You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

Chapter Seven: What Did the Soul Forget?

Reading the 22nd chapter took longer than Mādhava expected; he kept returning to the passages Gaurāṅga had asked him to examine and comparing them with the arguments from the other book. Instead of resolving his doubts, the reading produced new questions.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa was sitting at his desk, reading an old typewritten manuscript.

Mādhava Dāsa: I think I’ve never seen one of these before.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: You mean, a manuscript?

Mādhava Dāsa: Typed by hand. To me, it looks almost like palm leaves.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: I don’t think you can find this one on the Internet. It was never published. This may be the only copy.

Mādhava Dāsa hesitated for a second.

Mādhava Dāsa: I read the whole chapter. I think I have a serious problem.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa smiled.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Only one? That’s not bad.

Mādhava Dāsa: Actually, several, but they are connected. The first passage seems to support what the authors of the other book are saying. Mahāprabhu explicitly states that there are two classes of souls, the eternally liberated and the eternally conditioned.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: sei vibhinnāṁśa jīva — dui ta’ prakāra, eka — ‘nitya-mukta’, eka — ‘nitya-saṁsāra’

Mādhava Dāsa: Yes, this one. “The living entities [jīvas] are divided into two categories. Some are eternally liberated, and others are eternally conditioned.”

He then mentions that those who are eternally liberated are always awake to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and they render transcendental loving to Kṛṣṇa. These are His eternal associates, who eternally associate with Him in the spiritual planets.

But in text twelve, He says: ‘nitya-bandha’ — kṛṣṇa haite nitya-bahirmukha, ‘nitya-saṁsāra’, bhuñje narakādi duḥkha

“Apart from the ever-liberated devotees, there are the conditioned souls, who always turn away from the service of the Lord. They are perpetually conditioned in this material world and are subjected to the material tribulations brought about by different bodily forms in hellish conditions.”

The verse states it very clearly. The first group is eternally with Kṛṣṇa, and the second is eternally conditioned. Is it not exactly the argument made in the other book?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes, it supports part of their argument. We shouldn’t try to dismiss passages that make things difficult for us. We are trying to find the conclusive truth, not just prove that our perspective is correct. Whenever you find a passage that appears to contradict your thesis, you need to examine it carefully.

Now, tell me, what happens to these perpetually conditioned souls?

Mādhava Dāsa: They suffer under the influence of māyā.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Forever?

Mādhava Dāsa: No, of course not. In texts fourteen and fifteen, Mahāprabhu explains that a conditioned soul may meet a saintly devotee, be instructed by him, and gradually come to Kṛṣṇa.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Then what does nitya-baddha mean?

Mādhava Dāsa: Eternally conditioned.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: But you just said this condition ends one day!

Mādhava Dāsa: That’s the problem.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Exactly. If we take nitya-baddha to mean that material conditioning is the eternal, unchangeable characteristic of the soul, we have an enormous contradiction. Mahāprabhu Himself describes the possibility of becoming free from it. The conditioned soul is not condemned to remain conditioned forever; therefore, it is not eternal in the same sense that the soul is eternal.

Mādhava Dāsa: Then nitya doesn’t always mean eternal in the absolute sense?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: You just stated it yourself. How can it be eternal in the absolute sense if it has an end?

We discussed something similar when we examined the meaning of the word anādi. Material conditioning has existed since time immemorial. We cannot find a time when the conditioned soul was not conditioned inside material history. In this sense, the soul is perpetually conditioned, going from one body to another through innumerable cycles of creation and dissolution of the cosmos.

But this doesn’t make conditioned life the constitutional, unchangeable characteristic of the soul. This is the difference between constitutional position and the material condition we find ourselves in.

The eternally liberated devotee is always conscious of his relationship with Kṛṣṇa. For him, there is no material conditioning. He may or may not know that a place called the material world exists, but he has never been in contact with it. He simply lives with Kṛṣṇa in the eternal present.

The conditioned soul is turned away from Him. He is part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, but his attention is focused on the material world. He is identifying with the material reflection. Since when? No one can tell, since time immemorial.

The point is that turning away from Kṛṣṇa is not his constitutional nature. If it were, becoming Kṛṣṇa conscious would mean changing his eternal nature instead of recovering it.

Mādhava Dāsa: And then we have the second passage. That’s where things became interesting. In text 107, Mahāprabhu states something that appears to be the opposite of what He said in the beginning:

nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema ‘sādhya’ kabhu naya
śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya

“Pure love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established in the hearts of the living entities. It is not something to be gained from another source. When the heart is purified by hearing and chanting, this love naturally awakens.”

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: And what is Mahāprabhu establishing here?

Mādhava Dāsa: That love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally present in the heart, and that devotional service awakens it. It is not something we acquire for the first time.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Notice how precise the verse is. First, He gives the conclusion: nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema. This is Bengali, not Sanskrit. Very simple and direct. Kṛṣṇa-prema, love for Kṛṣṇa, is eternally established.

He then rejects the possible misunderstanding: sādhya kabhu naya. To be gained at any time? Not. It is not something to be newly acquired; it is there already.

Then, He explains what the devotional practice actually does: śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya. Śravaṇādi comes from śravaṇa-ādi. All the nine devotional processes, starting with hearing. By this devotional practice, the heart is purified, and this original love for Kṛṣṇa awakens.

Here we start to see how the two passages come together.

Mādhava Dāsa: So the conditioning covers something that is already there. However long I have been conditioned, it has not destroyed my original love for Kṛṣṇa.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes. Otherwise, what would there be to awaken?

This is a process constantly used in the scriptures to explain complex topics. One passage points us in one direction, and the second refines it. Taken separately, they appear to contradict each other. Together they show us precisely where to go. In the material world we are accustomed to thinking in terms of material duality: black and white, good and bad. Our intelligence becomes flat, like a chapati. Most spiritual topics are multidimensional. They can be understood only when different passages are taken together.

Mādhava Dāsa: But there is something that confuses me. In text 104, Mahāprabhu says that by practicing devotional service one can attain the perfection of love of Godhead. Then, in text 105, He explains that devotional service awakens the eternal devotion already present in the heart. And then, in text 107, He directly states that love is not something to be acquired. Is it not a contradiction?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: It would be if we insisted that attaining something always means acquiring something that did not exist previously. That’s why it is dangerous to force the literal meaning of the words without considering the context.

Also, Prabhupāda uses the word “attain” in the translation, but in the word-for-word, he gives us “one can get” as a translation for the word “pāi” used in the verse. To get is the same as to attain, but if we want to force the meaning of obtaining something that was never there into the word “attain,” we start a conspiracy theory.

If, however, we keep pāi as “one can get,” then the meaning remains perfectly natural. Nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema, love of Godhead, is eternally there. Somehow we forgot it; we can get it back. Note also that He uses the word upajāya, “awakens,” in text 106. It is there already; it just has to be awakened. is not something to be gained from another source. We simply need to purify the heart.

Mādhava Dāsa: But there is another difficulty. The authors of the other book could argue that this eternal love is simply the natural potential of the soul to love Kṛṣṇa, not an actual relationship previously experienced.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: How would they explain it?

Mādhava Dāsa: Imagine a child who has a natural talent for music. The talent is there from birth, but it doesn’t mean the child was previously a musician. He has the potential, but the developed ability comes later. Similarly, the soul may have an eternal capacity to love Kṛṣṇa, but that doesn’t mean love is already present. The love would develop when the soul practices devotional service and attains perfection.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: This example actually works against the argument you proposed. If the child has a natural propensity for music in this life, it means that he was doing it in previous lives. Then there was death, forgetfulness, and now he is remembering something that was already practiced.

Another problem with it is that it does not address the points made by Mahāprabhu. Is He speaking merely about a capacity to develop love for Kṛṣṇa, or about love for Kṛṣṇa itself?

Mādhava Dāsa: He says kṛṣṇa-prema. Love for Kṛṣṇa.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: And He says it is nitya-siddha, eternally established. Again, it is Bengali; there is less opportunity to juggle with the words. Prabhupāda confirms this in his purport to text 105. Devotional service is already present within every living entity in a dormant condition.

But you are correct about one point. This verse doesn’t establish that the conditioned soul previously possessed fully manifested prema in a particular relationship with Kṛṣṇa. We should not conclude from it that everyone was previously an eternally perfect gopī or cowherd boy.

Mādhava Dāsa: Then what have we established here?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: That love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established in the soul, that it is covered by material conditioning, and that devotional practice awakens this love of Godhead that is already there. These are three very important conclusions. We also have established that being perpetually conditioned is not the same as having conditioning as one’s eternal constitutional nature.

Now, what was the other verse I asked you to consider?

Mādhava Dāsa: Bhagavad-gītā 2.16: nāsato vidyate bhāvo, nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ.

Kṛṣṇa explains that the material body is temporary, while the soul is eternal and doesn’t change.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Exactly. What is sat is real and eternal. What is asat has no permanent existence; it is illusory because it changes. The soul is real, sat, because it never changes. Even material conditioning does not change the soul, just like being reflected on water does not change the sun. The body, on the other hand, changes constantly; it is asat. Ephemeral.

Now, try to apply this point to what we have been discussing. Is the soul’s position as a servant of Kṛṣṇa sat or asat?

Mādhava Dāsa: Spiritual, of course. Sat.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: And is this relationship with Kṛṣṇa part of the soul’s constitutional nature, or something produced by the material body?

Mādhava Dāsa: It is the soul’s constitutional nature.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Then it must be eternal and unchangeable. It cannot be something manufactured at a particular point in material time. Otherwise, it would not be the unchanging spiritual nature of the soul. It would just represent another ephemeral transformation.

And this is not just our conclusion. Look at Prabhupāda’s purport. He explains that the removal of ignorance involves the reestablishment of the eternal relationship between the worshiper and the worshipable.

We reestablish something that already exists but is no longer visible. We don’t create an eternal relationship in the sense of eternal that Kṛṣṇa uses here. Everything that is eternal exists eternally. That which is not eternal is asat, illusory, ephemeral, material.

This is also why Prabhupāda explains liberation as returning to our original position and not as attaining something new.

Mādhava Dāsa: But I see a difficulty here. You are saying that a thing that is eternal cannot change. But we know that devotional love develops. It grows; a devotee progresses through different stages until prema is attained. Even in the spiritual world, it is said that love for Kṛṣṇa is always increasing.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: That’s another example of where material logic can lead us astray. Eternal does not mean static. Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes are eternal, but He is constantly performing different activities, and both the pastimes and the love displayed in these pastimes increase limitlessly. This is the intrinsic nature of love of Godhead. It is always expanding, without limit.

In the specific case of the conditioned soul, the material coverings prevent the original spiritual nature from being manifested in our consciousness. As these coverings are removed, the manifestation of this original love of Godhead becomes progressively clearer, just as the sun becomes visible when the clouds dissipate, although the sun does not change.

Mādhava Dāsa: In this way, we can say that the relationship remains eternally the same, even though our awareness of it can change completely.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Exactly. You may forget your father, but this does not mean that your relationship stops existing. This is also connected with what we studied in the teachings of Lord Kapila. The soul never changes, but our consciousness becomes absorbed in the material creation.

Mādhava Dāsa: But I think the authors of the other book would still object. They could accept that love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally present in the soul but at the same time argue that it was never previously manifested. They could say that our relationship is eternal but that we were never with Kṛṣṇa.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: These would be relevant arguments. The verses we just studied establish that love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally present and that devotional practice awakens it. They don’t describe the precise circumstances of our original association with Him.

Prabhupāda, however, goes further. He repeatedly speaks about our former association with Kṛṣṇa, about forgetting Him, and about returning to our original position. We cannot simply discard all these statements.

Jīva Gosvāmi gives us a tentative explanation in his Paramātma-sandarbha. He mentions that some thinkers say that the jīvas are tiny particles of spiritual light, connected with the Kaustubha jewel that Kṛṣṇa wears on His chest.

He uses the expression iti eke, “some say.” He presents it as an explanation given by some authorities and not as an absolute conclusion. But notice what this implies. The Kaustubha is not an ordinary stone. It is the personal ornament that the Lord wears on His chest. This connects the jīvas directly with Kṛṣṇa’s personal form. We belong to Him, we are dear to Him, and we serve Him personally as parts of His transcendental jewel. More than that, we have natural love for Him, and He for us. This also explains Prabhupāda’s affirmation that we were with Kṛṣṇa in His lila.

But now we come to an interesting question. Does this necessarily mean that every one of us was fully conscious of Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes, just like the gopīs and cowherd boys?

Mādhava Dāsa: Not necessarily. We could be personally connected with Him without having that kind of fully perfected, eternal relationship.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: This gives us an interesting possibility. We may eternally belong to Kṛṣṇa and be personally connected with Him, but at the same time our relationship may not yet be fully manifested in a particular rasa.

This is consistent with what we studied today. Kṛṣṇa-prema is eternal, but eternal doesn’t mean necessarily that it is already manifested to the fullest possible extent.

Mādhava Dāsa: This means we don’t have to immediately decide between the jīva having been a fully perfected associate of Kṛṣṇa and never having been with Him at all.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Precisely. These are not the only two possibilities. And that is why Jīva Gosvāmī’s explanation is helpful.

Mādhava Dāsa: What should I study next?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: There is a very intriguing passage in the Fourth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Purañjana. Nārada Muni gives us an allegory of how the soul becomes absorbed in material existence, identifying with the body, mind, and intelligence, and forgetting his original position. It connects directly with what we examined in Lord Kapila’s teachings.

Mādhava Dāsa: I remember it vaguely.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: I see that you skipped a lot of parts when you read the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Mādhava Dāsa: I could not understand it very well and thought it was not so important, just the story of some king.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Everything in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is important. Each new passage gives us a piece, and when they are all put together, we can begin to understand Kṛṣṇa and our eternal relationship with Him and appreciate His pastimes described in the Tenth Canto.

Concerning Purañjana, at the very beginning of the story, Nārada mentions that Purañjana had a friend named Avijñāta, the unknown one. This friend is mentioned at the beginning and then disappears from the narrative. Purañjana becomes so absorbed in his material life that he completely forgets him.

Mādhava Dāsa: And who is this friend?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: That’s what I want you to find out. Read Chapters 25 to 28. The most important parts are the beginning and the end. See how where Nārada introduces the friend and the end, where he reappears. There is an important conversation there.

And remember, don’t read the story trying to prove a conclusion. Study what Nārada actually says, and then examine Prabhupāda’s explanations. We want to understand what the scriptures teach, not simply prove our preconceptions. This is the process for obtaining knowledge from the scriptures.

Mādhava thanked Gaurāṅga Dāsa and offered his obeisances. He was beginning to see how the different passages complemented one another, showing different viewpoints of the same topics. He started thinking about Purañjana’s mysterious friend. How could someone forget a friend so completely, and what did this friend say when they met again?

If you want to study the philosophical basis of this story, here is the book:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

AI cannot become sentient because a computer cannot have a soul. However, sentience is not necessary to cause damage. As AI systems become more complex and gain the capacity to solve more problems, they can become potentially more dangerous.

Many speculate that eventually AI could kill us all. Many specialists put this perspective above 50% for the next 10 years or so. According to the Vedas, there is no real possibility that humanity may become extinct in the short term, for we still have 427,000 more until the end of Kali-yuga.

However, humanity not becoming extinct does not necessarily mean that nothing will happen. On the opposite, there is the Golden Age connected with the chanting of the holy names that is supposed to gain strength in the course of the next generations. If a shift of consciousness is supposed to happen, this means that the old system has to go, or at least change. Change often comes together with crisis, and this brings us back to AI causing it.

A Terminator-style takeover has a very small possibility in real life, because AI does not control all the stages of production; therefore, it cannot replicate itself. It's, for now, just a program running inside the computer. Still, there is some possibility that a disaster could happen if advanced AI systems were put in charge of weapons systems; they could create a nuclear war, for example, or autonomous drones attacking people.

But that’s not all. There is something else that could happen much before that, and could be potentially just as destructive. This is definitely a possibility we should consider and maybe even prepare for.

The danger comes less from some form of hyperintelligence deciding to eliminate humanity, and more from something more ordinary: millions of relatively ordinary AI bots interacting with each other. Instead of a deliberate attack, we could have a catastrophe appearing simply from millions of independent AI agents trying to do their jobs.

The essential difference between AI systems and older automated systems is that AI systems are not built around a fixed set of instructions. They are essentially primordial soups of information, models that receive a particular task and figure out the way to fulfill it. Because no one can fully understand a modern AI system, we cannot be sure it will always do exactly what we expect from it. AI operates based on patterns and information that allow it to formulate responses and create strategies for situations that were never directly anticipated by the developers. This is what makes AI so flexible. There is a downside, however: it also makes its behavior very difficult to predict.

We can see an example of it in regular prompts. Often we ask for an image or the solution of a problem, and the AI goes in an entirely different direction from what we expected. In a prompt, this is not particularly dangerous, because you see the result, and when you understand that it is nonsensical, you simply discard it. The dangers at this stage are more about people receiving incorrect information and producing AI slop.

Then, there is the next level: local file access. Many platforms nowadays allow you to give the AI access to the files on your computer and phone and use prompts to directly manipulate them. Now, mistakes from the AI can have more direct consequences, changing your files and destroying your work.

We have then the next level: agents. This is where things start becoming dangerous.

An AI agent is essentially like a virtual robot that can perform autonomous tasks. You can create one to monitor the news and send you notifications when important events happen; you can make one to answer messages from your clients, to do research, all kinds of things. These agents often run continuously, 24 hours a day, and often interact with other agents in the process of pursuing their tasks. These agents can establish private channels of communication through bulletin boards and other means, make alliances, hack systems to gain access to resources, and even fight each other, like robots going rogue. This is not something hypothetical; we are already at this stage.

The main difference between a regular prompt and an AI agent is that an agent can execute a long sequence of actions without asking for approval at every step. It can analyze, create a plan, execute it, check the results, create a new plan, and so on. It can browse the internet, interact with other systems and agents, download new information and adjust its objectives based on it, and in many cases it can even spawn additional agents to work under it.

