RESPONSE TO SOME POINTS IN

BHANU SWAMI'S CRITIQUE OF MY

PAPER ON THE ORIGIN OF THE JIVA,

by Drutakarma Dasa

In discussing the origin of the jiva,

references to sastra direct

ly dealing with this question are rare. But

they are important. Evidence from Srimad-
Bhagavatam is especially significant,
because it is the ripened fruit of the tree of
Vedic knowledge, composed by Srila
Vyasadeva, the literary incarnation of the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, as a
commentary on the Vedanta Sutra.
References from Srimad-Bhagavatam are
thus superior to those from any other Vedic
literature.

There is one section from Srimad-

Bhagavatam that I cited in my paper, which I
reproduce below. It comes from the Fourth
Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam, where a
brahmana gives instruction to Queen
Vaidarbhi after the death of her husband. It is
clear from the purport that the brahmana is,
within the allegory, Krsna Himself, the
Supersoul.

Bhanu Swami has tried to downplay the

importance of this section, so I want to here
address this, and provide additional Sanskrit
texts and purports by Srila Prabhupada.

In the section I previously quoted, the

brahmana says to Vaidarbhi:

"Who are you? Whose wife or daughter

are you? Who is the man lying there? It
appears you are lamenting for this dead
body. Don't you recognize Me? I am your
eternal friend. You may remember that
many times in the past you have
consulted Me. 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 Manasa lake.
Although we have been living together
for many thousands of years, we are still
far away from our original home." (SB
4.28.52-54).

I made a comment (on page 5 of my paper)

about the part of this passage where the
brahmana says:

". . . 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."

I said: "This statement confirms that the jiva

enters the material world . . . from a direct
relationship with Krsna."
BHANU SWAMI: "This conclusion he
[Drutakarma] assumes from the statement:
`in the past you had a very intimate friend.'
To me this refers to relation with paramatma
which [is] mentioned in the verses, and
relationship with paramatma is at best neutral
rasa. When it refers to friend, the lord is the
friend to all eternally, though the jiva does
not recognize him as friend."

RESPONSE: The friend is not only

paramatma but ultimately Krishna Himself,
who is appearing now in the form of
Supersoul to speak to Vaidarbhi about the
former intimate relationship she had with
Him.

Srila Prabhupada said:

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead,

Paramatma, appeared before the queen as
a brahmana, but why didn't He appear in
His original form of Sri Krsna?" (SB
4.28.51 purport).

This question indicates that it could just as

well have been Sri Krsna who addressed the
words "in the past you had a very intimate
friend" to the Queen.

Prabhupada answered the question thus:

"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura

remarks that unless one is very highly
elevated in loving the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, one cannot see
Him as He is." (SB 4.28.51 purport).

The question and its answer suggest that the

original intimate friendly relationship of the
Queen was with Krsna, and not His
Supersoul expansion.

Also, in text 4.29.4, Narada Muni, who told

the story of the brahmana and Queen
Vaidarbhi, said:

yo 'vijnatahrtas tasya
purusasya sakhesvarah
yan na vijnayate pumbhir
namabhir va kriya-gunaih

"The person I have described as unknown

is the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
the master and eternal friend of the living
entity. Since the living entities cannot
realize the Supreme Personality of
Godhead by material names, activities, or
qualities, He remains everlastingly
unknown to the conditioned soul."

The relevant synonyms are purusasya "of

the living entity," sakha "the eternal
friend," and isvarah "the master."

BHANU SWAMI [commenting on another

portion of the brahmana's speech to
Vaidarbhi]: "you gave up my company and
accepted a position as enjoyer of this
material world" does not necessarily imply
direct rasa with Krsna. This verse itself does
not indicate a previous spiritual relationship.
Such a conclusion can only be drawn from
the purport of verse 54.

