Jivas fall from Vaikuntha: Scriptural evidences (Śāstra pramāṇ)

Disclaimer: Don’t confuse between falling and returning from Vaikuntha, this is a famous blunder by devotees who support no-fallvaad, who generally quote acaryas and scriptures saying no one ‘returns’ from Vaikuntha to prove no one ‘falls’ from Vaikuntha, when everyone agrees unanimously that no one returns or falls again from Vaikuntha. We are discussing of our initial falldown.

Brahma-vaivarta Purana (Prakriti Khanda, Chap. 26, verses 27-31) —

स याति देहं त्यक्त्वा च पदं विष्णोर्निरामयम्। पुनरागमनं नास्ति तेषां निष्कामिणां सति ॥ ये सेवन्ते च द्विभुजं कृष्णमात्मानमीश्वरम्। गोलोकं यान्ति ते भक्ता दिव्यरूपविधारिणः ॥ ये च नारायणं भक्ताः सेवन्ते च चतुर्भुजम् । बैकुण्ठं यान्ति ते सर्वे दिव्यरूपविधारिणः ॥ सकामिनो वैष्णवाश्च गत्वा वैकुण्ठमेव च । भारतं पुनरायान्ति तेषां जन्म द्विजातिषु ॥ कालेन ते च निष्कामा भविष्यन्ति क्रमेण च । भक्ति च निर्मलां बुद्धि तेभ्यो दास्यति निश्चितम्

❝ The selfless devotee of Vişņu, after his death, achieves the abode of Vişnu and being selfless, he never comes back from that place. Such of the devotees as adore the two armed lord Krsna, proceed to Goloka after death taking to a divine form. Such of the devotees as meditate upon the four armed Vişnu, taking to divine form, go to Vaikuntha. But the Vaisnavas who adore Vişnu purposefully, have to come back to the land of Bharata, after staying in Vaikuntha and are reborn as Brāhmaṇas. After the passage of time they also get turned into selfless devotees of lord Vişņu because the lord also bestows on them his devotion and spotless wisdom.❞

Objection — It could be argued that such verses are not referring the actual Vaikuntha itself where the Supreme Lord resides personally, rather, they could be referring prapanca-vaikuntha, the material manifestation of Vaikuntha which is ruled by a Jiva. Srila Prabhupada explained the concept of prapanca-vaikuntha in his purport to SB 4.9.20-21. Ramanuja Sampraday calls this as “Karya-vaikuntha”.

Refutation — This argument could be applied on some other verses such as that of Kalki Purana, as will be cited ahead, but not here. This verse is talking of one Vaikuntha, not two. And that Vaikuntha is the actual Vaikuntha only. It said, ❝The selfless devotee of Vişņu, after his death, achieves the abode of Vişnu and being selfless, he never comes back from that place….The Vaisnavas who adore Vişnu purposefully, have to come back to the land of Bharata.❞ The meaning is clear. Prapanca-vaikuntha is not being discussed here, at all.

Objection — One doesn’t fall down for the second time, no one returns to the material world.

Refutation — In general no one falls down for the second time from Vaikuntha, to say it doesn’t happen at all is wrong. The following conversation took place on a morning walk in Denver, on July 3, 1975 —

Devotee (3): You had said on a, earlier on a morning walk, on a tape, that if one enters into the spiritual world that–you were asked that he will never have to return–and you said that if it’s a desire, he can return to the material world.

Prabhupada: So what is your objection?

Devotee (3): I was just wondering if the spirit soul being in the spiritual world is eternally liberated, how can he return. By desire?

Prabhupada: Yes. If he desires, he can come again. That option is always there.

The second fall is negligible, the fallen is highly protected by the Lord and is ensured comfortable residence, and he returns to Vaikuntha very soon, as the quoted verse itself says. So does the other verses which are yet to be quoted. Therefore it’s said no one returns from Vaikuntha, because not only it’s a rare case, the second fall is for name sake.

