Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

[Amrut]

Namaste B.J. ji

Several quotes are showed which says none can fall back from vaikuntha / brahmi sthiti

Bh. G. 8.15, Ud. G. 8.35 and from SB 3.16.29, SB 7.1.35 by Philosoraptor.

Also many quotes are about varNa dharma are provided from Ud. G.

Let us agree that one falls from Vaikuntha. the period of stay in Vaikuntha is not fixed, then is there any compelling reason to leave everything that we thought is ours and only live for Bhagavan?

I also request you to please read Uddhava Gita, which is a part of SB, it talks in detail about varNa dharma.

We cannot ignore words of Bhagavan Krishna.

Arguments provided by jignyAsu ji and Philosoraptor ji are also to be thought.

As I have said, Brahmin may lose his status and respect, but still he is Brahmin, though embarrassed. Never heard of Brahmin like Ravan, performing negative karma being stripped of his birth varNa.

Aum

[Avyaydya]

Namaste

If one's caste, varna, jati "only by birth" was the most critcal fixation of importance to everything, why didn't the Divine make it easy for everyone by putting some brand right on the nose of everyone born, not some attire someone puts on later, but branded right on their nose or forehead like a big letter "B" for brahmin, "U" for untouchable? If by birth is the end all of be all, it certainly would have made things easier.

Or perhaps the Divine doesn't believe in branding.

Om Namah Sivaya

Why did the Divine not give us wings?

Same kind of invalid reasoning I see with fundamental Christians. Like God is somehow controlling this world by a remote control, in stead of being the world. It is typically Abramic thinking to place God outside of the world.

More interesting question is why people like you are trying to undermine Hindu traditions. Who are you really, what is your agenda? Is can't be good for Hinduism that is for sure.

If you guys want chosen bramanas, why don't you do that within Iskcon? That would be a great improvement over the not transparant, all-white power structure you have now.

[brahma jijnasa]

He translated the verse according to how he learned from his guru, ie Srila Prabhupada who has said we all came from Vaikuntha.

This is an example of a disingenuous remark on your part. It is unlikely that HDG learned Rg Veda 10.13.1 from Sri Prabhupada. We know this because Sri Prabhupada never quoted RV 10.13.1 in any of his writings (feel free to search vedabase if you don't believe me), because there is no Gaudiya commentary on the RV, and because Prabhupada repeatedly told his disciples to focus on the books which he published (which did not include RV). Thus, you have no proof that HDG learned this from Sri Prabhupada, as opposed to, say, his Indology friends at Harvard.

I am not saying that HDG learned Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (2.5) and Rig Veda 10.13.1 from Srila Prabhupada. All I'm saying is that HDG learned from Srila Prabhupada that we all came from Vaikuntha. Keeping this in mind, he translated verse from Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (2.5).

By the way other Gaudiya vaishnava organizations such as Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math seems to interpret this verse the same way.
Their guru Śrīla Bhakti Rakṣak Śrīdhar Dev-Goswāmī Mahārāj
writes, see here (http://www.dokagergely.hu/spiritual-...c=0&m=0&p=5054) :
Inner Fulfilment > The Land of Beauty

Why do you suffer? Amṛtasya-putra: you are a child of that soil, and you are suffering so much as though you are in a desert? Your home is so full of resources, so sweet, and you are running in the desert?
...
Come along with Me! I shall take you to your home which is so sweet! In general, this is the call of Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu and Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu.
...
You are wandering in a foreign land, but here is your home. You'll get home comfort here, and you won't be able to deny that. So, back to God, back to home, back to Godhead.

"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."

That's what he said, brahma-jijnasa. Have your own views if you wish, but acknowledge the fact that he disagrees with you, at least in this instance.

It seems that you missed the numerous examples where Srila Prabhupada says:

Bhāgavatam 4.12.37 (http://vedabase.net/sb/4/12/37/en) :

"they alone can very easily achieve the perfection of going back home, back to Godhead."

Here "back home" refers to the Lord's abode where one is supposed to return.

Bhāgavatam 5.4.5 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/4/5/en) :

"Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī points out that the word mahimā means returning to the spiritual world, back home, back to Vaikuṇṭha."

Bhagavatam 4.23.31 (http://vedabase.net/sb/4/23/31/en1) :

"such a person also returns home to the Vaikuntha planets, back to Godhead."

Bhāgavatam 4.29.48 (http://vedabase.net/sb/4/29/48/) :

"Generally people are not aware of their interest in life -- to return home, back to Godhead. People do not know about their real home in the spiritual world. In the spiritual world there are many Vaikuṇṭha planets, and the topmost planet is Kṛṣṇaloka, Goloka Vṛndāvana."