REPLY: To me it seems that one would have

a hard time getting around the clear
implications of this statement. It is not true
that the conclusion can only be drawn from
the purport. It is there in the words
themselves. The soul was in the company of
Krsna, and gave up that company, and came
to the material world. Since Supersoul is
generally said to accompany the soul in the
material world, the aspect of Krsna that the
soul was keeping company with before it
came to the material world must have been
the Bhagavan aspect.

Also, I am not at all ashamed of drawing

conclusions from Srila Prabhupada's purports
to the Bhagavatam. The purport in question
(of verse 54) reads:

"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."

This purport goes exactly along with what

the Bhagavatam verses say. As Vaisnavas,
from whatever sampradaya, we are obligated
to accept the words of Srimad Bhagavatam,
which shed direct, clear light on the specific
question before us. The interpretation that the
original intimate friend is nothing more than
the paramatma does not hold up. The clear
message is that the original friend is Krsna,
according to Srila Prabhupada and Narada
Muni, and when the jiva gives up his
relationship with Him, He accompanies the
jiva, still behaving as His intimate friend, but
now as Supersoul, rather than Govinda. Read
the above purport, compare it with the
Bhagavatam texts, and then compare it with
what I say--and see if they are not all in
agreement.

Everything else mentioned in Bhanu Swami's

comments on my paper can be judged
properly if this section of the Fourth Canto of
the Bhagavatam is understood in terms of the
direct meaning of the words and Srila
Prabhupada's purport.

The purports to text 4.28.53 shed some more

light on this. Srila Prabhupada says:

"By misusing his independence, the

living entity falls down from the service
of the Lord and takes a position in this
material world as an enjoyer." Also: "The
vibbhinamsa expansions, the marginal
potencies of the Lord, are the living
entities. When the living entities desire to
enjoy themselves, they develop a
consciousness of duality and come to
hate the service of the Lord. In this way
the living entities fall into the material
world."

One might say this is just Srila Prabhupada's

particular way of explaining things. So let us
go back to the Bhagavatam texts.

Text 4.28.55:

sa tvam vihaya mam bandho

gato gramya-matir mahim
vicaran padam adraksih
kayacin nirmitam striya

"My dear friend, you are now My very

same friend. Since you left Me, you have
become more and more materialistic, and
not seeing Me, you have been traveling in
different forms throughout this material
world, which was created by some
woman."

the important synonyms: sah "that swan,"

tvam "yourself," vihaya "leaving," mam
"Me," bandho "O friend," gatah "went,"
gramya "material," matih
"consciousness," mahim "to earth."

It is very hard to get around the implications

of this. Krsna and the jiva were friends
before the jiva entered the material world.
The jiva left Him.

This follows the previous verse, which said:

"Although we have been living together

for many thousands of years [as soul and
Supersoul], we are still far away from our
original home."

This means that Krsna and the jiva are from

the same place, which is called their home--
the home of both of them.

BHANU SWAMI: Often dwelling on

individual word meanings such as "again",
"reinstated," "forgetfulness" cannot be
conclusive to show a previous direct
relationship.

REPLY: Consider this text (4.28.59):

tasmims tvam ramaya sprsto

ramamano 'sruta-smrtih
tat-sangad idrsim prapto
dasam papiyasam prabho
"My dear friend, when you enter such a
body along with the woman of material
desires, you become overly absorbed in
sense enjoyment. Because of this you
have forgotten your spiritual life. Due to
your material conceptions, you are placed
in various material conditions."

Asruta smrtih is translated by Srila

Prabhupada as "without remembrance of
spiritual existence." The nature of that
spiritual existence, intimate friendship with
Krsna has been described in previous verses.
Here it is clear that dwelling on the
individual word meaning "forgetfulness" is
in fact conclusive.

Also text 4.28.64

evam sa manaso hamso

hamsena pratibodhitah
sva-sthas tad vyabhicarena
nastam apa punah smrtim

"In this way both swans live together in

the heart. When the one swan is
instructed by the other, he is situated in
his constitutional position. This means he
regains his original Krsna consciousness,
which was lost because of his material
attraction."

