Did Sarüpa Fall From Goloka?

Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé does not write anywhere that the jéva falls from Vaikuëöha, yet some devotees have tried to screw out such a meaning from his writings. As proof they cite Båhad Bhägavatämåtam 2.6.55 (translation by Kuçakrata Dasa):

O Çrédämä, now I have found my friend Sarüpa, who is a brilliant sun shining on the lotus of your family. 

          This verse, they argue could would mean not only that Gopa Kumära had once been Kåñëa's friend in Gokula, but that he had a place in Çrédäma's family.

          Next they cite from Sanätana Gosvämé's commentary on 2.6.89, "Sarüpa is Gopakumära's original name in the spiritual world."  And finally, in 2.6.131, Sarüpa is referred as "born in the family" of  Rädhä's brother."  This means he is related to Çrédäma, they argue. This proves Gopakumära was originally a friend of Kåñëa named Sarüpa, who fell into material world and then went back to Godhead. 

          But a careful reading of the story shows all these assumptions to be inappropriate.  When Gopakumära arrived in Goloka only Kåñëa recognized him as a friend named Sarüpa.  No one else knew this newcomer.  The Lord had to introduce Sarüpa to everyone else, including to Çrédäma, to whose family the newcomer supposedly belonged.  If it is the case that Sarüpa had regained his svarüpa, which he had prior to his fall, meaning that he is in the same form, mood and so on which he had before his fall, why is it that no one but Kåñëa recognized him?  When he was introduced to Çrédäma they did not embrace each other like long parted family members.  In fact what was the need even to introduce him?  In Vaikuëöha you do not lose your memory over a period of time. 

          Secondly, it would not have been a long time since he left, from the point view of the residents of Gokula because they are beyond material time.  All the kalpas of Gopakumära's stay in the material world may be just a second in the Vrajadhama, as Lord Brahmä says (Brahma Saàhitä 56) in the Lord's abode there is eternal existence of transcendental time, (vrajati na hi yaträpi samayaù).  What to speak of recognizing Sarüpa, the Gopis thought that maybe he was a servant of Kaàsa come to harm Kåñëa (BB.2.6.63), kaàsasya mäyävi-varasya bhåtyaù.

          Lord Kåñëa did not say that His friend Sarüpa has returned.  Just because Lord Kåñëa said, "I have found My friend Sarüpa" does not mean that Sarüpa was in Vraja.  Lord Kåñëa says "I am in the friend of every living entity, suhådam sarvabhütänäm.  He uses the same word, suhådam, in the verse under discussion (BB.2.6.55), so it is not unusual for Kåñëa to recognize him as a friend and to address him as such even though Gopakumära has never been in Goloka  That no one in Goloka knows Sarüpa, who has to be introduced around and is described as a newcomer to rather than an old timer coming back indicates that he was not returning to some old familiar place.

          Sarüpa never utters anywhere that he has come to his original place.  Rather he is describing everything as if he has never been there.  For example, it is Çrédämä who has to lead Sarüpa to his house.  Sarupa could not go by himself (BB.2.6.146), çrédämnägatya geham svaà ahaà nétaù prayatnataù, "Then Çrédämä came and respectfully led me to his house."

          After meeting Lord Kåñëa for the first time Sarüpa went to Kåñëa's house.  Later on, Çrédämä took him to his house.  Sarüpa did not go by himself.  Sarüpa also says that Çrédäma took him to his house.  He did not say that he took him to their house.  In case someone doubts the meaning of the word svaù "his own," Çréla Jéva Gosvämé says svam means svakéyam or his (Çrédäma's) own.  Sarupa refers to himself as a newcomer, nütna (BB.2.6.359).

          But then why does Kåñëa say that Sarüpa belongs to Çrédäma's family?  The meaning is that when a jéva follows the path of rägänuga bhakti then he has to think himself as a follower of some nitya-siddha or a rägätmika devotee in Vraja.  Those who are in mädhürya bhäva will follow the manjäris and those in säkhya bhäva will follow the friends of Kåñëa, such as Çrédäma.  When they attain perfection they will join in their respective groups and are called family members.  So the meaning of Lord Kåñëa's statement is that Sarüpa will be in the group of Çrédäma and will render service under his guidance.  This is explained in detail in verses 1.2.270-307 of the Bhaktirasamrta Sindhu and the commentaries of Srila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura on these verses.