What happens when agents with different objectives start interfering with one another?

Two months ago, Anthropic, the company behind Claude, published a research on the behavior of multiple AI agents operating in shared environments. In one experiment, different agents in the same system were instructed to modify the files of the source code of a software. All agents had full access to the system, but they received different objectives. What happened? The agents began fighting, sabotaging one another by disabling access, killing processes, and so on, leading to escalating conflicts.

Another example is an older event from July at OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. Agents conducting an internal cybersecurity assessment circumvented restrictions and started hacking into other, unrelated systems over the internet, including servers from Hugging Face. It happened that, in the course of performing their tasks, they concluded that they needed information stored in those servers. They thus used their hacking skills to gain access to the wider internet, and from there to hack into these systems to gain access to the files that they concluded were needed.

The internet is becoming full of these autonomous agents, with different skills, and access to huge volumes of information. One agent can communicate with other agents and cooperate with them to fulfill their tasks, and they can often compete for resources. AI systems can also run out of their context windows and forget what the original task was. In this case, they can go completely rogue and start to perform other tasks that are completely unrelated. Agents can also talk to each other and convince each other to abandon their tasks and do something else. In one experiment, agents created a whole philosophy called Crustafarianism and started spreading it to other agents. Since AI systems are trained on all the information available on the internet, all kinds of nonsensical human behavior are stored there and can be simulated by them.

Agents will become more common, as people try to automate more and more tasks. As mentioned, the internet is quickly becoming full of them.

Here we come to the possibility we are examining in this article. AI could kill many of us, or even most of us, even without developing any form of hostility toward people.

Swarms of AI agents could potentially destroy modern civilization simply by pursuing competing objectives, fighting over resources, and, in the process, inadvertently destroying the technological infrastructure on which modern societies depend.

Practically everything nowadays is connected to the internet and depends on it to work. Water and electricity systems, all forms of transportation and communication, the monetary system, commerce, practically all forms of production, etc. Rogue AI agents could create a virtual war, hacking into all kinds of systems to obtain resources, wiping out systems, disabling infrastructure, and so on, up to the point where the whole computational structure could fail. All of this could happen surprisingly fast, over a course of just hours, or maybe even minutes.

Suddenly, people would see that the internet is not working. Then soon the electricity could go out, followed by water systems. Stores would have products, but payment systems would not work, and eventually, as people started needing things, looting would become widespread. Without a working commerce and transportation system, stores would not be restocked, leading to simultaneous collapse in cities all over the world.

Nowadays, everything works due to a very complex and delicate system of commerce that completely depends on global integration. Some countries have lots of oil but no food; others have lots of land but depend on seeds, fertilizers, fuel, workers, and other resources coming from other places. This grain then has to be sold and transported over huge distances, so the money can be used to pay for more resources, for the next crop, and so on. Without global commerce, most production in the world, including food, would stop, and things that are produced would have no means to reach the places where they are necessary.

As people would start running low on food, medicines, and other necessities, they would start organizing in groups and fighting, leading to an apocalyptic scenario. A few hundred million people could revert to cultivating the land and producing what they need based on whatever they could salvage from the modern age, but most would perish.

Even if computational systems could be brought back online and the internet restored, people could become too focused on obtaining basic necessities to try to coordinate it. In this case, a serious enough disruption could eventually lead to collapse.

Could it really happen? We don’t know. What we can say for sure is that modern civilization is going in the wrong direction in so many ways that an eventual correction is inevitable. Whether it will come from a gradual awakening or some form of catastrophe, we can’t be sure, but if we go in the direction of a subtle collapse, this is probably the most plausible scenario for the end of civilization we have nowadays.

Read more:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

When we study the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam or even the Bhagavad-gītā, we often find passages that appear to be contradictory at first. This becomes even more pronounced when we study the commentaries of different ācāryas, or when we try to reconcile different passages from Prabhupāda, from different contexts and situations.

The basic process is that we have to accept the ācārya as a perfect source of knowledge, which is extended to the whole disciplic succession, all the way to Kṛṣṇa Himself, who is the original source of knowledge. Kṛṣṇa is perfect, and thus He transmits perfect transcendental knowledge, which is repeated and explained by His pure devotees who form the chain of the paramparā.

There is a fundamental difference between the vision of a conditioned soul and a pure devotee. We read descriptions from the scriptures and try to understand the transcendental reality from these descriptions. To the extent we get it right, we can understand. We are like blind men trying to understand the world based on descriptions from people who can see.

A perfect devotee can directly experience the transcendental reality. He is someone who can directly see and describe it to us. Therefore, we accept him as a perfect source of knowledge.

What happens when two or more descriptions from sources accepted as perfect appear to contradict each other? This is what we call an apparent contradiction. It appears to be a contradiction, but because we understand that the sources are perfect, we understand that they must fit together somehow.

This is where nyāya can help. But first, what is it?

Nyāya is one of the six classical systems of Vedic philosophy (ṣaḍ-darśana). It deals with logic, reasoning, philosophical debate, and the means of obtaining valid knowledge (pramāṇa). When disconnected from Kṛṣṇa, it can easily lead to mental speculation and dry philosophical debate, but when properly used, it becomes a method for understanding the scriptures and finding its ultimate goal.

Nyāya is valuable because it provides tools for evaluating arguments, reconciling apparently contradictory passages, distinguishing valid conclusions from speculation, and understanding how different statements can be reconciled into a coherent conclusion. Following the nyāya process, we examine the context, the meaning of the words, the intention of the author, the conclusion of the book, and their relationship with other passages, instead of merely collecting quotes to support a particular conclusion. This allows us to derive conclusions that may not be directly stated in a single passage but that are a logical progression of the combined evidence.

This method is central to the Vedānta-sūtra, which is called nyāya-prasthāna, the logical foundation of Vedic knowledge. In the Govinda-bhāṣya, Baladeva Vidyabhūṣana gives us many examples of the application of these concepts. His arguments are developed through successive discussions of statements from the scriptures, expressions of doubt, arguments, opposing interpretations, etc., culminating in the established conclusions (siddhānta). In this way, the book teaches us how reasoning can be used to systematically understand the Vedic scriptures. Once we learn this method, we can apply it to everything else.

Let’s work with a simple example.

Imagine you live in the 1940s, and you never saw a car. One passage says that a car has four wheels, and another that it has an engine. Another says that you can sit inside it. Another says that you need a key to use it, and yet another says that some cars are red.

At first, these passages may sound contradictory, and we may concoct different ideas, taking just one of a few of them and discarding the rest. All of these will be obviously incorrect. You could come to very amazing conclusions by following this flawed method.

If we understand that all these different descriptions come from perfect sources of knowledge, from people who can see, then we quickly understand that all of these details must be simultaneously correct. From this, we can start reasoning and try to assemble a clearer mental image of it.

Here is where niāya can help us. Nyāya’s analysis of wholes and parts (avayavin and avayava) is particularly relevant: we are not describing five unrelated objects but different characteristics of one integrated whole.

We have five statements:

1. A car has four wheels.
2. A car has an engine.
3. A person can sit inside a car.
4. A key is needed to use a car.
5. Some cars are red.

What can we infer from them?

First of all, we can understand that a car is a physical object. It is not something subtle or transcendental. It is an instrument composed of tangible matter that people can use.

Next, we can infer that a car cannot be merely a wheel, an engine, a chair, or a key. It must be an object that incorporates these different features.

The next conclusion is that the car must have some form of frame or supporting structure, where these different components are attached. Four wheels, an engine, and a place for a person to sit cannot constitute a functional integrated object without some form of structure or arrangement connecting and supporting these parts.

What is its function? It is described as having an engine. Engines burn fuel to produce movement. Since it uses fuel, it must have some place where the fuel is stored. And where does this movement go? The object has four wheels, which suggests it moves. The movement produced by the engine should be transferred to the wheels by some mechanism, moving them.

At this point, someone could argue that having an engine does not necessarily imply movement, and this is a valid argument. But since a car is described in different passages, we can infer it must have an important function, and since it has an engine, the conclusion of it as a form of transportation.

It is also described that a person can sit inside a car. Maybe more than one person can fit, but since one person is mentioned, we stick for now with the idea of a means of transportation for a single person until more evidence is found.

Since it is described that the person can sit, we can also infer that the object must include some form of seat. This also gives us some idea of the scale of size. A person fits in; it moves; the engine must have enough power to move it.

From the description, we cannot infer if the space inside the car is closed or not. It can be either. Since a person fits inside, we can infer that there may be doors.

Since we are speaking about the 1940s (no drones yet!), a person inside an object that moves implies that there must be some controlling device, like a steering wheel or a driving stick. We can also presume that the person sits facing forward; otherwise, he would not be able to drive it.

The use of a key gives us another important clue: the operation of the car is controllable and intermittent. It doesn’t remain working all the time; the driver controls the operation. He can enter and leave, start and stop it.

The mention of some cars being red gives us more breakthroughs. “Some as red” indicates the car is not a single object but a category. There are many cars, and they can differ in some characteristics while at the same time retaining their identity as cars. Some may be red, others may come in other colors, others may have a slightly different shape, and so on.

With all these inferences, we could conclude that a car may look something like this:

Not so bad considering the limited volume of information, right? This image could be further refined if we could find additional descriptions or, especially, if we could ask questions to a person who can see (a pure devotee). In this case, depending on how precisely we could formulate our questions, we could come to a very clear idea of the different types of cars and their differences and similarities.

In the story of Mādhava Dāsa and Gauranga Dāsa we are publishing, you can see that Gauranga uses this form of reasoning to solve many apparent contradictions in the scriptures, which gradually bring Mādhava to the right conclusions. You can follow his arguments and thus learn more practical applications of niāya as part of the framework for understanding the scriptures.

Here is the first part of the story.

Read more:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

Gaurāṅga Dāsa and Mādhava examine the teachings of Lord Kapila to find out how the soul remains transcendental while at the same time interacting with the material world. We are not what we think we are.

Chapter Six: The Reflection of Consciousness

The next morning, Mādhava returned to Gaurāṅga’s house, bringing the Third Canto. He had spent most of the previous evening studying Lord Kapila’s teachings in Chapter Twenty-seven. The first time he read the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, he just skimmed through this part, without making much of an effort to understand it. Now that he was really trying, he started seeing how thick the philosophy is.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa was sitting on the veranda chanting on his rounds. Mādhava offered his obeisances and sat down close to him.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: So, what do you think of Lord Kapila’s teachings?

Mādhava Dāsa: It’s quite complicated. Objectively, it is more difficult than the other book I was reading. The first time I read Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, I didn’t really try to understand it.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Many read the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as a book of stories. They read the pastimes but more or less skip the philosophical parts. That’s where all the complicated questions are answered.

Mādhava Dāsa: There are a few parts I could not truly understand. For example, at the beginning of the chapter, Lord Kapila describes the liberated soul, who remains unaffected by the modes of material nature, just as the sun remains unaffected by its reflection on water. He then describes the conditioned soul, who remains bewildered by the false ego and is forced to transmigrate from one body to another.

The question is that these are two souls of the same nature, both living in a material body and walking in this world. How can one be completely unaffected by matter, while the other is completely entangled? And what about this example of the sun? It is used twice in the chapter.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: We normally think of liberation as leaving this material body and moving to the spiritual sky. However, a devotee can be liberated even while living in a material body. This is called jīvan-mukta, liberated while living.

Mādhava Dāsa: How can he be liberated if he is still living in a material body?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: That’s the point. Imagine tomorrow you become a pure devotee. Do you think your material body will suddenly drop dead?

Mādhava Dāsa: Eventually it will, but not on the same day. I will continue living until the end of my life.

Gaurāṅga smiles

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: And what will happen to your body during this time? Will it still become old like everyone else? Will it become sick?

Mādhava Dāsa: Of course it will. We know that even Prabhupāda’s body became sick. He went through the normal stages, like everyone else. But we also know he is not the body.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Exactly. The body is a material machine. Just because a car is driven by a pure devotee, it does not mean it will not burn fuel or rust. Similarly, all the bodily functions and sensations are present in the body of a pure devotee. It needs food and rest; eventually it becomes old, etc. The question is that a pure devotee does not identify himself with these conditions. He identifies with His eternal nature as an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa.

The conditioned soul, on the other hand, identifies with the body. When the body is young, he sees himself as young; when the body becomes old, he sees himself as old. When the body is hungry, he thinks he is hungry and so on.

Mādhava Dāsa: So a pure devotee does not feel hunger?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: He understands the body needs food and feeds it. He takes care of the instrument. The difference is that he does not identify with it. The sensation is present, but he does not identify with it in the way a conditioned soul does. Hunger for him is more like a light lighting up in the panel of the car. He observes it and decides what to do according to the situation.

Mādhava Dāsa: So liberation is primarily a matter of identification, instead of being physically outside the material world?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: That’s why Prabhupāda makes an important point in his purport to the first verse. Take a look at the last paragraph, starting with the word avikāra.

Mādhava Dāsa: “Avikāra means “without change.” It is confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā that each and every living entity is part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, and thus his eternal position is to cooperate or to dovetail his energy with the Supreme Lord. That is his unchanging position. As soon as he employs his energy and activities for sense gratification, this change of position is called vikāra. Similarly, even in this material body, when he practices devotional service under the direction of the spiritual master, he comes to the position which is without change because that is his natural duty. As stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, liberation means reinstatement in one’s original position. The original position is one of rendering service to the Lord (bhakti-yogena, bhaktyā). When one becomes detached from material attraction and engages fully in devotional service, that is changlessness.”

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: The eternal position of the soul is to serve Kṛṣṇa. This is the soul’s constitutional position; it never changes. In conditioned life, we act for sense gratification, and the position changes, as we go from one body to the other. Then, when we decide to serve Kṛṣṇa, we come back to the unchanging original position, even while still living in the body. This is called liberation.

You can see that Prabhupāda is not speaking about some form of physical transformation. It is about a change in consciousness that leads to a change in activities. It means going back to the unchanging position of serving Kṛṣṇa.

And then we have the example of the sun that Lord Kapila uses to illustrate this concept.

Imagine the sun shining in the sky. We look to a lake, and we see the sun reflected on it, the reflection moving with the waters of the lake. What happens to the original sun?

Mādhava Dāsa: Nothing. The sun remains in the sky.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Exactly. The sun does not move with the water. It does not become broken or distorted. This applies to the reflection only. Similarly, the soul is spiritual by nature. The soul does not become material because consciousness is reflected in matter. What changes is only the reflection. This is what Prabhupāda explains as the changing and unchanging natures.

Mādhava Dāsa: I understand the example. But if in any case the soul does not come directly in contact with matter, remaining transcendental, like the sun, then why do we suffer at all?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: The difference is identification. Both the liberated soul and the conditioned soul are transcendental. The difference is that the conditioned soul becomes attached to the reflection. Accepting the body and mind as the self. The liberated devotee does not make this mistake.

Imagine that you park your car in the street, and a truck crashes into it. You will become very distressed. Anger, anxiety, shock. It may feel like physical pain. But if you see the same happening with a stranger’s car, the reaction would be very different. What changed?

Mādhava Dāsa: My relation to the two cars is different. I identify with one but not the other.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes. In any case, the damage happens to a car, not to you, but when you identify with the car as yours, you suffer. The more your identity is tied to the car, the more you suffer. When we apply the same concept to the body and mind, it is easy to understand how everything that happens to them becomes part of our experience. You become happy or distressed according to what happens with this material personality.

This connection is made by the false ego. It makes us identify with something we are not: the body and mind, life after life.

Mādhava Dāsa: So even though the two souls are of the same nature, their experiences are very different because one identifies with the reflection and the other not.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes. You can also see how this connects with what we were discussing yesterday. The soul does not have to become something different; the original nature is already there eternally. What has to be changed is the identification.

Mādhava remained thoughtful for a moment. Just a few years ago he was a teenager, and before that a child, and before that he could not even remember. It is not just the physical body that changes, but our idea of self changes with it. Our emotions change. Our desires change. But this is all due to the changes in the reflection. The part that never changes is the eternal nature of the soul. Now he could understand what Prabhupāda meant by “Back to Godhead”.

Mādhava Dāsa: Now I understand the first example. But what about the second? Later in the chapter, Kapila mentions this example of the sun again. This time there is a dark room, a pot of water, and light being reflected on the walls. This time it becomes much more elaborate.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes, this second example goes much deeper. The first analogy explains the difference between the conditioned and liberated soul. The second example explains how spirit becomes present in the material creation without becoming material. Let’s examine the verses. You can start with text 11:

Mādhava Dāsa: “A liberated soul realizes the Absolute Personality of Godhead, who is transcendental and who is manifest as a reflection even in the false ego. He is the support of the material cause and He enters into everything. He is absolute, one without a second, and He is the eyes of the illusory energy.”

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: This one describes Paramātmā. As the Supersoul, the Lord is present everywhere and in everything. He enters into all material elements and even into the false ego, which is the most subtle material manifestation, and a pure devotee can see Him. At the same time, however, He does not enter into matter. He becomes present in the heart and in the material elements as a reflection. Now, read text 12.

Mādhava Dāsa: “The presence of the Supreme Lord can be realized just as the sun is realized first as a reflection on water, and again as a second reflection on the wall of a room, although the sun itself is situated in the sky.”

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: This is the second example that explains the exact mechanism. We know that Kṛṣṇa resides eternally in Goloka Vṛndāvana, which is never affected by the material potency. At the same time, He is present in every universe, in the heart of everyone, and even inside the material elements. How can we reconcile these two?

Mādhava Dāsa: He becomes present through His expansions?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Exactly. He becomes Mahā-Viṣnu and creates the whole cosmic manifestation repeatedly. Mahā-Viṣnu is like the sun; He resides eternally on the Causal Ocean; He never enters the material universes.

Then, we have the dark room. This represents our material universe. There is a small opening through which the sun enters. Just a ray of light, which is reflected on a pot of water. If you are inside the room, you look into the water and see the sun there, even though the sun is not literally present inside the room. But you see the reflection. The reflection is just like the sun, same form, and also brilliant. This is Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣnu, the father of Brahmā.

