This essay was originally an answer of Suhotra Prabhu to a question about the “fairness” of our falldown to the material world.
=========
First of all we strongly suggest those who have a specific interest in the falldown of the spirit soul from the spiritual world to acquire the book entitled Our Original Position, which is available from the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. It is a very elaborate treatment with much quotations from sastra.
I find a refrain in the “condemned,” “pretty unfair,” “felix culpa,” “how could I know” and “bad mistake” arguments that is typical of persons for whom the “original falldown” is a major philosophical stumbling block. And that is, “It’s not my fault. It must be Krishna’s fault.”
You have to face this point unflinchingly: it *is* your fault.
And you have to face this next point unflinchingly: as long as you entertain the notion that it could be Krishna’s fault (that He’s “pretty unfair”), you will remain in this material world, birth after birth.
Accepting that it is your fault that you are fallen into the cycle of birth and death is what surrender is all about. It is only by accepting this that we can sincerely accept the Lord’s help in getting ourselves delivered from this fallen state. Logically, if it is not your fault, then you are not really fallen. Just like, if you end up in prison for a crime you did not deliberately commit (maybe you were just a victim of association, but you personally did not intend harm), then you are not really a criminal, are you?
But the fact is, we *are* criminals. And we can’t be reformed until we admit it wholeheartedly.
Now, zeroing in on the crux of your doubt — that we fell out of krishna-lila because of some unexpected flare-up of envy, and so how can we be eternally condemned for something over which we had no control — you’ve missed the real controller, Krishna. It is a fact that I, as a tiny spirit soul, have no power to control the ebb and flow of emotional states. But Krishna, the parama-isvara (supreme controller), does.
So there are two implications I wish to draw your attention to.
If your idea is that we fell because of an emotional flare-up, then behind that idea is a lack of faith in Krishna’s control over those emotions. To be surrendered to Krishna means to place oneself completely under Krishna’s control. So why would Krishna permit the emotions of His surrendered devotee to flare up in some spiritually detrimental manner? Therefore, 1) either Krishna doesn’t really have control over the ebb and flow of emotions that affect living beings, or
2) He does but He takes pleasure in allowing these emotions to cast someone down into darkness. I.e. Krishna doesn’t always have our best interests in mind. Or worse, He has a malicious streak.
The adoption of either of these two positions is uncalled for. If you find one, the other or both reasonable, then why trouble yourself with following the Vedic scriptures? The Vedic scriptures state: isvara parama krsna: “Krishna is the supreme controller.”
So then how did we fall victim to uncontrolled emotions?
The answer is that *first* we assumed a position of independence from Krishna’s control. Our assuming that position was not prompted by some flood of emotions. It was a conscious choice. As Srila Prabhupada writes:
“Anandamayo ‘bhyasat (Vedanta-sutra 1.1.12). Both the Lord and the living entity, being qualitatively spirit soul, have the tendency for peaceful enjoyment, but when the part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead unfortunately wants to enjoy independently, without Krishna, he is put into the material world, where he begins his life as Brahma and is gradually degraded to the status of an ant or a worm in stool.”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 9.24.58, purport)
So the uncontrolled emotions that wind us up in lower forms like ants and worms come later. First comes the exalted post of Brahma, who manifests the full potency of a jiva (a liberated spirit soul). Brahma is situated in brahma-varcasa, the Brahman effulgence. Therefore Bhagavatam 2.3.2 states that those who wish to attain the divine light of Brahman should worship Brahma. But Brahma thinks himself
*independent* of Krishna.
“That Brahma becomes liberated is known to everyone, but he cannot liberate his devotees. Demigods like Brahma and Lord Shiva cannot give liberation to any living entity. As it is confirmed in Bhagavad-gita, only one who surrenders unto Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, can be liberated from the clutches of maya. Brahma is called here adyah sthira-caranam. He is the original, first-created living entity, and after his own birth he creates the entire cosmic manifestation. He was fully instructed in the matter of creation by the Supreme Lord. Here he is called veda-garbha, which means that he knows the complete purpose of the Vedas. He is always accompanied by such great personalities as Marici, Kasyapa and the seven sages, as well as by great mystic yogis, the Kumaras and many other spiritually advanced living entities, but he has his own interest, separate from the Lord’s. Bheda-drstya means that Brahma sometimes thinks that he is independent of the Supreme Lord, or he thinks of himself as one of the three equally independent incarnations. [“Three equally independent incarnations” means Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma… but actually Brahma is not independent, because he is a jiva (fragmental soul, a constitutional servant of God), whereas Vishnu and Shiva are both classified as isvara (Lords).]” (Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.32.12-15, purport)
And, so, as Srila Prabhupada continues in this same purport:
“Here the word bheda-drstya occurs because Brahma has a slight inclination to think that he is as independent as Rudra. Sometimes Brahma thinks that he is independent of the Supreme Lord, and the worshiper also thinks that Brahma is independent. For this reason, after the destruction of this material world, when there is again creation by the interaction of the material modes of nature, Brahma comes back. Although Brahma reaches the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the first purusa incarnation, Maha-Vishnu, who is full with transcendental qualities, he cannot stay in the spiritual world.”
