@brahmajijnasa "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." Well, there might not be room for "going" astray, but there is room for "being astray".

@brahmajijnasa "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 think you're misunderstanding the purpose of my story.

@brahmajijnasa I think we do have a disagreement about the nature of logical arguments, and I think it did display itself both in this discussion and in our discussion of Baladeva Vidyabhushana's argument. But I think that this is a point that Baladeva Vidyabhushana and all learned people would agree with me on.

@brahmajijnasa And that point is this: it is very important to distinguish between the truth of a statement and the validity of an argument for it. Since you liked my dialogue, let me illustrate it with another dialogue:

@KeshavSrinivasan Yes, and there you failed to describe things properly.

Teacher: Is the Earth round or flat?

Student: It's round.

Teacher: Very good! Now can you prove to me that it's round?

@KeshavSrinivasan But I think that this is a point that Baladeva Vidyabhushana and all learned people would agree with me on. --- what do you mean?

Wait, I have to go. But I'll come back and finish the dialogue.

ok

@brahmajijnasa OK, now let me write the dialogue.

Teacher: OK class, time for an oral exam. Let me start with you. First question, is the Earth round or flat?

Student: It's round.

Teacher: Very good! Second question, can you prove that it's round?

Student: Oh, um... Oh, I know! The Earth is a solid object, and oranges are solid, so from the roundness of oranges we can deduce that the Earth is round.

Teacher: I'm afraid I can only give you credit for the first question, not the second.

Student: What are you talking about? I got it right! Are you disputing that the Earth is round?

Teacher: No, not at all. But your argument is invalid. What if some crazy guy stopped me on the street and said, "I can prove that ice cubes are round. An ice cube is a solid object, and oranges are solid, so from the roundness of oranges we can deduce that an ice cube is round." His argument would be invalid, so your argument is invalid as well.

Student: But we can observe that when ships sail into the distance, the front disappears before the back, whereas on a flat Earth the tall part of the ship would disappear before the small part. And we can observe that the Earth is spherical from pictures taken by satellites in outer space.

Teacher: All of that scientific data may well prove that the Earth is round, but that is a separate issue. That still doesn't mean you deserve credit for the second question.

Student: What! You're an irresponsible teacher then. This is supposed to be a science class, and you're saying that science is a "separate issue"! No, any argument that is not established on science is worthless. Your argument about the ice cube and the crazy guy has nothing to do with science, so it has no place in a science classroom. On the other hand my argument can be proven with satellite data and scientific observation of ships.

Teacher: No, that's where you're wrong. You are committing "brahma jijnasa's fallacy". It's a fallacy named after a Croatian Hindu guy who thought that if a statement is true, then all arguments for that statement must be valid. So he thought that if he could supply enough proof for the statement, he could prove the validity of his argument. But that's wrong. Even if you give me a thousand pieces of evidence that the Earth is round, that will still not prove that your orange argument was valid.

Student: OK that makes sense now. Now I understand why your ice cube argument belonged in a science class, and why satellite data did not prove that my orange argument was valid. Thanks, I'll avoid committing brahma jijnasa's fallacy in future.

@brahmajijnasa How do you like my dialogue? I even gave you a cameo appearance :-)

@brahmajijnasa I hope the analogy is clear. Even if you give me a thousand scriptural verses that prove that Sriman Narayana is the creator of the Universe, not Shakti, that will not prove the validity of Baladeva Vidyabhushana's argument that Shakti cannot be the creator because females can't produce anything without the participation of a male.

@brahmajijnasa And I'm quite sure that Baladeva Vidyabhushana understood the point I'm making, which is why he did not include the scriptural verses that you were trying to show me in his commentary.

@KeshavSrinivasan I really don't understand why you think like that!

@brahmajijnasa And similarly, you can give me a thousand verses to try to prove that Jivas used to be in Vaikuntha, but that will never convince me of the validity of your argument that if Jivas were in beginningless Samsara, then Sriman Narayana would be punishing them for no reason.

