ONCE WE WERE WITH KRISHNA
by Drutakarma Dasa
Chapter One
Evidence on the original state of the jiva from
Srimad-Bhagavatam
In his Tattva-sandarbha, Jiva Goswami elaborately explains how Srimad-Bhagavatam is the best source of knowledge about the Absolute Truth. He therefore quotes it throughout his Sat- Sandarbha as the highest authority. We also know from the Bhagavatam itself that it is the spotless Purana, the ripened fruit of the tree of Vedic knowledge, composed by Srila Vyasadeva as a commentary on the Vedanta-sutra. There can thus be no better source of knowledge about the origin of the jiva than the Bhagavatam. The question can be settled on this basis alone. In this chapter, I have therefore gathered together in one place, and in revised form, all the material from the Bhagavatam that has appeared in various of my previous writings on the topic of the origin of the jiva.
Fourth Canto: The Brahmana and Queen Vaidarbhi
For some very direct statements about the original home of the jiva, we may turn to the passages in the Fourth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam that deal with the instructions of the brahmana to Queen Vaidarbhi after the death of her husband. It is clear from the texts and purports that the "brahmana" is, within the allegory, the Supersoul, Krsna Himself. The brahmana says to Queen Vaidarbhi:
"Who are you? Whose wife or daughter are you? Who is the man lying there? It appears you are lamenting for this dead body. Don't you recognize Me? I am your eternal friend. You may remember that many times in the past you have consulted Me. My dear friend, even though you cannot immediately recognize Me, can't you remember that in the past you had a very intimate friend? Unfortunately, you gave up My company and accepted a position as enjoyer of this material world. My dear gentle friend, both you and I are exactly like two swans. We live together in the same heart, which is just like the Manasa lake. Although we have been living together for many thousands of years, we are still far away from our original home." (Bhag. 4.28. 52-54)
Some (Bhanu Swami, B. R. Sadhu Swami, Satyanarayana Prabhu, Kundali Prabhu) have argued that all of these statements refer only to the relationship of the jiva soul with the Supersoul. But the Supersoul is none other than the localized aspect of Krsna Himself. Therefore, the words of the Supersoul can be taken as those of Krsna Himself. The following statements by Srila Prabhupada from a Bhagavad-gita lecture will help us understand how to see the Supersoul as a manifestation of Krsna Himself.
"Krsna can expand Himself--ananta-rupam. Ananta means unlimited. Just like in the Bhagavad-gita it is said, isvarah sarva-bhutanam hrd-dese 'rjuna tisthati. Now, we are individual souls. So we are also associated with Krsna, as Paramatma within the heart.... [p. 280] He's so...just looking after the opportunity when this living entity...
mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah manah
sasthanindriyani prakrti-sthani karsati
He is struggling for existence in this material world with his concocted mind and senses. So Krsna is looking for the opportunity when the living entity will come back to Him. Because we are all sons. "So father, if the son is bewildered, gone out of the home and loitering in the street, the father is very anxious to get him back, although the son has forgotten. This is the position. Therefore, as Paramatma, He's guiding us. Sarvasya caham hrdi sannivistah. 'I am sitting in everyone's heart.' Mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca. From Him, we get the remembrance. "I wanted to enjoy something. Krsna gives us full opportunity: 'Now here is the opportunity. You can do it.' Anumanta. He's so kind. But that is not our actual business. Our actual business is to go back to home, back to Godhead, not to enjoy this material world.... [p. 281] Just try to understand what is the position of Krsna. He is situated as Paramatma in everyone's heart. Isvarah sarva-bhutanam hrd-dese 'rjuna tisthati. And He's giving direction to everyone. And there are unlimited, innumerable living entities. So He has to give instruction in different ways to so many living entities. How much busy He is, just try to imagine. Still, His position is the same. Goloka eva nivasaty akhilatma-bhutah. Goloka eva nivasati. Krsna is still in His own original place, Goloka Vrndavana, and He's enjoying in the company of Srimati Radharani....Because He has expanded Himself in so many hearts of the living entities, that does not mean that He is finished in His own abode. No. Still He's there. That is Krsna." (Collected Lectures on Bhagavad-gita As It Is, pp. 279-281, Bombay, March 25, 1974) So it is Krsna who is speaking as Supersoul to Queen Vaidarbhi. When the Supersoul is speaking, it is on behalf of Krsna. Otherwise, the statements do not make sense. For example, the brahmana says, "Unfortunately, you gave up My company and accepted a position as enjoyer of this material world." The Sanskrit for "you gave up My company" is hitva mam. The Supersoul always accompanies the conditioned soul in the material world. So there is no question of a jiva giving up the company of the Supersoul to take up a position as enjoyer of the material world. Here, therefore, the Supersoul is speaking of Himself as Krsna and not as His localized aspect. Interpreted in this way, the statement makes sense. We have left Krsna (not Supersoul), but Krsna accompanies us as Supersoul and reminds us that we have left Him.
The next words (padam anvicchan) explain why the jiva left Krsna. Padam means "position" and anvicchan means "desiring." This indicates desire for a position as an independent enjoyer. And then the verse says bhauma-bhoga-rato gatah. The synonym for bhauma is "material." Bhoga means "enjoyment," ratah means "attached to," and gatah means "you became." So the whole progression is that the soul, desiring an independent position, leaves Krsna and becomes attached to material enjoyment. The Supersoul begins to accompany the jiva only when the jiva manifests this desire for an independent position and material enjoyment. Therefore it makes no sense for the Supersoul, simply as Supersoul, to tell the conditioned soul that it left the Supersoul to take up an independent position as an enjoyer of material pleasure. Before the jiva develops a desire for an independent position as material enjoyer, the jiva has no relationship with Supersoul. There is no need for it. So when the Supersoul is speaking, He is speaking on behalf of Krsna. It is Krsna--not Supersoul--that the soul gives up to take up an independent position as enjoyer of material pleasure.
One might propose that even in the material world, one can become aware of the guidance of the Supersoul and give it up, just as one can accept a spiritual master and then give up his instruction. But that is not what is being said here. The brahmana is telling Vaidarbhi about her original position, before she entered the material world.