Please digest the full implications of the above quotation. Brahma, the post occupied by the jiva upon his assumption of independence from the Lord, is a liberated personality. He is not dashed here and there by hot fluxes of emotions, whether envy or anything else. Brahma *knows* fully well the Supreme Lord as Maha-Vishnu. He returns to Him after his period of duty as the creator of the universe. But Brahma also has a tendency, due to his conception of independence, to become attached to his post as the creator… so that when again Vishnu breathes out the universes, Brahma leaves Him to take up the post of a lord of creation again. This second returning to the material world is considered to be his falldown — the falldown of the jiva. Here you see an emotional element creeping in… attachment, prestige, etc, which brings him back to the material world even after his assignment is completed. This is the sign of growing ignorance. That is confirmed thusly later in the same purport:
“The specific significance of his coming back may be noted. Brahma and the great rsis and the great master of yoga (Shiva) are not ordinary living entities; they are very powerful and have all the perfections of mystic yoga. But still they have an inclination to try to become one with the Supreme, and therefore they have to come back. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam it is accepted that as long as one thinks that he is equal with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is not completely purified or knowledgeable. In spite of going up to the first purusa-avatar, Maha-Vishnu, after the dissolution of this material creation, such personalities again fall down or come back to the material creation.”
The falling down of the jiva into material creation therefore has little in common with the scenario of his being carried away willy-nilly by some unfortunate gush of feelings.
It is the result of a deliberate, conscious and informed choice.
Perhaps you still have a doubt about how a soul comes to think himself independent. It can be postulated that before he assumed the post of Brahma, that soul must have been with Krishna in His pastimes within the eternal realm of Goloka. How is it that this particular soul goes from there to the post of Brahma?
The answer is that Krishna’s pastimes are expansive. As Krishna expands His pastimes, so also the souls expand within Him into further realms of His divine lila or play. The creation of the material world is one more expanded lila. Thus the Lord Himself personally enters the material world, and so also do His devotees. Even the eternal residents of Goloka Vrindavan enter the material world at the time Krishna personally descends Himself, as He did 5000 years ago in Bhauma Vrindavan (the Vrindavan on earth, in India, 90 miles south of New Delhi). Some of these residents assume forms different than their Goloka identities. Narada Muni, for instance, the sage who preaches bhakti throughout the 3 worlds, is originally Madhumangala, a friend of Krishna’s in Goloka. And Narada is the son of Brahma. Brahma is a role a jiva can get in the Lord’s pastime of creation if that jiva is interested in participating in the creation-lila from a position apparently as independent as that of God Himself. This particular position (Brahma) is the one from which a soul *may* fall (it is not guaranteed he will) from the Lord’s association into enmeshment in creation. In other words, rather than simply participating in creation from a transcendental position (as do the residents of Vrindavan and Narada Muni), such a soul, by attachment to his lordly position, becomes *part* of the creation… life after life.
Suhotra Prabhu concludes his article with these two paragraphs:
Perhaps you still have a doubt about how a soul comes to think himself independent. It can be postulated that before he assumed the post of Brahma, that soul must have been with Krishna in His pastimes within the eternal realm of Goloka. How is it that this particular soul goes from there to the post of Brahma?
