Guruvani

So, if Jesus went to India to learn from the sages there then that shows that in India is where Jesus found the highest spirituality and knowledge.

So, like Jesus, we should follow his example and appreciate that India is the jewel of spiritual culture and the Vedic culture is topmost.

Why not do like Jesus did and accept the spiritual culture of India as topmost.

Somewhere in the New Testament Jesus says that he had a lot more to teach but his audience could not bear to hear it.

However, in India the great sages and devotees don't hold back as Jesus did, so we can learn the highest knowledge not from Jesus but from the same source he went to in search of spiritual knowledge.

However, the Shaivas in North India claim that Jesus was associated with Shaivism and the worship of Lord Siva, the culture of jnana and impersonal realization of the absolute.

I would suspect that this is most likely the facts if in fact Jesus did actually spend time in India.

"Of course, everyone has a particular relationship with the Lord, and that relationship is evoked by the perfection of devotional service. But, in the present status of our life, we have not only forgotten the Supreme Lord, but we have forgotten our eternal relationship with the Lord. Every living being, out of many, many billions and trillions of living beings, has a particular relationship with the Lord eternally. That is called svarupa. By the process of devotional service, one can revive that svarupa, and that stage is called svarupa-siddhi--perfection of one's constitutional position." -Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is

 

Forgetting one's svarupa - What? from the brahmajyoti? I think not.

since when does "relationship" mean spiritual body?

it has already been explained in shastra many times that the relationship is that the soul is a spark of light in the effulgence of Krishna.

The relationsip is servant.

That is the relationship.

Krishna is the whole and the jiva soul is the part.

Why do people always try to screw some personal form out of the term relationship?

I have a relationship with the chair I am setting in.

I set in the chair and the chair holds me up.

That doesn't means the chair has a spiritual form in Goloka that it has forgotten about.

Lord Chaitanya said the svarupa of the jiva is a spirit spark 1/10,000th the size the tip of a hair.

That is the definition of svarupa according to Lord Chaitanya.

Why do people insist that Mahaprabhu was wrong?

Hatred for the brahmajyoti is hatred of Krishna because Krishna says "this brahmajyoti is myself".

Superstion? These practices are grounded in something more than that I think but I am not sure what.

I once asked a respected Godbrother about the shastric basis of Ekadasi and he referred to it as a supersition that has some basis in Vedic lore.

Ever since then I sometimes refer to it as a superstition because an outsider who hears that all the sins of the world enter into grains and beans on the 11th day of the waxing and waning Moon would think it was a Hindu superstition.

I don't see anything particularly wrong in referring to it as a supersition because it contains some bizarre claims that ordinary people would consider as superstition.

Anything that cannot be verified empirically can be referred to as supersition because it is beyond verification with anything other than Vedic lore and legend.

If it can be proven emprically then we can remove it from the classification as superstitition.

Belief is supersition.

Even the Supersoul is superstition because we really cannot prove His existence beyond faith and belief.

<cite>Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</cite> - Cite This Source - <cite>Share This</cite> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) --> su·per·sti·tion /ˌsupərˈstɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soo-per-stish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td><td valign="top">a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">2.</td><td valign="top">a system or collection of such beliefs. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">3.</td><td valign="top">a custom or act based on such a belief. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">4.</td><td valign="top">irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">5.</td><td valign="top">any blindly accepted belief or notion.</td></tr></tbody></table>

I can always tell when it is Ekadasi because I always have bad dreams on Ekadasi because I don't generally observe it.

But, I do believe in Ekadasi because the nightmares I have on Ekadasi are regular and consistent if I fail to observe it.

I can have some terrible nightmares on Ekadasi.

This itself is proof to me that the superstition is very real.

I am a believer, but not a very good follower.

The sleepervadi school of deprecating the brahmajyoti is very offensive.

The brahmajyoti is non-different from the form of Lord Krishna.

If you don't love Krishna's effulgence then you don't love Krishna because you cannot separate the two.

Who cannot love the glow of Krishna?

Only a demon cannot love the effulgence of Krishna - it is produced of nectar.

Lord Krishna:

this brahmajyoti is Myself

If our origin is the brahmajyoti, then our origin is Krishna.

According to the writtings of Srila Prabhupada, the brahmajyoti is not impersonal because the brahmajyoti is KRISHNA.

Krishna himself says that he is the brahmajyoti, so the claim the origin in the brahmajyoti is impersonal is false.

Krishna IS the brahmajyoti, at least according to Lord Krishna.

Krishna Book, ch. 89:

Lord Krsna's and Arjuna's reaching the brahmajyoti region is described in Harivamsa. In that portion of the Vedic literature, Krsna informed Arjuna, "My dear Arjuna, the glaring effulgence, the transcendental light which you are seeing, is My bodily rays. O chief of the descendants of Bharata, this brahmajyoti is Myself."

I already posted a quote from Lord Chaitanya who says that the original svarupa or original form of the jiva is as a spirit spark 1/10,000th the size the tip of a hair.

So, so many people just want to dismiss the actual teachings of the supreme master and believe in some concoction of Drutakarma das and his flock.

If Mahaprabhu says the original form of the soul is as a spiritual spark then why are people saying that the original form is a spiritual body in Goloka?

Bhakti Sudhira Goswami Maharaja KI-JAYA (times a thousand)

Here is a very instructive narration from the pastimes of Mahaprabhu that exemplify how simple and practical initiation into Hari-nama can be.

Please note that Srila Prabhupada refers to the chanting of Hare Krishna into the ears of the Buddhist spiritual master by HIS DISCIPLES after hearing instructions from Mahaprabhu as INITIATION.

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 9.61

 

guru-karṇe kahe sabe 'kṛṣṇa' 'rāma' 'hari'

cetana pāñā ācārya bale 'hari' 'hari'

 

 

SYNONYMS

guru-karṇe — into the ear of the spiritual master; kahe — they said; sabe — all together; kṛṣṇa rāma hari — the holy names of the Lord, namely "Kṛṣṇa,Rāma" and "Hari"; cetana — consciousness; pāñā — getting; ācārya — the teacher; bale — chanted; hari hari — the name of Lord Hari.

 

 

TRANSLATION

When all the disciples chanted the holy names Kṛṣṇa, Rāma and Hari, the Buddhist teacher regained consciousness and immediately began to chant the holy name of Lord Hari.

