 | Now we leave the examination of comparative contexts and usages of the term anādi and go on to another fundamental question: Does śāstra say the conditioned living entities were once with Kṛṣṇa and then fell down, or does śāstra say they were never with Kṛṣṇa? Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Fourth Canto, Chapter Twenty-eight, gives evidence that the living being was originally with Lord Kṛṣṇa and then rejected the Lord’s association. The authors attempt to refute this, and so we will carefully analyze the verses in question.
|
| At the end of the Purañjana story, Lord Kṛṣṇa, in the form of a brāhmaṇa, comes to Queen Vaidarbhī (Purañjana in her last life) as she laments for her deceased husband. The Lord then speaks to her:
|
| "The brāhmaṇa said: Who are you? Under whose care are you? Who is this man lying here for whom you lament? Do you know Me, your friend with whom you consulted in the past?"(132)
|
| The authors say:
|
| "It is possible to interpret the Bhāgavatam verses as evidence for fall from Vaikuṇṭha, although they do not state so directly. (Leaves, p. 148)
No commentary of the previous ācāryas supports such an interpretation... Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura states... that the above verses refer to the jīvas residing within Mahā-Viṣṇu during the time of the total annihilation, when the entire cosmic manifestation along with the living entities are held within the Lord. (Ibid. pp. 148–149)"
|
| In support of this statement they offer part of Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura’s Sanskrit commentary to verse 4.28.52.(133) Then they translate the Ācārya’s commentary as follows:
|
| The brāhmaṇa said,”Do you know Me?” The queen said, “You are a brāhmaṇa, but how are You related to me?” He says, sakhāyam, “I am your friend.” The queen asked, “How do You have friendship with me?” The brāhmaṇa replies, yenāgre vicacartha ha, “You associated with Me before the creation.” The meaning is that “being merged in Me, you experienced happiness by My association.” (Leaves, p. 149)
|
| It is significant that Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura here gives militvā as a synonym for vicacartha, the past perfect tense of the verb vi-car. The verb vi-car, with the instrumental (here yena), means “to associate or have intercourse with.” Furthermore, Monier-Williams states that this sense of the word is characteristic of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. Thus Śrīla Prabhupāda’s translation,”you consulted,” is excellent. Also,”to associate or have intercourse with” is indeed also the meaning of the verb mil, from which comes militvā,”having met or associated with,” the word used here. Thus it is clear that Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura is using his suggested synonym militvā precisely in that sense.
|
| The authors, however, have translated the Ācarya’s words mayi eva militvā as “being merged in Me.” Unfortunately they have not correctly translated the Sanskrit word militvā, which does not mean here “merging.” The authors claim that this “merging,” indicated by the word militvā, shows that the soul was originally within Mahā-Viṣṇu, and thus when Lord Kṛṣṇa later says to Queen Vaidarbhī,”You rejected Me,” this simply refers to the soul’s exit from the body of Mahā-Viṣṇu.
|
| As stated above, militvā is a form of the verb mil. In the Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary (p. 817), these meanings are given for the verb mil: to meet (as friends or foes), encounter, join, fall in with (instr., dat., gen. or loc.), come together, assemble, concur. In the causative case, it can mean: to cause anyone to meet anyone else, bring together, assemble.
|
| Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta features one use of the verb mil in a Sanskrit verse that is quoted three times, from Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Padyāvalī(134):
|
| "My dear friend, now I have met My very old and dear friend Kṛṣṇa on this field of Kurukṣetra."(137)
|
| Here the word militas means “met,” in the sense of to meet with someone and talk with them. This exact same sense of the word is found in the Gīta-govinda of Śrīla Jayadeva Gosvāmī:
|
| "On Your white body, You wear garments the color of rain clouds and the color of the Yamunā, who came to meet You, fearing the striking of Your plow. O Keśava, You have assumed the form of Haladhara, bearing the plow."(136)
|
| In his lectures, Śrīla Prabhupāda refers ten times to a Sanskrit verse that defines the word saṅkīrtanam:
|
| "Meeting with many [others], they sing [glorify], thus [it is called] saṅkīrtanam."(137)
|
| Again, here the word militvā, the same form of the word used by Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, means “meeting” (with other people). Thus the Sanskrit verb mil is never used anywhere in our books to mean merging. Rather, other words are used to indicate the act of merging. Here are some examples:
|
| In the First Canto, Nārada Muni explains how he and Lord Brahmā entered into the body of Lord Nārāyaṇa (the Sanskrit word used here, viviśe, means “he entered”). Later in the First Canto, Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira is said to “amalgamate” all of his sense organs into the mind, the mind into life, etc. He is then said to merge the aggregate into one nescience (merging) and to absorb that nescience into the self, etc. The verbs used here for these processes—amalgamation, merging, absorbing, etc.—are all different forms of the verb hu, which simply means “to offer in sacrifice.”
