The Fifth Veda and Unanswered Questions
BY: BAHUSHIRA DASA (ACBSP)
Mar 08, CALIFORNIA, USA (SUN) — Part 1.
In reply to Acaryavilasa/Balavidya, he is back on this site so quick after not answering my pointed questions to him, on that specific article that Rupanuga dasa refers to, Condescending Pride on the Fall of the Jiva". Acaryavilasa/Balavidya has finally brought out his most secret weapon from his war chest of wildly explosive rhetoric. The pasandi-atheist weapon. Not too many Vaisnavas know how to wield this weapon against other Vaisnavas, but Balavidya doesn't know how to retract the burning word weapon. Ouch! So we'll have to assist him.
Either he is not aware of whom he is talking to, i.e., calling Rupanuga dasa as Rupa Vilasa, or he is blinded by his fury. Acaryavilasa is trying to play the part of jury, judge, and executioner. In reality, only the readers will decide. But I do love his accolades, like Pasandi, demon, fool, rascal, which he has given to me over the last two years.
Is he trying to close this discussion without answering inquiries? Either way, as the debate of the fall/no fall of the jiva goes on, Acaryavilasa/Balavidya has to scramble to find any remaining weapons in his chest of weapons. The accusation of Pasandi has a ring to its sound. Like the hiss of a snake: Passsssssandi, this is most dangerous! With that put aside, let's look at Acaryavilasa/Balavidya's accusations.
Srila Prabhupada's comment about the jiva's origin, "It is not important", had relevance back in 1968 and devotees didn't get into any big discussions about it until 1980, after Prabhupada had left. But devotees have to remember that if the origin information was not important then, why did Srila Prabhupada have Siddhasvarupa stopped from preaching that the jiva comes from the Brahmajyoti?
One Sannyasi outside of ISKCON, in reference to this quote about "not important", made an observation that now the devotees want to know where the jiva came from. Either Acaryavilasa is not aware of the statements in the Vedas themselves, or he is deceiving the readers on the Internet. Acaryavilasa does not know the definition of the word Veda and what it entails. He sounds like a smarta-brahmana who demands that there are only four Vedas as evidence. One has to know what scriptures are included under the wing of the word 'Veda'. The Veda itself makes it clear and gives the answer. Specifically in the Kauthamiya Chandogya Upanisad, 7.1.2, it states:
Itihasa-puranah pancamah Vedanam vedah
Itihasas and Puranas, as fifth Veda.
In Bhagavatam 3.12.39 it says:
"Then he created the fifth Veda-the Puranas and the histories
from all His mouths, since He could see all the past, present,
and future."
Again Bhagavatam 1.4.20 says:
"But the historical facts and authentic stories mentioned in the
Puranas are called the fifth Veda. "
In the Tattiriya Aranyaka Upanisad 2.9 it states:
Vad brahmananitihasa-puranani
The Itihasas and Puranas are Vedas
Jiva Goswami in his Tattra Sandarbha, Anuccheda 15.5 purport explains:
"The word sanksiptam in the verse cited here from the Siva Purana (7.1.1.37) is significant it means "condensed," not "composed." Srila Veda-vyasa, the literary incarnation of God, condensed the already existing Vedas. Then He took unused verses from the abridged portion and compiled them into the Puranas. Thus he did not create the Puranas as an original composition. This confirms that the Puranas, by virtue of their transcendental origin, are equal to the four Vedas. They are eternal and apauruseya."
So does Acaryavilasa/Balavidya accept these authoritative words of the Veda and the Bhagavatam? Most Gaudiya Vaisnavas know these verses, and I would presume that the majority of Neo-Gaudiyas must know these verses. So far, Acaryavilasa/Balavidya stressing the way he does about the word 'Veda' as proof is quite amusing. Does he really think that he is pulling the wool over the reader's eyes? And playing on the reader's supposed ignorance? In essence, does he think that only the four Vedas are to be quoted, because it seems that he doesn't accept the Puranas as a fifth Veda as proof. His accusation is that the Fallvadis have not quoted from the Vedas to establish the fall of the jiva from Vaikunthaloka, but we have been quoting from the Puranas. So it seems he does not accept their praman.