This is emphatically stated in the following section of the above quoted passage:
"My dear gentle friend, both you and I are exactly like two swans. We live together in the same heart, which is just like the Manasa lake. Although we have been living together for many thousands of years, we are still far away from our original home." (Bhag. 4.28.54)
The Sanskrit is straightforward. Abhutam antara vaukah. The synonyms are abhutam--became, antara--separated, va--indeed, okah--from the original home. If we accept that the Supersoul is speaking on behalf of Krsna, the above makes sense. The Supersoul and the individual soul have been living for a long time in the same heart, but their original home is elsewhere-- namely, the spiritual world. If we propose the Supersoul is speaking as Supersoul only, then the statement does not make sense. Supersoul is present with the individual soul in the heart of the jiva only within the material cosmos. So where is their original home, where they previously existed?
In his purport to Bhag. 4.28.54, Srila Prabhupada gives a very clear explanation.
"The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the spiritual world. In the spiritual world both the Lord and the living entities live together very peacefully. Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when the living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world. Even while in that position, the Lord remains with him as the Supersoul, his intimate friend."
Srila Prabhupada states: "Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world." This statement refutes the theory that the jiva in his original condition possesses merely the potential for a relationship with Krsna. It is clearly stated: "the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord." This sentence of the purport also refutes the theory that the jiva originally exists in the brahmajyoti, displaying only the sat feature of existence. In addition, it rules out the possibility that the original position of the jivas is within Mahavisnu--the jivas within Mahavisnu are described as being in an unconscious state of suspended animation. Srila Prabhupada clearly states that the living entity is enjoying ananda in company with the Lord. He says: "they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world."
But when the jiva comes to the material world, he is accompanied by the Supersoul. As we have seen, the Supersoul appears before Queen Vaidarbhi as a brahmana.
Srila Prabhupada comments:
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Paramatma, appeared before the queen as a brahmana, but why didn't He appear in His original form of Sri Krsna?" (Bhag. 4.28.51, purport).
This question indicates that it could just as well have been Sri Krsna who addressed the words "in the past you had a very intimate friend" to the Queen. Prabhupada answers the question he raised thus:
"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura remarks that unless one is very highly elevated in loving the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one cannot see Him as He is." (Bhag. 4.28.51, purport).
The question and its answer confirm that the original intimate friendly relationship of the Queen was with Krsna, and not His Supersoul expansion. That point is also made in the above quoted purport by Srila Prabhupada to Bhag. 4.28.54. There Srila Prabhupada says:
"The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the spiritual world.... However, when the living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world. Even while in that position, the Lord remains with him as the Supersoul, his intimate friend."
It is thus clear that the jiva's relationship with Supersoul begins after his departure from Krsna.
In his speech to Queen Vidarbhi (Bhag. 4.28.53), the brahmana makes reference to her avijnata-sakham ("unknown friend"). In text 4.29.3, Narada Muni, who told the story of the brahmana and Queen Vaidarbhi, says:
yo 'vijnatahrtas tasya purusasya sakhesvarah yan na
vijnayate pumbhir namabhir va kriya-gunaih
"The person I have described as unknown [avijnata] is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master and eternal friend of the living entity. Since the living entities cannot realize the Supreme Personality of Godhead by material names, activities, or qualities, He remains everlastingly unknown to the conditioned soul."
The relevant synonyms are purusasya--of the living entity, sakha--the eternal friend, and isvarah--the master. Srila Prabhupada, by saying in his translation that the unknown friend is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, makes clear his identity. Furthermore, the purport to 4.29.3 is all about how Krsna's pastimes and qualities (not Supersoul's) are unknown to the conditioned soul. Identifying the unknown person with the Supreme Lord, Krsna, is consistent with this whole section of the Bhagavatam. Identifying him with Supersoul or Mahavisnu is not.
The purport to text 4.28.53 sheds some more light on the original state of the jiva and the cause of its fall into the material world. Srila Prabhupada says:
"By misusing his independence, the living entity falls down from the service of the Lord and takes a position in this material world as an enjoyer." Also: "The vibbhinamsa expansions, the marginal potencies of the Lord, are the living entities. When the living entities desire to enjoy themselves, they develop a consciousness of duality and come to hate the service of the Lord. In this way the living entities fall into the material world."
The statement "falls down from the service of the Lord" is quite explicit. One might say this is just Srila Prabhupada's particular way of explaining things. So let us go back to the Bhagavatam texts. Text 4.28.55 says:
sa tvam vihaya mam bandho gato gramya-matir mahim vicaran
padam adraksih kayacin nirmitam striya
"My dear friend, you are now My very same friend. Since you left Me, you have become more and more materialistic, and not seeing Me, you have been traveling in different forms throughout this material world, which was created by some woman."
The important synonyms are: sah--that swan, tvam-- yourself, vihaya--leaving, mam-- Me, bandho--O friend, gatah--went, gramya--material, matih-- consciousness, mahim-- to earth, kayacin--by someone, nirmitam--manufactured, striya--by a woman.
It is very hard to get around the implications of this. Krsna and the jiva were friends before the jiva entered the material world. The jiva left Him and came to the material world.
Srila Prabhupada explains in his purport:
"When the living entity falls down, he goes into the material world, which was created by the external energy of the Lord. The material energy is here described as 'some woman.'"
All of this indicates that the original relationship of intimate friendship described in this section of the Bhagavatam is a relationship with Krsna and not just with Supersoul. The relationship with Supersoul begins when the jiva leaves Krsna and is put into the material world, which is created by Maya ("some woman"). So before entering the material creation, the jiva was with someone. That someone can only be Krsna or Narayana. Otherwise, the statement that the jiva leaves the Lord to come to the material world makes no sense. When the jiva leaves the Lord, the Lord comes with him as Supersoul. And through Supersoul, Krsna advises the soul to return to Him. Srila Prabhupada says in his purport (Bhag. 4.28.55):
"Actually, it is Krsna who personally advises all living entities to return home, back to Godhead."
This follows from the previous verse (4.28.54), which said (words in brackets inserted by me):
"Although we have been living together for many thousands of years [as soul and Supersoul], we are still far away from our original home."
This means that Krsna and the jiva are from the same place, which is called their home--the home of both of them.
We can now proceed to consider the following text (Bhag.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."
Asruta smrtih is translated by Srila Prabhupada as "without remembrance of spiritual existence." The nature of that spiritual existence, intimate friendship with Krsna, has been described in previous verses.