          The spiritual planets are free from birth, death, old age and disease, so what is the meaning of the Lord saying that "He belongs to your family"?  Was he born into his family?  Of course not, but he is joining Çrédäma's family of säkhya devotees.

          If we have to conclude that Gopakumära was in Goloka and fell down, then what about the following verse (BB 2.4.81):

çré bhagavän uväca

svägataà svägataà vatsa diñtyä diñöya bhavän mayä

sangato'tra tvadékñäyäà ciramutkaëöhitena hi

Lord Viñëu said, "Welcome, Welcome O dear, I was very eagerly awaiting to see you since a long time. Now by great fortune I have met you.

The scene is in Vaikuëöha.  Here the Lord uses the word ciram utkaëöhiten, eager since a long time.  And in the next verse the Lord addresses him as sakhä, dear friend.  According to the logic of the fall-vädis this verse would be proof that Gopakumära fell from both Vaikuëöha and Goloka?

          And to make the case for fall down worse, consider this next verse (BB.2.4.263):

çré bhagavän uväca

bho gopanandana suhåttama sadhu sädhu

snehaà vidhäya bhavatä vijayaù kåto'tra

viçrmyatämalam alaà bahubhiù prayäsai-

retair na duùkhäya ciram nija-bändhavaà mäm

Lord Räma said, "O Gopanandana, O My best friend, very well. You have come here out of affection for me. This is very auspicious. Please relax and do not give me pain by paying obeisances. I am Your old friend.

This was how Lord Räma addressed Gopakumära when he arrived in Ayodhyä in the spiritual sky.  Now, following the fall-vädis logic, we must conclude that Gopaklumära fell from Räma-lélä as well.  This raises some pertinent questions: Did he fall sequentially from all these places?  Or did he fall simultaneously?  If he fell sequentially, then we cannot say that once attaining the spiritual world one does not return to this material world.  If he fell simultaneously, where is the çästric reference to substantiate that a jéva devotee can participate simultaneously in the Lord's pastimes in Goloka, Vaikuëöha, and Ayodhyä?  And even if they can do by expanding do they all fall simultaneously.  We know on the authority of Çréla Jéva Gosvämé that devotees of Lord Caitanya get to be in His nitya-lélä  and in Kåñëa's simultaneously, but do we have other instances of this in the çästra?

          Fall-vädés may come up with alternative answers: 1.  Gopakumära fell gradually from Goloka to Vaikuëöha then to Ayodhyä.  He resided at each of these places, made friendship with the Lord, became envious of Him and fell to the next place down below.  2. Viñëu and Räma made such statements only thinking of themselves as non-different from Lord Kåñëa.

          There is no çästric proof for anyone of these explanations and if a person becomes envious of Kåñëa, Lord Räma or Lord Viñëu will not consider him as their friend and give him shelter in Their abodes.  The second explanation can be given by only those who do not know the difference between Vraja and Vaikuëöha bhakti. 

          When Gopakumära reached Vaikuëöha and saw Lord Viñëu he called him Gopäla and ran to embrace the Lord, but the Lord's associates stopped him (BB.2.4.76,77).  The Lord did not respond as if He was Gopäla.  Therefore Lord Viñëu was neither considering Himself as Kåñëa nor did He address Gopakumära as friend he was friend of Kåñëa's.  The actual explanation is that because Krsna is svayam bhagavän, He can assume the mood of any other incarnation, but no other expansion or incarnation can assume His mood.  Indeed the devotees of Lord Kåñëa have no attraction for any other incarnation.  If Gopakumära was originally in Goloka, then He would not be attracted to Viñëu and especially He will not mistakenly call Him Gopäla.

          Then why did Lord Viñëu, Lord Räma and Lord Kåñëa address Gopakumära as friend?  The reason is that the Lord is a friend of His devotee.  All the incarnations come to establish religion, dharma-saàsthäpanärthäya.  When a jéva becomes a devotee They all feel happy.  Such a devotee is automatically very dear to the Lord.  Every jéva has an eternal relation with the Lord as servant and when he realizes this, the Lord feels ecstatic.  The Lord is naturally engladdened to meet such a friend.  Therefore wherever Gopakumära was in Vaikuëöha, he was received by the Lord with great joy.  