Similarly, you have never hesitated to rush in to discussions about the interpretations of scriptures which you have obviously never read. Common sense would hold that you ought to be familiar with a book before you can begin talking about it in any meaningful way. But ignorance never stopped you before.

You again and again repeat that I have not studied or understood something. And yet you're overlooking when I tell you that despite you have studied commentaries, you have not understand much of it.

You've given verbose explanations of Baladeva's interpretation of the anAdi-karma sUtra despite the fact that you have not studied Baladeva's Vedanta commentary, and obviously did not understand the context of the sutras (not that you were ready to volunteer that information).

Yes, I have studied Vedanta-sutra, and especially Baladeva's interpretation of the anAdi-karma sUtra!
There is no mention of "beginningless saṃsāra"!
I even gave 1st and 2nd reason of why the idea of bondage of the jiva soul in beginningless saṃsāra is wrong. That you have ignored completely. If you have anything smart to say on the matter I look forward.

You profess to know what chAndogya upaniShad has to say about varNa in the satyakAma episode, despite never having read that, either. Do you even understand what a gotra is?

If you understand what gotra is, then I look forward your response to the questions 1) and 2) I asked Sudas Paijavana, see here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...230#post107230

you haven't bothered responding to my other quotes from the chAndogya showing clear hereditary basis for varNa

See, you do not even read my posts!!!
Where have I denied hereditary basis for varna?
Do you actually read my posts? Did not you see this: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...299#post107299

1) I do not deny that the Scriptures teach about varna by birth! I also do not deny that a guru, Gautama, attempted to determine Satyakama's varna by birth.

and have yet to answer the basic question "how does one tell a brahmin by quality, when many such people identified as such by Prabhupada ultimately failed the litmus test of brahminical quality?"

What did they failed? "litmus test of brahminical quality"?

regards

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Namaste B.J. ji

Let us agree that one falls from Vaikuntha. the period of stay in Vaikuntha is not fixed, then is there any compelling reason to leave everything that we thought is ours and only live for Bhagavan?

Aum

Good question.
Why would anyone want to leave the Lord and come down from Vaikuntha?
Srila Prabhupada basically explained that we lived together with God in the spiritual world called Vaikuntha. There is no explanation as to how exactly it happened, but we have somehow forgotten our relationship with God. We have forgotten that we need to serve God, and we have tried to imitate God, we have tried to become enjoyers separated from God. Then God has put us in this material world in which we can try to enjoy separate from God.

regards

[Amrut]

Namaste


Good question.
Why would anyone want to leave the Lord and come down from Vaikuntha?
Srila Prabhupada basically explained that we lived together with God in the spiritual world called Vaikuntha. There is no explanation as to how exactly it happened, but we have somehow forgotten our relationship with God. We have forgotten that we need to serve God, and we have tried to imitate God, we have tried to become enjoyers separated from God. Then God has put us in this material world in which we can try to enjoy separate from God.

regards

Namaste,

It takes so many years and even more than one life time to actually cultivate Krishna prem. After our sadhana reaches maturity, Bhagavan ascends us to his adobe Vaikuntha. But here there is no garrentee that I am going to stay with him for eternity or for long duration. There is risk of falling from Vaikuntha within minutes, within few hours, years or kalpa.

Keeping this insecurity in mind, why would I make efforts to reach Vaikumtha for temporary bliss. Why would not I leave in this world? Is there a fixed time frame for stay in Vaikuntha given? We all know that only a select few can actually gain Krishna Prem. So again ,my probability is very low. couple it with a feeling of insecurity of falling down back to this world.

Bhagavan, siddha-s and devata-s (vaishnava acharya-s) take avatar just to ascend us temporarily !!!

In this context, even siddha-s can fall down at any time.

I am not feeling good about it. These are questions that I think as a layman.

I think the first fall, if at all it has actually happened, is just given for explanation purpose. jiva-s got deluded due to his mAyA and descended to this world. It is also known from Uddhava Gita (verses quoted earlier) that the spiritual level and purity gradually and continuously decreased (from yuga to yuga) as time passed.

Jai Shri Krishna

Amrut

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Bhagavan, siddha-s and devata-s (vaishnava acharya-s) take avatar just to ascend us temporarily !!!

In this context, even siddha-s can fall down at any time.

