marginal condition, brought about by their infinitesimal nature, they are turning their glance both toward this [spiritual] world and toward the world of māyā.”
|
| Granted that this is in specific reference only to those jīvas emanating from Mahā-Viṣṇu, still the original text qualifies them as marginal in a more general way than the Leaves authors’ translation indicate. Not only the “weak” jīvas are marginal; marginality is the perpetual condition of the jīvas, and why can’t we say of all jīvas, since nothing in this passage rules out the marginality of the liberated jīvas also? This marginal condition is specifically said here to be due to the jīvas’ being infinitesimal, and I don’t think anyone is ready to propose that some jīvas are not small.
|
| There are another pair of distortions in the two sentences: "In this marginal state the jīva is weak, because he has not yet attained spiritual power by the mercy of the worshipable Lord. Out of these unlimited jīvas, the ones who desire to enjoy māyā remain eternally bound by māyā, because of being attached to sense enjoyment."
(Leaves, p. 8)
|
| The way this is now worded, it sounds like bondage in māyā is the original condition of such a jīva:”he has not yet attained spiritual power... remain eternally bound.” But actually neither of these italicized qualifiers are in the original text. The original simply says cid-bala lābha karena nāi (“they don’t attain spiritual power”) and māyika-viṣaye abhiniviṣṭa haiyā māyāte nitya-baddha (“becoming absorbed in illusory sense gratification, they are eternally bound by māyā”). The first of these Bengali phrases uses the simple present tense, unmodified by any adverb of time. The second is a complete sentence, with a subordinate clause followed by the main clause; the subordinate clause has the verbal form haiyā, the undeclined participle (gerund) of the verb haoyā, which means both “be” and “become.” Since undeclined participles can be interpreted in either past or present time, we have four theoretically possible translations of haiyā: “having been,” “being,” “having become” and “becoming.” The Leaves authors read into the phrase the idea of beginningless bondage by taking the second possible meaning (“being”), and they convert the subordinate clause into “the ones who desire to enjoy māyā,” followed by the main predicate “remain eternally bound by māyā.” But “being” is only one interpretation of haiyā, with “becoming” just as likely. Which meaning is correct depends on the context and the real intent of the author. The word “remain” is just not there in the Bengali.
|
| Unless we want to accept that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura taught two mutually contradictory theories of the origin of conditioned life, that this conditioned state is God’s choice and not the jīva’s own, and that not all jīvas are marginal, we should find some other way to understand these two passages from Jīva-dharma. A clue to this is readily available in the sentence, "!The atomic conscious jīvas, which come out like rays from Mahā-Viṣṇu’s glance at māyā, are also uncountable.” (p. 8) As we all have learned from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s explanation of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Mahā-Viṣṇu’s glance at māyā is a repeated event in the Causal Ocean, and material time is also a component of this glance. The conditioned jīvas’ impregnation into māyā is not their ultimate origin outside the scope of material time; it is only what happens to them subsequent to their mistake of choosing independence. All jīvas are always marginal. They all share the same potential to fall or not. “The essence is that there are three types of jīvas” is something which Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and Śrīla Prabhupāda never taught.
|
| "Later on Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura writes that the reason why some jīvas become bound is the proper use or misuse of their natural independence. This does not include the nitya-mukta jīvas, who have no contact with māyā and thus have no scope to misuse their natural independence. From these statements it is explicit that no one falls from Vaikuṇṭha, because these jīvas originating from Mahā-Viṣṇu have never been in the nitya-līlā in the spiritual sky, because Mahā-Viṣṇu is situated in the Virajā river."
(Leaves, p. 8)
|
| An explanation of this is promised in the Leaves authors’ second chapter. But at least in the words of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura so far cited, there is nothing logically leading to the conclusion that the bound jīvas have never been in the spiritual sky. And as we will see below, the jīvas’ misuse of their independence being the cause of their bondage is contradicted by the premise that their condition is caused by the Supreme Lord’s sweet will only.
|
| "Moreover, he [Śrīla Bhaktivinoda] said that nitya-muktas have no contact with māyā, indeed they do not even know māyā. They cannot be attracted to something they are not even aware of. One has to know an object, properly or improperly, before desiring it or becoming attracted to it. This cuts to pieces the theory of the fall from the nitya-līlā."
