369KrishnaPrabhupada
The Origin of the Jiva Controversy in Vrndavana 1994-1996
Having Distinctives Attributes & Aspects of a Specified Kind
By Kundali Dasa & Satyanarayana Dasa
Video IIntroduction
By Upendranatha Dasa
Please understand that these Videos, some where tests, and other, where interviews, but you will see myself on how I work in my office. A very specific one is in production, and will be posted, sometime in 2025; on the other hand, for the time being these pags will serve it’s purpose, of a personal nature, introduce myself to you who have come across this website, or those who I have met on Face Book for the first time.. Jai Sri Nam ….Never forget that Sri-Nam is Identical in all respects, and aspects with Sri Krishna, there is no difference whats sso ever.
In addition you will ssee photos of a Historic Nature in Srila Prabhupada’s Movement of 1966 to 1978. One of a Kind and Original
Text & Audio About Us
Forum: Essays & Poetry
Narration of Books By Srila Prabhupada & Past Acaryas
Books By Upendranath dasa
In Vaikuntha Not Even the Leaves Fall
The Origin of the Jiva Controversy in Vrindavana 1963-1996
By Kundali & Satyanarayana dasa
Audio & Video Presentations
Prabhupada Nectar Downloads
Srila Prabhupada Chanting Japa with Disciples
This book is the result of controversy. In writing it we were advised to downplay the controversial aspect.
“Because a book on siddhanta should not explicitly bring out controversy.”
Another reason given is that we must be careful not to date the book. Upon consideration, however, we could not agree with either view. Without the controversy we would not have written the book. Why should this historical fact be hidden?
Further, we also have the example of our previous acaryas. In their writings they often dealt openly with controversy. We find that there is wisdom in this, for by making it open there is less chance that the same circumstances that caused the controversy will recur.
In the ISKCON community this particular controversy—where did the conditioned jiva come from or “the jiva-issue”—has been smoldering for many years. Now, with the publication of this book, we hope to end the confusion. But the confusion may not end. In the Priti-sandarbha, Srila Jiva Gosvami explains why. He says there are three types of discussions—vada, jalpa, and vitanda.
In a vada discussion, the motive of all concerned is to find out the truth. This is the ideal kind of discussion. It is for persons who are sober and impartial about the outcome; they simply want to know what is the truth of the matter. They are in the mode of goodness.
Jalpa is a discussion wherein one is not interested in what is said by others, whether it has some truth or all of the truth, because one simply wants to be heard. Any other view or contribution is of no interest. This is the way for a person in the mode of passion.
A vitanda discussion is in the mode of ignorance. In this version the truth is of no value. One simply wants to win at all costs.
We believe that this book will clear the confusion for those persons interested in vada.
Our commitment to writing a book on the jiva-issue began when the following letter was posted to the GBC conference on COM. (Note, back in the mid 1990’s ISKCON took advantage of the emerging internet, and set up their e-mail server, to facilitate communications; and I do not know the reason, but they named it COM.):
Text 31415: 27-Aug-94 18:16 EDT /167 lines/ LINK: Drutakarma (Dasa) ACBSP (Alachua)
Reply-To: Drutakarma. ACBSP@iskcon.com
Receiver: GBC Body <20>
Subject: Once we were with Krishna
Dear GBC members,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Lately I have been receiving inquiries from GBC members, BBT Trustees, and temple presidents about my forthcoming book “Once We Were with Krishna”, which shows conclusively that Srila Prabhupada’s teaching was just as the title says, and that this is in complete harmony with “Srimad-Bhagavatam” and the teachings of our previous acharyas going back to Lord Caitanya. One controversial feature of this book is that I am directly naming those who hold opposing views, and answering them point by point. Since copies of the drafts of some chapters are floating around, by Xerox and computer, I thought it best to make sure all of you, and not just some of you, have an opportunity to see what is coming.
The second chapter, on Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, is attached to this message. I am attaching the first chapter, on evidence from “Srimad-Bhagavatam” to another message. The third and final chapter, on the teachings of the previous acharyas, is still being written, but as soon as it is finished, I will send it to you. I am also including below the text of a letter to one of the GBC members. It explains why I am taking the step of bringing out this book. Originally, I intended to send it to just that one member, but since interest in the whole issue seems to be widening, I am sending it to all the members.
Dear————— Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Like you, I share an interest that Srila Prabhupada’s teachings remain the central focus of ISKCON, and that they be passed down to the next generation unchanged. I fear, however, that all of this is now endangered.
