"Our Original Position" errata

The following is an informal gathering of objections, faults and other irregularities found by another party in "Our Original Position," the official published position on the "Origin of the Jiva" issue. The anonomous author of these points hoped to incorporate them into a book eliminating further doubt in this matter, but did not do so. We simply offer them as seeds for further thought.
They do not necessarily represent our opinion.

Chapter One

·Read: "The authors insist..." and "And yet,..." It is obvious from these two statements that they are admitting that Shrila Jiva Goswami said these things and their only refutation is, 'but Prabhupada translated it as since time immemorial'... and that is exactly our point. (1) Shrila Jiva Goswami (SJG) did say that the soul is eternally conditioned, and (2) Shrila Prabhupada translates it as 'time immemorial' exactly because the concept of eternal bondage was too difficult for a general audience, who had little or no background in Vedic thought, to understand.

·See pgs 74-75 in "In Vaikuntha" It is explaining four type of entities, not the meaning of four words in general, thus all of the statements of "Our Original Position" (OOP's) authors trying to prove that this is not the way the words are defined are off the mark. Also . . .

*Very important" See pg. 27 of "OOP". Notice in the Sanskrit that almost every time the word 'anadi' is mentioned in reference to the Lord in the Upanishadic quotations, it is coupled with/qualified by 'ananta' or a synonym for ananta (having a beginning but no end"). Therefore, Upanishads themselves are assuming that the words anadi and ananta commonly indicate: (1) having no beginning but an end and (2) having a beginning but no end respectively. Or why else would they put both of them together when talking about the Lord? They want to be sure that there is no mistake that the Lord has no beginning and no end. If both of them were synonyms for nitya (as claimed by the author of OOP) why employ the vain repitition of using both of them? Why should either word at all exist or be used in shastra...it would only be a redundency? Therefore, the Upanishads themselves are giving the answer to this question of definition. Both anadi and ananta come under the meaning of nitya. They are both included in nitya, and thus can sometimes be used in place of nitya (as in the first verse of Brahma Samhita...no one will think that the use of the word anadi there means that Krishna has no beginning but can come to an end. There, it is indicating His eternality). But still, each of these two also holds it's own particular meaning which makes them different from each other, and thus the handling of them in the quotations from Upanishads. This is called naya of referring to the whole by pointing out one of its parts amsha-anshi-nyaya. Just as you point to the water and say, 'This is the ocean,' but actually you are only pointing to a small part of the ocean. So, the part is contained withing the whole, and can be used to refer to the whole, but at the same time, it is not identical with the whole. Anadi is used in the Brahma Samhita verse because there Lord Brahma is juxtaposing anadir (He who has no beginning" with adir (He is the origin of everything). In this way, Lord Brahma stresses the Lord's beginninglessness, and gives contextual strength to the statement that He is the beginning of everything. Likewise, shastras will use ananta when they want to emphasise the Lord's endlessness. When shastra wants to be certain that both aspects of the Lord are clearly understood, they they use both of them together, as in the Upanishadic statements, and when they want to speak of the Lors's infinite nature in general terms, they will use nitya. The should be clearly understood, as it is a soft spot for several of the authors key, long winding, convoluted arguments.

When the author insists that only sat and asat exist, which he contradicts shortly thereafter, it should also be understood that nitya and ananta both cme under sat (having existence with no end", and anitya and anadi both fall under (having existence which comes to an end).

Chapter 2

Part 1: Analysis of Vedanta Sutra 2.1.34-37

Untangling the author's errors in this section and Chapter 3 is a little complex and requires substantial explanation.

First a brief on the structure of Vedanta Sutra:

·It is composed of four books, called Adhyayas. Each of those is broken down into four sections called Padas. Each of those has a variable number of Adhikaranas, or sections. each section contains a variable number of verses.

·Each Adhikarana has to have Sangati, or agreement with the whole Vedanta Sutra (VS), with its Adhyaya, with its Pada and with the Adhikaranas immediately before and after it.

