Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

please help.

No idea, sorry.

quite likely it is just another Iskcon fairy tale

It could be useful to note that in Jan 1995 Suhotra maharaja wrote:

Srila Prabhupada stated in 1972, "As soon as we try to become the Lord,
immediately we are covered by Maya. Formerly we were with Krsna
in His lila or sport."

The vision of those who would become Krsna is instantly covered by Maya.
Even when the Lord is directly before their eyes, they cannot see
Him as the loving devotees do. They see Him as a competitor, and they
see His spiritual opulence as objects of their own enjoyment. Therefore
they must leave the spiritual world, which is the abode of the Lords
devotees, and enter the abode of Maya, the abode of His enemies.

Evidence: on Feb. 19, 1976, a disciple asked Srila Prabhupada, "In Krsna
Book it says there were some color fighting in Dvaraka. They were
throwing color. And some men became lusty seeing the women. So is ...
will that be the first part of their falldown, to be in Vaikuntha and
think of personal lust with Krsnas associates?" Prabhupada answered,
"Yes."

Of course this is a controversial topic. As a result of hearing from
Vaisnavas outside of ISKCON, some devotees have developed the opinion
that when Srila Prabhupada said these things, he did not really mean
them. They have heard that the jiva fell from the Brahmajyoti, or
from Mahavisnu, or that he was always in the material world. There
is evidence from the sastra supporting each of these points of
view.

I have already replied to the argument that Prabhupadas statements
were provisional, only for Westerners etc. Regarding sastric
statements that seem to contradict that the jiva originates with
Krsna, Srimad Bhagavatam states, vadanti tat tattva vidas tattvam yaj
jnanam advayam brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate, that
various authorities in various Vedic writings have described the
non-dual Absolute Truth as Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. These
three different aspects of the Absolute Truth are thus admitted,
and each includes the jiva -- either as the spark floating in effulgence;
the emanation from the first manifestation of Paramatma, Mahavisnu;
or as the servant of the Personality of Godhead. Some devotees think
the right way to solve to the controversy surrounding the jivas fall is
to say that all three features are advayam (nondifferent), so whether one
says the jiva fell from Brahman or Krsna-lila is really not important.

But, of the three aspects of the Absolute Truth, only one is said to
include the other two. The other two are partial. So it follows that
scenarios of the jiva originating in Brahman or Paramatma are only
partial explanations of his origin.

I wonder why this should be something to worry about in the first place. This question is simply irrelevant to my sadhana. When I have to answer this I ask: Are you able understand purnam adah purnam idam? Or aham brahmasmi? Once you are, you can understand falldown/no-falldown stuff.

Imagine, a jiva does fall from Vaikuntha. How will this inspire you to chant?

Srila Prabhupada instructs us not to worry how we got here but to work on getting out.

[quote][cite] Hari Bhakta dasa:[/cite]Srila Prabhupada instructs us not to worry how we got here but to work on getting out.[/quote]

It appears the authorities worry about this issue considerably and consider this issue very relevant, despite Prabhupadas instructions to not worry about it. For example, if a devotee uses sastra to show an opposite conclusion to the approved conclusion, they are defamed, labelled unfaithful to Prabhupada and Iskcon, and resolutions are made officially banning them from speaking and participating in Iskcon until they can redeem their good standing.

Why have the authorities made such a big deal about an issue Prabhupada instructed us not to worry about?

all that nonsense comes from the same place: GBC body identifying themselves as absolute authority, and on the other hand trying to emulate a corporation
but the fault is not on them but on the people that applauds and supports any step towards corporate structure and blind following. And the silence of innumerable others bound by self interests, including religious salvation bigotry, various privileges and perks, wages and plain and dumb yesmenry.

all that nonsense comes from the same place: GBC body identifying themselves as absolute authority, and on the other hand trying to emulate a corporation
but the fault is not on them but on the people that applauds and supports any step towards corporate structure. And the silence of innumerable others bound by various interests, including religious salvation bigotry, various privileges and perks, wages and plain dumb yesmenry.

all that nonsense comes from the same place: GBC body identifying themselves as absolute authority, and on the other hand trying to emulate a corporation
but the fault is not on them but on the people that applauds and supports any step towards corporate structure. And the silence of innumerable others bound by various interests, including religious salvation bigotry, various privileges and perks, wages and plain yesmenry.

You had to state it three times... hmmm I guess you feel strongly about it...