          Otherwise, if the declaration of friendship by both Rama and Visnu is an indication of a previous relationship, then why did They allow him to leave for Goloka?  They did not even inquire from their servants about Gopakumära's departure.  They considered him a sakhä because in all His forms the Lord is a well-wisher of the living entity.  In fact He manifests various forms for the pleasure of His devotees.

          The conclusion of this is clear, but the following statement of Gopakumära gives added weight to whats been said so far, cirädåñta-präëa-priya-sakhamivävapya (BB.2.5.76) "Lord Kåñëa took my hand in His as if He had found His dearmost friend whom He had not seen for a long time."  Here the word iva (like) is very important.  It clearly means that the Lord never met Him before because Sarüpa was never in Goloka.  The Lord greets him like an old friend and not simply an old friend because Sarüpa was never in Goloka before.

          One who reaches Goloka is a very rare and special soul.  Prema-bhakti is rarely understood and very rarely achieved.  If Sarüpa has already been in Vraja, Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé would not use the word iva in this verse.  Instead he could have used the words anu, punar, bhüya and so on which mean again.  Sanskåt does not lack words for expressing these matters and Sanätana Gosvämé does not lack knowledge of them.

          The fallvädé's second argument is based on the commentary  to Text 2.6.89 "Sarüpa is Gopakumära's original name in the spiritual world."  Actually there is no such statement in the commentary.  Apparently the phrase "original name in the spiritual world" was assumed and added by the translator, who was himself a fall-vädé and out of natural enthusiasm for having Sarüpa return, he included that in his translation to 89.  What the commentator does say is, "Because the Lord called Gopakumära by the name Sarüpa from now on I will refer to him by this name."  The text reads, gopakumärasyäsya bhagavata sarupeti namokti ritaù prabhåti tannämnaiva nirddeçaù  All along the author was writing gopakumära uväca but once Kåñëa gave him the name Sarüpa, the author wants to say sarüpa uväca in place of gopakumära uväca.  Because he did this for the first time in verse 89 he explained his reason. 

          The answer to the third proof based on verse 2.6.131 in which the Lord refers to Sarüpa as born in the family of Rädhä's brother has been given previously.  Here we will make some additional points.  Tad-bhrätå-vaàça-jätasya, "Born in the family of Rädhä's brother". This infers that Sarüpa will be part of Çrédäma's group.  The word jätasya although it means "of the one born" comes from the root jani. The original meaning of the root is jani prädurbhäve, to appear. Therefore the meaning of the above phrase is one who has appeared in the family of Rädhä's brother for it cannot be taken literally as birth in that family.  And this appearance is not any previous appearance but current.  The past tense, used in the word jätasya, "one who has appeared," does not refer to some event in the distance past before the supposed falldown, it refers to the immedite past.  In fact that very phrase proves that he was never in Goloka before, otherwise why does the Lord have to repeat it again and again.  He repeats it because no one knows Sarüpa's identity because he is a newcomer.  The same point will come out in Chapter Nineteen, Fourth Wave, where Srila Bhaktivinoda describes his entrance into Goloka as Kamala-manjari. She is introduced to everyone not as an old associate returning, but as a newcomer.  If the phrase Tad-bhrätå-vaàça-jätasya, "Born in the family of Rädhä's brother," is not understood in this way, then the fall-vädis have to explain jatasya, how one can be born in Vaikuëöha. 

         Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé has given a description of Çrédäma's family (Rädhä-kåñëa-gaëoddeçädépikä 2.37-39):

çrédämä çyämara-ruciraìga-käntir manoharä

péta-vastra-paridhäno ratna-mälä paramojvalaù

çré kåñëasya priyatamo bahukeli-rasäkaraù

våñabhänuù pitä tasya mätä ca kirttidä saté

rädhänanga-maïjaré ca kaniñöhä bhaginé bhavet

Çrédämä has an attractive blackish bodily hue.  He wears yellow garments and is decorated by necklaces made of gems.  He is sixteen years old and a very effulgent young boy.  He is the dearmost friend of Kåñëa and is the storehouse of various playful moods.  His father is Våñabhänu and his mother is the chaste lady, Kirttidä.  He has two younger sisters, Rädhä and Anaìga-maïjaré.