Acaryavilasa/Balavidya is using the tactic of sidetracking and trying to pull the reader away from focusing on the quotes of the fall down from Vaikuntha that have been established, and tries to say that any proof offered is useless, unless it directly states envy in Goloka. This is very restrictive, to say the least. The main point of the fallvadis is fall from Goloka or Vaikunthaloka. Freewill and envy is the cause of the fall. He is constantly trying to raise the bar of proof to the Fallvadis. In his January 31, 2008 article, "No Evidence Available in the Vedas of Fall from Goloka through Envy", he says, "…we finished by asking the fall from Goloka theorists to provide just one quote from the Vedas and Puranas describing their proposed tale of ‘envy in Goloka.'" Here Acaryavilasa/Balavidya is indicating that a fall from Goloka or Vaikuntha planets is only caused by envy. Does he think envy is separate from freewill? Or that freewill is separate from envy? They go hand in hand. In the list of jivan mukta qualities from the Chandogya Upanisad, 8.7.1, there is no mention of freewill, so freewill does not exist for him? Acaryavilasa thinks that freewill means the jiva will never misuse it, but that is not what Srila Prabhupada taught.
Envy as one of the causes for the fall of the jiva from Vaikunthaloka was not imagined by some new devotees. I've not seen it stated in sastra directly as a cause for a fall, but we take the words of the pure devotee, Prabhupada who has expounded on envy and freewill as a cause, and he links them together. We take his words to be as good as gold. In a lecture on Bhagavad Gita 7-4-1974, Srila Prabhupada says:
"So even in the Vaikuntha, if I deserve that "Why shall I serve Krsna?" Why not
become Krsna? I immediately fall down."
Prabhupada is saying, why not become Krsna. That is a form of envy.
In a room conversation with Allan Ginsberg in Columbus, Ohio, 5-14-69:
Ginsberg: How did the material covering begin?
Prabhupada: Begin?
Ginsberg: As the material shadow. How did we fall into that?
Prabhupada: Yes, yes. That is very natural…because jiva, although parasakti, he has got independence. So when he wants to imitate Krsna…In the spiritual world, Krsna is the enjoyer. And all others, they are enjoyed—predominator and predominating. The Lord is predominating, so there is no disagreement. There they know, the Lord is predominator; we have to serve. When this service attitude is impaired, that—‘Why serve Krsna? Why not ourself?'—that is Maya.
In a lecture in Atlanta, March 2, 1975, Srila Prabhupada said:
"That is the spiritual world. So as soon as you think that "Why shall I give service to Krsna? Why not become independent?" You fall down immediately. So there is potency of thinking like that.
Krsna bhuliya jiva bhoga vanchakare
Pasate maya tare japatiya dhare
As soon as one forgets the service of the Lord and wants to become himself Lord, immediately maya will capture. This maya means this material world."
When the jiva soul says ‘Why shall I give service?' and when the jiva wants to become Krsna himself these are symptoms of envy.
On a morning walk in Mayapura Feb. 19, 1976, Prabhupada was asked:
Gurukripa: They say that in the spiritual world we say that everything is peaceful, there is no birth and death, there is no material conditions, so why if the conditions in the spiritual world are so nice and everything is spiritually, everything is spiritual, how is it that one can become envious of Krsna in such conditions? This is a very…
Acyutananda: The original sin.
Sudama: Why are we envious?
Gurukripa:How is that, if everything is free from envy, free from bad material elements…
Prabhupada: Yes.
Gurukripa:How is that?
Prabhupada: That is independence. In spite of all these things. Because you have got little independence, you can violate.
Sudama: It is very hard to understand.
Prabhupada: No, it is not difficult. It is not difficult.
