Fall Of Jiva - Revisited!

In this very old topic of the same name, Madhava states the following:


A recent discussion with a devotee was about this very topic. I stated that there is perhaps no mention of a "primeval" fall as per Madhava's statement. This devotee responded by quoting SB 4.28.55 to me and stating that this is acceptable evidence of at least a statement of being with Bhagavan prior to any "fall."

What are the responses of the learned devotees here to this? More specifically, I would be highly interested in the Acharyas' commentaries to this verse.

[I'm not wanting to get into a discussion about the whole fall theory, I just want to question this point of a primeval fall, and whether other scriptures/Acharyas are in agreement.]

Look at the previous verses. In verse 52 of the metaphorical story, Bhagavan speaks of a friend whom the jiva consulted in the past. In verse 54, Bhagavan speaks of two swans who lived together on the Manasa-lake. The swans are evidently the jiva and the Antaryami. In verse 55, Bhagavan speaks to the jiva who has "left Him" to enjoy the ways of the material world.

Since when have we fallen away from the heart from the side of Antaryami? The story evidently speaks of a person who once was engaged in spiritual practices, consulting with Antaryami in the heart, but was eventually swayed by the ways of the material world, turning his face away from the Lord. Hence the "old friend who was once consulted" and the "two swans on a lake".

The story of Ajamila is a perfect illustration of the morale of this story. Reflect on that and on the verses of the metaphora here, the meaning is evident.

I notice that the BBT translation has an intriguing word in verse 54, 'okaH' as in the word 'vaukaH.' How would you translate this verse in the correct context?

In Srimad Bhagavata 4.28.52 it is mentioned that the jiva was with God, but according to Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti in his 'Sarartha Darsini'-commentary the jiva here only merged with Him as Mahavisnu during the universal dissolution. [mayy eva militva means] "Being merged in Me (Mahavisnu) you experienced happiness by My association." sahasram parivatsaran mahapralayo yavad ityartha "Until the end of the great dissolution." [this is in Visvanatha’s tika of verse 54]. Sri Jiva Gosvami declares in his comment on Srimad Bhagavata's verses 4.28.54 and 64: svasthah pradhanikavesa rahitah san tad vyabhicarena purvam isvarakhya hamsa bahirmukhataya nastam tirohitam smrtim janasi api kim sakhayam mam iti api smarasi catmanam avijnata sakham ityatra purvoktam sakhyanusandhanam punar apa iti. atra punah sabdena smrti sabdena tad vismrter nasadi khandanam vivaksitam kintu anadyavrtasyapi sakhyasya svabhavikatvad anaditvam ityeva krta hanya krtabhyagama prasangat "Being svasthah means 'being free from the possession of material nature" tad vyabhicarena means 'not devoted to the swan called isvara'. Because of this the memory was lost - nastam. punar apa means 'regained the consciousness of friends' as was stated in words such as janasi kim sakhayam mam (4.28.52). Here the use of the words 'punah' and smrtih are used to indicate the disappearance or destruction of forgetfulness. But that forgetfulness is certainly beginningless although the friendship, which is also covered without beginning, is natural."

Great. I wonder if this specific logic is presented in any Acharya's commentary, though. Or is this based on common sense. The comparison with the 'dvA suparNA' verse of Mundaka Upanisad 3.1.3 is highly exciting and it would be even better to see if any Acharya has made a mention of this comparison. Though in any case it is pretty commonsense to me.

Also, any context to that 'okaH' thing?

Is there anything in Visvanatha's tika that specifically points to Mahavishnu? 'Mayy eva militva' does not seem to be precise. Do you have that complete tika (54) at hand?

I unfortunately don't have a single tika aside the BBT version at my disposal (something which I intend to rectify soon, though), so the best I can do at the moment is common sense.

I am as unfortunate as Madhava - I dont have all the tikas here. I went sometimes to Ananta Das Ji's library to look for relevant tikas. This is all I found on SD 4.28.52. It would suggest to fall-vada, but other commentaries by Visvanatha have already ruled that out.

4.28.52 — ko’yam sayana iti prasne mama sri-gurur ayam iti | katha-pakse—mama patir ayam iti cet, mam kim janasiti ? nanu, tvam eva vipro mama ka ity ata aha—sakhayam iti | katham tvaya saha mama sakhyam ity ata aha—yena maya saha agre srsteh purvam vicacartha | mayy eva militva mat-sangena sukham anubhutavan tvam evasir ity arthah ||52||

"The brahmana said: "Do you know Me?" The Queen said: "You are a brahmana, but how are You related to me?" He said: "I am your friend". The Queen asked: "How do You have friendship with me?" brahmana: "You associated with Me before the Creation."