The answer is that Krishna’s pastimes are expansive. As Krishna expands His pastimes, so also the souls expand within Him into further realms of His divine lila or play. The creation of the material world is one more expanded lila. Thus the Lord Himself personally enters the material world, and so also do His devotees. Even the eternal residents of Goloka Vrindavan enter the material world at the time Krishna personally descends Himself, as He did 5000 years ago in Bhauma Vrindavan (the Vrindavan on earth, in India, 90 miles south of New Delhi). Some of these residents assume forms different than their Goloka identities. Narada Muni, for instance, the sage who preaches bhakti throughout the 3 worlds, is originally Madhumangala, a friend of Krishna’s in Goloka. And Narada is the son of Brahma. Brahma is a role a jiva can get in the Lord’s pastime of creation if that jiva is interested in participating in the creation-lila from a position apparently as independent as that of God Himself. This particular position (Brahma) is the one from which a soul *may* fall (it is not guaranteed he will) from the Lord’s association into enmeshment in creation. In other words, rather than simply participating in creation from a transcendental position (as do the residents of Vrindavan and Narada Muni), such a soul, by attachment to his lordly position, becomes *part* of the creation… life after life.
The implication of the idea above expressed by Suhotra Prabhu is that the jiva souls, indeed the entire jiva tattva, have been manifest from the cit-shakti. In the scenario outlined by Suhotra Prabhu an eternal resident of the spiritual world will become a fallen jiva soul. However:
krsnera svarupa ara sakti traya jnana
yanra haya, tanra nahi krsnete ajnana
cic-chakti svarupa-sakti antaranga-nama
tahara vaibhava ananta vaikunthadi dhama
maya sakti bahiranga jagat-karana
yahara vaibhava ananta brahmandera gana
jiva sakti tatasthakya nahi yara anta
mukhya tina sakti tara vibheda ananta
ei ta’ svarupa gana ara tina sakti
sabara asraya krsna, krsne sabara sthiti
One who knows the real feature of Sri Krsna and His three different energies cannot remain ignorant about Him. The cit sakti, which is also called svarupa sakti or antaranga sakti, displays many varied manifestations. It sustains the kingdom of God and its paraphernalia. The external energy, called maya sakti, is the cause of innumerable universes with varied material potencies. The marginal potency, which is between these two, consists of the numberless living beings. These are the three principal energies, which have unlimited categories and subdivisions.
C.C.Adi. 2.96, 101-104
In regard to the proposition that souls depart from the cit-sakti and become jivas, because of some bad attitude or bad desire or whatever, there is the following teaching given by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in Jaiva Dharma, Chapter Fifteen:
Vrajanatha: The individual soul is not created by maya. That I accept. Maya has the power to dominate the individual soul. That I understand. This is my question: Does the spiritual potency (cit-shakti) place the individual soul on the border (tatastha) of matter and spirit?
Babaji: No. The cit-shakti is the full manifestation of Lord Krishna’s potency. Whatever she creates is eternally perfect (nitya-siddha). The individual spirit souls are not eternally perfect. By engaging in the activities of devotional service (sadhana) they may become perfect (sadhana-siddha) and thus enjoy spiritual bliss exactly like that enjoyed by the eternally perfect (nitya-siddha) beings. The four kinds of gopi-friends (sakhi) of Srimati Radharani are eternally perfect beings (nitya-siddha). They are manifested from the form of Srimati Radharani, who is the cit-shakti Herself. All the individual spirit souls are manifested from Lord Krishna’s jiva-shakti. The cit-shakti is Lord Krishna’s complete potency (purna-shakti). The individual souls (jiva-shakti) are counted among Lord Krishna’s incomplete potencies (apurna-shakti). From the complete potency complete and perfect things are manifested. From the incomplete potency all the individual souls, who are atomic fragments of consciousness, are manifested. Lord Krishna manifests different kinds of entities according to the different kinds of potencies He employs to create them. When He is manifested in His cit-shakti, He appears as Krishna and as Narayana, the master of Vaikuntha. When He is manifested in the jiva-shakti, He appears as Baladeva, His pastime form (vilasa-murti) in Vraja. When He is manifested in the maya-shakti, He appears as the three forms of Karanodakasayi Visnu, Garbhodakasayi Visnu and Ksirodakasayi Visnu. In Vraja He appears in His original form, as Krishna, a form manifested by His complete potency. Appearing as Baladeva, He manifests His sesa-tattva (nature of Lord Sesa). In this way He manifests the eight kinds of services the eternally liberated associates offer to Him. Again in Vaikuntha He appears as Sesa-Sankarsana and manifests the eight kinds of service His eternal associates offer to Lord Narayana. Lord Sankarsana incarnates as Maha-Visnu. He becomes the resting-place of the jiva-shakti and appears as the Supersoul in the hearts of all the individual souls residing in the material world. All these individual souls are attracted to maya. As long as they do not attain the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and take shelter of the Lord’s spiritual hladini-shakti, they are defeated by Maya. Numberless souls are defeated by Maya and cast into Her prison. They are the followers of Maya’s three modes. The conclusion is this: the individual souls are manifested by the jiva-shakti. They are not manifested by the cit-shakti.
