Post by Uttamasloka on Aug 18, 2023 13:31:09 GMT -5
As many Vaisnavas may know, I’ve had countless discussions and debates over the last ten+ years about the Jiva Fall issue. And the debates were always with proponents of the apasiddhanta fall idea.
As such, I never imagined that I’d have a debate with a no-fall proponent, but here you have it.
The following excerpts are from several eMail exchanges with Kesidamana dasa, ACBSP.
I’ve only included the relevant philosophical exchanges on the topic of the jiva fall for analysis and discussion. I left out all of his many personal insults and over the top offensive diatribes.
This exchange is valuable because it highlights the importance of understanding different levels of evidence (pramana) and how to reconcile them properly, as well as the correct application of sastric logic (sastra-yukti) to properly connect the relevant dots. Plus, it shows how dangerous it is to speculate about things without having any supporting evidence from guru, sadhu and sastra to validate your ideas.
US = Uttamasloka dasa ACBSP
KD = Kesidamana dasa ACBSP
KD: I can direct you to Verse 11 of Brahma Samhita wherein it is stated, "sastra-suh". This states that Maha Visnu is the source of "thousands of thousands of jiva souls". Earlier in the verse Lord Brahma states that Sri Maha Visnu is the source of "thousands of thousands of avatars.”
US: I quoted that verse in my treatise, along with the commentaries of Jiva Gosvami and Bhaktivinoda Thakura to prove that the tatastha-sakti jivas come from Maha Visnu. But this verse does not prove the jivas fell from the tata.
KD: I bring this to the attention of those interested in this topic because this key verse is generally overlooked. The pradhana, the Causal Ocean, the River Viraja, the "tata" are all the same region. But most importantly, this River Vraja is above the three modes and as such is Vaikuntha. Unfortunately, many, upon hearing Srila Prabhupada state such as "we fell from Vaikuntha" immediately interpret "Vaikuntha" to mean Goloka Vrndavana. However Vaikuntha has many lokas. And Goloka is only one such region, and is surely a place of "no fall" as clearly stated by sastra and all acaryas.
US: Technically, Viraja is ‘between’ the spiritual world and material worlds and it is not an inhabited realm. There are no jivas there and no activities other than Maha Visnu, Laksmi and Ananta-sesa. It is transcendental for sure, but it is not Vaikuntha. It cannot be between Vaikuntha and the material worlds and be Vaikuntha at the same time. That makes no sense. You are extrapolating incorrectly. Here are the references from Caitanya-caritamrita:
Between the spiritual and the material world is a body of water known as the river Virajā. This water is generated from the bodily perspiration of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is known as Vedāṅga. Thus the river flows. CC, 2.21.50
Beyond the river Virajā is the spiritual nature, which is indestructible, eternal, inexhaustible and unlimited. It is the supreme abode, consisting of three fourths of the Lord’s opulences. It is known as paravyoma, the spiritual sky. CC, 2.21.51
Using your argument, you are assuming Srila Prabhupada was saying that with a ‘wink’, knowing they were thinking something else. I just tell people Srila Prabhupada was speaking to raw neophytes, most of whom, he stated privately, would leave the path, so it wasn’t the appropriate time to get into these sort of esoteric details with beginners, especially when there were so many other philosophical points we neophytes needed to grasp and implement.
And the bottom line is that Srila Prabhupada gave the correct conclusions repeatedly in his books, which are his legacy and the last word, ie: they take precedence over any previous ‘conversation’, ‘letter’, or ‘lecture’.
And Srimad-bhagavatam, 2.9.10 is a Checkmate verse and purport for all such statements by Srila Prabhupada, ie: those statements which imply we turned away from Krsna and fell from the spiritual world. That verse and Srila Prabhupada’s purport unambiguously and irrefutably prove that no maya or illusion or contrary thoughts ever take place in the spiritual world. No wiggle room, no exceptions.
KD: Actually the fall takes place from the borderline Vaikuntha region known as the Causal Ocean after emanation from Krsna in His form as Sri Maha Visnu. This is certified by the Verse 11 of Brahma Samhita as mentioned above. When Srila Prabhupada's statements of "we fell from Vaikuntha" are understood to mean "we fell from the Causal Ocean", then the Great Acaryas statements are harmonized.
US: I’m afraid I disagree with that as there is no support for it. The fact is that Maha Visnu has been lying in the Causal Ocean eternally. He doesn’t come and go there. The material worlds are a permanent eternal cycle, with no beginning (anadi), and they have existed simultaneously with the spiritual world forever.
So there was no ‘fall’ from anywhere - ever. We have been eternally conditioned - anadi - without beginning. In Srimad-bhagavatam, 11.11.4, Krsna Himself confirms this and you will read it in my treatise, along with Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura’s commentary elaborating on the details.
The tatastha-sakti jivas were manifest from Maha Visnu specifically for the creation and function of the material worlds, where Krsna engages in unlimited lilas via many varieties of incarnations. Those lilas could not take place in the spiritual world and Srimad-bhagavatam is the chronicle of some of His adventures in those worlds.
KD: The contradictory perplexity has been between 1) we fell from Vaikuntha, and 2) there is no fall from Goloka.
US: Over the last ten years, I have had numerous discussions/debates about the jiva fall issue online, ie: in writing. As such, I’ve heard every argument ad naseum, and I can tell you, the fall proponents will never accept your argument.
The biggest perplexity is that fall proponents won’t even address the evidence from sastra, the previous acaryas and even Srila Prabhupada, which proves their position is wrong - and apasiddhanta. They simply ignore it as inconsequential, and insist that we fell and that it continues to happen.
The perfect example is my recent discussion with Radheshyama. He completely ignored the irrefutable conclusive evidence from Srila Prabhupada, what to speak of from Krsna, sastra and the previous acaryas. He wouldn’t even address it, and instead kept foisting the usual quotes implying we turned away from Krsna in the spiritual world and thus fell. SB, 2.9.10 invalidates all such evidence.
KD: When "falling from Vaikuntha" is understood to indicate "falling from the tatastha region, the Causal Ocean", then there is no contradiction with "there is no fall from Goloka".
US: We don’t fall from anywhere. There is no ‘fall’ - we are nitya-baddhas. We have always been in a conditioned state. We are either sleeping within Maha Visnu in susupti when the universes are retracted, or we are engaged in karmic activities in a manifest universe. All by Krsna’s will, to facilitate sristi-lila.
We are eternally related to Paramatma, who is the second expansion from Maha Visnu and the actual direct source of the jivas in each universe, ie: they manifest through the local Paramatma in each universe. This is confirmed by Jiva Gosvami in Paramatma-sandarbha, from Anuccheda 37:
Now the jiva as a dependent of Paramatma will be discussed. The jiva is an amsa of Paramatma or is secondary to Paramatma. That is the jiva’s nature (svabhava). This is the case at all times even when the jiva is liberated. That is jiva’s svarupa, not that Brahman when cut in pieces becomes jiva. By the Lord’s intrinsic, inconceivable sakti, the jiva is by nature dependent as an amsa, like a particle of a ray of light. This is the meaning of svatah.
Jiva has the nature of being the Lord’s sakti because he is part of the tatastha-sakti: because he eternally takes shelter of the Lord, being His ray; because he is separate from the Lord, being different; and because he is a medium of the Lord in the production of the material world. Since pradhana is an insentient substance, it remains in a state of equilibrium (until the Lord places the jiva in it). Hetu jivo ‘sya sargadeh: the cause of sarga [creation of the universe] and visarga [subsequent creation by Brahma] of the universe is the jiva. (SB, 12.7.18)
KD: Yes, there is falling from Vaikuntha but only from the "tata-loka" whereupon the tatastha-jiva awakens from susupti to choose either 1) the surrendered service of Bhagavan, or 2) rebelling against the superiority of Bhagavan, the jiva chooses service to his own individual atma.
US: Sorry, but I disagree with this idea as well because there is no support for it in sastra or by the previous acaryas. The Causal Ocean - tata - is not Vaikuntha. The ‘choice’ idea is something Bhaktivinoda Thakura presented to try to help his Indian contemporaries comprehend this esoteric subject, but the fact is that there was no choice or fall.
How could jivas make any sort of informed choice at that supposed point? They couldn’t because they are in susupti. It makes no sense, and as I said, there is no support for this in sastra or from the acaryas before Bhaktivinoda Thakura, especially Jiva Gosvami in his Sandarbhas.
From Krsna in Srimad-bhagavatam:
O intelligent Uddhava! The bondage of the jiva, who is my one part or tatastha-sakti, by avidya, ***is without beginning*** (anadi). By vidya, he achieves liberation which has a beginning. SB, 11.11.4
KD: So the root of the correct understanding of this topic can be found in Verse 11 of Sri Brahma Samhita, the first book of the Siddhanta of the Vedas. Once it is realized that Krsna in His form of Sri Maha Visnu is emanating the Tatastha-Shakti Jivas from within the Vaikuntha Pradhana, the Causal Ocean, then fall of the tatastha-jiva "from Vaikuntha" is clarified - and so there is no contradiction with "no fall from Goloka (or Hari-dhama)". In short, Vaikuntha has many regions.
