Start of the 'Atma'/Soul

[brahma jijnasa]

Oh..I see what you mean here. Karma has no beginning but samsara does have a beginning. Yes, mukti can't happen till one is bound.

Yes, that's right.

So does the Jiva go to the exact same abode as he was before the fall? Why can't this happen again?

That is a difficult question for me.
I guess he can.

regards

[philosoraptor]

I'm not quite sure whether Baladeva Vidyabhushana uses the expression "Fall from Vaikuntha" or not,

I've read his commentary on vedAnta-sUtra years ago, so let me save you the trouble of doubting. He never, never, never uses the expression "fall from Vaikuntha," or anything that remotely sounds like that, in his commentary. As in, never. There was no concept of "falling from Vaikuntha" prior to ISKCON and possibly even the gauDIya-sArasvata line, and so there was no need to address such a position specifically. Baladeva's position in the anAdi-karma sUtra is that karma is without beginning.

but I'm sure that he does not believe in beginningless saṃsāra of a jiva.
Please read carefully my post #73. There I gave a proof from the commentary on the last sutra of the Vedanta sutras that Baladeva Vidyabhushana did not think that Vedanta sutra 2.1.35 (na karmāvibhāgād iti cen nānāditvāt) teaches beginningless saṃsāra of a jiva!

No you did not. It's obvious that you have not read his commentary and that you did not understand the context of the objections. Nor are you understanding how Baladeva (like all other Vaishnava acharyas) addresses them.

Beginningless karma is synonymous with beginningless samsaara. To have beginningless karma without beginningless samsAra would imply an origin in the liberated state and yet having karma. This is clearly nonsense. Yet, there are some leaders in ISKCON who take this highly contrived position. They claim that "karma" in the above sUtra can refer to any action, material or spiritual, and that the jIva falls from Vaikuntha where he only has "spiritual karma" and then has "material karma" after the "falldown." The people who take this position are also not understanding the context of the sUtra-s. Vyaasa is referring to karma as a source of bondage, and this is readily apparent to anyone who has read them. The argument is that God is not partial because what people have in terms of enjoyment and suffering is due to their karma. Then the next objection is that they can only have unequal karma if they started off with unequal karma, thus making God partial and cruel for starting them off in such a state. Then the siddhAnta is spoken that this karma had no beginning, and thus God is not responsible for the inequality of enjoyment/suffering/karma that is observed. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that the karma had a beginning an immeasurably long time ago, for that is the same thing as saying that it had a finite beginning, in which case the objection still applies.

At least we can say that Baladeva Vidyabhushana believes in the jiva's abandonment of the relationship with the Lord, either there in Vaikuntha or somewhere else. Frankly speaking I do not see the difference or importance of the question, where was this place where the soul decided to abandon the Lord.

The question is only important for those who want to be bona fide representatives of Vyaasa's conclusions. It is not important for those who see nothing wrong with introducing new ideas in Vyaasa's name. Vyaasa took the time to write about anAdi-karma, and it is therefore our duty to understand it properly, not to dismiss it as unimportant merely because it does not fit our personal views.

Now, regarding the question in what Ramanuja, Madhvacarya and other vedantists believed, I must say that whatever it may be it is not more important than the statements given in the scriptures.
In my post #63 http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...154#post103154
I gave at least 4 Bhāgavatam verses in support of my view.
Śrīmad Bhāgavatam is a scripture. The scripture is always greater authority than the opinion of some acarya whoever he might be Ramanuja, Madhvacarya, etc, this or that acarya it does not matter.

You did not quote from scripture. You quoted from a particular acharya's translations of scripture. So it's a little disingenuous on your part, and frankly a bit presumptuous, to make the comment above, as if your knowledge of the bhAgavatam was not wholly dependent on the particular translation you read, and which is by no means universally accepted as a translation in the first place.

Moreover, you made numerous logical errors in that posting alluded to above, not the least of which is your equating of "forgetfulness" of a relationship with The Lord, with falldown from Vaikuntha. It is not clearly specified in the verses you quoted that what was forgotten was a liberated state, not by a long shot.

