Although I have come to terms with Maharaja's explanation of orgin of jiva from tatastha sakti as part of sristi lila I just wanted to know if it is appasiddhanta on part of some devotees to think that jiva falls from vaikuntha(prabhupada's position) or from brahmanjyoti( sridhar maharaj's position) or else such differences are acceptable. For me it is acceptable if some devotee gets faith only in the position where jiva falls from vaikuntha though there are logical inconsistencies with this argument. As Maharaja said logic cannot complete be satisfied in any understanding. Especially many people have to trust prabhupada as even when he was specifically questioned about the fall of jiva from brahmajyoti not vaikuntha he said "no the original fall is from vaikuntha" . According to some disciples of prabhupada he as saktyavesa avatar has shed new light on scripture like bhaktivinoda thakur had done before, so he is entitled to this view and I cant dispute their claim either. Also in sridhar maharaja's postion where he says "brahmajyoti is evergrowing adn everexapnding ", some devotees think it speaks about kind of generation or creation of jivas and this is the new light on scripture.
So do I have to stay in the grey area accepting all 3 views as alright or I have to believe in only one position.
Personally I am very satified with BVT jaiva dharma explanation of Maharaja's explanation from point of beginnless karma and sristi lila. Should we respect the other postions as well considering the fact that prabhupada and sridhar maharaja have given these explanations.
Although I have come to terms with Maharaja's explanation of orgin of jiva from tatastha sakti as part of sristi lila I just wanted to know if it is appasiddhanta on part of some devotees to think that jiva falls from vaikuntha(prabhupada's position) or from brahmanjyoti( sridhar maharaj's position) or else such differences are acceptable. For me it is acceptable if some devotee gets faith only in the position where jiva falls from vaikuntha though there are logical inconsistencies with this argument. As Maharaja said logic cannot complete be satisfied in any understanding. Especially many people have to trust prabhupada as even when he was specifically questioned about the fall of jiva from brahmajyoti not vaikuntha he said "no the original fall is from vaikuntha" . According to some disciples of prabhupada he as saktyavesa avatar has shed new light on scripture like bhaktivinoda thakur had done before, so he is entitled to this view and I cant dispute their claim either. Also in sridhar maharaja's postion where he says "brahmajyoti is evergrowing adn everexapnding ", some devotees think it speaks about kind of generation or creation of jivas and this is the new light on scripture.
So do I have to stay in the grey area accepting all 3 views as alright or I have to believe in only one position.
Personally I am very satified with BVT jaiva dharma explanation of Maharaja's explanation from point of beginnless karma and sristi lila. Should we respect the other postions as well considering the fact that prabhupada and sridhar maharaja have given these explanations.
I believe that careful study of all that Prabhupada wrote confirms my realization, which is traditinal Gaudiya siddhanta. Sometimes he said jivas fall and sometimes he said they definitely did not. So better to say that when he said they did not he was speaking siddhanta, and when he said they did he was preaching acording to circumstances that in his opinion were not ideal for coming out with the entire siddhanta. Such is the nature of preaching. You cannot tell everyone everythign at once. In some instnces regarding this issue it is just best to emphasize that the fault lies with the jivas. Thisis the call of the preacher.
If you carefully study Subjective Evolution you will find that Sridhara Maharaja is speakng about srsti-lila when he spekas of souls evolving from homogenity to hetrogenity. Such souls are brahman (spirit), which is alive and growing.
You can be sure that in the final analysis both of these acaryas will agree 100% with the conclusion of Jiva Goswami, as will BVT. A new insight is not one that replaces a previous realization with regard to tattva, expecially not one as important as this one. These acaryas have merely spoken on this point in novel ways in unprecedented circumstances to be sure to shift the balme of evil away from God, etc. To say that my guru is a saktyavesa avatara and has given the world a new relaization—souls fall from Vaikuntha—is ludicrous. yad gatva na nivartante. One should ask one who claims this if Prabhupada has out-realized Sri Krsna, who's realization about that plane is clearly stated twice if his Bhagavad-gita (my citation above).
No absolutley not. No one falls from Vaikuntha. You have one position to take. Giving room for the other, especially the "Prabhupada said" one, is merely fostering fanaticism.
thank you maharaja. Actually some people take the phrase "brahman is growing" to be the refering to creation of jivas by sridhar maharaja.
So is BVT's explanation acceptable or it should be taken as preaching propaganda too (though most of gaudiya maths and also disciples of B.G Narsingha Mahraja take BVT's position on this topic) and BVT cites 1-2 verses to support his analysis.