US: Good luck trying to sell that in a debate. Your speculations are extremely way off and unsupported as I have shown above.
********
KD: Peerless Siddhanta from a Peerless Thakur Bhaktivinoda quoting the Vedas:
Raghunatha dasa Babaji: “There are numerous supporting ślokas in the scriptures. I will quote a couple, so kindly pay attention. In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 2.2.20, we find:
“‘Just as innumerable sparks cascade out of a flame, similarly, from Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is the Ātmā, the Universal Soul, the jīvas emanate who are His separated parts and parcels.’
US: No argument there. I stated these facts in my treatise too. But that doesn’t prove anything you said. It does not support your convoluted speculations.
KD: Raghunatha dasa Babaji: “In another part of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 4.3.9, we find:
“‘The jīva has access to two places, both of which he may seek, this material world and the spiritual realm.”
US: The key word here is ‘access’, ie: eligibility, potential. It doesn’t mean jivas can just go either place anytime they choose.
KD: [continuing] “He is situated in svapna-sthanam, the dream-like third state, on the margin of these two worlds. From that middle position he is able to see both the material and the spiritual worlds.”
US: Just like the other allegorical statements from the Upanisads that Bhaktivinoda Thakura quoted, this must also be understood to be allegorical.
Why?
Here are the proofs and sastric logic.
When the jivas are within the body of Maha Visnu in susupti, there is no possibility of ’seeing’, because it is ‘deep sleep’, which all the acaryas define as 'no sensory perception’. They are merged within Maha Visnu.
When the jivas are within the body of Maha Visnu in susupti, they do not have any ‘body’ with senses, either material or spiritual, to perceive such things.
When the jivas are within the body of Maha Visnu in susupti, there are no material worlds to ‘see', because they have already been withdrawn by Maha Visnu’s incoming breath, which also brought the tatastha-sakti jivas back within him again until the next universal manifestation.
According to sastra, the material worlds cannot exist or function until the jivas are impregnated therein and begin their karmic activities again within their various bodies created by their previous karma. There are no material worlds without them, so how can they be ‘seeing' the material world and spiritual world while being bound within the material world? They cannot.
When Maha Visnu exhales and begins the next manifestation of unlimited universes, the tatastha-sakti jivas within Him do not start with a ‘clean slate’, nor are they in any position to make a ‘choice’ re their next destination.
They still carry the karma they created during the last universal manifestation, and they begin the next round with that existing karma. So they do not have a ‘choice’ to go to the spiritual world because they are nitya-baddhas.
This is proper sastric logic (sastra-yukti). Your logic is convoluted due to incomplete knowledge and misunderstanding.
KD: “Further, the following statement from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka, 4.3.18, describes the nature of the marginal position of the jīva:
The symptoms of the marginal existence are like those of a huge aquatic who is capable of living on both the eastern and western sides of the river at his own will. Similarly, the jīva soul, situated within the waters of the Causal Ocean, which lies between the material and spiritual worlds, is able to reside in both the dream world of matter and the spiritual world of divine wakefulness.
US: More allegory and simplification of complex truths.
Here is the proof and logic.
The jivas are NOT literally ’situated within the waters of the Causal Ocean’. Maha Visnu is situated in the Causal Ocean, so the jivas within Him are there by association. The tatastha-sakti jivas are not outside of Maha Visnu because there is no functional existence for them in the Causal Ocean, aka, Viraja River.
The established overriding sastric fact is that the jivas are either situated within Maha Visnu in susupti when the universes are withdrawn, or they are awake in the manifest universes engaged in their anadi karma.
And the key words in that Upanisad quote are ‘capable’ and ‘able’, ie: eligible, potential.
The verse doesn’t state that the jiva literally and continuously goes back and forth between the two worlds. That is not how it works because there is no falling from the spiritual world once one enters there. So no ‘back and forth’ is possible. It’s a one way ticket to either the spiritual world or material world.
And it is not exactly by the jiva’s ‘will’ either that they can enter the spiritual world. It is the jiva’s ‘desires’ which are the cause of bondage or liberation. One cannot simply will to enter the spiritual world either - one must receive the mercy to do so, in addition to one’s desires and will.
Thus, it is obvious these are not literal facts.
KD: It is quite simple as Upanishads above: tatastha jiva emanates from Sri Krsna in his form as Sri Maha Visnu, then from the tata jiva may seek the spiritual plane or the material plane, then, if he seeks the spiritual plane he becomes nitya siddha. or if he seeks the material plane, he becomes nitya-baddha.
US: It does not say that in the sastra you quoted. We don’t ‘become’ nitya-baddhas or nitya-siddhas. Those conditions are anadi - without beginning - no starting point.
The proof is right there in Jaiva-dharma - the same chapter 15 your quotes are from:
Vrajanatha: So māyā has nothing whatever to do with creating the svarūpa of the jīvas – this has to be accepted. At the same time, I have also clearly understood that the jīva is by nature subject to the influence of māyā. Now I want to know, did the cit-śakti create the jīvas and give them their taṭasthā-svabhāva (marginal nature)?
Bābājī: No, the cit-śakti is paripurna-śakti, the complete potency of Kṛṣṇa, and its manifestations are all eternally perfect substances. ***The jīva is not nitya-siddha, although when he performs sādhana, he can become sādhana-siddha*** and enjoy transcendental happiness like the nitya-siddhas, eternally perfect beings. JD, Chapter 15, Page 358
KD: So nitya-baddha jiva has fallen from the tata, the margin between spirit and matter.
US: Sorry, wrong conclusion. There is no falling. Karma is anadi, but you don’t seem to think Krsna’s direct words in Srimad-bhagavatam are as important as allegorical statements from the Upanisads. Srimad-bhagavatam takes precedence over allegorical statements in the Upanisads. Jiva Gosvami confirms in his Tattva-sandarbha that Srimad-bhagavatam is the highest evidence (pramana).
KD: The Vedas are compiled by Sri Krsna, the highest authority.
US: And Krsna defeated your speculations, but like the fall proponents, you just ignore those irrefutable and conclusive statements. You have never once responded to any of my refutations of your so-called evidence. You just keep saying the same things over and over.
KD: Furthermore if we accept the idea that jiva has always been in the material world and has been put there by Sri Krsna without any choice in the matter, then Sri Krsna is cruelly responsible for the sufferings of jiva in the material world.
US: Aha! And there you have it. Krsna is cruel if He didn’t give us a choice.
A choice without any previous understanding of either realms to make an ‘uninformed’ decision. Just a crap shoot - some go here and some go there. Oops for some and fantastic for others!
THAT would be even more cruel.
But Krsna didn’t do that.
Here’s a key point to understand about ‘free will’.
Krsna is God and He does whatever He wants whenever He wants - by His sweet will alone, and always to fulfill His desires. It is Krsna’s will that the material worlds have existed eternally and it is His will that the tatastha-sakti jivas from Maha Visnu facilitate that manifestation, which is known as, sristi-lila.
So by Krsna’s will we are part of this manifestation and from THAT point, we can exercise ‘our limited free will’, but only within the context of our karmic activities, which includes striving for liberation of various types.
In other words, we don’t have the free will to choose which world we reside in. That decision was made by Krsna’s sweet will, and having made that decision, we can now exercise our free will within the limitations of karmic bondage.
KD: But if we accept the Upanishads as above, then jiva has sought the material world and jiva is thus responsible for his material condition by his choice.
US: The Upanishads are powerful evidence - sruti, but they do not supersede Srimad-bhagavatam, which is the final word in evidence (pramana) according to Jiva Gosvami in his Tattva-sandarbha.
Nowhere in Srimad-bhagavatam is there any support for the idea that jivas had a uninformed choice somewhere far back in eternity. It’s not in Jiva Gosvami's Sandarbhas either. That proves the choice idea was part of Bhaktivinoda Thakura's presentation to his Indian contemporaries, who were the prime audience for Jaiva-dharma.
KD: Moreover, all our acaryas describe the jiva as fallen - yes he has fallen from the tata.
US: You and others assume that ‘fallen’ is being used as a verb, but when the acaryas use it, they are mostly using it as a noun, meaning, the jivas are in a ‘fallen’ state. It’s referring to a ‘condition’, not an ‘action’. And not one single acarya has ever stated that the tatastha-sakti jivas in the material worlds fell from the ‘tata’. None. And it’s not in Srimad-bhagavatam either.
This is another good example of proper sastric logic versus convoluted extrapolations to fit one’s confused misunderstanding.
KD: So sastra, logic and plain intellectual sensibility support: tatastha-jiva has emanated from Maha Visnu (Krsna) and from that tata chosen the material life or spiritual life.
US: Ironically, it’s the complete opposite. The tatastha-sakti jivas within Maha Visnu are already in a conditioned state eternally - anadi - nitya-baddha - so there is no ‘choosing’ anything at any time and there never was.
