Jīva-tattva

This paper explores the longstanding debate within the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition regarding the origin of the jīva's conditioned existence. By applying an interdisciplinary framework, the study aims to reconcile the text-critical tensions that have historically divided the community. Utilizing Paul Ricoeur's concept of distanciation, the paper examines Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.11.4, highlighting how its semantic autonomy has led to divergent interpretations. The debate is framed within a Hegelian dialectic, contrasting the Dormant/Suṣupti Model and the Literal Chronological Fall Model. The paper argues that these positions, while seemingly irreconcilable, contain valid textual values that pose a philosophical puzzle. The solution is sought through a Pāṇinian audit of primary texts, aiming to uncover a multi-layered synthesis that resolves the controversy. Central to this inquiry is the concept of taṭastha-śakti, which denotes the jīva's marginal potency and minute agency. The paper emphasizes the distinction between capacity and inclination, arguing that the jīva's ability to turn away from Kṛṣṇa does not imply an innate inclination to do so. The study also draws parallels with Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense, asserting that the capacity for misdirection is the structural price of genuine agency. Ultimately, the paper seeks to distinguish between domain access and fallenness, arguing that movement toward the material domain is not synonymous with bondage.