I can understand that shifting the blame to the jiva may be necessary to foster strong incentive to cultivate love of God which is the purpose of sristi lila, but needed just a little but clarification on the above.
It seems as if this issue is in my blood, Seeing as my father co-wrote the book, "In Vaikuntha Not Even The Leaves Fall". It's interesting I became confused about this aspect of philosophy before I knew it was an issue or my own dad had written the book that brought it into question more within ISKCON. I have spoken to alot of people about this and I find most people are not very receptive to a stance that seemingly contradicts Prabhupada. After a few minutes mos people say, "I don't really care, the point is we need to get there." This has validity but sooner or later it must be considered, who wants to dedicate their life to a god who is indifferent to them and therefore lets them abandon their eternal wealth at whim. I have learned that I need to become better at discriminating when this should be discussed, and who is open to hearing it. I have been accused of being a controversy seeker, and then taking the under-dog stance so I can feel different. I am forever blessed/cursed to talk about this issue and the "godbrother" issue, because my dad wrote the jiva book, and my brother took initiation from Govinda Maharaja. It makes it tough to build a relationship if you have to discuss this in the first meeting
It's really sick to me how this philosophical point has been intertwined tightly with loyalty to Prabhupada. Making someone feel like if they even consider something else they are disrespecting him. There was one article I think on sampradaya sun that one Prabhupada disciple here showed me. He had previously agreed that we cannot fall, but after reading this article that brought so many unrelated issues into this one philosophical point, he was confused again. It isolated quotes of course, then said this only became an issue when people went against Prabhupada's orders and associated with other Gaudiyas, especially those envious godbrothers. This article, written by a bhakta then went on to say it was common knowledge in the 70's that we did fall, creating a mood of, "don't you want to fit in?".
Anyway, I think it's important to assert that you do not agree with the "Fall Theory", and most of the time just leave it at that, if the other party let's you.
And as Swami brought to my attention people sometimes put Prabhupada's words above Sridhar Maharaj's on the basis of being Shaktyavesa Avatar, despite Sridhar Maharaj being the soul who revealed this.
thank you maharaja. Actually some people take the phrase "brahman is growing" to be the refering to creation of jivas by sridhar maharaja.So is BVT's explanation acceptable or it should be taken as preaching propaganda too (though most of gaudiya maths and also disciples of B.G Narsingha Mahraja take BVT's position on this topic) and BVT cites 1-2 verses to support his analysis.
I can understand that shifting the blame to the jiva may be necessary to foster strong incentive to cultivate love of God which is the purpose of sristi lila, but needed just a little but clarification on the above.
BVT is also preaching. He started the Gaudiya interface with the West.
BVT places the "choice" in the tatastha where there is partial knowledge of the the spiritual and material worlds. But after all, what is the meaning of "choice" for one who has only partial knowledge of the choices available? As far as siddhanta goes, the choice comes when one meets Sri Guru. In his company one gains full knowledge of the nature of the material world and that of the spiritual world. At that time one can choose in a meaningful sense.
Nitai's points are well taken.
Suhotra prabhu has recently again come on with the defence of falldown from spiritual world position though his siddhanta isn't very clear to me.
This essay was originally an answer of Suhotra Prabhu to a question about the “fairness” of our falldown to the material world. =========
First of all we strongly suggest those who have a specific interest in the falldown of the spirit soul from the spiritual world to acquire the book entitled Our Original Position, which is available from the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. It is a very elaborate treatment with much quotations from sastra.
I find a refrain in the “condemned,” “pretty unfair,” “felix culpa,” “how could I know” and “bad mistake” arguments that is typical of persons for whom the “original falldown” is a major philosophical stumbling block. And that is, “It’s not my fault. It must be Krishna’s fault.”
You have to face this point unflinchingly: it *is* your fault.
And you have to face this next point unflinchingly: as long as you entertain the notion that it could be Krishna’s fault (that He’s “pretty unfair”), you will remain in this material world, birth after birth.
Accepting that it is your fault that you are fallen into the cycle of birth and death is what surrender is all about. It is only by accepting this that we can sincerely accept the Lord’s help in getting ourselves delivered from this fallen state. Logically, if it is not your fault, then you are not really fallen. Just like, if you end up in prison for a crime you did not deliberately commit (maybe you were just a victim of association, but you personally did not intend harm), then you are not really a criminal, are you?