What is under discussion in this section of VS:

· 2.1.34,35 comprise Adhikarana Ten. This section is an answer to an implicit question, following from the previous Adhikarana (Nine), which stated that : The Lord has no fruitive motive in creating the world, but does it only for the sake of lila. The question that this raises is: Is part of the Lord's lila to cause the jivas to suffer? I.e., because lila is only for enjoyment, He must be enjoying their suffering/ Adhikarna Ten answers this by saying in 2.1.34: "No, the Lord dispenses karmic reactions to the iving entities only on the basis of the previous actions, and not whimsically. Thus there is no defect on His part." Then, 1.2.35: "If if is asked, 'but every jiva starts off equally at the time of creation, so what else but the Lord's favor to some and disfavor to others could cause the differences we see?' It is replied that at the beginning of creation, they are continuing where they left off in the previous creation. Because this process is anadi, there was never a time when it can be said that all living entities started from an equal position, yet, all are always receiving nothing but the reaction of their previous karma, and thus there is no defect in the Lord's dealing with them."

2.1.35 is saying that the karma of the living entity is beginningless. Therefore his condidioning is also necessarily beginningless. This is what is explained in "In Vaikuntha..." pages 37,38.

· 2.1.36,37 comprise Adhikarana Eleven. This is an answer to an implicit question from Adhikarana Ten, which says: "But, it is seen that the Lord shows favor to His devotee, so how can you say there is no partiality on His side? The reply is: "We accept that He shows special favor to His devotees. It would be a defect if He did "not" reciprocate with them, because that would go against his generous nature. It can also be said that His reciprocating with them is also equal dealings. But ultimately, it is partiality, because when He reciprocates with His devotees, He gives in greater measure than He receives. But it should also be understood that when He reciprocates with them, He does not do any dis-favor to other living entities in the process. Thus, there is no defect on His part from any angle."

Adhikarana Ten (2.1.34,35) is talking about the relation of Paramatma to the jiva souls in the material world (See OOP pg 14) Adhikarana Eleven (2.1.36,37) is talking about the relationship of Bhagavan to His devotees in the material world (This is clear from the discussion of partiality, which Paramatma does not involve in, and from the use of the word "bhakta-vatsala" in SBV's commentary on 2.1.36, see footnote 15, on OOP pg 16 and pg 257 of "In Vaikuntha..."). In his commentary, the primary OOP author tries to muddle these two different topics together and make them one . . . as follows: His commentary does not have agreement or Sangati with the Adhyaya Pada or the previous and following Adhikaranas:

· In his commentary, the author of OOP tries to say something to this effect:

"In analyzing 2.1.34-37 (both Adhikaranas Ten and Eleven), my intention is to prove that the word 'karma,' as discussed in these verses, refers to the activities of both conditioned and non-conditioned souls, both in the material and spiritual worlds. Not just to the activities of conditioned souls. Thus, the interpretation found in "In Vaikuntha" is wrong. They interpret 2.1.35 to say that because the karma of the living entities is beginningless, his conditioning is also beginningless. I disagree, because according to my analysis, the beginningless activities of the living entities and the Lord's beginningless reciprocation with them is not necessarily restricted to the material world. Therefore, the thing here which is truly beginningless, and which is under discusssion by Vedanta Sutra, is the Lord's reciprocation with ALL living entities according to their actions, and not just the state of the conditioned living entities."

His reasoning is defective for the following reasons:

1- The topic under discussion in both this Adhyaya and Pada is the Lord's relationship to the material creation (See "OOP" pg 10, Sutra 2.1.35), thus Adhikaranas Ten and Eleven discussed here (2.1.34-37) must all have Sangati with that topic. i.e., the context of discussion for all of these verses is the material world.

2- He takes 2.1.34-2.1.37 as though they all four belong to the same Adhikarana, but they do not. 2.1.34, 35 form Adhikarana Ten, and 2.1.36,37 form Adhikarana Eleven. Both have different topics.