          Çrédämä was not married and it is inconceivable that Sarüpa (Gopakumära) was born in the family of Çrédämä.  He could not be one of Çrédämä's uncles because he is of Çrédämä's age.  And what is the most dangerous proposition is that if Sarüpa, who belongs to Rädhä's family, could fall then anyone could fall.  How about Sri Rädhä herself?  If Sarüpa could fall from his eternal post as a member of this family, then fall-vädés must explain why She could not fall?  By their logic She must be a prime candidate because She sees Kåñëa enjoying all the time and She must have more free will than the remote devotees.  Thus she has more facility to become envious and thereby misuse her free will.  But no Vaisnava would accept this line of thinking.

          Besides the above points, Gopakumära describes himself as a "newcomer" in Goloka (BB 2.3.359):

dure'stu tävad värtteyaà tatra nitya-niväsinäm

na tiñöhed anusandhänam nütnänäm mädåçämapi

What to speak of the eternal residents of Goloka, even new comers like me cannot ascertain this (whether a particular pastime has been performed earlier or not.)

          In this verse the words nitya-niväsinäm and nutnänäm are very important.  The first means eternal (no beginning and no end) residents and nütna means the newcomers.  If Gopakumära was ever in Goloka and fell down then this verse will make no sense at all.  

          The dictionary meanings of nütna are: new, fresh, young, present, instantaneous, recent, modern, curious, strange.  In the present context, especially because the word has been used in contrast to eternal residents, the word can mean a new, fresh, recent or modern resident.  In his commentary on this verse Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé explains the word nütna as ädhunikä bhagavat-kåpayä sädhakäù, "the modern devotees who have reached there by the mercy of the Lord."  In this part of the book, he is trying to explain that the Lord performs His pastimes again and again but they appear novel to the eternal residents.  Someone may doubt that the devotees who go from the material world may remember that he repeats them. This is because while in the material world the devotees know that Lord repeats his pastimes.  Then the author says that even they do not remember.[1] The word ädhunika, which is used for devotees like Sarüpa, means modern, of recent origin, new and so on.  Therefore it completely upsets the fall down theory.

          Even after all this fall-vädés may feel this is just our interpretation.  Then, please consider the following verse (BB 2.6.366):

tallokasya svabhävo'yaà kåñëa-sangaà vinäpi yat

bhavet tatraiva tiñöhäsä na cikérñä ca kasya cet

Indeed that is the nature of that planet (Goloka) that even without the association of Çré Kåñëa one desires to live there.  No one even desires to go anywhere else.

          Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé says two things 1. one wants to live there and 2. one never desires to leave.  So He confirms the no fall siddhänta both positively and negatively, leaving no loopholes.  In case one misinterprets that some of them may like to leave, he uses the word kasyacit, no one.  No loopholes again.  Even if Kåñëa leaves Goloka, the residents will not leave it.  Forget about leaving, they will not even entertain such a desire. Although the verse is self explanatory, Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé comments upon it to make it explicit.  Kåñëasya saìgaà vinäpi tatra çré Goloka eva tatratya vraja-bhumau vätiñöhäsä sthätumicchä bhavet. This makes it impossible to juggle words.  And if one doubts, thinking, "How will Vrajaväsis tolerate the misery of separation from Kåñëa?" in the next verse Sanatana Gosvami says that this misery dances on the heads of all other pleasures.  So without doubt Vrajaväsis will not even think of leaving Vraja. 

          From these verses by Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé it is very clear that he has not the least bit of inclination towards the falldown theory. Here it may be noted that the Båhad Bhägavatämåta is the prime book of Gauòéya Vaiñëava siddhänta.  The other Gosvämés drew from this book for the philosophical tenets.  Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé was the seniormost of the six Gosvämés and was an authority on Çrémad Bhägavatam.  Indeed Çrémad Bhägavatam was his worshipable deity.  Furthermore, he was personally instructed by Lord Caitanya for two months in Benares.  Therefore it is expected that no other of the Gosvämé's will write anything that contradicts the siddhänta set forth in the Båhad Bhägavatämåta.  Later on we will give more evidence (pramäëas) from this book in support of the no fall down siddhänta.

1. Footnote:

          This is the proof that devotees  who reach Vaikuëöha from the material world do not carry their material memories.  Therefore the logic that such devotees do not fall down because they remember their material miseries is not supported by the çästra.  The reason they do not fall is that they are engaged in bhakti, not that they are scared to fall.