IN VAIKUNTHA NOT EVEN THE LEAVES FALL
A treatise on the Bondage of the Jiva
This book is the result of controversy. In writing it we were advised to downplay the controversial aspect "because a book on siddhanta should not explicitly bring out controversy." Another reason given is that we must be careful not to date the book. Upon consideration, however, we could not agree with either view. Without the controversy we would not have written the book. Why should this historical fact be hidden?
Further, we also have the example of our previous acaryas. In their writings they often dealt openly with controversy. We find that there is wisdom in this, for by making it open there is less chance that the same circumstances that caused the controversy will recur.
In the ISKCON community this particular controversy where did the conditioned jiva come from or "the jiva-issue" has been smoldering for many years. Now, with the publication of this book, we hope to end the confusion.
In the ISKCON community this particular controversy -where did the conditioned jiva come from or ''the jiva-issue"- has been smoldering for many years. Now, with the publication of this book, we hope to end the confusion. But the confusion may not end. In the Priti-sandarbha, srila jiva Gosvami explains why. He says there are three types of discussions -vada, jalpa, and vitanda. In a veda discussion the motive of all concerned is to find out the truth. This is the ideal kind of discussion. It is for persons who are sober and impartial about the outcome; they simply want to know what is the truth of the matter. They are in the mode of goodness. Jalpa is a discussion wherein one is not interested in what is said by others, whether it has some truth or all of the truth, because one simply wants to be heard. Any other view or contribution is of no interest. This is the way for a person in the mode of passion. A vitanda discussion is in the mode of ignorance. In this version the truth is of no value. One simply wants to win at all costs. We believe that this book will clear the confusion for those persons interested in vada.
Our committment to writing a book on the jiva-issue began when the following letter was posted to the GBC conference on COM:
Text 31415: 27-Aug-9418:16 EDT 1167linesl LINK: Drutakarma (Dasa)
Reply-To: Drutakarma. ACBSP@iskcon.com
Receiver: GBC Body <20>
Subject: once we were with Krsna
Dear GBC members,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Lately I have been receiving inquiries from GBC members, BBTTrust- ees, and temple presidents about my forthcoming book "Once We Were With Krsna", which shows conclusively that Srila Prabhupada's teaching was just as the title says, and that this is in complete harmony with 'Srimad-Bhagavatam" and the teachings of our previous acharyas going back to Lord Caitanya. One controversial feature of this book is that I am directly naming those who hold opposing views and answering them point by point. Since copies of the drafts of some chapters are floating around, by Xerox and computer, I thought it best to make sure all of you, and not just some of you, have an opportunity to see what is coming. The second chapter, on Srila Prabhupada's teachings, is attached to this message. I am attaching the first chapter, on evidence from 'Srimad-Bhagavatam" to another message. The third and final chapter, on the teachings of the previous acharyas, is still being written, but as soon as it is finished I will send it to you. I am also including below the text of a letter to one of the GBC members. It explains why I am taking the step of bringing out this book. Originally, I intended to send it to just that one member, but since interest in the whole issue seems to be widening, I am sending it to all the members.
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Like you, I share an interest that Srila Prabhupada's teachings remain the central focus of ISKCON, and that they be passed down to the next generation unchanged. I fear, however, that all of this is now endangered.
The specific point of my concern is Srila Prabhupada's teachings on the origin of the jiva. Srila Prabhupada addressed this issue many times, and said we have come "from Vaikuntha planet," we were "with Krsna in His lila," etc. It has been said that Srila Prabhupada's views are not supported by shastra and previous acharyas. But my rather extensive investigation of these accusations reveals that they are unfounded. I can produce dozens of statements from Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati that are exactly in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Support for the idea that the jiva was originally with Krishna can also be found in the Bhagavatam and other works. There is nothing in the Sandarbhas of Jiva Goswami that contradicts Srila Prabhupada's teachings, despite the claims of Satyanarayana and Kundali, and others such as Bhanu Swami. I say this on the basis of my own study and on the authority of Gopiparanadhana Prabhu, who has closely examined the relevant passages. One might say, well, perhaps we are just dealing with a case of a transcendental disagree - ment among acharyas. The problem is that one of the acharyas is our founder-acharya. So even if one wants to accept that, then it is clear that in ISKCON we have to take sides, the side of Srila Prabhupada. But I am convinced there is no difference between Srila Prabhupada and any of the major acharyas in our line going back to Lord Caitanya. Some of Srila Prabhupada's God brothers or disciples of his God brothers may have different opinions, but in one hundred years nose of them will be recognized as a great acharya, whereas Srila Prabhupada's place in history as one of the greatest acharyas ever is already assured.