The specific point of my concern is Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on the origin of the jiva. Srila Prabhupada addressed this issue many times, and said we have come “from Vaikuntha planet,” we were “with Krishna in His lila,” etc. It has been said that Srila Prabhupada’s views are not supported by shastra and previous acharyas. But my rather extensive investigation of these accusations reveals that they are unfounded. I can produce dozens of statements from Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, that are exactly in line with Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. Support for the idea that the jiva was originally with Krishna can also be found in the Bhagavatam and other works. There is nothing in the Sandarbhas of Jiva Goswami that contradicts Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, despite the claims of Satyanarayana and Kundali, and others such as Bhanu Swami. I say this on the basis of my own study and on the authority of Gopiparanadhana Prabhu, who has closely examined the relevant passages. One might say, well, perhaps we are just dealing with a case of a transcendental disagreement among acharyas. The problem is that one of the acharyas is our founder-acharya. So even if one wants to accept that, then it is clear that in ISKCON we have to take sides, the side of Srila Prabhupada. But I am convinced there is no difference between Srila Prabhupada and any of the major acharyas in our line going back to Lord Caitanya. Some of Srila Prabhupada’s God brothers or disciples of his God brothers may have different opinions, but in one hundred years none of them will be recognized as a great acharya, whereas Srila Prabhupada’s place in history as one of the greatest acharyas ever is already assured.
You have asked if there is any role that the GBC could play in resolving this issue. I am not at all hopeful that the GBC can actually do what needs to be done, because so many of the members are doubtful about what Srila Prabhupada said. Some of them, I suspect, actually agree with the position taken by Kundali and Satyanarayana that Srila Prabhupada spoke untruths to his disciples because they were too neophyte to understand the real siddhanta. That is so out of character for Srila Prabhupada that it is hard for me to see how any ISKCON devotee could accept it, unless they are ill-motivated or influenced by someone who is ill-motivated.
(Continued in Part 2)
Drutakarma continues:
Basically, I think this issue will be settled, if at all, in the marketplace of ideas, where I am accustomed to function in a direct and confrontational manner. Nevertheless, I will outline a series of actions that I think the GBC could take to deal with the issue, if it so desired.
Pass the following resolution:
1: Srila Prabhupada’s clear teaching is that the jivas in the material world originally existed with Krishna in one of His spiritual planets directly engaged in His service. Their fall down into this material world is due to misuse of their free will. When they go back to Godhead, they regain their original positions as Krishna’s loving servants. This view is in harmony with both “Srimad-Bhagavatam" and the previous acharyas in our line going back to Lord Caitanya. No other view shall be presented as conclusive in any BBT or ISKCON publications, courses, or classes. Any ISKCON member actively promoting an opposing view among ISKCON members shall be subject to sanctions, including removal from positions of authority (sannyasa, GBC, guru, temple president) and ultimately expulsion. The BBT is requested to publish Drutakarma’s book Once We Were with Krishna [names and exceptionally polemical statements removed] with adequate advertising and distribution to the devotee community. [This resolution would supersede any previous resolutions establishing study groups, etc. to research this question.]
2: Once the idea that Srila Prabhupada said that the conditioned souls were once with Krishna has been adopted as ISKCON’s official policy, then the GBC could take further steps to insure our doctrinal purity. I will offer some suggestions.
3: I am absolutely convinced that Satyanarayana and Kundali must be removed from the BBT project of publishing Jiva Gosvami’s Sat-sandarbhas and that the entire thing should be handed over to a loyal Prabhupada follower. It is true that, at present, Dravida and Gopiparanadhana have been given authority to filter out the nonsense views that Satyanarayana has introduced in his commentaries, but that is a very precarious situation. It is like having a cook, but you have to check every offering to make sure he isn’t putting meat on the Deity plates. Satyanarayana is very fixed in his views, and he is expert in propagating them among those many devotees who regard him as an authority in shastric matter. I have reports that in Vrndavana lectures and seminars he is directly saying that Srila Prabhupada is wrong on the question of the origin of the jiva. The issue is, however, much larger than the Sandarbha question or even the jiva question. The larger matter at stake is the integrity of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. If Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on the origin of the jiva, found everywhere in his books, letters, lectures, and conversations, can be relativized by word juggling Sanskrit experts influenced by outside figures, then what next? It seems to me that the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust should only publish authors whose views are totally in line with those of the Bhaktivedanta—His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.
