No fall from Vaikuntha or Goloka .

[Guest guest]

Hare Krsna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

Rahul prabhu ji wrote:

 

" rahulsiotia@h...

Thu Nov 15, 2001 11:42 am

Answers

Hare Krishna,

Actually God desired to enjoy and so he expanded himself. we

originally had

spiritual bodies in the spiritual world but when we became

envious

of

Krishna and desired to enjoy independently we were sent to the

material

world with material world. "

 

I would like to point out that this is not accepted by Gaudiya

Vaishnava Philosophy that originally we were in Spiritual world and

then we fall down due to envious nature towards God. Kindly see the

evidence regarding this --

 

First thing to understand is that jiva atma or individual souls are

not created by Absolute truth in Krsna form rather they are created

by Maha Vishnu. Proof-- from Brahma Samhita [For Brahma Samhita click-

http://www.iskcon.org/sastra/f_bs.html ]

 

TEXT 11

sahasra-sirsa purusah

sahasraksah sahasra-pat

sahasra-bahur visvatma

sahasramsah sahasra-suh

 

WORD FOR WORD

sahasra-sirsa--possessing thousands of heads; purusah--Lord Maha-

Visnu, the first purusa-avatara; sahasra-aksah-- possessing thousands

of eyes; sahasra-pat--possessing thousands of legs; sahasra-bahuh--

possessing thousands of arms; visva-atma---the Supersoul of the

universe; sahasra-amsah-- the source of thousands of avataras;

sahasra-suh--the creator of thousands of individual souls.

 

 

TRANSLATION

The Lord of the mundane world, Maha-Visnu, possesses thousands of

thousands of heads, eyes, hands. He is the source of thousands of

thousands of avataras in His thousands of thousands of subjective

portions. He is the creator of thousands of thousands of individual

souls.

 

Please note the words " sahasra-suh ". And the translation that Maha

Vishnu creates individual souls. So they are not present in Vaikuntha

or Goloka and hence they don't fall down from there.

For further substantiating this point one should also consult the

commentary by Srila Saraswati prabhupada on text 16 of the same book.

 

I'm reproducing the relevant part of his commentary on the said verse:

 

" The innumerable Jivas as spiritual particles emanating from the

oversoul in the form of pencils of rays of effulgence, have no

relation with the mundane world when they come to know themselves to

be the eternal servants of the Supreme Lord. They are " THEN "

incorporated into the realm of Vaikuntha. But " WHEN " they desire to

lord it over Maya, forgetting their real identity, the egotistic

principle Sambhu entering into their entities makes them identify

themselves as separated enjoyers of mundane entities. Hence Sambhu is

the primary principle of the egotistic mundane universe and of

perverted egotism in jivas that identifies itself with their limited

material bodies. "

 

Here is a Gaudiya Vaishnava authority speaking on the fall down of

Jiva. This is Gaudiya position on coming of jiva into material world.

This explanation given by Srila Saraswati prabhupada is clear

and doesn't need any interpretation.

 

You have mentioned about the expansion of Supreme Lord due to pure

bliss, this is correct but the actual understanding of that expansion

process is like this--

The following is an excerpt from Jaiva Dharma chapter 15th by Srila

Bhaktivinoda Thakura --

 

Vrajanatha:

 

"It must be admitted that in the creation of the jiva soul maya has

nothing to do; I do also understand that maya can exercise her power

over the jiva." Now my question is whether the chit-potency has

framed the jiva with the tatastha (border) natural?"

 

Babaji:

 

"No, the chit-potency is Krishna's plenary potency; Whatever she

produces is eternally accomplished; the jiva is not so eternally

accomplished; when he becomes accomplished by practices (sadhana-

siddha), he enjoys bliss like those eternally accomplished entities.

The four kinds of confidantes of Sri Radha (to be described

hereafter) are eternally accomplished; their bodies are about the

same, with slight variations, with that of Sri Radhika who is

essentially the chit-shakti. The jivas have grown out of the jiva-

shakti of Sri Krishna. Chit-shakti is Sri Krishna's full (plenary)

shakti, whereas the jiva-shakti is the incomplete shakti. From the

plenary potency are produced complete entities, but from the

incomplete potency have grown the jivas as atomic chit. Krishna

manifests entities of different types in accordance with the kind of

the shakti He applies.