This point is made even more emphatically in text 4.28.64:
evam sa manaso hamso hamsena pratibodhitah sva-sthas tad
vyabhicarena nastam apa punah smrtim
"In this way both swans live together in the heart. When the one swan is instructed by the other, he is situated in his constitutional position. This means he regains his original Krsna consciousness, which was lost because of his material attraction."
The translation is very clear. The living being was originally Krsna conscious. And he lost this Krsna consciousness because of material attraction. And when he is properly instructed he goes back to his original Krsna consciousness. The clear identity between the original state of the jiva before falldown with the position achieved after liberation is important. It rules out, for example, the theory that the jiva was originally with Mahavisnu. That theory would make this Bhagavatam verse and many others meaningless, in terms of the direct sense of the words. If the jiva was originally with Mahavisnu, but goes to Krsna upon liberation, how can it be said that "he regains his original Krsna consciousness." Also, what about the statements krsna bahir mukha and nitya-siddha krsna prema given by our predecessor acaryas?
The Sanskrit here in 4.28.64 is very clear.
The synonyms given by Srila Prabhupada are nastam--which was lost, apa--gained, punah-- again, smrtim--real memory.
In other words, that which was lost is regained. I do not see how anyone can argue with this. It is right there in the Bhagavatam, in the Sanskrit. And the purport, naturally, goes right along with it. Here follow some excerpts.
"When the inferior swan is separated from the other swan, he is attracted to material enjoyment. This is the cause of his falldown. When he hears the instructions of the other swan, he understands his real position and is again revived to his original consciousness." (Bhag. 4.28.64, purport)
"The word sva-sthah, meaning `situated in one's original position,' is very significant in this verse. When one gives up his unwanted attitude of superiority, he becomes situated in his original position. The word tad-vyabhicarena is also significant, for it indicates that when one is separated from God due to disobedience, his real sense is lost. Again, by the grace of Krsna and guru, he can be properly situated in his liberated position. These verses are spoken by Srila Narada Muni, and his purpose in speaking them is to revive our consciousness." (Bhag. 4.28.64, purport)
Narada Muni further states in text 4.29.26:
yadatmanam avijnaya bhagavantam param gurum purusas tu
visajjeta gunesu prakrteh sva-drk
"The living entity by nature has minute independence to choose his own good or bad fortune, but when he forgets his supreme master, the Personality of Godhead, he gives himself up to unto the modes of material nature."
The important synonyms are: atmanam--the Supreme Soul, avijnaya--forgetting, bhagavantam--the Supreme Personality of Godhead, param--supreme, gurum--the instructor. All of these indicate that one forgets the Supreme Lord Krsna. Note the word bhagavantam, clearly indicating Krsna, not simply the Supersoul. Advocates of the theory that the jivas were originally with Mahavisnu may note that Mahavisnu is in the category of Paramatma, or Supersoul, not Bhagavan.
In his purport, Srila Prabhupada states:
"It is clearly stated herein that the living entity has a little independence, indicated by the word sva-drk, meaning `one who can see his own welfare.' The living entity's constitutional position is very minute, and he can be misled in his choice. He may choose to imitate the Supreme Personality of Godhead. A servant may desire to start his own business and imitate his master, and when he chooses to do so, he may leave the protection of his master. Sometimes he is a failure, and sometimes he is successful. Similarly, the living entity, part and parcel of Krsna, starts his own business to compete with the Lord." (Bhag. 4.29.26, purport)
It is clear that originally there is a master-servant relationship going on, and that it gets forgotten. Liberation means remembering it. This purport also answers a common question: why, if a soul in the spiritual world is enjoying the highest happiness, does it make a choice that leads it to suffering? The answer is that the soul thinks that by taking the position of Krsna he will become even more happy. It is a characteristic of spiritual happiness that it is constantly increasing, but by trying to increase his happiness by imitating the Lord rather than intensifying his service to the Lord, the jiva makes a fundamental mistake.
Narada Muni also says (4.29.48):
svam lokam na vidus te vai yatra devo janardanah ahuh
dhumra-dhiyo vedam sakarmakam atad-vidah
"Those who are less intelligent accept the Vedic ritualistic ceremonies as all in all. They do not know that the purpose of the Vedas is to understand one's own home, where the Supreme Personality of Godhead lives. Not being interested in their real home, they are illusioned and search after other homes."
The important synonyms are: svam--own, lokam--abode, na--never, viduh--know, te-- such persons, vai--certainly, yatra--where, devah--the Supreme Personality of Godhead, janardanah--Krsna, or Visnu.
Here Narada Muni speaks of the home of the living entity as svam lokam, his own planet, where Krsna lives, not some borderline.
Srila Prabhupada comments:
"Generally people are not aware of their interest in life--to return home, back to Godhead. People do not know about their real home in the spiritual world. In the spiritual world there are many Vaikuntha planets, and the topmost planet is Krsnaloka, Goloka Vrndavana . . . The real attempt should now be to return home, back to Godhead." (Bhag. 4.29.48, purport)
On the basis of this section of the Bhagavatam alone, the whole question of the origin of the jiva can be settled. Originally, the jiva was with Krsna, actively engaged in His service. The only way around this is to propose that Srila Prabhupada mistranslated the Sanskrit of many texts and then gave incorrect commentaries. But the Sanskrit itself is quite clear, as we have shown. Srila Prabhupada's translation and purport flow quite naturally from the original text. Some have proposed that Srila Prabhupada deliberately said things he did not really believe in his Bhagavatam translations and purports. But this is completely out of character for Srila Prabhupada. Therefore, it is just a roundabout way of saying that Srila Prabhupada did not know what he was doing. But certain critics know that if they were to openly say this, they would immediately lose whatever standing they have in ISKCON. So to cover themselves, they say Srila Prabhupada wrote things he did not really believe.
Now that we have established the clear meaning of the statements of the brahmana to Queen Vaidarbhi, we can then turn to other statements from the Bhagavatam.
Second Canto: Lord Brahma
In Bhag. 2.5.19, Lord Brahma states:
karya-karana-kartrtve dravya-jnana-kriyasrayah badhnanti
nityada muktam mayinam purusam gunah
"These three modes of material nature, being further manifested as matter, knowledge, and activities, put the eternally transcendental living entity under conditions of cause and effect and make him responsible for such activities."