To publish someone’s work is to give them prestige inside and outside of ISKCON. And giving Satyanarayana this position is going to give him a better platform for pushing his erroneous views. Also, the BBT is setting him up with a whole institute for translating Vaishnava literature in Vrndavana. Right now, there are a few strong-minded individuals who are acting to prevent him from getting his contradicting of Srila Prabhupada into print. But at any time in the future this could change, we might find that Srila Prabhupada’s books get edited to bring them in line with Satyanarayana’s views. Or instead, we might find that footnotes and other explanatory materials are added to let people know what Srila Prabhupada really meant on this question (Satyanarayana has already written such things for exactly this purpose—it’s just a question of printing them in the books). And we could see this translation institute in Vrndavana become an avenue for the infiltration of all kinds of wrong ideas and attitudes into ISKCON. What about the fear that if Satyanarayana is confronted he will just go and publish his books anyway? Let him. If the steps I recommend are taken, it will be clear to ISKCON members that he is just doing his own thing—just one more Sanskrit scholar who has gone off the deep end. As Srila Prabhupada said,
4: “I am also practically finding that if any of our students artificially try to become scholars by associating with unwanted persons, [specifically in India] , they become victimized, for a little learning is dangerous, especially for the Westerners. I am practically seeing that as soon as they begin to learn a little Sanskrit then immediately, they feel that they have become more than their guru, and then the policy is kill guru, and be killed himself.”
5: That is the road Satyanarayana has embarked upon. To kill Srila Prabhupada’s teachings (by whimsically explaining them away) is to kill Srila Prabhupada. So let him go and publish his nonsense interpretations elsewhere. At least we will know that we have preserved Srila Prabhupada’s teachings intact and insured against that thing Srila Prabhupada most feared—that we would change or relativize what he taught us.
6: In general, the BBT should not publish books by authors with views contrary to those of Srila Prabhupada on this question.
7: Narayana Maharaja’s views on the origin of the jiva question should come under scrutiny, and that this should be taken into consideration in the GBC’s evaluation of 8: Narayana Maharaja followers among the GBC and other senior ISKCON devotees.
I think a lot of this will automatically happen once the GBC takes the correct step of affirming that Srila Prabhupada’s statements that the jivas were once with Krishna is ISKCON’s position on this matter.
If the above steps were taken, I would feel satisfied that ISKCON had acted properly to safeguard the integrity of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, not just on the jiva question, but in general.
Please feel free to circulate copies of this letter to whomever you like.
Your servant,
Drutakarma Dasa
(Text 1415)
The above letter sets the stage. We want our readers to note some of the salient features of this letter.
One thing is the confidence of the author. The reader is lead to believe that he has the final conclusion on this matter. His tone of confidence alone is enough to intimidate the average reader who will then be overwhelmed by the “facts” that he presents by way of analysis and so on in his book. Nevertheless, we maintain that after reading just a few chapters of this book, our readers will agree that the confidence exhibited by our accuser is unfounded. Indeed, his confidence will be found to be along the lines of what Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura describes in Madhurya Kadambini as false confidence:
A brahmana child, having just begun the study of the scriptures, thinks he has become immediately a learned scholar worthy of everyone’s praise. Similarly, a person just beginning devotional service may have the audacity to think that he has mastered everything. This is called utsaha-mayi, filled (puffed-up) with enthusiasm.
Another thing worthy of note, is the way in which the author of the above letter, has cleverly wrapped himself in the name of Srila Prabhupada, so that to disagree with him, is to prove oneself a “Prabhupada killer”, and to remain silent is a virtual admission of guilt. Thus, the only way to prove one’s loyalty to Srila Prabhupada, is to agree with him. His approach, is to cut off all possibility of a dialogue over a philosophical difference of opinion. In fact, the writer seeks no dialogue. He knows all the answers, and though we may have a different opinion, he is not the least bit interested, to know how or why, we hold such an opinion. Even if he was right about the jiva issue, we wonder if his approach was the way to handle the matter, what to speak of the fact that he is wrong?
(Comment: I have always held the notion, that “Everyone Has the Right to Be Wrong.”)
We hope our readers will appreciate, by the end of this book, how important it is to see through the sort of unjust tactic our accuser has employed; otherwise, much harm can be inflicted on our community by those who lack the integrity to deal justly with such differences of opinion.
Unless we learn to discriminate in such matters, the devotee community will always be victims of those willing to resort to such conduct—seeking to create a state of panic and prejudice, by whipping devotees into an emotional state in the name of Srila Prabhupada. His singular purpose is to destroy all credibility of the accused. Indeed, in the eyes of those swayed by this writer’s rhetoric, for us to make any utterance in our defense will only appear to confirm their worse suspicions.
Despite the risk to us, however, we feel obliged to respond to the charges against us, not so much for the sake of saving face, but for preserving the parampara siddhanta and preserving Srila Prabhupada’s place in the disciplic succession.
Otherwise, as will be shown in the course of this book, to accept Drutakarma Dasa’s understanding of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on the origin of the jiva, is to remove him from being a link in the chain of disciplic succession.
We find no evidence anywhere in Prabhupada’s life or teachings that he wanted to be seen as anything but standing shoulder to shoulder with the disciplic succession.
