Section 63
No One Falls From Vaikuntha

No one falls from Vaikuëöha.  Çré Kapiladeva said (Bhäg. 3.25.37,38):

"Thereafter, although My devotees, who are free from ignorance, by My mercy may be offered the eight types of mystic perfections, the opulence of the heavenly planets, or even the opulence of Vaikuëöha, they do not desire it. They automatically attain these when they reach My abode. My dear mother, devotees who receive such transcendental opulences are never bereft of them. Neither weapons nor the change of time can destroy such opulences. Because the devotees accept Me as their friend, their relative, their son, preceptor, benefactor, and Supreme Deity, they cannot be deprived of their possessions at any time."

Atho indicates after the removal of ignorance. Mama mäyayä means by the Lord's mercy on the devotee. Vibhüti means the opulence of enjoyment, Äcitäm means manifest for his purpose, and the eight mystic opulences such as aëimä naturally become present. The devotees do not even desire the Lord's opulence, called särñöi.  The meaning is that because they yearn only for the bliss of devotional service, they have no desire for any of the above stated opulences; but they certainly achieve them in My planet called Vaikuëöha. This shows the Lord's special affection for His devotees. This is also exemplified in the benediction given to Sudämä, the florist (10.41.51-52):

"Sudämä chose unshakable devotion for Kåñëa, the Supreme Soul of all existence; friendship with His devotees; and transcendental compassion for all living beings. Not only did Lord Kåñëa grant Sudämä these benedictions, but He also awarded him strength, long life, fame, beauty, and ever-increasing prosperity for his family. Then Kåñëa and His elder brother took Their leave."

This also shows the devotee is not interested in using these opulence's for self enjoyment. The phrases "after the ignorance is dispelled" and "given by My mercy" also indicate that these opulence's are not perilous. Mäyayäcitäm includes all opulence up to that found in Brahmäloka and it shows that the devotees have control over everything. But they do not make use of it, considering it very insignificant and thus undeserving. The Çruti also states, (Chändogya Upaniñad 8.1.6) "Just as the enjoyment earned by karma in this world perishes in due course, so does the heavenly pleasure attained by pious deeds." And thereafter, "And those who leave their body after knowing the Lord, and the real desirable objects, can freely travel in all the planets."

A doubt is raised: But if Vaikuëöha is another planet like heaven with no special distinction, then sooner or later the enjoyer and the enjoyment will vanish. The answer is çäntarupe - the nature of Vaikuëöha is çäntam, or unchanging, and its residents, who are My devotees are never destroyed which means they are never bereft of enjoyment. My time cycle does not devour them, no leòhi. Thus the Çruti states (Chändogya Upaniñad 8.15.1) "He does not return." The Gitopaniñad declares (Bg.8.16):

"From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place, but one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunté, never takes birth again."

While commenting on the name Paräyaëa in his Sahasranämabhäñya (75), Çaìkaräcärya writes,

 "That abode is most supreme (param); there is no fear of return so it is called paräyaëa. Because the term appears in the masculine gender it is bahuvréhi samäsa, which means-the Lord to whom this place belongs."

This is not the end of their glories, Lord Kapila states this with the words beginning with yeñäm aham. The meaning is for them there is no other object of love other than Me (The Lord). Or the statement can be taken as a reference to Goloka, because the cowherd boys who eternally reside there have such a mood. Or the line beginning with yeñäm can be taken as an answer to the question "What type of people attain that abode after getting free from the ignorance?" The meaning is that only those people who desire Me as their beloved husband (priyah), like the sages described in the Uttara-khaëòa of the Padma Puräëa.  Or those in the mood of the four Kumäras who meditate on Me as the direct Brahman; or others who meditate upon Me as their son, friend, worshipable master, and so on, only they can attain Vaikuëöha. The word suhåda, bosom friend, is in the plural, because they are of various kinds.

Çré Närada spoke similarly in the Fourth Canto (SB.4.12.37): "Persons who are peaceful, equipoised, cleansed and purified, and who know the art of pleasing all other living entities, keep friendship only with devotees of the Lord, they alone can very easily achieve the perfection of going to that abode from where no one falls down, acyuta padam."

Commentary

In this anuccheda Çréla Jéva Gosvämé proves that no one falls from Vaikuëöha into the material world.  In other words, Vaikuëöha is acyuta padam, a place of no-fall down.  Anuccheda Sixty-one establishes that Vaikuëöha is not attained by karma since it is beyond time, which destroys everything achieved by karma.  Time, however, does not influence the transcendental realm.  Thus Lord Kapiladeva instructs His mother-no'nimiño leòhi hetiù.  The wheel of time devours neither the devotees residing in Vaikuëöha, nor their opulence.  Time exists in Vaikuëöha, however, but is under the influence of the Lord.  Brahmä relates his personal experience-na ca kälavikramaù (Bhäg. 2.9.10) -"time has no control in Vaikuëöha".  This means that everything in Vaikuëöha is eternal. Anuccheda Forty-seven explains this in respect to Lord Kåñëa's birth and other activities.

The Lord and His activities are eternal which means the devotees and their activities are also eternal since they are related to the Lord.  If we accept that a devotee falls from Vaikuëöha, we must assume he falls eternally, which means the falling never comes to an end.  And if it doesn't come to an end, it means he never reaches the material world. If he does fall, then Vaikuëöha must be considered like any other material place.

To refute this Çréla Jéva Gosvämé categorically says-tato'skhalanam -one does not fall from Vaikuëöha. Since he is discussing the qualities of Vaikuëöha, it is understood he is not referring only to those devotees who go there from the material world. There is no ñastric evidence that in Vaikuëöha there is a distinction between the devotees who arrive there from the material world and those who have been there eternally. Vaikuëöha manifests its quality uniformly to all the resident devotees. It is not that it is a place of anxiety for some, and a place of peace for others. Therefore Lord Kapila says çänta-rüpa - its nature is peaceful, without any trace of any disturbance for anyone.

The word naìkñyanti meaning "will be destroyed," is very important. The residents of Vaikuëöha, without exception, never lose their opulence. Therefore Çréla Jéva Gosvämé writes unequivocally - tad-väsino lokäù kadäcidapi na naìkñyanti, bhogyahénä na bhavanti - the residents of Vaikuëöha are never destroyed. They never become bereft of their opulence. This naturally means that no resident of Vaikuëöha falls into the material world. Lord Kapila gives two reasons: First, that time has no influence in Vaikuëöha.  The second and most important reason is that all residents of Vaikuëöha have an eternal loving relationship with the Lord (sthäyi-bhäva). This relationship is not material and is never lost or covered.  And beyond that, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé  says the Lord has so much love for His devotees (vätsalya-viçeña) that He gives them all opulence even though they do not desire it. Hence there is no possibility that anything can act against the will of the Lord to deprive the devotees of their opulence.

To dispel the doubt that spiritual opulence might cause the devotees to forget the Lord, as is the case with material opulence, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé says, teñämanartha-rüpatvam khaëòitam - these opulences do not have a perilous nature. Text Eighteen explains that Mäyä acts by first covering the intelligence of the living entity (jéva mäyä), and then by alluring him with sense objects (guëa-mäyä). It is not possible for this to happen in Vaikuëöha since mäyä does not exist there - na yatra mäyä (Bhäg.2.9.10). Devotees are not hindered by ignorance in Vaikuëöha and their opulence is a manifestation of the Lord's mercy - mäyayäcitä (Bhäg. 3.25.37). Here mäyä means the mercy of the Lord as stated in the Viçra Prakäça dictionary - mäyä dambhe kåpäyäëca-mäyä means deceit and mercy.

His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda therefore writes, "In this verse Kapiladeva addresses His mother as çänta-rüpä, indicating that the opulences of devotees are fixed because devotees are eternally fixed in the Vaikuëöha atmosphere, which is called çänta-rüpa because it is in the mode of pure goodness, undisturbed by the modes of passion and ignorance. Once one is fixed in the devotional service of the Lord, his position of transcendental service can not be destroyed, and the pleasure and service simply increase unlimitedly. (Bhäg. 3.25.38 purport)

 The above verse therefore states na naìkñyanti, which indicates that transcendental opulences can never be destroyed. The Lord is eternal, therefore, relationships established with Him are also eternal. It is clearly confirmed herein that relationships with Him cannot be destroyed, and thus it follows that opulences stemming from those relationships can never be destroyed.