I'll repeat it once again: Vedanta sutra 2.1.35 (na karmāvibhāgād iti cen nānāditvāt) teaches beginningless karma, but not beginningless saṃsāra of a jiva!

Mental speculation. You need to take the time and have the discipline to read the sUtra-s and their commentary in their entirety instead of picking and choosing what you want from an online source as needed.

regards,

[brahma jijnasa]

but I'm sure that he does not believe in beginningless saṃsāra of a jiva.
Please read carefully my post #73. There I gave a proof from the commentary on the last sutra of the Vedanta sutras that Baladeva Vidyabhushana did not think that Vedanta sutra 2.1.35 (na karmāvibhāgād iti cen nānāditvāt) teaches beginningless saṃsāra of a jiva!

No you did not. It's obvious that you have not read his commentary and that you did not understand the context of the objections. Nor are you understanding how Baladeva (like all other Vaishnava acharyas) addresses them.

I really do not understand what you're talking about.
"No you did not. It's obvious that you have not read his commentary" !?
I politely asked you to read my post #73 where I have quoted from Baladeva's commentary on the last sutra of the Vedanta Sutras where he says:

"He washes away the ignorance that made His devotees turn from Him. Once He brings back to Himself His dear devotees, who are His parts and parcels, the Supreme Personality of Godhead will not again let them go."

Here Baladeva says clearly "turn from Him", "brings back" and "will not again let them go".
This is a proof that Baladeva Vidyabhushana did not think that there is beginningless saṃsāra of a jiva!

Beginningless karma is synonymous with beginningless samsaara. To have beginningless karma without beginningless samsAra would imply an origin in the liberated state and yet having karma. This is clearly nonsense. Yet, there are some leaders in ISKCON who take this highly contrived position. They claim that "karma" in the above sUtra can refer to any action, material or spiritual, and that the jIva falls from Vaikuntha where he only has "spiritual karma" and then has "material karma" after the "falldown." The people who take this position are also not understanding the context of the sUtra-s. Vyaasa is referring to karma as a source of bondage, and this is readily apparent to anyone who has read them. The argument is that God is not partial because what people have in terms of enjoyment and suffering is due to their karma. Then the next objection is that they can only have unequal karma if they started off with unequal karma, thus making God partial and cruel for starting them off in such a state. Then the siddhAnta is spoken that this karma had no beginning, and thus God is not responsible for the inequality of enjoyment/suffering/karma that is observed. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that the karma had a beginning an immeasurably long time ago, for that is the same thing as saying that it had a finite beginning, in which case the objection still applies.

Here you can disagree with ISKCON's opinion, but I personally do not see the collision of ISKCON's opinion with the statements of the sutras.
If Vyasa wanted to say that bondage is beginningless he would say so.
He would not just say that karma is beginningless. He would not have used the word "karma" in the sutra but would rather use the word saṃsāra or some another which clearly indicates the state of bondage.
But he didn't.

You did not quote from scripture. You quoted from a particular acharya's translations of scripture. So it's a little disingenuous on your part, and frankly a bit presumptuous, to make the comment above, as if your knowledge of the bhAgavatam was not wholly dependent on the particular translation you read, and which is by no means universally accepted as a translation in the first place.

Really?
Do you have a better translation of these 4 Bhāgavatam verses?
All I can see here is that you want to underestimate the translation of one scholar at the expense of another.

Moreover, you made numerous logical errors in that posting alluded to above, not the least of which is your equating of "forgetfulness" of a relationship with The Lord, with falldown from Vaikuntha. It is not clearly specified in the verses you quoted that what was forgotten was a liberated state, not by a long shot.