You are also ignoring the reference from later in that Jaiva-dharma chapter, where Babaji says his ‘material words’ are limited and cannot properly convey esoteric truths.
He confirms that nitya-baddhas are eternally conditioned, ie: without beginning - no choice. But you are taking things literally and thus you are bewildered. Here is that reference:
Vrajanātha: You said earlier that the cit world is eternal, and so are the jīvas. If this is true, how can an eternal entity possibly be created, manifested or produced? If it is created at some point of time, it must have been non-existent before that, so how can we accept that it is eternal?
Bābājī: The time and space that you experience in this material world are completely different from time and space in the spiritual world. Material time is divided into three aspects: past, present and future. However, in the spiritual world there is only one undivided, eternally present time. Every event of the spiritual world is eternally present.
Whatever we say or describe in the material world is under the jurisdiction of material time and space, so when we say – “The jīvas were created,” “The spiritual world was manifested,” or “There is no influence of māyā in creating the form of the jīvas,” – material time is bound to influence our language and our statements.
This is inevitable in our conditioned state, so we cannot remove the
influence of material time from our descriptions of the atomic jīva and spiritual objects. The conception of past, present and future always enters them in some way or another.
Still, those who can discriminate properly can understand the application of the eternal present when they comprehend the purport of the descriptions of the spiritual world. Bābā, be very careful in this matter. Give up the inevitable baseness, or the aspect of the description that is fit to be rejected, and have spiritual realization.
All Vaiṣṇavas say that the jīva is an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, that his eternal nature is to serve Kṛṣṇa, and that he is now bound by māyā, because he has forgotten that eternal nature. However, everyone knows that the jīva is an eternal entity, of which there are two types: nitya-mukta and nitya-baddha.
***The subject has been explained in this way only because the conditioned human intellect being controlled by pramāda (inattentiveness), is unable to comprehend a subject matter. Realized sādhakas, though, experience transcendental truth through their cit-samādhi.***
Our words always have some material limitation, so whatever we say will have some māyika defects. My dear son, you should always endeavor to realize the pure truth. Logic and argument cannot help at all in this regard, so it is futile to use them to try to understand inconceivable subject matters. JD, Chapter 15
Conclusions:
The Upanisads do not support your erroneous extrapolations and speculation. And there is no direct evidence in Srimad-bhagavatam or from the previous acaryas to support your speculations either. In fact, all the evidence proves your conclusions are not correct.
The tatastha-sakti jivas did not fall from the spiritual world or any other region. The tatastha-sakti jivas have been in a ‘fallen condition/state’ - nitya-baddha - eternally - anadi. So says Krsna, sastra, and all the previous acaryas.
********
KD: You have misunderstood the meaning of anadi, before creation,
US: Sorry, but it does not mean that. Show me the evidence to support that.
Anadi means ‘without beginning’.
So say ALL the acaryas in all of their writings. Do you know something they don’t?
KD: and nitya, the primary meaning of which is 'constantly'..
US: Wrong again. Nitya in this ‘context’ means ‘eternally’. Nitya-baddha - eternally conditioned - means we started off in that state. We didn’t attain it at some point, or ‘fall’ down into it. We’ve been that way forever - anadi.
So say ALL the acaryas in all of their writings. Do you know something they don’t?
KD: And the tatastha-shakti, the shakti situated at the tata, the margin between the material and spiritual creation, i.e. the Causal Ocean.
US: The tatastha-sakti is situated within Maha Visnu and Maha Visnu is situated in the tata region. They are NOT the same energy just because the same term tata is used. End of story. Cased closed.
There is no tata-loka where the tatastha-sakti jivas hang out. That is not the intended meaning of those statements. It is describing the jiva’s nature - not location.
KD: Kindly study Sanskrit.
US: Kindly study the previous acaryas to learn the actual contextual meaning of those terms versus your speculative interpretations with a limited adhikara.
KD: Srila Prabhupada's words in final paragraph of the final purport of Gita, 18.78:
"The living entity in his original position is pure spirit. He is just like an atomic particle of the Supreme Spirit. Thus Lord Krsna may be compared to the sun, and the living entities to sunshine. Because the living entities are the marginal energy of Krsna , they have a tendency to be in contact either with the material energy or with the spiritual energy. In other words, the living entity is situated between the two energies of the Lord,
US: Once again, Srila Prabhupada is referring to our ’nature’ - not our ‘physical location’. You have misunderstood his use of the word ’situated’. The nitya-baddha jivas are either in susupti within Maha Visnu or they are engaged in their karma in the material world. They are never physically located - situated - in the ‘marginal energy’, because it isn’t a ‘place’ or ‘location’. It’s our ‘nature’. What part of that obvious meaning do you not understand?
KD: and because he belongs to the superior energy of the Lord, he has a particle of independence. By proper use of that independence he comes under the direct order of Krsna . Thus he attains his normal condition in the pleasure-giving potency."
The living entity is "pure spirit", as Srila Prabhupada states above, prior to conditioned life.
US: No, he does NOT say or mean that. That’s your speculative extrapolation again.
‘Original position' just means that the jivas are always ‘pure spirit’ even when they are in a conditioned state. Jivas never lose their original spiritual nature - it just gets covered externally by avidya, which never actually touches the jivas. The tatastha-sakti jivas in the material world did not ’fall’ from anywhere. They have been eternally in a fallen state, ie: nitya-baddha.
KD: Jiva has directly emanated from Sri Krsna in His form as Sri Maha Visnu, therefore jiva was in a state of purity from Sri Maha Visnu prior to his material conditioning.
US: No he was not. More speculation from your confused mind with no support from the purva acaryas or sastra. You seem to have trouble accepting Krsna’s direct unambiguous statements in Srimad-bhagavatam:
O intelligent Uddhava! The bondage of the jiva, who is my one part or tatastha-sakti, by avidya, is without beginning. By vidya, he achieves liberation which has a beginning. SB, 11.11.4
From the commentary by Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura:
Bondage and liberation of My śakti, the jīva, which are apparent only, is caused by My avidyā-śakti, which produces the imposition of the body, and liberation is produced by My vidyā-śakti which removes the imposition of the body. This is brought about under the influence of My śakti which functions for the pastime of creation and destruction of the universe. [end]
This verse refutes your idea completely and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura confirms it. Jivas are always ‘pure spirit’ but they are ‘apparently covered by avidya’ - without beginning.
The phrase ‘without beginning’, ie: anadi, is not up for speculative interpretation by people who don’t have the necessary adhikara. It means what it states - no beginning. And all the previous acaryas concur with that in their books, which I have studied, and clearly - you have not - or you wouldn’t come up with nonsense like this.
KD: Srila Prabhupada: " Because the living entities are the marginal energy of Krsna , they have a tendency to be in contact either with the material energy or with the spiritual energy. In other words, the living entity is situated between the two energies of the Lord, and because he belongs to the superior energy of the Lord, he has a particle of independence."
"Situated Between, Situated Between, Situated Between, Situated Between”
US: Here’s another good example of your lack of understanding. 'Situated between’ simply refers to our nature as tatastha-sakti. It’s not a ‘location’. None of the acaryas mean that when they state such things. It is our NATURE - not our LOCATION!
So much for your Sanskrit knowledge. Understanding Sanskrit does not equate to adhikara. Far from it, as your statements prove.
KD: and then from this position of "pure spirit" "pure spirit" "pure spirit" "pure spirit" above the modes of material nature, jiva chooses either fortunately the spiritual creation and his svarupa blossoms, or jiva chooses unfortunately and thus enters the modes of material nature with his svarupa in seed form (within the atma); as his svarupa is not developed the maya-sakti covers him with neisience and fruitive desire, Visnu Purana.
US: Show us the exact verse from the Visnu Purana please.
The jiva’s svarupa is not ‘within the atma’. What kind of nonsense is that? The jiva’s svarupa IS the jiva!!!! Svarupa means one’s nature.
This proves you are completely clueless about these matters. Neither Jiva Gosvami nor Baladeva Vidyabhusana confirm any such thing. It is absurd and it’s more of your nonsense speculation.
The jiva’s svarupa means the nature of the jiva - it’s not something separate from the jiva that becomes a seed within the jiva. That is absurd speculative and confused nonsense.
I don’t believe the verse from the Visnu Purana says these things. Show me.
The writing of Thakur Bhaktivinoda, Jaiva dharma Chapter 15:
Before commenting, I want to clarify a few things.
First, in Jaiva Dharma, chapter 2, Bhaktivinoda Thakura describes two types of statements from our acaryas, tat-kālika - or statements meant only for a particular time and place, and sarva-kālika - or statements meant for all time. He cites Shiva's preaching as Sripad Sankaracharya as an example of tat-kālika. We must learn to distinguish between the two.
Clearly, you have not learned to properly distinguish between these two types of statements in Jaiva-dharma, which was a book written primarily to reach Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s contemporaries in Bengal and India in general. Thus, it is filled with tat-kalika statements.