To satisfy those who are doubtful, let us assume that somehow or other a devotee falls from Vaikuëöha.  The obvious question that arises is, "Why does one fall?"  One may say that transcendental activities are causeless and thus there is no reason. But how can falling be considered transcendental?  Transcendental activity yields transcendental results, and falling into the material world cannot be considered transcendental.  Hence by the principle of phala-bala kalpa nyäya (understanding the cause by the results) it is concluded that such a fall is material.  Thus, falling has a beginning and end which characterizes it as material activity, so again, it cannot be regarded as transcendental.

A natural question arises, "How can material activity originate in the spiritual world?"  It has been proven in many places, specifically in Anuccheda Ten and Sixty-two, that Vaikuëöha is beyond the material world, free from the influence of time, and the modes of nature.  In response one may argue that the origin of this activity is not material, but when the living entity crosses the boundary of Vaikuëöha, the action becomes material.  This of course is absurd.

Transcendental entities do not get converted from spiritual to material.  Moreover Vaikuëöha is unlimited-it has no bounds:

"Lord Kåñëa revealed the indestructible spiritual effulgence, which is unlimited, conscious, and eternal.  Sages see that spiritual existence in trance, when their consciousness is free from the modes of material nature." (Bhäg. 10.28.15)

Vaikuëöha is all-pervading just like the Supreme Lord who exists everywhere and never leaves His abode.  This means His abode exists everywhere.  The material world cannot support His personality.  Thus the Çruti says, sa bhagavaù kasmin pratiñöhitaù iti sve mahimni (Chändogya 7.24.1), "Where is the Lord situated?  In His own glory" - meaning in His own abode.

Objection: But if Vaikuëöha is unlimited, then how is it that we do not see it or exist in it. And why is it said that when a devotee gets liberation, he leaves the material world and enters into the spiritual world?
Answer: We do not experience Vaikuëöha because we are in material consciousness. Going to Vaikuëöha actually means becoming Vaikuëöha, or Kåñëa conscious.  A television has many channels and while tuned to a particular one, programs on other channels cannot be seen. Transmission waves of several channels are broadcast into the atmosphere and are received by the television and superimposed on the screen.  We then choose which one to view.  Similarly, there are two channels, Vaikuëöha and Mäyä, and according to one's consciousness one views one or the other.  Everything exists in the Lord and the Lord exists everywhere. So the Lord is always situated in His own abode, and His abode exists everywhere. Falling down is possible only if a devotee acquires material consciousness and this is not possible in Vaikuëöha, as matter does not exist there.

If we accept that the jéva falls from Vaikuëöha, we must admit it is a material act from beginning to end.  Although a material act cannot occur in Vaikuëöha, for the sake of argument let us assume that it somehow happens.  Falling can have either a material or spiritual cause.  Below are six reasons which are often thought to precede a fall down.  After the list each is discussed in detail. (1)  The jéva wishes to come to the material world, inspired by his free will;  (2)  He commits sin;  (3)  He is cursed by a devotee or the Lord;  (4)  He offends a devotee;  (5)  He offends the Lord; or  (6)  The Lord decides to make him fall, as He is free to do as He likes.  It is not possible for a devotee to fall from Vaikuëöha for any of these reasons.
(1)  The devotee's very nature, svarüpa, is to render devotional service to the Lord.  He does not desire material or spiritual opulence without devotional service.  This is the import of Lord Kapila's statement (Bhäg. 3.25.37) çréyaà bhägavatiïca-spåhayanti.  Devotees naturally receive spiritual opulences by the mercy of the Lord - mama mäyayäcitam (Bhäg.3.25.37).  Elsewhere, Lord Kapila states (Bhäg. 3.29.13):

"A pure devotee does not accept any kind of liberation - sälokya, särñöi, sämépya, särüpya or ekatva - even though they are offered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

Vinä mat sevanam means "without My service."  This means that the devotee can accept the different types of liberation if they will facilitate his service to the Lord. He will not accept them for personal enjoyment. Thus the devotee certainly has no desire to come to the material world.  Çréla Jéva Gosvämé says that a devotee has no interest in material enjoyment because it is abominable - tasyäti-tucchatvena. Why should an intelligent person abandon a cintämaëé gem to acquire a piece of glass (käcamaëé)? On the contrary, a devotee never wants to leave Kåñëa's lotus feet.  He gives up everything else.  King Parékñit confirms this while speaking to his spiritual master (Bhäg. 2.8.6):

"A pure devotee of the Lord, whose heart has once been cleansed by the process of devotional service, never relinquishes the lotus feet of Lord Kåñëa for they fully satisfy him as a traveler is satisfied at home after a troubled journey."

In Text Seven of Préti-sandarbha,  Çréla Jéva Gosvämé writes that one should not think Jaya and Vijaya chose to become enemies of the Lord so they could more quickly be freed from the curse of the Kumäras - na ca tayoreva sväparädha-bhoga-çéghra-nistärärathamapi tädåsécchä jätetiväcyam. Pure devotees of the Lord do not accept even sälokya-mukti if it is bereft of bhakti, and will go to hell for the sake of bhakti. Indeed Jaya and Vijaya's only request was," But we pray that due to your compassion at our repentance, the illusion of forgetting the Supreme Personality of Godhead will not come upon us as we go progressively downward" (Bhäg. 3.15.36). Thus that a Vaikuëöha resident would give up the Lord's service and voluntarily come to the material world is highly illogical and against scriptural conclusions.

The Lord has given the devotees free will for the purpose of serving Him, not for leaving Him. Lord Kåñëa says that everyone follows his own nature and that it is very difficult to give it up (Bg. 3.5,33). If abandoning one's acquired material nature is very difficult, then how much more so to give up one's eternal nature-the nature to render service. Just as fire cannot exist without heat, a pure devotee in Vaikuëöha cannot exist without service. Free will does not mean one can do anything (omni potency). We have free will, but can we stand on our own shoulders? You have free will and the ability to commit suicide, but will you do so? Why then would a Vaikuëöha man do so?

(2) There is no possibility of committing sin in the spiritual world.  Sin and piety exist only in the material world, both being products of the modes of nature.  A devotee in the spiritual world is situated in his svarüpa, free from material covering or ignorance - muktir-hitvänythä rüpam svarüpeëa vyavasthitiù (Bhäg. 2.10.6).  Mukti means to give up the subtle and gross bodies and be situated in one's original nature.  In Bhagavad-gétä Lord Kåñëa explains that all sins are burned in the fire of transcendental knowledge (4.36,37):

"Even if you are considered to be the most sinful of all sinners, when you are situated in the boat of transcendental knowledge, you will be able to cross over the ocean of miseries."

"As the blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge burn to ashes all reactions to material activities."

Moreover, devotional service destroys even the desire to commit sin.

"Only a rare person who has adopted complete, unalloyed devotional service to Krsna can uproot the weeds of sinful actions with no possibility that they will revive. He can do this simply by discharging devotional service, just as the sun can immediately dissipate fog by its rays." (Bhäg. 6.1.15)

This point was also described in Section Forty-seven, Tattva-sandarbha during the explanation of Vyäsa's trance - bhaktirut-padyate puàsaù çoka-moha-bhayäpahä.  "Simply by giving aural reception to Çrémad Bhägavatam the feeling of loving devotional service to Lord Kåñëa sprouts up at once to extinguish the fire of lamentation, illusion, and fearfulness." (Bhag. 1.7.7)

Çréla Jéva Gosvämé's commentary on this verse explains that even subtle impressions of sin are destroyed.  Lord Kåñëa instructed Çré Uddhava in this same principle (Bhag. 11.14.19):

"My dear Uddhava, just as a blazing fire turns firewood into ashes, similarly, devotion to Me completely burns to ashes sins committed by My devotees."

The word kåtsnañah is important.  It means that ignorance, which is the root cause of sin, is completely destroyed.