3. Adhikarana Ten is clearly talking about the conditioned living entities. (See OOP's own translation of the commentary to 2.1.35, pg 14). The use of the words karma, ksetra-jna (knower of the field of material activities) and Visnu (Whose pastimes are associated with the material world), as well as the whole context these words are found in, are clearly saying that 'karma' here is material activity of the conditioned souls. Indeed, the author of OOP admits it himself on this same page.

4. The author goes on to say that he will prove that the word 'karma' as used in SBV's commentary on pg. 14 also refers to the activities of liberated souls, here and in the spiritual world. The defect in that is that he waits until 2.1.36,37 for that, and that is a separate Adhikarana, where a different topic is under discussion. SBV himself ends the discussion of the material conditioned nature of the living entities in Adhikarana Ten, 2.1.35 commentary with the words "[The accusarion of] inequality, etc., in Brahman is refuted." He then sets up the topic for discussion in Adhikarana Eleven with : "That [inequality] in the form of taking the devotee's side is now [however] accepted..." Thus, the use of the word anadi in 2.1.35 is being restricted by SBV himself to Adhikarana Ten. It is also very significant that nowhere in sutras 2.1.36,37 or in SBV's commentary on them is the word anadi used.

· The gist of all of this is: The author of OOP is trying to say that karma, in 2.1.35, refers to the activities of the liverated souls as well, and the Lord's reciprocation with those activities. Thus, when it is said, "eternal," what is being spoken of is not the karma of the living entities, but the activity (and reciprocation from the Lord) of 'all' devotees when they descend to the material world from the spiritual world. And even in the spiritual world, we cannot deny that the Lord protects His devotees."

Part 2: Analysis of Vedanta Sutra 4.4.1 and 4.4.3

· Basically, the author os OOP is trying to prove in this section that svarupa refers to a spiritual form, rasa, etc, in these sections. This is not correct. What is being referred to is the sat, cit, ananda nature of the jiva only. His svarupa as pure consciousness. This is evident from pg 23.24, beginning: "And so it is logical to say..."

General Defects in Chapters 3 and 4

These chapters are very similar. First we will mention the basic defects in them, then specific ones in each chapter.

The OOP author's main endeavor in these chapters is to discount what he feels is problematic with the treatment of the words: anadi, ananta, nitya and anitya in "In Vaikuntha Not Even the Leaves Fall." His opinion is that the authors of "In Vaikuntha" have erroneously defined these words, (esp, the word usage of the word anadi in reference to the beginningless conditioning of the jiva soul) and so in these Chapters the authors atttempts to analyze the usage of these words in various shastras (esp. anadi) to prove that their meaning is different than that which he sees presented in "In Vaikuntha."

There are two overwhelming defects in his endeavor:

1) The authors of "In Vaikuntha..." are not trying to provide general definitions for these four words. they are talking about four different types of activities, and these words are often used to describe them in shastra.

2) The author of "OOP" has misconstrued the usage of these words in the passages from shastra that he quotes, and has naturally derived inaccurate definitions from them.

In relation to the first point, we quote from "In Vaikuntha...":

"The conclusion is that there are four types of activities or objects, nitya, anitya, anadi, and ananta. Nitya are those which have no geginning and no end, like Vaikuntha planets or Lord Krsna; anitya are those which have a beginning and end, such as the body, anadi are those which have no beginning but have an end, such as the material conditioning of the jiva; and ananta are those which have a beginning but no end, such as the liberation of a jiva from the material world... All objects, qualities, and activities can be grouped into these four classes and this is how Vedic philosophers have used these words."

The discussion related to these four words occurs in the middle of a chapter where Shrila Jiva Goswami's usage of the term anadi in reference to the eternal conditioning of the living entities is being discussed. Neither Shrila Jiva Goswami, nor the authors of "In Vaikuntha..." are interested in writing a dictionary or giving a general dictionary definition of the word anadi while talking about the conditioned living entities. The authors are showing how Shrila Jiva Goswami clearly says that the conditioning of the living entities has no beginning, but can come to an end by the Lord's mercy. And this state, or type of activity, SJG calls anadi. The author of "OOP" never attempts to address this point in context, and that alone renders all of his discussion in the next several chapters mute.