@KeshavSrinivasan ok, let's go step by step, Baladeva's argument first, I didn't get your point

@brahmajijnasa Now those thousand verses may well convince me that my belief in beginningless Samsara is wrong, but the one thing they will not do, the one thing they cannot do, is prove that an argument for that fact is valid.

@brahmajijnasa OK, in the case of Baladeva Vidyabhushana's argument, I was saying that his argument seemed strange because it was saying that Shakti cannot be the creator because woman can't have children without the involvement of men. And you responded by giving Gita verses that show that Sriman Narayana, not Shakti, is the creator of the Universe. My point is that those Gita verses are utterly irrelevant to the validity of Baladeva Vidyabhushana's argument.

@brahmajijnasa Those Gita verses may well prove that Shakti can't be the creator, but they do not address the validity of the women and children argument.

@KeshavSrinivasan why not?

@brahmajijnasa Similarly, your verse that has the word punah may well prove that Jivas used to be in Vaikuntha (although I dispute that), but they can never prove that your argument about Sriman Narayana being cruel is valid.

@brahmajijnasa Because proof of a statement does not constitute proof of the validity of arguments for that statement. That is the point of my dialogue.

@KeshavSrinivasan I still don't get it

@brahmajijnasa Did you read my dialogue?

yes, I did

@brahmajijnasa What don't you get?

Because proof of a statement does not constitute proof of the validity of arguments for that statement. That is the point of my dialogue.

@brahmajijnasa OK, let me rephrase. Just because a piece of evidence proves that a statement is true does not mean that it proves that a given argument for that statement is valid.

@brahmajijnasa So in the case of the dialogue, just because satellite pictures prove that the Earth is round does not mean that the student's argument about oranges is a valid argument.

can you be quite specific regarding Baladeva and my samsara stance

@brahmajijnasa Yeah, just because that verse containing the word "punah" might prove that Jivas used to be in Vaikuntha does not mean that your argument that if Samsara was beginningless then Sriman Narayana would be cruel is a valid argument.

@KeshavSrinivasan I think that this is it, I don't see how the Lord can be just (righteous) in the case of a beginningless samsara, you have some idea how He can be just?

and that other argument, Baladeva's one?

ok, just please do not repeat that thing you have said already: the reason we deserve to suffer in Samsara right now is because of our actions before, and the reason we deserved to suffer in Samsara at that time is because of our actions at an even earlier time, and the reason we deserved to suffer in Samsara at that time is because of our actions before that, etc.

I really don't see that as something righteous!, and that because of the reasons that I explained already

@brahmajijnasa I'm sorry, but that thing I said before is my response. I do see it as something righteous. That was the purpose of my earlier dialogue with the reporter and the warden.

!!! I really don't see that as something righteous!, and that because of the reasons that I explained already

@brahmajijnasa In the dialogue between the reporter and the warden, I don't think the warden was doing anything wrong. I think he's a noble figure.

@brahmajijnasa What are the reasons that you explained already?

read above my posts ... to be as short as possible I'll say only this (copy-paste from my post):

"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."

... and if there would be no room for going astray ... then the Lord would be not righteous!

! if the Lord does not give you the chance to go astray, but He covered you with maya and avidya and keeping you in samsara, He would be not righteous

@brahmajijnasa "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." If by "going astray" you mean not being astray initially and then becoming astray, then yes I agree there's no room for that. But why is there no room for the Jiva to have been astray forever?

@brahmajijnasa And if there is room for that, then why is Vishnu being cruel in punishing the Jiva for doing bad things forever?

@KeshavSrinivasan But why is there no room for the Jiva to have been astray forever? --- because of the scriptural statements that I have provided! It seems you did not studied them carefully! are you lazy?

no, there is no room!

@brahmajijnasa Look, we're going in circles. You provided me some scriptural verses. I said I disagreed with how you were interpreting them. You said you thought that their meaning was clear, but there are other ways to show that infinite births is wrong. I asked you what those other ways were, and you said if there were infinite births, then Sriman Narayana would be cruel. I disputed that notion using my dialogue with the warden, and you replied by citing the scriptural verses.