(3)  There is no possibility that a devotee will curse another devotee in Vaikuëöha.  The devotee never desires to harm anyone, what to speak of another devotee. Prahläda Mahäräja says that a devotee has all good qualities (Bhäg. 5.18.12):

"All the demigods and their exalted qualities, such as religion, knowledge and renunciation, become manifest in the body of one who has developed unalloyed devotion for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Väsudeva.  On the other hand, a person devoid of devotional service and engaged in material activities has no good qualities.  Even if he is adept at the practice of mystic yoga or the honest endeavour of maintaining his family and relatives, he must be driven by his own mental speculations and must engage in the service of the Lord's external energy. How can there be any good qualities in such a man?''

A devotee does not want to harm even those who consider him their enemy.  Prahläda Mahäräja is the best example.  He was concerned about his father's welfare even though the latter tortured him in various ways.  Devotees are peaceful, tolerant, merciful and always thinking of every one's welfare.  Lord Kapila confirms this (Bhäg. 3.25.21):

"The symptoms of a sadhu are that he is tolerant, merciful and friendly to all living entities. He has no enemies, he is peaceful, he abides by the scriptures, and all his characteristics are sublime."

Thus there is no possibility that a devotee will curse another devotee.  The Lord is the fountainhead of all good qualities that exist in His devotees.  Thus there is absolutely no possibility that He will curse a devotee to fall into the material world.  He even gives liberation to His enemies who are always thinking how to harm Him.

Some Puräëic stories describe that devotees sometimes curse each other, but this is lélä and no vicious feelings are present.  Even when devotees come to the material world as a result of a curse, they are not placed under the influence of the modes of material nature.  They remain for the prescribed duration and assist in the Lord's bhauma lélä, or manifest pastimes on earth.  Jaya and Vijaya's descent to the earth was not the result of the curse of the Kumäras-it was caused by the will of the Lord (Bhäg. 3.16.29):

"The Lord then said to His attendants, Jaya and Vijaya:  'Depart this place, but fear not.  All glories unto you.  Though I am capable of nullifying the brahmanas' curse, I would not do so.  On the contrary, it has My approval."

Just as those who visit a prison do not become prisoners, so devotees who are so-called "cursed" to come to this material world to assist the Lord in His lélä, are not bound by the modes of nature.  While commenting on this verse Çréla Prabhupäda writes, "Ordinarily, there is no possibility that the four sages could be so angry with the doorkeepers, nor could the Supreme Lord neglect His two doorkeepers, nor can one come back from Vaikuëöha after having taken birth there. All these incidents, therefore, were designed by the Lord Himself for the sake of His pastimes in the material world. Thus He plainly says that it was done by approval.  Otherwise it would have been impossible for inhabitants of Vaikuëöha to come back to this material world simply because of a brahminical curse." (Purport of Bhäg. 3.16.29)

The associates of the Lord are almost as powerful as the Lord as stated in Bhägavatam (6.9.29):

"Surrounding and serving the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Näräyaëa, were sixteen personal attendants, decorated with ornaments and appearing exactly like Him but without the mark of Çrévatsa and the Kaustubha jewel."

The word ätmatulyaiù in this verse means just like the Lord. That means they are also merciful like the Lord and thus never desire to harm anyone.

(4 & 5) A perfected devotee never commits an offense. Offenses are committed due to ignorance resulting from forgetfulness of the Lord. Offense (aparädha) means an unpleasant act. A siddha devotee never forgets the Lord, he never desires to displease the Lord, and thus he never commits offenses knowingly or unknowingly. He is guided by the internal potency of the Lord, just as  a conditioned soul is always under the influence of external energy. The internal energy is always favourable to the Lord.

In Mädhurya-kädambiné, Çréla Viçvanätha Cakravarté Öhäkura has done a minute analysis of offenses while describing the progress of a devotee from çraddhä to prema. In the third chapter he explains that when a devotee has attained prema he is completely free from all types of offenses, and when he attains the lotus feet of the Lord there is not even the slightest possibility of committing an offense. For the enlightenment of those who consider that Mahäräja Citraketu offended Lord Çiva after having attained the darçana of Lord Çaìkarñaëa, Çréla Viçvanätha Cakravarti Öhäkura writes that the king did not really offend Lord Çiva. He gives more details on this in his commentary on the seventeenth chapter of the Sixth Canto.  The effect of an offense is that one's affection for the Lord diminishes, but we see that even after King Citraketu took birth as Våträsura he retained his love for the Lord. According to Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé (BRS 1.3.54), an offense committed to the Lord's dear devotee can cause one's bhäva or devotional mood to be completely lost, transformed into bhäväbhäsa, or change into a lower bhäva, depending on the intensity of the offense. But this does not happen once one has attained the platform of prema. The conclusion is that a perfected devotee who has attained the Lord is free from all offenses. Readers can also refer to the Préti-sandarbha, Text Seven for more details.

(6) The last possibility is that the Lord sends a devotee away.  This is not possible.  (Of course this does not include sending devotees to the material world for the purpose of assisting Him in His pastimes.)  The Lord positively told Durväsä Muni (Bhäg. 9.4.63-68):

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said to the brähmaëa: I am completely under the control of My devotees.  Indeed, I am not at all independent.  Because My devotees are completely devoid of material desires, I sit only within the cores of their hearts.  What to speak of My devotee, even those who are devotees of My devotee are very dear to Me.

O best of the Brahmaëas, without saintly persons for whom I am the only destination, I do not enjoy My transcendental bliss and My supreme opulences.

Since pure devotees give up their homes, wives, children, relatives, riches and even their lives simply to serve Me, without any desire for material improvement in this life or in the next, how can I give up such devotees at anytime?

As chaste women bring their gentle husbands under control by service, the pure devotees, who are equal to everyone and completely attached to Me in the core of the heart, bring Me under their full control.
"My devotees, who are always satisfied to be engaged in My loving service, are not interested even in the four principles of liberation (sälokya, särupya, sämépya and särñöé), although these are automatically achieved by their service.  What then is to be said of such perishable happiness as elevation to the higher planetary systems?

The pure devotee is always within the core of My heart, and I am always in the heart of the pure devotee.  My devotees do not know anything else but Me, and I do not know anyone else but them"
These verses lucidly explain the Lord's attachment to His devotees. These statements were made with respect to Ambaréña Mahäräja who was in the material world, so imagine how much more they apply to those who are supremely perfect, and have been eternally rendering service to the Supreme Lord in spiritual bodies."

Kåñëa similarly assured Arjuna (B.g. 9.31):

"He quickly becomes righteous and attains lasting peace.  O son of Kunté, declare it boldly that My devotee ever perishes."

This verse is spoken in reference to devotees in the material world who accidentally engage in abominable activities - suduräcäre. But even they will not fall into the material conception of life.

Inauspiciousness does not exist for the devotees of the Lord - na väsudeva-bhaktänäm açubham vidyate kvacit (M.B. Anuçäsaëa 149.131).

Thus none of the above possibilities can be the cause of a devotee's fall down.

Still one may doubt that the above conclusions apply to devotees, but what about non-devotees in Vaikuëöha?  They could fall down due to any of the six possibilities.  We reply that there are no non-devotees in Vaikuëöha.  As stated earlier, mukti means being free from foreign elements and being situated in one's svarüpa.  The nature of the living entity is spiritual-he is part and parcel of Kåñëa.  This means he is a servant.  As stated in the Padma Puräëa Uttarakhaëòa (226.37), däsabhüto harereva nänyastu kadäcana.  "The living entity is exclusively the servant of Lord Hari, and nothing else."
No one can go to, or stay in Vaikuëöha unless he has attained devotion for the Lord.  Lord Åñabhadeva confirms this (Bhäg.5.5.6):

"When the living entity is covered by the mode of ignorance, he does not understand the individual or supreme living being, and his mind is subjugated to fruitive activity.  Therefore, until one has love for Lord Väsudeva, who is none other than Myself, he will certainly accept a material body again and again."

Lord Kapila says that devotees have different relations with Him (Bhäg.3.25.38).  According to Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé there are five basic mellows, or rasas, which the Lord enjoys with His devotees.  Out of these five, the devotees in neutrality, or çänta rasa, have the least love for the Lord.  Still they are completely devoid of material desires and have strong faith in the Lord.  Çänta bhaktas cannot be considered non-devotees, nor is there any possibility of their falling down.