The key synonyms are: badhnanti--conditions, nityada--eternally, muktam--transcendental, and purusam--the living entity.
In this text of the Bhagavatam, we find Lord Brahma clearly stating that the original state of the soul is nityada-mukta, or eternally liberated. But upon turning from Krsna, the soul is bound by the material energy. This refutes the theory that the jivas in the material world are eternally conditioned in the sense of never having had a relationship with Krsna. In his purport, Srila Prabhupada says:
"Because they are between the internal and external potencies, the eternally transcendental living entities are called the marginal potency of the Lord. Factually, the living entities are not meant to be so conditioned by material energy, but due to their being affected by the false sense of lording it over the material energy, they come under the influence of such potency and thus become conditioned by the three modes of material nature. This external energy of the Lord covers up the pure knowledge of the living entity's eternally existing with Him, but the covering is so constant that it appears that the conditioned soul is eternally ignorant."
So here we have the true meaning of the term nitya-baddha (eternally conditioned), explained by Srila Prabhupada and confirmed in the Bhagavatam itself. Lord Brahma clearly says that the living entity in the material world is a nitya-mukta soul (nityada muktam purusam) that has come under the influence of the material modes of nature. All souls are originally nitya mukta, but some come to the material world and appear as if eternally ignorant. Significantly, Srila Prabhupada says that the "external energy of the Lord covers up the pure knowledge of the living entity's eternally existing with Him."
Second Canto: Sukadeva Goswami
In Bhag. 2.5.19 (above), we learned that the soul is originally nityada-mukta (eternally liberated). In text 2.10.6, Sukadeva Goswami gives the classic definition of mukti:
muktir hitvanyatha rupam sva-rupena vyavasthitih
The synonyms are: muktih--liberation, hitva--giving up, anyatha-- otherwise, rupam--form, sva- rupena--in constitutional form, vyavasthitih--permanent situation.
Srila Prabhupada's translation is: "Liberation is the permanent situation of the form of the living being after he gives up the changeable gross and subtle material bodies."
In his purport to 2.10.6, Srila Prabhupada says,
"...some of the conditioned souls, who follow the transcendental sound in the form of the Vedic literatures and are thus able to go back to Godhead, attain spiritual and original bodies after quitting the conditional gross and subtle bodies. The material conditional bodies develop out of the living entities' forgetfulness of their relationship with Godhead, and during the course of the cosmic manifestation, the conditioned souls are given a chance to revive their original status of life with the help of revealed scriptures, so mercifully compiled by the Lord in His different incarnations."
So if we accept that the conditioned souls in this material world were originally nityada-mukta, as stated in text 2.5.19, and also accept the definition of mukti given in text 2.10.6, it is clear the that jiva originally had a spiritual body and relationship with Krsna. This conclusion is definitely in line with the above purport by Srila Prabhupada, who speaks of "spiritual and original bodies," the jivas' "forgetfulness of their relationship with Godhead," and the conditioned souls "being given a chance to revive their original status of life." Thus, my view (once we were with Krsna), the Bhagavatam verses 2.5.19 and 2.10.6, taken directly, and Srila Prabhupada's translations and purports, taken directly, are harmonious. If another view is taken (we were never with Krsna), the harmony disappears. One must interpret the texts in indirect fashion (nityada-mukta does not mean originally eternally liberated and sva-rupena does not mean one's original form). One must also propose that Srila Prabhupada's explicit statements in his translations and purports are incorrect or are simply figurative language that means something other than the dictionary definitions of the words. This is reminiscent of the standard Mayavadi tactic of subjecting the Vedic texts to imaginative speculative interpretations by the method of giving up the direct and simple meaning of the words.
Third Canto: Lord Kapila
In the Third Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam, we find the following verse:
yan-mayayoru-guna-karma-nibandhane 'smin samsarike pathi
caranti carams tad-abhisramena nasta-smrtih punar ayam
pravrnita lokam yuktya kaya mahad-anugraham antarena
"The human soul further prays: The living entity is put under the influence of material nature and continues a hard struggle for existence on the path of repeated birth and death. This conditional life is due to his forgetfulness of his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, without the Lord's mercy, how can he again engage in the transcendental loving service to the Lord." (Bhag. 3.31.15).
This passage is from the prayers spoken by the soul within the womb, as explained by Lord Kapila to His mother Devahuti, So this information is being related by the Supreme Lord Himself, as part of His teachings to Devahuti. Who can be a greater expert about the original condition of the jiva than the Supreme Lord Himself?
The key synonyms are: nasta--lost; smrtih--memory; punah-- again; ayam--this living entity; pravrnita--may realize; lokam-- his true nature.
If the jiva had never before experienced his true nature, there would be no question of using the terms nasta-smrtih (lost memory) and punah pravrnita (again realize). In other words, when we attain realization of our eternal relationship with Krsna, this is something we had before and have forgotten. We attain what we once had. This rules out, for example, the theory that the jiva was originally with Mahavisnu and that when the jiva is liberated, it goes to Krsna or Narayana. This Mahavisnu theory is a rather desperate attempt on the part of some confused individuals to keep both their idea that we were never with Krsna and their adherence to Srila Prabhupada's teachings. These two things are, however, incompatible. Eventually, the confused persons are going to have to make a choice. I hope they make the right one.
In his purport to the above text (3.31.15), Srila Prabhupada makes these statements:
"It is clearly said herein that our memory is lost because we are now covered by His material energy. Arguments may be put forward as to why we have been put under the influence of the material energy of the Lord. This is explained in Bhagavad-gita, where the Lord says, 'I am sitting in everyone's heart, and due to Me one is forgetful or one is alive in knowledge.' The forgetfulness of the conditioned soul is also due to the direction of the Supreme Lord. A living entity misuses his little independence when he wants to lord it over material nature. This misuse of independence, which is called maya, is always available, otherwise there would be no independence. Independence implies that one can use it properly or improperly. It is not static; it is dynamic. Therefore, misuse of independence is the cause of being influenced by maya."
Note that it is not maya that causes the misuse of independence. Independence is an eternal spiritual quality of the marginal potency, and its misuse is therefore not due to any material influence in Vaikuntha. The ability to choose to serve or not serve Krsna is an inherent spiritual quality of the marginal potency. Only when independence is misused does one come under the influence of maya.