I don't know if this is the full tika. The particular paragraph you quoted from my post was taken by me from Satyanarayan's book on this topic. Perhaps Jagat has the full tika. If this is the full tika, however, Satyanarayan was not very careful in his presentation of the same. Hmmmm....

Oh, this should be alright. The reference to associating "before the Creation" seems to suffice. This is Visvanatha's tika so it should be alright. I'll crosscheck with Satyanarayana if I can.

That is allright, if the words 'Before the Creation' are not read as 'In the Spiritual world.' I am glad that you see it this way. I dont have SN's book here, if you find this passage there please quote it in this thread.

As follows (third wave, chapter one):

It is possible to interpret the BhAgavatam verses as evidence for fall from VaikuNTha, although they do not state so directly. For example in Chapter One, page 2 of his book Once We Were With KRSNa, Drutakarma DAsa, while attempting to explain verses 4.28.52-54, of zrImad-BhAgavatam writes:


But no commentary of the previous AcAryas supports such an interpretation. zrIla VizvanAtha CakravartI ThAkura states, for example, that the above verses refer to the jIvas residing within MahA-ViSNu during the time of the total annihilation, when the entire cosmic manifestation along with the living entities are held within the Lord.


Here “before creation” and “being merged in Me” refer to the time of dissolution when the living entities enter MahA-ViSNu. Then in the next verse again the brAhmaNa asks the queen about remembering him. Commenting on the words hitvA mAm, “giving up my company,” zrIla VizvanAtha CakravartI ThAkura writes, sRSTyArambhe prAcIna-karma-vazAd evety arthaH, “You gave up My company at the beginning of creation because of your past karma.” Here “past karma” refers to the karma accumulated in the previous cycle of creation. When the new creation occurs, one takes birth based upon this karma.

Then commenting on the words sahasra parivatsarAn (4.28.54), “living together for many thousands of years,” zrIla VizvanAtha CakravartI ThAkura writes sahasram parivatsarAn mahApralayo yAvad ity artha, “Until the end of the great dissolution.” The jIva remains within the Lord for this period.

From this it is clear that the friendship is between the Supersoul and the jIva and that their living together is during the annihilation. During the creation the jIva leaves the association of the Lord (as the Supersoul) to enjoy matter. This leaving simply means that the jIva, because of enthusiasm for enjoying matter, turns away from the Supersoul. During the dissolution he does not enjoy sense gratification. At that time he is aware of the Lord’s presence. Therefore, when the brAhmaNa, who is the Supersoul, meets the queen, He asks if she remembers Him. There is absolutely nothing here about the jIva being with KRSNa in VaikuNTha.

That is the complete commentary to 4.28.52. I agree with Madhava that "before the creation" means "before this particular creation".

Whatever is in gray is by Satyanarayana, not by me.

Great, thanks! So there is no specific reference to Mahavishnu, though this hardly matters since the commentaries make it obvious. Thanks!

Which book of Satyanarayana's is that, by the way? "In Vaikuntha Not Even The Leaves Fall"?

Yes, that one.

in the acbsp purport http://bhagavatam.net/4/28/53 he uses verse 6.2 from prema vivarta in support of 'fall theory':

purport: "The vibhinnāṃśa expansions, the marginal potencies of the Lord, are the living entities. When the living entities desire to enjoy themselves, they develop a consciousness of duality and come to hate the service of the Lord. In this way the living entities fall into the material world. In the Prema-vivarta it is said:

kṛṣṇa-bahirmukha hañā bhoga-vāñchā kare
nikaṭa-stha māyā tāre jāpaṭiyā dhare

The natural position of the living entity is to serve the Lord in a transcendental loving attitude. When the living entity wants to become Kṛṣṇa Himself or imitate Kṛṣṇa, he falls down into the material world.......

By misusing his independence, the living entity falls down from the service of the Lord and takes a position in this material world as an enjoyer."

what is the translation for prema vivarta 6.2

in the other 'fall of jiva' thread http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.ph...0of%20jiva&st=0 in a post quoting from a document that quotes brhad bhag:

2.6.366 tallokasya svabhAvo’yaM kRSNa saGgaM vinApi yat; bhavet tatraiva tiSThAsA na cikIrSA ca kasyacit — “Nobody desires to leave Goloka.”

i dont know sanskrit but the translation looks kinda short, is it leaving out anything

quoting from post which quotes from "In Vaikuntha Not Even The Leaves Fall":

Baladeva writes in his Govinda Bhasya on VedAnta SUtra 4.4.22:

na ca sarvezvaraH zrI hariH svAdhina muktaM svalokAt-kadAcit pAtyitumicchet mukto vA kadAcit taM jIhased iti zakyaM saGkitum.