While commenting on Lord Kapila's statement  cited in the text (Bhäg. 3.25.38), Çréla Viçvanätha Cakravarté says that priya refers to the devotees in conjugal mellow, ätmä to those in neutral mellow, suta to those in vätsalya rasa, and sakhä to those in sakhya rasa.  Guru refers to a devotee in a specific type of däsya rasa, suhåda to a devotee in a specific type of sakhya rasa, and iñöam and daivan to those in däsya rasa.

Çänta-rupe (S.B. 3.25.38) means that Vaikuëöha is beyond the material modes (viñuddha sattva.)  Although Vaikuëöha is a planet, it has a different nature.  The opulence of the devotees in Vaikuëöha never perishes.  That is to say, they never descend to  the material platform. This is confirmed by hundreds of verses both in Çruti and Småti.  The Chändogya Upaniñad states (8.15.1):

"Drawing his senses within, he does not cause violence to any creature, except for what is prescribed in the scriptures, up to his death.  He attains the spiritual planet.  He does not return.  He does not return."
Çréla Vyäsa concludes Vedänta Sütras with (4.4.22), anävåttiù sabdätanävåttih çabdät.  "There is no return (from Vaikuëöha) because the scriptures say so."

Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa, while commenting on this Sütra, confirms this by quoting the following mantra from Chändogya Upaniñad (4.15.6):

"He leads them to Brahman.  This is the path of devas that leads to the Lord.  Those who walk on that path do not return to this human life.  Surely they do not come back."

Çré Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa says the Lord is determined not to abandon His devotees, and His devotees are equally determined to love Him.  Thus they can never leave Him. One should never doubt this.

While instructing Yudhiñöhira Mahäräja regarding the Araëya-dvädasé vrata, Lord Kåñëa says (Bhaviñya Puräëa, Uttara Parva 66.26):

"Therefore they attain the auspicious and blissful place of liberation.  Having attained it they neither lament for anything nor return to the cycle of birth and death."

In Bhagavad-gétä (15.6) the Blessed Lord says:

"That supreme abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire or electricity. Those who reach it never return to this material world."

And there are many other such verses in the Gétä.

Despite this evidence, one might claim that the above verses mean that those who reach Vaikuëöha from this material world never return, and that only those who have never been to this material world can fall down. In other words, those who achieve Vaikuëöha have experienced the miseries of the material world, but the nitya siddhas are ignorant of it, and are subject to fall down. The logic is that a person who has burned his tongue with hot milk, is so careful that he blows on buttermilk before drinking it.

This is an inconsistent argument. Before reaching Vaikuëöha the devotee casts off his subtle and gross bodies.  The experience of the material world remains in the subtle body so the devotee does not carry it with him.  In the material world we carry our stock of impressions in our subtle body, but how much of it do we remember?  Indeed, we do not recollect most of the things we did in this life. Then how is it expected that a liberated soul will remember the miseries of the material world?  And why would he?  What is the gain? Is the  remembrance of material miseries more pleasurable than service to the Lord? The tendency is to remember pleasurable moments and not misery. Moreover even if the Vaikuëöha devotee wants to recall his material experience, he does not have the subtle body in which all the impressions are stored.  In Bhakti-rasämåta-sindhu (1.1.23) Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé writes that bhakti destroys all varieties of karma.

It has been shown that falling from Vaikuëöha is not possible under any circumstances, furthermore, there is no scriptural evidence to support such an event.  However, there is much scriptural evidence which supports that it is impossible to fall down from the spiritual world, irregardless of  whether one has been eternally residing there, or has attained it after many lifetimes in the mundane world. 

Still to satisfy all opponents, we ask, "Have the nitya siddhas attained Vaikuëöha or not?"  If you answer in the affirmative, then they cannot fall down.  If they have not, where are they?  They must be in Vaikuëöha, otherwise they are not nitya siddhas.  So how is it that they exist in Vaikuëöha, but have not attained it?  Or is it that they are not in Vaikuëöha?  If yes, then there is no fall down, and if no, then there is no fall down. 

The reason most of the verses use verbs like "having attained", or "after reaching" is because these instructions are meant for the conditioned soul.  The Lord has no need to say this to the nitya siddhas.  First, the nitya siddhas are not in ignorance of this knowledge.  Second, when something is denied it indicates the possibility of opposite action.  If the Lord tells a nitya siddha "You will never fall because you are my devotee," this implies the possibility of fall down.  But the Lord never says one can fall from Vaikuëöha and thus there is no need to reassure nitya siddhas. But the Lord assures the conditioned souls that His abode is distinct in nature-it is a place of no return.  He does this because conditioned souls know from the scriptures that one falls from the heavenly planets.  Scriptures inform us about subjects unknown to us and which we are unable to know by ourselves- çästro'jïäta-jïäpakaù. Scriptural instructions are meant for the conditioned souls. Perfected souls are called nirgrantha (Bhäg. 1.7.10) and dure-yamä (Bhäg.3.15.25)-those who are beyond rules and regulations of scripture. Lord Kåñëa says (Bg.2.52) tada gantäsi nirvedaà çrotavyasya çrutasya ca. Pure devotees hear scriptures to relish the Lord's pastimes, not to get assurance that they will not fall. For them there is no difference between heaven and hell, svargäpavarga-narakeñvapi tulyärtha-darçinaù,  (Bhäg.6.17.28).

Therefore, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé says tato'skhalanam - Vaikuëöha is a place of no fall down.  He did not say "A place of no return" otherwise he could have said tato'nävartanam.  He knows very well the difference between the two statements. Vaikuëöha is called acyuta-padam (Bhäg. 4.12.37).  This can either mean the place of Lord Acyuta, or the place from where no one falls.  "Acyuta" is a name of the Lord but it also means "one who never falls" and "whose devotees never fall"- na cyavati cyävayati vä iti acyutam.  This is confirmed in Skanda Puräëa (4.20.10):

"His devotees do not fall down even during the great dissolution, therefore, He is Supreme, imperishable and omnipresent in all the planetary system."

Thus, His abode is called acyuta-padam - the place of no fall down.  Lord Kåñëa says (B.g.2.40):

"In this endeavour there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear."

This is an assurance for those in the material world, what to speak of those who are in the perfected state.

Another objection is raised:  "Conditioned souls are called patita, or fallen, and this implies that previously they were not fallen.  When we say, "This is a mashed potato" it means that it was not mashed previously.  So although we are unable to understand how we fell, we must have, otherwise we would not be designated as "fallen."  The Supreme Lord, Caitanya Mahäprabhu, in the mood of a devotee, says that He has fallen into the ocean of birth and death - patitam maà viñame bhavämbudhau  (Çikñäñöakam 4).  If we have fallen, it must have been from Vaikuëöha, because every other place is a fallen position."

The defect in this argument is the assumption that the fallen condition  precedes a non-fallen state.  If one's fall down has no beginning (anädi patita), then that person is also called patita, as there is no other word to describe that state.  The adjective anädi is not always used. An adjective separates one object from others in the same class, and conveys a special quality one object may have. For example, when we say "red lotus," we separate a particular lotus from a blue, or yellow one.  A red lotus is also a lotus, and can be referred to as such when there is no need to distinguish it from others. Similarly, when patita is used without the adjective anädi, it refers to all fallen living entities. Hell is a fallen place and there was never a time when it was not fallen.  Calling it a fallen place does not imply that it was not previously fallen.

Patita is formed when the suffix kta is added to the root pat (to fall).  This suffix is called a niñöhä (Päëini 1.1.26) and applied in the various ways some of which are described below:  (1.) To indicate something done in the past-as in bhuktam (eaten), (Päëini 3.2.102).  (2.)  When it is used actively, it indicates the beginning of an activity for example prakåtaù kaöaà devadattaù-Devadatta begins to make the mat (Päëini 3.2.102 värtika 3).  (3) The sense of activity of the present tense applied to roots marked with mute ï (these are the roots which end in ï) as also to the roots in the sense of desire, knowledge and worship (Päëini 3.2.187,88)  räjïäm iñöa-desirable of kings (4.)The sense of mere verbal activity such as hasitam - laughs, which is always used in the neutral gender (Päëini 3.3.114).  (5.) The sense of benediction when the word ending in kta is used as a name as in Devadatta (Päëini 3.3.174 and its Kañikä våtti).  The suffix kta, therefore, is not always used to indicate the past.  When patita is used to indicate a conditioned soul, it means he is eternally fallen.