The fall-vada theory (that the spirit soul falls from Vaikuntha) does, however, isolate him from the parampara. This is entirely unacceptable to us.
Besides that, there are many other unsavory implications of the fall-vada theory, which we reveal and refute in the course of the book.
Before closing, we think it is important to briefly outline the background of our working relation with the BBT.
In March 1992, we began on our own, translating and commenting on the Sat-sandarbhas. In late May of the same year, we were asked to do the work for the BBTI.
The condition was that we would agree to working with the BBTI’s English and Sanskrit editors, Dravida Dasa and Gopiparanadhana Dasa respectively. We agreed.
In the next two years we encountered a number of problems, none of which were of our own making. In every instance, we showed ourselves to be flexible and solution-oriented, and were able to come to satisfactory compromises between us, and our two editors, and the BBTI Trustees.
We proposed a policy, that in such circumstances, where there was a real or apparent difference of opinion, between Srila Prabhupada and the author of the work being translated, we would state both views, and if possible, reconcile them. This met with solid approval from the BBTI Trustees. In the specific case of the jiva issue, we knew that Prabhupada said both things—that we fell from Vaikuntha and that no one falls from Vaikuntha—and were quite pleased to follow in his footsteps and say both things. Our work was progressing. The Tattva-sandarbha was completed and scheduled for the printer. While it was in production in Sweden, we were working on Bhagavat-sandarbha.
Now the whole BBTI project, to bring to the devotees worldwide, the greatest philosophical work in our line, has stopped.
We think that the devotee community should know that this is a direct result of Drutakarma Dasa’s method of expressing his concern that Srila Prabhupada’s teachings are being “relativized by word-juggling Sanskrit experts.”
In reality the Tattva-sandarbha met the approval of both BBTI editors, Dravida prabhu and Gopiparanadhana prabhu, solid BBTI men for the last 20 years.
Not only did the entire Sandarbha translation project grind to a stop, but the BBTI project to construct a facility in Vrinavana for translation work was also stopped. All of this stoppage, even if reversed, was done at great expense, and inconvenience to the society. At the time of this writing, the fate of these services to Srila Prabhupada is still uncertain. In this instance, a great disservice was done to the society of devotees, to Srila Prabhupada, and to our predecessor acaryas, for, as will be shown, our accuser is completely mistaken.
Indeed, we hope that this book proves the value of studying the writings of our previous acaryas for properly understanding the philosophy. Srila Prabhupada said he gave us the framework, and it is up to us to fill in the details. With respect to the siddhanta of our parampara, we show in this book that there is no better approach than to draw on the works of our acaryas.
Our fervent hope is that whatever lessons can be extracted from this event, will be helpful to avoid such disasters to our society in the future. Unless we learn from these experiences, then, as conventional wisdom has it, history will be doomed to repeat itself. In the world of duality, certainly conflict or controversy can arise at any moment. That is no cause for dismay. What makes a big difference is how the problem is handled. Drutakarma Dasa’s handling of the jiva issue is an example of how not to do it.
Finally, we hope that by presenting this book in response to the above letter and the book “Once We Were with Krishna”, the charges against us will be cleared and the controversy over the jiva issue will be resolved forever.
Our approach has been to go back up the line of parampara, and see which of the two versions by Srila Prabhupada is consistent, with our previous acaryas. We are confident that readers interested in vada, will be pleased with the result.
If we have made any error or offense in our attempt to present the siddhanta, we pray for the kindness of the Vaisnavas that they rain their mercy down on us and guide us rightly on this razor-edged path. Hare Krishna.
All glory to Sri Guru and Gauranga.
By Babaji Satyanarayana Dasa
We have decided to publish the treatise “In Vaikuṇṭha Not Even the Leaves Fall” as our first Kindle e-book since it is about to go out of print. It is a systematic and thorough analysis of the bondage of the soul or jīva according to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava theology. The book was banned by ISKCON and has since become an “underground” classic.
There is a long history behind the making of this book. Here I will just give a summary. I wrote the book in 1994 to settle a philosophical controversy that arose within ISKCON (International Society of Kṛṣṇa Consciousness) over the origin of the jīva in its conditioned existence. At that time, I had been serving as a Sanskrit teacher in the Bhaktivedanta Swami International Gurukula, Vrindavan. Although my service was to teach Sanskrit to Gurukula students, I also had begun teaching śāstras privately in my room at the request of several local devotees. I taught various books, including Bhagavad Gītā and Śrīmad Bhāgavata with the Sanskrit commentaries of our previous ācaryas. Incidentally, this was also the period when I was studying under my teacher, Om Viṣṇupāda Śrī Śrī 108 Śrī Haridāsa Śāstri Mahārāja.