So Srila Prabhupada is directly being asked about envy coming up in one's relationship with Krsna, and Prabhupada answered in a way showing that envy is related to independence of the jiva. At this point Srila Prabhupada could have nipped this idea about envy being connected with the fall of the jiva, but he did not. So Acaryavilasa has to take his concern about envy as a cause for the fall of the jiva to Prabhupada's feet.
The request for verses from the Puranas by Acaryavilasa and others that say that the jiva can fall from Goloka and Vaikunthaloka, I had shown two years ago when this debate began. The quotes I gave are from the fifth Veda, the Puranas. Here is one verse. In the Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Krsna Janma Khanda, Ch. 111, verse 5, Radha is speaking to Mother Yasoda:
Sri Krsnasya varenapi na sadho nirbhayo bhava
Goloka capipatanam sambhavecca kuyoginah
"Oh good lady, do not become fearless by the boon of Sri Krsna, an imperfect yogi can also fall from Goloka."
This verse clearly states that a kuyogi-who is the tatastha jiva, can also fall (patanam) from Goloka. Prabhupada in S.B.,4.20.25, in the word for word translations, says kuyogi means one not in the line of devotional service. One may ask when does that happen? It is when one gives up the service of the Lord and falls. Let us look again at Bhagavatam verse 2.5.19 which Acaryavilasa tries to link to the Causal Ocean.
Nityada muktam mayinam purusam gunah
Nityada-eternally; muktam-transcendental; mayinam-affected by material
energy; purusam-the living entity; gunah-the material modes.
These three modes of material nature…put the eternally transcendental living entity under conditions of cause and effect. Acaryavilasa says that the nitya mukta - the eternally transcendental living entities are in the Causal Ocean. Oh really! I always heard that the nitya muktas were living in Vaikuntha planets. And now Acaryavilasa is saying that the marginal living entities are nitya muktas and are in the Causal Ocean? I had always heard that the conditioned souls in the Causal Ocean are conditioned as well as the marginal jivas here in this world. His words are "Actually here Srila Prabhupada mentions the "marginal nature" of the jiva, which is a reference to the intrinsic nature and initial location in the Causal Ocean." He tries to stretch the word nitya mukta to mean the intrinsic nature of the jiva but that is not the direct meaning of the verse, otherwise it would say the aspiring nitya mukta, but even that won't fit. Srila Prabhupada says the nitya muktas are put into material nature. This happens after they leave their service to Krsna or Visnu. For the other Puranic Fall Verses see the appendix.
In two of Acaryavilasa's favorite verses, the version of Jaiva Dharma he is using is translated by Sarvabhavana dasa. The Gaudiya Math version 1975, Ch. 15, translates these verses in a way different from Sarvabhavana. Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 4.3.9 says:
"This entity (jiva) has two places, viz., this (material) region and the other (chit) region; there is a third border region forming the juncture of the two; staying at the place of the juncture, he sees both the regions, this one and the other one." Herein has been stated the border-characteristic of the jiva-potency."
It is stated here the border characteristic is of the jiva potency. This has more to do with the marginal potency (going either way - material or spiritual) of the jiva than its location. Sarvabhavana's translation of 4.3.9, says:
"The jiva has access to two places, both of which he may seek, this material world and the spiritual realm. He is situated in the dream like third state, on the margin of these two worlds [Causal Ocean] from that middle portion he is able to see both the material and spiritual worlds."
In the Brhad-Ananuaka Upanisad, 4.3.18, Gaudiya Math edition, it states:
"Just as a large fish in a river at one time visits its eastern bank, at another the western one so also does the jiva move to both the sides, viz, that of dream (i.e., nescience) and the other of wakefulness (sentience)."
Sarvabhavana's translation of 4.3.18, reads:
"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 jiva 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.