We do no understand why the author of "OOP" has gone to so much trouble to demonstrate the usage of the word in so many shastras, only to establish his own opinion about it, but never even discusses the context that this word comes up in "In Vaikuntha..." He certainly did not admit the fact that this is Shrila Jiva Goswami's usage of the word anadi, let alone dare to attempt to refute Shrila Jiva Goswami.

Indeed, in Chapter 9 of "OOP" the author purports at the very beginning that he will show the statements of SJG to support the fall-vada position...but where??!! He never even mentions SJG's name in the chapter!

We have noticed this as being a general trend in the author's work. By ignoring the fact that Shrila Jiva Goswami's statements, which he never even addresses, are the reason "In Vaikuntha..." was written. The author of "OOP" writes under the implicit assumption that Shri Satya Narayana dasa and Shri Kundali dasa are inventing these interpretations, or are somehow trying to screw them out of shastric statements, to suit some twisted purpose of their own. He then charges in on his white horse; chastising the demons while simultaneously protecting the conclusions of shastra-tiptoeing right over Shrila Jiva Goswami's head in the process. This methodology is dishonest. If he wants to contest that the jiva souls have never fallen from the spiritual world, and that the usage of the word anadi in various shastric passages and commentaries say this, then he should take it up with the person who made the statement: Shrila Jiva Goswami. But he never one time, in all of his extravagant analysis's in this book, discusses Shrila Jiva Goswami's statements on the subject. Instead, he prefers to quote from here and there in Chapter 6, he even quotes from Goswami Giridhara Lala, a disciple of Vallabha Bhatta, who is an offender at the lotus feet of Shrila Jiva Goswami. The following quotation is from Appendix Two of Tattva Sandarbha, translated by Shri Satya Narayana dasa and Shri Kundali dasa:

"Not only did the author [Giridhari Lal Goswami] launch a systematic attempt to refute Shrila Jiva Goswami, but he depicted him as an acarya-drohi (one who rebels against previous acaryas). Lal further claimed that Shri Jiva Goswami was not even a devotee, what to speak of a recipient of Lord Krsna's mercy. He wrote, "Jiva Goswami is unable to understand the learned opinion of Shri Vallachacarya."

It is odd that the author of "OOP" should quote from such a person, even calling him a Vaishnava. He uses Lal's statements to support his own opinion that in relation to the jiva soul's bondage, the term anadi means cirantanam, or "existing since ancient times," but not beginningless. This is especially true in view of the author of "OOP's" pointing out so heartily Vallabha Bhatta's misinterpretation of Shrimad Bhagavatam in the beginning of his book in the section entitles, "The Aim of this Book."

· A misanalysis of the word anadi in Chapters 3 and 4 by the author is subject to the same defects as in Chapter 1. That is, in the Sanskrit it is almost always quoted with other words indicating middle (madhya) and end (anta or nidhana), thus, its commonly understood meaning of referring to beginninglessness is understood by shastras themselves.

· Therefore, the author's attempt to prove in these chapters that anadi is synonymnous with nitya is defeated.

Specific Problems with Chapter 3

Pg. 27 "The Upanisada and other ..." So? Is this a restriction?

pg. 29 "But unlike the Upanisads, the Mahabharata frequently employs the term anadi to describe entities (usually Krishna) or processes that are eternal..." The situation is that out of 44 occurrences of the word anadi in Mahabharata (quoted by the author of "OOP"), 41 of them are qualified with madhya, ananta, etc as discussed above and in Chapter 1.

Pgs 31-36: Regarding Bhagavad Gita:

· Pg 32: "In verse 13.20..." Since when is the living entity the Lord's internal potency?

· Quote from remarks on Chapter 1: When the author of "OOP" insists that only sat and asat exist, which he himself contradicts shortly thereafter, it should also be understood that nitya and ananta both come under sat (having existence with no end), and anitya and anadi both fall under asat (having existence which comes to an end).