But the fact is, we *are* criminals. And we can’t be reformed until we admit it wholeheartedly.
Now, zeroing in on the crux of your doubt — that we fell out of krishna-lila because of some unexpected flare-up of envy, and so how can we be eternally condemned for something over which we had no control — you’ve missed the real controller, Krishna. It is a fact that I, as a tiny spirit soul, have no power to control the ebb and flow of emotional states. But Krishna, the parama-isvara (supreme controller), does.
So there are two implications I wish to draw your attention to.
If your idea is that we fell because of an emotional flare-up, then behind that idea is a lack of faith in Krishna’s control over those emotions. To be surrendered to Krishna means to place oneself completely under Krishna’s control. So why would Krishna permit the emotions of His surrendered devotee to flare up in some spiritually detrimental manner? Therefore, 1) either Krishna doesn’t really have control over the ebb and flow of emotions that affect living beings, or
2) He does but He takes pleasure in allowing these emotions to cast someone down into darkness. I.e. Krishna doesn’t always have our best interests in mind. Or worse, He has a malicious streak.
The adoption of either of these two positions is uncalled for. If you find one, the other or both reasonable, then why trouble yourself with following the Vedic scriptures? The Vedic scriptures state: isvara parama krsna: “Krishna is the supreme controller.”
So then how did we fall victim to uncontrolled emotions?
The answer is that *first* we assumed a position of independence from Krishna’s control. Our assuming that position was not prompted by some flood of emotions. It was a conscious choice. As Srila Prabhupada writes:
“Anandamayo ‘bhyasat (Vedanta-sutra 1.1.12). Both the Lord and the living entity, being qualitatively spirit soul, have the tendency for peaceful enjoyment, but when the part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead unfortunately wants to enjoy independently, without Krishna, he is put into the material world, where he begins his life as Brahma and is gradually degraded to the status of an ant or a worm in stool.”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 9.24.58, purport)
So the uncontrolled emotions that wind us up in lower forms like ants and worms come later. First comes the exalted post of Brahma, who manifests the full potency of a jiva (a liberated spirit soul). Brahma is situated in brahma-varcasa, the Brahman effulgence. Therefore Bhagavatam 2.3.2 states that those who wish to attain the divine light of Brahman should worship Brahma. But Brahma thinks himself
*independent* of Krishna.
“That Brahma becomes liberated is known to everyone, but he cannot liberate his devotees. Demigods like Brahma and Lord Shiva cannot give liberation to any living entity. As it is confirmed in Bhagavad-gita, only one who surrenders unto Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, can be liberated from the clutches of maya. Brahma is called here adyah sthira-caranam. He is the original, first-created living entity, and after his own birth he creates the entire cosmic manifestation. He was fully instructed in the matter of creation by the Supreme Lord. Here he is called veda-garbha, which means that he knows the complete purpose of the Vedas. He is always accompanied by such great personalities as Marici, Kasyapa and the seven sages, as well as by great mystic yogis, the Kumaras and many other spiritually advanced living entities, but he has his own interest, separate from the Lord’s. Bheda-drstya means that Brahma sometimes thinks that he is independent of the Supreme Lord, or he thinks of himself as one of the three equally independent incarnations. [”Three equally independent incarnations” means Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma… but actually Brahma is not independent, because he is a jiva (fragmental soul, a constitutional servant of God), whereas Vishnu and Shiva are both classified as isvara (Lords).]” (Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.32.12-15, purport)
And, so, as Srila Prabhupada continues in this same purport:
“Here the word bheda-drstya occurs because Brahma has a slight inclination to think that he is as independent as Rudra. Sometimes Brahma thinks that he is independent of the Supreme Lord, and the worshiper also thinks that Brahma is independent. For this reason, after the destruction of this material world, when there is again creation by the interaction of the material modes of nature, Brahma comes back. Although Brahma reaches the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the first purusa incarnation, Maha-Vishnu, who is full with transcendental qualities, he cannot stay in the spiritual world.”