One of the books that I began teaching was Śrī Tattva Sandarbha of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī, which is the first of the six books of the Ṣaṭ Sandarbha. Around this time (1988), Bhūrijana prabhu started the Vrindavan Institute of Higher Education (VIHE), which offered one-month courses on different subjects during the month of Kārtik. I taught the first two Sandarbhas as part of the VIHE for two consecutive years.
While I was teaching Tattva Sandarbha, some devotees proposed that I should translate the Six Sandarbhas of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī. Although feeling unqualified, I took up this project as a service to the devotees and the paramparā. Kūrma Rūpa prabhu, who was an āśrama teacher at the Gurukula and my good friend, volunteered to do the editing. Jālandhara, a gurukula student, typed out my handwritten manuscripts. On Kūrma Rūpa prabhu’s request, Kuṇḍalī prabhu also came to Vrindavan and joined our Sandarbha project. Kuṇḍalī prabhu had been living in Thailand, working as an English teacher, and had experience as an editor for Back To Godhead magazine.
Kuṇḍalī prabhu began attending my classes and was impressed with the work of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī and with my commentaries on the Sandarbhas. He thought what I was doing was unique in the whole of ISKCON and that therefore, the Sandarbhas should be published by the BBT.
From my part, I wanted to have an educational institute in ISKCON where devotees could systematically study the Gosvāmī literature. I observed that although Śrīla Prabhupāda had successfully founded ISKCON, a great preaching movement, and established hundreds of temples worldwide, the movement seemed to lack a place to deeply study the scriptures. I felt that we should fill in this lacuna for the benefit of the devotees and Śrīla Prabhupāda’s society and thus formulated the idea of establishing the Jiva Institute for Vaiṣṇava Studies. My plan was to primarily translate and comment on the works of our previous ācaryas and to teach them to interested devotees. Both Kūrma Rūpa and Kuṇḍalī prabhus were enthusiastic about the idea, so we printed a small booklet describing the aims and objectives of Jiva Institute, which we called, in short, JIVAS.
Kuṇḍalī prabhu began attending my classes and was impressed with the work of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī and with my commentaries on the Sandarbhas. He thought what I was doing was unique in the whole of ISKCON and that therefore, the Sandarbhas should be published by the BBT.
From my part, I wanted to have an educational institute in ISKCON where devotees could systematically study the Gosvāmī literature. I observed that although Śrīla Prabhupāda had successfully founded ISKCON, a great preaching movement, and established hundreds of temples worldwide, the movement seemed to lack a place to deeply study the scriptures. I felt that we should fill in this lacuna for the benefit of the devotees and Śrīla Prabhupāda’s society and thus formulated the idea of establishing the Jiva Institute for Vaiṣṇava Studies. My plan was to primarily translate and comment on the works of our previous ācaryas and to teach them to interested devotees. Both Kūrma Rūpa and Kuṇḍalī prabhus were enthusiastic about the idea, so we printed a small booklet describing the aims and objectives of Jiva Institute, which we called, in short, JIVAS.
By Babaji Satyanarayana Dasa
To solicit support for our plan, Kuṇḍalī prabhu sent a proposal to Harikeśa Swami, a prominent ISKCON guru, BBT trustee, and director of the Swedish BBT, which was one of the BBT’s most active and flourishing divisions. Kuṇḍalī’s proposal included the translation work that we were doing and our future plan to have an educational institute. He also sent him a draft of my translation and commentary on Tattva Sandarbha. Harikeśa Swami was highly impressed by the proposal and our work, so much so that he wrote that after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books, these books would be most important. He was one of the prominent GBCs of the Māyāpur project and for years had not visited Vrindavan. However, he came to Vrindavan to meet me, being eager to manifest the Jiva Institute.
Harikeśa Swami had long talks with me and raised various questions to understand my real intention. Being convinced of its importance and utility, he decided to support the entire project financially, to print the Sandarbhas under the Swedish BBT, to buy land for Jīva Institute, and to fund the construction. The Swedish BBT purchased a large piece of land very close to where Jīva Institute is located today. Construction work soon began under the supervision of Kāliya Kṛṣṇa prabhu, a disciple of Harikeśa Swami and the headmaster of Bhaktivedanta Swami International Gurukula. Harikeśa Swami also appointed Gopīparāṇadhana prabhu, who had worked on the Śrīmad Bhāgavata volumes printed after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure, to be our Sanskrit editor. Draviḍa prabhu was appointed as the final English editor. Upendrānatha prabhu had also joined us in Vrindavan, helping with typing and proofreading. We thus had a team of nine people.