While commenting on Ujjvala Nélamaëi (19.2) Çréla Jéva Gosvämé explains the meaning of sannihita, which is also formed by adding the suffix kta to the root dhä, in the same sense.  He is trying to prove the eternality of the Lord's pastimes.  He says the kta suffix is used in the sense of present tense laö-pratyayavat ktapratyayasya.  To substantiate his view, he gives an example from the Çruti: ayamätma apahata papmä-"The Lord is free from sins".  Apahata is formed with the kta suffix and when combined with päpma, it literally means "He has kicked away sins".

Does this mean that the Lord was previously sinful?  No.  Here the kta suffix signifies eternality-without any beginning.  Thus the meaning is that the Lord is eternally free from sins.  The kta suffix is applied to the term pratilabdha, which was used by the Lord to indicate eternality when He spoke to the Kumäras (Bhäg. 3.16.7):

Here Lord says that "He has acquired such a disposition," pratilabdha-çélam. This certainly does not imply that once upon a time He did not have such a disposition. The word bhakta is also made by putting kta suffix on the root bhaj, "to worship." This word does not always mean that previously a devotee was a non-devotee. Associates of the Lord, like Nanda Mahäräja, are bhaktas. Does it mean they were non-devotees once upon a time? Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that patita implies a previously liberated state.

The eternal associates of the Lord such as Mother Yaçodä are liberated persons, nitya-mukta.  Mukta is also formed with the kta suffix, however, it does not imply that liberated persons were previously fallen.  Similarly, patita, or baddha (bound), which are formed with kta, signify eternal conditioning when used to describe the state of a jéva in the material world.  It does not mean that those who are fallen were previously liberated.

But the opponent poses another objection: "If this Text is analysed, we can conclude it refers only to those devotees who reach Vaikuëöha from the material world. This can be understood by studying the six items like the opening statement, closing statement, and so on  as described in the following verse:

"'The purport of a doubtful text may be understood by the study of six indications: (1.) the beginning and the concluding part; (2.) what is repeated;  (3.) the peculiarity described; (4.) the result;  (5.) what it glorifies, and;  (6.) logical establishment.'"

The opponent may argue that the opening verse, concluding verse, and the Upaniñads mantra quoted in Text sixty-three, which is under discussion, all refer to the jévas who attain Vaikuëöha from the material world.
Answer: This type of analysis is applied only when ambiguity exists about the subject of a book, chapter, or essay. But such is not the case here. It is very evident that Çréla Jéva Gosvämé is discussing the qualities of Vaikuëöha. He listed ten characteristics of Vaikuëöha in Text Sixty-one, and now explains them in detail. In this present Text he describes that no one falls from Vaikuëöha.  Moreover, even if one analyses as mentioned above, and concludes that the subject of the Text is that those who attain Vaikuëöha from the material world never again fall, still that does not prove that eternal associates fall. This Text makes no such statements, directly or indirectly, and to conclude this is highly improper. On the contrary, the second verse spoken by Lord Kapila (Bhag.3.25.38), clearly states that the opulence of His devotees is never lost.  This means they never fall.

Still another objection is raised: "The cycle of creation and destruction of the material world is beginningless, and thus has occurred innumerable times.  During the maintenance period, occasionally some jévas attain liberation.  If  living entities only exit the material world, and none enter by falling from Vaikuëöha, then the universe would be empty at present.  Thus, it is logical to assume that an equal number of souls fall from Vaikuëöha to replace those who achieve liberation from the material world."

Answer: Such a concept is reached owing to ignorance of the unlimited nature of the Lord. There are unlimited material universes and each contains unlimited living entities. Unlimited means that when some are removed, still an unlimited number remains. Even in material mathematics, infinity, minus infinity, equals infinity. There are an infinite number of points existing in the line between A and B. If this line is divided into two parts, say AC and CB, each line still contains an infinite number of points.

Moreover, the opponent's logic backfires. If nitya siddhas fall to replace the jévas who achieve liberation, and those who go to Vaikuëöha from the material world never come back, then, as time is beginningless (anädi), by now all the nitya siddhas would have fallen into the material world and returned to Vaikuëöha. Thus the material world would be empty. Obviously this imagined state is far from truth, otherwise I would not be here writing this commentary.

The prayers of the personified Çrutis acknowledge that there are unlimited living entities (Bhäg.10.87.30 ):

"If the countless living entities were all-pervading and possessed forms that never changed, You could not possibly be their absolute ruler, O immutable one. But since they are Your localized expansions and their forms are subject to change, You do control them. Indeed, that which supplies the ingredients for the generation of something is necessarily its controller because a product never exists apart from its ingredient cause. It is simply illusion for someone to think that he knows the Supreme Lord, who is equally present in each of His expansions, since whatever knowledge one gains by material means must be imperfect."

In this verse aparimita means immeasurable, or countless.  While commenting on this verse Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé quotes a question Vajra Mahäräja asked Sage Märkaëòeya in the Viñëudharmottara Puräëa (1.81.12)

King Vajra said; O Brähmaëa, because time has no beginning therefore even if one person achieved liberation in each of the bygone kalpas, by now the world would be empty.

In answer to this, Sage Märkaëòeya replied (Viñëudharmottar Puräëa 1.81.13,14)

"When someone is liberated, the Supreme Lord who possesses unlimited potency, creates another jéva and thus always keeps the world full.  Those people who achieve brahma-loka become liberated along with Brahmä. Then in the next Mahä kalpa Lord creates similar beings."

Therefore, there is no need to assume that living entities fall from Vaikuëöha to replace the liberated souls. The important word in Märkaëòeya's answer is acintya-çakti. This has been described in greater detail in earlier sections of this book. Without accepting the existence of this most amazing energy of the Lord, one can never hope to understand Him properly.

But a natural doubt arises here. "Living entities are said to be beginningless (anädi-Bg.13.20).  Then why does the above verse say that the Lord creates others?"

Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé answers that there are unlimited inactive living entities which the Lord activates as He desires. This is what is meant by the term "creates" in the above verse. Creation does not mean producing new living entities. This is  accepted by all Vaiñëavas.  Actually såñyante is the word used to indicate "creates," and it comes from the root såja visarge, which means to create, or release.  Here we must take the secondary meaning because use of  the primary one will contradict other verses which state that the jéva is never created.  Såñyante then means to release the jévas from the inactive state into the active state.
So the conclusion is that nobody, whether nitya siddha, or sädhana-siddha, ever falls from Vaikuëöha. Here the natural question that arises is, "Where do we come from?" The simple answer is that we are nitya baddha. We have always been in the material world. There was never a time that we were not in the material world. The material nature, as well as the living entities are anädi or beginningless, as Lord Kåñëa says (Bg.13.20):

"Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature."

The word "beginningless" (anädi) is very important in this verse. Not only are the living entities and the material nature beginningless, but so is their association. Çréla Viçvanätha Cakravarti Öhäkura and Çrépäda Baladeva Vidyäbhuñaëa confirm this fact in their commentary on this verse. Tayoù saàçleño'pyanädiriti  bhävaù. More details on this subject will be presented in the Paramätmä-Sandarbha.
Objection:  But there are verses in Çrémad Bhägavatam which clearly state that living entity was with the Lord and fell down such as (S. Bhäg. 4.28.53,54):

"The brähmaëa continued : 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 Mänasa Lake. Although we have been living together for many thousands of years (sahasra parivatsarän), we are still far away from our original home."

First of all there is no mention of falling down from the Vaikuëöha in these verses. Çréla Prabhupäda mentions in the purport that the living entity falls into material world when he wants to enjoy. This falling is not from Vaikuëöha. This is clear from the translation, "Although we have been living together for many thousands of years we are still far away from our original home."