Please digest the full implications of the above quotation. Brahma, the post occupied by the jiva upon his assumption of independence from the Lord, is a liberated personality. He is not dashed here and there by hot fluxes of emotions, whether envy or anything else. Brahma *knows* fully well the Supreme Lord as Maha-Vishnu. He returns to Him after his period of duty as the creator of the universe. But Brahma also has a tendency, due to his conception of independence, to become attached to his post as the creator… so that when again Vishnu breathes out the universes, Brahma leaves Him to take up the post of a lord of creation again. This second returning to the material world is considered to be his falldown — the falldown of the jiva. Here you see an emotional element creeping in… attachment, prestige, etc, which brings him back to the material world even after his assignment is completed. This is the sign of growing ignorance. That is confirmed thusly later in the same purport:
“The specific significance of his coming back may be noted. Brahma and the great rsis and the great master of yoga (Shiva) are not ordinary living entities; they are very powerful and have all the perfections of mystic yoga. But still they have an inclination to try to become one with the Supreme, and therefore they have to come back. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam it is accepted that as long as one thinks that he is equal with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is not completely purified or knowledgeable. In spite of going up to the first purusa-avatar, Maha-Vishnu, after the dissolution of this material creation, such personalities again fall down or come back to the material creation.”
The falling down of the jiva into material creation therefore has little in common with the scenario of his being carried away willy-nilly by some unfortunate gush of feelings.
It is the result of a deliberate, conscious and informed choice.
Perhaps you still have a doubt about how a soul comes to think himself independent. It can be postulated that before he assumed the post of Brahma, that soul must have been with Krishna in His pastimes within the eternal realm of Goloka. How is it that this particular soul goes from there to the post of Brahma?
The answer is that Krishna’s pastimes are expansive. As Krishna expands His pastimes, so also the souls expand within Him into further realms of His divine lila or play. The creation of the material world is one more expanded lila. Thus the Lord Himself personally enters the material world, and so also do His devotees. Even the eternal residents of Goloka Vrindavan enter the material world at the time Krishna personally descends Himself, as He did 5000 years ago in Bhauma Vrindavan (the Vrindavan on earth, in India, 90 miles south of New Delhi). Some of these residents assume forms different than their Goloka identities. Narada Muni, for instance, the sage who preaches bhakti throughout the 3 worlds, is originally Madhumangala, a friend of Krishna’s in Goloka. And Narada is the son of Brahma. Brahma is a role a jiva can get in the Lord’s pastime of creation if that jiva is interested in participating in the creation-lila from a position apparently as independent as that of God Himself. This particular position (Brahma) is the one from which a soul *may* fall (it is not
guaranteed he will) from the Lord’s association into enmeshment in creation. In other words, rather than simply participating in creation from a transcendental position (as do the residents of Vrindavan and Narada Muni), such a soul, by attachment to his lordly position, becomes *part* of the creation… life
Not really important, but Ive heard that someone wrote an article in response to "Our Original Position" called OOPS, kinda clever. I read the article by Suhotra Prabhu on Dandavats a few days ago, but it is unable to trump the logic given by Swami and the previous Acharyas on the issue. Sometimes I wonder if the leaders who preach this "fall" philosophy really believe it, or if they think it would have worse effects to acknowledge the mistake made.
Suhotra prabhu has recently again come on with the defence of falldown from spiritual world position though his siddhanta isn't very clear to me.This essay was originally an answer of Suhotra Prabhu to a question about the “fairness” of our falldown to the material world. =========
First of all we strongly suggest those who have a specific interest in the falldown of the spirit soul from the spiritual world to acquire the book entitled Our Original Position, which is available from the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. It is a very elaborate treatment with much quotations from sastra.
I find a refrain in the “condemned,” “pretty unfair,” “felix culpa,” “how could I know” and “bad mistake” arguments that is typical of persons for whom the “original falldown” is a major philosophical stumbling block. And that is, “It’s not my fault. It must be Krishna’s fault.”
You have to face this point unflinchingly: it *is* your fault.
And you have to face this next point unflinchingly: as long as you entertain the notion that it could be Krishna’s fault (that He’s “pretty unfair”), you will remain in this material world, birth after birth.
Accepting that it is your fault that you are fallen into the cycle of birth and death is what surrender is all about. It is only by accepting this that we can sincerely accept the Lord’s help in getting ourselves delivered from this fallen state. Logically, if it is not your fault, then you are not really fallen. Just like, if you end up in prison for a crime you did not deliberately commit (maybe you were just a victim of association, but you personally did not intend harm), then you are not really a criminal, are you?
But the fact is, we *are* criminals. And we can’t be reformed until we admit it wholeheartedly.
Now, zeroing in on the crux of your doubt — that we fell out of krishna-lila because of some unexpected flare-up of envy, and so how can we be eternally condemned for something over which we had no control — you’ve missed the real controller, Krishna. It is a fact that I, as a tiny spirit soul, have no power to control the ebb and flow of emotional states. But Krishna, the parama-isvara (supreme controller), does.