Second, your quotes below are from Chapter 15 which is clearly a preaching level presentation designed to teach certain aspects of jiva-tattva to the Indian audience the book was written for, and to expose the flaws of mayavada and other popular and well known philosophies. Thus, Bhaktivinoda Thakura presented things in a way that seems to imply a beginning or starting point for the jiva’s bondage, after making a choice. But later in the chapter, he explains why he used the language that he did. Here is that excerpt:
Bābājī: ...Material time is divided into three aspects: past, present and future. However, in the spiritual world there is only one undivided, eternally present time. Every event of the spiritual world is eternally present.
Whatever we say or describe in the material world is under the jurisdiction of material time and space, so when we say – “The jīvas were created,” “The spiritual world was manifested,” or “There is no influence of māyā in creating the form of the jīvas,” – material time is bound to influence our language and our statements.
This is inevitable in our conditioned state, so we cannot remove the influence of material time from our descriptions of the atomic jīva and spiritual objects. The conception of past, present and future always enters them in some way or another. Still, those who can discriminate properly can understand the application of the eternal present when they comprehend the purport of the descriptions of the spiritual world. Bābā, be very careful in this matter.
Give up the inevitable baseness, or the aspect of the description that is fit to be rejected, and have spiritual realization. All Vaiṣṇavas say that the jīva is an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, that his eternal nature is to serve Kṛṣṇa, and that he is now bound by māyā, because he has forgotten that eternal nature.
However, everyone knows that the jīva is an eternal entity, of which there are two types: nitya-mukta and nitya-baddha. The subject has been explained in this way only because the conditioned human intellect being controlled by pramāda (inattentiveness), is unable to comprehend a subject matter.
Realized sādhakas, though, experience transcendental truth through their cit-samādhi. Our words always have some material limitation, so whatever we say will have some māyika defects. My dear son, you should always endeavor to realize the pure truth. Logic and argument cannot help at all in this regard, so it is futile to use them to try to understand inconceivable subject matters. [end]
You have clearly not understood this aspect of his presentation. Quite the opposite.
KD: Read five times the following:
US: Read my comments above 108 times! 😉
KD: Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī, “Wonderful! Your question has sanctified my heart! When good fortune strikes a person, this is the first query. Hear now the fifth verse of the Daśa-mūla-śikṣā and try to understand the purport:
“‘Out of the flames of a fire fall innumerable tiny sparks, similarly, from the rays of the transcendental sun, Śrī Hari, emanate millions of minute particles of consciousness, the infinitesimal spirit souls, the jīvas. The jīva is non-different from the Supreme, Śrī Hari, and yet simultaneously he is distinct from Śrī Hari. The eternal difference between the Supreme Lord Śrī Hari and the jīva is that the Lord is always the master and controller of the māyā-śakti, whereas the jīva, even in his liberated state by his very constitutional nature is vulnerable to come under the sway of the māyā-śakti.’”
US: Here’s another perfect example of a ’tat-kalika’ statement. Jivas who are liberated are eternally liberated, ie: nitya-muktas, and they can NEVER be vulnerable to maya-sakti once liberated. That is the very definition of mukti/liberation - brahma-bhutah - otherwise, the term is meaningless.
The state of liberation is discussed in detail in the Vedanta-sutras, with the commentaries of Baladeva Vidyabhusana, and there is no mention of the potential to fall under maya’s influence from that exalted spiritual position. Same as in Jiva Gosvami's Sandarbhas. Krsna Himself confirms this in SB, 11.11.4, ie: liberation has a beginning - but no end. Period. Case closed.
Bhaktivinoda Thakura would not put himself in a position to contradict Krsna’s absolute statements in Srimad-bhagavatam. Therefore, this statement must be understood as tat-kalika in nature. That is the only common sense reconciliation.
KD: Vrajanātha, “This is an extraordinary philosophical conclusion. I am eager to learn the Vedic scriptural evidences supporting this view. For me the verdict of the Supreme Lord as you have just given is sufficient, but if we can provide a quote from, for example, the Upaniṣads, then the common man is bound to accept the truth of the Lord’s words.”
Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī, “There are numerous supporting ślokas in the scriptures. I will quote a couple, so kindly pay attention. In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 2.2.20, we find:
“‘Just as innumerable sparks cascade out of a flame, similarly, from Śrī Krsna , who is the Ātmā, the Universal Soul, the jīvas emanate who are His separated parts and parcels.’
“In another part of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 4.3.9, we find:
“‘The jīva has access to two places, both of which he may seek, this material world and the spiritual realm. He is situated in svapna-sthānam, the dream-like third state, on the margin of these two worlds. From that middle position he is able to see both the material and the spiritual worlds.’
“Further, the following statement from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka, 4.3.18, describes the nature of the marginal position of the jīva:
“‘The symptoms of the marginal existence are like those of a huge aquatic who is capable of living on both the eastern and western sides of the river at his own will. Similarly, the jīva soul, situated within the waters of the Causal Ocean, which lies between the material and spiritual worlds, is able to reside in both the dream world of matter and the spiritual world of divine wakefulness.’
Vrajanātha, “What is the Vedic understanding of the marginal situation, known as taṭasthā?”
Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī, “The borderline between water and land is called taṭa. Yet, the water is contiguous to the land; where then is the taṭa, the margin? The taṭa is merely the demarcation that separates the water from land. This tata is a very subtle state; it cannot be perceived through mundane vision. From this *ALLEGORY*, we take the water as the spiritual world and the land as the material world, thus the fine line that divides the two worlds is the taṭa, the subtle demarcation exactly whereupon the jīva soul is located.
“The countless atomic particles that float in the rays of the sun give an inkling of the real position of the jīva. In one direction, the jīva sees the spiritual universe, and in the other, he sees the phenomenal world, created by Lord Brahmā, the world of māyā. The cit-śakti of the Supreme Lord is unlimited and the māyā-śakti is enormous. Positioned exactly between the two are the innumerable jīvas. They are the products of Śrī Krsna ’s taṭasthā-śakti and hence by nature the jīva is marginal.”
US: Once again, another tat-kalika presentation and allegorical in nature, as was stated above by Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī.
Why?
Because the correct tattva is that the jivas are either sleeping within Maha Visnu in deep sleep - susupti - when the universes are withdrawn, or they are manifest in the material worlds engaged in their karma. There is no other ‘place’ they reside or can function. Deep sleep - susupti - means they have no sensory perception at all, as they are literally merged within Maha Visnu again, and they certainly don’t have any functional bodies within Maha Visnu, so on what basis can they ‘perceive’ anything? They cannot.
Therefore, it is understood that these statements are allegorical in nature - not literal - just as Bhaktivinoda Thakura states above. Did you miss that?
KD: Vrajanātha, “What is the taṭasthā-svabhāva, marginal nature?”
Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī: “The jiva is situated in the middle with access to both worlds and he is constitutionally susceptible to come under the control of either of the śaktis. This condition is symptomatic of the taṭasthā-svabhāva.
US: Jivas have been eternally under the control of maya-sakti, and they have access to the spiritual world ONLY when they begin their spiritual life in one fortunate lifetime, due to Krsna's mercy and sadhu-sanga. Even then, it takes many lifetimes to gain access to the spiritual world. This verse from the Upanisads does not change that truth.
KD: Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī: When the movement of river water shifts the bank of a river this seizes the land and converts it into riverbed. Alternatively, silt may deposit into embankments, which then gradually become land. Similarly, if the jīva looks towards Śrī Krsna, his faith in Krsna increases and he develops a stronger foothold in the spiritual realm. However, if he looks at māyā and turns his back to Śrī Krsna , he thereby becomes enmeshed in the network of māyā. This choice is the natural characteristic of the taṭasthā-svabhāva.”
US: More obvious allegory.
KD: Vrajanātha, “Is the māyā-śakti in some way present in the constitutional structure of the jīva?”
Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī, “No, the jīva is a product of spiritual nature. However, because he is infinitesimal in size, he lacks sufficient spiritual strength. Therefore, he is vulnerable and can be easily defeated by māyā, although māyā is actually totally absent in the constitution of the jīva.”
The statements of Thakur Bhaktivinoda are irrefutable for a sincere devotee.
US: I understand Bhaktivinoda Thakura very well, but I don’t agree with YOUR speculative interpretations of Bhaktivinoda Thakura.
And all of your arguments are based on YOUR confused extrapolations and speculations without support from guru, sadhu and sastra.
It’s very offensive to use Bhaktivinoda Thakura as your hammer and say I don’t accept his statements, when it is YOUR confused misinterpretations that I reject. I hope that’s clear now.
Some of the statements of Bhaktivinoda Thakura are tat-kalika in nature, as he himself explained for obvious reasons. Apparently you missed that and didn’t understand what he was clearly implying. Thus, his statements are not ‘irrefutable’ unless they are supported by guru, sadhu and sastra.
On the other hand, Bhaktivinoda Thakura's statements have obviously confused you quite well. You are speculating way above your adhikara. Apparently, you haven’t gone beyond Jaiva-dharma. Study Jiva Gosvami’s Sandarbhas and the Vedanta-sutras to learn the factual details, ie: the actual tattvas and siddhantas.