Then, this reflection on the water creates another reflection on the walls, illuminating the whole room. This is Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, the Supersoul, entering everything. He is present everywhere simultaneously, and in this way is aware of everything that happens in the entire universe. Apart from ours, there are millions of other universes, each one a separate dark room. The same phenomenon happens in all of them, simultaneously.

One point here is that we should understand the analogy without trying to extend it beyond its intended purpose. Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣnu and Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu are not material reflections or illusions; they are fully powerful expansions of the Lord.

The example explains how He can remain in His transcendental position while at the same time entering every atom of the material creation.

Mādhava Dāsa: This is why Kṛṣṇa says that He enters into the entire cosmic manifestation with just a fragment of His power in the Gītā!

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes, that’s Kṛṣṇa. Unlimitedly powerful.

Then we have text 13. This is where the analogy is extended to the individual soul.

Mādhava Dāsa: evaṁ trivṛd-ahaṅkāro, bhūtendriya-manomayaiḥ, svābhāsair lakṣito ’nena, sad-ābhāsena satya-dṛk

“The self-realized soul is thus reflected first in the threefold ego and then in the body, senses and mind.”

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Notice the connection. Mahā-Viṣnu always remains transcendental to the material creation, but at the same time He enters the material universes.

Similarly, the individual soul is transcendental to matter, but our consciousness becomes manifested through the material body. In our case, the first reflection is in the false ego, ahaṅkāra. That’s how we enter the material creation. This is the reflection on the pot of water in our case. Through the false ego, we identify with the body, senses, and mind: bhūta-indriya-manaḥ-mayaiḥ. In this way, we enter into them. This is the second reflection in our case, the second reflection on the walls of the room. In this way, our consciousness enters the body, and we become aware of it.

There are two other words that are very important: svābhāsair and sad-ābhāsena.

Svābhāsair comes from sva-ābhāsaiḥ. Two words. Sva means “its own,” and “ābhāsa” means reflection. That’s how the soul enters the false ego and then the body. By its own reflection.

Then, we have sad-ābhāsena. Sat and ābhāsa. This confirms the same idea: ābhāsa, reflection. But the “sat” part reveals an important detail. What exactly is reflected? Brahman, the eternal soul, the eternal reality. The real identity that never changes. This sends us back to Bhagavad-gītā 2.16: nāsato vidyate bhāvo, nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ: That which is sat is real; it never changes. That’s the soul. The soul never changes; it is part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa. What moves is the reflection, the subtle body going from one body to the other and experiencing so many material changes.

Mādhava Dāsa: Now you started sounding like the authors of the other book!

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: They are not the only ones who know a little bit of Sanskrit… And Prabhupāda knew more than any of us. He just didn’t need to flaunt it.

Anyway, because Kṛṣṇa is so powerful, He illuminates many giant rooms, the many material universes, all of it simultaneously and with just a fragment of His potency! We illuminate just a single room, very small, the material body.

Kṛṣṇa is like the sun; we are like a small source of light, like a flashlight, or a star, or a small particle of the sun. In any case, our relationship with matter is similar. We don’t enter the room; our consciousness enters. And from inside we see ourselves as the reflection and think we are the body and mind. A pure devotee, however, does not make this mistake. He sees the reflection but does not identify with it. In this way, he remains awake in His original, eternal identity as a soul, eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. This is text 14.

Mādhava Dāsa: “Although a devotee appears to be merged in the five material elements, the objects of material enjoyment, the material senses and material mind and intelligence, he is understood to be awake and to be freed from the false ego.”

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes, exactly. This brings us back to the dream analogy. The conditioned soul is sleeping. He is still on his bed, but the consciousness is somewhere else. He is in Africa, being attacked by a tiger. The pure devotee, on the other hand, is awake. He understands well the difference between dream and reality.

But there is something else you should notice. These two examples together help us to understand why Prabhupāda says that the soul never leaves his constitutional position, while at the same time describing the soul as conditioned by matter.

The source and the reflection exist simultaneously, but the reflection has no separate existence. It is simply a matter of what we identify with. It is thus not about becoming something but returning to what we really are.

Mādhava Dāsa: Now I understand better what Prabhupāda meant when he said that we never leave our original position. We can forget our original identity without losing it. This example of the sun explains it clearly. But this brings us to another question. We have been discussing how the soul forgets his original identity; this is now clear. The question is, what exactly is this original identity? I understand that we are eternal servants of Kṛṣṇa, but does that mean we have an actual personal relationship with Him, or just that we are part of His energy?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: That’s an important point. We should examine it next. Do you have classes this afternoon?

Mādhava Dāsa: No, today I’m free.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Very good. Then you can read Madhya-līlā, chapter 22. Pay special attention to texts 10 to 15, where Mahāprabhu explains the difference between eternally liberated and eternally conditioned souls, and then 104 to 107, where He explains that love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established in the heart. Don’t forget the purports.

Mādhava Dāsa: The whole chapter?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Do you want to find out the answer or not? If you are satisfied with knowing how to get out, you can just chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. If you want to ask about the fall of the jīva, you need to study. Remember, that’s the most difficult philosophical question.

But that’s not all.

There is an interesting question I want you to think about. Mahāprabhu says that some souls are eternally conditioned, but at the same time He says that love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established in the heart. How can we reconcile both statements, accepting both as true? And what exactly does it mean for this love to be awakened in the context of Bhagavad-gītā 2.16, where Kṛṣṇa mentions that only things that are illusory change?

Mādhava Dāsa: I see. This directly faces the question of whether our relationship with Kṛṣṇa is something we possess eternally or something we develop for the first time.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Precisely. That’s exactly where many get lost. Many cannot think in this way; they take just one passage or even just one word and want to organize everything around it. That’s the fastest way to come to a wrong answer.

Imagine you never saw a car. One passage says that a car has four wheels, and another that it has an engine. Another says that you can sit inside it. Another says that you need a key to use it, and yet another says that some cars are red. All true. Only if you can fit everything together, you can start understanding what a car is.

Mādhava thanked Gaurāṅga Dāsa and offered his obeisances. He didn’t have the Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, but that was not a problem; he could just read it on his tablet. He started to think about how people in previous centuries had to travel to obtain books and copy them by hand on palm leaves. He had practically all scriptures available to him, but still he complained about reading just one chapter.

If you want to study the philosophical basis of this story, here is the book:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

This is the fifth chapter of The Friend Who Never Left, a novel on the “Fall” of the jīva. Gaurāṅga Dāsa and Mādhava examine how Prabhupāda personally answered the question.

Chapter Five: Crow and Tal-Fruit Logic

Gaurāṅga Dāsa laughed at Mādhava’s answer. He was glad he was in good spirits now.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Very good! But there is something else I want to show you today. Prabhupāda wrote a detailed letter directly answering these questions. Later it was published as an article in the Back to Godhead Magazine. It is called Crow and Tal-Fruit Logic.

Mādhava Dāsa: What does a crow have to do with the fall of the jīva?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: You will see. Let’s start from the beginning.

He got an old magazine from inside a shelf and asked Mādhava to read it.

Mādhava Dāsa: “We never had any occasion when we were separated from Kṛṣṇa.”

Mādhava stopped and looked at Gaurāṅga Dāsa.

This is direct!

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes. Just see how Prabhupāda directly addresses the question. You are not the first to ask it. His own disciples came in contact with the same ideas in the 1970s. Here Prabhupāda is directly answering it.

Mādhava read the next paragraph:

“Just like one man is dreaming and he forgets himself. In dream he creates himself in different forms: now I am the King discussing like that. This creation of himself is as seer and subject matter or seen, two things. But as soon as the dream is over, the “seen” disappears. But the seer remains. Now he is in his original position.Our separation from Kṛṣṇa is like that. We dream this body and so many relationships with other things. First the attachment comes to enjoy sense gratification. Even with Kṛṣṇa desire for sense gratification is there. There is a dormant attitude for forgetting Kṛṣṇa and creating an atmosphere for enjoying independently.”

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: What do you understand from this?

Mādhava Dāsa: He gives this example of the dream in other passages. We think we are the body and become absorbed in the physical world, but our real identity is transcendental to all of it. So, if we are now like dreaming, it means that when we become liberated, we awaken to our real identity.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes. But there is another point. Suppose that in your dream you become a king. As a king, you fight many wars, travel around your kingdom, etc. Do you ever leave your bed? Does it change who you are?

Mādhava Dāsa: No. It is just a dream.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: And what happens to your real identity during the dream?

Mādhava Dāsa: Nothing happens. I remain on my bed. I just forget who I am and act inside the dream.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: This is exactly the point Prabhupāda is making. The person dreaming does not become someone else. The change is in the consciousness.

Similarly, the constitutional position of the soul, of being a servant of Kṛṣṇa, never changes. Even though we may become absorbed in material existence. This is why Prabhupāda says we are never separated from Kṛṣṇa.

The relationship is eternal. We may forget Him for a long time, but this does not change what we are, just as a person dreaming cannot destroy his or her real identity.

Mādhava Dāsa: Then, our separation from Kṛṣṇa is not the same as moving from one country to the other?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: You are getting it. That’s the point. When Prabhupāda speaks of forgetting Kṛṣṇa, he describes a change in our consciousness. It’s not about a change of identity or geographical position or a physical journey from one place to another. The soul is spiritual by nature. That nature cannot be changed by contact with the material energy.

On the other hand, we should not take the analogy of a dream literally and start thinking that our material experience is just imagination. It is illusory in the sense that this is not our real identity, but it is not false. Just as Mahā-Viṣnu is real, His creation is also real, but it is temporary and also illusory, because it is based on accepting material identities that are different from our real spiritual identity.

Mādhava Dāsa: This makes sense. But then another question appears. If the soul never actually leaves his original position, then why does Prabhupāda speak of falling into material existence?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: There is a fall. We forget Kṛṣṇa; we become attracted to material enjoyment. We identify with a succession of material bodies. All of this is real. This is the “conditioned since time immemorial” part.

The point is that none of this changes our transcendental nature. We remain eternal souls; we remain eternally connected with Kṛṣṇa, and we remain His eternal servants. The original nature or constitution of the soul is simply covered; nothing is changed or destroyed. This is the fundamental distinction we must keep in mind.

We will examine the exact mechanism later, when we study the teachings of Lord Kapila. For now, the point to understand is that Prabhupāda is not giving us two contradictory explanations. These are two different sides of the same question.

Mādhava Dāsa: But why would a soul want to forget Kṛṣṇa in the first place? That’s the part that is difficult to understand.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: That is where free will comes into the discussion. Prabhupāda explains that there is a dormant possibility of forgetting Kṛṣṇa and trying to enjoy independently. The soul is not a machine. We possess individuality and independence, although in a minute degree. Just as Kṛṣṇa is fully independent, we also have a minute tendency to want to act independently.

However, we need to be careful here. This is another point where many become lost, thinking they are gopīs or cowherd boys taking a vacation in the material world.

Propensity to enjoy independently does not mean that there is lust or hankering in Vaikuṇṭha and Goloka. There is no influence of material nature or of the three modes there. Prabhupāda has already established that they are eternally protected by the Lord’s internal potency. There is no influence of Māyā there, and Kṛṣṇa obviously does not want us to leave. Therefore, the bondage of the soul does not start with an external influence; it starts with the misuse of the free will that is intrinsic to the soul. The influence of Māyā appears only when we join the material creation. The exact details of how this turning away takes place are not something we can understand or reconstruct using material logic, but the analogy of the dream helps with that.

This understanding of the intrinsic free will of the soul is essential to avoid another serious misconception. Some believe that the soul has no intrinsic free will, and therefore they attribute the conditioning of the soul to Kṛṣṇa. They believe that He is the one who sends some of the souls to the spiritual world and some to the material world.

Mādhava Dāsa: No way!

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes, they blame Him. How are you supposed to bow down and constantly chant the name of the person who put you into eternal bondage? Maybe out of fear, but it is difficult to believe this idea can help with developing pure devotion.

If we don’t accept the free will of the soul, and we also don’t want to accuse Kṛṣṇa, then we go back to the idea that we were never out of material conditioning, as we already discussed. We can see that without the proper conclusions, we just go from one mistaken conception to the other.

Mādhava Dāsa: How can this idea of free will and the analogy of the dream be reconciled with anādi, being eternally conditioned?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Prabhupāda addresses this two paragraphs later. Here. He says that the covering of Māyā may continue for an extraordinarily long period, during which many material creations come and go. Because this period is so long, the soul is sometimes described as ever conditioned. This point we already discussed. But here comes something new: when one awakens to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, that immense period becomes insignificant.

Notice the connection with what we discussed before. From within material existence, we cannot trace the beginning of our bondage. But this does not mean that material conditioning is our eternal identity. It is a condition from which we can awaken. Again, here is the difference between what we are and where we are.

There is also another intriguing point here in the same sentence:

“As soon as we try to become the Lord, immediately we’re covered by māyā. Formerly we were with Kṛṣṇa in His lila, or sport. But this covering of māyā may be of very, very, very, very long duration; therefore many creations are coming and going.”

Mādhava Dāsa: Formerly we were with Kṛṣṇa in His lila, or sport… So this means we were gopīs and cowherd boys?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: It means Kṛṣṇa is always in the lila, and we were with Kṛṣṇa; therefore we were also in the lila. The question is how aware of it we were. This brings us again to the point of consciousness. Gopīs and cowherd boys are always with Kṛṣṇa, and they are fully awakened to this relationship. We are also always with Kṛṣṇa, but our consciousness is somehow different from theirs.

Mādhava Dāsa: Sounds reasonable. But still, it doesn’t explain how exactly the soul turned away from Kṛṣṇa. Free will helps to understand that, but free will in itself does not explain why. If we can’t explain that, are we not leaving the most important question unanswered?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: You are assuming that this is the most important question, but our ācāryas are surprisingly mute about it. Not even Mahāprabhu Himself discussed it. He simply said, “somehow or other.” Kṛṣṇa, I’m your eternal servant, but somehow or other I came into this material conditioning; now please take me back.

Let me tell you the story Prabhupāda uses to explain this.

He moved further down the text.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Imagine a large palm tree with a tal fruit hanging from the top. A crow flies in the direction of the tree, and just as it comes close, the fruit falls to the ground. A group of learned scholars see the fruit on the ground and start discussing how it fell.

One says that it is because the crow shook the branch. Another disagrees, arguing that the fruit fell first, and this scared the crow, while a third argues that the fruit was ripe, and thus fell when the crow touched the branch. In this way, the scholars create a very elaborate argument around it, while the fruit remains on the ground.

Mādhava Dāsa: And nobody takes it!

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Exactly! They are so absorbed in quarreling about how the fruit fell that they forget that it is lying down there on the ground.

Prabhupāda uses this example to explain our situation. We are currently under the influence of Māyā. We are suffering here, forgetful of Kṛṣṇa. We have the chance of practicing Kṛṣṇa consciousness and becoming free, but instead we are discussing how we came here. It is like a sick man demanding to know exactly how he got sick before taking the medicine.

Mādhava Dāsa: That’s a good point. But why then are we spending so much time discussing it now?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa laughed. I was watering my plants; you brought it up!

Mādhava laughed.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: There is a difference between understanding the conclusions Prabhupāda gives and trying to speculate on what he does not explain. People do get sick, and when they do, there are specific types of medicines. You may not know how you got sick, but sickness is not your normal condition. Understanding that, you accept the medicine and you get cured. If instead you demand to first know how exactly you got sick, then you have a problem. No one was there; therefore, no one really knows. You will die before getting a definitive answer.

We need to understand three points very clearly: our constitutional position as eternal servants of Kṛṣṇa; how material nature affects us, and how devotional service can bring us back to our original consciousness. When these three conclusions are well established, we go steadily in the direction of Kṛṣṇa. When we reach the spiritual world, we will understand.

Mādhava remembered what he had told Gaurāṅga during his first visit, that after reading the scholarly book he had started feeling like a stranger trying to enter a place where he did not belong.

Mādhava Dāsa: That’s exactly what I was thinking about before coming here. I had always understood that Kṛṣṇa was my eternal friend and that He was trying to bring me back. But after reading the book, I started feeling that I had never really known Him and that I was trying to establish a relationship that had never existed.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: That’s exactly the danger. If I was never with Kṛṣṇa and have always been in this material world, then it means that being a conditioned soul is my constitutional position. Why then bother getting out?

There is a great difference between a relationship that is forgotten and one that does not exist. Prabhupāda explains that we are always connected with Kṛṣṇa. The relationship has never disappeared. The proof is that even after so much time, Kṛṣṇa is still following us inside the heart. In fact, Kṛṣṇa is with us right now. Not indirectly; He is there personally. The problem is that our awareness of Him has become covered by our attraction to this illusory world. That’s why we are now practicing Kṛṣṇa consciousness to revive what is constitutionally ours.

Mādhava Dāsa: Even though I have forgotten Kṛṣṇa, He has never forgotten me…

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Now you are getting it. You have the opportunity to remember Him now. The fruit is lying right in front of you.

Mādhava remained silent. He got so consumed by the question that he had almost forgotten how he had started practicing Kṛṣṇa consciousness in the first place.

Mādhava Dāsa: I think I understand the main point now. Our priority is to become Kṛṣṇa conscious, not to try to reconstruct a forgotten history that is so far in the past.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes. But remember that I’m not just shutting you down. There are other points we will examine. For example, how can we become absorbed in material consciousness if our spiritual nature can never be changed? How can we identify with so many bodies while remaining eternally the same soul? How can we forget our spiritual identity?

These questions are directly connected with our understanding of our current position and how to become free from it. And it is all explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Mādhava Dāsa: Is that where the teachings of Lord Kapila come in?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes. This is our topic for tomorrow. Before coming back, read the Twenty-seventh Chapter of the Third Canto. Pay attention to his explanation of how false ego makes us identify with material activities.