The project was moving at great speed and full enthusiasm, and there was growing excitement about it in ISKCON at large, and especially at ISKCON Vrindavan. While teaching the Sandarbhas in the VIHE, however, a controversy arose over the issue of the conditioning of the living entity, the jīva. Śrī Jiva Gosvāmī clearly states that the jīva’s conditioning in the material world has no beginning and that no one can fall down from Vaikuṇṭha. He uses the word anādi (lit., beginningless) to describe the conditioning of the jīva.
My Sanskrit editor Gopīparāṇadhana prabhu was reluctant to accept my translation of anādi as beginningless. He proposed to translate it as “from time immemorial” to accommodate the ISKCON understanding that the jīva has fallen down from Vaikuṇṭha.
The controversy soon spread throughout ISKCON. We received many emails from devotees in different parts of the world, presenting their arguments against our view. There were also devotees supportive of us who shared their arguments and śāstric references.
When Tattva Sandarbha was almost ready to go to print in 1994, the translation of the word anādi was still unresolved. Gopīparāṇadhana and Draviḍa did not agree with my translation and explanation of the term; they therefore complained to the BBT trustees. The BBT then appointed Jayādvaita Swami to meet with us and mediate the controversy before the annual GBC meetings held at ISKCON headquarters in Mayapur, West Bengal. This is a time when temple presidents and GBC members meet to discuss various issues and institutional policies before the Gaura Pūrṇimā festival.
In Mayapur, Kuṇḍalī and I held long discussions with our two editors in the presence of Jayādvaita Swami. The issue, however, could not be resolved because the editors as well as the mediator refused to accept my translation and explanation of the word anādi. Since the book was to be published by the BBT, a meeting was held with all the BBT trustees. I was very firm on my view, while Gopīparāṇadhana, Draviḍa, and Jayādvaita Swami were firm on theirs. They proposed that I change my translation and accept the popular ISKCON understanding. I refused, because doing so would undermine the words of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī himself. To resolve the conflict, I suggested that Gopīparāṇadhana translate the Sandarbhas and write the commentaries himself. I offered my assistance with the translation work on the condition that my name not be mentioned in the work. Gopīparāṇadhana refused to accept this solution and said that he was incompetent to translate and comment upon the Sandarbhas.
After more discussion, the trustees proposed that my translation and commentary be published without changes. However, a footnote would be added to explain Śrīla Prabhupāda’s position, which differs from that of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī. The footnote would include acknowledgment that ācaryas do have differences of opinion and that there was no harm in bringing out this difference. Kuṇḍalī and I agreed to this suggestion, but Gopīparāṇadhana, Draviḍa, and Jayādvaita Swami were still opposed.
At that time, Harikeśa Swami put pressure on Gopīparāṇadhana and Draviḍa to cooperate. Both devotees were receiving monthly remuneration from Harikeśa Swami for their contributions to the project. Therefore, after a long struggle, they agreed. With the consent of the BBT trustees, it was thus decided that Tattva Sandarbha would be printed with a footnote, explaining the opinion of Śrīla Prabhupāda.
After the meetings, we returned to Vrindavan and sent the final manuscript of the book to the Swedish BBT for printing. However, Gopīparāṇadhana, Draviḍa, and Jayādvaita Swami had not agreed from their hearts. When they returned to the United States, they made a plan to sabotage the printing. They held a meeting among themselves and with other devotees such as Hṛdayānanda dāsa Goswami, and devised a plan to stop the publication, utilizing a letter written by Drutakarma prabhu, which was published in the original Forward of this book. This letter was sent to all GBC members, temple presidents, and prominent ISKCON devotees. When Harikeśa Swami received the letter, he realized that he would be heavily criticized by ISKCON leaders if he printed the book under the auspices of the Swedish BBT. It is my conjecture that to avoid this, he immediately scraped the project, calling his disciple Kāliya Kṛṣṇa Dāsa in Vrindavan to inform him that the Sandarbha project was cancelled.
When Kāliya Kṛṣṇa relayed this news to me, I was taken aback. No explanation was given, so Kuṇḍalī called Harikeśa Swami to ask the reason for the cancellation. Harikeśa Swami simply forwarded Drutakarma’s letter in reply.
This happened on Janmāṣṭamī, so I accepted the decision as the will of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, although it was very disheartening at that time. The dream that we had nurtured for so long and that was about to manifest was crushed in a moment.
Anticipating some hidden grace from Kṛṣṇa in this whole drama, I decided not to take action against Drutakarma’s letter. I had a meeting with Kuṇḍalī and Kūrma Rūpa prabhus, my closest supporters, about our next step. We decided to print Tattva Sandarbha on our own, which we did a year later. However, Kuṇḍalī prabhu was not satisfied with this alone as he was a fiery person and loved to debate. During the period of controversy, we had numerous email exchanges with different devotees who tried to refute our point of view. Kuṇḍalī loved handling all such communication, as I had no access to a computer.
