Did He Ever See The Light Of Vaikuntha?

July 5, 2003

Hare Krsna. Please accept my humble obeisances. I would like to look at this topic of the soul's position in the material world and the doctrine popping up occasionally that there is a whole genre of conditioned soul's who were created within the material world and never were in the spiritual world at all. There are many arguments given by many scholars why we are mistaken in our thinking that we came from the spiritual world, such as the argument that it is impossible for A completely liberated soul to fall under illusion.

This doctrine has always rubbed me the wrong way, since I was satisfied with this simple idea passed on to us by Srila Prabhupada that once we WERE Krsna's servants but somehow we fell down and now He is sending His confidential servants to bring us back home. That was very reassuring and gave us great hope and impetus to take to this devotional service and GO back home.

But now certain scholars are offering extensive logic and reasoning to enlighten us to a different understanding. The soul's here couldn't have fallen and were in fact created here, they say. I must admit that this philosophy is depressing to me and causes confusion in the assembly of Vaisnavas. On COM there are some even today arguing against the illogic of thinking the soul actually came from Vaikuntha, and these scholars and logicians are relentless.

Mostly, the chief proponents of this doctrine are not very inclined to submissive hearing, but seem more to rely on their own strengths of logical reasoning. But herein lies the problem. In the assembly of Vaisnavas, this submissive hearing and reliance on the blessings of Krsna within the heart to give sufficient understanding and realization are paramount. If we abandon this humility and submissive hearing from the realized soul and take shelter instead of our own reason and logic, we will open the door to delusion.

So, I would like to humbly submit the following conversation with our beloved spiritual master concerning this question of the soul's falling from Vaikuntha. He is asked directly whether we fall, and any submissive disciple who is hoping to understand this question can take this opportunity to hear from the actually authority. I offer this with great affection to my beloved godbrothers. Mahananda dasa

Devotee (4): Srila Prabhupada, you say in your books so many times that somehow or other we have fallen into this material world due to our enviousness or our independence.

Prabhupada: Many, there are many reasons.

Devotee (4): I can't seem to get a grasp on this at all. If we in our original constitutional position as part and parcel of Krsna, and in that position, that original position of full knowledge and full bliss and being in our eternal nature... Now I have some experience of how strong this material energy is and how Maya works somewhat, but if I had known this and had this full knowledge, then I would have had this knowledge of how Maya works and how I might fall.

Prabhupada: You read the life of Jaya, Vijaya, Hiranyakasipu, Hiranyaksa? They were Krsna's doorkeepers. How they fell down? Did you read it? Did you read the life of Hiranyakasipu or Hiranyaksa? Devotee (4): Yes, Prabhupada.

Prabhupada: So how they did fall? They are from Vaikuntha. They are Krsna's personal associates, keeping the doorkeepers. How did they fell down? Anyway, there is chance of falling down at any moment. Devotee (4): Well, in his family they wanted to enjoy the material world.

Prabhupada: Whatever it may be, the falldown is there. So because we are living entities, we are not as powerful as Krsna, therefore we may fall down from Vaikuntha at any moment. Iccha-dvesa samutthena sarge yanti parantapa. Find out this verse.

Pusta Krsna:

iccha-dvesa samutthena

dvandva-mohena bharata

sarva-bhutani sammoham

sarge yanti parantapa

"O scion of Bharata [Arjuna], O conqueror of the foe, all living entities are born into delusion, overcome by the dualities of desire and hate." Prabhupada: Purport.

Pusta Krsna: "The real constitutional position of the living entity is that of subordination to the Supreme Lord, who is pure knowledge. When one is deluded into separation from this pure knowledge, he becomes controlled by illusory energy and cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The illusory energy is manifested in the duality of desire and hate. Due to desire and hate the ignorant person wants to become one with the Supreme Lord and envies Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Pure devotees, who are not so deluded or contaminated by desire and hate, can understand that Lord Sri Krsna appears by His internal potencies. But those who are deluded by duality and nescience think that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is created by material energies. This is their misfortune. Such deluded persons symptomatically dwell in dualities of dishonor and honor, misery and happiness, woman and man, good and bad, pleasure and pain, etc., thinking 'This is my wife, this is my house; I am the master Prabhupada: So even in the Vaikuntha, if I desire that "Why shall I serve Krsna? Why not become Krsna?" I immediately fall down. That is natural. A servant is serving the master, sometimes he may think that "If I could become the master." They are thinking like that, they are trying to become God. That is delusion. You cannot become God. That is not possible. But he's wrongly thinking.