|
| In the Second Canto, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s translation speaks of “the merging of the living entity, along with his conditional living tendency, with the mystic lying down of the Mahā-Viṣṇu...” There is no verb given here for “merging,” rather, we have the word anuśayanam, which means “to lie down along with (Mahā-Viṣṇu).”
|
| The Third Canto tells us that at the end of Brahmā’s day,”a powerful manifestation of the universe merges in the darkness of night.” The Sanskrit word used here is pratisaṁruddha-vikramaṇ, which simply means that all of the dynamic energy of the world is completely checked.
|
| The Third Canto also speaks of the yogīs who enter “into the body of Lord Brahmā.” The verbal form used here is anupraviṣṭāḥ, which simply means “they entered step by step.”
|
| The Fourth Canto declares that “everything emanates from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and in due course of time everything enters into Him again.” For the third time, we have a form of the verb viś,”to enter,” in this case praviśanti, which means “they enter.”
|
| In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.24.22-27, there is a long account of the merging of all the elements. The verbs used in this connection are based on the verbal root lī, such as pra-lī and sam-pra-lī. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 12.4.15-19 contains a similar account of the merging of all the elements, using the verbs lī and gras.
|
| The Twelfth Canto speaks of the total annihilation, in which the Lord’s energies “merge together totally.” The word used here is sampralīyante, which means “they merge totally.”
|
| The Brahmā-saṁhitā 5.51 states,
|
| "I adore the primeval Lord Govinda from whom [the material elements] originate, in whom they exist and into whom they enter at the time of universal cataclysm."
|
| Again, the word signifying “they enter” is simply viśanti, which means “they enter.”
|
| Finally, in A Dictionary, English and Sanskrit, Sir Monier-Williams lists the following Sanskrit verbs for the English word “merge”: majj; avagāḥ; gras; vi-lī; naś; nipīta. He does not give mil as a synonym for “merge”, though he does list it as an equivalent for the English verb “to meet.”
|
| So Viśvanātha Cakravartī’s use of the word militvā does not mean that Vaidarbhī merged into Mahā-Viṣṇu. Viśvanātha does not even mention Mahā-Viṣṇu, and the word militvā simply means “to meet” or “to be together with.” So on the basis of Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura’s use of militvā in his commentary to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.28.52, one may only say that the brāhmaṇa (Supersoul) and Vaidarbhī (individual soul) had met together before the creation.
|
| Of course, Viśvanātha Cakravartī offers the additional information that “you experienced happiness by My association.” Applying the correct translation for militvā, the whole phrase (mayy eva militvā mat-saṅgena sukham anubhūtavān tvam evāsīr) would read,”meeting with Me, you certainly experienced happiness by My association.” This is Viśvanātha Cakravartī’s explanation of the meaning of the word vicacartha.
|
| Neither Śrīdhara Svāmī nor Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura nor Śrīla Prabhupāda mention Mahā-Viṣṇu as the place of meeting.
|
| We shall now consider the next Bhāgavatam verse in this narrative.
|
| Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.28.53
|
| "O friend, do you remember the unknown friend, the Soul? Leaving Me, searching for a position, he went away, absorbed in worldly enjoyment."(138)
|
| Śrīla Prabhupāda comments on this verse,
|
| "This is an explanation of how the living entity falls down into this material world. In the spiritual world there is no duality, nor is there hate... When the living entities desire to enjoy themselves, they develop a consciousness of duality and come to hate the service of the Lord. In this way the living entities fall into the material world. In the Prema-vivarta it is said(139):"
|
| "The natural position of the living entity is to serve the Lord in a transcendental loving attitude. When the living entity wants to become Kṛṣṇa Himself or imitate Kṛṣṇa, he falls down into the material world. Since Kṛṣṇa is the supreme father, His affection for the living entity is eternal. When the living entity falls down into the material world, the Supreme Lord, through His svāṁśa expansion (Paramātmā), keeps company with the living entity. In this way the living entity may some day return home, back to Godhead.
|
| "By misusing independence, the living entity falls down from the service of the Lord and takes a position in the material world as an enjoyer. That is to say, the living entity takes his position within a material body."