 

 

PURPORT

Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that all the Buddhist disciples were actually initiated by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu into the chanting of the holy name of Kṛṣṇa, and when they chanted, they actually became different persons. At that time they were not Buddhists or atheists but Vaiṣṇavas. Consequently they immediately accepted Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's order. Their original Kṛṣṇa consciousness was revived, and they were immediately able to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa and begin worshiping the Supreme Lord Viṣṇu.

It is the spiritual master who delivers the disciple from the clutches of māyā by initiating him into the chanting of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. In this way a sleeping human being can revive his consciousness by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. In other words, the spiritual master awakens the sleeping living entity to his original consciousness so that he can worship Lord Viṣṇu. This is the purpose of dīkṣā, or initiation. Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness.

One point to note in this regard is that the spiritual master of the Buddhists did not initiate his disciples. Rather, his disciples were initiated by Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and they in turn were able to initiate their so-called spiritual master. This is the paramparā system. The so-called spiritual master of the Buddhists was actually in the position of a disciple, and after his disciples were initiated by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, they acted as his spiritual masters. This was possible only because the disciples of the Buddhist ācārya received the mercy of Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Unless one is favored by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu in the disciplic succession, one cannot act as a spiritual master. We should take the instructions of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the spiritual master of the whole universe, to understand how one becomes a spiritual master and a disciple.

 

This example is really what the Sankirtan movement is all about.

It is very simple, sublime and effective.

To interpret:Srila Prabhupada - ‘No one falls from the spiritual world or Vaikuntha planet, for it is the eternal abode. (Bhag. 3.16.26, purp.)

to mean, "This clearly means our nitya-siddha svarupa body can NEVER leave Goloka or Vaikuntha and that WE ONLY DREAM, THINK OR IMAGINE WE LEAVE." is a total concoction.

This is the whole basis of the sleepervadi theory.

They know that Srila Prabhupada has written in his books that no one falls from Vaikuntha.

So, to get around that hard fact they have INVENTED the sleepervadi theory that actually the fallen souls did not really fall that they still have spiritual bodies in Goloka and only appear to be fallen when in fact they are nitya-siddhas having a bad dream in their spiritual infallible body in Goloka.

This is of course a total concoction and has no basis in shastra or even anything ever told by Srila Prabhupada.

Srila Prabhupada cut the fairytale short because there were limits to how far he could run with the fable fairytale approach to preaching.

These sleepervadis like Drutakarma having taking the fable to an extreme measure and adulterated it with massive speculation and concoction.

Without the sleepervadi theory of having a spiritual body in Goloka they cannot get around the fact that Srila Prabhupada wrote in his books that no one falls from Vaikuntha.

To get around that they have invented the sleepervadi theory and butchered the Gaudiya siddhanta by taking a harmless fable and turning it into a nightmare where unlimited nitya-siddha pure devotees of Krishna are falling down at a rate that is unfathomable.

It is such an abuse of Srila Prabhupada that it simply defies the imagination.

If this sleepervadi theory is allowed to continue in ISKCON then Srila Prabhupada will be labeled as a renegade Gaudiya who butchered the siddhanta and preached imaginative siddhanta to clueless western people all over the world.

They claim allegiance and loytalty to Srila Prabhupada but really they are enemies of Srila Prabhupada who are blemishing his reputation to the point that future generations of devotees will look at him as an eccentric Gaudiya who preached false siddhanta all over the world and confused a whole generation of devotees.

"Drutakarma again further explains: "Consider this text (4.28.59):

tasmims tvam ramaya sprsto

ramamano 'sruta-smrtih

tat-sangad idrsim prapto

dasam papiyasam prabho

"My dear friend, when you enter such a body along with the woman of material desires, you become overly absorbed in sense enjoyment. Because of this you have forgotten your spiritual life. Due to your material conceptions, you are placed in various material conditions.

What Drutakarma and his cronies don't tell you is that at the end of that chapter Srila Prabhupada explains that the story this verse comes from is a fable told by Narada Muni.

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 4.28.65, purport

Factually the path of bhakti-yoga is the path of hearing directly about the pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead (śravaṇaḿ kīrtanaḿ viṣṇoḥ [SB 7.5.23]), but those who are not interested in hearing directly about the activities of the Lord, or who cannot understand them, can very effectively hear such stories and fables as this one narrated by Nārada Muni.

That story is a fable for people who cannot understand directly about the activities of the Lord.

It is a fairytale for those who cannot understand otherwise.

Obviously, the sleepervadis can only understand and accept fables.

They cannot deal with the actual shastric conclusions.

the fall-from-goloka sleepervadis are disgracing Srila Prabhupada in front of the whole Gaudiya sampradaya.

Such offenses against Srila Prabhupada should stop and the Gaudiya siddhanta should cease being distorted and twisted by people with a political agenda to defend a bogus theory that has no foundation in the Gauidya siddhanta.

It's about their egos and their pride.

They have no loyalty to the Gaudiya siddhanta.

They are only loyal to their false pride and false egos.

 

The Impersonalist understanding today is rampant and affecting many who wrongly believe that the jiva-soul becomes conscious after originally ‘falling out’ of the Brahmajyoti and then ‘somehow’ becomes endowed with free will, therefore their understanding of the Brahmajyoti is obviously impersonal and therefore dangerous.

[url="http://www.dandavats.com/?p=4275"]

That is a false accusation.

Why?

Because the jiva is conscious before he falls out of the brahmajyoti and has free will too.

We have never said otherwise, but you choose to lie and misrepresent our position because you have to resort to such lies and deception to keep defending you bogus sleepervadi theory.

If telling lies about what we believe is the best you can do then why don't you just give up your pathetic fight against the Gaudiya siddhanta and go away?

<center>Bhagavad-gita

Chapter 12. Devotional Service</center>

samah satrau ca mitre ca

tatha manapamanayoh

One who is equal to friends and enemies, who is equipoised in honor and dishonor, heat and cold, happiness and distress, fame and infamy, who is always free from contamination, always silent and satisfied with anything, who doesn't care for any residence, who is fixed in knowledge and engaged in devotional service, is very dear to Me.

Jiva Jago:

tomare loite ami hoinu avatara

ami bina bandhu ara ke ache tomara

 

I have descended just to save you; other than Myself you have no friend in this world.

What's the matter Sleepyheads?

 

Too tired out to challenge Srila Prabhupada's conclusion??

They are never too tired to defend their pride and their political agenda to defend all the sleepervadis with many years devoted to promoting their bogus fairytale siddhanta.

Some people have careers and positions that depend on defending the fairytale.

They will never stop preaching the fairytale even if they know they are wrong.

