Examination of GBC Resolution on Jiva Fall to Matter
BY: PARAMPARA DASA
Nov 18, 2011 — INDIA (SUN) — In this posting, I wish to examine with pertinent quotes the GBC Resolution on the "fall of jiva to matter". The Resolution has some obvious anomalies and it is well to examine the Resolution in light of Vaisnava siddhanta and logic. However, ultimately the Resolution ends on the right note, enjoining devotees to repeat the answers of Srila Prabhupada on this subject.
This examination is in two parts. First is an examination of the GBC written section of the Resolution. Second part will come later and be an examination of the quote of Srila Prabhupada given by the GBC in their Resolution. Everything is offered to be helpful.
Two Misconceptions
In my previous posting, "Soul Entry to Matter", I gave evidence from Vedas and Vaisnava acaryas that refutes two misconceptions: (1) jiva has fallen from Goloka Vrndavana; and (2) the jiva has not fallen because he has been in matter "without beginning". The first is wrong because it degrades Goloka as a place of envy and rebellion thus implying that prema-bhava is not an eternal perfection. The second is wrong because it denies emanation of the jiva from Sri Krsna Who is situated in transcendence, above matter. As Sri Krsna is above matter and emanating jiva, then the jiva origin is also transcendental prior to matter encasement.
Vaisnava Siddhanta
As evidenced in the previous posting, the Vaisnava siddhanta on jiva fall to matter is quite concise, as per acaryas and Vedas. The jiva is pure spirit awakening from creational susputi at the margin of matter and spirit, the Karana Samudra. He lives there quite peacefully but wishing for active engagement, by his own independent choice, he either take up active service and thus becomes absorbed in bhakti on the planets of Sri Krsna, or jiva forgets Sri Krsna in a rebellious mood of rejection of His service and thus falls to illusion in the encasement of matter. However Sri Krsna in the form of Paramatma stays with jiva in matter. When jiva is sincere to find Absolute Truth, jiva can take shelter of suddha-bhakta, then attain pure bhakti, then never fall again to matter. That is the mercy of Sri Krsna, in Gita, "na me bhakta pranasyati, my bhakta will never perish."
Now let us examine the GBC Resolution in sight of Vaisnava siddhanta.
GBC Resolution:
"Vaikuntha is that place from which no one ever falls down. The living entity belongs to Lord Krishna's marginal potency (tatastha-sakti). On this we all agree. The origin of the conditioned life of the souls now in this material world is undoubtedly beyond the range of our direct perception. We can therefore best answer questions about that origin by repeating the answers Srila Prabhupada gave when such questions were asked of him:
"The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the spiritual world. In the spiritual world both the Lord and the living entities live together very peacefully. Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when the living entity, misusing his tiny independence, wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world." (Srimad Bhagavatam 4.28.54, purport).
Resolution: No ISKCON devotee shall present or publish any contrary view as conclusive in any class or seminar or any media (print, video, electronic, etc.).
Point 1:
At the beginning, we find "Vaikuntha is that place from which no one ever falls down. " Then in the quoted purport of Srila Prabhupada we find "…when the living entity, misusing his tiny independence, wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world."
Now here is obvious contradiction. The GBC start by saying "no one ever falls down", and then quote Srila Prabhupada "he falls down to material world". Now this is an obvious contradiction: you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Or "you cannot have "no fall" and "fall down", too.
However, the troubling contradiction is that the GBC written part (no one ever falls down) contradicts the Acarya, Srila Prabhupada (he falls down).
Surely the GBC can understand that they should not contradict the Founder Acarya of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada?
What to speak of using obviously opposing statements in their Resolution.
Point Two:
This double contradiction, as above, does not engender confidence in the GBC ability and Resolution.
But also the obvious contradiction does not make the Resolution clear in itself. Are followers of GBC directed to believe (a) "no one falls": or (b) "he falls down"; or (c) "no one falls" but also "he falls"; or (d) there is no contradiction?
Of course, the intelligent answer is that we should believe Srila Prabhupada (he falls down) and not accept the GBC double contradiction. But then the question is hanging why do the GBC not see that with this Resolution they do not "cover themselves with glory", but only confuse the jiva fall issue. It must be said that many people will take the opportunity to say that the GBC is not qualified to speak on this matter, what to speak of make a binding Resolution.
Point Three:
The GBC then say "On this we all agree." What is this "this" upon which we all agree – that "no one falls"? Well there is little agreement on this. Especially as in a few later sentences, Srila Prabhupada disagrees quite clearly. Further many devotees don't agree. It seems that the GBC are in denial, denying that there actually is disagreement.