And what is it that has been forgotten then?
So in your opinion what was forgotten was a bondage of the sakham relationship with The Lord!?
In these verses The Lord says to the jiva:
4.28.53 sakham "My dear friend", "giving up Me"
4.28.55 "you left Me"
4.28.64 "he regains his memory", "which was lost"
11.2.37 "turns away from the Supreme Lord", "forgetfulness";
"Fear arises", "fearful condition is effected by the potency for illusion, called māyā"

Now, what I can see is that a devotee can be sakham "My dear friend", who left the company of the Lord ("giving up Me", "you left Me", "turns away from the Supreme Lord") and also forgot Him ("he regains his memory", "which was lost", "forgetfulness") from which appears "Fear arises", "fearful condition is effected by the potency for illusion, called māyā".

I'll repeat it once again:
So in your opinion what was forgotten was a bondage of the sakham relationship with The Lord!?
When one is sakham of the Lord he is not in bondage!
Also when one is in the state before "giving up Me" and "forgetfulness" he is not in bondage!
Bondage occurs upon termination of sakham, upon forgetfulness.
Then what is next? "Fear arises", "fearful condition is effected by the potency for illusion, called māyā".

I can see that your "shots" are very short here.

regards

[jasdir]

I grew up understanding that each of us have a part of God which is our Atma that eventually joins up with Paramatma upon Moksha.

A question that came from the kids that I could not clearly answer and would appreciate assistance on:

Assuming the above is true, why did Atma separate from Paramatma only to work its way back to Paramatma via yoga.

Alternately, what is the start/origin of the Atma? How does it get separated from the Paramatma?

In the beganing YOU created a game for yourself to play, but before stepping into that game there was a question in YOUR mind.

Q: How can such a game give true enjoyment until you may forget you are the creator of this game ? Thus.. you turned this game into an illusionary game, Which means that you will forget everything, your power, your rank, your place, your status, after jumping into that game.

But again an another new question got arrised, Q: As You will forget everthing about yourself after jumping into that game, than who will pull you out when you will get tired after playing a lot ? Thus, by giving all of yours powers you created a CLONE of yourself and gave him the duty to pull you out.

Now, asked the clone; Sir, how will i come to know that you are really tired of this game ? YOU said; when i'll cry and beg infront of you to take me out of this game like as you have created me, rather than i created you.

And finally by saying this YOU jumped into that game.

GOD is that CLONE

I hope this may help you.

[philosoraptor]

I really do not understand what you're talking about.

Pranams. That's the problem here. You don't understand the issue or the context of the problem. And you have not read the Govinda-bhaashya, yet you are trying to tell us what its position is.

"No you did not. It's obvious that you have not read his commentary" !?
I politely asked you to read my post #73 where I have quoted from Baladeva's commentary on the last sutra of the Vedanta Sutras where he says:

"He washes away the ignorance that made His devotees turn from Him. Once He brings back to Himself His dear devotees, who are His parts and parcels, the Supreme Personality of Godhead will not again let them go."

Here Baladeva says clearly "turn from Him", "brings back" and "will not again let them go".
This is a proof that Baladeva Vidyabhushana did not think that there is beginningless saṃsāra of a jiva!

Not it is not. First of all, you are quoting a translation, not the original Sanskrit. Baladeva himself did not use the phrase "brings back." Secondly, "brings back" to what is the question? If I am in samsAra, but am a devotee of Vishnu, and then I later forget my relationship with Vishnu, being restored to that previous condition is certainly being "brought back," yet it does not imply being "brought back" to the liberated state.

Here you can disagree with ISKCON's opinion, but I personally do not see the collision of ISKCON's opinion with the statements of the sutras.

That's because you are an ISKCON devotee, and you will never disagree with ISKCON's opinion no matter how contrived it becomes. After telling us that "hiraNmaya" means golden effulgence synonymous with brahmajyoti because color is a property of light, I think it is pretty clear that there is no limit to how much you will twist meanings in order to reconcile them with ISKCON doctrine.

Be honest with us. When have you ever disagreed with ISKCON doctrine on any philosophical point? And if you say that you have not, then can you honestly say that you can objectively speak for the accuracy of their translations? And since we know that you cannot, because you do not know Sanskrit, can you at least say that you have studied other philosophical systems (meaning, traditional systems of Vedanta, not the Neo-Hindu fluff you may be used to) and compared/contrasted with the ISKCON one?