We coined the term fall-vādis for our opponents, who believe that the jīva falls down from Vaikuṇṭha out of envy for Śrī Kṛṣṇa. I had no intention of writing anything other than what Kuṇḍalī had already written during his communication with other devotees. The letter of Drutakarma, however, made him furious and he wanted to give a fitting reply. Therefore he prodded me to write a detailed refutation of the arguments presented by fall-vadis and to end the controversy once and for all. For this purpose, he presented me with a summary of their arguments.
It was on his inspiration that I wrote the first draft of this book. To give it a little sense of humor, we entitled it “In Vaikuṇṭha Not Even the Leaves Fall.” Kuṇḍalī prabhu edited my first draft and added material he had compiled from different sources. Kūrma Rūpa prabhu did the typing and Navadvīpa prabhu gladly agreed to edit it. We wrote, edited, and printed the book in about four months and then sent copies to Mayapur with Upendranātha prabhu to sell at the annual festival of 1995.
To our dismay, as soon as the books were displayed in Māyāpur, ISKCON authorities confiscated them and Upendranātha was not allowed to sell any copies. I received a phone call from Gopāla Kṛṣṇa Gosvāmī, the GBC of the Vrindavan temple, asking me to come to Māyāpur immediately and to appear before the GBC board. Kūrma Rūpa and I then traveled from Vrindavan to Māyāpur. The GBC had formed a sub-committee to deal with the issue. We first appeared before the sub-committee where I had to explain why I had written the book. I told them that I had written the book to explain the truth and that I didn’t haven a hidden agenda to deviate ISKCON from śāstric principles or to become a prominent ISKCON leader, as alleged by Drutakarma in his letter. They could not argue on the philosophical points, but asserted that the book would be a great disturbance to the devotee community and therefore should be banned. I answered, “First of all, we do not know if it will disturb or satisfy the devotees. I suggest that you select a random sample of 100 devotees. Let them read the book and then see if they are disturbed by it.” My second argument was, “What I presented is not my concoction but is the view of our previous ācaryas, which is based on śāstra. Thus it is truth. If a devotee is disturbed by knowing the truth, then he is not truly a devotee.” The sub-committee did not accept my arguments and insisted that my book would be a great disturbance.
Since they were in the majority and I was alone, I had no desire to continue arguing. Their arguments were not logical nor could they present śāstric references to refute mine. They reported to the full GBC board that this book is very dangerous and would create a disturbance throughout ISKCON. The next day I was called to appear before the full GBC body, where I was again asked why I wrote the book. I gave my reply and they again stated their reasoning that the book would be a disturbance to the society. They therefore decided to ban this book. Along with this decision, they stipulated that I was not allowed to study outside of ISKCON nor was I allowed to give public lectures. I was only permitted to continue my service as a Sanskrit teacher at the Gurukula.
After some contemplation, I realized that my time in ISKCON was over. I had given 16 years of my youthful life in the service of ISKCON and Śrīla Prabhupāda and now had to leave to follow my convictions. Overnight I lost my connections and acquaintances, all of which were ISKCON-related. I was branded as “ an envious snake,” “a demon,” and “a killer of Prabhupāda.” I began my life anew, from scratch. This is how I left ISKCON and came to establish Jiva Institute, with the help of my family members.
Every Gaudīya Vaiṣṇava wanting to understand the nature of the jīva should read this book. Śrī Jiva Gosvāmī explains that the essence of śāstra is to impart knowledge about sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana. Sambandha includes knowledge about the jīva and its relationship with Bhāgavan. It is crucial for an aspiring devotee to have clear understanding of the nature of the jīva to engage in abhidheya or the practice of bhakti to attain the ultimate goal, the prayojana. If our first step is misplaced, we cannot expect to reach the ultimate goal as enunciated in the Gosvāmī literature.
This book does not attack Śrīla Prabhupāda, ISKCON or anyone else; nor does it minimize Śrīla Prabhupāda’s position, or assert that he was wrong. Instead, it attempts to synthesize his views with the statements of our previous ācaryas.
Satyanarayana Dasa
The first wave has ten chapters.
Chapters One and Two give the verdict of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura on the origin of the jiva. He says there are three types of jivas: Those in Goloka having their origin from Lord Baladeva, in Vaikuntha from Lord Sankarsana, and those in the material energy from Lord Maha-Visnu. This last type of jiva has always been in the material world and is called nitya-baddha, but they can become nitya-mukta by pure devotional service.
The Third Chapter is based on the works of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. According to him nitya-muktas are never influenced by the material energy.
The Fourth Chapter gives references from the writings of Srila Prabhupada, who sometimes said that no one falls from Vaikuntha and sometimes said that jivas fell from Lord Krishna’s pastimes. We have cited only his statements supporting the first view because the second view is widely known among devotees. Why Prabhupada made contradictory statements on this issue is answered in the Second Wave.