As such, I never imagined that I’d have a debate with a no-fall proponent, but here you have it.
The following excerpts are from several eMail exchanges with Kesidamana dasa, ACBSP.
I’ve only included the relevant philosophical exchanges on the topic of the jiva fall for analysis and discussion. I left out all of his many personal insults and over the top offensive diatribes.
This exchange is valuable because it highlights the importance of understanding different levels of evidence (pramana) and how to reconcile them properly, as well as the correct application of sastric logic (sastra-yukti) to properly connect the relevant dots. Plus, it shows how dangerous it is to speculate about things without having any supporting evidence from guru, sadhu and sastra to validate your ideas.
US = Uttamasloka dasa ACBSP
KD = Kesidamana dasa ACBSP
KD: I can direct you to Verse 11 of Brahma Samhita wherein it is stated, "sastra-suh". This states that Maha Visnu is the source of "thousands of thousands of jiva souls". Earlier in the verse Lord Brahma states that Sri Maha Visnu is the source of "thousands of thousands of avatars.”
US: I quoted that verse in my treatise, along with the commentaries of Jiva Gosvami and Bhaktivinoda Thakura to prove that the tatastha-sakti jivas come from Maha Visnu. But this verse does not prove the jivas fell from the tata.
KD: I bring this to the attention of those interested in this topic because this key verse is generally overlooked. The pradhana, the Causal Ocean, the River Viraja, the "tata" are all the same region. But most importantly, this River Vraja is above the three modes and as such is Vaikuntha. Unfortunately, many, upon hearing Srila Prabhupada state such as "we fell from Vaikuntha" immediately interpret "Vaikuntha" to mean Goloka Vrndavana. However Vaikuntha has many lokas. And Goloka is only one such region, and is surely a place of "no fall" as clearly stated by sastra and all acaryas.
US: Technically, Viraja is ‘between’ the spiritual world and material worlds and it is not an inhabited realm. There are no jivas there and no activities other than Maha Visnu, Laksmi and Ananta-sesa. It is transcendental for sure, but it is not Vaikuntha. It cannot be between Vaikuntha and the material worlds and be Vaikuntha at the same time. That makes no sense. You are extrapolating incorrectly. Here are the references from Caitanya-caritamrita:
Between the spiritual and the material world is a body of water known as the river Virajā. This water is generated from the bodily perspiration of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is known as Vedāṅga. Thus the river flows. CC, 2.21.50
Beyond the river Virajā is the spiritual nature, which is indestructible, eternal, inexhaustible and unlimited. It is the supreme abode, consisting of three fourths of the Lord’s opulences. It is known as paravyoma, the spiritual sky. CC, 2.21.51
Using your argument, you are assuming Srila Prabhupada was saying that with a ‘wink’, knowing they were thinking something else. I just tell people Srila Prabhupada was speaking to raw neophytes, most of whom, he stated privately, would leave the path, so it wasn’t the appropriate time to get into these sort of esoteric details with beginners, especially when there were so many other philosophical points we neophytes needed to grasp and implement.
And the bottom line is that Srila Prabhupada gave the correct conclusions repeatedly in his books, which are his legacy and the last word, ie: they take precedence over any previous ‘conversation’, ‘letter’, or ‘lecture’.
And Srimad-bhagavatam, 2.9.10 is a Checkmate verse and purport for all such statements by Srila Prabhupada, ie: those statements which imply we turned away from Krsna and fell from the spiritual world. That verse and Srila Prabhupada’s purport unambiguously and irrefutably prove that no maya or illusion or contrary thoughts ever take place in the spiritual world. No wiggle room, no exceptions.
KD: Actually the fall takes place from the borderline Vaikuntha region known as the Causal Ocean after emanation from Krsna in His form as Sri Maha Visnu. This is certified by the Verse 11 of Brahma Samhita as mentioned above. When Srila Prabhupada's statements of "we fell from Vaikuntha" are understood to mean "we fell from the Causal Ocean", then the Great Acaryas statements are harmonized.
US: I’m afraid I disagree with that as there is no support for it. The fact is that Maha Visnu has been lying in the Causal Ocean eternally. He doesn’t come and go there. The material worlds are a permanent eternal cycle, with no beginning (anadi), and they have existed simultaneously with the spiritual world forever.
So there was no ‘fall’ from anywhere - ever. We have been eternally conditioned - anadi - without beginning. In Srimad-bhagavatam, 11.11.4, Krsna Himself confirms this and you will read it in my treatise, along with Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura’s commentary elaborating on the details.
The tatastha-sakti jivas were manifest from Maha Visnu specifically for the creation and function of the material worlds, where Krsna engages in unlimited lilas via many varieties of incarnations. Those lilas could not take place in the spiritual world and Srimad-bhagavatam is the chronicle of some of His adventures in those worlds.
KD: The contradictory perplexity has been between 1) we fell from Vaikuntha, and 2) there is no fall from Goloka.
US: Over the last ten years, I have had numerous discussions/debates about the jiva fall issue online, ie: in writing. As such, I’ve heard every argument ad naseum, and I can tell you, the fall proponents will never accept your argument.
The biggest perplexity is that fall proponents won’t even address the evidence from sastra, the previous acaryas and even Srila Prabhupada, which proves their position is wrong - and apasiddhanta. They simply ignore it as inconsequential, and insist that we fell and that it continues to happen.
The perfect example is my recent discussion with Radheshyama. He completely ignored the irrefutable conclusive evidence from Srila Prabhupada, what to speak of from Krsna, sastra and the previous acaryas. He wouldn’t even address it, and instead kept foisting the usual quotes implying we turned away from Krsna in the spiritual world and thus fell. SB, 2.9.10 invalidates all such evidence.
KD: When "falling from Vaikuntha" is understood to indicate "falling from the tatastha region, the Causal Ocean", then there is no contradiction with "there is no fall from Goloka".
US: We don’t fall from anywhere. There is no ‘fall’ - we are nitya-baddhas. We have always been in a conditioned state. We are either sleeping within Maha Visnu in susupti when the universes are retracted, or we are engaged in karmic activities in a manifest universe. All by Krsna’s will, to facilitate sristi-lila.
We are eternally related to Paramatma, who is the second expansion from Maha Visnu and the actual direct source of the jivas in each universe, ie: they manifest through the local Paramatma in each universe. This is confirmed by Jiva Gosvami in Paramatma-sandarbha, from Anuccheda 37:
Now the jiva as a dependent of Paramatma will be discussed. The jiva is an amsa of Paramatma or is secondary to Paramatma. That is the jiva’s nature (svabhava). This is the case at all times even when the jiva is liberated. That is jiva’s svarupa, not that Brahman when cut in pieces becomes jiva. By the Lord’s intrinsic, inconceivable sakti, the jiva is by nature dependent as an amsa, like a particle of a ray of light. This is the meaning of svatah.
Jiva has the nature of being the Lord’s sakti because he is part of the tatastha-sakti: because he eternally takes shelter of the Lord, being His ray; because he is separate from the Lord, being different; and because he is a medium of the Lord in the production of the material world. Since pradhana is an insentient substance, it remains in a state of equilibrium (until the Lord places the jiva in it). Hetu jivo ‘sya sargadeh: the cause of sarga [creation of the universe] and visarga [subsequent creation by Brahma] of the universe is the jiva. (SB, 12.7.18)
KD: Yes, there is falling from Vaikuntha but only from the "tata-loka" whereupon the tatastha-jiva awakens from susupti to choose either 1) the surrendered service of Bhagavan, or 2) rebelling against the superiority of Bhagavan, the jiva chooses service to his own individual atma.
US: Sorry, but I disagree with this idea as well because there is no support for it in sastra or by the previous acaryas. The Causal Ocean - tata - is not Vaikuntha. The ‘choice’ idea is something Bhaktivinoda Thakura presented to try to help his Indian contemporaries comprehend this esoteric subject, but the fact is that there was no choice or fall.
How could jivas make any sort of informed choice at that supposed point? They couldn’t because they are in susupti. It makes no sense, and as I said, there is no support for this in sastra or from the acaryas before Bhaktivinoda Thakura, especially Jiva Gosvami in his Sandarbhas.
From Krsna in Srimad-bhagavatam:
O intelligent Uddhava! The bondage of the jiva, who is my one part or tatastha-sakti, by avidya, ***is without beginning*** (anadi). By vidya, he achieves liberation which has a beginning. SB, 11.11.4
KD: So the root of the correct understanding of this topic can be found in Verse 11 of Sri Brahma Samhita, the first book of the Siddhanta of the Vedas. Once it is realized that Krsna in His form of Sri Maha Visnu is emanating the Tatastha-Shakti Jivas from within the Vaikuntha Pradhana, the Causal Ocean, then fall of the tatastha-jiva "from Vaikuntha" is clarified - and so there is no contradiction with "no fall from Goloka (or Hari-dhama)". In short, Vaikuntha has many regions.