So there are two implications I wish to draw your attention to.
If your idea is that we fell because of an emotional flare-up, then behind that idea is a lack of faith in Krishna’s control over those emotions. To be surrendered to Krishna means to place oneself completely under Krishna’s control. So why would Krishna permit the emotions of His surrendered devotee to flare up in some spiritually detrimental manner? Therefore, 1) either Krishna doesn’t really have control over the ebb and flow of emotions that affect living beings, or
2) He does but He takes pleasure in allowing these emotions to cast someone down into darkness. I.e. Krishna doesn’t always have our best interests in mind. Or worse, He has a malicious streak.
The adoption of either of these two positions is uncalled for. If you find one, the other or both reasonable, then why trouble yourself with following the Vedic scriptures? The Vedic scriptures state: isvara parama krsna: “Krishna is the supreme controller.”
So then how did we fall victim to uncontrolled emotions?
The answer is that *first* we assumed a position of independence from Krishna’s control. Our assuming that position was not prompted by some flood of emotions. It was a conscious choice. As Srila Prabhupada writes:
“Anandamayo ‘bhyasat (Vedanta-sutra 1.1.12). Both the Lord and the living entity, being qualitatively spirit soul, have the tendency for peaceful enjoyment, but when the part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead unfortunately wants to enjoy independently, without Krishna, he is put into the material world, where he begins his life as Brahma and is gradually degraded to the status of an ant or a worm in stool.”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 9.24.58, purport)
So the uncontrolled emotions that wind us up in lower forms like ants and worms come later. First comes the exalted post of Brahma, who manifests the full potency of a jiva (a liberated spirit soul). Brahma is situated in brahma-varcasa, the Brahman effulgence. Therefore Bhagavatam 2.3.2 states that those who wish to attain the divine light of Brahman should worship Brahma. But Brahma thinks himself
*independent* of Krishna.
“That Brahma becomes liberated is known to everyone, but he cannot liberate his devotees. Demigods like Brahma and Lord Shiva cannot give liberation to any living entity. As it is confirmed in Bhagavad-gita, only one who surrenders unto Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, can be liberated from the clutches of maya. Brahma is called here adyah sthira-caranam. He is the original, first-created living entity, and after his own birth he creates the entire cosmic manifestation. He was fully instructed in the matter of creation by the Supreme Lord. Here he is called veda-garbha, which means that he knows the complete purpose of the Vedas. He is always accompanied by such great personalities as Marici, Kasyapa and the seven sages, as well as by great mystic yogis, the Kumaras and many other spiritually advanced living entities, but he has his own interest, separate from the Lord’s. Bheda-drstya means that Brahma sometimes thinks that he is independent of the Supreme Lord, or he thinks of himself as one of the three equally independent incarnations. [”Three equally independent incarnations” means Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma… but actually Brahma is not independent, because he is a jiva (fragmental soul, a constitutional servant of God), whereas Vishnu and Shiva are both classified as isvara (Lords).]” (Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.32.12-15, purport)
And, so, as Srila Prabhupada continues in this same purport:
“Here the word bheda-drstya occurs because Brahma has a slight inclination to think that he is as independent as Rudra. Sometimes Brahma thinks that he is independent of the Supreme Lord, and the worshiper also thinks that Brahma is independent. For this reason, after the destruction of this material world, when there is again creation by the interaction of the material modes of nature, Brahma comes back. Although Brahma reaches the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the first purusa incarnation, Maha-Vishnu, who is full with transcendental qualities, he cannot stay in the spiritual world.”
Please digest the full implications of the above quotation. Brahma, the post occupied by the jiva upon his assumption of independence from the Lord, is a liberated personality. He is not dashed here and there by hot fluxes of emotions, whether envy or anything else. Brahma *knows* fully well the Supreme Lord as Maha-Vishnu. He returns to Him after his period of duty as the creator of the universe. But Brahma also has a tendency, due to his conception of independence, to become attached to his post as the creator… so that when again Vishnu breathes out the universes, Brahma leaves Him to take up the post of a lord of creation again. This second returning to the material world is considered to be his falldown — the falldown of the jiva. Here you see an emotional element creeping in… attachment, prestige, etc, which brings him back to the material world even after his assignment is completed. This is the sign of growing ignorance. That is confirmed thusly later in the same purport:
“The specific significance of his coming back may be noted. Brahma and the great rsis and the great master of yoga (Shiva) are not ordinary living entities; they are very powerful and have all the perfections of mystic yoga. But still they have an inclination to try to become one with the Supreme, and therefore they have to come back. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam it is accepted that as long as one thinks that he is equal with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is not completely purified or knowledgeable. In spite of going up to the first purusa-avatar, Maha-Vishnu, after the dissolution of this material creation, such personalities again fall down or come back to the material creation.”