(a few words from the late Puru das Adhikari)

Kundali Prabhus' book is comprehensive and should not be ignored if you are concerned about this topic. You then owe it to yourself to study the words of our acaryas and peacefuly execute Krsna consciousness regardless of how you chose to understand and to whatever extent you can realize their words.

The Leaves Book comes in five waves.

First Wave: Siddhanta : 10 chapters

Second Wave: Reconcilaition : 7 chapters

Third Wave: Objections : 13 chapters

Fourth Wave: Additional Evidence : 19 chapters

Fifth Wave: Conclusion

Your servant,

Puru Das Adhikari

The Conclusion

<hr> BY KUNDALI DASA

EDITORIAL, Apr 9 (VNN) — Srila Prabhupada has written:

"The conclusion is that no one falls from the spiritual world, or Vaikunthha planet, for it is the eternal abode." (Srimad Bhagavatam, 3.16.26 purport.)

The amazing and amusing thing is that people who fault me for my no-fall position over the jiva issue, claim that I speculate, or relativize Prabhupada, or I deviate from his teachings, but here he has stated clearly, so clearly that a very small child can understand, "the conclusion". So, I accept the conclusion. What is my fault for accepting the conclusion? <table align="right" border="0" bordercolor="#cccccc" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="191"> <tbody><tr bordercolor="#FFFFFF"> <td> <table align="right" border="0" bordercolor="#cccccc" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" width="169"> <tbody><tr bordercolor="#FFFFFF"> <td> <hr>

“Right. Prabhupada doesn't know what he means when he says "the conclusion" but "we" know. Jai. ”

<hr> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Other wallahs don't accept the conclusion, yet they claim to adhere to Prabhupada's teachings. What can be done for such people, I don't know. And while they reject the conclusion they claim to be more faithful to Srila Prabhupada than me. Is this Kali-yuga or what? (Most of us tend to remember that Kali-yuga is the age of quarrel, but tend to forget that it is also the age of hypocrisy).

When my friend Kurma Rupa confronted a purportedly learned swami about "the conclusion", the swami, who was accusing us of deviating, and of twisting the words of Prabhupada, without batting an eye, reportedly said, "I know that Prabhupada said this is the conclusion, but we know what he means."

Right. Prabhupada doesn't know what he means when he says "the conclusion" but "we" know. Jai.

Amazing. Here is a similar version of this logic. You are talking to a Christian and you are pressing home the point that the Lord has ordered in His ten commandments "Thou shall not kill."

So this Christian waffler rebuts with, "We know what He said, but we know what he means." Which means that Thou shall not kill does not really mean what is plainly written there. And we condemn such people as wafflers etc etc etc, but when we waffle with Prabhupada's words, it is okay. We know what he means. He means the opposite of what he says is the conclusion. Brilliant.

And then, my good God, the absurd articles in BTG, preaching mayavada with a twist, instead of brahma satyam jagan mithya teaching goloka satyam jagan mithya, just to win a debate. No regard at all for the truth, for siddhanta. Why? Because it is Kali-yuga and hypocrisy is now a virtue. Prabhupada wrote all those volumes of books so we would present mayavada in BTG? Amazing.

As for the embarrassing book, "Our Original Position" well, one thing for sure, those positioning themselves to be acaryas, whose name appear on that pathetic work of pseudo-philosophy, had better forget about being known as an acarya. "Laughingstock" is far more likely to be the title they will receive. Time is a ruthless judge of events.

Meanwhile, I accept the conclusion, because Srila Prabhupada said it, because it makes sense, and because it is supported by sastra. Simple.

Radhe Shyama.

ys. Kundali.

<hr width="50%">

The Conclusion from the Leaves Book:

Conclusion

We have presented the conclusion of the sastra and Vaisnava acaryas. We have also tried to reconcile the views of Srila Prabupada by reference to the preaching and practical example of our predecesor acaryas, but in the end it is difficult to know the mind of a great soul of Srila Prabhupada's stature. Subsequently, everyone is free to accept whatever reasoning satisfies himself. as we have stated in the introduction to this book, it is inconceivable that any resident of the spiritual world could fall down to become a conditioned soul; but it is not inconceivable that the real explanation is that conditioned souls were always conditioned souls and that the reason for this is inconceivable.

In spite of all we have said, we believe that because Srila Prabhupada said both things on the jiva-issue then any follower should be free to say either one or both if he so chooses. We go along with the general understanding that preaching can and is often different from the siddhanta and that all preaching should take into consideration time,place, and circumstance, but everyone should know the siddhanta.

Still, despite the siddhanta we see it as no crime if one preaches that we fell from Vaikuntha. Either way, who can object to repeating what Srila Prabhuada said: And so, in the end we have nothingagainst those who believe in the fall-down theory. The real challenge is how to get out. Therefore, instead of focusing on how we got here, we consider it real service to focus each other on how to get out. This will surely please Srila Prabhupada and pleasing him is the key to our success on this pat. On this note let us digest these two statements of Srila Prabhupada and take them into our hearts:

"It realy does not matter how these living entities or superior entities of the Supreme Lord have come in contact with the material nature. The Supreme Personality of Godhead knows, however, how and why this actually took place (Bg. 13.20,purport)

And this from the aforementioned room conversation in London on August 17,1971:

Prabhupada: Therefore acintya. Therefore acintya, inconceivalbe (Pause) Chant Hare Krsna. Don't try to understand Krsna. Simply try to love Him.

That is perfection. That's all. You cannot undersand Krsna. Nobody can understand. Krsna Himself cannot understand Himself. Yes (Laughter) He's so acintya. And what to speak of us. Therefore our only business; how to love Krsna, now to serve Krsna. That's all. That is perfection. You cannot understand Krsna. Nobody can. Krsna Himself canot understand." Om Tat Sat.

Kundali Prabhu

(In Vaikuntha Not Even the Leaves Fall)

Chapter 6

· Pg 66: Top: Choice A is the correct one, and is corroborated by Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura's commentary on Bhagavad Gita verse 13.20, in Sarartha-darshini commentary. The author of "OOP" neglects to mention this commentary on this verse. If we are to accept the translation presented in "OOP" , SVCT will be contradicting himself.

· Pg 66-67. "Srila Prabhupada translates..." but why?

· Pg 67. "According to the rules of Sanskrit grammar..." This is not true.

· Pg 67. Vijayadvaya Tirtha *is* saying, "because the jiva's bondage is beginningless, the time when it began is not settled."

· Pg 67: Please see notes regarding Giridhara Lala in previous section entitled, "General Defects in Chapters 3 & 4."