The commentaries of previous äcäryas clearly describe that these verses refer to the jévas residing with Mahä Viñëu during the total annihilation.  Sahasra parivatsarän (4.24.54), confirms this. "Giving up company" means taking birth in the next cycle of creation. Närada Muni describes this allegory to King Präcénabarhi and cannot be taken literally. It is indirect (parokñya) as stated by Närada himself (SB.4.28.65):

"My dear King Präcénabarhi, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the cause of all causes, is celebrated to be known indirectly. Thus I have described the story of Puraïjana to you (indirectly). Actually it is an instruction for self-realization."

The words pärokñyena "indirectly" and prokñayapriya "who like indirect description" must be noted.

From the above analysis, based on the authority of çästra, it is concluded without doubt that the living entity does not fall from Vaikuëöha. Yet for the benefit of those who are not convinced, here is a fresh analysis of this topic from a different angle.

In Tattva Sandarbha Çréla Jéva Gosvämé accepted three pramäëas, or types of evidence, while establishing the Gauòiya Vaiñëava epistemology. These are çabda, anumäna, and pratyakña. All evidence from çabda clearly indicates that the jéva does not fall. Pratyakña and Anumäna shed no light on this topic. Pratyakña, direct perception, is useless for deciding transcendental matters, but logic, which is part of anumäna, can be used in analysing the scripture. Logic that agrees with the çästra is acceptable. Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé, while giving the characteristic of an uttama adhikäri writes (BRS 1.2.17)

"One who is expert in logic, argument, and the revealed scriptures, who has strong determination, and firm faith in Kåñëa, is the person most eligible to achieve bhakti."

Here yukti means logic and argument. Çréla Jéva Gosvämé comments that the logic referred to here, is that which follows scripture.  To clarify, he quotes a verse from Vaiñëava tantra.

"Proper logic is that which is used to reach the proper conclusion on the strength of understanding former and latter statements of çästra.  Dry logic should be rejected."

Thus logic and argument are not completely useless. They can assist us to understand the conclusion of the scriptures and to resolve apparent contradictions. It is not uncommon to see contradictory statements in scriptures. For example the Vedas state: akñayyam ha vai cäturmäsya yäjiëaù sukåtaà bhavati, "One who observes the vow of Cäturmäsya attains imperishable merit." Yet in another place it is stated,  tat yatheha karma-jito lokaù kñéyate, evamevämutra puëyajito loko kñéyate (Chändogya 8.1.6). "Just as the results of material activities do not endure, so are the results attained in heaven by the performance of good deeds."

Naturally, both statements cannot be absolute. A secondary meaning must be applied to one of the statements in order to reconcile the contradiction. By understanding the speaker's intention, deliberating on the results of sakäma karma, and studying the many statements indicating the temporary nature of heavenly existence, one can understand that the first statement is not absolute. It is meant to inspire lazy people to observe the religious ceremony of Cäturmäsya. If they do so, they will gradually reach the level of pure knowledge. Lord Kåñëa confirms this principle (Bg. 4.33):

O chastiser of the enemy, the sacrifice performed in knowledge is better than the mere sacrifice of material possessions. After all, O son of Påthä, all sacrifices of work culminate in transcendental knowledge. People in general are attached to the fruits of their activities and if one preaches that they should engage in the activities of pure devotion, they may lose faith even in karma-yoga.

Therefore Lord Kåñëa advises (Bg. 3.26):

So as not to disrupt the minds of ignorant men attached to the fruitive results of prescribed duties, a learned person should not induce them to stop work. Rather, by working in the spirit of devotion, he should engage them in all sorts of activities (for the gradual development of Kåñëa Consciousness).

Preaching is an art. An expert preacher is one who preaches in such a way that people accept, and they do not get confused or become degraded. The conditioned souls do not want to get out of the material world and want to be happy in this life, or at best, in the next. Yet a devotee preacher wants them to quit material existence. Hence, there is a clash of interests. To overcome this, the devotee often has to devise a technique, just as a father conceals medicine within candy to induce the sick child to take it.  In Pürva Miàämsä this is called Parisaìkhyä vidhi, or using an injunction to accomplish something other than the apparent aim. Hence it is not easy to understand the conclusion of the scriptures. The sage Ävirhotra confirms this (SB.11.3.43,44):

"Çré Ävirhotra said: Prescribed duties, non-performance of such duties, and forbidden activities are topics one can properly understand through authorized study of the Vedic literature. This difficult subject matter can never be understood by mundane speculation. The authorized Vedic literature is the sound incarnation of the Personality of Godhead Himself, and thus Vedic knowledge is perfect. Even the greatest learned scholars are bewildered in their attempts to understand the science of action if they neglect the authority of Vedic knowledge.

Childish and foolish people are attached to materialistic, fruitive activities, although the actual goal of life is to become free from such activities. Therefore the Vedic injunctions indirectly lead one to the path of ultimate liberation by first prescribing fruitive religious activities, just as a father promises his child candy so that the child will take his medicine."

Mere citing of references will not establish the conclusive truth, but one has to analyse the scriptures thoroughly to understand the actual intent hidden within the hoards of recommendations for fruitive activities and the various apparent contradictions. One must successfully remove all apparent contradictions by properly understanding the strength of different scriptural statements. All scriptural statements do not carry equal weight or authority. Some can override others. For example the famous statement  kåñëastu bhagavän svayam (Bhäg.1.3.28), "But Lord Kåñëa is the original Personality of Godhead," is recognized as the emperor statement, or a mahä väkya. It overrules all statements which describe Kåñëa as an incarnation of someone else. It is not whimsically accepted as the most authoritative statement, but the accepted rules of logic are used. This will be demonstrated in the Kåñëa-Sandarbha.

In the four chapters of the Vedänta Sütra, the first is called Samanvyädhyäya, or the chapter on reconciliation. Thus one can imagine the amount of apparent contradictions present in the Upaniñaòs. Hence tarka, or favourable logic, has an important role and thus Çréla Jéva Gosvämé has rightly accepted it as a means to  know the  çästric conclusion. But in all cases the conclusions reached must not contradict scripture.

One way of analysing a philosophical conclusion is by seeing the conformity of sädhu, çästra, and guru. Of these three, çästra is Supreme. Indeed without çästra we cannot even know the proper definition of the other two. It is on the authority of the çästra that the teachings of Lord Buddha are rejected, although He is one among the incarnations of Viñëu. But we must not forget that çästra is understood through the medium of guru and sädhu. Thus it makes the process not so simple as it may appear. Without taking instruction in a bonafide paramparä, one will be lost in the jungle of scripture.

We have seen the çästric conclusions regarding the topic under discussion.  These are accepted by all other Vaiñëava sampradäyas without any quibbling. Our stalwart äcäryas like Çréla Jéva Gosvämé, Çréla Viçvanätha Cakravarti Öhäkura, and Çréla Baladeva Vidhyäbhüñaëa confirm this view, and thus the sädhus are in agreement.  For us, Çréla Prabhupäda's statements are siddhänta, and we see that he has made some statements indicating that the jéva has fallen from the spiritual world, and others indicating it is not possible to fall from Vaikuëöha. Hence the need to reconcile his statements arises. I cannot see any reason he would make such statements except to fulfil some preaching purpose. This is my reasonable guess. Of course, presenting both conclusions is a manifestation of his mercy on the conditioned souls. Being a master of preaching, he knows best how to convince people to take up Kåñëa consciousness.

To reconcile any contradiction, and bring out the siddhänta, we have to resort to logic.  One of  the contradictory statements must be regarded as absolute and the other must be understood according to its secondary meaning.  We understand that the statements made  to the effect that jévas fall from Vaikuëöha were made to suit a particular audience.  On the basis of the evidence cited in çästra, and the statements of sädhus, we must conclude Prabhupäda's statements indicating one cannot fall from Vaikuëöha as primary, otherwise the need  arises to interpret all statements to the contrary. However, there are no scriptural statements tand no previous äcärya has left any commentary describing a fall from the spiritual world. A sampradäya is based on the conclusions of prasthäna trayé, or çruti (Upaniñads), småti (Bhagavad-gétä), and nyäya prasthäna (Vedänta Sütra).  We see that the prasthäna trayé does not support that the jéva fell from Vaikuëöha. In Vedic culture every bonafide sampradäya establishes their siddhänta based on prasthäna-trayé, and any conclusion against this is considered as apa-siddhänta, or a faulty principle.