Srimad-Bhagavatam (4.28.53-4) —

अपि स्मरसि चात्मानमविज्ञातसखं सखे ।हित्वा मां पदमन्विच्छन् भौमभोगरतो गत: ॥ हंसावहं च त्वं चार्य सखायौ मानसायनौ ।अभूतामन्तरा वौक: सहस्रपरिवत्सरान्

❝ The brāhmaṇa (Krishna) 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 Mānasa Lake. Although we have been living together for many thousands of years, we are still far away from our original home.❞

Objection — Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur in his commentary on this verse says that it is referring to the relationship & separation between the soul and Maha-vishnu at the beginning of that creation among the infinite creations of material worlds. He also said “The jiva gave up the Lord at the beginning of creation of the universe because of previous karmas.” As there is no first world cycle, and before each individual world cycle manifests, the infinite number of individual souls under the influence of karma remain within Mahā-Viṣṇu in susupti, or deep sleep and content less experience. Thus not only is there is no mention of fall down from Vaikuṇṭha by the acarya, but he gave a completely different interpretation.

Refutation — But in his purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.28.54, Srila Prabhupada gives this explanation: ❝The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the spiritual world. In the spiritual world both the Lord and the living entities live together very peacefully. Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when the living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world. Even while in that position, the Lord remains with him as the Supersoul, his intimate friend.❞

Srila Prabhupada unequivocally states: “Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world.” In other words, Srila Prabhupada takes the friendly relationship as the original relationship between the living entity and the Supreme Lord in the spiritual world, and not the relation between a conditioned soul and Maha-vishnu. The conditioned souls with Maha-vishnu are in a state of susupti, or deep dreamless sleep, and not an active relationship of service.

Here we have a case of an apparent difference between the acaryas. We propose that we should accept Srila Prabhupada’s version. It is not that Srila Prabhupada always accepted the versions of previous acaryas. Here is one example. In his purport to Bhagavatam texts 3.11.36-37, Srila Prabhupada comments: ❝According to Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti, the Brahma-kalpa in the beginning of the first half appears to be the Padma-kalpa. We can, however, simply abide by the text and understand that the present millennium is in the second half of the duration of the life of Brahma.❞

If there is an apparent difference between the statements of Srila Prabhupada and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, it is better proposed that we should accept the version of Srila Prabhupada, and place the statement of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, if apparently contradictory, in the category of “differences among the acaryas.” We should accept that in reality, he is saying the same thing as Srila Prabhupada, but in a way that we cannot yet understand.

But it could also be only a matter of different interpretation, that’s it. These interpretations aren’t contradictory, but they are digging various different meanings out of the same, sometimes for to give a different interpretation apart from the most obvious reading of that text. Srila Vishwanath Chakrawarti Thakur’s interpretation doesn’t negate or disagrees that jīvas fall from Vaikuṇṭha. There are innumerable such instances where different ācāryas often give different interpretation to the same. A simple example would be Bhagavad-gītā 11.15, where Arjuna informed that he sees Lord Brahma & Śiva within Lord’s universal form. This is the most obvious meaning of it, “brahmāṇam īśaṁ”, īśaṁ is a very prominent name of Lord Śiva. However, many ācāryas gave a totally different meaning and didn’t interpret īśaṁ as Lord Śiva. While Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa gives the most unique interpretation, for he interprets īśaṁ as Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu.These interpretations aren’t contradictory, but they are digging various different meanings out of the same, sometimes for to give a different interpretation apart from the most obvious reading of that text. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura named his Bhagavad-gītā commentary as Sārārtha-Varṣiṇī, which means “The shower of essential meanings”, and his Bhāgavatam commentary as Sārārtha-Darṣiṇī.

Yet if we are to only accept Vishwanath Chakrawarti Thākur’s interpretation, that would simply mean that the Jīva eternally existed in the repeated material creations, known as the nitya-samsaris, we didn’t came from any tatashtha region. It would directly refute the narration of the no-falldown theory also, particularly that of the Gaudiya-Mutt. Original no fall-down theory as that of Ramanuja Sampraday & Madhva Sampraday suggests we are nitya-samsaris, ever present in the material world, not that we came from tatastha region or border-line of the two worlds. The tatastha theory is nowhere supported by most of the no fallvadis themselves. Neither Vishwanath Chakrawarti Thakur, nor any of the Goswamis, ever said anything about tatastha theory, it was later found in the works of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur & Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur, which, as explained in this article, was their transcendental preaching strategy.

Śrimad Bhagavatam (12.5.5)

देहे मृते जीवो ब्रह्म सम्पद्यते पुन: ॥

“After leaving the body, the Jiva again [पुन:] attains his spiritual identity.”