US: Good luck trying to sell that in a debate. Your speculations are extremely way off and unsupported as I have shown above.
********
KD: Peerless Siddhanta from a Peerless Thakur Bhaktivinoda quoting the Vedas:
Raghunatha dasa Babaji: “There are numerous supporting ślokas in the scriptures. I will quote a couple, so kindly pay attention. In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 2.2.20, we find:
“‘Just as innumerable sparks cascade out of a flame, similarly, from Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is the Ātmā, the Universal Soul, the jīvas emanate who are His separated parts and parcels.’
US: No argument there. I stated these facts in my treatise too. But that doesn’t prove anything you said. It does not support your convoluted speculations.
KD: Raghunatha dasa Babaji: “In another part of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 4.3.9, we find:
“‘The jīva has access to two places, both of which he may seek, this material world and the spiritual realm.”
US: The key word here is ‘access’, ie: eligibility, potential. It doesn’t mean jivas can just go either place anytime they choose.
KD: [continuing] “He is situated in svapna-sthanam, the dream-like third state, on the margin of these two worlds. From that middle position he is able to see both the material and the spiritual worlds.”
US: Just like the other allegorical statements from the Upanisads that Bhaktivinoda Thakura quoted, this must also be understood to be allegorical.
Why?
Here are the proofs and sastric logic.
When the jivas are within the body of Maha Visnu in susupti, there is no possibility of ’seeing’, because it is ‘deep sleep’, which all the acaryas define as 'no sensory perception’. They are merged within Maha Visnu.
When the jivas are within the body of Maha Visnu in susupti, they do not have any ‘body’ with senses, either material or spiritual, to perceive such things.
When the jivas are within the body of Maha Visnu in susupti, there are no material worlds to ‘see', because they have already been withdrawn by Maha Visnu’s incoming breath, which also brought the tatastha-sakti jivas back within him again until the next universal manifestation.
According to sastra, the material worlds cannot exist or function until the jivas are impregnated therein and begin their karmic activities again within their various bodies created by their previous karma. There are no material worlds without them, so how can they be ‘seeing' the material world and spiritual world while being bound within the material world? They cannot.
When Maha Visnu exhales and begins the next manifestation of unlimited universes, the tatastha-sakti jivas within Him do not start with a ‘clean slate’, nor are they in any position to make a ‘choice’ re their next destination.
They still carry the karma they created during the last universal manifestation, and they begin the next round with that existing karma. So they do not have a ‘choice’ to go to the spiritual world because they are nitya-baddhas.
This is proper sastric logic (sastra-yukti). Your logic is convoluted due to incomplete knowledge and misunderstanding.
KD: “Further, the following statement from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka, 4.3.18, describes the nature of the marginal position of the jīva:
The symptoms of the marginal existence are like those of a huge aquatic who is capable of living on both the eastern and western sides of the river at his own will. Similarly, the jīva soul, situated within the waters of the Causal Ocean, which lies between the material and spiritual worlds, is able to reside in both the dream world of matter and the spiritual world of divine wakefulness.
US: More allegory and simplification of complex truths.
Here is the proof and logic.
The jivas are NOT literally ’situated within the waters of the Causal Ocean’. Maha Visnu is situated in the Causal Ocean, so the jivas within Him are there by association. The tatastha-sakti jivas are not outside of Maha Visnu because there is no functional existence for them in the Causal Ocean, aka, Viraja River.
The established overriding sastric fact is that the jivas are either situated within Maha Visnu in susupti when the universes are withdrawn, or they are awake in the manifest universes engaged in their anadi karma.
And the key words in that Upanisad quote are ‘capable’ and ‘able’, ie: eligible, potential.
The verse doesn’t state that the jiva literally and continuously goes back and forth between the two worlds. That is not how it works because there is no falling from the spiritual world once one enters there. So no ‘back and forth’ is possible. It’s a one way ticket to either the spiritual world or material world.
And it is not exactly by the jiva’s ‘will’ either that they can enter the spiritual world. It is the jiva’s ‘desires’ which are the cause of bondage or liberation. One cannot simply will to enter the spiritual world either - one must receive the mercy to do so, in addition to one’s desires and will.
Thus, it is obvious these are not literal facts.
KD: It is quite simple as Upanishads above: tatastha jiva emanates from Sri Krsna in his form as Sri Maha Visnu, then from the tata jiva may seek the spiritual plane or the material plane, then, if he seeks the spiritual plane he becomes nitya siddha. or if he seeks the material plane, he becomes nitya-baddha.
US: It does not say that in the sastra you quoted. We don’t ‘become’ nitya-baddhas or nitya-siddhas. Those conditions are anadi - without beginning - no starting point.
The proof is right there in Jaiva-dharma - the same chapter 15 your quotes are from:
Vrajanatha: So māyā has nothing whatever to do with creating the svarūpa of the jīvas – this has to be accepted. At the same time, I have also clearly understood that the jīva is by nature subject to the influence of māyā. Now I want to know, did the cit-śakti create the jīvas and give them their taṭasthā-svabhāva (marginal nature)?
Bābājī: No, the cit-śakti is paripurna-śakti, the complete potency of Kṛṣṇa, and its manifestations are all eternally perfect substances. ***The jīva is not nitya-siddha, although when he performs sādhana, he can become sādhana-siddha*** and enjoy transcendental happiness like the nitya-siddhas, eternally perfect beings. JD, Chapter 15, Page 358
KD: So nitya-baddha jiva has fallen from the tata, the margin between spirit and matter.
US: Sorry, wrong conclusion. There is no falling. Karma is anadi, but you don’t seem to think Krsna’s direct words in Srimad-bhagavatam are as important as allegorical statements from the Upanisads. Srimad-bhagavatam takes precedence over allegorical statements in the Upanisads. Jiva Gosvami confirms in his Tattva-sandarbha that Srimad-bhagavatam is the highest evidence (pramana).
KD: The Vedas are compiled by Sri Krsna, the highest authority.
US: And Krsna defeated your speculations, but like the fall proponents, you just ignore those irrefutable and conclusive statements. You have never once responded to any of my refutations of your so-called evidence. You just keep saying the same things over and over.
KD: Furthermore if we accept the idea that jiva has always been in the material world and has been put there by Sri Krsna without any choice in the matter, then Sri Krsna is cruelly responsible for the sufferings of jiva in the material world.
US: Aha! And there you have it. Krsna is cruel if He didn’t give us a choice.
A choice without any previous understanding of either realms to make an ‘uninformed’ decision. Just a crap shoot - some go here and some go there. Oops for some and fantastic for others!
THAT would be even more cruel.
But Krsna didn’t do that.
Here’s a key point to understand about ‘free will’.
Krsna is God and He does whatever He wants whenever He wants - by His sweet will alone, and always to fulfill His desires. It is Krsna’s will that the material worlds have existed eternally and it is His will that the tatastha-sakti jivas from Maha Visnu facilitate that manifestation, which is known as, sristi-lila.
So by Krsna’s will we are part of this manifestation and from THAT point, we can exercise ‘our limited free will’, but only within the context of our karmic activities, which includes striving for liberation of various types.
In other words, we don’t have the free will to choose which world we reside in. That decision was made by Krsna’s sweet will, and having made that decision, we can now exercise our free will within the limitations of karmic bondage.
KD: But if we accept the Upanishads as above, then jiva has sought the material world and jiva is thus responsible for his material condition by his choice.
US: The Upanishads are powerful evidence - sruti, but they do not supersede Srimad-bhagavatam, which is the final word in evidence (pramana) according to Jiva Gosvami in his Tattva-sandarbha.
Nowhere in Srimad-bhagavatam is there any support for the idea that jivas had a uninformed choice somewhere far back in eternity. It’s not in Jiva Gosvami's Sandarbhas either. That proves the choice idea was part of Bhaktivinoda Thakura's presentation to his Indian contemporaries, who were the prime audience for Jaiva-dharma.
KD: Moreover, all our acaryas describe the jiva as fallen - yes he has fallen from the tata.
US: You and others assume that ‘fallen’ is being used as a verb, but when the acaryas use it, they are mostly using it as a noun, meaning, the jivas are in a ‘fallen’ state. It’s referring to a ‘condition’, not an ‘action’. And not one single acarya has ever stated that the tatastha-sakti jivas in the material worlds fell from the ‘tata’. None. And it’s not in Srimad-bhagavatam either.
This is another good example of proper sastric logic versus convoluted extrapolations to fit one’s confused misunderstanding.
KD: So sastra, logic and plain intellectual sensibility support: tatastha-jiva has emanated from Maha Visnu (Krsna) and from that tata chosen the material life or spiritual life.
US: Ironically, it’s the complete opposite. The tatastha-sakti jivas within Maha Visnu are already in a conditioned state eternally - anadi - nitya-baddha - so there is no ‘choosing’ anything at any time and there never was.
You are also ignoring the reference from later in that Jaiva-dharma chapter, where Babaji says his ‘material words’ are limited and cannot properly convey esoteric truths.