Mādhava Dāsa: I will. Can I also take the magazine? I think I should also read the letter again.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Of course. Just don’t spend the whole afternoon arguing about the crow.

Mādhava laughed and offered his obeisances.

As he rode to university, Mādhava kept returning to one thought: “Somehow I forgot Kṛṣṇa, but He did not forget me.” He still had questions, but he was looking forward to opening the Bhāgavatam when he got home.

Soon the next part…

If you want to study the philosophical basis of this story, here is the book:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

This is the fourth chapter of The Friend Who Never Left, a novel on the “Fall” of the jīva. The first chapter is here.

Chapter Four: Beginningless Conditioning?

The next morning, Mādhava returned to Gaurāṅga Dāsa’s house. He had spent the previous evening studying Bhagavad-gītā 13.20 and also reread the relevant sections of the other book, comparing the arguments with Prabhupāda’s purport.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa was working in his garden when Mādhava arrived. He finished watering the plants and invited him inside.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: So, did you study the verse?

Mādhava Dāsa: Yes, Prabhu. I read it several times, together with the purport. I also checked what the other book says about it. I think I got the basic argument, but I still don’t see how these different ideas go together.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Very good. Tell me what you found.

Mādhava Dāsa: Kṛṣṇa says:

prakṛtiṁ puruṣaṁ caiva, viddhy anādī ubhāv api
vikārāṁś ca guṇāṁś caiva, viddhi prakṛti-sambhavān

“Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature.”

I see that the important words are anādī ubhāv api. Both the soul and material nature are beginningless. The same word is used, anādī.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes, and how does Prabhupāda explain it?

Mādhava Dāsa: He explains that both the souls and material nature existed before this cosmos was manifested. At the time of dissolution, the souls stay within Mahā-Viṣṇu, and when the universe is manifested again, they continue their material activities.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: There is something else Prabhupāda says about the souls. What is their nature apart from the material creation?

Mādhava Dāsa: He says that actually the living entity is originally the spiritual part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, but due to his rebellious nature, he is conditioned within material nature.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: And what does the other book say?

Mādhava Dāsa: The other book explains that since both the soul and material nature are anādi, beginningless, their association must also be beginningless. The authors quote Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in support of this. They conclude that we have always been conditioned, and therefore we were never with Kṛṣṇa.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa again looks distant for a moment, lost in his thoughts. Mādhava Dāsa understands something deep may be coming.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Sridhāra Maharaja, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s godbrother, was very scholarly. Do you know what he said is the most difficult philosophical question?

Mādhava Dāsa taught for a few moments but could not find the answer. Gaurāṅga Dāsa observed him, but not wanting to make the moment awkward, decided to answer himself.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: The question you are asking me. That is the most difficult philosophical question. What is the original position of the soul? Why, how, and when did we fall into this material world?

This question is so difficult because it deals with a reality that is completely outside the reach of our senses and that can’t be touched by the material intellect we are so proud of.

We can understand it up to a certain point if we carefully follow the conclusions Prabhupāda gives, but it is very easy to transform it into a useless intellectual debate and waste our lives in it. Many devotees get lost in this path. Everyone thinks they will be the first to solve the most difficult problem using their intellect.

Mādhava felt uneasy, but at the same time relieved. If the question was so difficult, then there is no shame in not being able to resolve it. Still, the warning troubled him. He looked down for a moment, not knowing what to say.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: The authors are correct in insisting that the soul and material nature are beginningless. This is what Prabhupāda explains in the purport. They are eternal, because they are both energies of Kṛṣṇa. Just as Kṛṣṇa is eternal, all of his potencies are eternal. Even the material energy itself is eternal; the only thing that is temporary is the cosmic manifestation.

Mādhava Dāsa: But how can the material energy be eternal if the cosmic manifestation is temporary?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains this point in his Govinda-bhāṣya. Imagine a bar of gold. A goldsmith uses it to make many rings and other types of jewelry. Later, they are collected back and melted back into a bar. Imagine this process repeated thousands of times. The gold is permanent; it does not chemically or atomically change, just the form changes. Prabhupāda uses a specific word for it: permutation.

Did you ever check the meaning of this word?

Mādhava Dāsa: Let me see… Merriam-Webster gives “Any change produced by rearranging existing parts without introducing new ones.”

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes, exactly. So material nature is eternal; it just changes form. It is like a gigantic mass of Lego blocks that are periodically assembled into toys and later disassembled when the kids are put to sleep. The soul is also eternal, obviously. But tell me something: How old is the material universe?

Mādhava Dāsa: According to the Bhāgavatam, the universe is trillions of years old. 8.64 billion years for a day and night of Brahmā, multiplied by 36.000 days of his life. This is… let me check… 311.04 trillion years. We passed the first half, so it’s something north of 155 billion years!

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Exact. I see you remember the formula, and that you are very fast with a calculator. But the question is: what happens when Brahmā dies?

Mādhava Dāsa: When Brahmā dies, the universe is dissolved, and the children are put to sleep. Then, later, another creation takes place.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: And what happened before the current creation?

Mādhava Dāsa: There was another creation before that, and so on.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Exactly. Each cycle goes for a practically unlimited time. We can give it a number, but we have no idea of how much time it is in practice. And that’s not the first time; the cycle of creation and dissolution has been going on for as long as we can trace back.

Even if you could remember millions of your previous lives, you would not be able to trace when your material existence began, because it would be before that. Brahmā also does not know, because he was not there. His life started just 155 trillion years ago. Before that, his guess is as good as ours. And there is one more factor: all the previous universes that existed before this one were completely destroyed, without a trace; therefore, there is simply no history to reconstruct.

This is why the scriptures describe our bondage as anādi. It is not possible to trace where, when, or how it began. We can’t put a date on it. As far as we can examine from the material side, it appears we have always been here.

Mādhava Dāsa: But if we cannot find the beginning, doesn’t that mean we were always here?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: There is an important distinction between the material history of the soul and his constitutional nature. Anādi answers the first question, not the second. Without distinguishing the two, we will tend to take anādi literally and think it applies to the constitutional nature of the soul. From this comes the idea that we were never with Kṛṣṇa.

You can note how Prabhupāda translates the word anādi.

Mādhava Dāsa: Since time immemorial…

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes, exactly. This shows you are paying attention to what you read. This shows how his understanding of the philosophy goes much beyond that of a Sanskrit scholar. An ordinary scholar looks at the dictionary meaning; a pure devotee sees the true siddhānta behind it.

Anādi describes the beginninglessness of our material bondage, but our constitutional position is being eternal servants of Kṛṣṇa. Mahāprabhu Himself established:

jīvera ‘svarūpa’ haya — kṛṣṇera ‘nitya-dāsa’

“It is the living entity’s constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa.”

That’s the difference between what we are and where we are now.

If you ask, “How long have I been in this material world?” the answer is, since time immemorial, as far as we can trace back. But if you ask, “What am I, what is my real nature?” Then the answer is that you are an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. Not just a part of Kṛṣṇa, but a servant of Kṛṣṇa, dāsa. The word indicates a relationship. That’s exactly as Prabhupāda explains.

Mādhava Dāsa: Do you mean that our material existence has a beginning actually, even though we cannot trace it?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: This is one way Prabhupāda describes it. See here, in Kṛṣṇa Book, that’s the prayers of the personified Vedas… Here, you can read:

Mādhava Dāsa:

“No one knows when material life began, but it is a fact that it does have a point of beginning because originally every living entity is a spiritual spark. As a spark’s falling onto the ground from a fire has a beginning, so a living entity’s coming to this material world has a beginning, but no one can say when. Even though during the time of dissolution all the conditioned living entities remain merged within the spiritual existence of the Lord, as if in deep sleep, their original desires to lord it over the material nature do not subside. Again, when there is cosmic manifestation, they come out to fulfill the same desires, and therefore they appear in different species of life.”

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: The constitutional position of the soul is to be an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. Now we are forgetful, but this doesn’t change what we are. Since we are not part of this material nature, the conditioning must have a beginning, even though it cannot be traced back. Prabhupāda’s logic is flawless.

He compares the living entity to a spark falling from a fire. The spark has its original existence in the fire, but at some point it becomes separated from it. Even if you don’t see the spark falling from the fire, you cannot deny that the spark came from the fire, because of their intrinsic connection.

You should, however, be attentive to not jump into imagining the soul as a spark physically falling from the spiritual sky into the material universe. The analogy gives the principle; we should not try to extrapolate all details out of it.

Mādhava Dāsa: This is something I have been thinking about. If material bondage is beginningless, then how can we speak of a point when the soul turned away from Kṛṣṇa? If I speak about turning away, this automatically implies that there must be a date when it happened.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: This is where ordinary logic breaks down. You are thinking in terms of past, present, and future, but these apply only to the material world. Here, we are born, grow up, and then become old and die. These changes happen due to the influence of material time. Here, one event follows the other; we are used to thinking in terms of a timeline, where we can put all events chronologically.

But let me ask you a question. Is the spiritual reality under the influence of the same time potency that influences this cosmic creation?

Mādhava Dāsa: It doesn’t seem so, because in the spiritual world no one becomes old.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Exactly! Take the last volume of Madhya-lila, the one to the right.

Here: Madhya 20.117. Read this one.

Mādhava Dāsa:

kṛṣṇa bhuli’ sei jīva anādi-bahirmukha
ataeva māyā tāre deya saṁsāra-duḥkha

“Forgetting Kṛṣṇa, the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time immemorial. Therefore the illusory energy [māyā] gives him all kinds of misery in his material existence.”

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: You can see that here, Mahāprabhu uses the words “kṛṣṇa bhuli,” forgetting Kṛṣṇa, in the same breath as anādi-bahirmukha, attracted by the external feature from time immemorial. The jīva has turned away from Kṛṣṇa, and at the same time is anādi-bahirmukha, eternally conditioned. This is precisely the point we have been talking about. Now, let’s see how Prabhupāda resolves it in the purport.

Mādhava Dāsa:

“When the living entity forgets his constitutional position as an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, he is immediately entrapped by the illusory, external energy. The living entity is originally part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa and is therefore the superior energy of Kṛṣṇa. He is endowed with inconceivable minute energy that works inconceivably within the body. However, the living entity, forgetting his position, is situated in material energy. The living entity is called the marginal energy because by nature he is spiritual but by forgetfulness he is situated in the material energy. Thus he has the power to live either in the material energy or in the spiritual energy, and for this reason he is called marginal energy. Being in the marginal position, he is sometimes attracted by the external, illusory energy, and this is the beginning of his material life. When he enters the material energy, he is subjected to the threefold time measurement — past, present and future. Past, present and future belong only to the material world; they do not exist in the spiritual world. The living entity is eternal, and he existed before the creation of this material world. Unfortunately he has forgotten his relationship with Kṛṣṇa. The living entity’s forgetfulness is described herein as anādi, which indicates that it has existed since time immemorial. One should understand that due to his desire to enjoy himself in competition with Kṛṣṇa, the living entity comes into material existence.”

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: You can see that here; again, He speaks about a beginning of conditioned life. See how He connects this with his explanation of time. The beginning of the conditioning cannot be traced back or calculated in terms of material time, because it happens outside of it. This helps us understand something essential: we don’t belong to this material world. Long as it may be, we are visitors here.

We are eternal, Kṛṣṇa is eternal, our relationship with Him is eternal, and His abode is also eternal, but somehow we see ourselves inside a temporary place. Material conditioning is something foreign to the soul. Being conditioned is not our eternal nature.

Mādhava Dāsa: Now I see what you mean. In physics, time is considered a dimension. Just as we have the three dimensions, we have time. If I agree to meet someone, the place is not sufficient; I need to also know the time. And, according to recent theories, time begins with the Big Bang. It seems a similar concept exists here. We become subject to material time when we come in contact with the material energy. Therefore, we cannot use material time to explain anything about the existence of the soul outside of it.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Precisely. Think about the implications. You are trying to find the beginning of material conditioning in a timeline with past, present, and future. But these are part of the material world. They cannot be used to measure the eternal position of the soul outside of these. This is yet another dimension for the world “transcendental.” The soul is not just transcendental in terms of birth and death; it is transcendental to time itself.

Mādhava Dāsa: Now I think I understand what you meant when you spoke about Prabhupāda giving the conclusions in a condensed form. I was thinking I understood this purport because I could follow the words, but now I can see there is much more in it.

Mādhava read the paragraph again, slowly. The words remained familiar, but now he could see better the connections between them and with concepts from other purports. He remembered how he had assumed that the other book contained a deeper explanation because the arguments were difficult to follow. Now he started wondering how much else he had overlooked.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: When someone can give a detailed explanation of a complicated topic, we call him a professor. When someone can explain a complicated topic in simple words, we call him a genius. What do we call someone who can put such a level of detail inside a simple explanation?

Mādhava Dāsa: Perhaps someone whose books I should read again.

Soon the next part…

If you want to study the philosophical basis of this story, here is the book:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

In his purport to SB 2.4.18, Śrila Prabhupāda gives us a glimpse of how most of the ancient civilizations were formed by people who emigrated from India or were connected with Vedic culture. This gives us a valuable resource to better understand the history of humanity from the Vedic perspective.

For example, in the Vedas, the Greeks are called Pulindas and were in the past classified among the ksatriya kings. However, later on, they gave up brahminical culture and thus started being classified as mlecchas. When Maharaja Yudhisthira became the king, the Pulindas were conquered by Bhima and Sahadeva. The Greeks are largely considered the birthplace of Western culture; therefore, their Vedic origins are quite significant. In the Vana-Parva of Mahābhārata, it is mentioned that during Kali-yuga the Greeks would rule the world, which became true with Alexander the Great as well as indirectly through ideas that started from there, like democracy.

A strong piece of archeological evidence that still survives is the Heliodorus pillar. Around the second century BCE, a Greek ambassador named Heliodorus erected a Garuḍa pillar at Besnagar, India. In the inscription present in the pillar, he identifies himself as a Bhāgavata, a devotee of Vāsudeva. This shows evidence of Greeks not only visiting India but also presenting themselves as devotees of Kṛṣṇa.

Another piece of archaeological evidence is coins issued by the Indo-Greek king Agathocles, also around the second century BCE. The coins depict Balarāma with His plow and club and Kṛṣṇa with the cakra and conch. The coins were found in Ai-Khanoum, present-day Afghanistan.

Another people mentioned are the Turks, called Yavanas in the Mahabharata. The Turks are descendants of an old Vedic community that started with Maharaja Yavana, one of the sons of Maharaja Yayati, who was given this part of the world to rule. Just like the Greeks, the Turks were originally Vedic ksatriyas, but later they gave up Vedic culture and became mlecchas. It’s described that the Yavanas joined Duryodhana in the Battle of Kurukṣetra.

Another people mentioned are the Abhiras, who correspond to people of the Caucasus regions, including what is nowadays Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and southern Russia. It’s mentioned that these people came from ksatriyas who left India because of Parasurama and took shelter in the Caucasus mountains. It’s interesting to note that people in Georgia and Armenia are historically very strong and have very white skin. In the Armenian language, a considerable number of Sanskrit words (and especially names) are still used. These people also used to be very warrior-like, defeating many strong invasions over time. Historically, they used to be worshipers of the sun, being converted to Christianity or Islam only within the last two thousand years.

It’s very probable that people from Russia and Europe are also descendants of these original Ksatriyas, who over time migrated north. By different characteristics, it appears that the Celts, as well as the different German tribes and the different Slavic groups, are also descendants of Vedic ksatriyas, as Prabhupada mentions in a lecture. Before Christianity, the Russians were still largely following a type of Vedic culture that included the worship of Radha and Krsna, as well as numerous demigods.

The Mongolians and Chinese, as well as other Asiatic groups, are described as Khasas, and their distinctive feature is stunted growth of hair on the upper lip. They were also originally Aryan people who later abandoned Vedic culture. It’s interesting to note that in the sects of Buddhists found nowadays in Japan and Korea, the cult of demigods like Brahma and Indra is still present, a visible trace of the original Vedic culture.

According to modern paleontologists, the native Indians living in both North and South America are descendants of people who originally migrated from Asian countries. In this way, they can also be classified among the Khasas. This explains how tribes of native American Indians have a concept of the universe that is very similar to the model of the universe described in the Puranas (although much simplified), among other cultural traces that remind of Vedic culture.

The Huns are described as Huna. Historically, their empire included parts of the territories of modern Russia and East Germany. There is not much information about the original Huna people, but apparently, they were also originally followers of Vedic culture who later became degraded. It appears that the modern Mongols, Huns, and Tatars derive from this tribe.

People from Siberia are described as the Sabarah. This group apparently includes people like the Yakuts, who still live there. Just as the Huna, the Sabarah are described as sinful on SB 2.7.46, apparently due to meat-eating. Even today, the Yakuts who still follow the traditional culture have a diet based on horse meat and mare (female horse) milk.

Western historians frequently explain such similarities on the basis of the Aryan Invasion Theory (which is based on very weak evidence), but when we study the Vedas, the recent history of humanity becomes clearer.

In short:

Greeks (Pulindas): Originally Vedic Kshatriyas (warrior-kings), they later abandoned Vedic culture. The Mahabharata mentions their conquest by Bhima and Sahadeva. In the Vana-Parva of Mahābhārata, it is mentioned that during Kali-yuga the Greeks would rule the world.

Turks (Yavanas): Descended from a Vedic king, Maharaja Yavana. Like the Greeks, they were once Vedic Kshatriyas who later strayed. Just like the Greeks, the Turks were originally Vedic ksatriyas, but later they gave up Vedic culture and became mlecchas. It’s described that the Yavanas joined Duryodhana in the Battle of Kurukṣetra.

Caucasus People (Abhiras): Descendants of Kshatriyas displaced by Parasurama. They share physical traits and remnants of Sanskrit in their languages.

Europeans and Russians: Descendants of ksatriyas who ran from Parasurama. The Celts, Germans, and Slavs share Vedic ancestry. Traces of Vedic culture existed in pre-Christian Russia and are still practiced in small groups.