Kalki Purana (Chap. 25, verses 14-17) —

cakankita sila ganga maranadapi tatksanat jyotir maya vumānena sadyo bhutva caturbhujau praptau vaikuntha nilayam sarva loka namaskrtam tatra sthitva yugasatar brahmano lokamagatau brahma loke pañca satan yuganam upabhuya vai devaloke kalavasad gatam yuga catuhsatam | tato bhuvi nrpāstávat baddha sinuraham smaran haver anugraham loke salagrama silásramam

❝ Because we had given up our lives while touching a salāgrāma-šilā on the shore of the holy Gandaki River, we were instantly awarded four armed forms and ascended to Vainkuntha in an effulgent celestial chariot. We resided there for one hundred yuga cycles and then were transferred to Brahmaloka. In Brahmaloka, we resided for five hundred yuga cycles and then descended to Svargaloka, where we resided for four hundred yuga cycles.
After residing in the heavenly planets, we were born in this mortal world. I can clearly remember how everything was made possible simply by the mercy of the salāgráma-sila and Lord Hari.❞

Objection — Here it could be argued that it is prapanca-vaikuntha which is being referred.

Refutation — And I would agree here, but the fact that scriptures always mention them as Vaikuṇṭha and never as Dhruva-loka, that shows that fall-down happens in Vaikuntha aswell. Thus the objection is self refuting. Either way the motive of the objection stands refuted.

Sri Sanatkumara samhita (verses 163-4) —

idam ānanda-kandākhyaṃ viddhi vṛndāvanaṃ mama yasmin praveśa-mātreṇa na punaḥ saṃsṛtiṃ viśet mad-vanaṃ prāpya yo mūḍhaḥ punar anyatra gacchati sa ātma-hā mahādeva sarvathā nātra saṃśayaḥ

❝ Know that My Vrindavana is filled with bliss. One who enters it never again enters the world of birth and death. One who, after entering My forest, leaves and goes somewhere else is a great fool. O Siva, it is as if he killed his own soul. Of this there is no doubt.❞

Devi Bhagavatam (29th Chapter, verses 25-28) —

सकामाच्च प्रधानश्च निष्कामो भक्त एव च । कर्मभोगी सकामश्च निष्कामो निरुपद्रवः || स याति देहं त्यक्त्वा च पदं यत्तन्निरामयम् । पुनरागमनं नास्ति तेषां निष्कामिनां सति ॥ सेवंते द्विभुजं कृष्णं परमात्मानमीश्वरम् | गोलोकं प्रति ते भक्ता दिव्यरूपविधारिणः || सकामिनो वैष्णवाश्च गत्वा वैकुण्ठमेव च । भारतं पुनरायांति तेषां जन्म द्विजातिषु ॥ काले गते च निष्कामा भवत्येव क्रमेण च । भक्ति च निर्मलां तेभ्यो दास्यामि निश्चितं पुनः॥

❝ The selfless devotees, after they quit their bodies, go to a place free from sickness or disease, pure and perfect. From there they do not come back. The selfless devotees assuming the divine forms go to the Goloka and worship the Highest God, the Highest Self, the two-armed Krisna. The selfish Vaisnavas go to Vaikuntha; but they come back to earth and get into the wombs of the twice-born. By degrees they also become selfless when they certainly acquire pure undefiled Bhakti.❞

Satvata Tantra (3.11) —

utpatti-pralayau caiva vidyavidye gatāgati esam jnanam vadanty anga jnanam sad-vidham uttamam

❝ O pious one, transcendental knowledge is of six kinds, knowledge of: 1. the creation of the material unierses, 2. the destruction of the material universes, 3. ignorance, 4. knowledge, 5. going (to the material world), and 6. returning (to the spiritual world).❞

Vishnu-dharmottara Purana

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

Markandeya replied: “When someone is liberated, the Supreme Lord who possesses unlimited potency, creates another jiva (replaces) and thus always keeps the world full.”

The above verse from Vishnu-dharmottara was quoted by Srila Sanatana Gosvami himself in his work “Brihad Vaishnava Toshani”, an extensive commentary on the Tenth Canto of the Bhagavata Purana, while commenting on Srimad Bhagavatam (10.87.30). Here the saying of Markandeya Rishi that Jīvas are created is not literal. It rather means that some Jīvas fall down to material world from the spiritual world & also act as a replacement of the liberated soul into the material world. Sri Baladeva Vidyabhushan in his Vedanta Sutra’s 3rd Pada, 1st Adhikara’s introduction says — ❝Individual spirit souls always existed, there not being a point in time when they were created.❞ Then in Adhikarana 11, Sutra 16, Acarya says — ❝The individual spirit souls are said to be created because they are effects of the Supreme. The Supreme Personality of Godhead has two potencies, and these are said to be His effects. In this way the scriptural description of the souls’ creation is not contradicted. In this way the scriptures are correct, and in this way, also, the individual spirit souls are never born.❞