 

When established in His essential chit-shakti He reveals His

essential Nature as Sri Krishna Himself on the one hand and on the

other as Sri Narayana, the Lord of Vaikuntha. When he desired to have

His adherent attendance ' nitya parshada' servitors in His

Transcendental plane Goloka- Vrindavana Vaikuntha, etc. He through

Baladeva created those Eternal Parshada as nitya-mukta jivas at those

divine worlds. He reveals the three Forms of Vishnu, viz.,

Karanodakasayi, Kshirodakasayi and Garbhodakasayi. At Vraja He

reveals His own Nature as Krishna with chit in fullness; as Baladeva,

He reveals the eternally free associate jivas for the performance of

the eight kinds of service of Himself as Sri Krishna. Again at

Paravyoma (Vaikuntha) He, as Sankarshana, reveals the eternally free

associate jivas for the performance of the eight kinds of service to

Sri Narayana. Maha Vishnu, the incarnation of Sankarshana,

establishing Himself in the heart of jiva-shakti as Paramatma,

creates the jiva-souls of tatastha shakti. These jivas are

susceptible to the influence of maya. Till by dint of God's Grace

they get shelter under the hladini (bliss-giving) shakti they are

liable to be overcome by maya. Innumerable jivas, overcome fastened

by maya, are attached to the three gunas (sattva, rajah, tamah) of

maya. As such, the conclusion is that it is the jiva-shakti that

begets the jivas, and not the chit-shakti."

 

For further illumination about the Fall down process please read--

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/indexh.html

when the page opens click on Swami Vishnu's name written on the top

below the heading - Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Matha

When the next page opens kindly click on " Saranagati Associate

Editor Links " After this click on Articles. Then click on Jiva-

tattva. And read through the material provided. All this shall help

develop a clear picture of Jiva's coming into this world. Especially

read the eleven points of discussion and introduction section.

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna. Namaskaaram.

 

> I would like to point out that this is not accepted by Gaudiya

> Vaishnava Philosophy that originally we were in Spiritual world and

> then we fall down due to envious nature towards God. Kindly see the

> evidence regarding this --

>

> First thing to understand is that jiva atma or individual souls are

> not created by Absolute truth in Krsna form rather they are created

> by Maha Vishnu. Proof-- from Brahma Samhita [For Brahma Samhita

click-

> http://www.iskcon.org/sastra/f_bs.html ]

 

Two points -

 

First, jivaatmaa-s are not "created" at all, since creation would

imply that there was some time before which they did not exist.

Shaastras clearly state that jiiva-s exist eternally:

 

na tvevaaha.m jaatu naasa.m na tva.m neme janaadhipaaH |

na chaiva na bhaviShyaamaH sarve vayam ataH param || giitaa 2.12 ||

 

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these

kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. (bhagavad-

giitaa 2.12)

 

This is also the position of the Upanishads, as understood from

statements like "nityo nityaanaam chetanash chetanaanaam." etc.

Consequently, when we see statements to the effect that the

Lord "created" the living entities, we have to qualify that - these

statements are usually meant to indicate that the living entities

come from Him, or that they are expanded from Him, are dependent on

Him, etc.

 

Secondly, I disagree with your statement that Krishna did

not "create" the living entities because Mahaa-Vishnu did. Krishna

and Mahaa-Vishnu are the same Supreme Personality of Godhead, even if

Mahaa-Vishnu's form expresses a smaller fraction of the total number

of transcendental qualities and potencies. Obviously, we cannot

disagree with the statement of the Giitaa that Krishna is the seed-

giving father of all living entities merely because the living

entities are expanded from Mahaa-Vishnu.

 

I think, rather, that you mean to say that Krishna "created" the

living entities through His plenary expansion of Mahaa-Vishnu.

 

>> Please note the words " sahasra-suh ". And the translation that

Maha

> Vishnu creates individual souls. So they are not present in

Vaikuntha

> or Goloka and hence they don't fall down from there.

