|You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : October 1999|
From: Krishna Kalale (kkalale1_at_san.rr.com)
Date: Fri Oct 29 1999 - 16:06:11 PDT
-----Original Message----- From: Krishna Kalale [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 3:00 AM To: 'HRID' Subject: RE: Re : Our Original Position -----Original Message----- From: HRID [SMTP:email@example.com] Sent: Sunday, October 03, 1999 11:10 AM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: 'email@example.com' Subject: Re : Our Original Position Dear Sri Krishna Prasada, Thank you for your letter. >WITH THIS, I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO RETURN FROM MOKSHA...AND >THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR THE CONTRARY This was not our point. The scriptures talk about souls that are ALREADY fallen in the material world, and state that once they become free from such conditioning, they don't return. This does not refer to those who are coming down to the material world. Thus your point does not address the specific topic. [Krishna Kalale] Dear Sri Hridayananda Goswami, ******* I would like to know who are meant by "those who are comin down to the material world"? whoever they may be, they are definitely not coming due to karma or even their choice. It is purely because to serve sriKrishna or due to Sri Krishna's orders to be carried out in this world. Even if they come like that, they are not bound by karma; Hence it is not a big issue. The problem is clearly if you state that "in general, jivas were with Sri Krishna and they fell down from that state, then it does not agree with the position of Sri Baladeva Vidya Bhusana. Those who are beyond karma are not addressed by a "sadhana ( or practical) " scripture such as Vedanta Sutras. Jaya Vijaya did not fall due to their choice, it was due their wrong karmas of stopping the sages. Such karmas cannot be done in vaikunta which, by definition is completely rid of all sins. sins of no kind can exist in vaikunta. >The theory of karma cannot explain the inequality and cruelty seen in this >universe, because when the creation first started there was no distinction >of souls and consequently of karmas - this is the objection > >the answer from the vedantic siddhanta or conclusion is : > >jivas and karmas are beginningless, just like Brahman. >if you state that karma-begginingless theory is tainted, with the fault of >regresses in infinitum, we say that it is not so because we find authority >for it in reason also. The explanation is given in the book.. I will not >go into details to write down the whole thing. > >Please let me know what you feel regarding these statements of Srila >Baladeva Vidya Bhusana. Baladeva states that the argument of infinite regress is answered "in the book", but since you did not cite that answer, how can I evaluate it? [Krishna Kalale] ****** I was under the impression that you do have the book The Vedanta Sutras by Sri- Baladeva Vidya bhusana, ( I guess I remember having seen the same Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana's sutras quoted in your book) translated to english by Srisha Chandra Vasu. I guess you may not have this book. ( this book is published by Munshiram Manoharlal das, Delhi) I will quote what he has written. (p. 270) : " If you say that karmas being beginningless, the theory is tainted with the fault of regressus in infinitum, we say it is not so, because we find authority for it in reason also. The well known case of the seed and the trree is in oint. Is the seed first or the three? notit is any objection that God being bound to create according to the karmas of the souls, loses His independence.The lord certainly is independent, but He is not capricious and whimsical. Had He created the world with perfect disregard t the karmas of the Jivas, He might have proved His omnipotence to some minds, but to the majority, His act would have appeared capricious and cruel. In fact, the autorities clearly show that the substance and karma and time are equally co-eternal with the Lord, and He creates the universe, with a full regard to all these three. It is not only the karma that conditions the universe, but the substance (or the matter stuff), and time are also important factors in creation. Of course, these three are subordinate to Isvara but He never discregards their existence in His act of creation. The Lord is not partial or cruel, or wanting in omnipotence. In fact, the theory of karma and the beginninglessness of creation reconcile all the difficulties. You cannot say that this theory is open to the same objection of theory of specific creation. You cannot say it is the falling of the smugglers unwittingly into the hands of the tax-collectors : Note : Certain merchants, in order to avoid the customs duties, went by a round about way, to avoid the customs house. In the