Q: Whether we fall from Vaikuṇṭha or do not fall, makes no difference to our sādhana. The important thing is to go back. Why discuss it so much?
A: Concepts matter. You think that you fell. This is why you use terminology like ‘go back’.
Q: Ok. But again, it makes no difference to sādhana.
A: sādhana is only potent when it is free from offenses. It is an offense to criticize śāstra. And not accepting the teachings of śāstra is equivalent to criticizing it.
Q: Different interpretations are possible. You can’t say that your interpretation is the only correct one.
A: Yes, different interpretations are possible. One interpretation is that we cannot fall. The other is that we can fall. Both of these cannot be correct. Agreed?
Q: Agreed.
A: So, one of us is opposed to śāstra. One of us is committing an offense. That means one of us cannot hope to be successful in sādhana.
Q: But at a practical level, I dont go around thinking about how I got here. And you dont walk around thinking about how you got here. So where is the offense?
A: But when you have to take a stand on this issue, you are supporting a specific position. If you are wrong, you are committing an offense. Whether you think of it everyday or not is not relevant.
Q: This is not very convincing.
A: Well, the other aspect of all this is that one has to have a coherent understanding of the edifice of bhakti. If your foundation is suspect, the whole edifice is suspect.
Q: This is my original point- our views on this debate dont really matter for sādhana.
A: But they do. If you believe in a fall from Vaikuṇṭha, you also believe in an original decision to leave Vaikuṇṭha. So you think that you are to blame for being here. This breeds a feeling of guilt. You also think that anyone can fall from Vaikuṇṭha. That may be offensive to the infinite devotees in Vaikuṇṭha. You have a specific concept about decision making- you think the ātman has free will. You likely think that the ātman is a self-contained unit- containing a mind etc. inside it, and even a body. You probably think the ātman is originally fully of knowledge and bliss. Plus you likely think that there is dormant prema inside of the ātman which just needs to be remembered. And this in many ways makes the guru superfluous for the process of bhakti – other than serving to remind you about yourself. This can breed an independent mindset even subconsciously. You have an altogether different understanding of sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana. These ideas have everything to do with sādhana.
Consider the alternative view. We are here beginninglessly, and not because of an original decision. We are not at fault for being here, so there is no point in feeling guilty about it. There is no such thing as original sin. We do not have prema inside of us, for the simple reason that prema is a samskāra which is in the citta, not in the ātman. We are not independent units, so there is no question of free will. We are not full of knowledge because knowledge resides in the mind, not in the ātman. We are not full of bliss because there is no prema inside of us. We are not independent entities when we think, feel or will; we do all these things only when endowed with Bhagavān’s śakti – the mind, senses etc.. We need the guru for bhakti, because prema flows to us from the guru in the siddha-stage, and śraddhā flows through the guru to us in the sādhana stage. No siddha can fall from Vaikuṇṭha – it is impossible. This view corresponds to a totally different understanding of sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana.
The two views are polar opposites. And only one of them is correct, the other is false.
Q: Then we have to decide who is correct.
A: Yes. For that, we must turn to the Sandarbhas. They are the foundation of the Caitanya sampradāya.
Q: But you may have your own interpretation of them.
A: Ok, we have our own interpretation. But that interpretation was not developed by self-study – poring over the books and deciding their meaning. We learn the Sandarbhas – every line – from our guru, who learned it from his guru. We have no independence in the matter of interpretation.
Leave a Reply