Jivas are not manifested by the cit-shakti. Jivas originate from Mahavishnu’s rays of Brahman effulgence.
It’s hard for me to comprehend myself as Brahma being dumb enough to leave Krishna for material nature, or myself in this body being intelligent enough to correct the error. Perhaps it’s a matter of personality more than intelligence? But anyway, this article and the comment that followed gave me good food for thought on this subject, and helped me to work through (or at least make good progress on) a deep-seated issue. I suppose I still have very far to go, but my load is sure to be lighter if I’m not carrying a grudge against Krishna from so long ago!
This will be a good one to remove from my list of excuses.
Our Humble Obeisances
Thank you Murali Prabhu for scholarly comment. I am not at all expert in this issue, but I have heard other Maharaja’s also mentioning that jiva’s originate from Cit-sakti.
Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s anwers seems to be clear , but I asked a scholar friend of mine and he founded the following one:
“I found the following statement there interesing, because it traces the origin
of jiva all the way back to the root of all saktis:
JDH 15
“Outside the spiritual realm of the cit-sakti and between this spiritual
realm and the material realm of maya there is the field of the
tatastha-sakti where the cit-sakti manifests Herself in Her partial
expansion as the jiva-sakti, thereby generating the eternal jivas in the
tatastha , marginal field.”
Jiva’s are not directly from Cit-sakti, but an partial expansion, maybe that’s why devotees sometimes say, that jiva’s do originate from cit-sakti.(?)
ys mrd
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
There is a whole lot of Srila Prabhupada’s clear statements that we came from Vaikuntha and not just from a tatastha position, like this:
Bhagavad-gita 2.6 — London, August 6, 1973
“…Because we have also come down from Vaikuntha some millions and millions of years ago. Anadi karama-phale. Anadi means before the creation…”
We should perhaps keep in mind that Srila Prabhupada is no less of an acarya that the other previous acaryas, and to qualify as his followers we have to take his side on all issues, and not just on a selected range of them — even when other options may seem more logical to imperfect us.
As for Srila bhaktivinoda Thakur’s own position, besides all that was quoted from his works in the Our Original Position, there is a very clear one in his Krsna-samhita (2.41), with his own commentary:
sambid-rupa maha-maya linga-rupa-vidhayini
ahankaratmakam cittam baddha-jive tanoty aho
When the external potency of the superior energy interacts with samvit, it creates the subtle body of conditioned souls in the form of intelligence and false ego. The constitutional position of a pure living entity is beyond the gross and subtle bodies. The samvit aspect of the external potency is known in the scriptures as nescience. Due to this nescience, the gross and subtle bodies of the living entities are created. When pure living entities reside in VaikuŠ˜ha, the first knot of nescience, in the form of false ego, does not entangle them. Pure living entities cannot remain steady after giving up spiritual activities. Therefore as soon as the living entities become situated in their own happiness through the minute independence given by the Lord, they become shelterless and are compelled to take shelter of M€y€. On account of this, pure living entities have no shelter other than VaikuŠ˜ha. The living entities of VaikuŠ˜ha are very insignificant, like fireflies in comparison to the powerful sunlike Lord. As soon as the living entity leaves VaikuŠ˜ha, he is simultaneously awarded a subtle body and thrown into the material world, created by M€y€. All manifestations of the sandhin…, samvit, and hl€din… aspects of the marginal potency are mixed with m€y€ as soon as the living entity leaves the shelter of VaikuŠ˜ha. When one considers material existence as his own, this is called false ego. Absorption in this false ego is the function of the heart, cultivating material sense objects through the heart is the function of the mind, and realization through this cultivation is called material knowledge. The mind, being superior to the senses, manifests as the functions of the senses in their association. When the impression of contact between the senses and sense objects is established within, it is protected by the strength of remembrance. When one cultivates those protected memories by following the process of elaborating and condensing them, then whatever one conjectures is called argument. By this argument, knowledge of sense objects and related items is acquired.
Similar statements or indications can be found in the works of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti and Srila Jiva Goswami.
However, for us Srila Prabhupada’s followers, his unequivocal words should be enough to put the matter to rest.
