Whenever Srila Prabhupada was confronted with the philosophical view of some philosphers like Origen who believed in the creation of the soul he dismissed it outright. But we see that Sridhar Maharaja while explaining the origin of the jiva explains "jiva originates from brahman which is growing and ever expanding". Doesnt the expanding brahman hint to a sort of creation of soul? Or is the concept of creation of soul completly incompatible with gaudiya siddhanta?
In the description of sristi lila the souls are awakened from slumber when Mahavisnu decides to become many, and there are many souls who have still not been awakened from deep sleep. So even if many souls go to the spiritual side the souls who are yet to be awakened can fill up the positions in the material world to keep it going. Isnt this awakening of souls some sort of creation as souls didnt have any activity before that point and the statement "one decides to become many" leads some people to believe about creation of individual souls.
Also maya is described by the acaryas as witch who has captured us, and she has no direct connection with the lord. But maya sakti also is eternal if I am correct, and she is also required to assist the Lord in one of his plays of sristi lila. Why is it said that she is punishing the rebellious souls when we are just the souls who are required to participate in the sristi lila(we never rebelled exactly as we never had any connection with the spiritual world). Are these statments just to fuel our bhajana so that we give up our provincial interests and surrender to krsna.
I will beg devotees to kindly enlighten me on this topic.
Also maya is described by the acaryas as witch who has captured us, and she has no direct connection with the lord. But maya sakti also is eternal if I am correct, and she is also required to assist the Lord in one of his plays of sristi lila. Why is it said that she is punishing the rebellious souls when we are just the souls who are required to participate in the sristi lila(we never rebelled exactly as we never had any connection with the spiritual world).
Think of Maya like the prison guard. She is punishing us as long as we have a criminal mentality. Yes she is the servant of the Lord in that our suffering in contact with material nature ultimately brings us to give it up and seek shelter of the spiritual nature. She enforces justice through her trident, the three modes of nature. Yes, we don't like her as much as we are suffering during our self-imposed sentence. But we want to get on her good side. The bhakta wants to be in a different maya, and out of this world. We are trying for the ultimate prison break! We want to be imprisoned in Krsna lila, and she is the guard there too, yoga-maya.
Bhagavad-gita 2.20:
For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.
Bhagavad-gita 2.20:For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.
Nanda-tanuja prabhu, with great respect, I suggest that tossing out a naked quote in response to a thoughtful and complex question is unhelpful, if not actually offensive. Vivek clearly asked for clarification, and you answered with a dogmatic parroting of sastra that didn't address any of his points, unless you intended to sweep them all away by implying "This is the Absolute Truth, just accept it." That sort of response might be standard in ISKCON and in fundamentalist Christian sects, but I think Tattva-viveka has a higher standard.
Hmmm. I personally find this verse quite satisfying. It pretty much explains that there is no creation of soul. Not in gaudiya siddhanta, not in any other tradition which accepts Bhagavad-gita as sastric evidence. I'm sorry you feel that my reply was offensive. I'm sure we have quite advanced devotees on Tattva-viveka with much higher realizations then me. I would be much exited to see more elaboration on this subject.
I feel that this also questions eternity a lot. We are accustomed to something having a beginning and an ending. Therefore, we say eternal is a very long period. But eternal is not a very long period, it just is without a beginning or ending. In the same way, the jivas are not created, they are beginningless. That is the nature of spirituality.
From a phenomenological point of view, this issue is a very interesting one, for we simultaneously have no memory of not existing, as well as no memory of existing at any time before this life. We have no memory of coming into existence either. As to the first point, it makes sense that we have no experience of not existing, since experience is impossible without existence. Therefore we cannot by ourselves know if we have always existed, or whether we have come into existence at a certain time. If we have come into existence at a certain time, we clearly have no memory of it. If we have existed before this life, we cannot by ourselves know what type of existence that was, since we have clearly forgotten it. The concept of reincarnation, therefore, cannot be deduced phenomenologically--we accept it because we are told that it exists by someone we believe to be outside of the circle of reincarnation. In other words, there is no way of understanding our predicament, assuming that reincarnation is our true predicament, without outside help. If the soul is reincarnated, then it is not sensible to speak of a beginning of a soul, based on the mechanics of reincarnation, which tell us that one's birth os based on past karma. If this is true, than what can we make of the "first birth," if the soul has a beginning? If the soul has a beginning, then it must have a "first birth," which necessarily will not be based on past karma (since there is none). Thus the concepts of karma and reincarnation take us to a point of infinite regress, which from a purely logical point of view is a fault with the theory; but if reincarnation and karma are true, and we are told that they are, then the soul has existed in this predicament forever, a notion that is inconceivable to us, at least in our present state. This is the basis on which we base or understanding of the eternally conditioned soul.
Well said, Vinode!
In the description of sristi lila the souls are awakened from slumber when Mahavisnu decides to become many, and there are many souls who have still not been awakened from deep sleep. So even if many souls go to the spiritual side the souls who are yet to be awakened can fill up the positions in the material world to keep it going. Isnt this awakening of souls some sort of creation as souls didnt have any activity before that point and the statement "one decides to become many" leads some people to believe about creation of individual souls.