· Pg 67: Anvitartha-prakashika was not written by a Vaishnava. His commentary is tinged with Mayavad.

· Pg 68: Regarding: cirantanam

1. It was explained in, "In Vaikuntha..." that anadi is a difficult concept, so acaryas give meanings like 'time immemorial' so we can understand.

2. Beginningless . . ..

3. "The Sanskrit word ciran-tanam..." What about the dictionary meaning of anadi?

4. "...of long standing, old, ancient." beginningless includes all of these.

5. Cirantanam has literal and figurative meaning.

·Pg. 68: Regarding: Shrimad Bhagavatam 11.11.4: (1) repeated mistranslation of the word bahu-kalika as "lasting." Bahu-kalika means "since a long time." Beginningless is also bahu-kalika.

· Pg 69: "The two commentaries quoted..." GGL is a big critic of SJG and AP was written by a non-Vaishnava.

· Pg 69: "We have not heard..." our own acharyas, such as SJG and SVCT do not accept fall-vad.

· Pg 69: "Moreover, were the term anadi not interpreted in this figurative way..." Here the author of "OOP" is saying anadi means asat. Previously, see pg 34 bottom, the author was saying it was sat??

· Pg. 69: "And so..." The correct translation is" And so its beginning (adih). Simply attachment to the modes. This is not perceived."

· pg 69: "In other words..." Why all of this memory business? He cannot perceive because it does not exist.

· Pg 70: "...others attribute the perception of eternal bondage to pratiti, which in this context means mere faith or belief, as opposed to ontological substance." So, how is it that one does not become liberated after just understanding that one is not really bound? the actual meaning is that bondage is not part of the jiva's svarupa.

Chapter 7

· Pg 71: "At the end of the Puranjana story, Lord Krsna, in the form of a brahmana..." Nowhere in this episode is Lord Krishna mentioned. The brahmana is Supersoul, not Krishna. So, there is no question of any discussion of falling down from Krishna Lila in this story to begin with.

· Pg 76: "...that the brahmana (Supersoul)..." Previously, he said Lord Krishna, but here he is admitting that it is Supersoul. Then, he contradicts himself a few sentences later. "Neither... mention Maha-Vishnu..."

· Pg 76: Regarding the phrase, "mayy eva militva mat-sangena sukham anubhutavan tvam eva militva" the Sanskrit word mayi is in the 7th (Locative) case, which means "in me alone" and not "with me." If the meaning is "with me" the Sanskrit would have been "maya eva" - the 3rd case.

· Pg 83: In the commentary, "kintu anady-avrtasya api sakhyasya svabhavikatvad anaditvam," the phrase anady-avrtasya api sakhyasya means the friendship, which is also covered without beginning. Since the covering of the friendship is beginningless, the forgetfulness is also beginningless. So, the word tad-vismrteh (forgetfullness) does not occur in this sentence, but it has been included here for clarity, since it occurs in the previous sentence. The author of "OOP" accepts the fact that the word anaditvam refers to sakhyasya (genitive case of sakhya), but they miss the point that the word anady-avrtasya (covered without beginning) is in the genitive case also, and it also refers to sakhasya. Thus, the forgetfulness has no beginning. The conclusion given by them, that the friendship with the Lord in beginningless is not what SJG is saying; but he is saying that the covering of the friendship is beginningless.

· Pg 85-98: The whole ensuing discussion is akin to the statements of Ramanujacarya from Chapter 2. The basic thing which is not being understood by the author of "OOP," is that when it says, "recovering his original form, etc." this is talking about his svarupa (self-nature) as a pure conscious entity, separate from the modes of nature.

Chapter 8

This chapter indicates a desperation to defend the theory of the falling of the nitya-parsada's, even at the high cost of committing immeasurable offenses to Shrimati Tulasi Devi and Shri Sudama and twisting the philosophy to fit this end.

Shrila Prabhupada once wrote in a letter (in reply to a letter regarding Tulasi care): "Use your common sense. If you have none, then consult those who do." The activities of Tulasi coming to this world are called lila. Tulasi-devi is an expansion of Shrimati Radharani-so now She is falling down also?

<center>yatha skande:

ya drsta nikhilagha-sangha-samani sprsta vapuh pavani

raganamabhivandita nirasani siktantakatrasini

pratyasatti-vidhayini bhagavatah krsnasya samropita

nyasta laccarane vimukti-phalada tasyai tulasyai namah

(Brs. 203)</center> Translation by Srila Prabhupada

See, Nectar of Devotion. Part 1, Chapter 11-- Aspects of Transcendental Service

Serving Trees Such as Tulasi

and in the Shri Vrndadevy-astaka (verse 3):

<center>samasta-vaikuntha-shriomanau shri-krsnasya vrndavana-dhanya-dhamni

dattadhikare vrsabhanu-putrya vrnde namas te caranaravindam</center> O Vrnda Devi, I offer my respectful obeisance to your lotus feet. Shrimate Radharani, the daughter of King Vrsabhanu, has made you the ruling monarch of Lord Krsna's opulent and auspicious abode of Vrndavana, which is the crest jewel of all the Vaikuntha planets.

We are astonished with the conclusion put forth in this chapter that the transcendental lila of one of the Lord's topmost and dearest eternal associates is given as an example meant to show or verify the assumption that all the billions of living entities who are undergoing repeated hellish conditions and entanglement in this material world have fallen in a similar way. To even think that such personalities as Tulasi devi can fall down is like killing one's own guru.

The author of this presentation refuses to give the "OOP" booklet the dignity of any further refutation. Further points presented in "OOP" are amply covered in the "In Vaikuntha Not Even the Leaves Fall" book.

General Defects in Chapters 3 and 4

These chapters are very similar. First we will mention the basic defects in them, then specific ones in each chapter.

The OOP author's main endeavor in these chapters is to discount what he feels is problematic with the treatment of the words: anadi, ananta, nitya and anitya in "In Vaikuntha Not Even the Leaves Fall." His opinion is that the authors of "In Vaikuntha" have erroneously defined these words, (esp, the word usage of the word anadi in reference to the beginningless conditioning of the jiva soul) and so in these Chapters the authors atttempts to analyze the usage of these words in various shastras (esp. anadi) to prove that their meaning is different than that which he sees presented in "In Vaikuntha."

There are two overwhelming defects in his endeavor:

1) The authors of "In Vaikuntha..." are not trying to provide general definitions for these four words. they are talking about four different types of activities, and these words are often used to describe them in shastra.