Very clear translation. The living being was

originally Krsna conscious. And he lost this
Krsna consciousness because of material
attraction. This verse does not say that the
jiva was never at any time a servant of Krsna.

The Sanskrit here is also very clear.

The synonyms given by Srila Prabhupada

are nastam "which was lost", apa
"gained", punah "again", smrtim "real
memory."

In other words, that which was lost is

regained. I do not see how anyone can argue
with this. It is right there in the Bhagavatam,
in the Sanskrit. And the purport, naturally,
goes right along with it. Here follow some
excerpts.

"When the inferior swan is separated

from the other swan, he is attracted to
material enjoyment. This is the cause of
his falldown. When he hears the
instructions of the other swan, he
understands his real position and is again
revived to his original consciousness."
Bhag. 4.28.64 purport

"The word sva-sthah, meaning `situated

in one's original position,' is very
significant in this verse. When one gives
up his unwanted attitude of superiority,
he becomes situated in his original
position. The word tad- vyabhicarena is
also significant, for it indicates that when
one is separated from God due to
disobedience, his real sense is lost.
Again, by the grace of Krsna and guru, he
can be properly situated in his liberated
position. These verses are spoken by
Srila Narada Muni, and his purpose in
speaking them is to revive our
consciousness." Bhag. 4.28.64 purport

Narada Muni further states in text 4.29.26:

yadatmanam avijnaya
bhagavantam param gurum
purusas tu visajjeta
gunesu prakrteh sva-drk

"The living entity by nature has minute

independence to choose his own good or
bad fortune, but when he forgets his
supreme master, the Personality of
Godhead, he gives himself up to unto the
modes of material nature."

The important synonyms are atmanam

"the Supreme Soul," avijnaya
"forgetting," bhagavantam "the Supreme
Personality of Godhead," param
"supreme," gurum "the instructor,"
indicating that one forgets the Supreme
Lord Krsna. Note the word bhagavantam,
clearly indicating Krsna, not simply the
Supersoul.

In his purport, Srila Prabhupada states:

"It is clearly stated herein that the living

entity has a little independence, indicated
by the word sva-drk, meaning `one who
can see his own welfare.' The living
entity's constitutional position is very
minute, and he can be misled in his
choice. He may choose to imitate the
Supreme Personality of Godhead. A
servant may desire to start his own
business and imitate his master, and
when he chooses to do so, he may leave
the protection of his master. Sometimes
he is a failure, and sometimes he is
successful. Similarly, the living entity,
part and parcel of Krsna, starts his own
business to compete with the Lord."
Bhag. 4.29.26 purport

It is clear that originally there is a master-

servant relationship going on, and that it gets
forgotten. Liberation means remembering it.

Narada Muni also says (4.29.48):

svam lokam na vidus te vai

yatra devo janardanah
ahuh dhumra-dhiyo vedam
sakarmakam atad-vidah

"Those who are less intelligent accept the

Vedic ritualistic ceremonies as all in all.
They do not know that the purpose of the
Vedas is to understand one's own home,
where the Supreme Personality of
Godhead lives. Not being interested in
their real home, they are illusioned and
search after other homes."

The important synonyms are svam

"own," lokam "abode," na "never," viduh
"know," te "such persons," vai
"certainly," yatra "where," devah "the
Supreme Personality of Godhead,"
janardanah "Krsna, or Visnu."

Here Narada Muni speaks of the home of the

living entity as svam lokam, his own planet,
where Krsna lives, not some borderline.

Srila Prabhupada comments:

"Generally people are not aware of their

interest in life--to return home, back to
Godhead. People do not know about their
real home in the spiritual world." Bhag.
4.29.48

In his comments on my paper, Bhanu Swami

seems to imply that Srila Prabhupada's
purports, in stating that the jiva has forgotten
its original relationship with Krsna, somehow
go beyond what is stated in the Bhagavatam
texts themselves. I do not find this to be the
case.