 

No, I'm afraid I don't agree with your logic here. For one thing, we

have already discussed that "create" is not be taken literally here.

Another point is that we are discussing events that took place

outside the purview of material time. I'm also uncomfortable with the

implicit conclusion of these statements above - e.g. that the living

entities didn't fall from Goloka/Vaikuntha because they instead fell

from Mahaa-Vishnu's abode. Is there some shaastric evidence to the

effect that where Mahaa-Vishnu dwells is any less than the other

Vaikuntha planets? I'm not sure, but I somehow doubt it.

 

> For further substantiating this point one should also consult the

> commentary by Srila Saraswati prabhupada on text 16 of the same

book.

 

I have it, but I don't see where you are getting at with this

commentary. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati is simply writing about

the function of Lord Shiva, and how his being expanded from Mahaa-

Vishnu and then uniting with prakriti causes the creation of the

material universe. There is nothing there above the jiivas falling or

not falling from Goloka/Vaikuntha.

 

> " The innumerable Jivas as spiritual particles emanating from the

> oversoul in the form of pencils of rays of effulgence, have no

> relation with the mundane world when they come to know themselves

to

> be the eternal servants of the Supreme Lord. They are " THEN "

> incorporated into the realm of Vaikuntha.

 

OK, sure enough. But what exactly about this implies that there was

no fall?

 

But " WHEN " they desire to

> lord it over Maya, forgetting their real identity, the egotistic

> principle Sambhu entering into their entities makes them identify

> themselves as separated enjoyers of mundane entities. Hence Sambhu

is

> the primary principle of the egotistic mundane universe and of

> perverted egotism in jivas that identifies itself with their

limited

> material bodies. "

 

Again, what specifically about the above statement leads you to

believe that there was no fall from Vaikuntha? The only thing that is

clear from the above statement is that (1) when jiiva-s desire to

lord it over maaya, then (2) the egotistic principle Shambhu enters

into them and makes them identify themselves as enjoyers... I'm not

sure how you are pulling "no fall from Vaikuntha" from this. To be

honest, I'm not sure how you can interpret anything about fall/no-

fall from this statement. Unless of course, you are saying that the

jiivas resided with Mahaa-Vishnu, and then desired to lord it over

material nature and *then* fell down.... but that brings up the

sticky question as to how Mahaa-Vishnu's realm is any different or

less from Vaikuntha. In other words, if Vaikuntha is such that no one

can fall from it, then why would you assume otherwise about Lord

Mahaa-Vishnu's abode?

 

There is still the other question, as well, which is this: how does

it follow that because the jiivas are expanded from Mahaa-Vishnu,

that therefore they actually resided with Mahaa-Vishnu, and not in

Vaikuntha? That strikes me as an inference.

 

> Here is a Gaudiya Vaishnava authority speaking on the fall down of

> Jiva. This is Gaudiya position on coming of jiva into material

world.

> This explanation given by Srila Saraswati prabhupada is clear

> and doesn't need any interpretation.

 

Actually, no. What Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is commenting on is the

following verse:

 

aha.nkaaraatmaka.m vishva.m tasmaadetad vyajaayata || 16 ||

 

The function of Shambhu in relation to jiivas is that this universe

enshrining the mundane egotistic principle has originated from

Shambhu. (brahma-sa.mhitaa 5.16)

 

.... which has nothing to do whether or not the jiiva fell from

Vaikuntha. All it is saying is that Lord Shiva is involved in the

process of the living entities misidentifying themselves as separated

enjoyers. And Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's commentary is simply

explaining that. Anything more is assumption.

 

I have also reviewed the excerpt of Jaiva Dharma that you have

provided. I could quibble about the fact that we have only seen an

English translation so far, and thus do not know if the translation

is accurate or reflects the translator's particular "understanding"

of the subject matter. But for the sake of argument, yes, the jiivas

are expanded from tatastha-shakti (or jiiva-shakti, which is what I

guess he refers to it by), but again what exactly does that prove?

