Discussion about this post

User's avatar
SJ's avatar
Jan 22Edited

Thank you very much for addressing this topic Prabhu. It was a very disturbing set of public discussions when they occurred, and felt very offensive to Srila Prabhupada & Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur.

It was also discussed at the time by a scholar of Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur, that Srila Bhakti Vinod was accessing writings by Manovalala Muni, who used the term "remember" in relation to our relationship with the Lord. However he said that Manovalala Muni specifies the idea of remembering is teleological, because we have never actually been with the Lord. Needless to say it was confusing for me to hear this.

On another note, your mentioning of seeing ourselves as rays of the Lord's Kaustuba jewel is an interesting way to understand our original position that I hadn't heard before, but seems actually quite helpful. 🙏🙏

Expand full comment
Ranganath's avatar

Hare Krishna Prabhuji,

the context of 4.28.53-54, is Mahapralaya, please go through the traditional commentaries to understand the matter. Also the starting part of Paramatma sandarbha which you have quoted doesn't fit in your idea as the soul already has a mind while that is happening, and we know that mind is a transformation of Prakriti [antahkarana], thus we can't say that Jiva came from Goloka or something like that. as jiva goswami later in the same sandarbha says 'anyas tv anādita eva bhagavat-parāṅmukhaḥ', in SB 6.5.11 similar thing has been said 'jīva-saṁjñaṁ yad anādi nija-bandhanam' in the commentary VCT defines Anadi as 'anādi ādi-śūnyaṃ nijasya jīvātmano -bandhanaṃ', in bhakti sandarbha and priti sandarbha Jiva goswami denies prior contact with Bhagavan 'samsargabhava'. The part you quoted from the 83rd Anuccheda also boils down to how Jiva goswami takes the Word anusmaret, here the word is not in the sense of remembrance rather it means to 'mentally access' 'anusmaret smartur anusandhātuṃ yogyo bhavati', which is accepted by Hemacandra and Jatadhara [Famous Lexicographers], also the Paninian Dhatu vrtti explains the root as '√smṛ cintāyām', thus Śrīla Viśvanāth Ṭhākura also glosses the term as 'anusmaret brahmānubhavati' 'Anusmaret means it gains the perception of Brahman'. Now we are not denying that we do not have a relation with Bhagavan, ofc we have but that relation is not like mother father or brother, rather the relation explained by acaryas such as 'sakti shaktiman' 'sarira sariri' 'bimba pratibimba', later as per SB 3.9.33 Jiva is endowed with a parsada deha which matches their sadhna, not that it's already fixed. Now coming to the last example which you quoted involving the kaustubha gem, You must understand that the Jivas have no beginning, it can't be created from any source, in his krama sandarbha to 12.11.10 Jiva goswami writes 'कौस्तुभेति । अत्र भूर्-आदीनाम् इव जीवाख्य-स्वात्म-ज्योतिर्-आदीनाम् अपि कौस्तुभादिभ्यो बहिरङ्गत्वं दर्शितम् ।' This example is just given to show the ontological difference between Jiva and Svarupa as previous statements like bhu, nabha. The thing to understand here is, the Virat rupa of the Lord is imagined to have all this attributes as his hand legs and feet but all that is an allegory and not literal, also the point you gave here doesn't satisfy you because there Jiva was being shown to be a integrated part of Paramatma form of bhagavan not the from in spiritual world, paramatma form is only existent in material world. anyways it's just an allegory, during pralaya Jivas enter into that gem and come out thus it appears as if Jivas are coming out of it, the allegory focuses on how dear the jiva is to the Lord thus he's on his chest. Thus we can understand that The Goswamis have no where accepted the Theory of Fall from Goloka. Srila Prabhupada used this theory just as a preaching strategy to make the culture of devotion familiar to the western souls.

Haraye Namah

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts