Falldown from vaikuntha in prabhupadas books

[vijay]

I remember some devotees on this forum saying that there is no mention of prabhupada saying that devotees can fall from vaikuntha anywhere in his books. He also seems to be saying this is said in Jiva goswami's works and its from skanda purana.

 

CC.Adi15.9

"From the very beginning of His childhood life Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu introduced the system of observing a fast on the Ekädaçé day. In the Bhakti-sandarbha, by Çréla Jéva Gosvämé, there is a quotation from the Skanda Puräëa admonishing that a person who eats grains on Ekädaçé becomes a murderer of his mother, father, brother and spiritual master, and even if he is elevated to a Vaikuëöha planet, he falls down. On Ekädaçé, everything is cooked for Viñëu, including regular grains and dhal, but it is enjoined that a Vaiñëava should not even take viñëu-prasädam on Ekädaçé. It is said that a Vaiñëava does not accept anything eatable that is not offered to Lord Viñëu, but on Ekädaçé a Vaiñëava should not touch even mahä-prasädam offered to Viñëu, although such prasädam may be kept for being eaten the next day. It is strictly forbidden for one to accept any kind of grain on Ekädaçé, even if it is offered to Lord Viñëu."

[gopal sakha]

it's says that he falls down, but it does not specifically say that he falls down to the material world and become an amoeba and has to evolve for billions of years to become human being and a chance for self-realization.

 

to say that he falls down to take birth in the material world over and over again is not said in this reference.

 

the fall down could be a bad dream or something other than falling down to take birth in the material world.

 

the shastra has said that living entities DO not fall down from Vaikuntha and there are no examples in the shastra to support that.

 

Even the case of jaya and vijaya was not really a falldown but the will of the Lord that they come to fight with him for his pastimes.

 

don't read too much into that statement. it's not specific enough to support the fall from Vaikuntha theory on the origin of the jiva issue.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

"From the very beginning of His childhood life Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu introduced the system of observing a fast on the Ekädaçé day. In the Bhakti-sandarbha, by Çréla Jéva Gosvämé, there is a quotation from the Skanda Puräëa admonishing that a person who eats grains on Ekädaçé becomes a murderer of his mother, father, brother and spiritual master, and even if he is elevated to a Vaikuëöha planet, he falls down.

This is a figurative statement that is not logically plausable, nor philosophically consistant. It is ludicrous to think that one can attain Vaikuntha, but then must subsequently fall down because he had once upon a time eaten a grain on ekadashi millions of lifetimes before in the material world.

 

First one must define what it takes to "attain vaikuntha", which obviously includes such things as shuddha bhakti, cessation of material desires, freedom from material karmic reactions, etc. One who has attained Vaikuntha is not influenced by past sinful activities. It is just foolish to think this statement can even remotely be a literal instruction.

 

These are the frequent exagerative statements found in certain scriptures to make dull witted people understand certain concepts. There are thousands of these in the Puranas. For example Brahma Vaivarta Purana says if you perform pious activities you can go to Vaikuntha for a day of Brahma, and then you subsequently die and again take birth here. This is factually not true, but Vyasa has spoken in colorful ways to convince those influenced by lower modes of nature.

 

When trying to emphasize the weight of the sin, he chose to use unrealistic comparisons to make it understood that the sin was very bad. "If you eat a grain on ekadashi, you are so sinful that even after attaining Vaikuntha you will still fall down." This is the opposite of the flowery words of the Vedas. On one side they speak of the eternality and unlimited enjoyment attained by performing pious activities (which aren't actually unlimited, nor eternal), then on the other hand you have the thorny words of the Vedas, which say even Bhagavan can't save you if you even once ate an onion. Don't be fooled by either of these, but understand the message they are trying to convey.

 

You don't have to worry, when you finally do attain Vaikuntha, Krishna is not going to throw you out because you ate rice on the ekadashi of Sept 3rd, 1982.

 

...

 

If someone would argue that the statement "even if he is elevated to Vaikuntha" refers to having already attained Vaikuntha, then it is still logically inconsistant. There is no possibility of breaking ekadashi in Vaikuntha. Ekadashi is based on tithis, which is space, time and the resultant material influence. There is no such thing in Vaikuntha.

[vijay]

I heard another understanding of this verse,

the person was saying that their understanding is that this refers to being

elevated to a Vaikunatha planet while still in this body--jivan mukta.

One *can* fall (or jump) from prema. One can lose an exalted consciousness due to a deliberate offense.

I guess there are also other explanations.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I realize it's not your belief (only something you heard from someone), so please don't take this personally:

 

Attaining Vaikuntha while still in this body (by becoming a pure devotee), and then losing it because a pure devotee of the Lord ate a grain of rice on ekadashi is a manufactured philosophy. I hope no one actually believes it.

 

1) The very idea of saying that being a jivan-mukta means attaining a Vaikuntha planet while living in the material world is a stretch and concoction. That is not the definition of jivan mukta given by any acharya.

 

2) The idea that the pure devotee mahabhagavata falls down is another concoction.