Does being expanded from marginal potency (and thus being susceptible

to maayaa's influence) imply that they could not have been in

Vaikuntha? If so, how? And if this were the case, then what about

liberated jiivas? Are they no longer of the tatastha-shakti because

they have attained Vaikuntha?

 

I have seen this fall/no-fall discussion erupt in many different

forums, and it has always made for interesting discussion. But the

controversy was never one of *where* the jiivas fell from, but rather

one of whether or not they fell at all. The origin of the controversy

is based on a Vedaanta-suutra statement to the effect that the jiivas

have anaadi-karma (beginningless karma), for otherwise if the karma

had a beginning, then the different jiivas must have been created

with unequal karmas, and thus God is therefore partial and cruel. To

get around this, Vyaasa states that the jiivas have beginningless

karma, and thus one cannot argue that they began on unequal footing.

 

Baladeva Vidyabhuushana upholds Vyaasa's point of view (if we are to

assume that Srisha Chandra Vasu's translation is accurate), as do all

other Vaishnava aachaaryas. The "no-fall" theory arose because if

jiiva-s had beginningless karma, then does it not follow that they

were *always* in the material world, and hence never fell from the

spiritual world? I can see how one would infer that, but the crucial

point is that it *is* still an inference, one that is not explicitly

substantiated by the Govinda-bhaashya. Not only do I disagree with

that conclusion (because it is extrapolation, not explicit), but I

also disagree with the conclusion that "anaadi-karma" is figurative,

or that the "karma" there can be material or spiritual karma. These

latter two hypotheses are also not substantiated by Baladeva's

commentary, and seem rather to have been drummed up in order to

support the "fall" theory.

 

My point has always been that the anaadi-karma suutra must be

accepted as is, regardless of whether or not there was a "fall" from

the spiritual world. And of course, those are merely my opinions, and

*not* the official stance of Achintya. So others are certainly

welcome to disagree and state their respective positions (but please

do so with respect to shaastra).

 

regards,

 

Krishna Susarla

[Guest guest]

Here is a URL to a section of an article written by B.B. Vishnu Swami

on Jiva-tattva. This section is specifically addressing the no-fall

issue and cites various scriptures and vaishnava acharyas to support

the view that no one falls from Vaikuntha.

 

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/jiva/jiva_1.

html

 

Please note that you will have to add the html ending to the URL when

you click on it if you want to get to the page.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

[Guest guest]

achintya, Alan.Smallwood@D... wrote:

>

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/jiva/jiva_1.

> html

 

Here is the problem with evidence like this:

 

---

Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana writes in Govinda-bhasya, "One cannot

even imagine that the Supreme Lord Hari would ever desire that the

liberated souls fall down, nor would the liberated souls ever desire

to leave the Lord."

---

 

Where exactly does Srila Baladeva say that? What suutra and

commentary? No coordinates are given, thus making it difficult to

cross-examine this "evidence." Even more striking is that evidence

of this kind is often used in describing the *liberated* souls who

have attained liberation after being in the material world -- it

isn't exactly relevant since the discussion is on whether or not

souls who were *originally* in the spiritual world (or in other

words, had never been in the material world) would leave the

spiritual world or not. No one denies that living entities who attain

Vaikuntha after being in the material world will not fall down again,

except as per the Lord's will.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

PAMHO! AGTSP!

Maybe it is not in the spirit of the discussion about the subject,

but in the Bhakti-sandarbha, by Srila Jiva Gosvami, there is a

quotation from the Skanda Purana admonishing that a person who eats

grains on Ekadasi becomes a murderer of his mother, father, brother

and spiritual master, and even if he is elevated to a Vaikuntha

planet, he falls down.

 

I have heard that one who attains Goloka will never fall down but for

the others in the spiritual world who were elevated to other

Vaikuntha planets it could happen.

 

Are there any sastric evidence regarding that statement?

 

 

y.s. Jelenko

[Guest guest]

Pardon me for interjecting, but I would like to just present a

brief point. Perhaps it may shed some light on the argument, or reveal

where my understanding is lacking.