Murali Prabhu:
I did not see any implication in Suhotra Prabhu’s article that jivas are “manifested from the cit-shakti.” Can you point out where you find that implication?
What I did find valuable in Suhotra’s article was its main point: the confirmation that, however it happened, our conditioned state of affairs is our own fault. We not only misused our marginal independence back in some fathomless, eternal past, but we have continually misused it and are still misusing it as long as we desire anything other than pleasing Lord Krishna.
It did not seem to me that Suhotra was talking about where the jiva “originated” or from whence it “manifested”, but how it came to fall.
Talking about where the jiva “originated” is really a different topic. In one sense the jivas have their origins as described by different authorities. In another sense there was never a time when each jiva did not exist, nor in the future will any of them ever cease to be. (B.G. 2.12)
The whole debate over whether the conditioned jivas ever fell from the spiritual world or have never yet been there is something Srila Prabhupada considered unintelligent, useless or irrelevant. It seems that great acaryas have expressed it both ways, and these apparently contradictory descriptions do not trouble the liberated Vaisnavas. Mostly, Srila Prabhupada told us we should concern ourselves not with how we got here, but how to get out.
We know that the jivas are tatastha sakti, which means that though they belong to Krishna’s “para prakrti” or superior energy, they can be covered by his apara prakrti or inferior, material energy. (See, B.G. 7.4-5)
All the energies and expansions have their “origin” in Krishna (B.G. 7.6-7, 10.8) Descriptions of how and from where the different expansions arose is sometimes given (for example, the expansions of the catur vyüha, etc.) But in another sense all these expansions are eternal. Even the jivas are described as always existing as individuals.
The purusha avatäras are described as not always appearing, because their “appearance” is connected with the srtsti lila of creation of the material world. However, that does not mean they have material bodies which are subject to birth and death—they have transcendental, eternal spiritual bodies.
Moreover, the unlimited Vaikuntha lokas are described as never having come into existence and never passing out of it. They remain as they are and are not destroyed when the material world is annihilated. (B.G.8.20) All of the different Vishnus ruling unlimited planets in the spiritual sky have always participated in eternal existence. The same goes for the infinity of eternally liberated jivas who always reside there.
To our limited, conditioned way of thinking, these descriptions seem to contradict other statements of the infallible scriptures. There are many such apparent contradictions, of which the “fall” and “no fall” descriptions are just another instance.
For example, there is a well-known statement (in the Upanishads?) that the one absolute truth, desiring to enjoy variety, became many.
The mayavadis have their nonsense explanation. They say that when God wants to “enjoy” samsara (????), he becomes a jiva, and when the jiva is enlightened he becomes God again. We know of course, that the jiva has always been a jiva, that God is always God, and as such He never becomes covered by His own illusory energy. Krishna says (B.G. 2.12), “Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings, nor shall any of us ever cease to be.”
The jiva is a jiva eternally and in one important sense never “arose” from a state of nonexistence.
The conception of Krishna at one time existing alone and then expanding into varieties of plenary expansions, jiva expansions, and various saktis indicates Krishna’s position as the completely independent (svarat) origin of everything, both material and spiritual.
This view is only superficially inconsistent with other infallible statements that all of the various jivas, saktis and plenary expansions have their own eternal existence. (It is not that there was actually ever a time that Radharani or Rumini or Narada Muni or Hanuman did not exist)
Another example is how Krishna, for the reasons described in Adi Lila of Sri Caitanya Caritamrta, appeared as Lord Caitanya. Only foolish devotees would concern themselves with whether that means there was a time when Lord Caitanya did not exist.
We know that in one sense the jiva has “fallen”, because we are in a fallen position. Srila Prabhupada often said we have fallen into this unhappy position. Even Siksastaka says “patitam mam visame bhavämbudhau.”
We did not “fall” from a state säyujya mukti, or from a state of deep unconscious susupti as experienced during the material annihilation when the jivas lay dormant within Vishnu. Those conditions are already fallen and impure. We fell from our original condition of Krishna-prema, which remains dormant in our hearts.
We have an eternal relationship with Krishna, but we have forgotten. That relationship must be awakened by the purifying process of bhakti yoga. “nitya-siddha Krishna-prema sadhya kabhu naya . . . (CC Madhya 22.107) In that way we can go “back to home, back to Godhead”.