(Bhāg. 4.28.53, significado)
|
| Clearly Śrīla Prabhupāda has given a direct, literal purport to the Lord’s statement. The Lord asks the individual soul if the soul remembers the Lord as a friend, and the Lord addresses the soul as “My friend.” The literal meaning of these words is that the soul enjoyed friendship with the Lord, forgot that friendship, and now the Lord is reminding the soul of that previous friendship. Thus Śrīla Prabhupāda has faithfully repeated the words of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. That is his duty and his right, for he is the ācārya. None of the previous ācāryas, in their commentaries, rule out the direct meaning of these words. None of them say that the soul was never with Kṛṣṇa, that the soul never enjoyed personal friendship with the Lord. Therefore, Śrīla Prabhupāda does not contradict any previous ācārya, and he faithfully repeats the direct meaning of the words of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
|
| Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.28.54
|
| "My dear gentle friend, both you and I are exactly like two swans. We live together in the same heart, which is just like the Mānasa Lake. Although we have been living together for many thousands of years, we are still far away from our original home."(140)
|
| Śrīla Prabhupāda comments on this verse,
|
| "The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the spiritual world. In the spiritual world both the Lord and the living entities live together very peacefully. Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when the living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world. Even while in that position, the Lord remains with him as the Supersoul, his intimate friend. Because of his forgetfulness, the living entity does not know that the Supreme Lord is accompanying him as the Supersoul. In this way the living entity remains conditioned in each and every millennium.”
|
| The authors state that according to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī the word okaḥ here means the material body, and therefore the Lord is saying:
|
| "During the time of dissolution, the jīva lives within the Lord because everything is dissolved. The words antarā vaukaḥ mean without a house. In other words at that time they had no house (the material body) made of upādhis. (Leaves, p. 150)"
|
| Since the authors do not give the Sanskrit for what they claim to be Jīva Gosvāmī’s statement, we cannot analyze it. We may say, however, that both Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī and Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura have taken the word okaḥ literally to mean “home.” Indeed, they both give as a synonym for this word the well-known Sanskrit word gṛham,”home.” Śrīla Prabhupāda has also taken the literal sense of this word. Thus Śrīla Prabhupāda has followed the previous ācāryas in taking the literal sense of this term, whereas the authors claim, without providing Sanskrit evidence, that Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has given a secondary interpretation to this word. Certainly the conditioned soul, during the dissolution, lives within the Lord, but the Bhāgavatam verse says that the two friends were both far from their home. Thus even if the individual soul was within the Lord, the Lord was still far from His home, and in fact that is the home being spoken of here. Therefore the home cannot be the region within the body of the Lord since, in that case, why would the Lord say that He was separated from His home?
|
| Lord Kṛṣṇa has used the word abhūtām, which is the third person dual form of the past tense called “root aorist.” The verbal root here is bhū,”to be” or “to become.” Thus, just as in the Bhagavad-gītā Lord Kṛṣṇa often speaks in the third person, saying such things as “take shelter of that Lord” or “the Supreme Person is another, and He is beyond the fallible and infallible,” similarly Lord Kṛṣṇa here says, literally,
|
| "The two swans, I and you, O noble one, are the two friends, living in the Mānasa Lake, who have become separated (abhūtām) indeed from [their] home for thousands of years."
|
| The direct meaning of this simple Sanskrit sentence is quite obvious: the Lord and the living being are both separated from their home in the Lord’s abode. Śrīla Prabhupāda translates the sentence this way, and Śrīla Śrīdhara Svamī and Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura confirm that the word okaḥ here indeed means “home.”
|
| It is also significant that after speaking straightforwardly in verses 52 through 55 of this chapter, the Lord switches, explicitly, to symbolic language in verse 56. Then in verses 57 and 58, the Lord explains the meaning of the symbolic language He has just uttered. It is significant that the word okaḥ is not included within the Lord’s symbolic statement, nor does the Lord explain the word okaḥ symbolically, as He explains many other terms to be symbolic language. There is no indication from the Lord Himself that He has spoken the word okaḥ symbolically. Thus the primary meaning, as given by Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī and Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, and by the great ācārya of the entire world, Śrīla Prabhupāda, is sublime.
|
| Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.28.55
|
| "My dear friend, you are now My very same friend. Since you left Me, you have become more and more materialistic, and not seeing Me, you have been traveling in different forms throughout this material world, which was created by some woman."(141)
|
| Śrīla Prabhupāda explains in his purport:
|
| "When the living entity falls down, he goes into the material world, which was created by the external energy of the Lord. The material energy is here described as ‘some woman.’ Actually, it is Kṛṣṇa who personally advises all living entities to return home, back to Godhead."