(Leaves, p. 9)
|
| Not necessarily. The rebellious living entities are not attracted first to māyā but to independence. Kṛṣṇa bhuli’ jīva anādi-bahirmukha (“choosing to forget Kṛṣṇa, the jīva turns away from Him since time immemorial”). Ataeva māyā tāre deya saṁsāra-duḥkha (“therefore māyā subsequently introduces him to material suffering”). And should we take it literally that nitya-mukta jīvas are incapable of being aware of the material world, that they couldn’t become aware of māyā’s existence without immediately falling prey to her attraction? What then is the situation of nitya-mukta devotees who come to this world for the Supreme Lord’s service? One such Vaiṣṇava, Śrī Prahlāda Mahārāja, confessed to being very aware of māyā: śoce tato vimukha-cetasa indriyārtha-māyā-sukhāya bharam udvahato vimūḍhān. (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 7.9.43), “I am lamenting for the fools and rascals who are carrying false burdens of responsibility for the temporary happiness of māyā in sense gratification.”) Was he not nitya-mukta? And if nitya-mukta souls can come to this world and see māyā here without losing their status, why can’t nitya-mukta souls contemplate the material world while still in their original position? To avoid this improbability, we can instead interpret “they are not even aware of māyā” as indicating that liberated souls in the spiritual world generally do not pay any attention to the material world.
|
| "After this Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura answers the question: Why has Lord Kṛṣṇa made some jīvas weak so that they can come under the influence of māyā?"
(Leaves, p. 9)
|
| He [Bhaktivinoda] gives a long answer to this, so I only cite the conclusion here (in the authors’ words):
|
| "Kṛṣṇa is supremely independent and the Supreme enjoyer. He performs various types of līlās and this is one among them. If He did not have this līlā, He could not be said to enjoy endless varieties nor would He be complete. The jīva alone is to be blamed for his miseries because as the marginal potency the choice is always there between Kṛṣṇa and māyā. Kṛṣṇa should not be blamed for this arrangement."
(Leaves, p. 12)
|
| Mahā-Viṣṇu’s sending jīvas into the material world is one of the Personality of Godhead’s pastimes, but we have been taught by Śrīla Prabhupāda that the Lord engages in this pastime only those jīvas who have already themselves decided to be noncooperative. Otherwise, Kṛṣṇa in His Mahā-Viṣṇu expansion is not behaving very fairly, subjecting living entities to suffering as a sport and then making them take the blame. There are God-fearing people who seriously believe this, including Calvinists and Madhvites, but Lord Caitanya’s bona fide followers and most other Vaiṣṇavas consider God perfectly fair even though He is playful.
|
| Looking at the paragraph of Jīva-dharma, Chapter Sixteen, just before the one paraphrased above by the Leaves authors, we read, “The characteristics of Kṛṣṇa’s essential nature are reflected in the essential nature of the jīvas. The free will of the jīvas which reflects Kṛṣṇa’s independent will is innate in them. When they properly exercise this free will, they remain favorably disposed to Kṛṣṇa, but when they misuse it they become inimical to Him and want to enjoy māyā.” Lord Kṛṣṇa is not to be blamed because He didn’t impregnate any jīvas helplessly into māyā without their consent.
|
| The līlā alluded to here by the Leaves authors in their paraphrase is clarified in the original text:
|
| “Kṛṣṇa is fully merciful, but He is also playful. Desiring that there will be various kinds of pastimes with jīvas in various conditions, He makes the jīvas capable of rising from their original marginal condition up to countless varieties of the topmost success of life, up to the limits of mahā-bhāva and so on. To facilitate and fortify this capacity, He also produces the downward-leading creation of countless varieties of obstacles to the attainment of topmost bliss, all the way down to ahaṅkāra, which is nondifferent from the inert matter of māyā.
|
| “The Lord’s pastime of the jīvas’ emanation consists of His making all of them, not just some, marginal and giving them the freedom to choose to love Him or not.”