I am not feeling good about it. These are questions that I think as a layman.
...
It takes so many years and even more than one life time to actually cultivate Krishna prem. After our sadhana reaches maturity, Bhagavan ascends us to his adobe Vaikuntha. But here there is no garrentee that I am going to stay with him for eternity or for long duration. There is risk of falling from Vaikuntha within minutes, within few hours, years or kalpa.

No, it is not like that.
When we reach liberation (mukti, moksha) it is permanent, eternal. Liberation is not temporary. There is no possibility of falling due to some kind of chance, accident, bad luck, or karma, or even because of maya because such things do not exist in Vaikuntha.
For this reason it is said that "no one falls from Vaikuntha". So we did not fall from Vaikuntha in this sense. Srila Prabhupada explained that we fell because of our own choice. We have tried to imitate God, we have tried to become enjoyers separated from God, then we have forgotten that we need to serve God. Then God has put us in this material world in which we can try to enjoy separate from God.
So it is not about accident. There is no risk of falling!

Keeping this insecurity in mind, why would I make efforts to reach Vaikumtha for temporary bliss. Why would not I leave in this world? Is there a fixed time frame for stay in Vaikuntha given? We all know that only a select few can actually gain Krishna Prem. So again ,my probability is very low. couple it with a feeling of insecurity of falling down back to this world.

Yes indeed, it would be pointless to make an effort to stay on Vaikuntha temporary. If liberation has been achieved, stay on Vaikuntha is eternal.

regards

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste
We have tried to imitate God, we have tried to become enjoyers separated from God, then we have forgotten that we need to serve God. Then God has put us in this material world in which we can try to enjoy separate from God.
So it is not about accident. There is no risk of falling!

Namaskāra,

I don't seem to follow you; you state that "there is no risk of falling [from Vaikuṇṭha]" (which makes sense, as most proponents of acintya bhedābheda are of the view that when the jīvātmā is in Vaikuṇṭha, it becomes completely dependent on Bhagavān due to Śrī Kṛṣṇa's taṭastha śakti). How then, would they presumably have the free-will to "fall" from Vaikuṇṭha [as you state]? It seems a bit contradictory to me (although I realize that you're merely reiterating Prabhupāda's views):

Jai Śrī Kṛṣṇa

[philosoraptor]

The Ashvatthaama issue, from the ISKCON translation:

SB 1.7.41 — After reaching his own camp, Arjuna, along with his dear friend and charioteer [Śrī Kṛṣṇa], entrusted the murderer unto his dear wife, who was lamenting for her murdered sons.
SB 1.7.42 — Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī said: Draupadī then saw Aśvatthāmā, who was bound with ropes like an animal and silent for having enacted the most inglorious murder. Due to her female nature, and due to her being naturally good and well-behaved, she showed him due respects as a brāhmaṇa.
SB 1.7.43 — She could not tolerate Aśvatthāmā’s being bound by ropes, and being a devoted lady, she said: Release him, release him, for he is a brāhmaṇa, our spiritual master.
SB 1.7.44 — It was by Droṇācārya’s mercy that you learned the military art of throwing arrows and the confidential art of controlling weapons.
SB 1.7.45 — He [Droṇācārya] is certainly still existing, being represented by his son. His wife Kṛpī did not undergo a satī with him because she had a son.
SB 1.7.46 — O most fortunate one who know the principles of religion, it is not good for you to cause grief to glorious family members who are always respectable and worshipful.
SB 1.7.47 — My lord, do not make the wife of Droṇācārya cry like me. I am aggrieved for the death of my sons. She need not cry constantly like me.
SB 1.7.48 — If the kingly administrative order, being unrestricted in sense control, offends the brāhmaṇa order and enrages them, then the fire of that rage burns up the whole body of the royal family and brings grief upon them all.
SB 1.7.49 — Sūta Gosvāmī said: O brāhmaṇas, King Yudhiṣṭhira fully supported the statements of the Queen, which were in accordance with the principles of religion and were justified, glorious, full of mercy and equity, and without duplicity.
SB 1.7.50 — Nakula and Sahadeva [the younger brothers of the King] and also Sātyaki, Arjuna, the Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Kṛṣṇa, son of Devakī, and the ladies and others all unanimously agreed with the King.
SB 1.7.51 — Bhīma, however, angrily disagreed with them and recommended killing this culprit, who had murdered sleeping children for no purpose and for neither his nor his master’s interest.
SB 1.7.52 — Caturbhuja [the four-armed one], or the Personality of Godhead, after hearing the words of Bhīma, Draupadī and others, saw the face of His dear friend Arjuna, and He began to speak as if smiling.
SB 1.7.53-54 — The Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: A friend of a brāhmaṇa is not to be killed, but if he is an aggressor he must be killed. All these rulings are in the scriptures, and you should act accordingly. You have to fulfill your promise to your wife, and you must also act to the satisfaction of Bhīmasena and Me.
SB 1.7.55 — Sūta Gosvāmī said: Just then Arjuna could understand the motive of the Lord by His equivocal orders, and thus with his sword he severed both hair and jewel from the head of Aśvatthāmā.
SB 1.7.56 — He [Aśvatthāmā] had already lost his bodily luster due to infanticide, and now, moreover, having lost the jewel from his head, he lost even more strength. Thus he was unbound and driven out of the camp.
SB 1.7.57 — Cutting the hair from his head, depriving him of his wealth and driving him from his residence are the prescribed punishments for the relative of a brāhmaṇa. There is no injunction for killing the body.