Vipina: Why doesn't Krsna protect us from that desire?

Prabhupada: He's protecting. He says, "You rascal, don't desire, surrender unto Me." But you are rascal, you do not do this.

Vipina: Why doesn't He save me from thinking like that?

Prabhupada: That means you lose your independence.

Vipina: And no love.

Prabhupada: That is force. (indistinct) prema. In Bengali it is said "If you catch one girl or boy, 'You love me, you love me, you love me."' Is it love? (laughter) "You love me, otherwise I will kill you." (laughter) Is that love? So Krsna does not want to become a lover like that, on the point of revolver, "You love me, otherwise I shall kill you." That is not love, that is threatening. Love is reciprocal, voluntary, good exchange of feeling, then there is love, not by force. That is rape. The... Why one is called lover, another is called rape?

Vipina: But isn't it by force anyway? If we don't love Krsna, we suffer.

Prabhupada: That is your business. You'll suffer. But that Krsna does not force you. He says the real, "You love me, you'll be happy. If you don't love, you suffer." But that is your business.

Vipina: So what is the choice?

Prabhupada: Choice is yours. If you are rascal, you don't make the choice, the best choice. You suffer. The rascals, they suffer. And intelligent men, they do not suffer. If you are intelligent, then Krsna says that "You surrender to Me," you surrender, then you are intelligent. If you are rascal, then you reject and you suffer. When a father says to his rascal son, "My dear son, you just hear me, do like this, you'll be happy." If he does not do it, he'll suffer. There is no other alternative.

Guest (2): Srila Prabhupada, why is the material world made on the level of a jailhouse? It's made on the level of a jailhouse, that, I've been told, the attitude of a jail instead of the attitude.

Prabhupada: Yes, because there will be so many criminals. Therefore government has to construct a jailhouse. It is government's not desire. It is expensive, unnecessary. But because there are rascals who will become criminal, the government has jailhouse. So one who wants to remain independent of Krsna, for them there is material world, "All right, you remain here."

Vipina: We also say that Krsna is fulfilling the desires of every living entity. So if we want to enjoy independent of Krsna, why doesn't He let us really enjoy independent of Him?

Prabhupada: That is not possible. That is maya it is called. You are not enjoyer, you are servant. Because you are willing to become enjoyer, you suffer, that's all. You are not enjoyer.

Vipina: Then He's not fulfilling the desire.

Prabhupada: No, you wanted to enjoy--enjoy at your risk. Sometimes you'll become the king of heaven, and sometimes you become the germs in the stool.

Vipina: Hm, enjoy at your risk. (laughter)

Prabhupada: Yes. No, that is the fact.

Vipina: Instead of under His protection, you enjoy at your risk.

Prabhupada: Therefore He advises, "Rascal, you give up all this enjoying spirit. You just surrender to Me, you'll be happy." But we don't accept it. Therefore sometimes we are in the heavenly kingdom, sometimes as a worm in the stool. That is going on.

September 5, 2003

Dear Mahananda,

I am not a representative of any side in the debate which you are referring to. I just want to point out the very general principle that one should always look at shAstric evidence (Vedas, PurAnas, VedAnta-sUtras, etc) for guidance on these kinds of issues. I do think it is important to determine what Srila Prabhupada's direct statements on this subject were - but this should not be done without also referring to scripture. The ideal position explains away both Srila Prabhupada's statements as well as the statements in shAstra.

As far as I know, the "no fall" camp (which might not be as philosphically homogenous as I think) does not say that the jIvas were "created" in the material world. Nobody accepts the idea that jIvas were "created" at all, since it is generally undisputed that jIvas have no beginning and no ending - see Bhagavad-gItA 2.12 and accompanying purports.