 

3) And third, the idea that a liberated mahabhagavata would stop being a pure devotee simply because he ate a grain of rice on ekadashi is another concoction.

 

For those who have read the Puranas, and especially the tamasic and rajasic puranas such as Skanda Purana, they will be aware that there are countless exagerations in these texts. Such statements don't need to be literalized and proven, as they aren't factually true; they are generalizations and allegorical concepts.

 

Of course not every single statement in the Purana is allegorical or exagerated, but some are. And to know which are which requires following the commentaries of Acharyas. There are reasons why practically no Vaishnava acharya has ever written a commentary on Skanda Purana or some of the other Puranas. The philosophy presented there is not the pure philosphy of the Gita, Bhagavata or Vishnu Purana.

[gopal sakha]

this Ekadasi superstition is one of the more bizarre parts of the Hare Krishna beliefs.

Most devotees do not accept that the Moon is further than the Sun yet they accept that all the sins of the world enter into beans and grains on the eleventh day of the waxing and waning Moon.

 

this ancient superstition that all the sins of the world enters into beans and grains on Ekadasi is indeed a very bizarre superstition that virtually all devotees accept.

 

However, I do accept that there is something to it, because if I fail to observe an ekadasi I will have nightmares or be bothered with ghosts that night.

 

I don't know how it works, but I firmly believe in this Ekadasi thing, even though it is beyond our understanding how these things are going on.

[vijay]

Does the below conversation mean that bhaktisidhanta swami allowed grains for preaching or was it just not a full fast.

 

Tamäla Kåñëa: No, I mean on ekädaçé.

Prabhupäda: Oh yes. Ekädaçé, simply you should chant. No other business. Nirjala.

Tamäla Kåñëa: No preaching work? Should they go out for preaching?

Prabhupäda: No, those who are preaching, not for them. Those who are sitting idle, or they... (laughter) [break] ...has no other regulation, simply preaching. A preacher is so exalted. He hasn't got to follow any regulation. But don't take it. (laughter) And actually if one is busy in preaching work, that is first-class. [break] ...not my manufactured word, my Guru Mahäräja, that the... That Mädhava Mahäräja, when he was a brahmacäré, his name was Hayagréva. So he was to go somewhere. So but he was sick. Guru Mahäräja was informed that he was sick and "Today is ekädaçé. He cannot take his regular meals." So Guru Mahäräja said, "No. Let him take immediately meals and go."

Revaténandana: For preaching. [break]

Tamäla Kåñëa: ...Mahäräja would sacrifice everything for preaching.

[gopal sakha]

I don't think Srila Prabhupada introduced Ekadasi immediately to his followers.

I think it came a little later.

I don't think Srila Prabhupada was extremely fanatical about implementing Ekadasi immediately with his followers.

 

Some of the oldest devotees could probably tell us when it was instituted in ISKCON, but I don't think it came automatically when ISKCON was formed.

 

There might be something in the Lilamrta book about it.

 

I might be wrong but I remember hearing something about this before.

[theist]

 

the fall down could be a bad dream or something other than falling down to take birth in the material world.

 

Falling into the material world IS a bad dream super-imposed on the consciousness of the pure spiritsoul. Nothing more.

[guru]

Therefore it is to be understood that when Jaya and Vijaya descended to this material world, they came because there was something to be done for the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Otherwise it is a fact that no one falls from Vaikuntha.' - SB 7.1.35 Purport

 

'The mature devotees, who have completely executed Krishna consciousness, are immediately transferred to the universe where Krishna is appearing. In that universe the devotees get their first opportunity to associate with Krishna personally and directly.' - Krishna Book, Chapter 28, [Releasing Nanda Maharaja from the clutches of Varuna (p. 186)]

 

 

'Sometimes it is asked how the living entity falls down from the spiritual world to the material world. Here is the answer. Unless one is elevated to the Vaikuntha planets, directly in touch with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is prone to fall down, either from the impersonal Brahman realization or from an ecstatic trance of meditation.' - SB 3.25.29, Purport

 

'This ordinary living being is of two kinds -- nitya-baddha or nitya-mukta. One is eternally conditioned and the other eternally liberated. The eternally liberated living beings, are in the Vaikuntha jagat, the spiritual world, and they never fall into the material world.' - SB 5.11.12 Purport

 

'From Vedic scriptures it is understood that sometimes even Brahma and Indra fall down, but a devotee in the transcendental abode of the Lord never falls.' - SB 3.15.48 Purport

 

 

'The conclusion is that no one falls from the spiritual world, or Vaikuntha planet, for it is the eternal abode.' - SB 3.16.26 Purport

[gopal sakha]

sometimes we see that certain devotees have held certain conceptions about how we fell from Goloka or Vaikuntha and started our material samsara.

Because they hold these misconceptions for so many years they have to think that it must be true, it must be right - it must be correct.

 

Even in the face of so much shastric evidence, the devotees will not let go of their false notions about the fall of the jiva. they just stubbornly stick to their long held misconceptions thinking that they cannot be wrong on this point because they have thought this way for so long.

 

spiritual life requires that we be flexible and willing to accept the truth even if it conflicts with long held misconceptions we have.

