Prabhupada uses words like "reestablish" and "lost" to describe the eternal relationship with the soul with Krsna, which we somehow forgot. Some say this is a preaching strategy. We prove it is not.
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. 🙏🙏
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.
What you call the brahmajyoti could also be called the tatastha shakti. It’s the margin between the internal energy and the material energy. This doesn’t refer to a geographical location, it’s a description of ontology, or the nature of reality.
God is the absolute, which means everything stands in some kind of relationship to him. That is a point of logic. Our relationship to God is therefore called eternal because nothing can exist without being in some kind of relationship to God.
But our relationship to the material world is different, so we would instead call it beginningless. The concept of beginningless doesn’t make sense if you’re looking to know how it started, but it clearly communicates the idea our relationship to matter can end; it’s not a logical necessity as it is with God.
You’ll forgive me if I didn’t understand you accurately and am misinterpreting you. But you seem to be saying that some people are preaching we were engaged in bhakti, in a personal service with God, but now that relationship has been lost?
Logically speaking that doesn’t add up. How is it possible that we became dissatisfied in our personal relationship with a perfect God and instead chose to reside in the world of death and suffering?
Maybe that consequence could be overlooked, after all, we jivas make bad decisions sometimes.
But the dangerous consequence of accepting that idea is it means the protection of Srimati Radharani (Hladini shakti), once achieved by the jiva, can be withdrawn?
This is a seriously disturbing idea, it's very offensive. I hope I misunderstand, and no one is preaching this.
Thank you very much for thise very precious explanation.
Same conlusion can be made also from Bhagavadgita in 2nd chapter where nature of soul is explain by Krishna him self in vers 2.20 and 2.21, where it is explain the eternity in both direction an that soul dont change or is always same. From thise we can understand that if we can get love to God if we dont change then it is in us. So if we so far didnt have love for God in us somewhere hidden then if soul is not changing there love for God is also not possible.
Also it is not logical that some souls will be always wulith Krishna and others start in material world or in brahmajoti, thise wulill make Krishna partial to some.
Also in Brihad Bhagavatamrita when Gopa Kumar finaly retur to Goloka Vrindavan after long long jurney it is written that he get his original name and is also written he is in familie relationship(distant) with Srimati Radharani. Which also tell us he get back to his forgoten relationship with Krishna and Radha and all others also.
Thank you for scriptual references on thise matter.
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. 🙏🙏
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
What you call the brahmajyoti could also be called the tatastha shakti. It’s the margin between the internal energy and the material energy. This doesn’t refer to a geographical location, it’s a description of ontology, or the nature of reality.
God is the absolute, which means everything stands in some kind of relationship to him. That is a point of logic. Our relationship to God is therefore called eternal because nothing can exist without being in some kind of relationship to God.
But our relationship to the material world is different, so we would instead call it beginningless. The concept of beginningless doesn’t make sense if you’re looking to know how it started, but it clearly communicates the idea our relationship to matter can end; it’s not a logical necessity as it is with God.
You’ll forgive me if I didn’t understand you accurately and am misinterpreting you. But you seem to be saying that some people are preaching we were engaged in bhakti, in a personal service with God, but now that relationship has been lost?
Logically speaking that doesn’t add up. How is it possible that we became dissatisfied in our personal relationship with a perfect God and instead chose to reside in the world of death and suffering?
Maybe that consequence could be overlooked, after all, we jivas make bad decisions sometimes.
But the dangerous consequence of accepting that idea is it means the protection of Srimati Radharani (Hladini shakti), once achieved by the jiva, can be withdrawn?
This is a seriously disturbing idea, it's very offensive. I hope I misunderstand, and no one is preaching this.
Thank you very much for thise very precious explanation.
Same conlusion can be made also from Bhagavadgita in 2nd chapter where nature of soul is explain by Krishna him self in vers 2.20 and 2.21, where it is explain the eternity in both direction an that soul dont change or is always same. From thise we can understand that if we can get love to God if we dont change then it is in us. So if we so far didnt have love for God in us somewhere hidden then if soul is not changing there love for God is also not possible.
Also it is not logical that some souls will be always wulith Krishna and others start in material world or in brahmajoti, thise wulill make Krishna partial to some.
Also in Brihad Bhagavatamrita when Gopa Kumar finaly retur to Goloka Vrindavan after long long jurney it is written that he get his original name and is also written he is in familie relationship(distant) with Srimati Radharani. Which also tell us he get back to his forgoten relationship with Krishna and Radha and all others also.
Thank you for scriptual references on thise matter.