Brahma-vaivarta Purana (Prakriti Khanda, Chap. 27, verses 95-97) —

शुक्लां वाप्यथा कृष्णां करोत्येकादशों च यः । वैकुण्ठे मोदते सोऽपि यावद्वै ब्रह्मणो वयः ॥ भारतं पुनरागत्य हरिभक्तिं लभेद्ध्रुवम् । पुनर्याति च वैकुण्ठं न तस्य पतनं भवेत् ॥

“The one who performs the Ekādasī-vrata during the bright or dark fortnight remains in Vaikuntha up to the age of Brahmā. Thereafter he is reborn in the land of Bharata and undoubtedly achieves the devotion of lord Visņu. With the influence of the same he goes back to Vaikuntha from where he never falls back.”

Narada Pancaratra (5th Ratra, 6th Chapter, verses 9-11) —

aśvamedham rajasuyam bārhaspatyam tathā trikam ati-ratram vajapeyam agnistomam tatha subham kṛtva yat phalam apnoti śrutvā tat phalam apnuyat kārttike căstamim prapya pathed va suyad api sahasra-yuga-kalpāntam vaikuntha-vasatim labhet tatas ca brahma-bhavane sivasya bhavane punaḥ

“The results one achieves by performing sacrifices, such as the aśvamedha, rajasuya, barhaspatya, trika, atirätra, vājapeya, and agniștoma, are easily achieved by hearing this prayer. If one recites or hears this prayer on Aștamī, in the month of Kārttika, he becomes qualified to reside in Vaikuntha for thousands of kalpas. Thereafter, he goes to Brahmaloka, Śivaloka or Indraloka and then eventually returns to Vaikuntha.”

There can be infinite such references. Whenever scriptures say about regaining our natural position, getting back to Goloka, that itself is an evidence of fall-down. Where is the question of regaining or going back, if we were never there? Scriptures are flooded with sayings that our true knowledge got covered, then where is the question of knowledge getting covered when we never possessed the knowledge? Scriptures say that we are were originally pure, but where is the question of being pure? Those falling from the border line of the two worlds were already fallen and impure, bereft of knowledge.

All Glories To Srila Prabhupada!

Hare Krishna


11 Comments Add yours

  1. Ashmit says:

    How do you explain the fact that Gour govinda swami Maharaja supported no fall down theory? Even I accept fall theory but I am confused that why Gour govinda swami accepts no fall down. He said that the fall theory was a preaching tactic(there is a video on youtube you can check that). Most devotees including me accept Gour govinda swami as a pure devotee. Even srila prabhupada said this. Then how to reconcile this fact?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hari Das says:

      Hare Krishna Prabhu, please accept my humble obeisances🙇🏻

      A1. Srimad Gour Govinda Swami Maharaj is indeed a pure devotee, however, that doesn’t mean his philosophical conclusions should be taken as correct for every time. That’s not possible. Being a pure devotee doesn’t always necessarily mean having the perfect siddhanta.

      Sanatan Goswami in his Brhad Bhagavatamrta 2.4, starting from 99th verse, gives a story of how even residents in Vaikuntha debate each other on these things. Krishna’s forms, nature, etc. There will always be a difference of opinions.

      In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.18.23 it is stated— “O ṛṣis, who are as powerfully pure as the sun, I shall try to describe to you the transcendental pastimes of Viṣṇu as far as my knowledge is concerned. As the birds fly in the sky as far as their capacity allows, so do the learned devotees describe the Lord as far as their realization allows.”

      Madhvacarya in his Anu Vyakhyana 2.2.6 states— bhinnaasea bhinna dharmaascapadaarthaa nikhilaa api

      “No man’s nature is like that of another.
      every individual person has a unique individuality.”

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Ashmit says:

    Q2. How do we resolve the fact that ramanuaj sampradaya(and madhva sampradaya) theory of we were eternally in material world with the theory of us originally being in spiritual world? Both are mutually exclusive but both need to be correct as they come in bona fide sampradya. Then how do we resolve this?