2) The author of "OOP" has misconstrued the usage of these words in the passages from shastra that he quotes, and has naturally derived inaccurate definitions from them.

In relation to the first point, we quote from "In Vaikuntha...":

"The conclusion is that there are four types of activities or objects, nitya, anitya, anadi, and ananta. Nitya are those which have no geginning and no end, like Vaikuntha planets or Lord Krsna; anitya are those which have a beginning and end, such as the body, anadi are those which have no beginning but have an end, such as the material conditioning of the jiva; and ananta are those which have a beginning but no end, such as the liberation of a jiva from the material world... All objects, qualities, and activities can be grouped into these four classes and this is how Vedic philosophers have used these words."

The discussion related to these four words occurs in the middle of a chapter where Shrila Jiva Goswami's usage of the term anadi in reference to the eternal conditioning of the living entities is being discussed. Neither Shrila Jiva Goswami, nor the authors of "In Vaikuntha..." are interested in writing a dictionary or giving a general dictionary definition of the word anadi while talking about the conditioned living entities. The authors are showing how Shrila Jiva Goswami clearly says that the conditioning of the living entities has no beginning, but can come to an end by the Lord's mercy. And this state, or type of activity, SJG calls anadi. The author of "OOP" never attempts to address this point in context, and that alone renders all of his discussion in the next several chapters mute.

We do no understand why the author of "OOP" has gone to so much trouble to demonstrate the usage of the word in so many shastras, only to establish his own opinion about it, but never even discusses the context that this word comes up in "In Vaikuntha..." He certainly did not admit the fact that this is Shrila Jiva Goswami's usage of the word anadi, let alone dare to attempt to refute Shrila Jiva Goswami.

Indeed, in Chapter 9 of "OOP" the author purports at the very beginning that he will show the statements of SJG to support the fall-vada position...but where??!! He never even mentions SJG's name in the chapter!

We have noticed this as being a general trend in the author's work. By ignoring the fact that Shrila Jiva Goswami's statements, which he never even addresses, are the reason "In Vaikuntha..." was written. The author of "OOP" writes under the implicit assumption that Shri Satya Narayana dasa and Shri Kundali dasa are inventing these interpretations, or are somehow trying to screw them out of shastric statements, to suit some twisted purpose of their own. He then charges in on his white horse; chastising the demons while simultaneously protecting the conclusions of shastra-tiptoeing right over Shrila Jiva Goswami's head in the process. This methodology is dishonest. If he wants to contest that the jiva souls have never fallen from the spiritual world, and that the usage of the word anadi in various shastric passages and commentaries say this, then he should take it up with the person who made the statement: Shrila Jiva Goswami. But he never one time, in all of his extravagant analysis's in this book, discusses Shrila Jiva Goswami's statements on the subject. Instead, he prefers to quote from here and there in Chapter 6, he even quotes from Goswami Giridhara Lala, a disciple of Vallabha Bhatta, who is an offender at the lotus feet of Shrila Jiva Goswami. The following quotation is from Appendix Two of Tattva Sandarbha, translated by Shri Satya Narayana dasa and Shri Kundali dasa:

"Not only did the author [Giridhari Lal Goswami] launch a systematic attempt to refute Shrila Jiva Goswami, but he depicted him as an acarya-drohi (one who rebels against previous acaryas). Lal further claimed that Shri Jiva Goswami was not even a devotee, what to speak of a recipient of Lord Krsna's mercy. He wrote, "Jiva Goswami is unable to understand the learned opinion of Shri Vallachacarya."

It is odd that the author of "OOP" should quote from such a person, even calling him a Vaishnava. He uses Lal's statements to support his own opinion that in relation to the jiva soul's bondage, the term anadi means cirantanam, or "existing since ancient times," but not beginningless. This is especially true in view of the author of "OOP's" pointing out so heartily Vallabha Bhatta's misinterpretation of Shrimad Bhagavatam in the beginning of his book in the section entitles, "The Aim of this Book."

· A misanalysis of the word anadi in Chapters 3 and 4 by the author is subject to the same defects as in Chapter 1. That is, in the Sanskrit it is almost always quoted with other words indicating middle (madhya) and end (anta or nidhana), thus, its commonly understood meaning of referring to beginninglessness is understood by shastras themselves.

· Therefore, the author's attempt to prove in these chapters that anadi is synonymnous with nitya is defeated.

Specific Problems with Chapter 3

Pg. 27 "The Upanisada and other ..." So? Is this a restriction?

pg. 29 "But unlike the Upanisads, the Mahabharata frequently employs the term anadi to describe entities (usually Krishna) or processes that are eternal..." The situation is that out of 44 occurrences of the word anadi in Mahabharata (quoted by the author of "OOP"), 41 of them are qualified with madhya, ananta, etc as discussed above and in Chapter 1.

Pgs 31-36: Regarding Bhagavad Gita:

· Pg 32: "In verse 13.20..." Since when is the living entity the Lord's internal potency?

· Quote from remarks on Chapter 1: When the author of "OOP" insists that only sat and asat exist, which he himself contradicts shortly thereafter, it should also be understood that nitya and ananta both come under sat (having existence with no end), and anitya and anadi both fall under asat (having existence which comes to an end).

· Pg 34: "In other words, to have no beginning is to be free of the modes of nature..." This is not true. To have no beginning is to not be a product of material nature.

· Pg. 34: "If we understand..." anadi and ananta are not synonyms. See above and comments on Chapter 1. He has misconstrued SJG's usage of the terms anadi and ananta. He is not giving dictionary definitions of them, he is referring to specific types of activities.

· Pg. 36: "And so the form of this..." This is referring to the material world, not the jiva's bondage. The author of "OOP's" translation "It's [the tree's]..." is incorrect. The correct translation of tathasya guna-sanga... is "And this material attachment is the only beginning" This is not perceived, reason being that it does not exist. No beginning is why it is not perceived. This is also corroborated on the very next page, Chapter 4, Pg. 37, "One verse describes the process..."

Specific Problems with Chapter 4

· Pg 38: "The question before us...", but it is there in the Upanisada, etc!

· What is the use of analyzing saasvat and sasvat? The author appears to be writing a dictionary in order to avoid dealing with the direct statements of SJG.

· All of this analysis does not prove that anadi does "not" mean having a beginning but no end.

· He also says at the top of Pg. 39 that he will analyze the use of the word anadi in Shrimad Bhagavatam in this chapter, but he does not. His presentation in Chapter 6 "The word anadi in Srimad Bhagavatam" is also incorrect, as will be demonstrated.