In another Third Canto purport (Bhag. 3.26.7), Srila Prabhupada says:
"Whatever the material energy dictates, the conditioned soul does. He has no responsibility; he is simply the witness of the action, but he is forced to act in that way due to his offense in his eternal relationship with Krsna."
Text 3.31.14 of the Bhagavatam may be considered in light of text 3.31.15, discussed above.
yah panca-bhuta-racite rahitah sarire cchanno
'yathendriya-gunartha-cid-atmako 'ham
tenavikuntha-mahimanam rsim tam enam vande param
prakrti-purusayoh pumamsam
"I am separated from the Supreme Lord because of my being in this material body, which is made of five elements, and therefore my qualities and senses are being misused, although I am essentially spiritual. Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is transcendental to material nature and the living entities, because He is devoid of such a material body, and because He is always glorious in His spiritual qualities, I offer my obeisances unto Him."
The key synonym is rahitah--separated.
In his purport, Srila Prabhupada says:
"In the Vedas it is said that the living entity is always free. Asango hy ayam purusah. The living entity is liberated. His material condition is temporary, and his actual position is that he is liberated."
This may be of interest to those who assert that the jiva is originally not liberated.
Fourth Canto: Maharaja Prthu
In Bhag. 4.20.25., Maharaja Prthu prays:
sa uttamasloka mahan-mukha-cyuto
bhavat-padambhoja-sudha-kananilah smrtim punar
vismrta-tattva-vartmanam kuyoginam no vitaraty alam varaih
"My dear Lord, You are glorified by the selected verses uttered by great personalities. Such glorification of Your lotus feet is just like saffron particles. When the transcendental vibration from the mouths of great devotees carries the aroma of the saffron dust of Your lotus feet, the forgetful living entity gradually remembers his eternal relationship with You...."
The key synonyms are in the third and fourth lines:
smrtim-- remembrance, punah--again, vismrta--forgotten, tattva--to the truth, vartmanam--of persons whose path, ku-yoginam--of persons not in the line of devotional service, nah--of us, vitarati-- restores.
The verse begins by mentioning the glorification of the Lord. The great souls glorify the Lord. When the fallen souls (the kuyogis) hear this, their remembrance (smrtim) is restored, as indicated by the word punah (again). From the construction of this verse there can be no doubt about what is being remembered--it is the relationship of the living entity with the Lord. If there was no previous relationship with the Lord, the word smrtim becomes meaningless.
Srila Prabhupada comments in his purport:
"The transcendental vibration from the mouth of a pure devotee is so powerful it can revive the living entity's memory of his eternal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
It is abundantly clear that the original position of the living entity is one of direct service to the Lord, and that he has now forgotten this. Srila Prabhupada further explains:
"In our material existence, under the influence of illusory maya, we have almost forgotten our eternal relationship with the Lord, exactly like a man sleeping very deeply who forgets his duties."
Since Srila Prabhupada says our condition is exactly like that of a sleeping man who forgets his duties, we may know that in our original waking condition we were engaged in direct duties in relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Srila Prabhupada says:
"As expressed in a song by Thakura Bhaktivinoda, Lord Caitanya says, 'jiva jago, jiva jago.' The Lord asks every sleeping living entity to get up and engage in devotional service so that his mission in this human form of life may be fulfilled . . . . As soon as a sleeping living entity hears the powerful voice emanating from the mouth of a pure devotee, he immediately remembers his eternal relationship with the Lord, although up until that moment he had forgotten everything." The word "remember" is significant. It indicates the living entity was once established in a relationship with Krsna. As Srila Prabhupada explains:
"Every one of us is kuyogi [a person not in the line of devotional service] because we have engaged in the service of this material world, forgetting our eternal relationship with the Lord as His eternal loving servants."
It is clear that the original position of the living being is one of direct loving service--not a position of dormant service in the brahmajyoti or in some imaginary borderline. Advocates of the Mahavisnu theory may note that there is no eternal loving relationship with Mahavisnu. Mahavisnu exists simply to direct the affairs of the conditioned souls in the material cosmos. If the living entities had not given up their loving relationship with Krsna or Narayana, there would be no need for Mahavisnu.
The above quoted verse is very instructive. For those who want to say that the conditioned souls had no previous developed relationship with Krsna, the only way out is to say that Srila Prabhupada mistranslated this verse and gave an incorrect commentary upon it. They would then have to offer their own translation, which would involve giving indirect interpretations of the very clear words such as smrtim punah. And they would also have to give a commentary contradicting that of Srila Prabhupada. Such persons would be placing themselves as better translators and explainers of the Bhagavatam than Srila Prabhupada.
Sixth Canto: Vrtrasura
In his Sri Sanmodaya Bhasyam commentary on Lord Caitanya's Siksastaka text 5, Bhaktivinoda Thakura quotes this verse from the Sixth Canto of the Bhagavatam.:
aham hare tava padaika-mula- dasanudaso bhavitasmi bhuyah
manah smaretasu-pater gunams te grnita vak karma karotu
kayah
"O my Lord, O Supreme Personality of Godhead, will I again be able to be a servant of Your eternal servants who find shelter only at Your lotus feet? O Lord of my life, may I again become their servant so that my mind may always think of Your transcendental attributes, my words always glorify those attributes, and my body always engage in the loving service of Your Lordship." (Bhag. 6.11.24) This was spoken by Vrtrasura before he was slain by Lord Indra. The key synonyms are: aham-- I, hare--O Supreme Personality of Godhead, tava--of Your Lordship, pada-eka- mula--whose only shelter is the lotus feet, dasa-anudasah-- the servant of Your servant, bhavitasmi--shall I become, bhuyah--again.
It is significant that Bhaktivinoda Thakura cites this Bhagavatam verse in connection with text 5 of the Siksastakam:
ayi nanda-tanuja kinkaram patitam mam visame bhavambudhau
krpaya tava pada-pankaja- sthita-dhuli-sadrsam vicintaya
"Oh, My Lord, O Krsna, son of Maharaja Nanda, I am Your eternal servant, but because of My own fruitive acts, I have fallen in this horrible ocean of nescience. Now please be causelessly merciful to Me. Consider Me a particle of dust at Your lotus feet."