Therein lies the point. You aren't an ISKCON devotee because of their accurate Sanskrit translations. Nor are you an ISKCON devotee because you objectively evaluated other systems of Vaishnava philosophy. You are an ISKCON devotee because of convenience, and because it appeals to you. Nothing wrong with that, but it just goes to show that you cannot objectively evaluate the rightness or wrongness of their views on any issue.

If Vyasa wanted to say that bondage is beginningless he would say so.
He would not just say that karma is beginningless. He would not have used the word "karma" in the sutra but would rather use the word saṃsāra or some another which clearly indicates the state of bondage.
But he didn't.

This is nonsense. Having karma implies being in samsAra. You can't have one without the other.

Really?
Do you have a better translation of these 4 Bhāgavatam verses?
All I can see here is that you want to underestimate the translation of one scholar at the expense of another.

Now you are changing the subject. It was you who asserted that scripture is higher than the opinions of any acharya. So if you truly believe that, then why are you depending entirely on the translation of one acharya to understand the scripture? Just read the Bhagavatam directly, in the original Sanskrit.

And what is it that has been forgotten then?
So in your opinion what was forgotten was a bondage of the sakham relationship with The Lord!?
In these verses The Lord says to the jiva:
4.28.53 sakham "My dear friend", "giving up Me"
4.28.55 "you left Me"
4.28.64 "he regains his memory", "which was lost"
11.2.37 "turns away from the Supreme Lord", "forgetfulness";
"Fear arises", "fearful condition is effected by the potency for illusion, called māyā"

Again, you are quoting translations, not the bhAgavatam directly. And again, being forgetful of a relationship with the Lord is not the same thing as being forgetful of being in the liberated state. Where is the *explicit* shAstric pramANa which unequivocally states that we forgot that we were once in Vaikuntha? I'll help you out on this one, since I'm not even sure if you have read the bhAgavatam in its entirety - there is no such verse. Not in the bhAgavatam, not in the viShNu purANa, not in the varAha purANa, not in the rAmAyaNam, not in the gItA, and not in the principle upaniShad-s.

Even your own Sri Prabhupada wrote (purport SB 7.1.35):

"Therefore it is to be understood that when Jaya and Vijaya descended to this material world, they came because there was something to be done for the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Otherwise it is a fact that no one falls from Vaikuṇṭha."

regards,

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

That's because you are an ISKCON devotee, and you will never disagree with ISKCON's opinion no matter how contrived it becomes. After telling us that "hiraNmaya" means golden effulgence because color is a property of light, I think it is pretty clear that there is no limit to how much you will twist meanings in order to reconcile them with ISKCON doctrine.

Be honest with us. When have you ever disagreed with ISKCON doctrine on any philosophical point? And if you say that you have not, then can you honestly say that you can objectively speak for the accuracy of their translations? And since we know that you cannot, because you do not know Sanskrit, can you at least say that you have studied other philosophical systems (meaning, traditional systems of Vedanta, not the Neo-Hindu fluff you may be used to) and compared/contrasted with the ISKCON one?

Therein lies the point. You aren't an ISKCON devotee because of their accurate Sanskrit translations. Nor are you an ISKCON devotee because you objectively evaluated other systems of Vaishnava philosophy. You are an ISKCON devotee because of convenience, and because it appeals to you. Nothing wrong with that, but it just goes to show that you cannot objectively evaluate the rightness or wrongness of their views on any issue.

First of all I want to say that I am not member of ISKCON. I read their books for many years and thus I have adopted their philosophy.
When I commented on the word hiraṇmaya it is not that I have translated it, but a translator did that in the book, see ISKCON's translation.
Now, if you consider this translation twisted you should discuss it with a translator, but not with me.