Chapter Five

Part 1: Lord Krishna and Uddhava:

· Pg 53: "...Lord Krishna tells us that this is also the case..." Where?

· In this section, Uddhava is basically asking: "Is the living entity simultaneously nitya-baddha and nitya-mukta by substance or in belief?"

·Substance here refers to the living entity's svarupa. Belief refers to his perception under the modes of nature (see Pg 59. "And so, first of all...")

· Bottom line of this whole section of SB is: His svarupa, or eternal conscious being never factually comes in contact with the material modes, but his eternal bondage is due to the influence of maya, or illusion. Just as a prince kidnapped by thieves at the time of his birth may think of himself as a dacoit throughout his life but he never really is.

· Thus, the terms nitya-baddha and nitya-mukta are products of maya. These terms are given for the conditioned soul's understanding in different contexts. When shastra wants to explain that he is not the body, it says nitya-mukta. When shastra wants to explain the duration of his existence under the influence of avidya, it says nitya baddha. But he understands his svarupa to be sat, cit, ananda, and part of a separate potency of the Lord, he realizes that his existence, his svarupa, has nothing to do with prakriti, and the terms baddha and mukta have no more relevance for him. Example: A person places a $100 bill in his pocket, and then forgets that he placed it there. When he becomes aware of its absence, he becomes distressed, and thinks, "When I find my money, I will feel great relief." But both of these two concepts of distress and relief are concepts in his mind, caused by the maya (or illusion) that he has lost his money. When he finally remembers that it has been in his pocket all along, both the distress and relief from distress become meaningless for him, because the illusion that caused both of them has been removed.

· Regarding Viraraghava and the term anitya (Pg 57) the acarya being talked about is SJG. Where is the discussion of his statements regarding anadi?

· Thus, on Pg 59, the conclusion: "And so, first of all..." In substance, the liiving entity is never conditioned, i.e., he is never a product of the modes of nature. "Rather, a belief, based on bodily designations takes place."

· SJG confirms this on Pgs. 59-60, "Although the living being..." This statement from SJG directly contradicts the "OOP" author's point 4 on pg. 56. By swarupa he is eternally liberated by modes he is eternally conditioned. The conditioning is not in the swarupa, otherwise he will never become liberated-muktir hitva anyatha rupam svarupina syavasthati-Bhag.

Part 2: Madhva's Tika:

·Madhva accepts beginningless ignorance in the first statement, "Beginningless ignorance is blindness." The rest is all discussion about bondage, in this context, bondage meaning being dependent on the Lord? Thus in "OOP" he gives a non-standard interpretation to the word "nitya-baddha" (...in order to establish the Lord's supreme independence and the dependence of all others on Him), he first makes certain to say that there is beginningless ignorance among the conditioned living entity's of the Lord's supremacy. This quote from Madhva is only supporting the no-falldown position.

· Pg. 61: "What is normally called material bondage, Madhva calls 'blindness,' andhatvam. His remarkable conclusion is that only the Lord is nitya-mukta, 'eternally' liberated, since only the Lord is fully independent." Here, the author leaves out two steps in this logic, and in effect changes the statements of Madhva to suit his own ideas. The full line of thought in the passage from Madhva is as follows:

1. Material bondage = blindness, andhatvam

2. This blindness is beginningless.

3. This blindness is ended by "favorable endeavor," i.e. devotional service

4. All jivas are eternally dependent on Vishnu (nitya-baddha), whether theyare blind or liberated.

5. Thus, in this sense, only the Lord is nitya-mukta, or completely independent.

· Madhva, even though he is reinterpreting these terms, is careful to keep the siddhanta clear. If we try to take his statements literally, without understanding the underlying siddhanta, then we will become confused by statements such as "But the nitya-mukta is one alone: Hari, Narayana, the Lord, because of His independence," as the author of "OOP" himself becomes confused in Chapter 8 where great offenses are created against Shrimati Tulasi Devi and Shri Sudama.

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

The following is an informal gathering of objections, faults and other irregularities found by another party in "Our Original Position," the official published position on the "Origin of the Jiva" issue. The anonomous author of these points hoped to incorporate them into a book eliminating further doubt in this matter, but did not do so. We simply offer them as seeds for further thought. They do not necessarily represent our opinion.

Chapter One

·Read: "The authors insist..." and "And yet,..." It is obvious from these two statements that they are admitting that Shrila Jiva Goswami said these things and their only refutation is, 'but Prabhupada translated it as since time immemorial'... and that is exactly our point. (1) Shrila Jiva Goswami (SJG) did say that the soul is eternally conditioned, and (2) Shrila Prabhupada translates it as 'time immemorial' exactly because the concept of eternal bondage was too difficult for a general audience, who had little or no background in Vedic thought, to understand.

·See pgs 74-75 in "In Vaikuntha" It is explaining four type of entities, not the meaning of four words in general, thus all of the statements of "Our Original Position" (OOP's) authors trying to prove that this is not the way the words are defined are off the mark. Also . . .

*Very important" See pg. 27 of "OOP". Notice in the Sanskrit that almost every time the word 'anadi' is mentioned in reference to the Lord in the Upanishadic quotations, it is coupled with/qualified by 'ananta' or a synonym for ananta (having a beginning but no end"). Therefore, Upanishads themselves are assuming that the words anadi and ananta commonly indicate: (1) having no beginning but an end and (2) having a beginning but no end respectively. Or why else would they put both of them together when talking about the Lord? They want to be sure that there is no mistake that the Lord has no beginning and no end. If both of them were synonyms for nitya (as claimed by the author of OOP) why employ the vain repitition of using both of them? Why should either word at all exist or be used in shastra...it would only be a redundency? Therefore, the Upanishads themselves are giving the answer to this question of definition. Both anadi and ananta come under the meaning of nitya. They are both included in nitya, and thus can sometimes be used in place of nitya (as in the first verse of Brahma Samhita...no one will think that the use of the word anadi there means that Krishna has no beginning but can come to an end. There, it is indicating His eternality). But still, each of these two also holds it's own particular meaning which makes them different from each other, and thus the handling of them in the quotations from Upanishads. This is called naya of referring to the whole by pointing out one of its parts amsha-anshi-nyaya. Just as you point to the water and say, 'This is the ocean,' but actually you are only pointing to a small part of the ocean. So, the part is contained withing the whole, and can be used to refer to the whole, but at the same time, it is not identical with the whole. Anadi is used in the Brahma Samhita verse because there Lord Brahma is juxtaposing anadir (He who has no beginning" with adir (He is the origin of everything). In this way, Lord Brahma stresses the Lord's beginninglessness, and gives contextual strength to the statement that He is the beginning of everything. Likewise, shastras will use ananta when they want to emphasise the Lord's endlessness. When shastra wants to be certain that both aspects of the Lord are clearly understood, they they use both of them together, as in the Upanishadic statements, and when they want to speak of the Lors's infinite nature in general terms, they will use nitya. The should be clearly understood, as it is a soft spot for several of the authors key, long winding, convoluted arguments.