This indicates that the word "again" (bhuyah) in the above Bhagavatam text refers to the original state of the jiva. In other words, Bhaktivinoda Thakura does not take text 6.11.24 as just a reference to feelings of separation from devotees during a jiva's stay in this material world. After giving text 6.11.24 as a reference supporting Siksastaka 5, Bhaktivinoda Thakura states:
"The jiva's constitutional position is that of being enjoyed, or bhogya, and Lord Krsna is always the Supreme Enjoyer. Hence if the jiva ardently serves and meditates upon the Lord he will feel an indomitable urge to become a servitor of Srimati Radharani, who is the embodiment of the highest spiritual bliss."
But text 6.11.24, taken on its own and as used by Bhaktivinoda Thakura, indicates this urge to become a servant of the servant is not something new. The same point can by made about Srila Prabhupada's purport to 6.11.24:
"This verse gives the sum and substance of devotional life. One must become a servant of the servant of the servant of the Lord (dasanudasa). Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu advised, and He also showed by His own example, that a living entity should always desire to be a servant of the servant of the servant of Krsna, the maintainer of the gopis (gopi bhartuh pada-kamalayor dasa- dasanudasa)."
Sixth Canto: Lord's Teachings to Citraketu
In Bhag. 6.16.57, the Supreme Lord says to King Citraketu:
yad etad vismrtam pumso mad-bhavam bhinnam atmanah tatah
samsara etasya dehad deho mrter mrtih
"When a living entity, thinking himself different from Me, forgets his spiritual identity of qualitative oneness with Me in eternity, knowledge, and bliss, his material conditional life begins. In other words, instead of identifying his interest with Mine, he becomes interested in his bodily expansions like his wife, children, and material possessions. In this way, by the influence of his actions, one body comes from another, and after one death, another death takes place."
The synonyms are: yat--which, etat--this, vismrtam--forgotten, pumsah--of the living entity, mat-bhavam--My spiritual position, bhinnam--separation, atmanah--from the Supreme Soul, tatah--from that, samsarah--material, conditional life, etasya- -of the living entity, dehat--from one body, dehah--another body, mrteh--from one death, mrtih--another death.
This verse is spoken by Lord Sankarsana. In his translation, Srila Prabhupada expands somewhat from the Sanskrit words of the text. But the Sanskrit words themselves are very clear. The spiritual nature of the Lord (mat-bhavam), of which the living entity, being part and parcel of the Lord, partakes, is forgotten (vismrtam by the living entity. The living entity therefore becomes separated (bhinnam) from the Supreme Lord (atmanah). This means that originally the living entity shares the nature of the Lord. Since the Lord is full of eternity, knowledge, and bliss the living entity shares that nature. As the Lord experiences bliss by engaging in pastimes, the living entity is also engaged in those pastimes, as a servant. But when the living entity forgets or gives up this nature (vismrtam mad-bhavam), then he is separated from the Lord (bhinnam atmanah) and placed in conditional life (samsara). So this text is very direct evidence that the jiva was originally with Krsna.
In his purport to 6.16.57, Srila Prabhupada writes:
"As stated by the Vaisnava poet Jagadananda Pandit in his Prema-vivarta:
krsna-bahirmukha hana bhoga vancha kare nikata-stha maya
tare japatiya dhare
As soon as a living entity forgets his constitutional position and endeavors to become one with the Supreme, his conditional life begins."
Seventh Canto: Prahlada Maharaja
In Bhag. 7.10.6., Prahlada Maharaja prays:
aham tv akamas tvad-bhaktas tvam ca svamy anapasrayah
nanyathehavayor artho raja-sevakayor iva
"O My Lord, I am Your unmotivated servant, and You are my eternal master. There is no need of our being anything other than master and servant. You are naturally my master, and I am naturally Your servant. We have no other relationship."
On the question of the conditioned soul's previous relationship with Krsna, this verse is not as direct as some of the others included here, but Srila Prabhupada's purport is very clear:
"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, jivera svarupa haya krsnera 'nitya-dasa': every living being is eternally a servant of the Supreme Lord Krsna. Lord Krsna says in Bhagavad- gita (5.29), bhoktaram yajna-tapasam sarvaloka mahesvaram. 'I am the proprietor of all planets and I am the supreme enjoyer.' This is the natural position of the Lord, and the natural position of the living entity is to surrender unto Him (sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja). If this relationship continues, then real happiness exists eternally between the master and servant."
The words "relationship continues" indicate that the original constitutional position of the living entity is one of direct service to the Lord (Krsna, not Mahavisnu). There is no hint of the theory of original dormancy of the relationship. In fact, the relationship is characterized as one of master and servant. Srila Prabhupada continues:
"Unfortunately, when this eternal relationship is disturbed, the living entity wants to become separately happy and thinks that the master is his order supplier. In this way there cannot be happiness."
Again it is clear that there is originally a direct relationship of service between the Lord and the living entity.
Those who claim the jivas in this world had no previous direct relationship with Krsna will have to say that Srila Prabhupada did not comment correctly on the above text.
Eighth Canto: King Satyavrata
In Bhag. 8.24.48., King Satyavrata says:
yat-sevayagner iva rudra-rodanam puman vijahyan malam
atmanah tamah bhajeta varnam nijam esa so 'vyayo bhuyat sa
isah paramo guror gurah
"One who wants to be free of material entanglement should take to the service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and give up the contamination of ignorance, involving pious and impious activities. Thus one regains his original identity, just as a block of gold or silver sheds all dirt alld becomes purified when treated with fire."
The important synonyms are: yat sevaya--the Supreme Personality of Godhead, by serving whom, agneh--in touch with fire, iva--as it is, rudra-rodanam--a block of silver or gold becomes purified, puman--a person, vijahyat--can give up, malam--all the dirty things of material existence, atmanah--of one's self, tamah--the mode of ignorance, by which one performs pious and impious activities, bhajeta--may revive, varnam--his original identity, nijam--one's own.
Srila Prabhupada says in his purport:
"Because of contamination by the modes of material nature, one continues in the cycle of birth and death....Therefore, the purpose of human life is to purify oneself of this contamination so that one can regain his spiritual form and not undergo this cycle of birth and death....The word varnum refers to the luster of one's original identity. The original luster of gold or silver is brilliant. Similarly, the original luster of the living being, who is part of the sac-cid-ananda vigrahah, is the luster of ananda, or pleasure....The living being should become purified and regain his svarupa, his original identity."