· Pg 34: "In other words, to have no beginning is to be free of the modes of nature..." This is not true. To have no beginning is to not be a product of material nature.

· Pg. 34: "If we understand..." anadi and ananta are not synonyms. See above and comments on Chapter 1. He has misconstrued SJG's usage of the terms anadi and ananta. He is not giving dictionary definitions of them, he is referring to specific types of activities.

· Pg. 36: "And so the form of this..." This is referring to the material world, not the jiva's bondage. The author of "OOP's" translation "It's [the tree's]..." is incorrect. The correct translation of tathasya guna-sanga... is "And this material attachment is the only beginning" This is not perceived, reason being that it does not exist. No beginning is why it is not perceived. This is also corroborated on the very next page, Chapter 4, Pg. 37, "One verse describes the process..."

Specific Problems with Chapter 4

· Pg 38: "The question before us...", but it is there in the Upanisada, etc!

· What is the use of analyzing saasvat and sasvat? The author appears to be writing a dictionary in order to avoid dealing with the direct statements of SJG.

· All of this analysis does not prove that anadi does "not" mean having a beginning but no end.

· He also says at the top of Pg. 39 that he will analyze the use of the word anadi in Shrimad Bhagavatam in this chapter, but he does not. His presentation in Chapter 6 "The word anadi in Srimad Bhagavatam" is also incorrect, as will be demonstrated.

Chapter Five

Part 1: Lord Krishna and Uddhava:

· Pg 53: "...Lord Krishna tells us that this is also the case..." Where?

· In this section, Uddhava is basically asking: "Is the living entity simultaneously nitya-baddha and nitya-mukta by substance or in belief?"

·Substance here refers to the living entity's svarupa. Belief refers to his perception under the modes of nature (see Pg 59. "And so, first of all...")

· Bottom line of this whole section of SB is: His svarupa, or eternal conscious being never factually comes in contact with the material modes, but his eternal bondage is due to the influence of maya, or illusion. Just as a prince kidnapped by thieves at the time of his birth may think of himself as a dacoit throughout his life but he never really is.

· Thus, the terms nitya-baddha and nitya-mukta are products of maya. These terms are given for the conditioned soul's understanding in different contexts. When shastra wants to explain that he is not the body, it says nitya-mukta. When shastra wants to explain the duration of his existence under the influence of avidya, it says nitya baddha. But he understands his svarupa to be sat, cit, ananda, and part of a separate potency of the Lord, he realizes that his existence, his svarupa, has nothing to do with prakriti, and the terms baddha and mukta have no more relevance for him. Example: A person places a $100 bill in his pocket, and then forgets that he placed it there. When he becomes aware of its absence, he becomes distressed, and thinks, "When I find my money, I will feel great relief." But both of these two concepts of distress and relief are concepts in his mind, caused by the maya (or illusion) that he has lost his money. When he finally remembers that it has been in his pocket all along, both the distress and relief from distress become meaningless for him, because the illusion that caused both of them has been removed.

· Regarding Viraraghava and the term anitya (Pg 57) the acarya being talked about is SJG. Where is the discussion of his statements regarding anadi?

· Thus, on Pg 59, the conclusion: "And so, first of all..." In substance, the liiving entity is never conditioned, i.e., he is never a product of the modes of nature. "Rather, a belief, based on bodily designations takes place."

· SJG confirms this on Pgs. 59-60, "Although the living being..." This statement from SJG directly contradicts the "OOP" author's point 4 on pg. 56. By swarupa he is eternally liberated by modes he is eternally conditioned. The conditioning is not in the swarupa, otherwise he will never become liberated-muktir hitva anyatha rupam svarupina syavasthati-Bhag.

