There is no Fall-down from Real Mukti

Question: Could you kindly help me understand the following words of Srila Prabhupada regarding the fall-down from sāyujya-mukti?

“In the opinion of many scholars, this sāyujya-mukti, although counted among the five kinds of mukti, is not actually mukti because, from sāyujya-mukti, one may again fall down to this material world. This information we have from Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (10.2.32), wherein it is said, patanty adhaḥ, which means “they again fall down.” (SB 4.9.29, Purport.)

Answer: You have cited Srila Prabhupada’s purport on SB 4.9.29, in which he refers to SB 10.2.32 in support of a fall down from sāyujya-mukti. So let us first examine verse 10.2.32. Below is the translation taken from the Vedabase:

“O lotus-eyed Lord, although nondevotees who accept severe austerities and penances to achieve the highest position may think themselves liberated, their intelligence is impure. They fall down from their position of imagined superiority because they have no regard for Your lotus feet.”

This verse speaks about nondevotees and their imagined superiority. The Sanskrit term is vimukta-māninaḥ—“those who consider themselves liberated.” However, they are not actually liberated.

So, their fall down is certainly not from any of the five types of mukti. This is supported by Srila Prabhupada’s comment on this verse, “In the present day, big, big politicians all over the world think that by scheming they can occupy the highest political post, that of president or prime minister, but we actually see that even in this life such big prime ministers, presidents, and other politicians, because of being nondevotees, fall down (patanty adhaḥ).”

Therefore, this verse does not speak directly or indirectly about a fall from sāyujya-mukti. Then how can we reconcile Prabhupada’s comment on SB 4.9.29, as cited by you? I understand that the sāyujya-mukti mentioned in this comment is imaginary, not real. Verse 10.2.32 uses the phrase vimukta-māninaḥ, which can mean “imagined liberation.” Therefore, there is no fall-down from real mukti; otherwise, it would not be mukti. Moreover, a nondevotee cannot attain mukti. Mukti is given only by Mukunda.

Question: Thank you for your detailed answer. I would like to ask further questions in this regard.

Here is a quote from the purport of Srila Prabhupada: (SB 7.1.35)

“The impersonalists cannot reach the Vaikuṇṭha planets to become associates of the Lord, and therefore, according to their desires, Kṛṣṇa gives them sāyujya-mukti. However, since sāyujya-mukti is partial mukti, they must fall again to this material world.”

Based on this excerpt, I conclude that:

*Kṛṣṇa gives sāyujya-mukti to impersonalists according to their desires;
*Sāyujya-mukti is partial mukti;
*Since sāyujya-mukti is partial mukti, they must fall again to this material world.

Regarding Prabhupada’s comment on SB 4.9.29, you said:

“I understand that the sāyujya-mukti mentioned in this comment is imaginary, not real. Verse 10.2.32 uses the phrase vimukta-māninaḥ, which can mean ‘imagined liberation.’”

I have questions regarding my attempt to reconcile these two explanations:

1. I can understand your point that mukti is mukti. Partial mukti is not mukti. However, Prabhupada clearly says that sāyujya-mukti is partial mukti. I can accept that also because it begins with a mukti that subsequently ends. Therefore, if it is incorrect to call a mukti that ends “mukti,” it would also be incorrect to call happiness that ends “happiness.” However, Kṛṣṇa does so in Bhagavad Gītā:

viṣayendriya-saṁyogād yat tad agre ’mṛtopamam
pariṇāme viṣam iva tat sukhaṁ rājasaṁ smṛtam

“…that happiness which appears like nectar at first but poison at the end …” Gītā 18.38

2. If Kṛṣṇa gives sājujya-mukti, then how could it be imaginary?
3. If there is an imaginary sāyujya-mukti—or any imaginary mukti—what is the principle behind that? Does one just imagine something that is not mukti to be mukti, like one imagines a rope to be a snake? Then what, in this case, plays the role of “rope?”
4. You said, “a nondevotee cannot get mukti.” I understand that impersonalists are nondevotees. How they could get sāyujya-mukti? If it is not real sājujya-mukti—what is it?

Answer: To answer your questions, let me first describe my understanding of mukti and its various types. It is defined as follows: muktir hitvānyathā-rūpaṁ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ—“Liberation (mukti) means to be established in the self’s true essential nature (svarūpa), after abandoning identification with all that it is not” (SB 2.10.6). It means to become free from identification with the subtle and material bodies. Mukti is further of two types, called “living liberation” (jīvan-mukti) and “posthumous liberation” (utkrānta-mukti). In the jīvan-mukta state, a devotee continues to live in the present body while directly perceiving all products of prakṛti as temporary and in a state of constant flux. Such a devotee does not identify with the body-mind complex, knowing well that such identification is illusory. In the state of utkrānta-mukti, the devotee becomes free of both the gross and subtle bodies. This is defined as establishment in one’s own svarūpa. In the posthumous condition following death (utkrānta-daśā), the above-mentioned liberation (mukti) has two varieties—immediate (sadya) and gradual (krama). Immediate means that the liberated person attains the final spiritual destination immediately after giving up the subtle and gross bodies. Gradual mukti means that the person gives up the gross body but not the subtle body. With the subtle body, he travels to the places of his choice in the material creation. Then, when he desires to leave material creation, he also gives up the subtle body and enters into the spiritual realm. This specific ultimate liberation (utkrānta-mukti) is of five types—namely, sālokya, sārṣṭi, sārūpya, sāmīpya, and sāyujya. All these types of mukti, including sāyujya, are eternal positions. There is no fall down from any of these muktis; otherwise, they cannot be called mukti.

Based upon the above understanding, I fail to understand how sāyujya-mukti can be partial mukti. Sāyujya is of two types, Brahma-sāyujya and Bhagavat-sāyujya. I have never come across any reading that they are partial muktis. Therefore, all I can say is that partial mukti is not real mukti. Mukti cannot be partial. It is either mukti or it is not. So to me, partial mukti means imaginary mukti. If this does not satisfy you, then I have no reply to your question #1.

Your example of happiness does not prove it to be real happiness. Krsna Himself says that material happiness is nothing but source of suffering, therefore, wise people do not take interest in it (Gītā 5.22). Also read what Krsna says about sat  (real) and asat (non-real or imaginary) in Gītā 2,16.

As for question #2, the sāyujya-mukti that Kṛṣṇa gives is not imaginary. Imaginary mukti is when a person thinks himself liberated. This is what is meant by the phrase vimukta-māninaḥ in SB 10.2.32.

As for question #3, the person himself is equivalent to the rope. It means that he is a conditioned being (a rope) but imagines or thinks himself to be mukta (a snake).

As for question #4, without bhakti, no one can get any type of mukti. Only through bhakti can one transcend the three guṇas of prakṛti. Kṛṣṇa Himself clearly states this in BG 14.26.

Kapila describes the process of attaining sāyujya-mukti elaborately in Chapter 28 of the Third Canto of SB. Kṛṣṇa is Mukunda—the giver of mukti. No one else can give mukti. So even impersonalists have to perform bhakti to attain sāyujya-mukti. This is called kaivalya-kāmā-bhakti. Those impersonalists who do not engage in bhakti do not attain mukti. This is the purport of SB 10.2.32. They are vimukta-māninaḥ. This is the definite view of Bhagavata Purāṇa.