In Bhag. 8.24.51., King Satvavrata goes on to say:
jano janasyadisate 'satim gatim yaya prapadyeta duratyayam
tamah tvam tv avyayam jnanam amogham anjasa prapadyate yena
jano nijam padam
"A materialistic so-called guru instructs his materialistic disciples about economic development and sense gratiification, and because of such instructions the foolish disciples coontinue in the materialistic existence of ignorance. Your Lordship gives knowledge that is eternal, and the intelligent person receiving such knowledge is quickly situated in his original constitutional position."
The important synonyms are: tvam--Your Lordship, tu-- but, avyayam--indestructible, jnanam-- knowledge, amogham--without material contamination, anjasa-- very soon, prapadyate--achieves, yena--by such knowledge, janah--a person, nijam--his own, padam-- original position.
What is that original position? In his purport Srila Prabhupada explains:
"The words nijam padam are significant. The living entity, being part and parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has the birthright to a position in Vaikunthaloka, or the spiritual world, where there is no anxiety. Therefore, one should follow the instructions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Then, as stated in Bhagavad-gita, tyaktva deham punar janma naiti mam eti so 'rjuna: after giving up one's body, one will return home, back to Godhead . . . As a spiritual person, such a devotee returns to the Personality of Godhead and plays and dances with Him."
It is clear from this purport that nijam padam, one's original constitutional position, is a place in Vaikunthaloka, where one dances and plays with the Supreme Lord. It is to this position that one returns. The Sanskrit term nijam padam is quite consistent with Srila Prabhupada's translation and purport. It is also consistent with text 8.24.48, quoted above.
Eleventh Canto: Reversal of Position
In Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.2.37) it is said:
"When the living entity is attracted by the material energy, which is separate from Krsna, he is overpowered by fear. Because he is separated from the Supreme Personality of Godhead by the material energy, his conception of life is reversed. In other words, instead of being the eternal servant of Krsna, he becomes Krsna's competitor. This is called viparyayo 'smrtih."
This is Srila Prabhupada's translation of this verse from the Caitanya-caritamrta. It was cited by Lord Caitanya in His discussions with the Mayavadi sannyasis of Varanasi. It appears in Cc. Madhya. 25.138. Srila Prabhupada does not comment, but the plain words indicate the original position of the living entity is one of direct service to the Lord (Krsna, not Mahavisnu). The cause of falldown is attraction to maya. If the original position is not one of service to Krsna, then the term "reversal of position" becomes meaningless.
In the Gaudiya-Matha English edition of Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Shri Chaitanya Shikshamritam, we find the following passage. The English is somewhat awkward, so for clarification I have inserted some words in brackets.
The very minute particles of chit-sakti are the jivas as separate parts. That is known as the border potency which lies between the chit-sakti and maya-shakti. The maya-shakti has no manifestation of existence in it, yet due to its minuteness it [the jiva] has a tendency toward Maya. It is from the inscrutable potency of Krsna that such a sakti [the jiva-sakti] has arisen. Krsna's irrestrainable Will is at the root of it. The separate part jivas are subject to experience the fruit of karma. So long as they are mindful about the service of Krsna according to their independent volition, they do not come under Maya or karma. But when due to the abuse of the independent volition, they cherish a desire for self-enjoyment and forget their own function of Krsna's service, they are enchanted by Maya and come under karma. But as soon as they recollect that Krsna's service is the function of their nature, mukti (liberation) comes up the[?] [to] rescue them from the bondage of karma and the troubles caused by Maya." At this point in the text, there are some footnotes to the above passage. It is not clear to me whether the footnotes are from the original Bengali or were inserted into the English version by the translator. But there are instances where Bhaktivinoda Thakura does give footnotes, including verses--for example, in his commentary on Lord Chaktianya's Siksastaka prayers. In the above quoted passage, one footnote is a citation of Bhagavatam text 11.2.37:
bhayam dvitiyabhinivesatah syad isad apetasya viparyaya
smrtih tan mayayato budha abhajet tam bhaktyaikayesam
guru-devatatma
Some key synonyms given in the Bhagavatam continuation by Hrdayananda Goswami are: isat-- from the Supreme Lord; apetasya-- for one who has turned away; and asmrtih--forgetfulness. The Sanskrit is quite straightforward. The translation given by Hrdayananda Goswami and Gopiparanadhana Prabhu is:
"Fear arises when a living entity misidentifies himself as the material body because of absorption in the external, illusory energy of the Lord. When the living entity thus turns away from the Supreme Lord, he also forgets [asmrtih] his own constitutional position as a servant of the Lord. This bewildering, fearful condition is effected by the potency for illusion, called maya. Therefore, an intelligent person should engage unflinchingly in the unalloyed devotional service of the Lord, under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master, whom he should accept as his worshipable deity and as his very life and soul." (Bhag. 11.2.37)
In an article titled "The Gaudiya Catechism" (a page of which was sent to me by B. R. Sadhu Swami), Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati says:
"The sense of fear comes upon the jiva only when he turns his face towards the external power. It is due to the reversal of his relationship with Krsna."
This statement, of course, is based on the verse bhayam dvitiyabhinivesitah syad isad apetasya viparyayo 'smrtih (Bhag. 11.2.37). So we have Srila Prabhupada, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati giving this verse as evidence that the conditioned soul is in the material world as a result of reversing its original relationship with Krsna.
What About Jaya and Vijaya?
One of the major evidences cited in support of the theory that the conditioned souls were never in the direct association of Krsna is the Bhagavatam's account of Jaya and Vijaya's apparent falldown from Vaikuntha. In fact, the Lord's servants Jaya and Vijaya did not "fall down" because it is impossible for a genuine servant of the Lord to fall from Vaikuntha. This is true. But some commentators (Satyanarayana Prabhu, for example) jump from this to a conclusion that is not true--namely, that conditioned souls who have fallen into the material world cannot possibly have come from Vaikuntha planets.
It is interesting to note, however, that Srila Prabhupada, in his 1972 statement on the origin of the jiva (the one concluding with the "crow and tal fruit" story), uses the same Bhagavatam account of Jaya and Vijaya as evidence that the conditioned souls did indeed originally reside on a spiritual planet in direct association with the Lord. Srila Prabhupada says:
"Formerly we were with Krsna in his lila or sport. But this covering of Maya may be of very, very, very, very long duration; therefore many creations are coming and going. Due to this long period of time it is sometimes said that we are ever conditioned. But this long duration of time becomes very insignificant when one actually comes to Krsna consciousness. Just like in a dream we are thinking very long time, but as soon as we awaken we look at our watch and see it has been a moment only. Just like with Krsna's friends--they were kept asleep for one year by Brahma, but when they woke up and Krsna returned before them, they considered that only a moment had passed.