The falling down of the jiva into material creation therefore has little in common with the scenario of his being carried away willy-nilly by some unfortunate gush of feelings.
It is the result of a deliberate, conscious and informed choice.
Perhaps you still have a doubt about how a soul comes to think himself independent. It can be postulated that before he assumed the post of Brahma, that soul must have been with Krishna in His pastimes within the eternal realm of Goloka. How is it that this particular soul goes from there to the post of Brahma?
The answer is that Krishna’s pastimes are expansive. As Krishna expands His pastimes, so also the souls expand within Him into further realms of His divine lila or play. The creation of the material world is one more expanded lila. Thus the Lord Himself personally enters the material world, and so also do His devotees. Even the eternal residents of Goloka Vrindavan enter the material world at the time Krishna personally descends Himself, as He did 5000 years ago in Bhauma Vrindavan (the Vrindavan on earth, in India, 90 miles south of New Delhi). Some of these residents assume forms different than their Goloka identities. Narada Muni, for instance, the sage who preaches bhakti throughout the 3 worlds, is originally Madhumangala, a friend of Krishna’s in Goloka. And Narada is the son of Brahma. Brahma is a role a jiva can get in the Lord’s pastime of creation if that jiva is interested in participating in the creation-lila from a position apparently as independent as that of God Himself. This particular position (Brahma) is the one from which a soul *may* fall (it is not
guaranteed he will) from the Lord’s association into enmeshment in creation. In other words, rather than simply participating in creation from a transcendental position (as do the residents of Vrindavan and Narada Muni), such a soul, by attachment to his lordly position, becomes *part* of the creation… life
How embarassing. What drivel. Where to begin. There is so much distortion of siddhanta, faulty logic, lack of common sense in this article.
This isn't a new article by Suhotra Prabhu; rather, it is an old one somebody reposted to commemorate his recent passing. I actually think that he was probably one of the best of the "Fall-vadi"-philosophers of ISKCON, and as far as I have understood, this represents his final thoughts on the matter. Of course, since the basic premise is altogether wrong (that souls fall from Vaikuntha), the end result will never be siddhantic, no matter how gifted the philosopher may be. A pity that Suhotra Prabhu would get sidetracked by issues like this. He could have used his enthusiasm for studying Srila Prabhupada's books in much better ways. Anyway, I shouldn't speak ill of the dead. He passed away in Sridham Mayapur with his mala in his hand, and that is glorious.
He passed away in Sridham Mayapur with his mala in his hand, and that is glorious.
Goodness, when?
10th april, thank you bhrigu prabhu for sharing the news. Yes the passing is glorious in mayapur
10th april, thank you bhrigu prabhu for sharing the news. Yes the passing is glorious in mayapur
. After a few minutes mos people say, "I don't really care, the point is we need to get there." This has validity but sooner or later it must be considered, who wants to dedicate their life to a god who is indifferent to them and therefore lets them abandon their eternal wealth at whim.Anyway, I think it's important to assert that you do not agree with the "Fall Theory", and most of the time just leave it at that, if the other party let's you.
I differ with you nitai in feeling that devotees who dont care about the jiva point directly and try to focus more on their devotion should scrutunize the fall issue more. By focusing more on their devotion rather than fall issue they may understand more sristi lila than intellectualizing about it.. As this issue is beyond the intellect and there is no way to satisfy the intellect., so I think it is alright if some devotees ignore this issue and focus on purification and devotion. That will help that get closer to krsna more than dwelling on this issue. Krsna says in B.G he preserves what the devotee has and carries what he lacks. So I think there can be case where somebody's siddhantic understanding on jiva is correct but he has no devotion and vice versa. But still krsna will prefer the one who has more devotion.
It is not the say that I dont care about gaudiya siddhanta. I would be humble able to admit that I have no real experience of seeing mahavisnu breathing universes or jivas choosing material or spiritual postion from the tatastha sakti so any position I take is based on faith on scripture and some logic which is appealing to me. I dont have actual practical realization of seeing the sristi lila so for me , more important is always serving krsna and his devotees. Like Maharaja says scriputral knowledge doenst become ones own till one realises it.