@brahmajijnasa Don't you see that your argument that Sriman Narayana would be cruel depends on establishing that there's no such thing as infinite births? And thus don't you see that your argument is powerless to persuade someone who does not yet believe that there's no such thing as infinite births?

so that's the problem, it's about interpretation of the verses, right?

@brahmajijnasa No, the problem isn't just with the interpretation of the verses. The other problem is the structure of your argument.

@brahmajijnasa You're using using lack of infinite births to prove that Vishnu would be cruel if there were infinite births. And then you're using the fact that Vishnu would be cruel in order to prove there are no infinite births.

"the structure of your argument" --- well, my structure is based on the verses itself

@brahmajijnasa Here is the structure of your argument: 1. Scriptural verses prove there's no such thing as infinite births. 2. Therefore, Vishnu would be cruel if there were infinite births. 3. Vishnu is not cruel. 4. Therefore, there's no such thing as infinite births.

@brahmajijnasa Don't you see that there's something very wrong with the structure of your argument?

@brahmajijnasa If you want to present a valid argument involving Vishnu and cruelty, please do the following: make an argument that Vishnu would be cruel if the Jiva has infinite births which does not depend on whether "the Jiva has infinite births" is true or false.

@KeshavSrinivasan no my dear, that was not exactly my argumentation!, it seems you were a bit lazy and you did not read thoroughly line of my argumentation, but yes the line is based on the verses, but not quite what you say now

@brahmajijnasa OK, where in steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 is my summary of your argument wrong?

here in 3 points (this is not above 1-4 of your question!):

a) I'll leave that for you to do as a homework, haha, like when you were in high school, take your time, a couple of days or so, go carefully through my posts, then go through all the verses that I have posted (all the verses, not just one!), then think about everything, is that fair enough?

b) my line of argumentation was not just about the thing of infinite vs finite births, but was more than that! it was about using of maya, avidya, etc, by the Lord --- you missed that!

@brahmajijnasa I think you misunderstood the purpose of my steps 1-4. I wasn't trying to right out every step of your argument. I was just putting a few steps that occur in the course of your argument to demonstrate the problematic structure of your argument. So I don't claim that I've captured every detail of your argument, but I claim that every step I mentioned is there in your argument.

c) and if you think the verses can be properly interpreted some other way, then say who interpreted them properly some other way, and what that interpretation is --- I already indicated in our conversation some of not convenient ideas of yours about the verses, such as ekatva and mahapralaya

@brahmajijnasa In particular, there are numerous steps between step 1 and step 2 that I did not write.

@KeshavSrinivasan So I don't claim that I've captured every detail of your argument --- see that's why I say you are lazy, and you did not understand my stance

@brahmajijnasa But my steps were not even trying to show the details of your argument. They were trying to show the structure of your argument. Do you at least agree that your argument arrives at step 2 on the basis of step 1, even if there are numerous intermediate steps between step 1 and step 2?

@KeshavSrinivasan only partially

@brahmajijnasa You said "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... and if there would be no room for going astray ... then the Lord would be not righteous!" And when I asked you why there's no room for the jiva to have been astray forever, you said it's because scriptural verses show that the Jiva had a first birth.

@brahmajijnasa That means that your argument for step 2 depends on step 1, and I am saying that that is problematic for the structure of your argument.

@KeshavSrinivasan * And when I asked you why there's no room for the ajuga to have been astray forever, you said it's because scriptural verses show that the Jiva had a first birth.* --- no, not quite so, you are misinterpreting my line of argumentation, lazy ... lazy! do your homework a), b), c) above, talk to you later

@brahmajijnasa "no, not quite so, you are misinterpreting my line of argumentation" Well let me just quote you: "it was not forever because there was the first birth for every jiva soul in samsara! I said that earlier"

@brahmajijnasa By the way, did you see my question about the Govinda Bhashya and Dattatreya?