When the author insists that only sat and asat exist, which he contradicts shortly thereafter, it should also be understood that nitya and ananta both cme under sat (having existence with no end", and anitya and anadi both fall under (having existence which comes to an end).

Chapter 2

Part 1: Analysis of Vedanta Sutra 2.1.34-37

Untangling the author's errors in this section and Chapter 3 is a little complex and requires substantial explanation.

First a brief on the structure of Vedanta Sutra:

·It is composed of four books, called Adhyayas. Each of those is broken down into four sections called Padas. Each of those has a variable number of Adhikaranas, or sections. each section contains a variable number of verses.

·Each Adhikarana has to have Sangati, or agreement with the whole Vedanta Sutra (VS), with its Adhyaya, with its Pada and with the Adhikaranas immediately before and after it.

What is under discussion in this section of VS:

· 2.1.34,35 comprise Adhikarana Ten. This section is an answer to an implicit question, following from the previous Adhikarana (Nine), which stated that : The Lord has no fruitive motive in creating the world, but does it only for the sake of lila. The question that this raises is: Is part of the Lord's lila to cause the jivas to suffer? I.e., because lila is only for enjoyment, He must be enjoying their suffering/ Adhikarna Ten answers this by saying in 2.1.34: "No, the Lord dispenses karmic reactions to the iving entities only on the basis of the previous actions, and not whimsically. Thus there is no defect on His part." Then, 1.2.35: "If if is asked, 'but every jiva starts off equally at the time of creation, so what else but the Lord's favor to some and disfavor to others could cause the differences we see?' It is replied that at the beginning of creation, they are continuing where they left off in the previous creation. Because this process is anadi, there was never a time when it can be said that all living entities started from an equal position, yet, all are always receiving nothing but the reaction of their previous karma, and thus there is no defect in the Lord's dealing with them."

2.1.35 is saying that the karma of the living entity is beginningless. Therefore his condidioning is also necessarily beginningless. This is what is explained in "In Vaikuntha..." pages 37,38.

· 2.1.36,37 comprise Adhikarana Eleven. This is an answer to an implicit question from Adhikarana Ten, which says: "But, it is seen that the Lord shows favor to His devotee, so how can you say there is no partiality on His side? The reply is: "We accept that He shows special favor to His devotees. It would be a defect if He did "not" reciprocate with them, because that would go against his generous nature. It can also be said that His reciprocating with them is also equal dealings. But ultimately, it is partiality, because when He reciprocates with His devotees, He gives in greater measure than He receives. But it should also be understood that when He reciprocates with them, He does not do any dis-favor to other living entities in the process. Thus, there is no defect on His part from any angle."

Adhikarana Ten (2.1.34,35) is talking about the relation of Paramatma to the jiva souls in the material world (See OOP pg 14) Adhikarana Eleven (2.1.36,37) is talking about the relationship of Bhagavan to His devotees in the material world (This is clear from the discussion of partiality, which Paramatma does not involve in, and from the use of the word "bhakta-vatsala" in SBV's commentary on 2.1.36, see footnote 15, on OOP pg 16 and pg 257 of "In Vaikuntha..."). In his commentary, the primary OOP author tries to muddle these two different topics together and make them one . . . as follows: His commentary does not have agreement or Sangati with the Adhyaya Pada or the previous and following Adhikaranas:

· In his commentary, the author of OOP tries to say something to this effect:

"In analyzing 2.1.34-37 (both Adhikaranas Ten and Eleven), my intention is to prove that the word 'karma,' as discussed in these verses, refers to the activities of both conditioned and non-conditioned souls, both in the material and spiritual worlds. Not just to the activities of conditioned souls. Thus, the interpretation found in "In Vaikuntha" is wrong. They interpret 2.1.35 to say that because the karma of the living entities is beginningless, his conditioning is also beginningless. I disagree, because according to my analysis, the beginningless activities of the living entities and the Lord's beginningless reciprocation with them is not necessarily restricted to the material world. Therefore, the thing here which is truly beginningless, and which is under discusssion by Vedanta Sutra, is the Lord's reciprocation with ALL living entities according to their actions, and not just the state of the conditioned living entities."

His reasoning is defective for the following reasons:

1- The topic under discussion in both this Adhyaya and Pada is the Lord's relationship to the material creation (See "OOP" pg 10, Sutra 2.1.35), thus Adhikaranas Ten and Eleven discussed here (2.1.34-37) must all have Sangati with that topic. i.e., the context of discussion for all of these verses is the material world.

2- He takes 2.1.34-2.1.37 as though they all four belong to the same Adhikarana, but they do not. 2.1.34, 35 form Adhikarana Ten, and 2.1.36,37 form Adhikarana Eleven. Both have different topics.

3. Adhikarana Ten is clearly talking about the conditioned living entities. (See OOP's own translation of the commentary to 2.1.35, pg 14). The use of the words karma, ksetra-jna (knower of the field of material activities) and Visnu (Whose pastimes are associated with the material world), as well as the whole context these words are found in, are clearly saying that 'karma' here is material activity of the conditioned souls. Indeed, the author of OOP admits it himself on this same page.

4. The author goes on to say that he will prove that the word 'karma' as used in SBV's commentary on pg. 14 also refers to the activities of liberated souls, here and in the spiritual world. The defect in that is that he waits until 2.1.36,37 for that, and that is a separate Adhikarana, where a different topic is under discussion. SBV himself ends the discussion of the material conditioned nature of the living entities in Adhikarana Ten, 2.1.35 commentary with the words "[The accusarion of] inequality, etc., in Brahman is refuted." He then sets up the topic for discussion in Adhikarana Eleven with : "That [inequality] in the form of taking the devotee's side is now [however] accepted..." Thus, the use of the word anadi in 2.1.35 is being restricted by SBV himself to Adhikarana Ten. It is also very significant that nowhere in sutras 2.1.36,37 or in SBV's commentary on them is the word anadi used.

