You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : March 1999

Re: Origins of the Jiiva

Mrgerald_at_aol.com
Date: Wed Mar 17 1999 - 00:10:43 PST

In a message dated 99-03-16 23:35:02 EST, you write:

<< 
 According to all systems of vedanta (except the view held the ISCKON book
 "our original position"), jiva's bondage is eternal ie. beginningless.  Jiva
 was bound eternally from beginningless time.  theory of "falling from
 vaikunta" is not supported by any system of vedanta.   >>

Here are some Nimbarka quotes which I think are similar to all other views:
The context is an explanation of God's apparent partiality.

Nimbarkacharya comments on Sutra 2.1.34: [If it be objected that this is not
(possible), on account of the non-distinction of works, (we reply:) no, on
account of beginningless, and this (this) fits in, and is observed also] in
his Vedanta-parijata-saurabha: If it be objected that since the text '"The
existent alone, my dear was this in the beginning"' (Chand 6.2.1)  declares
the 'non-distinction' of works prior to creation, the Supreme Being's
dependence on the works does not fit in, --(we reply) "no", as works exist
even then, the works done by the individual souls in previous births being
eternal.  And a prior creation "fits in", as a sudden subsequent creation is
unreasonable.  And this is "observed also" in the text: 'The creator fashioned
the sun and the moon as he did before.' (RgV 10.190.3) and so on."  

Srinivasacharya, commenting on Nimbarka's says works may be good or bad,
implying that works cannot refer to spiritual activity as was stated in "our
original position":
Vedanta-kaustaubha (VK):"Hence prior to creation there are no works as the
cause of the diversities of objects to be created, on which Brahman might
depend-- (We reply) "no". Why? "On account of beginningless" of all. That is
works, good and bad, done by the souls in a previous creation, become the
cause of diversities in a subsequent creation. "And" the continuity of
creation "fits in" in accordance wit the maxin of 'the seed and the shoot',
[Trans note: just as it is impossible to say whether the seed is earlier or
the shoot, so it is impossible to say whether karmas are the earlier or the
samsara. Hence they are to be taken as beginningless.] and in accordance with
the above-mentioned difference between the manifest and the unmanifest effect,
[See VK 2.1.17-18] as well as because a sudden subsequent creation without a
prior creation is inexplicable, this last reason being indicated the particle
"and" (in the sutra). ,,,, (Rg Ve 10.190.3) teaches the existence of a prior
creation, the eternity of the flow of creation is established,,,"

Madhva gives the same explanation and says further that the differences in the
karmas are secondary to the intrinsic nature (anadi-svarupayogyata):   BNK
Sharma says "The anaditva of samsara only means that the jivas must be anadi.
But it does not explain why anadi jivas should differ to the extent of
originating wide differences in their karmas--unless such differences are
ingrained in them...the anaditva of samsara is an accepted doctrine and has
already been accepted by the sutrakara in 1.3.30"


Gerald Surya