 

My assumptions are thus, based on what I've heard from the

writings of Vaishnavas:

 

1) Separation from Krishna increases love for Him.

 

2) Krishna is always doing various things to advance loving

relationships between Himself and living entities.

 

Based on these two points I have arrived at the conclusion that

our momemtary forgetfulness of Krishna, which is concurrent with our

attempt to lord it over material nature, is one of His plans to increase

our love for Him.

 

As I further consider these points, I can see that they do not

necessarily exclude the possibility of either scenario: having formerly

resided in Vaikuntha or never having been there. Perhaps my feeling of

having once been playing with Krishna comes from my distinct feeling of

remembering Him rather than just getting to know Him for the first time.

 

 

sincerely,

Paul

[Guest guest]

achintya, <paul108@e...> wrote:

 

> 1) Separation from Krishna increases love for Him.

 

That's true for pure devotees -- not for those conditioned by maya.

 

> 2) Krishna is always doing various things to advance loving

> relationships between Himself and living entities.

>

> Based on these two points I have arrived at the conclusion

that

> our momemtary forgetfulness of Krishna, which is concurrent with our

> attempt to lord it over material nature, is one of His plans to

increase

> our love for Him.

 

That would be inconsistent with the Lord's own statement in Bhagavad-

Gita:

 

taanaha.m dviShataH kruuraan sa.msaareShu naraadhamaan |

kShipaamyajasramashubhaanaashuriiShveva yoniShu || giitaa 16.19 ||

 

Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men,

I perpetually cast into the ocean of material existence, into various

demoniac species of life. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.19)

 

I'm not familiar with any shaastric statement to the effect that the

Lord casts the living entities into material existence for the

purpose of increasing their love for Him.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

achintya, jelenko.crnjak@p... wrote:

> PAMHO! AGTSP!

> Maybe it is not in the spirit of the discussion about the subject,

> but in the Bhakti-sandarbha, by Srila Jiva Gosvami, there is a

> quotation from the Skanda Purana admonishing that a person who eats

> grains on Ekadasi becomes a murderer of his mother, father, brother

> and spiritual master, and even if he is elevated to a Vaikuntha

> planet, he falls down.

 

The million dollar question is, where exactly is that stated in

Bhakti-Sandarbha? Where in Skanda Puraana? And does it say exactly

that, or is this a lose translation? We really should see the exact

quote.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Hari Krishna Susarla wrote:

> I'm not familiar with any shaastric statement to the effect that the

> Lord casts the living entities into material existence for the

> purpose of increasing their love for Him.

I think Srila Prabhupada sometimes explains it like this because

resuming our (now dormant) love for Krsna is the ultimate result of any

successful experience of material existence; we are intended to grow out

of our envy of Krsna by going through Maya's school of hard knocks--but

this can really only be done if we receive the mercy of Krsna or His pure

devotees--i.e., His pleasure potency. Prabhupada often notes that maya

therefore also means "mercy" (and Mahamaya is after all an expansion of

Yogamaya, whom we worship as Subhadra devi). As Prabhupada even says that

Mahavisnu enjoys rasa-lila with the external energy (!), his purport to

Bhagavatam 3.9.14 stresses this positive way of looking at the material

world. In the Vallabha sampradaya philosophy, such an identification of

the material and spiritual worlds is carried to its logical extreme; it is

therefore called "suddhadvaita," or purified monism. We discussed the

abovementioned verse a few years ago on the BTG list. The key thing to keep

in mind is that only Krsna possesses both the internal and external potencies;

His sakti is His real greatness, and this is the basis of pure devotion.

Otherwise, an appreciation that "vasudevah sarvam iti" (Krsna is everything)

may impel one towards mayavada. Devotees thus fix their minds on the

lotus feet of Sri Radha.

Still, I wouldn't say that our forgetfulness of Krsna is His plan.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated Thu, 22 Nov 2001 1:37:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jelenko.crnjak writes:

... in the Bhakti-sandarbha, by Srila Jiva Gosvami, there is a

> quotation from the Skanda Purana admonishing that a person who eats

> grains on Ekadasi becomes a murderer of his mother, father, brother

> and spiritual master, and even if he is elevated to a Vaikuntha

> planet, he falls down.