|
| It is very significant that the Lord here (in verse 4.28.55) states that “having left Me, you wandered (vicaran) in the material world.” In 4.28.52, the Lord stated: jānāsi kiṁ sakhāyaṁ māṁ yenāgre vicacartha ha, “Do you know your friend, Me, with whom in the past you wandered (vicacartha)?”
|
| The word vicacartha, at verse 52, and vicaran, here at verse 55, are indeed the exact same verb. If we assume that within a space of four verses, speaking of the exact same subject matter, the Lord is using the same verb in the same way, then just as the soul is now wandering about the world, engaged in activity, the soul once moved about with the Lord, engaged in personal activity.
|
| The authors provide us with the Sanskrit and English of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī’s commentary on this verse, in support of the idea that,
|
| "The jīva was with Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu during the time of annihilation and he left Him to enjoy the material world. This is what the ācāryas say." (Leaves, p. 150)
|
| Unfortunately Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī does not say this in the commentary provided for us, nor does Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī say this, nor does Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura say it, and Śrīla Prabhupāda throughout this narration consistently explains that the living being was originally with Kṛṣṇa.
|
| Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.28.64
|
| "Thus that swan of the Mānasa Lake was awakened by the [other] Swan, and, self-situated, achieved again the memory that was lost by separation from the Lord." (142)
|
| The authors provide for us the Sanskrit of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī’s commentary on this verse, and their own proposed translation. Then they state, on the top of page 153:
|
| "Here Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has clearly explained that the meaning of the words punar (again) and smṛti (memory) should not be misunderstood to mean that there was some previous existence of memory and then it was lost. It only means that the forgetfulness is without a beginning, anādi. Not that one had memory and then lost it... Therefore, to postulate further that conditioning has a beginning goes against the śāstra, because the precise word used by the śāstra and the ācāryas to describe conditional life is anādi. If we begin to question the precision of their use of anādi, then we can question the precise usage in any and all of their statements [emphasis ours]."
|
| Regarding this last warning, we may note that the entire purpose of the authors’ book is to question Prabhupāda’s precise statements that we originally were with Kṛṣṇa. And by their logic, if we question this, then we may question all of Prabhupāda’s statements.
|
| Beyond that, the authors have mistranslated a key statement of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī’s commentary. They have translated the words kintu anādy-āvṛtasya api sakhyasya svābhāvikatvād anāditvam as follows:
|
| "But that forgetfulness is certainly beginningless although the friendship, which is also covered without beginning, is natural." (Leaves, p. 152)
|
| The word forgetfulness (tad-vismṛteḥ) does not occur in this sentence from Jīva Gosvāmī’s commentary. It occurs in the previous sentence, as is shown in the authors’ rendering of the Sanskrit. There is a period after the sentence containing tad-vismṛteḥ, which means “of the forgetfulness of that.” Tad-vismṛteḥ is in the genitive case and goes with the word khaṇḍanam in the same sentence. Together, their meaning is the “breaking of forgetfulness.” Indeed, the authors translate it that way—”destruction of forgetfulness.” The word anāditvam (beginninglessness) belongs to the next sentence and grammatically can only refer to sakhyasya (genitive of sakhya). Thus according to Jīva Gosvāmī it is the friendship with the Lord, not forgetfulness, which is beginningless.
|
| Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.29.48
|
| "They do not know their own abode, where in fact there is God, Janārdana. Those who have smoky intelligence say that the Veda facilitates fruitive activities because they do not know that [Veda]."(143)
|
| In his commentary, Śrīdhara Svāmī states:
|
| "‘They do not know that’ means ‘they do not know the Veda’ because they do not know svaṁ lokam, ‘their own abode,’ which means their constitutional position, the truth about themselves, which is the real purport that one is to perceive in the Vedas. [And that constitutional position] is where God is."(144)
|
| The authors say about this verse:
|
| "The present tense “never know” (na viduḥ) cannot refer to the future, but it does include both the past and present. So the meaning is that they do not know and have never known that abode, and that’s why they engage in fruitive activities. This is how the previous ācāryas have commented on the verse. How one can conceive this verse to mean that one fell from kṛṣṇa-līlā is truly amazing. Returning home does not necessarily mean that we were there." (Leaves, p. 155)
|
| The authors say that “the present tense ‘never know’ cannot refer to the future, but it does include both the past and present.” Thus, they reason, we did not know Kṛṣṇa, we do not know Kṛṣṇa now, but we can know Kṛṣṇa in the future. The translation of na viduḥ,”they never know,” is Śrīla Prabhupāda’s translation, and it is not a literal translation of the words. If we are to accept Prabhupāda’s translations, rather than technical, literal translations, then we should also accept Prabhupāda’s statement that we are originally with Kṛṣṇa. If for the sake of analysis we want to utilize the technical, literal sense of the words, then na viduḥ simply means “they do not know.”