|
| Śrīla Bhaktivinoda further explains in the next paragraph of Jīva-dharma, Chapter Sixteen: “We should consider the jīva’s receiving free will a great favor for him. After all, material things devoid of free will are very worthless and insignificant. But by having received free will, the jīva gains mastership over the world of matter. ‘Distress’ and ‘pleasure’ are products of the mind’s activity. What we call distress, a person who is attached to it calls pleasure. The resultant, ultimate fruit of all material sense pleasure is distress and nothing else. A person who is attached to sense pleasure eventually becomes distressed, and when that distress becomes very acute one begins to desire unalloyed happiness. This desire leads to discrimination, discrimination leads to desire for knowledge, and when one has become desirous of knowledge he gets the association of saintly persons and develops faith; in this way one is raised to the path of elevation. Therefore distress ultimately creates auspiciousness. Just as contaminated gold is purified by melting and pounding it, so when the jīva has become contaminated by illusory enjoyment and enmity toward Kṛṣṇa, he is purified by putting him on the work table of māyā’s world and subjecting him to pain. Thus in the eyes of those who are far-sighted the inimical jīvas’ distress is the source of their good fortune; only to narrow vision does it seem nothing but distress.”
|
| The Leaves authors next say: "This [Lord Kṛṣṇa’s emanating nitya-baddha jīvas as His līlā] is also in agreement with Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī and Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura. Śrīla Prabhupāda confirms the same thing in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Ādi-līlā 7.116).>
(Leaves, p. 12)
|
| īśvarera tattva
yena jvalita jvalana
jīvera svarūpa
yaiche sphuliṅgera kaṇa
|
| "The Lord is like a great fire, and the living entities are like small sparks of that fire."
(Cc. Adi 7.116)
|
| From Śrīla Prabhupāda’s purport: “Although sparks and a big fire are both fire and both have the power to burn, the burning power of the fire and that of the spark are not the same... Someone may argue, ‘Why is there a need to create the spiritual sparks?’ The answer can be given in this way. Since the Absolute Personality of Godhead is omnipotent, He has both unlimited and limited potencies. This is the meaning of omnipotent. To be omnipotent, He must have not only unlimited potencies but limited potencies also. Thus to exhibit His omnipotency He displays both. The living entities are endowed with limited potency although they are part of the Lord. The Lord displays the spiritual world by His unlimited potencies, whereas by His limited potencies the material world is displayed. In Bhagavad-gītā the Lord says:
|
| apareyam itas tv anyāṁ
prakṛtiṁ viddhi me parām
jīva-bhūtāṁ mahā-bāho
yayedaṁ dhāryate jagat
|
| “‘Besides the inferior nature, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is a superior energy of Mine, which is all living entities who are struggling with material nature and are sustaining the universe.’ (Bg. 7.5) The jīva-bhūta, living entities, control this material world with their limited potencies.”
|
| We should note that Śrīla Prabhupāda in this purport applies the term “limited potency” to the jīvas, not to the material energy. ”The living entities are endowed with limited potency.” ”By His limited potencies the material world is displayed” means that “The jīva-bhūta, living entities, control this material world with their limited potencies.” But the Leaves authors comment on this purport otherwise, identifying the Lord’s limited potency described here with the material energy:
|
| The Supreme Lord, who is līlā-māyā, the performer of a variety of līlās, displays both His limited potency (bahiraṅga-śakti), unlimited potency (antaraṅga-śakti), and marginal potency (jīva-śakti) as a basic feature of His nature. If He did not do so He could not be called omnipotent or complete or līlā-māyā. Thus according to His sweet will He engages some jīvas in His limited potency. After all, they are energies of the Lord and meant for His pleasure,”cid-vilāsa.” Therefore, some get to participate in His līlā with His limited potency and some get to be in His līlā with His unlimited potency. All is done according to His own sweet will. Thus no stain or blame is to be attributed to the Lord for this state of events."
(Leaves, pp. 12–13)
|
| No, the Lord endows the living entities with limited potency in the sense that they are very small and situated always in a marginal position. Their becoming engaged with His material potency, however, is by their choice, not His.
|
| Also in this purport of Śrīla Prabhupāda quoted by the Leaves authors we read: “If there were no one to control, there would be no meaning to the conception of the supreme controller (īśvara), just as there is no meaning to a king without his subjects. If all the subjects became king, there would be no distinction between the king and the ordinary citizen. Thus for the Lord to be the supreme controller, there must be a creation to control. The basic principle for the existence of the living entities is called cid-vilāsa, or spiritual pleasure. The omnipotent Lord displays His pleasure potency as the living entities.”