He confirms that nitya-baddhas are eternally conditioned, ie: without beginning - no choice. But you are taking things literally and thus you are bewildered. Here is that reference:
Vrajanātha: You said earlier that the cit world is eternal, and so are the jīvas. If this is true, how can an eternal entity possibly be created, manifested or produced? If it is created at some point of time, it must have been non-existent before that, so how can we accept that it is eternal?
Bābājī: The time and space that you experience in this material world are completely different from time and space in the spiritual world. Material time is divided into three aspects: past, present and future. However, in the spiritual world there is only one undivided, eternally present time. Every event of the spiritual world is eternally present.
Whatever we say or describe in the material world is under the jurisdiction of material time and space, so when we say – “The jīvas were created,” “The spiritual world was manifested,” or “There is no influence of māyā in creating the form of the jīvas,” – material time is bound to influence our language and our statements.
This is inevitable in our conditioned state, so we cannot remove the
influence of material time from our descriptions of the atomic jīva and spiritual objects. The conception of past, present and future always enters them in some way or another.
Still, those who can discriminate properly can understand the application of the eternal present when they comprehend the purport of the descriptions of the spiritual world. Bābā, be very careful in this matter. Give up the inevitable baseness, or the aspect of the description that is fit to be rejected, and have spiritual realization.
All Vaiṣṇavas say that the jīva is an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, that his eternal nature is to serve Kṛṣṇa, and that he is now bound by māyā, because he has forgotten that eternal nature. However, everyone knows that the jīva is an eternal entity, of which there are two types: nitya-mukta and nitya-baddha.
***The subject has been explained in this way only because the conditioned human intellect being controlled by pramāda (inattentiveness), is unable to comprehend a subject matter. Realized sādhakas, though, experience transcendental truth through their cit-samādhi.***
Our words always have some material limitation, so whatever we say will have some māyika defects. My dear son, you should always endeavor to realize the pure truth. Logic and argument cannot help at all in this regard, so it is futile to use them to try to understand inconceivable subject matters. JD, Chapter 15
Conclusions:
The Upanisads do not support your erroneous extrapolations and speculation. And there is no direct evidence in Srimad-bhagavatam or from the previous acaryas to support your speculations either. In fact, all the evidence proves your conclusions are not correct.
The tatastha-sakti jivas did not fall from the spiritual world or any other region. The tatastha-sakti jivas have been in a ‘fallen condition/state’ - nitya-baddha - eternally - anadi. So says Krsna, sastra, and all the previous acaryas.
********
KD: You have misunderstood the meaning of anadi, before creation,
US: Sorry, but it does not mean that. Show me the evidence to support that.
Anadi means ‘without beginning’.
So say ALL the acaryas in all of their writings. Do you know something they don’t?
KD: and nitya, the primary meaning of which is 'constantly'..
US: Wrong again. Nitya in this ‘context’ means ‘eternally’. Nitya-baddha - eternally conditioned - means we started off in that state. We didn’t attain it at some point, or ‘fall’ down into it. We’ve been that way forever - anadi.
So say ALL the acaryas in all of their writings. Do you know something they don’t?
KD: And the tatastha-shakti, the shakti situated at the tata, the margin between the material and spiritual creation, i.e. the Causal Ocean.
US: The tatastha-sakti is situated within Maha Visnu and Maha Visnu is situated in the tata region. They are NOT the same energy just because the same term tata is used. End of story. Cased closed.
There is no tata-loka where the tatastha-sakti jivas hang out. That is not the intended meaning of those statements. It is describing the jiva’s nature - not location.
KD: Kindly study Sanskrit.
US: Kindly study the previous acaryas to learn the actual contextual meaning of those terms versus your speculative interpretations with a limited adhikara.
KD: Srila Prabhupada's words in final paragraph of the final purport of Gita, 18.78:
"The living entity in his original position is pure spirit. He is just like an atomic particle of the Supreme Spirit. Thus Lord Krsna may be compared to the sun, and the living entities to sunshine. Because the living entities are the marginal energy of Krsna , they have a tendency to be in contact either with the material energy or with the spiritual energy. In other words, the living entity is situated between the two energies of the Lord,
US: Once again, Srila Prabhupada is referring to our ’nature’ - not our ‘physical location’. You have misunderstood his use of the word ’situated’. The nitya-baddha jivas are either in susupti within Maha Visnu or they are engaged in their karma in the material world. They are never physically located - situated - in the ‘marginal energy’, because it isn’t a ‘place’ or ‘location’. It’s our ‘nature’. What part of that obvious meaning do you not understand?
KD: and because he belongs to the superior energy of the Lord, he has a particle of independence. By proper use of that independence he comes under the direct order of Krsna . Thus he attains his normal condition in the pleasure-giving potency."
The living entity is "pure spirit", as Srila Prabhupada states above, prior to conditioned life.
US: No, he does NOT say or mean that. That’s your speculative extrapolation again.
‘Original position' just means that the jivas are always ‘pure spirit’ even when they are in a conditioned state. Jivas never lose their original spiritual nature - it just gets covered externally by avidya, which never actually touches the jivas. The tatastha-sakti jivas in the material world did not ’fall’ from anywhere. They have been eternally in a fallen state, ie: nitya-baddha.
KD: Jiva has directly emanated from Sri Krsna in His form as Sri Maha Visnu, therefore jiva was in a state of purity from Sri Maha Visnu prior to his material conditioning.
US: No he was not. More speculation from your confused mind with no support from the purva acaryas or sastra. You seem to have trouble accepting Krsna’s direct unambiguous statements in Srimad-bhagavatam:
O intelligent Uddhava! The bondage of the jiva, who is my one part or tatastha-sakti, by avidya, is without beginning. By vidya, he achieves liberation which has a beginning. SB, 11.11.4
From the commentary by Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura:
Bondage and liberation of My śakti, the jīva, which are apparent only, is caused by My avidyā-śakti, which produces the imposition of the body, and liberation is produced by My vidyā-śakti which removes the imposition of the body. This is brought about under the influence of My śakti which functions for the pastime of creation and destruction of the universe. [end]
This verse refutes your idea completely and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura confirms it. Jivas are always ‘pure spirit’ but they are ‘apparently covered by avidya’ - without beginning.
The phrase ‘without beginning’, ie: anadi, is not up for speculative interpretation by people who don’t have the necessary adhikara. It means what it states - no beginning. And all the previous acaryas concur with that in their books, which I have studied, and clearly - you have not - or you wouldn’t come up with nonsense like this.
KD: Srila Prabhupada: " Because the living entities are the marginal energy of Krsna , they have a tendency to be in contact either with the material energy or with the spiritual energy. In other words, the living entity is situated between the two energies of the Lord, and because he belongs to the superior energy of the Lord, he has a particle of independence."
"Situated Between, Situated Between, Situated Between, Situated Between”
US: Here’s another good example of your lack of understanding. 'Situated between’ simply refers to our nature as tatastha-sakti. It’s not a ‘location’. None of the acaryas mean that when they state such things. It is our NATURE - not our LOCATION!
So much for your Sanskrit knowledge. Understanding Sanskrit does not equate to adhikara. Far from it, as your statements prove.
KD: and then from this position of "pure spirit" "pure spirit" "pure spirit" "pure spirit" above the modes of material nature, jiva chooses either fortunately the spiritual creation and his svarupa blossoms, or jiva chooses unfortunately and thus enters the modes of material nature with his svarupa in seed form (within the atma); as his svarupa is not developed the maya-sakti covers him with neisience and fruitive desire, Visnu Purana.
US: Show us the exact verse from the Visnu Purana please.
The jiva’s svarupa is not ‘within the atma’. What kind of nonsense is that? The jiva’s svarupa IS the jiva!!!! Svarupa means one’s nature.
This proves you are completely clueless about these matters. Neither Jiva Gosvami nor Baladeva Vidyabhusana confirm any such thing. It is absurd and it’s more of your nonsense speculation.
The jiva’s svarupa means the nature of the jiva - it’s not something separate from the jiva that becomes a seed within the jiva. That is absurd speculative and confused nonsense.
I don’t believe the verse from the Visnu Purana says these things. Show me.
The writing of Thakur Bhaktivinoda, Jaiva dharma Chapter 15:
Before commenting, I want to clarify a few things.
First, in Jaiva Dharma, chapter 2, Bhaktivinoda Thakura describes two types of statements from our acaryas, tat-kālika - or statements meant only for a particular time and place, and sarva-kālika - or statements meant for all time. He cites Shiva's preaching as Sripad Sankaracharya as an example of tat-kālika. We must learn to distinguish between the two.
Clearly, you have not learned to properly distinguish between these two types of statements in Jaiva-dharma, which was a book written primarily to reach Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s contemporaries in Bengal and India in general. Thus, it is filled with tat-kalika statements.