In the Fifth Chapter we give evidence from Sruti, Vedanta Sutra, Govinda Bhasya, Agama, and the Narada Bhakti Sutra all in favor of no fall down from Vaikuntha.
Chapter Six gives evidence from Srila Jiva Gosvami. We also refer to the commentaries by Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura on Srimad-Bhagavatam.
Chapter Seven includes evidence from the writings of Srila Rupa Gosvami, Srila Raghunatha Dasa Gosvami, and Srila Krishnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami. Thus, in the first seven chapters of the first wave we give the verdict of our prominent acaryas.
Finally, in chapters Eight, Nine, and Ten we discuss the meaning of the word anadi (lit. beginningless). It is the philosophical term most commonly used by our acaryas for describing the conditioned souls. It is a difficult concept to grasp but crucial in understanding the subject of the book. Readers are advised to read these chapters carefully.
.
The first wave has ten chapters.
Chapters One and Two give the verdict of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura on the origin of the jiva. He says there are three types of jivas: Those in Goloka having their origin from Lord Baladeva, in Vaikuntha from Lord Sankarsana, and those in the material energy from Lord Maha-Visnu. This last type of jiva has always been in the material world and is called nitya-baddha, but they can become nitya-mukta by pure devotional service.
The Third Chapter is based on the works of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. According to him nitya-muktas are never influenced by the material energy.
The Fourth Chapter gives references from the writings of Srila Prabhupada, who sometimes said that no one falls from Vaikuntha and sometimes said that jivas fell from Lord Krishna’s pastimes. We have cited only his statements supporting the first view because the second view is widely known among devotees. Why Prabhupada made contradictory statements on this issue is answered in the Second Wave.
In the Fifth Chapter we give evidence from Sruti, Vedanta Sutra, Govinda Bhasya, Agama, and the Narada Bhakti Sutra all in favor of no fall down from Vaikuntha.
Chapter Six gives evidence from Srila Jiva Gosvami. We also refer to the commentaries by Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura on Srimad-Bhagavatam.
Chapter Seven includes evidence from the writings of Srila Rupa Gosvami, Srila Raghunatha Dasa Gosvami, and Srila Krishnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami. Thus, in the first seven chapters of the first wave we give the verdict of our prominent acaryas.
Finally, in chapters Eight, Nine, and Ten we discuss the meaning of the word anadi (lit. beginningless). It is the philosophical term most commonly used by our acaryas for describing the conditioned souls. It is a difficult concept to grasp but crucial in understanding the subject of the book. Readers are advised to read these chapters carefully.
..
Segment-1: In ISKCON, the Question of the Origin of the Jiva Has Come up Again and Again From the Very Beginning”
Segment-2: When We Study the Writings of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, We Find That Whereas Other Acaryas Previously Explained Anadi in Philosophical Terms he Explained it in a Novel Way
Segment-3: The Essence is That There are Three Types of Jivas
Segment-4: A Class of “Weak” Jivas Exist to Enable the Lord, Who is Lilamaya, to Have the Full Range of Lila
Segment-5: “If the Jiva had not Been Given Independence, What Would Have Been the Loss?”
Segment-1: In Jaiva Dharma, Chapter Sixteen, Bhaktivinoda Thakura defines the meaning of anadi karma
Segment-2: The bird And the Pippala Fruit
Segment-3: The Problem is That we try to Understand the Eternal, Spiritual Objects With our Material Mind
Segment-1: But so Long as he (jiva), Remains Submissive to Krishna, the Lord of Maya, he is not Liable to the Influence of Maya.
Segment-2: This does not Mention Fall From Vaikuntha, but From Tatastha, Which is the Marginal Potency, Situated Between the Spiritual and Material Potencies
Segment-3: Ideas Such as Falling From Vaikuntha are Illogical
.
Segment 1: From the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, it is explicit that he has sometimes said that no one falls from Vaikuntha, and sometimes that we fell from Krishna’s association.
Segment 2: Fall-vadis insist that the jiva, even if a nitya-siddha, can do something foolish. He can misuse his minute free will and opt to enjoy maya
Segment 3: Sat-sandarbhas of Srila Jiva Gosvami, which is the very book mentioned by Srila Prabhupada as having all the conclusions of our philosophy.
Segment 4: Anyone who is in this material world, nitya-baddha. And nitya-siddhas, they belong to the spiritual world. They never come in contact with this material world, and even they come for some business under the order of the Supreme Lord, they do not touch these material qualities
WORK IN PROGRESS
.WORK IN PROGRESS
..WORK IN PROGRESS
..
..
..