Fall, No-Fall, Doubts, etc.

[Guest guest]

On 22 Mar 1999, Payonidhi Dasa wrote:

 

> I will happily provide you with the place in the Paramatma Sandarbha

> where it is stated Anuccheda 47 verses 1 to 7.The vers SB 11.2.37 is

 

Hare Krishna. Well, I read the texts of Paramaatmaa Sandarbha, and now I can

see why it took so long for you to tell me the verses which allegedly support

your position. These verses don't speak of a "fall from Vaikuntha," or any

kind of "fall" at all. It is a description of the different kinds of living

entities which make up the tatastha shakti of the Lord. Let me take you

through the arguments. I will post them here for all to see, because I have no

reason to hide anything when I make my case.

 

tad evam ananta eva jiivaakhyaas taTasthaaH shaktayaH | tatra taasaa.m

vargadvayam | eko vargo'naadita eva bhagavadunmukhaH | anyas tvanaadita eva

bhagavatparaa.nmukhaH | svabhaavatas taadiiyaj~naanabhaavaat

tadiiyaj~naanaabhaavaach cha || ps 47.1 ||

 

Thus the Lord's marginal potencies, who are called the individual spirit souls

are limitless in number. Still, they may be divided into two groups: 1. the

souls who, from time immemorial, are favorable to the Supreme Lord, and 2. the

rebellious souls who, from time immemorial, are averse to the Supreme Lord.

This is because one group is aware of the Lord's glories and other group is

not aware of them.

 

tatra pratham'ntara.ngashaktivilaasaanugR^ihiito nityabhagavataparikararuupo

garuDaadikaH | yathokta.m paadmottarakhaNDe tripadvibhuuter lokas tu ityadau

bhagavatsandarbhodaahR^ite | asya cha taTasthatva.m jiivataprasiddher

iishvaratvakoTaav apraveshaat || ps 47.2 ||

 

The first group consists of Garuda and the other eternal associates of the

Lord. These devotees take shelter of the Lord's internal potency and enjoy

pastimes with Him. They reside in the spiritual world, which will be described

in the Bhagavat-sandarbha (anuchchheda 78) where the following words of Padma

Puraana, Uttara-khanda are quoted:

 

"Countless blissful spiritual planets are in the spiritual sky, which is three

fourths of the entire creation."

 

Thus, although the nature of the individual souls is on the borderline of the

nature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the individual souls do not

enter that nature. Thus they remain different from the Lord.

 

aparas tu tatparaa.nmukhatvadoSheNa labdhachchhidrayaa maayayaa paribhuutaH

sa.msaarii | yathokta.m ha.msaguhyastave sarva.m pumaan veda guNaa.msh cha

tajj~no na veda sarvaj~nam anantam iiDe iti || ps 47.3 ||

 

The other individual souls, the rebellious souls who are averse to the Supreme

Lord, become conquered by the illusory potency maayaa and must live in the

material world. They are described in the following words of the Hamsa-guhya

Prayers (Shriimad Bhaagavatam 6.4.25):

 

"But the living being, because of his spiritual nature, can know his body,

then life airs, the senses, the elements, and the sense objects, and he can

also know the three qualities that form their roots. Nevertheless, although

the living being is completely aware of them, he is unable to see the Supreme

Being, who is omniscient and unlimited. I therefore offer my respectful

obeisances unto Him."

 

ekaadashe cha bhaya.m dvitiiyaabhiniveshataH syaat ity aadi || ps 47.4 ||

 

The rebellious individual spirit souls averse to the Supreme Lord, souls who

must then reside in the material world, are also described in these words of

Shriimad-Bhaagavatam (11.2.37):

 

"When the living entity is attracted by the material energy, which is separate

from Krishna, he is overpowered by fear. Because he is separated from the

Supreme Personality of Godhead by the material energy, his conception of life

is reversed. In other words, instead of being the eternal servant of Krishna,

he becomes Krishna's competitor. This is called viparyayo 'smR^itiH."

 

yathokta.m vaiShNave

 

tayaa tirohitatvaach cha | shaktiH kShetraj~nasamj~nitaH |

sarvabhuuteShu bhuupaala taaratamyena vartate | iti || ps 47.5 ||

 

The rebellious souls averse to the Lord and thus residing in the material

world are also described in these words of Shrii Vishnu Puraana (6.7.63):

"The living entity, covered by the influence of nescience, exists in different

forms in the material condition. O king, he is thus proportionately freed from

the influence of material energy, to greater or lesser degrees."

 

tadvargadvayam evokta.m shriividureNaapi

 

tattvaanaa.m bhagava.ms teShaa.m katidhaa pratisa.nkramaH tatrema.m ka

upaasiiran ka u svid anusherate | ity anena || ps 47.6 ||

 

The two groups of individual souls are hinted in these words of Shrii Vidura

(Shriimad-Bhaagavatam 3.7.37):

 

"Please describe how many dissolutions there are for the elements of material

nature and who survives after the dissolution to serve the Lord while He is

asleep."

 

tatra parameshvaraparaa.nmukhaanaa.m jiivaanaa.m suddhaanaam api

tachchhaktivisiShTaat parameshvaraat sopaadhika.m janma bhavati | tach cha

janma nijopaadhijanmanaa nijajanmaabhimaanahetukaadhyaatmikatvaavasthaa

praaptir eva || ps 47.7 ||

 

The rebellious pure spirit souls averese to the Lord thus take birth in a

material body. When the body is thus born, the bewildered soul thinks he is

born. He thinks that his existence begins at that point.

---

 

Please note here that Jiiva Gosvaamii had every opportunity to say that the

living entities fell from Vaikuntha, or that there were originally in

Vaikuntha. But he did NOT explicitly say that. One could infer such a thing

from statements like "The rebellious pure spirit souls averse to the Lord thus

take birth in a material body," and "Because he is separated from the Supreme

Personality of Godhead by the material energy..." and so on, but it is not

clear from the statements above that the living entities were formerly in a

different situation. To say otherwise brings the whole argument down to

semantics. One might argue that they had to be in a different position

formerly, because the use of the past tense in the translation implies a

previous state before which the verb "conquered" or "separated" came into

effect. But even if we grant strength to such purely semantic arguments, all

that would do is indirectly prove that the living entity was not separated

from the Lord or conquered by maayaa. And such indirect proofs are a far cry

from directly showing that the living entity came from Vaikuntha.

 

Of course, none of the above statements in PS contradict the idea that the

jiiva falls from Vaikuntha. But then again, that's not the point. All I'm

saying is that it does not clearly state that the living entity "fell," what

to speak of "falling from Vaikuntha."

 

regards,

 

-- K