(from the purport to Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Adi 7.116, quoted on p. 12)
|
| The “creation to control” referred to here is not just the material world; it includes the spiritual realm as well. The Lord’s cid-vilāsa of controlling His subjects also involves the nitya-siddha jīvas. The Leaves authors shouldn’t have interpreted this overspecifically as describing the special situation of the nitya-baddhas.
|
| "Readers should also take note that in both Śrīla Bhaktivinoda’s and Śrīla Prabhupāda’s definite explanations of the nature of the Lord and the bondage of the jīva, both are in agreement; and in both cases there is no mention of souls falling from Vaikuṇṭha. If anyone doubts that this is the definite description of the siddhānta, readers should take note of the concluding sentence in the passage from Śrīla Prabhupāda, 'This is the perfect philosophical understanding of the Absolute Truth' [from his purport to Ādi 7.116]. Earlier in the same purport before the part that is quoted he wrote, 'This is pure philosophical understanding.' Such conclusive statements leave no room for doubt that in this Purport Śrīla Prabhupāda laid bare the siddhānta. And if someone says that it does not deal with the jīva issue we hasten to point out that he does raise the question, 'Why is there a need to create the spiritual sparks?' and answers it."
(Leaves, pp.13–14)
|
| Śrīla Prabhupāda’s purport to Caitanya-caritāmṛta, ṇdi-līlā, 7.116 is certainly definitive, but it is not describing conditioned souls as distinguished from liberated ones. The jīva-whence question is indeed answered by this purport, but not the jīvas-whence-fallen question.
|
| "In Jīva-dharma, Chapter Sixteen, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura defines the meaning of anādi-karma:”The root of all karma is the desire to act and that has its root in avidyā. To forget that ‘I am the servant of Kṛṣṇa’ is avidyā. This avidyā is not born in material time. It arises at the taṭastha region. Therefore karma has no beginning in material time. For this reason karma is called anādi. Some people take this definition of anādi as an indication of the fall down of the jīva, thinking that if karma did not begin in material time it must begin in spiritual time, but this is impossible. It surely cannot have a beginning in spiritual time because, according to Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, every event in the spiritual world is eternal (Chapter Fifteen), cij-jagatera kāla akhaṇḍarūpe nitya-vartamāna... If karma had a beginning in the spiritual world it would never come to an end, but all Vedic philosophers agree that karma comes to an end at the point of liberation. Therefore Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura said that avidyā, the root of karma, arose at the taṭastha region, not in Vaikuṇṭha. We leave it to the sagacious reader to figure out the whereabouts of the taṭastha region. In any case it is not Vaikuṇṭha."
(Leaves, p. 15)
|
| Śrīla Prabhupāda’s purport to Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 7.116 is certainly definitive, but it is not describing conditioned souls as distinguished from liberated ones. The jīva-whence question is indeed answered by this purport, but not the jīvas-whence-fallen question.
|
| In any case, the sentence īThis avidyā is not born in material time” is directly followed by īit arises at the taṭastha region.” It arises, comes into being, has a beginning. It is called anādi simply because it “has no beginning in material time.” The taṭastha region is not a material place, nor a location in the spiritual realm. It is the jīva himself. Ignorance arises in the jīva, and then he appears along with his karma in the material world. This is what the words themselves say here, accepted simply.
|
| Delving deeper into what these words really mean «logically» is ill-advised, as Śrīla Bhaktivinoda himself warns (Jīva-dharma, Chapter Fifteen):
|
| “Whatever descriptions we make must be made within the jurisdiction of material time and space. Especially when we make such statements as ‘the jīva was created,’ ‘the jīva then became bound by māyā,’ ‘the spiritual world became manifested’ and ‘the jīva’s constitution is spiritual and is not a product of māyā,’ our words are necessarily ruled by material time. We cannot but thus express ourselves in our conditioned state. ‘An eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, the jīva forgets his true identity and becomes bound up by māyā’—all Vaiṣṇavas say this. But they all also know that the jīva is an eternal entity and is of two varieties—nitya-baddha and nitya-mukta. Human intelligence speaks in this way on this subject because it is subject to delusion. Those who are wise, however, perceive the transcendental reality by deep spiritual meditation. Our words are just material, and whatever we say will be tainted by the faults of language. Logic has no place to stand in discussions such as this; indeed, it is worthless to try to harness logic to anything which is acintya.”
|
English
Español
Pусский
Português