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

Re: Origins of the Jiiva

From: Krishna Susarla (krishna_at_ticnet.com)
Date: Fri Mar 19 1999 - 02:50:17 PST

>     sUtrakArar again establishes in the last sUtra "anAvrutti: SabdAt
>      anAvrutti: SabdAt"  ( "No returning ; according to scriptures.
>      No returning ; according to Scriptures " ), ie. those who have
>      reached the abode of Brahman (ie. Sri VaikuNTham),
>      _through the arcirAdi mArgA_  will never return (no more
>     karmA; but may come with a suddha sattva thirumEni out of
>     their will to perform some kainkaryam for Lord ).


However, doesn't the "never return" argument imply by its very wording only
the condition of those who came into bondage and then attained liberation
(you don't "return" to something unless you have been there at least once)?
A very common argument I hear is that this is not applicable to the jiiva
who is in Vaikuntha and has not (yet) "fallen."

>  2. Bhagavad gItA bAshyam ( on 2.50) : ".....anAdikAla sancitE anantE
>      bandhahEtubhootE ..  ( " He who is established .........relinquishes
>      good and evil karmAs which have accumulated from time
>      immemorial causing bondage endlessly ...".
>
>     This issue of anAdi karmA is a very fundamental fact in vEdAntA.
>     Fall down theory etc speculations are no where found in sAstrAs.


Does Raamaanuja ever explicitly deal with / refute the possibility that the
"anaadi karmaa" mentioned in shaastra could be figurative (in other words,
the idea that anaadi isn't literal, but simply means that it happened so
long it cannot be understood)?


>  Sri Gerald sUryA wrote :
>
>>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...

Unless I misunderstood, BNK Sharma seems to be differing from the
Vedaanta-suutra's author. I thought the *point* of why there are differences
in their karmas is because their karma is beginningless. In other words, one
cannot say that their karma originated at any time, and therefore one cannot
say that they were created with unequal propensities towards action (which
would then lead to the unacceptable postulate that God is partial or cruel).

Hare Krishna,


-- K