You have asked if there is any role that the GBC could play in resolving this issue. I am not at all hopeful that the GBC can actually do what needs to be done, because so many of the members are doubtful about what Srila Prabhupada said. Some of them, I suspect, actually agree with the position taken by Kundali and Satyanarayana that Srila Prabhupada spoke untruths to his disciples because they were too neophyte to understand the real siddhanta. That is so out of character for Srila Prabhupada that it is hard for me to see how any ISKCON devotee could accept it, unless they are ill-motivated or influenced by someone who is ill-motivated.
Basically, I think this issue will be settled, if at all, in the marketplace of ideas, where I am accustomed to function in a direct and confrontational manner. Nevertheless, I will outline a series of actions that I think the GBC could take to deal with the issue, if it so desired.
Excerpts from Jaiva Dharma by Bhaktivinoda Thakura :
Babaji: There are unlimited jivas who are eternal associates of the Lord. In Goloka Vrndavana they are manifested by Lord Baladeva for the service of Lord Krsna. In Vaikuntha they are manifested by Sri Sankarsana for the service of Lord Narayana, the Lord of Vaikuntha. They are eternally and blissfully engaged in the service of their svarupa, always striving to make the Lord happy, always favorable to the service of the Lord, and always powerful with the energy of the cit-sakti. They have absolutely no relation or contact with the inert maya. Indeed, they do not even know that there is an energy called maya. Because they live in the spiritual region, maya remains very far from them. They are always absorbed in the bliss of service to their worshipable Lord. They are transcendental to mundane misery and happiness and are always liberated. Their very life is love, and they have no conception of lamentation, fear, and death.
The atomic conscious jivas, who come out like rays from Maha-Visnu's glance at maya, are also uncountable. Being in proximity to maya, these jivas see the variegatedness of maya. They have all the characteristics of the ordinary jivas as described before, yet because of their atomic nature they sometimes glance marginally towards the spiritual creation and sometimes towards the material creation. In this marginal state the jiva is weak, because he has not yet attained spiritual power by the mercy of the worshipable Lord. Out of these unlimited jivas, the ones who desire to enjoy maya remain eternally bound by maya, because of being attached to sense enjoyment. Those who engage in devotional service to the Lord go to the spiritual world getting the strength of the cit-sakti by the mercy of the Lord...
Vrajanatha: Lord Krsna is the embodiment of mercy. Why did He make the jiva weak and thereby cause his bondage by maya? (Note: Jiva here refers only to the conditioned souls).
Babaji: It is right that Krsna is merciful, but He is also lilamaya, or one who performs only lila. Considering that various types of lilas will be performed under various situations, the Lord made the jiva competent for unlimited gradations of positions from the marginal state up to the topmost platform of mahabhava. To facilitate the jivas and make them firm in their competence for these various positions, He created many low levels associated with maya which present unlimited obstacles in the attainment of the Supreme bliss. These range from the lowest inert matter up to false ego. The living entities bound by maya are in ignorance of their svarupa, engaged in acquiring pleasure for themselves, and not devoted to Krsna. In this state, as much as the jiva goes down that much more the merciful Lord, becoming manifest before him along with the facility to attain the ultimate destination. Those jivas who accept that facility try to achieve this highest destination. Gradually they reach the transcendental abode of the Lord and attain the exact same status as His eternal associates.
Back of Book:
There are two kinds of living entitles. Nitya-baddha means ever-conditioned. Ever-conditioned means those who are in this material world, they do not know when they came in touch with this material world. Neither do they know when they will be liberated. They are called nitya-baddha, ever-conditioned. And similarly, there are nitya-siddhas. Nitya-siddha means they never come in contact with this material world, and even they come here for some business, they do not forget their position. That is nitya-siddha. Try to understand. (Bg. Lecture, 1973)
The position of the nitya-siddhas is explained in the Padma Purana in connection with the narration of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Satyabhama-devi. The Lord tells Satyabhama, "My dear Satyabhama-devi, I have descended to this earthly planet by the request of Lord Brahma and other demigods. Those who are born into this family of Yadu are all My eternal associates. My dear wife, you should not consider that My associates are ever separated from Me; they are My personal expansions, and as such, you must know that they are almost as powerful as I am. Because of their transcendental qualities, they are very, very dear to Me, as I am very, very dear to them." (Nectar of Devotion)
This book has five parts or waves. Each wave is divided into chapters. The book should be read in order because information presented often builds on the earlier chapters. There is also some repetition of key points and arguments.
In the First Wave we present the siddnente of our perempere and the verdict of the sestre on the jiva's bondage. We also cite numerous references from Srila Prabhupada that no one falls from vaikuntha. The last three chapters explain the word enedi. A clear understanding of this word is very important, for it leaves no room for doubt as to the origin of the jiva in conditioned exist- ence.
In the Second Wave, while establishing that preaching does not always mean presenting the siddhanta, we cite some histori- cal examples of such preaching strategy being used by our pre- decessor acaryas, including Srila Vyasadeva. We also show that reconciling is one of the important duties of faithful followers of the spiritual master, and that logic based on sastra has a vital role in such reconciliation. We conclude this wave by reconciling the siddnanta of no fall from Vaikuntha with Srlia Prabhupada's statements that we fell from vaikuntha.