I think it's important not to get too hung up on the poetic language the sastra uses to describe tattvas that exist outside of time and space. Both Visnu and the jivas exist, and have existed, forever. There really is only one--Visnu--but from his energies are manifest the many. Since the sristi-lila has also been going on cyclically forever, where is the question, really, of the one "becoming" many? As Vinode-vani pointed out, if we try to trace the "beginning" of such things we quickly find ourselves in an infinite regress. I also don't see the "awakening" of the jiva to take part in the sristi-lila as a type of creation of the soul, since there must be a being who exists prior to its awakening.
From a phenomenological point of view, this issue is a very interesting one, for we simultaneously have no memory of not existing, as well as no memory of existing at any time before this life. We have no memory of coming into existence either. As to the first point, it makes sense that we have no experience of not existing, since experience is impossible without existence. Therefore we cannot by ourselves know if we have always existed, or whether we have come into existence at a certain time. If we have come into existence at a certain time, we clearly have no memory of it. If we have existed before this life, we cannot by ourselves know what type of existence that was, since we have clearly forgotten it. The concept of reincarnation, therefore, cannot be deduced phenomenologically--we accept it because we are told that it exists by someone we believe to be outside of the circle of reincarnation. In other words, there is no way of understanding our predicament, assuming that reincarnation is our true predicament, without outside help. If the soul is reincarnated, then it is not sensible to speak of a beginning of a soul, based on the mechanics of reincarnation, which tell us that one's birth os based on past karma. If this is true, than what can we make of the "first birth," if the soul has a beginning? If the soul has a beginning, then it must have a "first birth," which necessarily will not be based on past karma (since there is none). Thus the concepts of karma and reincarnation take us to a point of infinite regress, which from a purely logical point of view is a fault with the theory; but if reincarnation and karma are true, and we are told that they are, then the soul has existed in this predicament forever, a notion that is inconceivable to us, at least in our present state. This is the basis on which we base or understanding of the eternally conditioned soul.
Yes, Vedanta-sutra says that karma is anadi, beginningles. It says this in response to the argument that the idea that karma is the cause of suffering suffers from infinite regress. To help us understand the beginningles nature of our karmic predicament the sutras point to our experience of how a tree comes from as seed yet the seed comes from a tree . . .
Hmmm. I personally find this verse quite satisfying. It pretty much explains that there is no creation of soul. Not in gaudiya siddhanta, not in any other tradition which accepts Bhagavad-gita as sastric evidence. I'm sorry you feel that my reply was offensive. I'm sure we have quite advanced devotees on Tattva-viveka with much higher realizations then me. I would be much exited to see more elaboration on this subject.
There is no offense here on your part, but Robert's point is well taken. The idea is that while we know that scripture says the soul has no beginning from verses such as the one you cited, in other plaes srcipture speaks in ways that seems to say otherwise. So the task is to harmonize both, not merely cite texts that underscore one side or the other.
Thanks a lot for your all your points. One thing i wanted to clarify as why are the conditioned souls in the material world designated as rebellious as they didnt even have chance to go to the spiritual side and they are just a part of sristi lila of mahavisnu which has to exist always like the krsna lila. So when the souls are merely assisting the lord in this lila how can we say they are rebellious? Is the just to fuel our bhajana.
Secondly sridhar maharaja says that the soul is coming from Brahman "which is growing and expanding". What does growing and expanding signify.
Regarding reincarnation also, like vinodha vani prabhu said there is no particular evidence for it though it is true that some people have actually researched on it like Dr Ian Stevenson http://www.childpastlives.org/stevenson.htm. But yes, it is impossible to do with a select few people who go in this direction as most of science goes in the direction of fund support from govt and not just honest sincere inquiry. And whatever is incompatible in the current scientific paridigm is ignored most of the time, and people who bring up such issues, even if they are honest and genuine are isolated.
One thing i wanted to clarify as why are the conditioned souls in the material world designated as rebellious as they didnt even have chance to go to the spiritual side and they are just a part of sristi lila of mahavisnu which has to exist always like the krsna lila. So when the souls are merely assisting the lord in this lila how can we say they are rebellious? Is the just to fuel our bhajana.
We are rebellious in as much as we resist the whole plan of the Lord's srsti lila. Our experience of dualities in this world is only part of the drama. The climax of srsti lila is the Lord bringing us around to a different consciousness that leads us out of this, and into the spiritual lila. We are to become disgusted with this duality and aim for liberation. That is really the purpose of this lila. When we resist the Lord's multiple attempts to give us that opportunity (through unlimited avataras and his devotees) we are rebellious. Cooperate with the plan! We want a happy ending to this drama!
thank you madan gopal prabhu. I had a discussion with a person who is following advaita philosophy and the discussion ended on the note there are logical deficiencies in either explanation of truth. But for me the logic of gaudiya siddhanta appears better than advaita and for him it is the opposite. When i questioned him about explanation of singular feature of brahman, he just said you have to experience it, you can explain anything completly by logic.
I guess that is ultimately our stand too we have to experience krsna prema that is the final proof.
So i guess only sukriti brings you to the siddhanta which you choose.
When i questioned him about explanation of singular feature of brahman, he just said you have to experience it, you can explain anything completly by logic.
I assume you meant to say can't explain anything completely by logic... True, though we do not have the glaring logical error of the Advaitan's that the Parambrahman (us) is covered by illusion temporarily until it achieves that liberation. I would also say that we can experience our ultimate goal, get glimpses of it, while the advaitan cannot. How can the jiva experience the oneness of brahman until liberation, and even then (as discussed before) one's individuality cannot be completely extinguished.