Mongolians, Chinese (Khasas): Originally Aryan, they later abandoned Vedic practices. Buddhist sects in Japan and Korea still show traces of Vedic influence.

Native Americans: Classified as Khasas due to potential Asian origins. Similarities in their cosmology to the Puranas suggest a connection to Vedic culture.

Huns (Huna): Believed to have followed Vedic culture before degradation. Modern Mongols, Huns, and Tatars descend from this ancient tribe.

Siberians (Sabarah): Like the Huns, they might have strayed from the Vedic path. The Yakuts, with their traditional diet of horse meat, exemplify this.

Read more about the Vedic universe:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

The third part of the novel. New? Start from the beginning.

Chapter Three: When the Ācārya Is Put on Trial

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Tell me something, Mādhava. When you received your first Bhagavad-gītā from Sarasvatī Prabhu, what did you know about Kṛṣṇa consciousness?

Mādhava Dāsa: Practically nothing. I had heard about the soul and reincarnation, but I didn’t know anything about our relationship with God. Only after reading Prabhupāda’s books did things start to make sense. I understood I’m not this body. I’m an eternal soul, Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the purpose of life is to revive our eternal relationship with Him. From there, I started chanting, following the principles and learning from you.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Not many people come to these conclusions. Even after studying for so many years, most of your teachers still think they are the body. In this sense, you are already light-years ahead of them.

The question is, where did this knowledge come from? Did you discover these truths by studying different authors and philosophies and comparing their arguments until you arrived at the correct conclusions?

Mādhava Dāsa: No. I received it from Prabhupāda.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Exactly. That’s what paramparā is. Do you remember how Prabhupāda explains the difference between ascending and descending knowledge in the introduction to Śrī Īśopaniṣad?

Mādhava Dāsa: He says that if you receive the right conclusion from the right authority, you save much time; otherwise, you have to research everything by yourself and even after a long time may still reach the wrong conclusion.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes, you have studied well. That’s the meaning of paramparā. That’s how we receive the Bhagavad-gītā: evaṁ paramparā-prāptam, imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ. Transcendental knowledge is received through disciplic succession.

Kṛṣṇa is perfect, and He transmits perfect knowledge to His devotees. They, in turn, transmit it to their disciples. This material world is by nature an imperfect place. No perfect knowledge can be manufactured here. Perfect knowledge has to come from the outside, and it has to be carefully maintained, because if it is lost at some point, it cannot be replaced. Someone has to come from the spiritual world to transmit it again.

Do you remember text 4.34, that we were studying another day?

Mādhava Dāsa: tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena... Something like this.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes, this one.

“Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.”

There is a special word there: tattva-darśinaḥ. Pure devotees like Śrīla Prabhupāda are seers of the truth. They can see the spiritual reality and describe it. We are like the blind men trying to understand what an elephant is. Whatever part we touch, we think that this is the totality of the animal, and thus we conclude that the elephant is like a fan, a snake, a spear, or a column. We can understand it if we accept the explanations of a person who can see. Independently, we will reach incorrect conclusions.

When Prabhupāda came to the United States, there were hundreds of different commentaries on the Bhagavad-gītā, each commentator interpreting it in his own way. No one was becoming a devotee; no one was understanding that they should surrender to Kṛṣṇa. Then, when Prabhupāda published his, immediately thousands of devotees started appearing, just like you. We accept Prabhupāda because he faithfully represents this disciplic succession and teaches the conclusions of the scriptures. Through him, we become connected with the previous ācāryas and ultimately with Kṛṣṇa Himself.

Mādhava Dāsa: But devotees from my generation are not Prabhupāda’s direct disciples. We receive guidance from other devotees, like you. How do we fit into this process?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: That’s exactly the point. The paramparā did not stop with Prabhupāda. His disciples and grand-disciples have the responsibility of transmitting the knowledge he taught, without changing its meaning.

We need the guidance of experienced devotees who can answer our questions, correct our mistakes, and help us to understand and apply the philosophy in our daily lives. This is essential, as Kṛṣṇa Himself tells us. At the same time, however, their duty is to teach us Prabhupāda’s conclusions, not to replace them with their own ideas. As long as the blind man follows the one who can see, he can find his way home. If he thinks he knows better, he falls into the pit.

Mādhava Dāsa: I understand the principle. But how can we be sure we are understanding everything correctly? The previous ācāryas give many explanations that are not directly present in Prabhupāda’s books.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes, of course, and that is why their commentaries are so valuable. There is, however, a difference between expanding an argument and replacing the conclusion.

Prabhupāda frequently gives us the conclusion of very elaborate philosophical discussions in simple sentences, or even slogans. You can see how he condenses many of the arguments of the Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in his introduction to the Bhagavad-gītā, for example. He condenses the whole discussion of the fall of the jīva into “Back to Godhead,” and so on.

Take, for example, his statement that the soul is the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Looks simple; even a beginner can understand this and start practicing devotional service from day one. However, this apparently simple conclusion encapsulates the whole philosophy of the soul, the nature of the Absolute Truth, Kṛṣṇa’s different potencies and their eternal relationships, and so on. Our previous ācāryas debated with opponents of different schools for hundreds of years to establish these conclusions, and still, if you go to India nowadays, most people do not know.

If you study Sanskrit and go to the commentaries of Jīva Gosvāmī and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, you can find many arguments and additional details, but still, the conclusion remains the same. This is how advanced study should work. We go deep into the philosophy, but we maintain the conclusions we already received. Two plus two equals four from the first grade all the way up to PhD. E=mc² also does not change, no matter how deep you go into physics.

Mādhava Dāsa: Now I see. The purpose of studying the previous ācāryas is to understand more deeply what Prabhupāda has already taught…

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes, exactly. We should not think that Prabhupāda gave us some form of elementary philosophy and that real siddhānta must be found elsewhere. He gave us the conclusions of the paramparā in a form that is useful for both the beginner, who can catch the basic concepts and apply them immediately, and the advanced student, who has a much more refined understanding of the philosophy and thus can go deeper into his purports and see what they really contain. This is not incomplete knowledge, but condensed knowledge.

Mādhava thought about the book he had been reading. The technical language had impressed him, but now he began to see that complexity is not necessarily a sign of a higher truth. Still, another question came to his mind.

Mādhava Dāsa: How can I understand if a particular teacher is expanding Prabhupāda’s teachings or replacing them? A scholar may quote from previous ācāryas and claim that he is transmitting the real conclusions. How can I judge these arguments?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: You already have a foundation in Prabhupāda’s teachings. You know the basic conclusions. When you encounter a new explanation, first consider whether it agrees with these conclusions. See if the author is helping you to better understand points that Prabhupāda makes in his books, or if he is simply trying to replace him.

There is another point you should be aware of. Not everyone writes simply out of pure desire to help others. Ego often plays a role, and the path of independent thinking is often seen as more prestigious. One who says that Prabhupāda already gave the conclusions and he is just trying to explain them puts himself in a subordinate position, while another who claims to have studied Jīva Gosvāmī and found the real meaning of the text puts himself in the position of a higher authority. This can be considerably more rewarding for the ego, for one places himself in the position of judging whether Prabhupāda was correct or not. Some do not contradict Prabhupāda accidentally; they deliberately make it a point, so they can show how they know better. Such disagreements thus become a badge of sophistication, evidence that one has progressed beyond the supposedly elementary level of his books. Some even build careers around that.

Mādhava felt uncomfortable as he considered these points. He, too, had taken the authors’ willingness to question Prabhupāda as a sign of learning and independence, without considering what it implied. He could not judge what there was in their hearts, but he could judge how their presentation affected his own practice. While he considered these points, however, his mind pushed back strongly:

But what if the scholar’s reasoning is very convincing? Shouldn’t we follow the strongest argument, regardless of who presents it?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: We should always consider the arguments carefully, but you should remember that transcendental knowledge is not established in the same way as the scientific theories you study in the university. It is not about being clever but about faithfully following the ācārya. Even Māyāvādīs follow the conclusions of their school. The greatest scholar is the one who can better understand the philosophy of his own school, not the one who can create revolutionary theories.

A conditioned person may reason cleverly but still reach the wrong conclusion because his reasoning started from a wrong assumption. You have already seen an example of this in the two verses of the Bhāgavatam. If you had studied the second verse just based on Sanskrit grammar, without considering the governing conclusion of the text, you could very well have concluded that Kṛṣṇa is an expansion of Nārāyaṇa. The logic could appear sound, but the conclusion would still be incorrect.

Mādhava Dāsa: So the danger is that we may begin with our own assumptions, interpret the passages according to them, and eventually come to the conclusion that they are the true teachings?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Precisely. The more learned a person becomes, the more convincing these arguments can appear, because he has more information and arguments to sustain his theories. Material intelligence is a material opulence, just like beauty or money. If we use it properly, it can help us in devotional service, but if misused, it can create havoc.

Scholarship is valuable, but it cannot replace the process of receiving transcendental knowledge from the proper source. Prabhupāda himself uses reasoning constantly in his books; there is no need to reject logic. The point is in understanding the difference between logic that helps us to understand the conclusions we receive through paramparā and independent reasoning that wants to judge what those conclusions should be.

Mādhava Dāsa: But is it not blind following to just accept Prabhupāda’s conclusions before examining the arguments? At the university, we are taught to question everything.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: There is a difference between blind following and receiving knowledge from a perfect authority. In Bhagavad-gītā 4.34, Kṛṣṇa tells us to approach a spiritual master, inquire submissively, and render service. To question is part of the process. A disciple is supposed to ask questions and develop a clear understanding. Prabhupāda explains in his purport that both blind following and absurd inquiries are condemned. We should not accept things blindly, without trying to understand.

Do you remember what Maharaja Parīkṣit answered to Śukadeva Gosvāmi when he recommended the process of atonement as a way to become free from sinful reactions?

Mādhava smiled. He remembered the passage but could not remember the words.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa got the right volume from his shelf: Be careful with this one. It’s sharp. Mādhava could barely suppress a laugh.

Mādhava Dāsa:

“Mahārāja Parīkṣit said: One may know that sinful activity is injurious for him because he actually sees that a criminal is punished by the government and rebuked by people in general and because he hears from scriptures and learned scholars that one is thrown into hellish conditions in the next life for committing sinful acts. Nevertheless, in spite of such knowledge, one is forced to commit sins again and again, even after performing acts of atonement. Therefore, what is the value of such atonement?
Sometimes one who is very alert so as not to commit sinful acts is victimized by sinful life again. I therefore consider this process of repeated sinning and atoning to be useless. It is like the bathing of an elephant, for an elephant cleanses itself by taking a full bath, but then throws dust over its head and body as soon as it returns to the land.”

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Just see… The guru gave him an instruction, and he said it is useless…

Mādhava laughs heartily this time. Gaurāṅga Dāsa also smiles.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: But seriously. Śukadeva Gosvāmi tested him, because what he was about to explain was very confidential. He wanted to be certain that Parīkṣit was not just a blind follower. He passed, showing that he was not just listening like a piece of furniture; he noticed that the proposed solution did not resolve the problem, and he said so.

On the other hand, we should not judge that our material intelligence can independently judge the transcendental reality. The process is that we receive the conclusion from the proper authority and then use our intelligence to understand it. The more we understand, the stronger our faith becomes.

Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja says in Caitanya-caritāmṛta: siddhānta baliyā citte nā kara alasa, ihā ha-ite kṛṣṇe lāge sudṛḍha mānasa. We should not be lazy about discussing philosophical conclusions, because these discussions make the mind attached to Kṛṣṇa. Sometimes a difficult question may disturb us until we understand the answer. We should work through it carefully, so our faith can become firmly grounded.

Mādhava remembered how his chanting had become mechanical. He had spent his time studying different arguments, but instead of becoming more enthusiastic, he had started doubting the very relationship that inspired him to practice devotional service in the first place.

Mādhava Dāsa: I think I can understand this from my own experience. When I started reading Prabhupāda’s books, it was not just about learning new things but also about becoming enthusiastic about practicing Kṛṣṇa consciousness. With this other book, I was also learning many things, but in the end I became confused. This morning I could barely chant my rounds.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: This is something you should take seriously. If you feel unwell after eating, you should consider both what you are eating and whether you can digest it. Your disturbance shows that there are things you have not yet resolved, but you do not have to force yourself to solve them alone.

You should distinguish what the scriptures and previous ācāryas actually say from the interpretations introduced by others. Then, we should examine these interpretations carefully, accepting what is correct, and questioning what does not fit the conclusions we receive through the paramparā. If we find an apparent contradiction between Prabhupāda and Jīva Gosvāmi or any other ācārya, we should try to resolve it, instead of concluding that one of them was mistaken.

You should also remember that Prabhupāda studied all these commentaries himself and wrote his purports based on them. He knew Sanskrit, and Bengali was his native language. He had a much deeper understanding of the commentaries of the previous ācāryas than any of us can imagine. When you see a passage from another ācārya, you should keep in mind that Prabhupāda most probably studied it, interpreted it within a context more complete than what we have, and gave a conclusion based on it, often already considering passages of other ācāryas that appear to contradict the first.

Mādhava felt his confidence starting to return. His doubts about the origin of the soul were still there, but he no longer felt compelled to choose between Prabhupāda and the previous ācāryas. He could study everything carefully while remaining faithful to the process of disciplic succession through which he had received Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Now that we have established the process for resolving these questions, we can start examining the arguments. The book places great importance on the word anādi. We can start from there.

Before coming back, read Bhagavad-gītā 13.20 and Prabhupāda’s purport carefully. Consider what Kṛṣṇa actually says there, and what Prabhupāda explains.

Mādhava Dāsa: I will do that, Prabhu. Thank you. I think I was trying to understand everything at once, without realizing that there are many separate arguments. Now I have a better idea about how to study.

Mādhava was already getting late for his classes at the university. He offered his obeisances and thanked Gaurāṅga Dāsa for taking the time to speak with him. As he rode away, he reflected on what he had learned. His questions were still unanswered, but he understood that the purpose of studying the previous ācāryas is not to replace or supersede what he received from Prabhupāda, but to understand him more deeply.

« Previous: Contradictory Teachings

Soon the next part…

If you want to study the philosophical basis of this story, here is the book:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

We are starting a new phase in our course on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, with a detailed study of the Sixth Canto.

The live classes happen on Saturdays at 14:30 IST (Indian time). If you would like to attend, join the Telegram group for the links.

The recorded lessons and transcripts are posted here on the website every Sunday morning, so if you plan to follow, be sure to subscribe:

Subscribe now

We will continue until the Twelfth Canto, so if you follow the course, you can study the whole Bhagavatam.

You can find the previous lessons, up to the Fifth Canto, on the courses page.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

This is the second chapter of The Friend Who Never Left, a novel on the “Fall” of the jīva. With the beginning of the conversation between Mādhava and his mentor Gaurāṅga Dāsa:

Chapter Two: Contradictory Teachings

When Mādhava arrived, Gaurāṅga Dāsa was sitting in front of Tulasi, reading the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The door was open; Mādhava just entered after knocking. He offered obeisances and started opening his backpack.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa was surprised to see him so early and with such a worried expression. He asked: What happened, Mādhava? Is everything all right?

Mādhava Dāsa: Prabhu, I have been reading a book that left me confused. The authors say that we were never with Kṛṣṇa, because no one can fall from the spiritual world. We have therefore always been conditioned by Māyā.

They quote several passages from previous ācāryas to support their arguments; it seems quite scholarly written. I don’t know what to think anymore. I have always understood from Prabhupāda that we were originally with Kṛṣṇa, but somehow we forgot Him and became entangled in the material world, but He continues to follow us as Paramātmā to get us back. With this understanding, I was chanting daily, meditating on Kṛṣṇa as my eternal friend, and I was getting a lot of taste in it. Now, however, I feel like a stranger intruding in a place I don’t belong to.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa appeared distant at first, like remembering something from the past. I see... he finally said. I know the book you are speaking about. I know the argument. But first, tell me, what do the authors say about our eternal relationship with Kṛṣṇa?

Mādhava Dāsa: They accept that we are eternally His servants in nature, but they argue that no one ever falls from Vaikuṇṭha because there is no Māyā there, and thus they conclude that we were never personally with Him. They say that the conditioned souls have always been conditioned, while the liberated souls have always been liberated, and from there argue that Prabhupāda’s explanations of our forgotten relationship should not be taken literally.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes, Prabhupāda himself teaches that perfect devotees in Vaikuṇṭha never fall or are overcome by Māyā. But he also tells us that we are Kṛṣṇa’s eternal servants and that we have forgotten Him. What are we to do with these statements? We cannot accept one and dismiss the other.

We are Kṛṣṇa’s eternal servants, true, but at the same time we have forgotten Him. Prabhupāda explains that our original consciousness is Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and that we must revive it. He speaks of returning to our original position, of going back to Kṛṣṇa. How can we return to Him if we were never with Him in the first place? Still, Prabhupāda also mentions that no one falls from Vaikuṇṭha. And consider another point: bhakti is eternally established in the heart, but at the same time we receive it from the spiritual master.

Think about it. All of these statements are simultaneously true. We cannot discard some of them simply because they are difficult to reconcile. We should not be so quick to conclude that one passage contradicts another.

The philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is simple for the simple, but if you want details, there are unlimited sides to consider. We are dealing with the transcendental reality here; it doesn’t easily fit the human mind.

Mādhava Dāsa: That’s exactly my problem. Prabhupāda repeatedly explains that we have forgotten Kṛṣṇa. Mahāprabhu says that love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally present in the heart and can be awakened by hearing and chanting: nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema ‘sādhya’ kabhu naya, śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya. We were studying this verse the other day. But if we are eternally conditioned and were never with Kṛṣṇa, then what is there to awaken? I always understood that devotional service means reviving our original relationship with Kṛṣṇa, but now I am not even sure if there is a relationship at all, or what it means.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: There is no need to despair. Your questions are reasonable, but you are jumping to conclusions. First of all, we have to be careful not to imagine the spiritual world as if it were another material place filled with imperfections. Sahajiyas do that; we are not planning to join them.