So this is clear to everyone, right? A man is a brahmin by quality, not by birth. Ashvatthaama was by birth a brahmin, but he was not a brahmin because he was a murderer. And yet, being a relative of a brahmin, he was spared, despite the purva-pakshin's view that heredity is not a determining factor, only one's conduct. So in other words, heredity does not make him a brahmin, but it gives him the privileges of being a brahmin, whereby he escapes a death sentence after murdering 5 sleeping men.

[Avyaydya]

Namaste


Good question.
Why would anyone want to leave the Lord and come down from Vaikuntha?
Srila Prabhupada basically explained that we lived together with God in the spiritual world called Vaikuntha. There is no explanation as to how exactly it happened, but we have somehow forgotten our relationship with God. We have forgotten that we need to serve God, and we have tried to imitate God, we have tried to become enjoyers separated from God. Then God has put us in this material world in which we can try to enjoy separate from God.

regards

We should not quote Prabhupada as an accepted reliable Hindu authority. Scholars outside Iskcon have great doubts about his interpretations.

If we start discussing Prabhupada's ideas all the time it is no longer about Hinduism but Iskconism, then this thread may better be moved to the subforum of Hare Krishna to prevent the forum being spammed by Iskcon ideas presented as main stream Hinduism as Iskconites are so dominating discussions.

I would appreciate it if Isconites would bring their ideas as Iskcon theology and not some universal Hindu truth because they happen to be taught these ideas as true.

Many Prabhupada ideas smell Abramistic to me. Like this fall from Vaikuntha smells like "the fall from Paradise". Who can proof we fell? The whole idea of "fall of man" breathes with negativity. From this come negative ideas like the "original sin" as the cause of man's fall. Which translates in a whole lot of negative ideas about man's nature and earthly existence that define Abramism.

Much of Prabhupada ideas seem to have been developed to bridge the gap with Abramist religions. But as the movement initially tried to convert non-Hindu's to Hindu consciousness, it now shows a different face trying to convert Hindu's to Abramist consciousness. The Krishna consciousness seems to have been turned in a Christ consciousness. Maybe this was the purpose all along, who can tell? Or maybe after Prabhupada died and his all-white disciples took over.

I think we should make a clear distinction between the fairly narrow world view of Iskconism and the broad spectrum of ideas within Hinduism, that do not at all resemble the sort of theology Iskconites present over and over again. That is Iskconism, that is what they are taught to accept.

I do not believe Hinduism has a such negative ideas as Iskconism which seems to be preoccupied with Moksha as if it is the same escape hatch that Jesus offers to this world. The Christian idea of this world is equally inherently negative.

That is not Hinduism. Moskha is not the Hindu escape exit for desperate people. That is what westerners make of it. Moksha is simply is the natural goal for people that have fulfilled all their longings and start to direct their desire at returning to God. These ripened souls are the Brahmana's and that is why you can not enter this caste by any virtue alone.

If we are here on this world, it is not by a fall, not by a punishment of God, but simply by our desire. The same way we accept it is our desire that makes us return to this world life after life again. It is our desire that makes us produce Karma. Or simply put: we are here because we want to be here.

But after we create negative Karma and meet the consequences we feel unhappy. But Hinduism does not like Christianity teach to look for the first exit. No, it teaches to walk the path of Dharm instead. Walking the path of Dharm life becomes satisfying and overall agreeable. Sure there still is suffering but it does not define our life any more. It is wrong teaching that if you feel bad about this world Moksha is the solution. That is Christian escapism in disguise.