Point Four:
The GBC say "On this we all agree." Who is this "we" that is agreeing? This pronoun is not defined and so open to interpretation: (a) if "we" is the GBC, then are we to believe that every GBC agrees? There must be doubt that the GBC are all agreeing. Especially if it means that they are all actually disagreeing with the Acarya, Srila Prabhupada. Surely, some GBCs don't disagree with Srila Prabhupada. At least we hope that is the case. (b) If the GBC by "we" mean all ISKCON devotees, then this is also denying the difference of opinion within ISKCON, many of whom would never dream of disagreeing with Srila Prabhupada; and (c) if the GBC by "we" mean all ISKCON devotees, then this is presumptive. The GBC should speak for themselves, not all ISKCON devotees. We believe in the "independently thoughtful" teaching of Srila Prabhupada. Devotees can speak for themselves.
Point Five:
The GBC then say "The origin of the conditioned life of the souls now in this material world is undoubtedly beyond the range of our direct perception."
Here there is more confusion and contradiction. The GBC started by stating "Vaikuntha is that place from which no one ever falls down." But now they say that the souls have "conditioned life" and that this conditioned life has an "origin". Now if we put these two together, then we must conclude that the "origin" is not Vaikuntha, because "Vaikuntha is that place from which no one ever falls down." Therefore we must conclude the GBC are saying the "origin" is not "Vaikuntha".
By this language construction the GBC show that they have not grasped the essence of the question. According to Vedas and acaryas, the "origin" is not in a place, such as "Vaikuntha", but rather in the minute independence of the jiva soul. The cause of "conditioned life" is not therefore a place, but rather in the choice of the jiva.
So this is a "red herring" sentence. Probably not deliberated put into the Resolution, but really illustrates that the GBC have not properly grasped the essence of the point of Vaisnava siddhanta upon which they are presuming to pass a binding Resolution.
So, this also does not "cover the GBC with glory".
Point Six:
The GBC then state "We can therefore best answer questions about that origin by repeating the answers Srila Prabhupada gave when such questions were asked of him:"
In principle this is fine, we should quote the acaryas, no doubt. However "repeating the answers" given by Srila Prabhupada should not be without transcendental realization. Repeating like a parrot, who does not understand what he is parroting, is not recommended. In Point Five it is evident that this may be the case with the GBC, because it is clear that they have not understood that the "origin" of "conditioned life" is not a place (Vaikuntha), but rather the choice of jiva himself.
If the GBC do not properly understand the essence of the question, then can we hope that they can "repeat" the relevant answer in their binding Resolution, which is further marred by a double contradiction, as explained in Points One and Two.
Point Seven:
The GBC state we should be "repeating the answers Srila Prabhupada gave".
Here we pay attention to the word "answers". The word is in the plural form. The GBC however only repeat one answer.
However this "answers" is an excellent part of the Resolution because it clearly directs that all quotes of Srila Prabhupada should be repeated, not just the singular one subsequently used by the GBC in this Resolution.
This particular quotation has often been isolated and misinterpreted against Vaisnava siddhanta to justify the mistaken idea that jiva falls from Goloka Vrndavana and krsna-prema.
We must note there is no mention at all of Goloka Vrndavana in this subsequent quote of Srila Prabhupada offered by the GBC, so how this quote is offered as a proof positive of "falldown from krsna-prema in Goloka" is a mystery and ultimately a mistaken obfuscation of true Vaisnava siddhanta.
Point Eight:
As the GBC Resolution enjoins that all answers (plural) should be repeated, then here is one that should be repeated:
"The conclusion is that no one falls from the spiritual world, or Vaikuntha planet, for it is the eternal abode."
Note: We fall from Vaikuntha margin, Karana Samudra, which is transcendental to matter, not the planets of Vaikuntha.
Point Nine:
We thank the GBC for this part of their Resolution for it enjoins us to be "repeating all the answers Srila Prabhupada gave", which is what all devotees have been doing all along.
Point Ten:
After enjoining the ISKCON devotees to quote all the answers (plural) given by Srila Prabhupada, the GBC, pronounces their Resolution strongly:
"No ISKCON devotee shall present or publish any contrary view as conclusive in any class or seminar or any media (print, video, electronic, etc.)."
This is excellent. ISKCON devotees should "repeat all answers Srila Prabhupada gave" and not present "contrary views as conclusive".
Final Words:
Though the GBC Resolution has many contradictions and confusions, ultimately, as discussed in Point Ten, the Resolution ends on the correct note. We should repeat the answers of Srila Prabhupada. Who can disagree?
In the next part we will discuss the meaning of the quote used by the GBC in this Resolution.
Thank you for kind attention.
Parampara dasa
