Jiva controversy easily resolved

Dear Vaisnavas,

         Nityananda Gauranga Hare Krishna! Please accept my respectful obeisances!

         The question on whether the soul falls from Vaikuntha is a serious controversy in devotional circles. However this can be easily resolved with a simple little understanding. My last article happened to hit the subject of resolving the controversy, so I thought it better to complete that work in this article. This could be called an appendix to the article I wrote in 2 parts. It�s a little realisation I had while reading, so I thought I would share it.

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

   So here 'spiritual world' includes the brahmajyothi as given by Srila Prabhupada Himself. He says that one can fall down from the spiritual world if one is elevated only up to brahmajyoti and not up to the Vaikuntha planets. Therefore the falldown from the spiritual world is highly dependent on what is the definition of thw terms 'spiritual world' and 'Vaikunta'.

  Actually the words spiritual world or Vaikuntha have different usages. An examnination of the writings of the acaryas reveals very different usages for the same terms

      1) Vaikuntha -- the Lord's abode. Here Vaikuntha means Vaikuntha planets
      2) Spiritual world --- Vaikunta + Brahmajyothi
      3) Spritual world --- refers to only the Lord's abode.  The Vaikunta Planets
      4) Vaikuntha -- includes the Brahmajyothi along with the abodes of Visnu
      5) Spiritual world -- Includes Brahmajyothi with the abodes of the Lord. Often called 'spiritual sky' to make the meaning clear.
      6) Brahmajyothi -- an invariant term, it refers to the effulgence that is the border between the Vaikunta planets and the material world. The marginal line is also called tatastha when it refers to an imperceptibly fine line between the spiritual and material realms.

The above quote had the usages 1 and 2 of the terms.

So depending on the usage, there is a general rule to interpret a particular quote

1) If we say that the soul falls from Vaikunta or the spiritual world, then Vaikunta includes the Brahmajyothi and so the souls coming from the Brahmajyothi can be considered part of Vaikunta.
2)When it is said that no one and nothing falls from Vaikunta, here Vaikunta or spiritual world refers to only the abode of the Lord minus the brahmajyothi. 

Either way you look at it, neither interpretation supports the theory that a jiva in Navadvipa Goloka can come down to the material world by falling down. To say that the eternal devotees of the Lord, who are our spiritual masters are capable of falling down and leaving the Lord is a severe Vaisnava aparadha and is also an offensive statement against the Lord, The Lord's abode, and the process of bhakti itself. Therefore that is another form of Mayavada (atheistic) philosophy. One type of atheist says that the Lord can be bewildered, the other says that his eternal devotees can be bewildered to fall to the material world.

Such kinds of interpretation are seen in The Govinda Bhashya by Baladeva Vidyabhushana. He says that names like Siva, Brahma, etc refer to Visnu when used in the ultimate sense, otherwise they refer to the demigods as all names are names of Visnu. (last sutra of part 1)

Either way it is accpeted by a proper interpretation according to the Sastras that no one falls from the abode of the Lord. Everyone comes from the marginal line, the brahmajyothi as confirmed by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, Sridhara Maharaja, Swamiji and all other acaryas including Prabhupada. It depends on whether the brahmajyothi is considered part of Vaikunta or separate from it.

The whole controversy is only a tragedy of misinterpretation by word jugglery without properly consulting the scriptures and the teachings of all the previous acaryas of the guru parampara. Letters written to support such statements are merely approximations stripped down for the understanding of individual cases and so cannot be in the same league as the scriptures. Sometimes an acarya may explain something totally different from the scriptural facts according to the plan of the Lord, but that cannot be accepted as final.

This is also confirmed by Srimad Bhagavatam and other sastras where it is said that one is safe only when one is in the position of devotional service. Please note that the word used in the verse 10.2.32 is parama padam which actually refers to impersonal brahman and not to Vaikunta as bhakti happens to be missing there.

There are statements in Srimad Bhagavatam and other Puranas which state that one can go to the abode of Visnu for a long duration of time and come back to the earth. Why is that? The answer is remarkable. I have to thank a disciple of Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja for this one. It comes from Krishna Kathamrta Bindu #187, in an appendix to an incident from the  Vishnudharmottara Purana quoted by Srila Jiva Gosvami.

PRAPANCHIKA VAIKUNTHA
One question arises here: How can someone attain the Lord�s abode and then return to the material world? After all, Krishna says in the Gita (15.6), yad gatva na nivartante � �Once attaining my abode, one never  returns  to this material world.� However,  the Bhagavatam  (8.5.5 and other places) and other Puranas describe an abode of Lord Vishnu within  the material universe. That planet is sometimes referred to as Prapanchika Vaikuntha [�prapancika" means �consisting of the five material elements�]. There are many descriptions of persons attaining that place and then returning to this material world.

So this one quote is sufficient to resolve the controversy. I hope it helps those who keep have such doubts like this. In my last article the issue of the jiva falldown had been indirectly resolved to a great extent. So I decided to continue and finish the part which was left incomplete there.

There is a similar controversy in the two branches of the Sri Sampradaya where one party claims that kaivalya (merging in Brahman) lies outside Vaikunta while the other claims it is part of Vaikunta for the same reasons. However both accept that it is inferior to the abode of the Lord.

When I said we should avoid the controversy, I meant that we should not get into this business of arguments and counter arguments which leads to all the hate politics and bigoted sectarianism rampant today like a global  plague, which in turn resuts in very grave Vaisnava apardha by means of blaspheming our acaryas and other devotees. We should always avoid that.

With this, the article I had planned to write is truly concluded. I again thank you for your patience in reading through till the end and giving me the chance to serve you and all Vaisnavas. Nityananda! Gauranga! Hare Krishna!

In your service,

Srinath

Nityananda! Gauranga! Hare Krishna!

Comment on this Post