In the Third Wave we refute the main objections of those who believe that the jiva fell from the spiritual world to become a con- ditioned soul. Throughout this book, for the sake of brevity, we refer to them as fall-vadis. Here we also refute the attempts to support the tau-vaca theory found in the first two chapters of the book Once We Were With Krsna.
In the Fourth Wave we present nineteen chapters filled with many wonderful scriptural and logical arguments of further evi- dence in favor of the no-fall down siddhanta. The Fifth Wave is only one chapter. Here we list the many philosophical inconsis- tencies in accepting that nitya-siddhas can fall from Vaikuntha as our siddhanta and give our concluding remarks.
First Wave: Siddhanta
|The Origin Of The Jiva According To Srila Bhaktivinoda||
|More From The Teachings of Srila Bhaktivinoda||
|The Origin of The Jiva According To Srila Bhaktisiddhanta||
|The Origin of The Jiva According To Srila Prabhupada||
|Evidence From Other Acaryas And From Sruti And Smrti||
|Srila Jiva Gosvami: no One Falls From Vaikuntha||
|Nitya-Muktas Never Contact The Material Energy||
|The Meaning of Anadi: Part One||
|The Meaning of Anadi: Part Two||
|The Meaning of Anadi: Part Three||
Second Wave: Reconciliation
|Preaching Does Not Always Mean The Siddhanta||
|Logic Based on Sastra is One of Our Pramanas||
|All Knowledge Must Rest On Sastra||
|The Svakiya/Parakiya Controversy||
|On Reconciliation And Preaching Strategy||
|Why Prabhupada Said We Fell From Vaikuntha||
|"I Did Not Deviate An Inch"||
Third Wave: Objections
|What About The Story of Vaidarbhi And The Brahmana?||
|Did Sarupa Fall From Goloka?||
|Sri Navadvipa Bhava-Taranga||
|What About The General/Special Principle?||
|What About Statements Like "Forgetting Krsna, the Living Entity...?||
|What About Statements That Even Liberated Souls Fall?||
|Why Did Srila Prabhupada Call His Magazine Back To Godhead?||
|What About The Sequential Stages of The Jiva's Fall?||
|What About Our Free Will?||
|Only Those Who Go Back Never Fall Down||
|What Does it Mean We Are "Fallen Souls"?||
|Where Do The Nitya-Baddhas Come From If Not From Vaikuntha?||
|More Refutations To Once We Were With Krsna||
Fourth Wave: Additional Evidence
|Bhakti Is Eternal||
|The Logic Of Love||
|"Bahirmukha" Does Not Mean Envious||
|No Sanskrit Term For Fallen Devotees||
|A Devotee Never Slips or Falls And He Is Not Insane To Jump||
|The Lord Gives Bliss And Is Controlled By His Devotees||
|The Glories of Devotees||
|The Lord Protects Even The Relatives Of A Devotee:||
|The Lord Is A Devotee of His Devotees||
|Spiritual Nature Is Eternal||
|Nitya-Siddhas Are As Good AS Krsna||
|The Lord Nourishes His Devotees||
|The Lord Protects His Devotee||
|Power of Bhakti Performed Once||
|Jaya and Vijaya Did Not Fall||
|Association of Devotees||
|Additional Thoughts On Free Will||
|The Verdict of Other Vaisnava Sampradayas||
Fifth Wave: Conclusion
|Fall From Vaikuntha Is Not Our Siddhanta||
"Our Original Position" ERRATA
The following is an informal gathering of objections, faults and other irregularities found by IskCon's party in
"Our Original Position," the official Iskcon published position on the "Origin of the Jiva" issue.
OOP = Our Original Position
The book (OOP) does not properly represent Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy nor does it properly represent
the teachings and conclusions of our spiritual master Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada.
·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).
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..."
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.
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.
· 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.
· 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.
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?
ya drsta nikhilagha-sangha-samani sprsta vapuh pavani
raganamabhivandita nirasani siktantakatrasini
pratyasatti-vidhayini bhagavatah krsnasya samropita
nyasta laccarane vimukti-phalada tasyai tulasyai namah
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):
samasta-vaikuntha-shriomanau shri-krsnasya vrndavana-dhanya-dhamni
dattadhikare vrsabhanu-putrya vrnde namas te caranaravindam
"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.
Historical Account of the Greatest Shame of the Present ISKCON-GBC Leaders
SABOTAGE & CONCLUSION
Jivas and the marginal plane
Eleven points of discussion on Jiva-tattva
- IN VAIKUNTHA NOT EVEN THE LEAVES FALL - NOT REALLY :-)
Download PDF » in-vaikuntha-not-even-the-leaves-fall.pdf