|
| Ironically, the English-Sanskrit Dictionary of Monier-Williams states that the English word “never” is “sometimes expressed by na (which simply means no or not in English); as, ‘there never has been and never will be any one like him,’ anena sadṛśaḥ kaścit na bhūto na bhaviṣyati.” It is easy to understand what Monier-Williams is saying. If I say “he will not come,” that simple unconditional statement, taken literally, means “he will never come.” If I say “he did not come,” that literally means “he never came in the past.” But if I say, in the present,”he never comes,” this simply applies to the present. For example, I may say “nowadays they never come, although in the past they did.” Or”I never mix fruits and vegetables, because I did in the past and I got sick.”
|
| Similarly, one may say,”they never visit us, but they will visit us in the future.” Thus it is clear that the word never in the present tense cannot necessarily govern the past or future tense. And, as we explained above, never is not the literal meaning of the words anyway.
|
| When a clear sense of never is intended, i.e.”never at any time,” the word na is used together with auxiliary words:
|
| (1) jātu, jātucit, which mean “ever.” Na tv evāham jātu nāsam:”I did not ever not exist.”
|
| (2) kadācit, kadācana, etc.:”at some/any time.” Na jāyate mriyate vā kadācit:”The soul does not take birth or die at any time.”
|
| The authors state that “this is how the previous ācāryas have commented on the verse.” But since they do not give any evidence to that effect, we cannot discuss that issue.
|
| Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.14.25
There is evidence from the Eleventh Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that when the soul becomes purified, he goes back to home, back to Godhead, again attaining the position which he formerly had. The Bhāgavatam 11.14.25 states:
|
| "Just as gold, when smelted by fire, gives up its impurity and again takes on its own form, similarly the soul, shaking off the contamination of karma by the practice of bhakti-yoga, attains to Me."(145)
|
| The authors argue against the simple, direct meaning of this verse in various ways:
|
| "The common man has no experience that gold is pure and then it becomes impure. (Leaves, p. 207)
When the gold comes from the mine it is impure; it is made pure by smelting. (Ibid. p. 206)
This is known to the common man. This analogy is then applied to the jīva. (Ibid. p. 207)
"
|
| There are several problems with this interpretation of the analogy.
|
| 1. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1992, vol. 5, Micropedia, p. 336) says that gold is “found in relatively pure form in nature.” Also, gold “occurs mostly in a native state, remaining chemically uncombined.” It says further that “large masses of gold-bearing rock rich enough to be called ores are unusual.” So throughout history the main way that gold has been obtained is by getting it in its pure natural form, by panning it from streams or by extracting it from veins of pure gold in mines. It is only in fairly recent times that very complicated industrial methods for extracting gold from ores have been developed. Gold in ores occurs in very small amounts, so the Britannica’s main article on gold (p. 491) says that in one typical area “three tons of ore are processed for every ounce of gold obtained.” The ore is extracted by complicated industrial procedures, involving the use of cyanide acid solutions.
|
| The Encyclopedia Americana (1994) article on gold similarly states that gold was “particularly important to early man because it could be obtained as a free metal without complex separation techniques.” (p. 10)
|
| It would thus appear that in ancient times, the common man would find gold in a relatively pure state.
|
| 2. The word hema, used in this verse, simply means “gold.” It is not defined in any other way. There are Sanskrit words for ore. They may be found in the Monier-Williams English-Sanskrit Dictionary. The main word is dhatu.
|
| 3. Although gold is often found in a relatively pure state, sometimes impurities are added. The Encyclopedia Americana’s article on gold states:
|
| "Gold lends itself to the manufacture of decorative articles because of its great resistance to corrosion and tarnish and its ease of working. Impurities are added to gold used for jewelry to impart the desired color to the metal and to harden it. In the past, white gold was produced by the addition of palladium to gold, but it is now manufactured from a gold-nickel alloy base. Gold alloys containing copper are red or pink in color and may be used for contrast in jewelry. The addition of silver to gold to form an 18 kt. alloy gives a greenish color to the gold." (p. 13)
|
| Since jewelry was one of the main uses for gold in Vedic times, and jewelry making was a highly developed art, one might expect that these techniques were known and employed.
|
| "Early gold objects usually had an admixture of impurities, especially silver." (Enciclopedia Americana, p. 11)
|
| 4. Standard references state that gold, which has already been fashioned or processed, is again purified by fire. Prof. K.V.S. Sastry of the Materials Science and Mineral Processing Engineering Department at the University of California, Berkeley, says that alloyed gold can be made pure again by smelting (high-temperature heating) with some fluxing agents to remove the foreign metals.