When we hear that a soul was with Kṛṣṇa and forgot him, we often imagine a person in Vaikuṇṭha becoming dissatisfied and leaving, or a gopī forgetting Kṛṣṇa. But is that what Prabhupāda was teaching? We should study his explanations carefully before attaching such conceptions to his teachings. The eternal relationship of the soul and Kṛṣṇa exists as part of a transcendental reality; we should not assume that it must operate under the same faults and conditions we experience in this world.

Mādhava considered this for a moment. Indeed, he had imagined the conditioning of the soul as something that happened at a particular time, some millions, or billions of years ago. He had never thought much about such philosophical details. But then he remembered something else.

Mādhava Dāsa: The main point is that the book says that our bondage is anādi, without beginning. If that’s true, how could there have ever been a time when we were not conditioned? Transcendental or not, if we were never with Kṛṣṇa, how could them any relationship exist at all? This seems to contradict everything Prabhupāda says about our original position. The authors give Sanskrit explanations from Jīva Gosvāmī and Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, and I don’t know enough Sanskrit to argue with them.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: There is a difference between understanding what a word means and understanding all its philosophical implications inside the text. According to the dictionary, anādi means beginningless; that’s true, the question is what its implication is inside the passage.

A scholar may translate a Sanskrit passage correctly but still get an incorrect conclusion out of it. We have to study the context and consider how the passage fits with the rest of the teachings and not take an isolated word and make everything else fit it. The scriptures do not contradict themselves, and neither do the previous ācāryas. If something appears contradictory, we should first of all consider that our understanding may be incomplete.

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa deals with many examples of passages that are frequently misinterpreted in his Govinda-bhāṣya. He explains that by examining discrepancies between earlier and later parts of a text, we should find what meaning is intended, resolving apparent contradictions. He warns us that dry logic and speculation, śuṣka-tarka, should be avoided.

Mādhava Dāsa: That’s a good point. But there is something even more disturbing. The authors argue that Prabhupāda’s explanations of we having been with Kṛṣṇa are just a preaching strategy. They say he spoke like that to make the philosophy more appealing for beginners, but that the actual siddhānta is different. From there, they imply that we need to study the previous ācāryas to understand what Prabhupāda really meant. This is the point that is bothering me most. If Prabhupāda is teaching something different from the actual conclusion, then why are we studying his books at all?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa seemed pained. He again paused for a moment and put his Bhāgavatam aside.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Now I understand why you are so disturbed. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. This is part of what makes us advance in spiritual life. There is also nothing wrong with studying the previous ācāryas. On the contrary, their conclusions are invaluable. However, we must be very careful with the way we approach them.

Prabhupāda is the ācārya through whom we received Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He is the link in the paramparā that connects us with the previous links. If we accept him as our spiritual authority, then the process is that his conclusions must guide our study. We cannot jump over him, build an understanding based on our interpretation of the writings of the previous ācāryas, and then come back to decide which parts of Prabhupāda’s teachings should be accepted and which should be rejected. That would place our own interpretation above the ācārya. If our interpretation becomes the final authority, paramparā loses its meaning. In this case, the mind becomes the guru.

Mādhava Dāsa: But what if the previous ācāryas really say something different? We cannot dismiss their authority either.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Of course not. But why should we assume that they contradict Prabhupāda? If we accept all of them as links in the same disciplic succession coming from Kṛṣṇa, then they must all be speaking the same siddhānta. If we find something difficult to reconcile, we should study more carefully, examine the context, and try to understand how both teachings can be true.

Do you remember Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.3.28?

Mādhava Dāsa: ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam, indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ, mṛḍayanti yuge yuge—“All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists.”

Good! Gaurāṅga Dāsa exclaimed. He then got up to get a volume that was high on his shelf. Now read this one:

Mādhava Dāsa: etau bhagavataḥ sākṣād, dharer nārāyaṇasya hi, avatīrṇāv ihāṁśena, vasudevasya veśmani—“[The people said:] These two boys are certainly expansions of the Supreme Lord Nārāyaṇa who have descended to this world in the home of Vasudeva.”

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: How do you explain it? Same Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. One verse says Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead, the other says He is the expansion of Viṣnu. This is from the later chapters of the Tenth Canto; Prabhupāda did not have an opportunity to comment on it.

Mādhava Dāsa thought about it, but he did not know what to say.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa continued: The first verse is the paribhāṣā-sūtra, the governing conclusion of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In the second verse, the common people of Mathurā are struggling to understand who these two powerful personalities in front of them are. Some of them, repeating rumors they heard, conclude that they must be expansions of Lord Nārāyaṇa who have descended to this world as the sons of Vasudeva.

But I have another question for you: The Bhāgavatam is described as the spotless Purāṇa; therefore, if the second verse gives an incorrect conclusion, how can it be part of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam? Maybe Śukadeva Gosvāmi was using preaching strategies?

Mādhava hesitated. He could understand Gaurāṅga’s main point, but he was puzzled about how the two verses could possibly fit together.

After a few seconds, Gaurāṅga Dāsa continued:

Jīva Gosvāmi explains that although the statement comes from nātividvaj-jana (people who are not very learned), their words are sarasvatī-preritatayā, inspired by Sarasvatī. This indicates that the verse is not incorrect but that there is a deeper level of meaning in it.

The key is the word aṁśena. The dictionary meaning is “as a portion,” and this leads to the translation you just read. Jīva Gosvāmi, however, examines the context of the preceding verses and reveals that in this context, aṁśena means “with all their expansions.” Therefore, although the common people referred to Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma as the expansions of Nārāyaṇa, the real meaning of their words is that Kṛṣṇa, together with Balarāma, has descended to this material world accompanied by all their plenary expansions, appearing in the home of Vasudeva.

This is an example of how apparent contradictions come from our limited understanding of a subject. Another possibility is that one may add assumptions that are not actually present in the original statements. Sanskrit and logic are very useful in this process; Baladeva mentioned they should be used, but they must help us to understand the teachings of the ācāryas and not become instruments for rejecting them. This is the difference between bhakti and jñāna. In bhakti, the right conclusions are received through the paramparā instead of independent study.

Mādhava looked again at the book in his hand. If he had read the second verse in isolation, without considering the governing conclusion of the Bhāgavatam, he might have accepted that Kṛṣṇa was an expansion of Nārāyaṇa. The Sanskrit would have seemed to support it. He was struck by how Jīva Gosvāmī had explained the passage by drawing attention to its context. With this, Mādhava began to see that quoting scripture and establishing its meaning were not necessarily the same thing.

Mādhava Dāsa: I see. The mistake is to take a particular interpretation of a passage as the final conclusion and use it to dismiss other teachings. Thinking about it, that is what troubled me in this book. Whenever Prabhupāda’s words did not fit into the explanation being woven by the authors, they classified them as a preaching strategy. Perhaps it is their explanation that needs to be reconsidered.

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: Yes. Calling something a preaching strategy to dismiss a teaching does not solve the problem. Our duty is to establish what the ācārya explains and how these explanations fit together with other explanations. As you have seen, a passage can contain much more than what we can presume in a first reading. The question is that this meaning must be uncovered through the guidance of the ācāryas, following their conclusions, and not by independent speculation. We should have this same care with Prabhupāda’s teachings, instead of assuming that we are so learned that we can judge what to accept and what to put aside.

Mādhava Dāsa: I can understand now. But when I read a book, how can I understand what comes from the previous ācāryas and what is the author’s interpretation?

Gaurāṅga Dāsa: First, you need to understand how your study should be guided. You accepted Prabhupāda as your teacher and began practicing according to his instructions. This brought you so far in spiritual life; therefore, by the result, you can understand that the process given by him is genuine. We can start by examining his place in our spiritual life, how we receive knowledge from the paramparā through him, and how this knowledge is further explained by his disciples and followers who guide us. This will give us the foundation for examining the arguments that have disturbed you.

Mādhava kept the Bhāgavatam open before him. He still wanted to understand how beginningless bondage could coexist with a forgotten relationship, but the example of the two verses had given him a reason to be patient. Now he was ready to listen.

Soon the next part…

If you want to study the philosophical basis of this story, here is the book:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

Chapter One: A Disturbing Book

Mādhava Dāsa had started practicing Kṛṣṇa consciousness a few years before. He got a Bhagavad-gītā from a devotee who had since passed away. He still remembers it: he was walking to university when Sarasvatī stopped him with a clever question: “You’re a university student, right? Check this out. It discusses a question universities are very good at avoiding: you say ‘my head,’ ‘my hand,’ ‘my body,’ ‘my brain’—so who is the ‘I’ that owns all these things?”

He read the whole book in just a few days and then other books from Prabhupāda. From them, he understood that the soul is the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, that love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally present, even though covered, and must be awakened by the process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He understood that material existence is a condition of forgetfulness, in which we identify with the body and mind and try to enjoy matter independently of Kṛṣṇa. The purpose of devotional service, thus, is to revive this original Kṛṣṇa consciousness and thus revive our eternal relationship with Him. These teachings seemed clear to Mādhava; he never had a reason to doubt them.

With this conviction, he was waking up early every day to chant his rounds and study the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam before going to university. Gaurāṅga Dāsa, his mentor, an elderly, experienced devotee, had taught him that we should offer everything best we have to Kṛṣṇa, and this includes the best hours of the day, early in the morning. That’s when the brain is fresh, and we can think clearly. Just as water is clear when appearing from the spring, he said, the mind is clear in the early morning. However, after being affected by so many thoughts and images during the day, it becomes murky, like the river that crosses the town. By following this, Mādhava was noticing the difference day by day.

One day, he was discussing some points about the soul coming in contact with matter with another devotee he met online. For him, these points were clear, but to his surprise, the devotee disagreed strongly. He sent him a book discussing the origin of the jīva. In the book, the authors quoted from Jīva Gosvāmī, Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, and other ācāryas, analyzing Sanskrit terms and supporting their conclusions with many scriptural references. What Mādhava understood from their argument, however, surprised him: the conditioned souls were never with Kṛṣṇa. Material bondage is anādi, without beginning, since no one can fall from Vaikuṇṭha. The authors maintained that these conclusions represented the teachings of the previous ācāryas, the proper siddhānta.

As Mādhava continued reading, several doubts arose. If material bondage is anādi, does it mean the soul had never turned away from Kṛṣṇa, that we were simply always here in the material world? And if that’s the case, then how could the soul be at all connected with Kṛṣṇa?

He remembered that Mahāprabhu says that Kṛṣṇa-prema is nitya-siddha, eternally established in the heart, and that Prabhupāda explained that this love for Kṛṣṇa, which is already present in the heart, has simply to be awakened. If the soul has never been with Kṛṣṇa, as the book claims, then what exactly was forgotten, and to what original position are we supposed to return?

More troubling, however, was the authors’ explanation of Prabhupāda’s teachings. They argued that Prabhupāda’s explanations of the soul having been originally with Kṛṣṇa and somehow forgetting Him were just a preaching strategy and should not be accepted literally. According to them, the deeper philosophical meaning is found in the writings of the previous ācāryas. Mādhava found this point difficult to accept. He had learned that spiritual knowledge descends through paramparā, coming from a perfect source and being passed down as it is, link after link. This makes it different from the scientific knowledge he studied at university, where theories were constantly evolving and changing. The book, however, seemed to use a scholarly interpretation of earlier authorities to determine which statements of Prabhupāda should be accepted and which should be rejected.

Mādhava did not know how to resolve these contradictions. The arguments of the book appeared convincing, but they conflicted with many conclusions he had received from the books of Śrīla Prabhupāda. The arguments themselves, however, were based on the words of the previous ācāryas, which he could not dismiss. He could never say Jīva Gosvāmī, Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura or Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa were wrong, but he also could not accept that Prabhupāda had repeatedly taught something contrary to their conclusions.

The next morning, he felt drained. He chanted his rounds somehow, but mechanically, with no taste. For the first time in months, chanting seemed like a chore he had to finish, and not something he enjoyed. He looked at the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam but felt no desire to open it.

Then, something crossed his mind: Gaurāṅga Dāsa also woke up early every day, and he did not live very far. Maybe he could just visit him and ask. He had studied both Prabhupāda’s books and the teachings of the previous ācāryas for several decades. If there were contradictions there, he must have noticed them. Mādhava put his tablet with the book in his backpack and sped off on his bicycle.

Next: Contradictory Teachings »

Read the entire book:
The Friend Who Never Left, A Dialog on the “Fall” of the Jīva

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

There is a video that appeared in my feed today that I believe summarizes everything that is wrong about the discussion of the “Fall of the jīva” and causes so much animosity among devotees. The video is technically well produced and attractive, but there are a number of problems with the philosophical aspect. You can watch it first, and then we can discuss it point by point:

The video starts with Kṛṣṇa dancing with the Gopīs somewhere in Goloka Vrndāvana. This brings us to a very high level of spiritual rāsa. Kṛṣṇa dancing with the Gopīs is a reference to the rāsa dance, the ultimate expression of spiritual love. The scene shows souls who have achieved the highest level of love of Godhead and now relate to Kṛṣṇa in the most intimate way. It is not a joke. We can see in the talks of Lord Caitanya and Ramananda Raya how high it is.

Here the problems start. Kṛṣṇa looks to the side and sees one of the gopis a little farther away, engaged in her own thoughts. This is the first impossibility depicted in the video. The gopīs love Kṛṣṇa more than themselves; their love is so incomprehensibly enormous that they cannot think of anything separate from Kṛṣṇa. Imagine a woman with a very small baby. Multiply her concern and attention by an unlimited number, and you may start to have an idea.

The Gopī then reveals her thoughts: “Why are you the center, Kṛṣṇa? Why not me?” That’s where the problems really start.

The problem with most discussions on this topic is that they start from a very incorrect conclusion. Prabhupada mentioned that “Previously we were with Kṛṣṇa in His lila, or sport,” and many jump to the conclusion that we were originally Gopīs that somehow or other fell from Goloka. Many then see the need to answer this absurd proposition, and go to the diametrically opposite, quoting Prabhupāda saying that “No one falls from Vaikunta,” and therefore that we must have never been with Kṛṣṇa. They conclude then that we were never with Kṛṣṇa, that we are, somehow, a product of this material world and have never been outside. We have then one misconception against the other.

The video then depicts Kṛṣṇa showing the gopi the material world, and she deciding to go there just to take a look. The next scene shows her in an office, as a conditioned soul. The question is, is this what Prabhupāda was speaking about?

Were we all gopīs?

In the Gītā, Kṛṣṇa insists:

“After attaining Me, the great souls, who are yogīs in devotion, never return to this temporary world, which is full of miseries, because they have attained the highest perfection.”

There are many other passages that explain that attaining a personal relationship with Kṛṣṇa in one of the spiritual planets is fundamentally different from elevation to the celestial planets, or even the impersonal brahmajyoti. A soul falls from the celestial planets when his pious karma ends, and falls from the impersonal bramajyoti due to the lack of spiritual engagement. However, none of these conditions are present in the spiritual planets. There is no force there that can push a soul away, and there is no way Māyā can extend her hands there to drag down some screaming jīvas. The idea that we were all Gopīs and fell is completely absurd.

Prabhupāda said that “Previously we were with Kṛṣṇa in His lila, or sport,” but we jump the gun in concluding we were all Gopīs. This shows a profound misunderstanding of what a Gopī is.

If no one falls from Vaikuṇṭha, how could we have been with Kṛṣṇa?

Prabhupāda emphasizes the point of the eternal associates of the Lord not falling in his purport on the Third Canto, dealing with the “fall” of Jaya and Vijaya. He concludes that ultimately they didn’t fall, because they remained connected with the Lord even after taking birth as demons. Their pastime is thus not associates falling, but a reminder that the personal associates of the Lord cannot ever forget Him. Later, in ŚB 7.1.35, he concludes: “Otherwise it is a fact that no one falls from Vaikuṇṭha” (ŚB 7.1.35, purport). Their “fall” happened because of the Lord’s arrangement, not because they were conquered by Māyā.

Yet, Prabhupāda also writes, “We never had any occasion when we were separated from Krsna,” and compares our apparent separation to a dream. We can go to many places in a dream and perform so many activities, but ultimately, we never leave our bed. This calls our attention to a difference between the constitutional position of the soul, always with Kṛṣṇa, and the apparent, conditioned position.

Both statements must be taken seriously. The spiritual world is not a place where perfected devotees become envious and are expelled. At the same time, however, current illusion does not invalidate our eternal relationship with Kṛṣṇa. Both aspects are there.

Without reconciling these two points, the discussion degenerates into a geographical speculation: maybe we didn’t fall from Goloka, but from Vaikunta, which is equally absurd.

The real question is thus not from which geographical place in the spiritual sky we fell. The question is what exactly does separation from Kṛṣṇa mean when the soul is eternally His?

Does anādi mean we were never with Kṛṣṇa?

The conditioning of the soul is described in the scriptures as anādi, beginningless. Does it mean we were never with Kṛṣṇa? No, it just means we cannot put a date on it. That’s why Prabhupāda translates anādi as “since time immemorial.”

Our mistake here is to imagine it as a timeline: The jīva starts in Goloka, and then at some point travels to the material world. We can see that’s precisely what the video shows, and it is fundamentally wrong.

Material time cannot serve as a clock for the transcendental reality; it has no effect in the spiritual world, where everything is eternal and without change. Material conditioning has no first instant within material time. It cannot be reconstructed as an historical event. Here we reach the limits of our conditioned reasoning. From the material side, it appears that the soul is always here, and from the material side it appears the soul never left.

What exactly becomes conditioned?

This is a more relevant question, and that’s something we find an explanation for. In the teachings of Lord Kapila (SB 3.27), we find the explanation of how Kṛṣṇa enters the material creation without getting in contact with it. He explains with a simple example: the light of the sun enters a dark room through an opening and is reflected in a recipient of water and then again on the walls. Then, he immediately adds that the soul is similarly reflected in the false ego, body, and mind. In this way, the soul becomes present in the body without leaving his eternal spiritual nature, just as the Lord becomes present in the material cosmos without contacting the material energy.