As far as I can remember I have never disagreed with ISKCON doctrine on any philosophical point. Since I am not a sanskrit scholar I can not speak for the accuracy of their translations, but in ISKCON there are people who are sanskrit scholars and you can contact them and discuss all this "twist meanings" as you say.
ISKCON and their publishing house BBT have official web pages where you can make a contact and ask some of their scholars about "twist meanings" in their books.
As far as studying of other philosophical systems concerns, I do not need them. My personal experience is that the Gaudiya Vaishnava school has the most comprehensive and deepest understanding of Vedic knowledge. This is just my experience.
I'll tell you a few words about my personal experience. Actually I'll tell you what I think "twist meanings" is.
I think that those schools or sampradayas who think that Lord Shiva is only a jiva and do not know that there is another form of Lord Shiva who is Brahman or Vishnu tattva are "twist meanings". I think that those schools or sampradayas who think that Lord Balarama or Ananta is just nitya-siddha or great soul are "twist meanings". I think that those schools or sampradayas who think that Lord Krishna is just avatara of Lord Vishnu are "twist meanings", etc, etc.
Now, if you think that with some knowledge of Sanskrit and some knowledge of other philosophical systems you can declare ISKCON to be "twist meanings", then your knowledge is one big "twist meaning".

Having karma implies being in samsAra. You can't have one without the other.

When the soul is in the company of the Lord he performs activities in relationship with the Lord. These activities are called "karma".
This "karma" has nothing to do with bondage. There is no "Having karma you have to enjoy and suffer" there and so there is no saṃsāra.
So far, all that you said against this is that my 4 Bhāgavatam verses you would translated differently. But to translate something differently does not prove that ISKCON translation is wrong.

If am in samsAra, but am a devotee of Vishnu, and then I later forget my relationship with Vishnu, being restored to that previous condition is certainly being "brought back," yet it does not imply being "brought back" to the liberated state.

In these verses The Lord says to the jiva:
4.28.53 sakham "My dear friend", "giving up Me"
4.28.55 "you left Me"
4.28.64 "he regains his memory", "which was lost"
11.2.37 "turns away from the Supreme Lord", "forgetfulness";
"Fear arises", "fearful condition is effected by the potency for illusion, called māyā"

Those 4 verses do not describe saṃsāra but a friendly relationship (sakham) with the Lord before the soul leaves Him (this is clear from "you left Me" and "giving up Me"; īśād apetasya - jiva left the company of the Lord: word apeta means "escaped, departed, gone"). Upon termination of sakham "Fear arises", "fearful condition is effected by the potency for illusion, called māyā", material bondage starts.
Everyone can see this in the verses. Why don't you see what is obvious.

Where is the *explicit* shAstric pramANa which unequivocally states that we forgot that we were once in Vaikuntha? I'll help you out on this one, since I'm not even sure if you have read the bhAgavatam in its entirety - there is no such verse. Not in the bhAgavatam, not in the viShNu purANa, not in the varAha purANa, not in the rAmAyaNam, not in the gItA, and not in the principle upaniShad-s.

Perhaps nowhere in the scriptures there is a statement "we forgot that we were once in Vaikuntha", but there is a story about Jaya and Vijaya in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam. They were the guardians of the gate in Vaikuntha. They descended into the material world to forget the Lord and became demons. This story about Jaya and Vijaya is a proof that every jiva soul can forget his relationship with the Lord and come down to this material world and became a demon!

Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (2.5) says (translation by Hrdayananda dasa Goswami):

śṛṇvantu viśve amṛtasya putrā
ā ye dhāmāni divyāni tasthuḥ

"All you sons of immortality, hear, you who once resided in the divine kingdom!"

It seems that this verse is also located in Rig Veda 10.13.1.
This is a translation by Hrdayananda dasa Goswami who is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada and a Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard.
Now, I assume that you would even accuse him of "twist meanings" because it is your favorite entertainment.
Although it may be that no other translator translated this verse like that, this does not mean that it can not be translated like that. Sanskrit verses in the scriptures can often be translated in several ways. Someone who does not understand that and have little knowledge of Sanskrit will accuse others of "twist meanings" and it will become his favorite entertainment.
However if you still think it's "twist meanings" you can contact him via official ISKCON web pages and discuss the alleged "twist meanings".
I'll repeat it once again:
Some verses you would translated differently. But to translate something differently does not prove that ISKCON translation is wrong! It also does not prove that ISKCON philosophy is wrong!


regards

[Omkara]

brahma jijnasa,
You are not getting the point. The purvapakshin in this sutra argues that souls having a first birth would make the Lord partial. How does Baladeva's reply, in you interpretation, constitute a rebuttal of this?

