@KeshavSrinivasan Well, that's an impression I got after reading your story.

I stand by the view according to which each jiva was originally established in its very nature, and only if he goes astray from his nature the Lord will use tools such as Maya and samsara on the jiva, to separate that jiva from the Lord, to separate that jiva from his self awareness of being an eternal servant of the Lord, and to put that jiva in samsara, avidya, maya, karma.

If we assume that jiva was in samsara in ignorance (avidya) of his own self nature since beginningless past, then there would be no room for going astray.

* * *

I think that any argument or story we say should be established on proper understanding of scripture, otherwise it is worthless argumentation or story.

I think you should not commit that mistake thinking that some fancy story tells something correct, but you do not care of how much that story is established on proper understanding of scripture.

I remember last time you were trying to do that, you were puzzled with the argumentation by Madhva and Baladeva in their commentaries on the Vedanta sutra where they were refuting the opinion of the Shaktas who think that Shakti is capable to create living beings on her own, independently of the Lord or Purusha (male).

You thought that the Baladeva's argument that it is impossible for Shakti to create living beings alone without the help of male, is weird because Baladeva said she can't do it because she is a women. Then I told you that his argument is quite appropriate because the vedanta scriptures (Upanishads, Gita, etc) teach exactly that thing.

See, that's my point here again, you can't think your argumentation or some fancy story you make is correct representation of vedic knowledge but you want to make it "separate" (as you said) from the verses in the scriptures.

My argumentation and examples was not an attempt to do anything "separate" from the verses I quoted in the previous posts.