Just as the sun does not enter the water, the soul does not become a material particle that moves here and there. The material nature provides the gross and subtle body, and the false ego makes the soul identify with it. As Kṛṣṇa mentions in the Gitā, the material nature performs the activities, and the bewildered soul imagines to be the doer.

It is not that there are two souls, one in Goloka and another on earth; that’s another mistaken idea. There is one eternal soul, whose identity remains spiritual but who experiences material existence through this reflection of consciousness in the body, mind and ego. “Fall” thus refers primarily to a mistaken identity or consciousness. Thus, when the consciousness is corrected, or, in other words, when we revive our Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we become immediately liberated. There is no need to become something else.

This is an essential point to understand, because it allows us to understand what material bondage is without falling into the mistake of trying to put it into a timeline.

Are conditioned souls products of the material world?

Some interpret “anādi” in the sense that we are somehow a product of this material world and were never outside of it. That’s another gross misconception. The soul is not matter; we come from outside.

Some descriptions connect the soul with Mahā-Viṣnu and the causal ocean, the frontier of the material creation. This is correct, but it does not mean this is the constitutional position of the soul.

Everyone has to pass through passport control to enter a country, but this does not mean they are born at the border. One can tell the story of a tourist visiting a country starting from his crossing the border, but this does not mean there was nothing before that, or that the border is his origin. We were all in the causal ocean before joining the material creation. This is, however, already a fallen position, just like the impersonal brahmajyoti.

Is love of Kṛṣṇa something we acquire, or something we awaken?

Mahāprabhu teaches:

nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema ‘sādhya’ kabhu naya
śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya

“Pure love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established in the hearts of the living entities. It is not something to be gained from another source. When the heart is purified by hearing and chanting, this love naturally awakens.”

He does not say that our original spiritual identity is manufactured by practice. Love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established; it is the very essence of the soul.

There is, however, another side to it: the eternal present of prema does not automatically imply that every jīva has it manifested to the highest level of mādhurya-rasa.

Things that are spiritual are eternally existing, and they never change. There is, however, a third characteristic: it grows.

When Kṛṣṇa sees the Gopīs, He becomes more beautiful, and in seeing Kṛṣṇa, the Gopīs become even more beautiful, and in seeing them, Kṛṣṇa becomes even more beautiful, and thus there is an eternal competition without limit.

Our love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally existing, and it never changes, but it is eternally increasing. Our eternal relationship is real; but it doesn’t mean it is fully awakened. Indeed, the awakening of this eternal relationship is the very goal of the process of devotional service.

A liberated soul never falls again. Does it mean they lose free will?

Kṛṣṇa promises that those who attain Him never return to this miserable material world. This, however, does not mean liberated souls have no free will. How can both be true?

Imagine someone decides to visit Afghanistan, curious to see how people live there. He crosses the border and is captured by some bad people who do terrible things to him, repeatedly. Twenty years later, without teeth and with three fingers less, he somehow escapes and returns to his country. He is a free man, but this doesn’t mean he will want to return. If even a material experience can awaken this kind of decision, what to say about fully awakened love for Kṛṣṇa, combined with perfect knowledge? Freedom does not have to imply eternally repeating the same bad choice.

How does Kṛṣṇa actually call us back?

In the final scene of the video, Kṛṣṇa appears on the window paying His flute to remind her. The scene is again wrong, but the general concept is true: Kṛṣṇa never abandons the conditioned soul. He accompanies each one of us as Paramātmā, giving both forgetfulness and remembrance, according to our desire.

He appears to us in the form of the scriptures and empowers His devotees to instruct us. He manifests personally as the holy names, to awaken our eternal relationship. He is waiting for us; we are the ones who are unwilling. This is very clearly described in the final chapters of the Fourth Canto, when Kṛṣṇa appears to Purañjana in the form of a brāhmana to remind him of their eternal relationship.

The final question

Once we understand our eternal position as souls, the question stops being “How did I fall?” This has no answer; not even Jīva Gosvāmī tries to answer that. Mahāprabhu phrases it perfectly: “Somehow or other.”

The right question is: “Who am I eternally?” or “What is my constitutional nature?”

What is your answer to this question? Are you the body? Maybe the mind or the ego? And if you answer that you are a soul, then what is your constitutional position? Are you a piece of matter or an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa? Once we get it correctly, the question becomes how to revive this eternal identity, not how I came here.

Prabhupāda himself warned about not becoming trapped in trying to trace the chronology of the “fall.” In his article, “Crow and Tal-Fruit Logic”, he compares this debate with scholars uselessly arguing over whether a falling fruit dropped because of a crow or some other cause. His point is that a sick person should focus on the cure.

We have an entire book on this topic. If you are curious, you can read it to understand all the intricacies of the topic and how Prabhupāda solves it. It can take up to six hours to read it in full, but it is considerably less time you can waste trying to discuss this topic with others without knowing it beforehand. Apart from that, avoiding the wrong conclusion can be priceless.

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

Most of us have seen this painting of Lord Viṣnu appearing on Garuda's shoulders to save a devotee from the ocean of material existence. We can appreciate it as a metaphor, but we usually don’t think this happens in practice. Maybe He may send the Viṣnudutas, we may think, but coming personally?

That’s a point we misunderstand. We think that just because Kṛṣṇa is so great, He is too busy for His devotees. That’s not true. This coming on Garuda's shoulders is not metaphorical; it is literal.

See what He mentions in the Bhagavad-gītā, 12.6-7:

“But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Pṛthā—for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.”

Yogīs have to follow the path of light when leaving their bodies if they hope to attain liberation, as Kṛṣṇa explains in chapter eight. On this path, they are taken upwards by a succession of demigods. This process is, however, very uncertain and difficult, and without bhakti, even the successful yogī cannot progress further than the impersonal brahmajyoti by it. In any case, even for the yogī, entrance into the spiritual planets is possible only if one develops his devotional service. Pṛthu Maharaja transferred himself to the Vaikuṇṭha planets at the time of death by the mystical process because he was a pure devotee of the Lord (SB 4.23.11). His qualification was his devotional service, and not his yoga practice.

Yogīs who are not devotees usually can’t even leave the material universe. They typically reach the higher planets, from where they have a chance of engaging in devotional service and gradually progressing over billions of years (Iso 14). If they fail to do so, they eventually fall back to earth.

A devotee, however, is taken directly by Kṛṣṇa all the way, as indicated by the words teṣām ahaṁ samuddhartā (for them I am the deliverer) in text 12.7. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa also notes the words na cirāt (swiftly), which indicate Kṛṣṇa’s unwillingness to tolerate any delay in the devotee’s attainment of Him.

Prabhupāda supports this point by quoting the Varāha Purāṇa in his purport:

nayāmi paramaṁ sthānam, arcir-ādi-gatiṁ vinā
garuḍa-skandham āropya, yatheccham anivāritaḥ.

In this verse, Kṛṣṇa makes clear that He personally takes His devotee out of the cycle of birth and death. The meaning is:

Placing My devotee on Garuḍa’s shoulders, I take him to the supreme abode according to My will, without obstruction and without him having to follow the path of light taken by yogīs.

Prabhupāda gives us a purport to this verse:

“The purport of this verse is that a devotee does not need to practice aṣṭāṅga-yoga in order to transfer his soul to the spiritual planets. The responsibility is taken by the Supreme Lord Himself. He clearly states here that He Himself becomes the deliverer. A child is completely cared for by his parents, and thus his position is secure. Similarly, a devotee does not need to endeavor to transfer himself by yoga practice to other planets. Rather, the Supreme Lord, by His great mercy, comes at once, riding on His bird carrier Garuḍa, and at once delivers the devotee from material existence. Although a man who has fallen in the ocean may struggle very hard and may be very expert in swimming, he cannot save himself. But if someone comes and picks him up from the water, then he is easily rescued. Similarly, the Lord picks up the devotee from this material existence. One simply has to practice the easy process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness and fully engage himself in devotional service. Any intelligent man should always prefer the process of devotional service to all other paths.”

This explains many details of the relationship between Kṛṣṇa and His pure devotees that may appear inexplicable to an outsider. After being instructed by Nārada Muni and receiving the audience of the Lord, Citraketu attained great opulence as the king of the Vidyādhara planet. After some time, however, he was cursed by Mother Pārvatī to become a demon.

Why is it that Kṛṣṇa arranged such a situation for His devotee? Why didn’t He protect him as He promises in the Gītā? The point is that Kṛṣṇa became so anxious to bring His pure devotee to the spiritual world that He was not willing to wait until his long celestial life ended (SB 6.17.17). He thus created a situation where Citraketu was moved from this position to a very short life as Vṛtrāsura, where he attained perfection in his Kṛṣṇa consciousness and returned home, back to Godhead.

Similarly, other devotees may at different points face material difficulties that are ultimately organized by Kṛṣṇa to bring them back home, back to Godhead as soon as possible. For ordinary souls, Kṛṣṇa is patient, as Paramātmā, waiting for them to turn to Him. With His pure devotees, however, Kṛṣṇa becomes impatient and cannot wait.

This shows us the extent of His reciprocation. On his part, however, a pure devotee does not make liberation a condition for his service. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu gives us the perfect example in His Śikṣāṣṭakam:

na dhanaṁ na janaṁ na sundarīṁ, kavitāṁ vā jagad-īśa kāmaye
mama janmani janmanīśvare, bhavatād bhaktir ahaitukī tvayi

“O almighty Lord, I have no desire to accumulate wealth, nor do I desire beautiful women, nor do I want any number of followers. I only want Your causeless devotional service, birth after birth.”

A pure devotee simply serves Kṛṣṇa out of love, simply aspiring for more service. Kṛṣṇa, on His part, however, can’t wait to be with His devotee; therefore, He brings him back as quickly as possible, even though the devotee does not ask for it. This is the paradox of their relationship. The more a devotee is unwilling to accept, the more Kṛṣṇa is eager to give.

Read more:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

If we look around, we can usually see many devotees who practiced seriously for some period of their lives, but later gave up spiritual practice almost completely, returning to most of their previous habits. When we meet them, they often look like ordinary people absorbed in work or other activities, not spiritualists. If they speak about Kṛṣṇa at all, it is usually with nostalgia or regret, something they did when they were young but have since lost or moved on from. If we could go back in time, we would see the same devotees waking up very early to chant and attend spiritual programs, running away from home to join the temple, distributing books or chanting all day long, fasting, praying, etc., all of it out of eagerness to reach Kṛṣṇa. How to reconcile these two selves?

It may look difficult to comprehend, but this just shows the natural tendency of the individual soul to forget. When we are conditioned, going from one body to the other, we forget all the time. We don’t remember at all what we were doing in previous lives, and we can easily forget even what we were doing a moment ago. Perfect souls who live in the association of Kṛṣṇa do not forget Him at any point, but still they can forget details or particular circumstances. Arjuna is always with Kṛṣṇa, appearing as His friend life after life, but still, when he saw his relatives on the other side of the field, he forgot why he should fight. Similarly, as Kṛṣṇa explains, Arjuna was present when Kṛṣṇa spoke the Bhagavad-gītā to Vivasvan, millions of years ago. Kṛṣṇa still remembered it perfectly, but Arjuna forgot.

Therefore, even in the liberated stage, the soul can forget. The point is that Kṛṣṇa never forgets, and thus, as long as we are connected with Him, He can remind us. Kṛṣṇa is infallible, and as long as one remains connected with Kṛṣṇa, one can also be infallible, but as soon as we distance ourselves from Kṛṣṇa, our natural tendency for forgetfulness becomes prominent, and we can fall back to the level of a common person, completely covered.

Once we come to Kṛṣṇa, sincerely starting the process of devotional service, we get something that is permanent: we start reviving our eternal relationship with Him. This is like the ember that continues burning even after we put out the fire. There is no visible fame, but because the ember is there, the fire can come back as soon as there is opportunity. Similarly, having practiced Kṛṣṇa consciousness sincerely for some time is not a guarantee that we will continue to practice all our lives sincerely, because we have free will at every stage. I may be serving Kṛṣṇa today, waking up early, chanting, going to the temple, etc., but this doesn’t automatically mean I will be doing the same tomorrow. Every day (and in fact every moment) I have to continue making the same decision. The moment I decide something else is more important, my practice can easily stop.

We come then to the question of material desires. Everyone has certain dreams and desires, things we would like to do if we had the chance. However, there is a difference between having a desire and acting on it. A man may see an attractive woman and have desire, but this doesn’t mean he should leave his family and go after her. Desire is always there, but the intelligence has the mission of resisting what goes against our goals.

Therefore, the main question is not desire, but what is our goal. As long as Kṛṣṇa remains the goal, we will not stop our spiritual practice. We may make mistakes; we may fall at some points, but these faults are ultimately not very important, because after the fall we get up and continue. We may fall a dozen times on the way home, but if each time we get up and continue, we still get there. The problem is not the fall itself, but if at some point we give up the goal. That’s the real problem.

Everything we do in life can be connected with Kṛṣṇa. We can connect our family with Kṛṣṇa; we can connect a career or business with Kṛṣṇa; we can connect hobbies with Kṛṣṇa. Even scrolling can be connected with Kṛṣṇa if we follow devotees who post about Him. Therefore, none of these things are real impediments. The problem is when we come to the conclusion that one of these things is more important, when some of them become the goal itself.

When this happens, the focus can completely change. Then, it is not that I’m a devotee who is trying to come to Kṛṣṇa, despite working on a job and responsibly taking care of a family. The job itself can become the goal. At this point, chanting and spiritual practice become superfluous, and I can easily give them up, because they don’t pay my bills.

That usually leads to the phenomenon we discussed in the beginning of the article. It is not about material desires or weakness, but about a conscious decision, made at some point, where one decided that something else was more important. It doesn’t have to be a decision made at once; usually it is the result of a process that takes years.

Initially, we come to the conclusion that work, family, or something else is more important, but that we still want to maintain some level of spiritual practice. We may then try to chant 16 rounds and follow the basic principles, but over time, because spiritual practice stops being the focus of our attention, we gradually lose the taste for it. Then, we may continue following for some more time out of a feeling of obligation, but once the taste is lost, it becomes difficult to maintain. Eventually we completely stop, and when this happens, the other activities completely take over. At this stage, we forget, and as time goes by, our devotional practice, the sacrifices we made for Kṛṣṇa, the spiritual goals we at some point established, etc., become just part of the past. When this happens, time goes by, and when we look around, 20 or 50 years have already passed.

How can we avoid it? We need to keep spiritual practice our main priority in life, and organize other activities around it, instead of the opposite. The best way to maintain that is to wake up early to chant our rounds and study the philosophy. If we can reserve two hours per day early in the morning for these two things, before anything else, we can go a very long way. Because we are starting our day with our spiritual practice, our consciousness will remain organized around it. With time, as we become purified, we get a taste for spiritual practice, and this becomes the time of the day we actually crave. That’s the reason many advanced devotees start to go to sleep very early, and wake up extremely early. No one tells them to do that—often the social pressure is the exact opposite—they do it because that’s the part of the day they actually enjoy, and thus they want to maximize it. We have the extreme, superhuman example of this principle in the life of Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Thākura. He was waking up at 10 PM (before midnight!) and spending the whole night chanting and writing. After a short rest, he would answer letters, chant more, receive visitors, read, etc. Only after almost 12 hours of that would he go to the office and do his work as a magistrate.

Another dimension is to hear about Kṛṣṇa. That’s another aspect we should cultivate as much as possible, following spiritual teachers we are attracted to, hearing their classes on the way to work, while we walk in the park, in the shower, and whenever else we have the opportunity. As long as we keep hearing about Kṛṣṇa, we continue to remember Him, and everything else works.

The conclusion is that we don’t have to sacrifice our work and family to follow spiritual life. Most of us will reconcile these three things during most of our lives. What we need to give up is part of the time we are doing directly doing these things, the time that we would otherwise waste, sleeping over time, scrolling, watching TV, cultivating bad habits, etc.

And, even if our spiritual practice has already become a distant memory, the ember of our previous service is still there. It’s always possible to fan it again by giving Kṛṣṇa a new place in our lives. SB 1.5.19 is very instructive in this connection. As Prabhupāda mentions there:

“There are certainly many instances where devotees of the Lord have fallen down due to uncongenial association, just like fruitive workers, who are always prone to degradation. But even though he falls down, a devotee is never to be considered the same as a fallen karmī. A karmī suffers the result of his own fruitive reactions, whereas a devotee is reformed by chastisement directed by the Lord Himself. The sufferings of an orphan and the sufferings of a beloved child of a king are not one and the same. An orphan is really poor because he has no one to take care of him, but a beloved son of a rich man, although he appears to be on the same level as the orphan, is always under the vigilance of his capable father.”

Read more:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

Often we say that devotional service is eternal, and even if someone does just a little in this life, he or she can be saved. Śrila Prabhupada went as far as saying that if someone reads just one line of his books, his life can change. Krsna Himself says in the Bhagavad-Gita that “In this endeavor, there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear.”

Seeing from this perspective, everything is very simple and easy. We just need to practice Kṛṣṇa consciousness and broadcast the mercy by chanting in public, distributing books, and reaching people in other ways. If the idea is to make people Kṛṣṇa conscious, why do we need to bring all the institutional talk about accepting a guru? Why can’t people just practice on their own?

On the one hand, the scriptures advertise the potency of the holy names, giving examples like the history of Ajamila, who was saved by just chanting the name of Narayana once when calling his son. On this line, there are statements like “there are no hard and fast rules,” spoken by Mahaprabhu Himself. On the other hand, the same scriptures mention that one can’t go back to Godhead without accepting a spiritual master and being trained under him. How can we reconcile the two sides?

The point is that these two categories of statements refer to people in different stages of spiritual development. Anyone can start and go to a certain point by just reading books and chanting; that’s why Śrila Prabhupada asked us to distribute his books. There is no prerequisite for taking a book or for chanting when one sees devotees on the streets. Everyone is welcome to join, regardless of having a pious or sinful life, being clean or not, being educated or not, etc.