[philosoraptor]

brahma jijnasa,
You are not getting the point. The purvapakshin in this sutra argues that souls having a first birth would make the Lord partial. How does Baladeva's reply, in you interpretation, constitute a rebuttal of this?

Pranams,

I fear you aren't going to get a meaningful answer. He is clearly an ISKCON devotee, and he is going to follow the party line on this issue. The ISKCON position is that we all somehow or other "fell" from Vaikuntha. All references to "forgetting" our relationship with Him or "going back" to Him are all interpreted in this way. Baladeva's commentary is not well studied in ISKCON, and as you've just seen here, that does not preclude many of them from trying to claim to know what Baladeva wrote on the subject.

Brahma-jijnasa, my advice to you is to read Baladeva's brahma-sutra bhasya in its entirety and try to get a feel for the structure and context of the arguments. There are many misconceptions on this issue in ISKCON, and nothing is served by trying to fit a round peg of party position into the square hole of purvacharya's commentary. It's better for you to familiarize yourself with what he actually wrote than to hear about it from us.

regards,

[brahma jijnasa]

brahma jijnasa,
You are not getting the point. The purvapakshin in this sutra argues that souls having a first birth would make the Lord partial. How does Baladeva's reply, in you interpretation, constitute a rebuttal of this?

Omkara!
purvapakshin in this sutra does not argues that souls having a first birth would make the Lord partial.

Purvapakshin in Vedanta-sutra 2.1.35 (na karmāvibhāgād iti cen nānāditvāt) commentary by Baladeva Vidyabhushana goes like this (translation by Hrdayananda dasa Goswami):

Objector (purvapakshin):
From the non distinction of action [before this creation]. Because of verses like "sad eva saumya idam ..." [it is said that] before the creation there is no perception of an entity distinct from Brahman, who would perform activity (karma).

First birth is not the issue here. The issue is how to explain that the Lord is not partial since the scriptures (some srutis) say that "before the creation there is no perception of an entity distinct from Brahman, who would perform activity (karma)".


Baladeva's commentary on Vedanta-sutra 2.1.35:

na karmāvibhāgād iti cen nānāditvāt

Not activity. Because of non distinction. If thus (one objects, we reply: ) 'No, because of beginninglessness.'

Objector (purvapakshin):
But from [a consideration of the jiva's] action, there would be no refutation of [the Lord's fault of] inequality, etc.

Baladeva: How so?

Objector (purvapakshin):
From the non distinction of action [before this creation]. Because of verses like "sad eva saumya idam ..." [it is said that] before the creation there is no perception of an entity distinct from Brahman, who would perform activity (karma).

Baladeva:
Because for activity (karma), for living entities and for Brahman there is acceptance of beginninglessness. There is no fault because, according to each previous action, there is the occurrence of a subsequent action. And [for this we have the evidence of] smriti:
"Vishnu causes [the soul] to perform pious and sinful actions according to [the soul's] previous action. And because of the beginninglessness of action, there is no contradiction at all."
However [if someone objects that] by action's condition of being anādi there will be no stable position [since there will be an infinite regress of statements to explain the jiva's situation, then we say that] there is no fault because it is based on evidence.
...
According to the beginningless jiva's nature, [the Lord] causes him to perform activity. Although able to make [the jiva's] nature otherwise, the Lord does not make anyone's [nature different].
[The accusation of] inequality, etc., in Brahman is refuted.

As you can see, the first birth and beginningless saṃsāra of a jiva soul are not mentioned at all here.


regards

[philosoraptor]

I just don't know what to say anymore...