No one falls from Vaikuntha

We are constituted of the tatastha sakti. Bhakti is constituted of the svaraup sakti. The maya sakti can never overcome the svarupa sakti that governs Krsna-lila. This sakti is so powerful that it even overwhelems Krsna! However, the maya sakti can overwhelm the tatastha sakti. Thus with the ingress of the svarupa sakti (bhakti) into the life of the jiva, maya readily is dispelled and the jiva is in a position to participate in Krsna lila. Such a liberated jiva an never then be influenced by the maya sakti nor is such a jiva even in the proximity of this sakti that has no presence in Krsna lila. Liberated souls are either eternally so (nitya siddha) or those that have attained perfection (sadhana siddha). Nitya siddhas cannot fall by the very nature of their being eternally liberated. And sadhana siddhas cannot fall because among other reasons Krsna repeatedly says that his abode is a place of no return. So there is no one to fall and no influence to present the possibility.

On the material side, Mahavisnu is without beginning (anandi). The world cycles compared to his breaching are also anadi. And thus karma is anadi as well, as it is repeatedly said to be in sastra. Karma is the binding force between the jivas and the maya sakti. In repeating world cycles that have no beginning, karma also has no beginning. If it did, there would be a material world before the influence of karma that was a material world without karma, which makes no sense whatsoever. and to say that Karma begins outside of time, is also only a preaching strategy, for in reality there can be no beginning outside of time, for it is time that marks all beginnings. “Beginning” implies the influence of time. So we follow sastra. It does no matter how appealing or not it may seem. Then again, sometimes in certain circumstances preachers may choose not to tell the student everything at once and thus speak about metaphysical truths provisionally, just as a mother my reply to her child’s question about where she came from by telling her she was dropped of by a big bird in the chimney.

So for preaching sometimes one may speak about suffering in a manner so as to overtly shift the blame from God to ourselves, lest persons blame God. But the fact is that there is no one to blame in that God is doing as God likes and we are also God, being one of his saktis that has no independent existence. This is how to look at it from the abheda (non difference) point of view. From the bhedea (difference) point of view we are failing to choose bhakti and thus we suffer and are the cause of our suffering. And we are both God and not God.

Incidentally, although Prabhupada, following the lead of Bhaktivinode, sometimes spoke as if jivas fall from lila as a strategy for the Wester Christian world, when the subject is addressed directly in Srimad Bhagavatam, he gives the siddhanta, which may not always be one with preaching. In Srimad Bhagavatam Yuddhistira Maharaja states that he cannot believe that souls (Jaya and Vijaya) can fall from Vaikuntha because they are completely under the influence of the illuminating power of the svarupa sakti and nothing is more powerful that this influence, not event the sages curse. He poses his disbelief in the form of a question and then answers his own question. Narada, with whom he is speaking, does not disagree. This is where the question of falling from Vaikuntha is addressed in the text, and in his purport Prabhupada clearly states that “No one falls from Vaikuntha.”

Otherwise we also find throughout the sastra that the souls in this world who are not nitya siddha or sadhana siddha but rather nitya baddha (materially conditioned) emanate from Mahavisnu. Sastra states this again and again. In the Gita, Krsna, speaking as Mahavisnu, says that he is the seed giving father that impregnates the womb of the world. By his glancing the world is manifest as consciousness (tatastha sakti) turns on the machine of material nature.

It is not that Mahavisnu, the oversoul of the world, makes a play out of our suffering. But rather that suffering is an inevitable consequence of his desire to become many. Why? Because he presides over the maya sakti, and when he becomes many the many are faced with its influence. Thus he seeks to remedy to situation by giving the opportunity for bhakti. Had he not desired to become many, what then?

Sometimes when we play, problems arise and we have to deal with them. It is not that Visnu sets up the play of suffering, but rather in the course of his play the problem of our suffering arises. This is the inevitable outcome of minute jivas being in touch with the area of his jurisdiction (maya sakti), that which he oversees. And you can’t do way with the maya sakti anymore than you can do away with God. It is one of his saktis, perhaps his subconscious. So the problem for the jivas arises and he who plays then becomes dutiful, establishing dharma etc. But Brajendranandana Krsna only plays. He has absolutely no duty to perform. It is the Visnu in him that performs this function of establishing dharma, slaying demons and so on. As much as God has no duty to preform is as much as Vraja Krsna is God in the fullest sense of the term. He personally has nothing to do with the cause of our suffering.

See also: Of Power and Play

2 thoughts to “No one falls from Vaikuntha”

  1. This is an incomplete explanation. Based on this explanation the blame for our suffering, if there is one to be attached, very much still lies with MahaVishnu. Why are some souls created as Nitya Siddhas and others created as Nitya Baddha? Why this partiality? That I have been chosen among many others to facilitate his Sristi-Lila is clear, but why me? Why not someone else? Sure, we’re god and we’re not, there is no real distinction between me and Krishna, but my experience of existence in the material world is as an ‘individual’ due to the illusion of Maya. Thereby, my suffering is mine alone, not shared with other souls or Krishna. Since I didn’t ask to become a Nitya Baddha and I was forced to come to this material world because of lack of real free will, my suffering is a direct consequence of Lord’s pass-time. I am wrong here?

    1. “So we follow sastra. It does no matter how appealing or not it may seem.” Sastra is not here merely to satisfy your intellect, but also to tell you about that which does not answer to and also may not appeal to your intellect but is nevertheless true.

      That said, you complain as to why some jivas are objects of compassion while other are not. For that matter those that are objects of compassion for Bhagavan are also privileged by the ingress of bhakti to experience all that the nitya siddhas experience as well. Their prospect is greater.

      Further more God does not create the world or the jivas. These are his saktis. They are part of what God, the non-dual reality, consist of. The have no beginning and thus their connection with one another is timeless. God is therefore not to be judged by what he makes but rather how acts in relation to that which is. In relation to his maya sakti he is just and in relation to the baddha jiva he is merciful.

      You can’t have one without the other. And you can’t have agents of free will without the inevitability of its misuse anymore that you can have a square circle. Regarding the baddha jiva’s free will vs divine determinism, the Gaudiya perspective is a compatibilist one.

Comments are closed.