One can see that in both verses from the Gaudiya Math translations, the two words (Causal Ocean) are not mentioned. Actually both of these verses are in fact talking about the quality of the jiva soul, and its sojourn within the dream of the material world. Acaryavilasa tries to point all references of the jiva soul to the Causal Ocean, but the Gaudiya Math translations don't support that idea. In the Sanskrit, there should be the word samudra which means Ocean, or Maha samudra, great Ocean. Isn't the Causal Ocean the greatest ocean? We should see the Sanskrita words Karana Samudra-Causal Ocean. So all along Acaryavilasa has been hitting us over the head with these two verses from Brhad-Aranyaka Upanisad, and in the Sanskrit the words Karana Samudra are not even mentioned. This is the interpretation of the translator.
In another translation, the Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti version, the word Causal Ocean is not used or found in their translation of these two verses, and no mention of Causal Ocean is there in the commentaries or following pages of the Gaudiya Math edition, or the Gaudiya Vedanta Edition. We've been duped by Acaryavilasa. It is up to the translator to interpret accurately, otherwise it shows motive in the part of the translator.
Sarvabhavana's version of these two Brhad Aranyaka verses is not an accurate translation. The example that is given in Jaiva Dharma Ch. 15, of these two verses is an example of a river in this world on a small scale. It's a fish of this world and a river of this material world. These two items in material nature are mentioned so the inquirer can get an idea in his mind about the jiva potency which can go either side, material or spiritual. There is no reference to the Karana Samudra-Causal Ocean in the translations that Acaryavilasa presents. A river of this world is not the same as an ocean anywhere. To use the river example and then jump up to a spiritual ocean is really stretching the translation, because the Sanskrit words do not say that. The other two translations of these verses by Vedanta Samhita and Gaudiya Math editions prove that clearly. The Gaudiya Math edition (1975) and the Gaudiya Vedanta edition are similar to each other. Go and see for yourself.
Acaryavilasa states that the initial fall of the jiva is from the Causal Ocean, not the Brahmajyoti as he accuses me, because I did not mention the Causal Ocean. Instead I mentioned the Brahmajyoti as a source. But in an earlier article he says: "If one understands Srila Prabhupada's statements of fall down from Vaikuntha to be fall down from either the Brahmajyoti or the Causal Ocean…" Acaryavilasa is changing his tune. He now appears to be disagreeing with Srila Sridhara Maharaj, who says in a lecture:
"The Brahmajyoti, the nondifferentiated marginal plane, is the source of the infinite jiva souls."
Here is another one, Acaryavilasa says:
"Svarupa or original identity is lost after rebellion in the Causal Ocean and falls under the illusory potency. By bhakti consciousness of the svarupa is purified and the original identity regained."
Can Acaryavilasa give any sastra or acarya's words that say the jiva's svarupa is lost in Causal Ocean when he comes to the material world? Or does the original svarupa come here to this world with the jiva? This is interesting indeed! Because Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur says just the opposite; in Prema-Pradipa, p. 83, the Thakur states:
"When he is imprisoned in the material world the spirit soul does not lose his original spiritual form he had in the spiritual world of Vaikuntha. However, because of contact with matter the imprisoned soul loses the memory of his original spiritual form in Vaikuntha. Still his spiritual form does not cease to exist."
Does Acaryavilasa think that the jiva's svarupa in the Causal Ocean is right now waiting for us to reconnect with it? The same thing that Balavidya accuses the Fallvadis of, he is doing also. That thing is assumption. Assuming the jiva's svarupa remains in the Causal Ocean when he is here in the material world has no scriptural standing. Otherwise prove me wrong, because Bhaktivinoda Thakur says the location of the jiva's svarupa is in Vaikuntha.
Acaryavilasa has admitted that Srila Prabhupada said the jiva fell from Vaikuntha. Acaryavilasa was saying in a previous article that Vaikuntha can mean the Causal Ocean. I stated that Vaikuntha means Vaikuntha Planets and the jiva can fall from there as well. In an Los Angeles lecture on Bhagavatam, 2.3.19, 6-15-72, Srila Prabhupada said:
"He is fallen already from Vaikuntha Planet. He is fallen in this material world, and he is again trying to make progress."
(To be continued)