    Q3. Should we hear lectures of no fall Vadis? Should we respect them as devotees? Or should we avoid their association? There are many no fall Vadis in iskcon too, so how should we react when we meet them?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hari Das says:

      A2. Ramanuja & Madhva Sampraday doesn’t even accept the very existence of Goloka. What about that? Ramanuja Sampraday doesn’t accept the historic presence of Radha. What about that? No other Vaishnav Sampraday, not even Vallabha Sampraday accepts the existence of parakiya rasa, the very heart beat of Gaudiyas. What about that? Madhva Sampraday believes on eternal damnation/eternal hell. What about that? There are so many differences, that I’ll be tired of listing them here.

      You can read the following answer of mine on quora: https://www.quora.com/If-according-to-Gaudiyas-all-Vaishnav-Sampradays-came-from-Krishna-and-all-the-founder-Acaryas-were-incarnations-of-Vayu-Ananta-and-the-like-then-why-does-their-teachings-sometimes-contradict-each-other/answer/Hari-Das-435?ch=15&oid=319883978&share=2a0277db&srid=NluLt&target_type=answer

      A3. Not at all, they should be highly respected, and absolutely no harm in hearing their lectures, or even to serve them. Infact many of them are nitya siddhas prabhu. Such mentality would be very blasphemous. You can read this article, the last part answers your query, and the article in entirety answers lot many questions: https://nitaigaurangablog.wordpress.com/2022/01/31/do-jivas-fall-down-from-vaikuntha/


  3. Ashmit says:

    Hare krsna prabhu dandvat pranam. Very nicely explained, thanks a lot prabhu.
    Q4. I wanted to ask your opinion on food for life. Jayadvaita swami made few lectures entitled “food for death”(check iskcon desire tree) in which he said the food for life is mundane philanthropy. But many other devotees support food for life such as Jayapataka swami maharaja and Gopala krsna Goswamu maharaj. So who is correct?
    Q5. What is your opinion of FDG(female diksha guru) controversy? Some devotees advocate it, others reject it. So who is correct?(I personally am against FDG).
    Q6. The purpose of asking these above questions was to ask a even more general question: what to do when members from same sampradaya, same organization, same guru contradict each other?
    Q7. Is svarupa fixed? If yes, isn’t this cheating? The gopis are more fortunate than ayodhya vasis, but gopis didn’t do anything to achieve that position. So isn’t this cheating? If svarupa is fixed, how are gopis glorious anyway?
    Q8. Many Sri vaishnavas have refuted sb 1.3.28(check narayan astra website and other sri vaishnava websites). They prove using sanskrit that actually it doesn’t say that krsna is supreme. So how to refute this?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hari Das says:


      A4. I support food for life program, for the food which is being served is not exactly food but it is prasadam. So it’s not all about feeding the poor, that is a superficial reason of gaining political and public support.

      Srila Prabhupada in his room conversation on april 30, 1976, in fiji, says the following —

      “We are not poor-feeding. That is not our philosophy. Because you are so dull, you cannot understand the philosophy. You know the belly like the animals. So therefore we are giving facility, “All right, fill up your belly, fill up your belly. And you’ll be infected.” As you take foodstuff from a infected area, you become infected with some disease, so this is Kṛṣṇa infected, prasādam. You take it, and one day you’ll be diseased with Kṛṣṇa consciousness. And that is a fact. Some way or other, let him come in contact with Kṛṣṇa. He’ll be benefited.”

      In this connection there’s a beautiful anecdote in the life of Sri Ramanujacarya, who had thrown prasadam into the nearby river and immediately the fishes who had eaten them emerged out of the water with four armed form and were liberated.

      A5. I support FDG. Even non ISKCONite acaryas like Swami B. V. Tripurari support it to my knowledge. He’s a great scholar.

      A6. Chaitanya Bhagavat, Madhya Lila 5.137-138 states—

      nitya-śuddha jñānavanta vaiṣṇava-sakala taba ye kalaha dekha, saba kutūhala ihā nā bujhiyā kona kona buddhi-nāśa eke vande, āre ninde, yāibeka nāśa

      “All Vaishnavs are eternally pure and have pure knowledge, when you see them quarrel it is only in play. Some foolish people don’t understand this and take sides. They praise one and criticize the other – they will surely

      A7. Svarupa is definitely fixed. Nor is it cheating, Srila Prabhupada explains this because each person considers his own svarupa to be the best. This can only be understood when you practically get the realization. And we glorify gopis not because they did something to achieve it.

