When Mangal Maharaj was here in Montreal, he phoned me up to talk to me about this jiva issue. He's had a bee in his bonnet about ACBSP's commentary to Gita 15.7 for some time. I brought him printouts of all the Gita commentaries and we talked for a couple of hours. I told him to write down his thoughts and publish them. I expected that he would have more to say, but he wrote down one or two pages and Malika typed them up. I made a few cosmetic changes and now I see he has posted it :
New Light on Bhagavad Gita 15.7At first I thought he was making a mountain out of a molehill, and a discussion on
Istagosthi seems to uphold this general indifference to his objections.
However, I think that there is a point here. It combines with the jiva doctrine of never falling from the spiritual world, but also the idea that bhakti is not inherent in the jiva, that the jiva needs to "get the bhakti-lata bija" from outside himself, and then be constantly infused with the mercy of Vaishnava association to water that seed.
The Mayavadi position is that we are all inherently sac-cid-ananda. If the coverings over the soul are removed, he realizes his status as Brahman. This may be so, but this is not the same as acquiring prema bhakti.
Admittedly there are ambiguous statements in scripture that may occasionally support other ideas, but it is clear to me from Madhurya Kadambini and elsewhere that this is the Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta.
So Mangala Maharaj is basically right, but unfortunately he has not explained his position with sufficient clarity, discussing the ramifications of this position. His "anvaya" of the verse is original, by the way, and not found in any of the commentaries. The GV commentaries are clear that amsa here means the jiva and not paramatma, and that the implication of amsa is vibhinnamsa.
QUOTE
However, I think that there is a point here. It combines with the jiva doctrine of never falling from the spiritual world, but also the idea that bhakti is not inherent in the jiva, that the jiva needs to "get the bhakti-lata bija" from outside himself, and then be constantly infused with the mercy of Vaishnava association to water that seed.
Sorry, I didn't get this.
It combines with the jiva doctrine of never falling from the spiritual world, but also the idea that bhakti is not inherent in the jiva, that the jiva needs to "get the bhakti-lata bija" from outside himselfIn my understanding, Mangal Maharaj is only trying to establish Jiva's position, but there is no mention about whether or not bhakti is inherent in the jiva. I'm missing the connecton here. So, please explain.
jiva needs to "get the bhakti-lata bija" from outside himself?
"So there is no question of thinking of the jivas as the parts and parcels of God, for they are only parts of God's marginal potenc"
But is not the marginal potency part and parcel of God - identified as shakti tattva?
And does not the shakti tattva have three angas?
internal
marginal
external
Does he think he will one day become internal potency?
QUOTE(PADA Newsletter)
"...it all starts with envy of Krishna. Again, the Gaudiya Matha folks have never understood this point. And so they have no actual explanation why us teeny souls are here at all, since they think we originated in the impersonal brahman. As such, they think: we were never "envious of Krishna" -- we never were with Him? Neither they can properly explain why we are bound up by sex desire in the way that we are here in this world, because they fail to see how we were originally "envious." etc., etc.
The question of the jiva's innate envy of Krishna. I'd like to scratch the surface here.
Envy of Krishna does not form a major part of the discourse in Vaishnava scriptures, though I'll admit it has a certain allure. It sounds rather like the Christian original sin theory.
A more usual argument is ignorance. There is, I suppose, a difference here. Are we maliciously trying to outdo Krishna, or do we just not know any better? Ignorant, we are led by the nose by the material energy, which fools us into thinking we can enjoy separate from Krishna.
In either case, we have the dichotomy of individual responsibilty and the "Devil/Maya made me do it."