Çréla Prabhupäda has certainly studied prashtäna trayé, the Saö-sandarbha, and other works of our previous äcäryas. In fact he wrote commentaries on Prasthäna trayé-Bhagavad-gétä (Småti), Iñopaniñad (Çruti), and Çrémad Bhägavatam Nyäya (the natural commentary on the Vedänta sütra), as is customary for every prominent äcärya. It is unimaginable that he would not conform to the view of the çästra and the predecessor äcäryas. This is why he has not categorically stated that the jéva fell from Vaikuëöha. For the purpose of preaching he sometimes spoke contrary to the çastra. We should not take those statements as ultimate siddhänta, otherwise we will end up in the same situation as the followers of Çankaräcärya.  Çankaräcärya preached Mäyäväda philosophy to drive away the Buddhists. Once that was accomplished, his philosophy lost its utility. Thus it is no wonder that he composed verses praising Lord Kåñëa like the famous Bhaja Govindam, and Govindäñöakam. But his followers stuck to his Mäyäväda doctrine and ruined their lives. One may ask why he did not disclose the secret to his disciples. This is not so simple. People would have lost faith in him. Thus he had to hint at it indirectly. Therefore, speaking indirectly is another characteristic of great people and this activity is supported by Lord Kåñëa (SB.11.21.35)

"The Vedas, divided into three divisions, ultimately reveal the living entity as pure spirit soul. The Vedic seers and mantras, however, deal in esoteric terms, and I also am pleased by such confidential descriptions."

One may argue that since Çréla Prabhupäda felt it necessary to sometimes  say that the jévas fell from Vaikuëöha, the same need still exists.  So why change the well tested strategy of the äcärya? In this regard we have to see two things. Is it really true that circumstances are the same?  If they are, then  we should preach the same way.  But if circumstances are different, then we can preach in a straight way.  The principle is that we should clearly understand our audience and preach according to what will inspire them to make progress in spiritual life while we ourselves do not forget the actual sidhhänta.  Not that we accept only those statements he made which agree with  our preference, accepting them as siddhänta without considering çästra and sädhu, and deny the rest. 

Secondly, although Prabhupäda sometimes preached that  the jéva falls from Vaikuëöha, he did not categorically do so, or accept this philosophy as vaiñëava siddhänta.  The implication is that we  should know the proper siddhänta and preach according to the best interest of our audience. He has very clearly written in numerous purports that the living entity cannot fall from Vaikuëöha.  Here are a few examples:

"From Vedic scriptures it is understood that sometimes even Brahmä and Indra fall down, but a devotee in the transcendental abode of the Lord never falls." (Purport, Bhäg.3.15.48);

"The conclusion is that no one falls from the spiritual world or Vaikuëöha, for it is the eternal abode." (Purport Bhäg.3.16.26);

"The eternally liberated living beings are in Vaikuëöha jagat, the spiritual world and they never fall into the material world." (Purport of Bhäg. 5.11.12);

"The nitya siddha devotees never fall down to the region of the material atmosphere even though they sometimes come into the material plane to execute the mission of the Lord." (Purport of Bhäg.3.3.26);

"From authoritative sources it can be discerned that associates of Lord Viñëu who descend from Vaikuëöha do not actually fall. They come with the purpose of fulfilling the desire of the Lord, and their descent to this material world is comparable to that of the Lord....Therefore 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 that no one falls from Vaikuëöha." (Purport of Bhäg.7.1.35).

There are many other such statements. One point to be noticed is that in none of these purports does Prabhupäda make a distinction between the nitya-siddhas who have eternally resided in Vaikuëöha, and the devotees who go there from the material world.  Thus we should not insist that the siddhanta of the scripture is that the jéva falls from Vaikuëöha. If we do so, then we have to reconcile all scriptural statements to the contrary. If we cannot do this, then our siddhänta is faulty.

As far as preaching is concerned, the devotee must exercise his expertise. He has to preach according to time, place and circumstance.  One must take into consideration the capacity of the audience and preach accordingly while not being confused himself.  Çréla Prabhupäda knew the siddhänta although sometimes he presented something different. The Chändogya Upaniñad, Chapter Eight, narrates an interesting episode about the process of imparting knowledge.  Prajäpati once said that one must know the self, who is free from sin, decrepitude, death, sorrow, hunger, and thirst.  Lord Indra, the king of the demigods, and Virocana, the king of the demons, approached Prajäpati with a desire to learn about the self.  After both had served him while observing celibacy for thirty-two years, Prajäpati asked them to state their purpose and they both expressed a desire to know the self.

Prajäpati said, "The person who is seen with the eye, who is immortal and fearless, is to be known as the self."

They both asked, "Of the one seen reflected in the water, and the one reflected in the mirror, which is the self?" 

Prajäpati answered, "This very one is clearly seen in both."  Then Prajäpati asked them to look at their reflections in the water and said, "Tell me what do you understand about the self?" Then he asked them to decorate themselves and again look at their reflections in the water.  He then said, "This is the immortal and fearless self." They were both satisfied and left.

Virocana returned and informed the demon community that the body was the self.  Indra, however, was doubtful of this conclusion and returned to inquire further from Prajäpati, who gave him more instructions on the subject. After again returning to his kingdom, doubts brought Indra back to Prajapati for further instruction. After Indra served as a celibate student for 100 years, then Brahmä imparted real knowledge about the self to him.

This story has many nice instructions regarding the procedure for imparting and receiving knowledge. The relevant point is that the teacher speaks according to the ability of the student, and he expects the student to be very inquisitive.  He is like a cow who does not release milk until the calf has persisted eagerly for some time.  The more the calf pulls on the teat, the more the milk comes out.  The milk does not flow on its own accord, otherwise it will be wasted.

During the time of the Six Gosvämés  it  was very difficult for people to understand parakéya rasa and many Gauòéya Vaiñëavas were not comfortable with the conclusion that it was the highest relationship to be obtained, what to speak of vaiñëavas from other sampradäyas, or the general public.  The Gauòéya's agreed that Kåñëa's relationship with Çrématé Rädhäräné demonstrated the epitome of devotion, and on this basis some argued that paräkéya rasa was the highest. The most acceptable understanding, however, was that Kåñëa was actually married to Çrématé Rädhäräné, and this proved that svakéya räsa was superior.  Çréla Jéva Gosvämé thus wrote a mixed commentary on Ujjvala Nélamaëé and hints about this controversy in the following enigmatic verse. (Locana Rociné Öikä on UNM 1.18)

"Some things I have written here by my own will, and some due to the will of others. The part which is coherent is by my will, and the rest is due to others."

The very important point which he makes in this verse is yat-purväpara-sambandham- "that which is coherent", or that which reconciles the previous and latter statements of çastra,-was written by his own will.  Proper reconciliation is essential if one is to understand the actual intention of an author or preacher. This, of course, requires scriptural vision and necessitates the hard work of discrimination.  We must guard against taking the easier route, which is to simply accept one side and reject the other. That is not advised by Çréla Jéva Gosvämé.

It is not an easy task to determine what was written by Jéva Gosvämé's will simply by reading his commentaries because even when he gives the wrong conclusion, his writing is based on çästric evidence and is very logical. History tells us that even some of his students were unable to accept the parakéya explanation and thus Çréla Jéva Gosvämé hid the truth from them. Later on Çréla Viçvanätha Cakravarti Öhäkura came and waged a war against all statements claiming svakéya was superior to parakéya.  He states that the above verse composed by Çré Jéva dispelled his doubts about the svakéya/parakéya controversy. It appears that Viçvanätha Cakravarti Öhäkura refutes Jéva Gosvämé because he argues very strongly against those statements which claim that svakéya is superior. But such is not the case. Because these are not whimsical statements, strong logic and scriptural authority is required to refute them. He simply sheds light on what Çréla Jéva Gosvämé intended,  but could not say owing to the circumstances.

Therefore, one should not think that we are rejecting Çréla Prabhupäda's statements about falling down, or that we are contradicting him. Rather, those who accept his statements that the jéva falls, and ignore the statements to the contrary, offering no satisfactory explanation, are the ones who commit injustice and reject him. It is their responsibility to demonstrate that their conclusion conforms with the statements of guru, sädhu and çästra.