|
| Indologist Madhav Deshpande of the University of Michigan said in an e-mail message to us dated November 13, 1995:
|
| "It is a common practice in India to take old ornaments to a goldsmith to get new ones made out of the same metal. On such occasions, the goldsmiths go through this process of purification of the gold to remove impurities. As gold does not normally tarnish, the impurities would appear to be the metals added to the gold to strengthen or color it."
|
| So the best sense of the Bhāgavatam analogy would be that gold is found pure, but impurities are sometimes added to it. To remove the impurities and give pure gold its original state, one may use fire to melt it. Even today this is a common practice in India.
|
| Furthermore, there is another, similar verse in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (8.24.48):
|
| "One who wants to be free of material entanglement should take to the service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and give up the contamination of ignorance, involving pious and impious activities. Thus one regains his original identity, just as a block of gold or silver sheds all dirt and becomes purified when treated with fire."(146)
|
| Śrīla Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha comments on this verse:
|
| "Then one should accept one’s own color [like gold], which is the destination of the Supreme Soul and one’s blissful spiritual form. Moreover, that jīva again (punar) becomes unperishing (avyayaḥ), uncovered (asaṁvṛtaḥ), free of covering (āvaraṇa-rahitaḥ)."(147)
|
| Punar
|
| Returning to our discussion of Bhāgavatam 11.14.25, the authors also attempt to argue against the clear and obvious meaning of this verse by giving a highly unusual definition for the word punar. The authors say:
|
| Although the general meaning of the word punaḥ is “again,” it also means “then,” ”after,” “further,” and so on, according to the Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Monier-Williams. The meaning “then” may be taken here to keep the meaning of the verse consistent with other statements that the jīva is anādi-baddha. (Leaves, p. 207)
|
| Apart from the circular reasoning of this statement, the authors have misunderstood the word punar. As we will show, the Sanskrit word punar in this verse means simply “again.” When one wishes to express the notion of “again” in Sanskrit, one uses the word punar, and that is why the word punar appears over two hundred and seventy-five times in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In almost all cases, the word punar simply means”again.” The extremely few cases where it is translated differently fall under special cases and usages which are strictly limited by rules and context, as we shall explain below.
|
| 1. Then
|
| According to the Monier-Williams dictionary, which the authors have cited, the word punar can mean “then” in cases such as ādau... punar... paścāt,”at first... then... later.” The special meaning of “then” is possible when the word punar is surrounded by restricting words such as ādau,”in the beginning or at first,” and paścāt,”later.” Such restricting terms, however, are absent in the Bhāgavatam verse under discussion.
|
| 2. Back
|
| According to the same standard Sanskrit-English dictionary cited by the authors, in ancient śāstras such as the Ŗg Veda, the word punar means “back,” or “home” when used with verbs of motion, such as i, gam, or yā, all of which mean, basically, “to go.”
|
| This same sense of the word continues in the Bhāgavatam, as in the following verse (Bhāg. 10.85.52):
|
| "[Śukadeva Gosvāmī continued:] After saying this, Lord Kṛṣṇa and Lord Balarāma, having been duly worshiped by Bali Mahārāja, took the six sons and returned to Dvārakā (punar dvāravatīm etya), where They presented them to Their mother."(148)
|
| Here the word punar, in combination with a form of the verb i,”to go” (here ā-i-tya, or etya), specifically means “to go back home,” or “to go home again.”
|
| In the Bhāgavatam verse under consideration (11.14.25) some commentators state that a synonym of bhajati is prāpnoti, which means”(the soul) reaches, arrives.” The verb prāp itself often functions as a verb of motion, exactly as in English, indicating “to reach or arrive at a destination.” For example, in the Bhagavad-gītā (6.41) Lord Kṛṣṇa states: prāpya puṇya-kṛtāṁ lokān,”having reached, arrived at (prāpya) the worlds of the pious doers.” Thus in connection with punar, the verb prāp would seem to have a clear sense of “returning.” This would be consistent with the soul returning to an original state of consciousness.
|
| 3. Restore
|
| With the verb dā,”to give,” punar means “to give back, to restore.” This use is not called for in verse 11.14.25. But this meaning would certainly be consistent with the soul returning to an original state of consciousness.
|
| 4. Further, furthermore
|
| When punar is taken to mean “further” or “furthermore,” it is in the sense of “more of the same,” an occurrence of the same thing again, but with a sense of cumulative sequence. This can be seen in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, in verses 10.38.40, 10.51.52, 10.58.38 and 11.21.25. This usage is not called for in 11.14.25.