On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada also often said that no one can trace out the history of when we have fallen. We have been engaged in material conditional life from “time immemorial”, and are therefore known as “nitya-baddha”, “eternally conditioned”. Our state of being fallen and separated from Krishna has existed since before the beginning of time. Anadi karama phale.
These two positions – (1) that we have been conditioned eternally, and (2) that we have fallen from our original, constitutional positions as Krishna’s eternal servants – are only superficially contradictory.
The problem may stem from our overly mechanical view of linear time. We are accustomed to reasoning in terms of causes preceding their material effects. We try to comprehend with our baby human intelligence the mechanics of how countless unlimited fallen jivas might have come to the material world, as if we were constructing some material cosmological theory based on the known physical laws.
(“How could there have been so many Brahmas who decided to rule the world, instead of go back to the spiritual world? Who was the first Brahma who did so? If he was the first one, why was there a material universe anyway? Who else was in it?” All these and similar objections come from our habitual material conceptions and mental speculations. They will not help us understand the inconceivable, inexhaustable topics of transcendence, which have to be submissively heard from realized authorities.)
Why can’t we just accept that we can be “eternally conditioned” and yet were also originally in the spiritual world in some inconceivably distant past, in an eternal relationship with Krishna that is never destroyed and has no beginning?
Sometimes those who adhere strongly to the “no fall” position object that if we fell once, we could fall again, and that is discouraging. But Srila Prabhupada always said we definitely have free will which means we can always choose maya if we are foolish enough to do so. We really have to learn not to misuse our free will. Do we want to become like a stone that has no free will?
I think the argument (that it is discouraging to think we can fall again) stems from our fruitive mentality. It seems to us that devotional service is “hard work”, and that our “reward” should be a safe position where we can just relax and enjoy. Actually, devotional service only seems hard to us because of the impurities and unwanted things in our hearts. Once they are gone, becoming independent from Krishna will seem like a terrible fate to avoid at all costs.
We can rest assured, once we reawaken our dormant love for Krishna, we never again will misuse our independence (although we always can), because we will know better.
Suhotra was skewering a similar objection, which is that if we fell once, it must have been Krishna’s fault. No, it is 100% our fault for misusing our free will, but Krishna gives us the opportunity to do so, because there is a difference between love and slavery.
It does seem impossible that an eternally-liberated soul, enjoying the ever-increasing, always-fresh pleasure of loving exchanges with Krishna, could ever have become attracted to identifying himself as a false enjoyer and controller of material energy. Nevertheless, we have to simply accept that somehow or another we made that mistake, and have continued to do so. The process of Krishna consciousness is a process of giving up that mistake. The freedom is always ours to choose Krishna, but somehow we are refusing, addicted to our illusory independence.
It is not that it is harder for an intelligent Brahma to misuse his independence than for a conditioned human to keep doing so. Lord Caitanya is making it very easy for us right now to give up our misconceptions. It is “simple for the simple”. It is just hard for us because we are crooked. We should not blame that crookedness on anyone but ourselves.
Some of the “no-fall” adherents do seem to be trying to jump over Srila Prabhupada, as Mmd suggests. They have read something that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur or some other äcärya has said, and they entertain the notion that Srila Prabhupada got it wrong, or was dissimulating. (I have heard them say things like that). It is a hellish mentality. Srila Prabhupada is actually giving a complete picture that embraces both the “no fall” and “fall” explanations.
As followers of Srila Prabhupada, we should adopt and come to appreciate his position that both the “fall” and “no fall” explanations are valid expressions of Gaudiya Vaisnava theology, but that mainly the controversy is not worth debating about.
It reminds me of how Bhaktivinode Thakur and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada treated the apparent contradiction between Jiva Goswami’s and Rupa Goswami’s positions on parakiya-rasa. (See, Brahma-Samhita, purport to text 37): “So there is no need of further hypothetical speculation which does not improve one’s spiritual appreciation, as the substantive knowledge of Goloka is an inconceivable entity. To try to pursue the inconceivable by the conceptual process is like pounding the empty husk of grain, which is sure to have a fruitless ending.”
To improve our spiritual appreciation, we have to keep hearing submissively from the authorities, serving them, and chanting Hare Krishna constantly. Then these seeming contradictions will not bother us any more.
Dear Akruranatha Prabhu; Hare Krsna, maharajah. I am just commenting briefly on you last few comments, which have been especially sastric and strong. Your comments in this stream are very nicely presented and well-rounded. In appreciation…
Haribol!
Your servant
Tamoharadasa