"So this dreaming condition is called non- liberated life, and this is just like a dream. Although in this materialistic calculation it is a long, long period, as soon as we come to Krsna consciousness, then this period is considered as a second. For example: Jaya and Vijaya. They had their lila with Krsna, but they had to come down for their little mistake. . . . So when I say Yes, there is eternal lila with Krsna, that means on the evidence of Jaya-Vijaya."
Whatever else may be said about the story, it is clear that Srila Prabhupada considered the history of the falldown of the average conditioned soul to be similar to that of Jaya and Vijaya. We were once in krsna-lila and somehow we have fallen.
But what, it may be asked, of such statements of Srila Prabhupada as in his purport to Bhag. 7.1.35?
"From authoritative sources it can be discerned that associates of Lord Visnu who descend from Vaikuntha do not actually fall." And:
" . . . it is to be understood that when Jaya and Vijaya descended to this material world, they came because there was something to be done for the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Otherwise it is a fact no one falls from Vaikuntha."
There appears to be a contradiction with Srila Prabhupada's other statements that souls can and do fall from Vaikuntha. But the apparent contradiction can be resolved as follows.
The question of the possibility of spirit souls falling from Vaikuntha was raised first by Maharaja Yudhisthira. The nature of his question gives a clue to our dilemma.
King Yudhisthira inquired (Bhag. 7.1.34):
"What kind of curse could affect even liberated visnubhaktas, and what sort of person could curse even the Lord's associates? For unflinching devotees of the Lord to fall again to this material world is impossible. I cannot believe this."
The key words are "unflinching devotees." For such unflinching devotees it is indeed impossible to fall down from Vaikuntha--the apparent falldown of Jaya and Vijaya was especially arranged by the Lord for the purpose of His transcendental pastimes. We note however, that Jaya and Vijaya did not turn against the Lord Himself. Although they offended the four Kumaras by refusing to let them enter the Lord's abode, they remained the Lord's unflinching servants. But in the case of the conditioned souls we are talking of devotees who unfortunately did flinch. We have already cited many references demonstrating that the cause of the conditioned soul's falldown from the transcendental loving service of the Lord is his desire to imitate and compete with the Lord. So there is no contradiction. One who remains a servant of the Lord cannot really fall down, and one who gives up that service certainly does fall down, in fact.
In connection with the story of Jaya and Vijaya, Srila Prabhupada states in his purport to Bhag. 3.16.12:
"It is to be assumed that there is no possibility of a misunderstanding between the Lord and the devotees, but when there are discrepancies or disruptions between one devotee and another, one has to suffer the consequences, although that suffering is temporary."
Jaya and Vijaya belong to this category. But there is, unfortunately, another catgegory--those who do violate the basic assumption of life in Vaikuntha--service to the Lord--and their fate is different than that of Jaya and Vijaya. In Bhag. 3.15.33, the Kumaras say:
"In the Vaikuntha world there is complete harmony between the residents and the Supreme Personality of Godhead . . . harmony?"
In his purport Srila Prabhupada explains:
"The living entities, like ourselves, being part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, are meant to satisfy the senses of the Lord. Thus, whenever there is a discrepancy in that harmony, immediately the living entity is entrapped by maya, or illusion."
As we have many times demonstrated, the original position of the living entity is in rendering direct service to the senses of the Supreme Lord in the harmonious atmosphere of Vaikuntha, but when that harmony is disturbed the living being falls down. Because such a living entity is put under the control of the material energy, his fate is different from that of Jaya and Vijaya. Jaya and Vijaya came to the material world, by the arrangement of the Lord, for a specific number of births (three). This was because of some difficulty that arose in their behavior toward the four Kumaras and not because of any offensive action toward the Lord Himself. On the other hand, the conditioned souls are here because they became envious of the Lord Himself and wanted to imitate His pastimes. They are here not for a specific number of births. There are here for as long as it takes to rectify their offensive mentality. But, as Srila Prabhupada confirms, the fallen jivas are similar to Jaya and Vijaya in that they were also originally participants in the Lord's lila.
The conclusion is that there is no reason for a soul in the spiritual world to fall down other than misuse of his eternal freedom of choice, which is an inherent part of his spiritual nature. This distinguishes the spiritual planets from other places, where one must fall down. For example, if one achieves the heavenly planets, one must fall down when one's good karma runs out. As Lord Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita (9.21), ksine punye martyalokam visanti. And even if, like Lord Brahma, one remains in a heavenly planet without falling down, eventually the planet itself will be destroyed. Furthermore, even if one attains to the Brahman effulgence, one must also come down, unless one achieves the shelter of the Lord's lotus feet (aruhya krcchrena param padam tatah patanty adho 'nadrtah-yusmad- anghrayah, Bhag. 10.2.32).
In other chapters of this book, I will give extensive evidence expanding on the points made in connection with Srila Prabhupada's statements about falling down from Vaikuntha, both originally and after returning from the conditioned state. He says quite explicitly that both things happen. So what of his statements that "no one falls from Vaikuntha." Are Srila Prabhupada's teachings contradictory. No. Srila Prabhupada says that there are no contradictions in the teachings of a pure devotee spiritual master. Any apparent contradictions simply exist in the mind of the disciple. Srila Prabhupada said that the disciple should therefore inquire from the spiritual master. Several times, Srila Prabhupada's disciples asked him about the apparent contradictions in his statements about falling down from Vaikuntha. Srila Prabhupada answered these questions, stating directly that falldown is possible from any position, even after returning to the spiritual world. Because Srila Prabhupada has already answered the questions before us, we have no need to entertain any further doubts or conduct any further research on this matter. I shall explain all this in detail in another chapter. But I wanted to insert this here just to inform those who are just reading this chapter that there is a lot more to say on the subject of Srila Prabhupada's statements that "no one falls from Vaikuntha." Here in this chapter I am just dealing with the one statement made in the context of the Bhagavatam history of Jaya and Vijaya.