|
| 5. On the other hand
|
| This usage is found in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 12.12.66:
|
| "Hari, the Lord of all, who drives away the accumulation of pollution of Kali, is certainly not sung about constantly elsewhere [in other śāstras]. But here, on the other hand (punaḥ), He whose forms are unlimited is elaborately described in every verse by the occasion of stories."(149)
|
| Śrī Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya 20.145) quotes the following verse from the Padma Purāṇa. We will translate the verse very literally so that the readers can follow the Sanskrit more easily.
|
| "For the bewildering of this world of moving and nonmoving creatures, let those various Purāṇas and Āgamas prattle till the end of the kalpa that this and that devatā is supreme. In the siddhānta, on the other hand (punaḥ), when the dealings of all the Āgamas are brought to thorough investigation, it is concluded that one alone is Bhagavān: Viṣṇu."(150)
|
| In cases like these, punar means “on the other hand” when it mediates between two opposing views or opinions, as in verse 12.12.66. That is not the kind of usage we find in the verse in question (Bhāg. 11.14.25).
|
| 6. As “re-” in compounds
|
| As the first term of a compound it acts like the English prefix “re-,” as in punar-bhavaḥ,”re-birth,” or punar-āvṛtti, literally “re-turning,” etc.
|
| To get a real sense of a Sanskrit word from a dictionary, it is often important to examine the dictionary’s citings of the typical ways the word is used in the literature. Monier-Williams lists over 140 compounds that may be formed with the word punar, and in virtually every case, the sense is “again.”
|
| Remarkably, if we investigate the meanings for the English word “again,” we find that the various senses match very well the various meanings of punar.
|
| If punar was being used in a rare way, Śrīdhara Svāmī and the other commentators would have told us, for that is the purpose of a commentary—to point out unusual usages. As we have seen, the particular meaning suggested by the authors (“then”) is certainly not called for.
|
| In conclusion, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.14.25 gives us a simple, straightforward statement to the effect that the living being again takes on a spiritual form and goes back to home, back to Godhead. As the authors have helpfully pointed out, the English words “back to home, back to Godhead” do not appear in Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura’s Sanskrit commentary. He does say, however, that the purified soul goes back to the Lord’s own abode, where the soul directly engages in the service of the Lord: malam viduya ato maniya loke māṁ bhajati sākṣāt sevate.
|
| Forgetting and Again Remembering One’s Original Relationship with Kṛṣṇa
|
| In the Third Canto of In the Third Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.31.15), we find the following verse:, we find the following verse:
|
| "The human soul further prays: The living entity is put under the influence of material nature and continues a hard struggle for existence on the path of repeated birth and death. This conditional life is due to his forgetfulness of his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, without the Lord’s mercy, how can he again engage in the transcendental loving service to the Lord?"(151)
|
| This passage is from the prayers spoken by the soul within the womb, as explained by Lord Kapila to His mother Devahūti, so this information is being related by the Supreme Lord Himself, as part of His teachings to Devahūti.
|
| In his purport to the above text (3.31.15), Śrīla Prabhupāda makes these statements:
|
| "It is clearly said herein that our memory is lost because we are now covered by His material energy. Arguments may be put forward as to why we have been put under the influence of the material energy of the Lord. This is explained in Bhagavad-gītā, where the Lord says, ‘I am sitting in everyone’s heart, and due to Me one is forgetful or one is alive in knowledge.’ The forgetfulness of the conditioned soul is also due to the direction of the Supreme Lord. A living entity misuses his little independence when he wants to lord it over material nature. This misuse of independence, which is called māyā, is always available, otherwise there would be no independence. Independence implies that one can use it properly or improperly. It is not static; it is dynamic. Therefore, misuse of independence is the cause of being influenced by māyā."
|
| Śrīdhara Svāmī gives the following commentary on this verse:
|
| "By whose māyā this living entity, his memory being lost, wanders on the path of saṁsāra, with the suffering caused by that condition. Without the mercy of Him alone, of the Lord, by what means can the soul again fully accept his own constitutional position?"(152)
|
| The authors add:
|
| Here the word punaḥ is defined as “then” or “thereafter.” Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī accepts this usage. The meaning is that the jīva is in the state of forgetfulness, naṣṭa-smṛti, which has no beginning. Then (punaḥ) by the mercy of the Lord he is able to know his own self. This is how the word punaḥ is being used here. (Leaves, p. 212)
|
| Although the authors say that Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura accepts punar as meaning “then” in this case, they do not give any direct Sanskrit evidence from his commentary. Furthermore, instead of translating the word punar in the line and context in which it actually occurs, naṣṭa-smṛtiḥ punar ayaṁ pravṛṇīta lokam, they choose to translate it in connection with a line and context in which it does not occur. Finally, the authors do not translate all of the Sanskrit they cite from Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary. They neglect to translate the words lokaṁ nija-svarūpaṁ pravṛṇīta sambhajeta: “lokam (means) ‘his own svarūpa’; pravṛṇīta means ‘he should fully accept.’”