Part 2: Madhva's Tika:

·Madhva accepts beginningless ignorance in the first statement, "Beginningless ignorance is blindness." The rest is all discussion about bondage, in this context, bondage meaning being dependent on the Lord? Thus in "OOP" he gives a non-standard interpretation to the word "nitya-baddha" (...in order to establish the Lord's supreme independence and the dependence of all others on Him), he first makes certain to say that there is beginningless ignorance among the conditioned living entity's of the Lord's supremacy. This quote from Madhva is only supporting the no-falldown position.

· Pg. 61: "What is normally called material bondage, Madhva calls 'blindness,' andhatvam. His remarkable conclusion is that only the Lord is nitya-mukta, 'eternally' liberated, since only the Lord is fully independent." Here, the author leaves out two steps in this logic, and in effect changes the statements of Madhva to suit his own ideas. The full line of thought in the passage from Madhva is as follows:

1. Material bondage = blindness, andhatvam

2. This blindness is beginningless.

3. This blindness is ended by "favorable endeavor," i.e. devotional service

4. All jivas are eternally dependent on Vishnu (nitya-baddha), whether theyare blind or liberated.

5. Thus, in this sense, only the Lord is nitya-mukta, or completely independent.

· Madhva, even though he is reinterpreting these terms, is careful to keep the siddhanta clear. If we try to take his statements literally, without understanding the underlying siddhanta, then we will become confused by statements such as "But the nitya-mukta is one alone: Hari, Narayana, the Lord, because of His independence," as the author of "OOP" himself becomes confused in Chapter 8 where great offenses are created against Shrimati Tulasi Devi and Shri Sudama.

Chapter 6

· Pg 66: Top: Choice A is the correct one, and is corroborated by Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura's commentary on Bhagavad Gita verse 13.20, in Sarartha-darshini commentary. The author of "OOP" neglects to mention this commentary on this verse. If we are to accept the translation presented in "OOP" , SVCT will be contradicting himself.

· Pg 66-67. "Srila Prabhupada translates..." but why?

· Pg 67. "According to the rules of Sanskrit grammar..." This is not true.

· Pg 67. Vijayadvaya Tirtha *is* saying, "because the jiva's bondage is beginningless, the time when it began is not settled."

· Pg 67: Please see notes regarding Giridhara Lala in previous section entitled, "General Defects in Chapters 3 & 4."

· Pg 67: Anvitartha-prakashika was not written by a Vaishnava. His commentary is tinged with Mayavad.

· Pg 68: Regarding: cirantanam

1. It was explained in, "In Vaikuntha..." that anadi is a difficult concept, so acaryas give meanings like 'time immemorial' so we can understand.

2. Beginningless . . ..

3. "The Sanskrit word ciran-tanam..." What about the dictionary meaning of anadi?

4. "...of long standing, old, ancient." beginningless includes all of these.

5. Cirantanam has literal and figurative meaning.

·Pg. 68: Regarding: Shrimad Bhagavatam 11.11.4: (1) repeated mistranslation of the word bahu-kalika as "lasting." Bahu-kalika means "since a long time." Beginningless is also bahu-kalika.

· Pg 69: "The two commentaries quoted..." GGL is a big critic of SJG and AP was written by a non-Vaishnava.

· Pg 69: "We have not heard..." our own acharyas, such as SJG and SVCT do not accept fall-vad.

· Pg 69: "Moreover, were the term anadi not interpreted in this figurative way..." Here the author of "OOP" is saying anadi means asat. Previously, see pg 34 bottom, the author was saying it was sat??

· Pg. 69: "And so..." The correct translation is" And so its beginning (adih). Simply attachment to the modes. This is not perceived."

· pg 69: "In other words..." Why all of this memory business? He cannot perceive because it does not exist.

· Pg 70: "...others attribute the perception of eternal bondage to pratiti, which in this context means mere faith or belief, as opposed to ontological substance." So, how is it that one does not become liberated after just understanding that one is not really bound? the actual meaning is that bondage is not part of the jiva's svarupa.