Rather, the "no fall" camp holds that there never was a fall because the jIvas were always in the material world. This is based on a statement in the VedAnta-sUtras to the effect that the jIvas' karmas are beginningless. I don't have the text with me, but if you look at the context (which I can provide if given some time and if requested), you will see that this "beginninglessness" is quite literal. If memory serves, the argument in vedAnta-sUtras goes something like this:

pUrva-pakshin (opponent) states that God must be partial and cruel, because we see that so many jIvas have different positions in life, some suffering and others enjoying.

VyAsa answers that it is not so, because the jIvas have whatever position they have due to their past karmas.

Then pUrva-pakshin states that still God must be partial and cruel, for in order for jIvas to have unequal stations (births) and unequal living situations, they would have to have unequal karmas now. And in order to have unequal karmas now, they must have have started out with unequal karmas thus leading to their currently unequal karmas and the currently unequal situations resulting from those unequal karmas.

VyAsa answers that it is not so, because the karmas of the jIvas are beginningless.

Please note that VyAsa could have attacked other aspects of the pUrva-pakshin's argument, but he did not, which indicates that he implicitly accepts the soundness of the opponent's objections. Instead, VyAsa only speaks of the beginningless karmas of the jIvas - if these karmas were not literally beginningless, then VyAsa's argument falls apart and the pUrva-pakshin's objection stands unrefuted.

Because the "no fall" vAdis say (correctly) that the jIvas' karmas (material actions and reactions) are beginningless, they conclude that the living entity was never in the spiritual world (the latter point is what is actually disputed).

In order to refute this, the authors of _Our Original Position_ have attempted to reinterpet "karma" in the relevant vedAnta-sUtras as referring to any activity, not just material activity and its reactions. This position by the authors of OOP is very difficult to defend and in fact, it does not make sense within the context of the argument VyAsa is attempting to refute. First, spiritual activities do not have reactions, and so there is no reason to think that different spiritual activities in the spiritual world would lead to different kinds of falldown. And if it is stated that living entities did some material activity in the spiritual world which caused the falldown, then this implies that their karmas have a beginning, which is exactly the point that VyAsa had refuted.

I am frankly rather disappointed with the way this debate has been conducted in ISKCON. The vast majority of individuals in my observation, have very little understanding of the actual issues involved, and seem so immature and insecure in their own convictions that they lash out at the other side. There is no reason why this discussion cannot be carried out in a very civil way, but it requires a mutual loyalty and obedience to the shAstra - most specifically the vedAnta-sUtras. One could argue that loyalty to the guru is also required, but my point here is that when someone doubts the guru's position, the *proper* duty of the disciple is to enlighten the doubter by showing the scriptural basis of the guru's words by referring to VedAnta-sUtra. The idea that "we don't care what is in scripture, Srila Prabhupada has already taught us what he wants us to know!" is not the sentiment of a bona fide Vaishnava who has properly understood the meaning of "guru, sAdhu, shAstra." For these three authorities must not be in conflict - otherwise one has likely misunderstood something.

The discussion needs to take place, therefore, without minimizing the agreed upon authorities. Everyone accepts (or is at least required to accept) the authority of shAstra. So one has to be in accord with the shAstric position.

Outside the GaudIya sampradAya, most Vaishnavas that I have met also to the "no-fall" theory based on the "anAdi-karma" of vedAnta-sUtras. To believe in "no-fall" does not imply belief in mAyAvAda, as some less informed individuals have opined. Though I personally do not to "no-fall" vAda, neither do I accept the "interpretation" of "anAdi-karma" offered by the authors of OOP.

Keep in mind also, that this is a very esoteric discussion. Regardless of how we got here, the way out is very clear, and there should be no doubt about it. This is at best academic - but there is nothing wrong in wanting to understand the matter properly so that one does not inadvertently misrepresent it. In that case the subject matter should be approached in a dispassionate way, and one has to be prepared to give up personal biases or opinions (just as one would do in any education endeavor).

Hare Krishna