dark night, they missed their way, and after wandering for some time, they took shelter in a roadside house. In the morning, it was found that the house they took shelter, was the customs house which the traders were trying to avoid. Thus they had not only to pay the tax, but punished also for trying to cheat the customs. This maxim is called "morning in the customs house" Our theory is not open to this objection of "morning in the customs house". In order to avoid the imputation of cruelty and inequality to the Lord, we have explained eternity of creation, and you cannot say that since the Lord is not bound to regard the karmas, because He is independent, His creating a world full of misery, simply to punish the souls for their karmas, bring you back to the same difficulty, which you were trying to avoid The Lord, being perfectly independent, certainly could have created a world full of joy, and with complete disregard to karma of jivas. But then His actions, instead of being regulated by any law, would have been lawless, and it would not be a creditable attribute of the lord. Therefore, His creation of world with erfect regard to the karm of the jivas, and to time and substance, does not detract from his omnipotence. But it rather shows forth His gerat wisdom and compassion. Though He can act against all the laws of matter, spirit and karma, yet He is not soing so, and His making the jivas act in accordance with the tendencies generated by their beginningless karma, is a matter of HIs glory, and not an instance of His partiality. " - finish quote >With regards to "fall of jaya vijaya", it is usually explained by >vedantins as : By all Vedantins, or some of them? Does Sridhara Swami, the authorized Bhagavatam commentator, explain it that way? [Krishna Kalale] I am surprised by another unique characteristic of sri chaitanya sampradaya. Srila Jiva Goswami states in the Krama Sandarbha that his commentary was intended to elucidate the commentary of Sridhara, where it was felt that it was somewhat difficult to understand. (In other words, Sridharaswami's commentary is taken to be authentic. There is no doubt that Sridharaswami's commentary is excellent, However, Sridharaswami is a staunch follower of Sri Sankara's advaita philosophy. He (Sridhara) says that he wrote his commentary, Bhavartha dipika by name in strict adherence to the old tradition and followed the footsteps of Chitsukhacharya (another famous advaitin). On the otherhand, It is well known that in Srila Prabhupada's works, mayavadins / advaitins are criticized in many places, This seems a little odd. Coming to the point of the episode of jaya vijaya, it is clear that Sridhara swamy's views are no different from the classic advaitic position. ie. Vaikunta is taken to be within the realm of maya, since saguna brahman is also subject to maya. Obviously, vaikunta mentioned in bhagavatam where jaya vijaya were cursed, is not the real higher vaikuntam where there is no question of curse of mistakes, even though vaikunta is within the realm of maya and the abode of saguna brahman. In advaita Lord Krishna with all is infinite excellent auspicious qualities is taken as saguna brahman and definitely classified as pure. Hence the abode vaikunta is also taken to be perfect in this relative world. from there, there is no return; hence jaya vijaya were in a different lower vaikunta planet. According to advaita, nirguna brahman is the real reality and different from the vaikunta which is within maya since there is still duality there. ********** by the way, the idea that our original position is to be with Krishna is to be understood differently. Not that we were with Godhead earlier and we fell down from that place. It is to be perceived differently: souls intrinsically are pure and their real purpose is to be serving Lord Srikrishna eternally. They are mixed up in matter by association. Even if they are associated here in matter, their intrinsic nature is to be pure and a servant of lord. it is like how oil and water dont mix, even here jiva is pure but his knowledge is polluted by association of matter which deludes that jiva. We need to come to the pure state of unmixed oil. In that sense, it is ok to state that we need to go back to Godhead. however, this should not be misconstrued that we were with God once and then we fell to this to matter leaving that original state and we need to go back to that state from here. Another analogy given in the shastras is : souls are diamonds dirtied by association with matter. You dont need to purify the diamonds. If you wash the external dirt off, the diamonds are restored their original position which is purity and eternal service to sri krishna. The diamonds themselves dont need to be purified. With best wishes, Hridayananda das Goswami [Krishna Kalale] Yours humble servant Krishna Prasad haribol.