Here it should also be noted that statements made in Prabhupäda's letters cannot be taken as absolute if they contradict statements in his books, as the philosophy in his letters must follow the books. The letters are like the offspring of the books. If his letters take precedence over statements in his books, that would be like matricide. His letters are directed to specific individuals,  but his books are meant for everyone.  How can we expect that a statement directed to one individual is applicable to others if it does not express the siddhänta found in his books?  When a contradictory statement occurs between his books and letters, his books must take precedence. After all, the philosophical statements in his letters are dependent on çästra and not vice-versa.

A similar problem arises when there is a contention between çruti and småti.  The general principle for resolving the conflict is - çruti-småtir virodhestu çrutireva garéyasé - when there is a contradiction between çruti and småti, the former overrides the latter. This is because småti is based on çruti, which is eternal.

Moreover, it is not very encouraging to think that one may fall from Vaikuëöha, and it brings no glory to Lord Kåñëa either. If the Lord cannot protect His devotees, then He is not omnipotent. Furthermore, how will He enjoy if He sees so many of His devotees falling down? It is known from Prabhupäda - lélämåta that Prabhupäda would sometimes cry for the disciples who left him. Since the Lord is an ocean of mercy, then He too would continuously weep were He to see so many devotees falling into Mäyä. But Kåñëa is free from all miseries.  He is omnipotent and nowhere do we find a description that  Lord Kåñëa cries in such a way.

A pertinent problem arises if we accept that devotees fall from Vaikuëöha. Prabhupäda said that a first class man learns by hearing; a second class man learns from his own experience; and a third class man never learns. If we accept that a nitya-siddhas falls from Vaikuëöha, it means that he is second class, since he did not learn from hearing about those who fell previous to him. And to become first class, means the nitya-siddha would have to experience a fall into the material world, learn from his experience, and then return. But Prahläda Mahäräja says that a devotee has all good qualities. So how can they  be second class? It is offensive to think so.

Sometimes it is said that the jéva falls owing to being envious of Kåñëa. But as declared earlier, mäyä is not present in Vaikuëöha, so how will envy come about? In Bhagavad-gétä (13.7) the Lord says that hatred, or envy is part of the material body.

Or, it is said that envy arises by seeing Kåñëa enjoying with the gopés. But it is explained that devotees who serve those in direct association with Kåñëa derive even more pleasure. Lord Caitanya prayed to be a servant of the servant. Bhakti-rasämåta-sindhu considers following in the footsteps of Vraja residents as the highest mood of service. Moreover, Caitanya-caritämåta says that gopés derive ten thousand times more pleasure by seeing Kåñëa, than He does by seeing them. So how will some devotees feel dissatisfied by being servants? This means that the well propounded philosophy of being the servant of the servant is defective. Ultimately this notion indicates a defect in Kåñëa for not being able to satisfy His servants. Moreover, everyone does not serve Kåñëa directly, so it would mean there would be a lot of envious devotees in Vaikuëöha.

But Çrémad Bhägavatam states that pure bhakti is free from all types of cheating, and is meant for non-envious devotees (nirmatsaräëäm satäm Bhäg.1.1.2).  The Lord also promises in the Gétä, yoga - kñema vahämya aham.  So how could one feel dissatisfied, become envious, and leave?

Moreover, do the jévas fall only from Kåñëaloka and not from other Vaikuëöha planets?  Were this the case, then Kåñëaloka must be considered inferior to the Vaikuëöha planets owing to its' being less secure. This proposal contradicts scriptures like the Brahma Saàhitä which describes Kåñëaloka as the highest.  Secondly, if everyone falls from Kåñëaloka, then why is it that later on some become devotees of other incarnations like Räma, or Nåsimha, and go to Vaikuëöha? That means they are not going back home, but to a new home. Moreover, how are they able to alter their old relation with Kåñëa and become devoted to some other incarnation?

It is also argued that since Çréla Prabhupäda used the term "going back home" and named his magazine Back to Godhead, that he surely accepted that the jéva falls from Vaikuëöha.  We could accept such logic if it were supported by scripture, and all statements to the contrary were satisfactorily reconciled. But this is a far cry. Lord Kåñëa is the source of everything and everyone - aham sarvasya prabhavaù (Bg.10.8). So although we have eternally been in the material world, when we go to Kåñëa, it is not improper to say that we go back to Godhead. For example, the American Ambassador to India lives in Cänakyapuri, Delhi.  Now suppose his wife gives birth to a child in Delhi, and after a few years the Ambassador is called back to the States. His son tells his local friends that he is going back home, back to his country. There is absolutely nothing wrong in his statement. But does this mean that he came from USA and now he is going back? Certainly not.

The case of the nitya-baddha living entities is similar. They are not born in the material world, but they have always existed here. Yet they are part and parcel of Kåñëa, and are his servants. So it is proper to say that they go back at the time of liberation. And this is coherent with the scripture.

Were it possible to fall from Vaikuëöha, Yudhiñöhira Mahäräja's question to Närada Muni regarding Jaya and Vijaya's descent would be meaningless. (Bhäg. 7.1.34,35):

"Mahäräja Yudhiñöhira inquired: What kind of great curse could affect even liberated viñëu-bhaktas, 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 bodies of the inhabitants of Vaikuëöha are completely spiritual, having nothing to do with the material body, senses, or life air. Therefore, kindly explain how associates of the Personality of Godhead were cursed to descend in material bodies like ordinary persons."

The word "again" used in the translation does not mean that Jaya and Vijaya were previously in the material world. They are the Lord's eternal associates.  In other words, Yudhiñöhira Mahäräja would not think, "Jaya and Vijaya were previously conditioned souls and afterward became liberated. Thus it is impossible for them to fall. If they had never been to the material world before, then it would be possible for them to fall." No commentator has explained Yudhiñöhira Mahäräja's questions in this manner. Moreover, there are no scriptural statements indicating that Jaya and Vijaya were materially conditioned prior to being gatekeepers. Furthermore, there is no Sanskåt word corresponding for the "again" used in the translation. In Text Seventy-five Çréla Jéva Gosvämé includes Jaya and Vijaya among the eternal associates,  nitya-pärñada.

The concept of nitya-baddha is not easy to grasp. We understand things according to our material experiences which concern things and activities that have a beginning and an end. Çréla Prabhupäda mercifully adjusted the philosophy so we neophytes could understand this difficult concept. But he did not always do so. Surprisingly enough, people who claim that the jéva falls from Vaikuëöha fail to question the significance of the word nitya, in nitya-baddha. The word nitya-baddha implies that the bondage of the jéva has no beginning or end. Everyone accepts that we can achieve liberation, therefore, nitya does not apply to the future.  Now, if we fall from Vaikuëöha, nitya has no bearing in respect to the past.  The term then loses all significance. Then why use nitya, or anädi in nitya baddha and anädi karma? Why not just say we are baddha instead of saying nitya-baddha? Many times Çréla Prabhupäda said we cannot trace out the beginning of our conditioned state. Why? Because there is no beginning. And how can you trace out something which does not even exist? He also said, "Do not try to figure it out-just get out." Why? Because you cannot figure out that which has no existence.

If one falls from Vaikuëöha then how can it be considered superior to the heavenly planets?  One may answer that from heaven everyone must fall, but only those who have never been to the material world are subject to falling from Vaikuëöha-in this sense it is superior.  But where is the çästric proof for this answer?  Vaikuëöha is a place free from anxiety.  The three-fold miseries do not exist there. The residents there do not suffer from the pangs of birth, death, disease, and old age. If there is danger of falling from there, one would be in anxiety about it.  And the more one enjoys there, the more anxiety he will experience when faced with losing it. Since the pleasure derived in Vaikuëöha is superior even to that of Brahmananda, the anxiety of losing it must also be very great. But who will accept that Vaikuëöha is a place of anxiety, much less the place of greatest anxiety?

So, the conclusion is that the living entity does not fall from Vaikuëöha. And the happy news is that although we are nitya-baddhas-eternally bound-we can achieve liberation and become nitya-muktas.