Second, your quotes below are from Chapter 15 which is clearly a preaching level presentation designed to teach certain aspects of jiva-tattva to the Indian audience the book was written for, and to expose the flaws of mayavada and other popular and well known philosophies. Thus, Bhaktivinoda Thakura presented things in a way that seems to imply a beginning or starting point for the jiva’s bondage, after making a choice. But later in the chapter, he explains why he used the language that he did. Here is that excerpt:
Bābājī: ...Material time is divided into three aspects: past, present and future. However, in the spiritual world there is only one undivided, eternally present time. Every event of the spiritual world is eternally present.
Whatever we say or describe in the material world is under the jurisdiction of material time and space, so when we say – “The jīvas were created,” “The spiritual world was manifested,” or “There is no influence of māyā in creating the form of the jīvas,” – material time is bound to influence our language and our statements.
This is inevitable in our conditioned state, so we cannot remove the influence of material time from our descriptions of the atomic jīva and spiritual objects. The conception of past, present and future always enters them in some way or another. Still, those who can discriminate properly can understand the application of the eternal present when they comprehend the purport of the descriptions of the spiritual world. Bābā, be very careful in this matter.
Give up the inevitable baseness, or the aspect of the description that is fit to be rejected, and have spiritual realization. All Vaiṣṇavas say that the jīva is an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, that his eternal nature is to serve Kṛṣṇa, and that he is now bound by māyā, because he has forgotten that eternal nature.
However, everyone knows that the jīva is an eternal entity, of which there are two types: nitya-mukta and nitya-baddha. The subject has been explained in this way only because the conditioned human intellect being controlled by pramāda (inattentiveness), is unable to comprehend a subject matter.
Realized sādhakas, though, experience transcendental truth through their cit-samādhi. Our words always have some material limitation, so whatever we say will have some māyika defects. My dear son, you should always endeavor to realize the pure truth. Logic and argument cannot help at all in this regard, so it is futile to use them to try to understand inconceivable subject matters. [end]
You have clearly not understood this aspect of his presentation. Quite the opposite.
KD: Read five times the following:
US: Read my comments above 108 times! 😉
KD: Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī, “Wonderful! Your question has sanctified my heart! When good fortune strikes a person, this is the first query. Hear now the fifth verse of the Daśa-mūla-śikṣā and try to understand the purport:
“‘Out of the flames of a fire fall innumerable tiny sparks, similarly, from the rays of the transcendental sun, Śrī Hari, emanate millions of minute particles of consciousness, the infinitesimal spirit souls, the jīvas. The jīva is non-different from the Supreme, Śrī Hari, and yet simultaneously he is distinct from Śrī Hari. The eternal difference between the Supreme Lord Śrī Hari and the jīva is that the Lord is always the master and controller of the māyā-śakti, whereas the jīva, even in his liberated state by his very constitutional nature is vulnerable to come under the sway of the māyā-śakti.’”
US: Here’s another perfect example of a ’tat-kalika’ statement. Jivas who are liberated are eternally liberated, ie: nitya-muktas, and they can NEVER be vulnerable to maya-sakti once liberated. That is the very definition of mukti/liberation - brahma-bhutah - otherwise, the term is meaningless.
The state of liberation is discussed in detail in the Vedanta-sutras, with the commentaries of Baladeva Vidyabhusana, and there is no mention of the potential to fall under maya’s influence from that exalted spiritual position. Same as in Jiva Gosvami's Sandarbhas. Krsna Himself confirms this in SB, 11.11.4, ie: liberation has a beginning - but no end. Period. Case closed.
Bhaktivinoda Thakura would not put himself in a position to contradict Krsna’s absolute statements in Srimad-bhagavatam. Therefore, this statement must be understood as tat-kalika in nature. That is the only common sense reconciliation.
KD: Vrajanātha, “This is an extraordinary philosophical conclusion. I am eager to learn the Vedic scriptural evidences supporting this view. For me the verdict of the Supreme Lord as you have just given is sufficient, but if we can provide a quote from, for example, the Upaniṣads, then the common man is bound to accept the truth of the Lord’s words.”
Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī, “There are numerous supporting ślokas in the scriptures. I will quote a couple, so kindly pay attention. In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 2.2.20, we find:
“‘Just as innumerable sparks cascade out of a flame, similarly, from Śrī Krsna , who is the Ātmā, the Universal Soul, the jīvas emanate who are His separated parts and parcels.’
“In another part of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 4.3.9, we find:
“‘The jīva has access to two places, both of which he may seek, this material world and the spiritual realm. He is situated in svapna-sthānam, the dream-like third state, on the margin of these two worlds. From that middle position he is able to see both the material and the spiritual worlds.’
“Further, the following statement from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka, 4.3.18, describes the nature of the marginal position of the jīva:
“‘The symptoms of the marginal existence are like those of a huge aquatic who is capable of living on both the eastern and western sides of the river at his own will. Similarly, the jīva soul, situated within the waters of the Causal Ocean, which lies between the material and spiritual worlds, is able to reside in both the dream world of matter and the spiritual world of divine wakefulness.’
Vrajanātha, “What is the Vedic understanding of the marginal situation, known as taṭasthā?”
Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī, “The borderline between water and land is called taṭa. Yet, the water is contiguous to the land; where then is the taṭa, the margin? The taṭa is merely the demarcation that separates the water from land. This tata is a very subtle state; it cannot be perceived through mundane vision. From this *ALLEGORY*, we take the water as the spiritual world and the land as the material world, thus the fine line that divides the two worlds is the taṭa, the subtle demarcation exactly whereupon the jīva soul is located.
“The countless atomic particles that float in the rays of the sun give an inkling of the real position of the jīva. In one direction, the jīva sees the spiritual universe, and in the other, he sees the phenomenal world, created by Lord Brahmā, the world of māyā. The cit-śakti of the Supreme Lord is unlimited and the māyā-śakti is enormous. Positioned exactly between the two are the innumerable jīvas. They are the products of Śrī Krsna ’s taṭasthā-śakti and hence by nature the jīva is marginal.”
US: Once again, another tat-kalika presentation and allegorical in nature, as was stated above by Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī.
Why?
Because the correct tattva is that the jivas are either sleeping within Maha Visnu in deep sleep - susupti - when the universes are withdrawn, or they are manifest in the material worlds engaged in their karma. There is no other ‘place’ they reside or can function. Deep sleep - susupti - means they have no sensory perception at all, as they are literally merged within Maha Visnu again, and they certainly don’t have any functional bodies within Maha Visnu, so on what basis can they ‘perceive’ anything? They cannot.
Therefore, it is understood that these statements are allegorical in nature - not literal - just as Bhaktivinoda Thakura states above. Did you miss that?
KD: Vrajanātha, “What is the taṭasthā-svabhāva, marginal nature?”
Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī: “The jiva is situated in the middle with access to both worlds and he is constitutionally susceptible to come under the control of either of the śaktis. This condition is symptomatic of the taṭasthā-svabhāva.
US: Jivas have been eternally under the control of maya-sakti, and they have access to the spiritual world ONLY when they begin their spiritual life in one fortunate lifetime, due to Krsna's mercy and sadhu-sanga. Even then, it takes many lifetimes to gain access to the spiritual world. This verse from the Upanisads does not change that truth.
KD: Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī: When the movement of river water shifts the bank of a river this seizes the land and converts it into riverbed. Alternatively, silt may deposit into embankments, which then gradually become land. Similarly, if the jīva looks towards Śrī Krsna, his faith in Krsna increases and he develops a stronger foothold in the spiritual realm. However, if he looks at māyā and turns his back to Śrī Krsna , he thereby becomes enmeshed in the network of māyā. This choice is the natural characteristic of the taṭasthā-svabhāva.”
US: More obvious allegory.
KD: Vrajanātha, “Is the māyā-śakti in some way present in the constitutional structure of the jīva?”
Raghunātha dāsa Bābājī, “No, the jīva is a product of spiritual nature. However, because he is infinitesimal in size, he lacks sufficient spiritual strength. Therefore, he is vulnerable and can be easily defeated by māyā, although māyā is actually totally absent in the constitution of the jīva.”
The statements of Thakur Bhaktivinoda are irrefutable for a sincere devotee.
US: I understand Bhaktivinoda Thakura very well, but I don’t agree with YOUR speculative interpretations of Bhaktivinoda Thakura.
And all of your arguments are based on YOUR confused extrapolations and speculations without support from guru, sadhu and sastra.
It’s very offensive to use Bhaktivinoda Thakura as your hammer and say I don’t accept his statements, when it is YOUR confused misinterpretations that I reject. I hope that’s clear now.
Some of the statements of Bhaktivinoda Thakura are tat-kalika in nature, as he himself explained for obvious reasons. Apparently you missed that and didn’t understand what he was clearly implying. Thus, his statements are not ‘irrefutable’ unless they are supported by guru, sadhu and sastra.
On the other hand, Bhaktivinoda Thakura's statements have obviously confused you quite well. You are speculating way above your adhikara. Apparently, you haven’t gone beyond Jaiva-dharma. Study Jiva Gosvami’s Sandarbhas and the Vedanta-sutras to learn the factual details, ie: the actual tattvas and siddhantas.