 

we did not fall from Goloka to become worms in stool.

[vijay]

 

Because they hold these misconceptions for so many years they have to think that it must be true, it must be right - it must be correct.

 

Even in the face of so much shastric evidence, the devotees will not let go of their false notions about the fall of the jiva. they just stubbornly stick to their long held misconceptions thinking that they cannot be wrong on this point because they have thought this way for so long.

 

Maybe misconception or not, but this misconception was planted by prabhupada directly when asked about these contradictions within his books he replies many times that the potential is always there to fall from vaikuntha (which seem to mean different things like dream actual fall etc) . So some feel clarifcation has already been made by prabhupada especially when directly issuing the crow and tal statement when asked about these contradictions. Others feel these staements are lies as they dont match what other gaudiyas are saying and it doesnt match the books. None the less the whole point of prabhupada's statement was that its not such an important topic and the same said by bhaktivinoda takhur, it can only be realised until then its serves only as intellectual satisfaction.

 

Personally I preach the way prabhupada preached about fall down when directly asked about it, however i try and read and keep an open mind about it as im not sure prabhupada was lying or is it our ability to understand that is the problem. Maybe when I see krsna face to face I'll find out what the deal is.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

So some feel clarifcation has already been made by prabhupada especially when directly issuing the crow and tal statement when asked about these contradictions.

Even in the crow and tal fruit paper nothing is refuted regarding souls not falling from Vaikuntha. "Formerly we were with Krsna in His lila, or sport". Everything is Krishna's lila, including srishti. Sankarshana and Mahavishnu are also part of Krishna's lila. No where does Prabhupada say "Formerly you were in Vaikuntha, and you fell." Prabhupada was not a foolish person. He could have easily directly answered the question saying we fell from Vaikuntha, but he didn't, and in his books he has written the opposite - that no one falls from vaikuntha.

 

Here are a couple questions regarding this paper:

 

1) Who actually wrote it (i.e. typed it, transcribed it and edited it). Since there is no direct statment "You fell from Vaikuntha", everything depends on the interpretation of one or two key words. Whether Prabhupada actually used these words or not, or whether an editor or transcriber was involved would make a big difference.

 

2) Why wasn't it signed by Prabhupada. There is no other document like this, where Prabhupada writes an essay (not a letter) and sends it to a temple to clear a philosophical point (especially without signing it).

 

Overall we see Prabhupada never mentions that we fell from "Vaikuntha", but rather says the opposite many times. ISKCON on the other hand directly stated in BTG as well as in their GBC book that "we fell from Vaikuntha". So this change from "Krishna's lila or sport" to "Vaikuntha" is a very drastic change in Prabhupada's teachings. Prabhupada knew the word "Vaikuntha" and he also knew it would be the obvious and easy answer to give if we actually fell from there. But he never used this word at all.

 

Even in the Crow and Tal fruit paper, which is supposedly his direct answer on this question, he never went and said "we fell from Vaikuntha". Rather he spoke indirectly about always being in contact with Krishna, even now in the material world. That reinforces the idea that Krishna's lila is not refering simply to Vaikuntha residents. When you then read it in line with what Prabhupada repeatedly wrote in his Srimad Bhagavatam purports it is impossible to honestly conclude that Prabhupada is speaking of falling from Vaikuntha in that paper.

[vijay]

Because he falls down from brahmasayujya, he thinks that may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even he was with Kåñëa.

 

I agree there are a few places in that essay that he seems to give a qualification to lila and doesnt answer directly. There is also another letter I remember where prabhupada is asked a straight question whether we have seen krsna before and prabhupada says yes, just like how the son sees the father during conception or something like that.

 

Its all a bit tricky we didnt come from brahmasayujya, neither vaikuntha, we are dreaming somewhere and we were injected too.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

A couple other points. The claim surrounding this document is that Prabhupada "wrote" it because a devotee in Australia was preaching that the soul originates in brahmajyoti. This is different from saying the soul manifests from Sankarshana, MahaVishnu, Tatastha, etc. There are other possible sources besides Vaikunta and Brahmajyoti. Prabhupada condemning the soul originating from Brahmajyoti does not disqualify these other possibilities.

 

From a logical perspective this document would actually suggest the souls did not originate in Vaikuntha:

 

1) The GBC claims in this document Prabhupada is saying we fell from Vaikuntha.

 

2) Prabhupada understood the term Vaikuntha, as he used it throughout his books - even going so far as saying no one ever falls from Vaikuntha.

 

3) If someone wrote a document to clear the doubt on the origin of the soul, and if someone wanted to convey that we came from Vaikuntha, the natural thing would be to directly say "we fell from Vaikuntha". The whole point of clarifying something is to make it clear and unambiguous.

 

4) If the person's intended statement was "we fell from Vaikuntha" but then instead of directly saying it, they chose confusing ambiguous words like "we were originally with Krishna in His sport", what would be the use - especially since the document's purpose was to "clarify"? When a simple and direct statement would perfectly make your position clear, why would you avoid making that statement? This suggests that Prabhupada's intended statement never was that "we fell from Vaikuntha".