      A8. We have refuted them already. You may checkout the following article: https://nitaigaurangablog.wordpress.com/2020/03/26/krishnastu-bhagavan-svayam-series-part-1/

      Hope that helps,
      Your aspiring servant.


  4. Ashmit says:

    Hare krsna prabhu dandvat pranam, thank you for your answer.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Acyutananda Dasa says:

    Hare krsna. Thank you for compiling these apparent contradictory quotes. If I can inquiry though, how do you refute very clearly descriptions such as:

    Q1: The eternally liberated living beings are in the Vaikuṇṭha-jagat, the spiritual world, and they never fall into the material world.
    (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 5.11.12, purport)

    Q2: From authoritative sources it can be discerned that associates of Lord Viṣṇu who descend from Vaikuṇṭha 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. The Lord comes to this material world through the agency of His internal potency, and similarly, when a devotee or associate of the Lord descends to this material world, he does so through the action of the spiritual energy. Any pastime conducted by the Supreme Personality of Godhead is an arrangement by yogamāyā, not mahāmāyā. 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 Vaikuṇṭha…From authoritative sources it is learned that Jaya and Vijaya were sent to this material world to fulfill the Lord’s desire to fight… Otherwise, as Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira says, aśraddheya ivābhāti: the statement that a servant of the Lord could fall from Vaikuṇṭha seems unbelievable.
    (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 7.1.35, purport)

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

    Q3: The conclusion is that no one falls from the spiritual world, or Vaikuṇṭha planet, for it is the eternal abode.
    (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.16.26, purport)

    Q4: The Lord is the soul of all living beings, and He desires always to have all the living beings in their svarūpa, in their constitutional position, to participate in transcendental life in His association. His attractive features and sweet smiles go deep into the heart of everyone, and once it is so done the living being is admitted into the kingdom of God, from which no one returns. This is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā.
    (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.10.27, purport)

    Of course there is very detailed explanation of the tatastha and nitya badha Jivas in Jaiva Dharma in Ch. 16, although apparently that is not sastra praman 🤷‍♂️

    I’m a little confused though, because even excluding anything but Srila Prabhupada’s purports, his quotes are quite concise with not much wiggle room.

    So it seems Srila Prabhupada is stretching truth on one side or other. However, it seems more logical to cover a bitter truth with honey preaching tactics, then to cover honey truth with bitter preaching tactics.

    Forgive me if I have made any offense.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hari Das says:

      Hare Krishna Pr., Dandavats.
      Everything has been already answered in our original article, you may checkout it through the following: https://nitaigaurangablog.wordpress.com/2022/01/31/do-jivas-fall-down-from-vaikuntha/

      This article is only a part of it. Hope it helps.



      1. Acyutananda Dasa says:

        Thank you prabhu for your speedy reply! This is quite an interesting topic. Born to the karmic name of Adam I have some skin in the game here lol.
        So, I just read through that link as well. I did not see any mention, yet alone refutation, to any of these specific quotes found in Srila Prabhupada’s purports to where it is concisely written no one falls. Especially 7.1.35, where Srila Prabhupada differentiates between falling and coming to material world to fulfill desire 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 Vaikuṇṭha.” So again, honey to cover bitter medicine. Or bitter to cover honey?
        Lastly, the argument that Srila Gaura Govinda Maharaja is a pure devotee but not correct about tattva is quite interesting. With that logic, then we can apply to teachings of Srila Prabhupada and even Srila Bhaktisiddanta Prabhupada, and we also can assume they are also not fully knowledgeable of tattva. Slippery slope. Or is sadhu vakya praman not bonafide at all? Would Srila Jiva Gosvami’s Krsna Sandarbha be considered a bonafide place to find information on this topic?


    2. Hari Das says:

      The article takes down the controversy in its entirety which makes it much diverse in its content. Thus it didn’t reply every quote individually, especially, when they all happen to be the same water being served in different glasses. Thus I found the quotes don’t need any special attention, they’re all answered altogether. Yet to elaborate, I’d update that section soon with further deep clarifications as it seems it’s on demand. Would reply you with the link to notify you prabhu ji.

      Further, I don’t know on what basis would we equate Srimad Gour Govinda Maharaj with Srila Prabhupada the senapati bhakta himself, & BSST the ray of Hari, son of the 7th Goswami.

      Yes to the question on Krishna Sandarbha, of course. The article already quoted Jiva Goswami’s Krishna Sandarbha once, and other sandharbhas aswell.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.