Dear Hari,
I have a question and didn't find good topic to answer.. Is it possible to stop exist at all? Has jiva only this choice - love to Krsna or samsara? Is there the third option? Must the soul be eternal and immortal? Could you explain me this, please?
the "third option"
I do not have any personal experience of not existing. I do not have any idea how to achieve this state, neither would I want to even if I could achieve it. Therefore I would not experiment with methods to attain the non-existent state.
Some may write about it and others might believe it, but how you think about these ideas is a matter of your own personal belief.
Therefore I do not think I can answer or even elaborate on the possibility of a soul becoming non-existent.
I also would not want to be stuck with the idea that one has only the choice, as you put it, to love Krishna or samsara. I think there is another option and this option is what I speak about in my lectures. The spiritual atmosphere is available in all states of being. But since your question is specifically about the state of non-existence, I do not wish to write further.
Good luck with your search to find this state. Let me know what you find out -- if you still exist and can explain it when you attain non-existence.
Some may write about it and others might believe it, but how you think about these ideas is a matter of your own personal belief.
Therefore I do not think I can answer or even elaborate on the possibility of a soul becoming non-existent.
I also would not want to be stuck with the idea that one has only the choice, as you put it, to love Krishna or samsara. I think there is another option and this option is what I speak about in my lectures. The spiritual atmosphere is available in all states of being. But since your question is specifically about the state of non-existence, I do not wish to write further.
Good luck with your search to find this state. Let me know what you find out -- if you still exist and can explain it when you attain non-existence.
yes, I will try 
but I'm thinking about 'the choice' - if we can choose 'only' existent state, what about freedom - free choice....Maybe the problem lies in trying to think of our essential being as a changeable state? Our being is an axiomatic truth. It is. I AM.
Due to the absolute nature of this essence, one either accepts it as it is, or one denies its existence and declares life as nothing more than a temporary chance combination of matter. The idea that one can be and then not be at will is anti-axiomatic in its nature.
If there was the option to not-be then being would not be the axiomatic fundamental principle of existence. We could then ask if existence or non-existence is the foundation? If existence is the foundation, then non-existence would have to be a temporary state, if it would exist at all. If non-existence were the foundation, then existence would be the temporary manifestation and we all return to non-existence after a while. How does the non-existent suddenly exist? If the fundamental principle were that there was a choice to exist or not, then you would have to assume that you start off as existent and have the choice to be non-existent. However, once you make that choice you are forever in that state for the non-existent cannot suddenly exist again. Who or what would decide to exist again? There is nothing. That is the meaning of non-existence. Again you are faced with the 'unfair' prospect of lack of choice.
If you speak of choice, you must speak of a chooser. The chooser is always superior to the choice, even as a principle. The chooser must exist before the choice is made. How, therefore, can the chooser choose to not be a chooser? It is axiomatic that the chooser is the basis, otherwise there can be no existence.
Even those who feel they are nothing but matter think of matter as the fundamental principle. The spiritualists think of spirit as the fundamental principle. A fundamental principle is that upon which all other principles are derived. Without the foundation, there can be no manifestation.
But this is word play. Fairness does not enter into this discussion. I AM, and that is all.
Due to the absolute nature of this essence, one either accepts it as it is, or one denies its existence and declares life as nothing more than a temporary chance combination of matter. The idea that one can be and then not be at will is anti-axiomatic in its nature.
If there was the option to not-be then being would not be the axiomatic fundamental principle of existence. We could then ask if existence or non-existence is the foundation? If existence is the foundation, then non-existence would have to be a temporary state, if it would exist at all. If non-existence were the foundation, then existence would be the temporary manifestation and we all return to non-existence after a while. How does the non-existent suddenly exist? If the fundamental principle were that there was a choice to exist or not, then you would have to assume that you start off as existent and have the choice to be non-existent. However, once you make that choice you are forever in that state for the non-existent cannot suddenly exist again. Who or what would decide to exist again? There is nothing. That is the meaning of non-existence. Again you are faced with the 'unfair' prospect of lack of choice.
If you speak of choice, you must speak of a chooser. The chooser is always superior to the choice, even as a principle. The chooser must exist before the choice is made. How, therefore, can the chooser choose to not be a chooser? It is axiomatic that the chooser is the basis, otherwise there can be no existence.
Even those who feel they are nothing but matter think of matter as the fundamental principle. The spiritualists think of spirit as the fundamental principle. A fundamental principle is that upon which all other principles are derived. Without the foundation, there can be no manifestation.
But this is word play. Fairness does not enter into this discussion. I AM, and that is all.
Yes.. I catch it..Hari wrote:Maybe the problem lies in trying to think of our essential being as a changeable state? Our being is an axiomatic truth. It is. I AM.
Oh, that's the point for me! Thank you!! I must contemplate this for a some timeHari wrote: If you speak of choice, you must speak of a chooser. The chooser is always superior to the choice, even as a principle. The chooser must exist before the choice is made. How, therefore, can the chooser choose to not be a chooser? It is axiomatic that the chooser is the basis, otherwise there can be no existence.
It is like in The Bible - "Great I Am" - about God, of courceHari wrote:I AM, and that is all.
I was wondering and wondering about this topic. Your answer clear up my 'stuck state'
The rest of your answer I must translate better and think it deeply.... Thank you 
Navigare necesse est, vivere non est necesse. [Pompeius]