>

> I have heard that one who attains Goloka will never fall down but for

> the others in the spiritual world who were elevated to other

> Vaikuntha planets it could happen.

>

 

Vaikuntha and Goloka are non-different as are Vishnu and Krishna. No one falls

from either one. However, there are several Vaikuntha planets located within the

material world which are described in Srila Prabhupada's books (CC Adi). I

suspect that the Vaikuntha worlds that one can get elevated to and then fall

from are the "local" ones, not the ones beyond this world. I vaguely remember

that Sri Vaishnavas teach that the Vaikuntha planet that Jaya and Vijaya fell

from is a local one. Also a Maadhva saint, Vadiraja Tirtha, asserts that Krishna

and Arjuna visit a local Vaikuntha.

ys

Gerald S

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Hari Krishna Susarla" <krishna@a...> wrote:

> achintya, jelenko.crnjak@p... wrote:

> > PAMHO! AGTSP!

> > Maybe it is not in the spirit of the discussion about the

subject,

> > but in the Bhakti-sandarbha, by Srila Jiva Gosvami, there is a

> > quotation from the Skanda Purana admonishing that a person who

eats

> > grains on Ekadasi becomes a murderer of his mother, father,

brother

> > and spiritual master, and even if he is elevated to a Vaikuntha

> > planet, he falls down.

>

> The million dollar question is, where exactly is that stated in

> Bhakti-Sandarbha? Where in Skanda Puraana? And does it say exactly

> that, or is this a lose translation? We really should see the exact

> quote.

>

> yours,

>

> - K

 

I admit I have neither the Bhakti-Sandarbha

nor the Skanda Purana, but I do have the Caitanya-Caritamrta and

there in the PURPORT to the Adi lila 15.9 Srila Prabhupada stated:

"From the very beginning of His childhood life Sri Caitanya

Mahaprabhu introduced the system of observing a fast on the Ekadasi

day. In the Bhakti-sandarbha, by Srila Jiva Gosvami, there is a

quotation from the Skanda Purana admonishing that a person who eats

grains on Ekadasi becomes a murderer of his mother, father, brother

and spiritual master, and even if he is elevated to a Vaikuntha

planet, he falls down. ..."

I didn't find it necessary to crosscheck Srila Prabhupada's words.

Correct me, please, if I use wrong approach!

 

Y.s. Jelenko

[Guest guest]

achintya, jelenko.crnjak@p... wrote:

> I admit I have neither the Bhakti-Sandarbha

> nor the Skanda Purana, but I do have the Caitanya-Caritamrta and

> there in the PURPORT to the Adi lila 15.9 Srila Prabhupada stated:

> "From the very beginning of His childhood life Sri Caitanya

> Mahaprabhu introduced the system of observing a fast on the Ekadasi

> day. In the Bhakti-sandarbha, by Srila Jiva Gosvami, there is a

> quotation from the Skanda Purana admonishing that a person who eats

> grains on Ekadasi becomes a murderer of his mother, father, brother

> and spiritual master, and even if he is elevated to a Vaikuntha

> planet, he falls down. ..."

> I didn't find it necessary to crosscheck Srila Prabhupada's words.

> Correct me, please, if I use wrong approach!

 

Thanks for the clarification. But I still think it is important to

see the original verse. Many aachaaryas translate the same shloka a

little differently in different contexts depending on the point they

are trying to make. You can see this even in Srila Prabhupada's own

Bhaktivedanta purports. I am interested to know, for example, if

the "fall from Vaikuntha" part is actually there in the Sanskrit. And

if so, does the context mean that it can be any Vaikuntha planet or a

specific one?

 

Besides which, you can't use it as evidence when debating with

followers of other aachaaryas unless you can present the Sanskrit -

they are not obligated to accept our contention that the verse is

bona fide because Srila Prabhupada alluded to it in a CC purport. But

within our own sampradaaya, that purport is very interesting and

deserves explanation, especially by the no-fall vaadis.

 

yours,

 

- K