Chapter 7

· Pg 71: "At the end of the Puranjana story, Lord Krsna, in the form of a brahmana..." Nowhere in this episode is Lord Krishna mentioned. The brahmana is Supersoul, not Krishna. So, there is no question of any discussion of falling down from Krishna Lila in this story to begin with.

· Pg 76: "...that the brahmana (Supersoul)..." Previously, he said Lord Krishna, but here he is admitting that it is Supersoul. Then, he contradicts himself a few sentences later. "Neither... mention Maha-Vishnu..."

· Pg 76: Regarding the phrase, "mayy eva militva mat-sangena sukham anubhutavan tvam eva militva" the Sanskrit word mayi is in the 7th (Locative) case, which means "in me alone" and not "with me." If the meaning is "with me" the Sanskrit would have been "maya eva" - the 3rd case.

· Pg 83: In the commentary, "kintu anady-avrtasya api sakhyasya svabhavikatvad anaditvam," the phrase anady-avrtasya api sakhyasya means the friendship, which is also covered without beginning. Since the covering of the friendship is beginningless, the forgetfulness is also beginningless. So, the word tad-vismrteh (forgetfullness) does not occur in this sentence, but it has been included here for clarity, since it occurs in the previous sentence. The author of "OOP" accepts the fact that the word anaditvam refers to sakhyasya (genitive case of sakhya), but they miss the point that the word anady-avrtasya (covered without beginning) is in the genitive case also, and it also refers to sakhasya. Thus, the forgetfulness has no beginning. The conclusion given by them, that the friendship with the Lord in beginningless is not what SJG is saying; but he is saying that the covering of the friendship is beginningless.

· Pg 85-98: The whole ensuing discussion is akin to the statements of Ramanujacarya from Chapter 2. The basic thing which is not being understood by the author of "OOP," is that when it says, "recovering his original form, etc." this is talking about his svarupa (self-nature) as a pure conscious entity, separate from the modes of nature.

Chapter 8

This chapter indicates a desperation to defend the theory of the falling of the nitya-parsada's, even at the high cost of committing immeasurable offenses to Shrimati Tulasi Devi and Shri Sudama and twisting the philosophy to fit this end.

Shrila Prabhupada once wrote in a letter (in reply to a letter regarding Tulasi care): "Use your common sense. If you have none, then consult those who do." The activities of Tulasi coming to this world are called lila. Tulasi-devi is an expansion of Shrimati Radharani-so now She is falling down also?

yatha skande:
ya drsta nikhilagha-sangha-samani sprsta vapuh pavani
raganamabhivandita nirasani siktantakatrasini
pratyasatti-vidhayini bhagavatah krsnasya samropita
nyasta laccarane vimukti-phalada tasyai tulasyai namah

(Brs. 203)

Translation by Srila Prabhupada
See, Nectar of Devotion. Part 1, Chapter 11-- Aspects of Transcendental Service
Serving Trees Such as Tulasi

and in the Shri Vrndadevy-astaka (verse 3):

samasta-vaikuntha-shriomanau shri-krsnasya vrndavana-dhanya-dhamni
dattadhikare vrsabhanu-putrya vrnde namas te caranaravindam

"O Vrnda Devi, I offer my respectful obeisance to your lotus feet. Shrimate Radharani, the daughter of King Vrsabhanu, has made you the ruling monarch of Lord Krsna's opulent and auspicious abode of Vrndavana, which is the crest jewel of all the Vaikuntha planets."

We are astonished with the conclusion put forth in this chapter that the transcendental lila of one of the Lord's topmost and dearest eternal associates is given as an example meant to show or verify the assumption that all the billions of living entities who are undergoing repeated hellish conditions and entanglement in this material world have fallen in a similar way. To even think that such personalities as Tulasi devi can fall down is like killing one's own guru.

The author of this presentation refuses to give the "OOP" booklet the dignity of any further refutation. Further points presented in "OOP" are amply covered in the "In Vaikuntha Not Even the Leaves Fall" book.

I hope this helps
An anonymous author

As stated earlier this list of apparent defects does not necessarily represent our opinion. It is merely presented for the readers edification.