|
| Let us now consider other verses in which the words punar (“again”), smṛti (“remembering”) and viśmṛti (“forgetting”) occur.
|
| Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam makes an even more remarkable statement at 12.5.5:
|
| "Just as when a pot is broken the sky [within the pot] would continue to be sky as before, similarly when the body is dead the jīva again attains to the absolute status."(153)
|
| Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī explains this verse as follows:
|
| "Just as before (yathā purā) means just as before the designation of ‘pot’ [i.e. before the sky in the pot became designated by the shape and covering of the pot as ‘the air in the pot’], so again when the pot is broken the sky that was within that pot would be sky alone [without the designation ‘pot’]. So as that is the case, similarly when the body is dead, that is when by knowledge of the truth the body is merged [back into matter]."(154)
|
| This is the end of Śrīdhara Svāmī’s purport. Here we have the words yathā purā... evam... punaḥ:”as before... so again.” Śrīdhara Svāmī emphasizes that the sky returns to its original pure state, as it was before it became designated by a covering, in this case the pot. Similarly, the pure soul once existed without the designation of the material body, and just like with a broken pot, when the body dies the pure soul again attains to the pure spiritual nature, as it once before was existing on that pure spiritual platform. There is nothing in the commentaries of Vaṁśīdhara, Vīrarāghava, Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī, Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura or the other commentators that in any way changes or even gives an indirect additional sense for what is obviously being stated here in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: that the soul, once existing in a pure state, becomes covered by a material body and then returns to the same pure state as before. The words yathā purā,”just as before,” are significant, for if one wishes to claim that the soul originally comes from the brahmajyoti or some other surrogate pure status that is not the abode of the Lord, then the soul will return to the same state according to the statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. This is confirmed by the ācāryas.
|
| Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.16.57
|
| "If the living being forgets this nature of Mine, then My nature becomes separated from him. At that time he undergoes material existence. From one body to another body, from death to death."(155)
|
| We have translated this verse literally, following the commentary of Śrīdhara Svāmī. Śrīdhara Svāmī states here that the first Sanskrit word of this verse, yat, means yadi,”if.” Similarly he translates the words etan mad-bhāvam,”this My nature,” as mat svarūpam,”My constitutional position,” or Brahman,”the Absolute Truth.” He further states that “if” the living being forgets the Lord’s nature,”then” the living being is separated from the Lord’s nature, and from that there is material existence. It is significant here that Śrīdhara Svāmī describes the process of forgetting Lord Kṛṣṇa’s nature as an “if… then” process. “If this happens, then the following takes place.” One may claim that this is figurative language describing a nontemporal, nonchronological, nonsequential state of affairs, but of course that would simply be one’s own view on the matter. Śrīdhara Svāmī says something quite different. Vaṁśīdhara in his commentary, which is meant to be an explanation of Śrīdhara Svāmī’s, gives no indication that anything figurative is taking place here. Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha, in his commentary, paraphrases Śrīdhara Svāmī’s yadi... tadā, “if... then,” with the words yadi... tarhi, “if... then, at that time.” There is nothing in the commentaries of the other ācāryas that changes the obvious sense of this verse and of Śrīdhara Svāmī’s explanation of it. By the way, Lord Saṅkarṣaṇa Himself spoke this verse to Citraketu, the lord of the Vidyādharas, when the Lord became pleased by his prayers.
|
| It is our contention that there are many verses in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in which there is no independent evidence whatsoever that the word smṛti or other cognate words are being used figuratively. The Bhāgavatam could easily state that the cause of material existence is that one does not know Kṛṣṇa, that one is not aware of Kṛṣṇa, that one has not learned about Kṛṣṇa, etc., etc. But again and again the Bhāgavatam prefers to state, and the ācāryas continually reiterate, that the cause of material existence is forgetting Lord Kṛṣṇa, not remembering Him, and that the solution is to remember Kṛṣṇa—not to learn about Him, but rather to remember Him. The many verses in the Bhāgavatam comparing material existence to a bad dream further confirm the simple, direct understanding.
|
English
Español
Pусский
Português