It creates self-centred people busy with their own salvation. Not people that love this world, but hate it, like Jesus hates it. If you feel bad about this world, this simply means you have a long long path ahead of you. First you have to learn to love this world before you can leave it, love all of it.

We did not fall, we embraced this world for its true splendour. As God is in all, the logical consequence is that this world is as Divine as anything else. That we do not experience it in that way is not the blame of the world but our ignorance.

So there is no fall to this world to begin with. The Divine is perfect, how can even any part of it "fall". It makes no sense. And if we fell once, how can anyone say we will not can fall again? If we once forgot God in his presence, how can he say we will not again? This too smells like the Christian ideas of eternal life in heaven.

And how can there even be an I in Moksha? There is no I in Moskha (that is Christian again), so neither is there anyone to fall to begin with. This I only is formed as we take on a body. The core of the I is the unfulfilled desire. And this idea that we stay with God for a long time even forever? There is no time or place with God. There is a state of happiness that timeless, dimensionless and I-less. Time only starts with this world. Even modern science says that time only started at the beginning of the universe. There is no before the universe, each universe contains its own time.

And what is the use in thinking about these things for all but the Brahmanas? None. Only the Brahmanas reached a state that they largely fulfilled their desires so they can become detached and can work on Mosksha. None of the people here on this forum are anywhere near to that point. All they want is to end suffering which is something else. Suffering we end by walking the path of Dharm, not by Moksha.

Prabhupada's escapist ideology is simply Christian core ideas translated to Hinduism. The question is: Did he do that to make Hinduism appeal to Westerners, or is it a "Trojan Horse" to allow Abramists to infiltrate Hinduism under the pretext of being Hindu's? Especially the way Iskconism presents itself as the final word on Hinduism is very circumspect.

Lets be real, this is Iskconism, even if many of the views can be correlated to a passage in scripture or something a Hindu said that does not make Hindu theology, nor does it even prove that such a Hindu theology exists. All we hear in these discussions is the endless repeated dogmatic views of Iskconists. Their desire to push their ideas on the rest of Hindus.

As soon as the discussion becomes one with Iskonites, whose presence are abundant on any Hindu forum, it should be moved in the section of Hare Krishna, to prevent it being perceived as dominant thinking in Hinduism. I respect the ideas of Iskcon, but let it be understood as just that, the ideology of Iskcon. They should keep their ideas to themselves. They are not interested in real discussion as they are only allowed to parrot Prabhupada.

[Amrut]

Namaste Avyayda ji,

I an an advaitin, but have not presented or given any advaita POV in this thread.

Two Reasons:

1. Avoid unnecessary and futile Vaishnav v/s Advaita verbal fight that derails this thread

2. varNa is not sampradaya specific. So all Hindus (*or better hindu acharya-s) must unanimously agree.

At times we have to forget commentaries and simply have a look at translation. Since we are laymen and may not understand full meaning of translation, hence views of different acharya-s has to be given.

I have presented verse Bh. G. 18.41 with commentaries of Adi Shankara, Ramanuja, Shridhara Swami and Keshav Kashmiri, who agree with varNa is by guNa, but guNa is inherited by birth and hence there is no conflict. Refer Post #11 (page 2)

Promoting one's varNa is not common. Vedic rishi-s were far sighted, gifted with divine eyes, that make them fit to override general rules.

So promoting to higher varNa might be an exception. In most cases atleast in this thread, Guru has initiated a disciple who sooner or later became knower of brahman. If he had not, then he would not appear in upanishad-s which teach brahma-vidya. I have also not seen any disciple who is mentioned in upanishad who betrayed his Guru, did not followed his orders and failed to know Brahman.

Satyakama did not question his guru when his Guru asked him to stay in forest taking care of cows till they multiplied to 1000. He simply followed his Guru's instructions. What has sheltering and feeding of cows to do with brahma-vidya or brahminhood?

Again, I have not seen anyone being promoted to Kshatriya. All are promoted to Brahmin, as they are the most deserving of brahma-vidya. I have also not seen from the evidences provided, atleast in this thread, that no one had taken up the duty of a priest.

* Please understand that after Brahma-Jnana, one is a free bird. All customs, rituals, rules, shastra-s, etc are created so that ultimately one can become knower of Brahman. After the purpose is fulfilled, one can do whatever one wants. This can be found in Gita, when Bhagavan in last chapter 18, says, 'Do what you want to do'.

* Further, one must be aware that no one is denied of Brahma-vidya, though the means of imparting may be different.

Hari OM