· The gist of all of this is: The author of OOP is trying to say that karma, in 2.1.35, refers to the activities of the liverated souls as well, and the Lord's reciprocation with those activities. Thus, when it is said, "eternal," what is being spoken of is not the karma of the living entities, but the activity (and reciprocation from the Lord) of 'all' devotees when they descend to the material world from the spiritual world. And even in the spiritual world, we cannot deny that the Lord protects His devotees."

Part 2: Analysis of Vedanta Sutra 4.4.1 and 4.4.3

· Basically, the author os OOP is trying to prove in this section that svarupa refers to a spiritual form, rasa, etc, in these sections. This is not correct. What is being referred to is the sat, cit, ananda nature of the jiva only. His svarupa as pure consciousness. This is evident from pg 23.24, beginning: "And so it is logical to say..."

As far as the origins issue goes, Srila Prabhupada gives the FINAL WORD - the conclusion as he says:

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 4.30.5, purport,

The conclusion is that the origin of all life is the bodily effulgence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

So, Srila Prabhupada says the CONCLUSION is that the ORIGIN of the jiva is the brahmajyoti effuglence of Krishna.

So, that is the conclusion.

The origin of the jivas is the brahmajyoti.

"... However, when the living entity, misusing his tiny independence, wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world...’

 

This is what Prabhupada said. Note the words 'fall down'.

 

Yes, note the words "falls down".

So, why are the sleepervadis saying that the living entity doesn't fall down and that only dreams that he is fallen?

They base their whole sleepervadi theory on some supposed statement that Srila Prabhupada made in Japan saying that "you are not fallen".

Srila Prabhupada says that the illusioned souls are fallen hundreds of times in his books and lectures.

So, why are they trying to say that the illusioned souls aren't fallen and that they only imagine they are fallen when they are actually in Goloka having a bad dream?

They invented sleepervada as a way to deal with the fact that in the books Srila Prabhupada says that no one falls from Vaikuntha.

So, to keep their fall-from-goloka fairytale alive they have invented sleepervada that says that the illusioned jivas are NOT fallen that they are simply in Goloka in their spiritual bodies having a bad dream.

They abuse several quotes of Srila Prabhupada about the dreaming nature of being illusioned to say that in fact the jiva does not fall from Goloka that he only imagines or dreams that he is fallen from Goloka.

I don't think that Srila Prabhupada ever wanted his statements to be abused to promote some sleepervadi theory.

They are making Srila Prabhupada look like some renegade Gaudiya who invented some new sleepervadi concept.

He did not.

Drutakarma and his cronies invented it.

You're running with the word 'peacefully'. That doesn't necessarily imply neutrality. Nor does it mean impersonal. One has to be conflictual to be personal?

Peaceful means shanta.

Shanta means peaceful or neutral.

If we translate "peaceful" into Sanskrit it means:

<center>santa</center>

śānta-rajasam — his passion pacified; BG 6.27

śāntā — pacified; SB 1.15.28

sva-śānta-rūpeṣu — unto the peaceful devotees of the Lord; SB 3.2.15

śāntā iva — as if fatigued; SB 3.20.36

śānta — completed; SB 3.21.37

śānta-rūpe — O mother; SB 3.25.38

śānta — serene; SB 3.26.26

śānta — mild; SB 3.26.45

śānta-cittāya — whose mind is peaceful; SB 3.32.42

śānta-vigraham — having a peaceful personality; SB 4.2.2

śānta-vāk — in silence; SB 4.4.24

śānta-medham — the still sacrificial animals; SB 4.7.33

śāntā — peaceful; SB 4.28.44

śānta — pacified; SB 4.31.3

śiśira-śānta — which is so peaceful and cool; SB 5.8.25

śānta-dhīḥ — very peaceful; SB 6.17.36

śānta-ātmā — a peaceful attitude; SB 9.2.11-13

śānta-ṛkṣa — none of the constellations were fierce (all of them were peaceful); SB summary

śānta-rayaḥ — the force of the blast reduced; SB 10.7.26

śānta-ātman — O You who are always peaceful; SB 10.16.51

śāntā — peaceful; SB 10.53.44

śānta — cold; SB 10.63.28

śānta-senaḥ — Śāntasena; SB 10.90.38

śānta — pacified; SB 11.15.29

śānta — pacified; SB 11.25.35

śānta — peaceful; CC Adi 3.45

śānta — peaceful; CC Adi 8.55

śānta — peaceful; CC Adi 13.120

śānta — pacified; CC Adi 17.146

śānta — pacified; CC Adi 17.147

śānta kari' — pacifying; CC Adi 17.252

śānta — of neutrality; CC Madhya 8.86

śānta hañā — being pacified; CC Madhya 14.213

śānta kari' — making pacified; CC Madhya 15.259

mahā-śānta — very peaceful; CC Madhya 15.296

śānta — peaceful; CC Madhya 19.149

śānta — neutrality; CC Madhya 19.185

śānta-bhakta — the neutral devotees; CC Madhya 19.189

śānta-dāsya-rase — in the transcendental mellows of neutrality and servitude; CC Madhya 19.195

śānta-rase — in the stage of śānta-rasa, or neutrality; CC Madhya 19.211

śānta-ratim — attachment on the platform of śānta-rasa; CC Madhya 19.212

śānta — the position of equilibrium; CC Madhya 19.214

śānta-rase — in the mellow of neutrality; CC Madhya 19.219

śānta — peaceful; CC Madhya 22.78-80

śānta-rūpe — O mother, the symbol of peacefulness; CC Madhya 22.162

śānta — neutral; CC Madhya 23.45

śānta — neutrality; CC Madhya 23.53

śānta-rase — in the mellow of neutrality; CC Madhya 23.54

śānta-ādi rasera — of the mellows beginning from neutrality; CC Madhya 23.56

śānta-bhaktera — of devotees on the platform of neutrality; CC Madhya 24.32

śānta — neutral; CC Madhya 24.164

śānta bhakta — devotees in the neutral stage of devotional service; CC Madhya 24.164

śānta haila — became peaceful; CC Antya 6.34

śānta hañā yāya — will be decreased; CC Antya 12.106

śānta haila — became pacified; CC Antya 16.134

False. There is no abuse. A direct quote. Without semantic interpretation.

You abuse.

"... However, when the living entity, misusing his tiny independence, wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world...’

This is what Prabhupada said. Note the words 'fall down'.

You are saying he's wrong?

I am saying that pure devotees do not fall down from Vaikuntha.

The only falling down that occurs is when a jiva in the brahmajyoti falls down from impersonal shanta-rasa as confirmed in shastra.