“One cannot even imagine that the Supreme Lord Hari would ever desire that the liberated souls fall down, nor would the liberated souls ever desire to leave the Lord.”

this looks like explicit & conclusive evidence, is translation good

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.ph...of%20jiva&st=90any word yet

There are strong doubts about the validity of Preme Vivarta. The booklet is not mentioned in GVA and its mentioning in CC is disputed. Later on also no-one has quoted this booklet. Here follows the opinion of a later Jagadananda Pandit:

Prema Vivarta (PV)
-----------------

As many of you know, I have frequently said that this book, which was discovered and published by Bhaktivinoda Thakur during his stay in Puri from 1900-1903. According to his first edition, he discovered this manuscript in his Puri residence, Bhakti Kutir, which was situated just next door to Giridhari Asan, where Jagadananda’s Giridhari deity was and still is worshiped.

This or any other manuscript is, as far as I know, not to be found in any library, so we only have Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s word for it that there ever was such a manuscript. Some people suggest that damaged manuscripts would be consecrated to the Ganges if they were beyond repair, but as I have already said above, in the case of a rare text like this one, we would expect it to be preserved for verification.

How to go about investigating? First of all, we do not know the exact dates of Jagadananda’s life. When was he born, when did he die? These things we do not know.

However, PV itself states, in chapter two, that it was written after Chaitanya’s disappearance, in Jagannath Puri, while Swarup Damodar was still alive. Generally, it is thought that Swarup Damodar did not live very much longer after Mahaprabhu’s disappearance, so the likelihood is that it was to have been written before 1540.

Thus one way of testing the authenticity of this work would be to see whether the influences of any later works are to be found in it. Clearly, chapter 20 contains 85 verses in glorification of the Holy Name. A quick comparison with the 11th chapter of Hari-bhakti-vilasa shows that 84 of these verses are there, with only two of the 84 verses coming out of the order in which they are found there. HBV is one of the earliest Goswami works, so it is conceivable that Jagadananda knew of it by 1540, though he makes no mention of it in this chapter. Could Jagadananda’s collection of verses have been used by Sanatan? Perhaps, but very unlikely.

On the other hand, there are many verses either quoted verbatim or so close as to be unmistakable borrowings from the Chaitanya Charitamrita sprinkled throughout this work. This in itself is an almost indisputable sign that the Prema Vivarta was not written in the first half of the 16th century by Jagadananda Pandit, as Krishna Das wrote the CC in 1612, after the death of Jiva Goswami.

BVT wrote his Amrita-pravaha-bhashya in 1894, where he mentions for the first time the possibility that the words prema-vivarta mentioned in Antya 12.154 might be refering to a book. The verse goes as follows:

jagadAnandera prema-vivarta zune je jana
premera svarUpa jAne pAya prema dhana

Even Bhaktivinoda gives this as a second meaning to the verse, and there is no indication either in the verse or the context to indicate that this might be a written work, or anything other than a reference to Jagadananda’s pastime described in that chapter.

Next we must ask, is there anything unique to this book, which is not found elsewhere? We would expect something new from Jagadananda, a close associate in Puri and Nabadwip. Indeed we would naturally expect some contradictory information, as almost all of the biographies contain some disagreements in the particulars of Chaitanya's life story.



Full translation is: "The nature of Golok is such that one wants to live there, without wanting to go to any other place (na ca kasyacit kutrapi gamanadi karmanas cikirsa vidhaneccha - tika of Sanatan), even without the company of Krishna."



It is correct.

I never got around to translating those passages, since abundant references were already posted.

thx for the trans. ok so "The nature of Golok is such that one wants to live there, without wanting to go to any other place even without the company of Krishna." would be the translation for brhad bhag 2.6.366 tallokasya svabhAvo’yaM kRSNa saGgaM vinApi yat; bhavet tatraiva tiSThAsA na cikIrSA ca kasyacit ?

is the trans for sanatan gosvamis tika included in that trans, if not wats the translation for it

(na ca kasyacit kutrapi gamanadi karmanas cikirsa vidhaneccha - tika of Sanatan)

Sanatan Gosvami is both the author and commentator on the BB. Therefore the text and the tika are a symbiosis.

so the tika trans was included

The words kasyacit and cikirsa are explained in the tika. If one would knows this oneself, then there was no need for the tika, and the verse translation would not require the addition of the tika. In that case the translation is there complete without tika.

i dont get wat ur saying sorry . what is the translation for the tika

Nobody has any desire to go anywhere.