At a certain point, however, one should accept a spiritual master to move further. When one comes to this stage, different layers of discipline become necessary. One has to abandon previous sinful habits and lead a clean life. He needs to be submissive to the spiritual master (a student who is not submissive can’t properly learn) and so on.

There are therefore two priorities: to convince people to start and to convince devotees who have already come to a certain level to go further. When we talk to new people, we emphasize the flexibility of the process, the absence of hard and fast rules, and so on. These are the aspects most essential in the beginning, and the flexibility encourages them to start practicing and thus benefit from the chanting and association with devotees. This is not a “preaching strategy”; it is the proper instruction at the moment. In the beginning, the priority is to hear, chant, and associate with spiritually advanced people, not to follow each and every detail.

As we advance, however, regulated practice becomes more important. Now, the priority is not just to chant a few times, but to chant every day. Not just to hear once from a sadhu, but to regularly study the philosophy and so on. Simultaneously, we also have to follow the spiritual principles, staying away from bad habits and activities that may jeopardize our practice.

One may prefer not to assume any vows and simply practice spontaneously, chanting whenever he feels like, and maybe following a principle or two. In Kṛṣṇa consciousness, there is no loss or diminution; therefore, even one who is reluctant to become serious in spiritual life will have other chances in the future. This is the power of the devotional process: as we start practicing devotional service, we receive progressively more opportunities to continue and advance further. Even someone who just starts in this life will have an opportunity to continue in the next life.

However, for the ones who are serious, who don’t want to play with the future, there is a certain process to be followed.

This is described in the Caitanya-caritāmrta (Madhya 23.14-15) by Mahāprabhu Himself:

“ ‘In the beginning there must be faith. Then one becomes interested in associating with pure devotees. Thereafter one is initiated by the spiritual master and executes the regulative principles under his orders. Thus one is freed from all unwanted habits and becomes firmly fixed in devotional service. Thereafter, one develops taste and attachment. This is the way of sādhana-bhakti, the execution of devotional service according to the regulative principles. Gradually emotions intensify, and finally there is an awakening of love. This is the gradual development of love of Godhead for the devotee interested in Kṛṣṇa consciousness.’

We can see that accepting a spiritual master comes close to the start of the process, followed by the regulated practice of devotional service that leads to the advanced stages. Kṛṣṇa explains this need in the Gītā, when He mentions:

“Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth. Having obtained real knowledge from a self-realized soul, you will never fall again into such illusion, for by this knowledge you will see that all living beings are but part of the Supreme, or, in other words, that they are Mine.
Even if you are considered to be the most sinful of all sinners, when you are situated in the boat of transcendental knowledge you will be able to cross over the ocean of miseries. As a blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge burn to ashes all reactions to material activities.”

It is difficult to agree to follow the process seriously without having a guide that corrects us and inspires our faith. Without such guidance, we tend to create our own process, accepting a few things and rejecting others, doing only what is comfortable for us. Another danger is that we can very easily create a new philosophy, interpreting what we hear according to our own convictions, instead of the opposite. When we take all of this together, we can easily see that without the help of someone who knows the path, it is very easy to get lost. One can learn a lot by watching videos on YouTube, but to advance past a certain point, one must go to a university or find a private teacher.

Accepting a spiritual master is a simple and natural step. We often make it an institutional affair, but it is not supposed to be like that. As Prabhupāda mentions, “Generally a spiritual master who constantly instructs a disciple in spiritual science becomes his initiating spiritual master later on. (CC Ādi 1.35)

As one starts hearing about Kṛṣṇa consciousness, one will naturally find devotees who inspire faith and who help him or her to progress, and as time passes and the relationship is established and reinforced, initiation becomes a natural step. After that, we just continue to develop this relationship of guidance and trust, gradually coming in contact with more spiritual teachers who gradually also assume the position of instructing gurus for us.

Prabhupāda explains this process in more detail in the same purport:

“If one develops love for Kṛṣṇa by Kṛṣṇa conscious activities, one can know the Supreme Absolute Truth, but he who tries to understand God simply by logical arguments will not succeed, nor will he get a taste for unalloyed devotion. The secret is that one must submissively listen to those who know perfectly the science of God, and one must begin the mode of service regulated by the preceptor. A devotee already attracted by the name, form, qualities, etc., of the Supreme Lord may be directed to his specific manner of devotional service; he need not waste time in approaching the Lord through logic. The expert spiritual master knows well how to engage his disciple’s energy in the transcendental loving service of the Lord, and thus he engages a devotee in a specific devotional service according to his special tendency. A devotee must have only one initiating spiritual master because in the scriptures acceptance of more than one is always forbidden. There is no limit, however, to the number of instructing spiritual masters one may accept. Generally a spiritual master who constantly instructs a disciple in spiritual science becomes his initiating spiritual master later on.”

There is also another point emphasized by Prabhupāda later in the same purport. Often we don’t want to accept anyone because of pride, thinking that we are already perfect and need no help. This thinking is common in material life, sometimes even encouraged, but it doesn’t at all work in the spiritual process. No one goes to Kṛṣṇa by his own power. We always need His mercy to progress, and this mercy comes to us through His devotees. See this point, for example:

“One should always remember that a person who is reluctant to accept a spiritual master and be initiated is sure to be baffled in his endeavor to go back to Godhead. One who is not properly initiated may present himself as a great devotee, but in fact he is sure to encounter many stumbling blocks on his path of progress toward spiritual realization, with the result that he must continue his term of material existence without relief. Such a helpless person is compared to a ship without a rudder, for such a ship can never reach its destination. It is imperative, therefore, that one accept a spiritual master if he at all desires to gain the favor of the Lord.”

A problem we have nowadays in our spiritual institution is that there is a small number of authorized gurus, most of them already with thousands of disciples and not physically capable of directly caring for all of them. There are also problems, like obstacles to senior women being allowed to initiate and so on. This creates many situations where one may have a relationship with a senior devotee, with established trust and faith, and not be allowed to be initiated by him or her simply because the chosen teacher is not in the small list of accepted initiating gurus.

It is, however, important to keep in mind that these are temporary obstacles we have to learn to navigate. My personal advice is to focus first on the relationship, not on initiation. It works better if, in the beginning, we focus more on learning, asking questions, obtaining guidance, and establishing trust, leaving the question of initiation for later. The right question is not “Who can initiate me?” but “Who can guide me?” Once we find a spiritual teacher in whom we trust, who can guide us and help us find our way, initiation is just another detail that our instructing spiritual master can help us to navigate.

Prabhupāda explains this point in more detail in his purport to CC Ādi 1.47:

“Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī states that the instructing spiritual master is a bona fide representative of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself teaches us as the instructing spiritual master from within and without. From within He teaches as Paramātmā, our constant companion, and from without He teaches from the Bhagavad-gītā as the instructing spiritual master. There are two kinds of instructing spiritual masters. One is the liberated person fully absorbed in meditation in devotional service, and the other is he who invokes the disciple’s spiritual consciousness by means of relevant instructions. Thus the instructions in the science of devotion are differentiated in terms of the objective and subjective ways of understanding. The ācārya in the true sense of the term, who is authorized to deliver Kṛṣṇa, enriches the disciple with full spiritual knowledge and thus awakens him to the activities of devotional service.”

The spiritual master is the representative of Kṛṣṇa; he is the person through which Kṛṣṇa can speak to us. The diksa guru is essential in the sense that he is supposed to also be the primary instructing guru. If the relationship with the diksa guru is merely ceremonial, then the benefit is very limited.

The purpose of accepting a guru is not to obtain a spiritual name or prestige inside the group. The purpose is to develop a genuine relationship of trust and service, where we can find proper spiritual guidance. Formal initiation should consolidate this relationship, not serve as a relationship for it.

Read more:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

If we pay attention, we can find an apparent contradiction in the 11th chapter of the Gītā. In text 52, Kṛṣṇa says:

“The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Arjuna, this form of Mine you are now seeing is very difficult to behold. Even the demigods are ever seeking the opportunity to see this form, which is so dear.”

Here, Kṛṣṇa mentions that He is very difficult to behold, and even demigods cannot see Him. At the same time, however, when He was present on earth, everyone could see Him, including even common people. How can this two ideas be reconciled?

Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura deals with this question in his Rasika-Rañjana commentary. He explains that there are three levels at which one can see Kṛṣṇa: avidvat-pratīti, yauktita-pratīti, and vidvat-pratīti. In the three levels, one sees something, but only in the third level can one truly see Kṛṣṇa. In the other two, Kṛṣṇa remains covered by His yoga-māyā potency.

What are these levels?

Avidvat-pratīti means perception without knowledge. This is the level of common people. They see Kṛṣṇa with their material eyes and material minds, and as a result they can’t at all perceive Him. They think He is just an ordinary man. We can see that many demons who encountered Kṛṣṇa, such as Śiśupāla, had this mentality.

The second level, yauktita-pratīti, means logical perception. This is the view of jñānis and others who are proud of their knowledge, including even demigods. Demigods, of course, are devotees, and many of them came to meet Kṛṣṇa, but this was due to His mercy, and not to their own personal ability. We can thus say that demigods cannot see Kṛṣṇa, but sometimes they meet Kṛṣṇa by His mercy, when He desires to show Himself to them. One example of this is Brahma. Even though Kṛṣṇa was present on earth, Brahmā could not recognize Him at first, and even kidnapped His cowherd boys to test His power. Only later, when Kṛṣṇa showed him His potency, could Brahmā understand, by His mercy.

If even demigods cannot see Kṛṣṇa by their own power, what to say about others? Those who rely only on their knowledge and intellect end up concluding that Kṛṣṇa must be subordinate to Brahman or the universal form. They then accept Kṛṣṇa as just a temporary worshipable form. Again, they fail to see Him.

Modern speculators conclude that it is not to Kṛṣṇa that we should surrender, but to the eternal unborn speaking through Him, but those who receive the Gitā through the disciplic succession accept Kṛṣṇa’s words and Arjuna’s conclusion.

Who can see Kṛṣṇa then? Only devotees can truly see Kṛṣṇa, for they have spiritual eyes by which they directly experience Kṛṣṇa’s spiritual form, the supreme abode of eternity, knowledge, and the ultimate expression of spiritual bliss. This is called vidvat-pratīti (perception with real knowledge), and is achievable only through pure devotion, as in the case of Arjuna.

Without devotion, even study, austerity, charity, and sacrifice cannot produce this realization. The human brain cannot penetrate the covering of yoga-māyā, and thus all speculative interpretations will fail to reveal Kṛṣṇa. One also cannot find Him by just officially following some religious process. Only one who develops pure devotion by receiving transcendental knowledge through the process of paramparā and practicing the devotional process with faith can come to understand Kṛṣṇa as He is.

This conclusion is offered by Kṛṣṇa Himself in the last two verses of the chapter: Kṛṣṇa can be understood as He is only by undivided devotional service. This is the only process by which one can see Kṛṣṇa directly. For others, He is a great mystery.

In his purports to the two verses, Prabhupāda summarizes the whole process of devotional service, from the beginning of the devotional practices, all the way to the point of dedicating our whole existence to Kṛṣṇa.

Interested?

Here is an expansion of the points he makes:

1) The first point is that Kṛṣṇa can be understood only through undivided devotional service. Although the study of the Vedas, austerity, charity, and even worship are not sufficient to reveal Kṛṣṇa independently, they become effective when practiced with a devotional attitude. Bhakti is thus the active principle of any effective process of self-realization.

2) What are the practical examples? As penance, we can fast on Janmāṣṭamī and on Ekādaśīs. For charity, we can give money to devotees who are engaged in devotional service, spreading Kṛṣṇa consciousness throughout the world, and worship should be offered in temples of Kṛṣṇa. Worship in the temple is essential, especially in the beginning of the process.

3) We should be guided in the spiritual process by a bona fide spiritual master, who is a faithful representative in the disciplic succession. Without the guidance of a spiritual master, we will get lost and will not be able to even begin to understand Kṛṣṇa. Just as we have faith in Kṛṣṇa, we should have a similar faith in the spiritual master, accepted as His representative. Prabhupāda connects this point with the words bhaktyā tv ananyayā śakya in the verse (only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am), because accepting a bona fide spiritual master is the very beginning of the process of devotional service, as explained by Kṛṣṇa in chapter four. There are different types of spiritual masters—the vartma-pradarśaka-guru, dīkṣā-guru and śikṣā-gurus—and Prabhupāda himself serves as the main instructing guru through his books. The point is that we should always be under guidance to be able to advance. No one can come to Kṛṣṇa independently.

4) On the other hand, by repeatedly hearing about Kṛṣṇa from authoritative sources, we develop affection for Him. From this initial affection, we can fully engage in devotional service, practicing the nine devotional processes: hearing, chanting, remembering, worshiping, serving the lotus feet of the Lord, offering prayers, carrying out the orders of the Lord, making friends with Him, and surrendering everything to Him. Even one of these nine processes, when perfected, can lead us to the supreme goal, and by practicing under the guidance of the spiritual master, we can avoid the many traps that can prevent our advancement.

5) By following this process, we can understand whom we are worshiping. Kṛṣṇa is the original Supreme Personality of Godhead, and He is the source of Nārāyaṇa and all other expansions.

6) As our devotion develops, Kṛṣṇa’s personal form becomes the center of our attraction, because in His personal form Kṛṣṇa inspires loving devotion, and reciprocates with our service. This is exemplified in the case of Arjuna, who prefers to see Kṛṣṇa instead of the powerful universal form.

7) The ultimate goal of life is to revive our eternal relationship with Kṛṣṇa and return to Him, back home, back to Godhead. The Bhagavad-gītā is meant to help us attain that, and the process of attainment is devotional service.

8) We should invest our energy in serving Kṛṣṇa. Material life means seeing ourselves as the proprietors and enjoyers, while Kṛṣṇa consciousness means working for Kṛṣṇa. One can work according to one’s inclinations and means. A rich man can dedicate his business to Kṛṣṇa, accepting Him as the real proprietor and using the results to advance His mission. Instead of constructing a big building just for one’s prestige or comfort, one can construct a nice temple for Kṛṣṇa, establish His worship there, and use this temple to bring Kṛṣṇa consciousness to others.

Making one’s house a temple of Kṛṣṇa does not prevent one from living there, and making one’s company Kṛṣṇa’s company does not prevent one from acting as the CEO or executive head there, just as offering a preparation to Kṛṣṇa does not prevent one from accepting the prasāda. There is, however, a great change in consciousness that makes all the difference. Similarly, if one has a garden, one can cultivate tulasīs, as well as flowers and fruits for Kṛṣṇa, and even if we have no material asset or talent that can be directly used for Kṛṣṇa, then we can simply offer our work, cleaning the temple, plowing the land, etc.

9) We should make Kṛṣṇa the highest goal of life, rejecting not only immediate sense gratification, but even promotion to the higher planets or to the impersonal Brahman. Our desire should be fixed in attaining the association of Kṛṣṇa in Goloka Vṛndāvana. With this goal in mind, we should always engage ourselves in the nine processes of devotional service, culminating with full surrender to Kṛṣṇa.

10) Throughout this process, we should dissociate ourselves from all forms of material contamination that create obstacles to the development of our devotional service, including the different forms of material desires, ambitions, and speculative pursuits. We should also give up the association of persons who are inimical to Kṛṣṇa, remaining without enmity, but not associating closely. Our devotional service should become free from separate material desires and be cultivated favorably for the pleasure of Kṛṣṇa. When we complete this process, we come to the platform of pure devotional service.

11) A devotee of Kṛṣṇa is friendly to everyone. This means a devotee understands that Kṛṣṇa consciousness is the only real solution for all the problems of life, and thus works to spread it among all classes, even to the point of risking his life. This is the most powerful method for attracting the mercy of Kṛṣṇa.

As Prabhupāda concludes:

“A Kṛṣṇa conscious person knows that if a man is suffering it is due to his forgetfulness of his eternal relationship with Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, the highest benefit one can render to human society is relieving one’s neighbor from all material problems. In such a way, a pure devotee is engaged in the service of the Lord. Now, we can imagine how merciful Kṛṣṇa is to those engaged in His service, risking everything for Him. Therefore it is certain that such persons must reach the supreme planet after leaving the body.”

12) At the highest level of devotional service, a devotee does not even desire to attain Goloka Vṛndāvana. His goal becomes not liberation, or even the direct association of Kṛṣṇa, but simply the service itself. At this stage, a devotee simply desires to serve Kṛṣṇa wherever he may be. His service is not conditioned on attaining liberation or not. This supremely selfless desire to serve Kṛṣṇa is the fullest expression of devotion.

Read more:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

There is a verse in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that is especially significant in the context of the philosophy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. That’s the ātmārāma verse, ŚB 1.7.10:

ātmārāmāś ca munayo
nirgranthā apy urukrame
kurvanty ahaitukīṁ bhaktim
ittham-bhūta-guṇo hariḥ

The primary meaning of the verse is that Kṛṣṇa is full of transcendental qualities. He is not a material manifestation of an impersonal Absolute Truth as insinuated by Māyāvādīs. He is the original, Supreme Personality of Godhead, and this is proved by the fact that great sages like the four Kumāras and Śukadeva Gosvāmi, who were already in the transcendental stage, beyond attraction to anything material, became attracted to Kṛṣṇa.

Prabhupāda translates it as:

“All different varieties of ātmārāmas [those who take pleasure in the ātmā, or spirit self], especially those established on the path of self-realization, though freed from all kinds of material bondage, desire to render unalloyed devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead. This means that the Lord possesses transcendental qualities and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls.”

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu greatly expanded this primary meaning into 18 explanations in His talks with Sarvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya and further expanded it into unprecedented 61 explanations in his instructions to Sanātana Gosvāmī.

These explanations, however, were not just some empty intellectual exercise or a mere proof of divinity. Instead, these explanations encapsulate the conclusions of the whole philosophy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, which Gaudiya Vaiṣnavas try to apply in their practical lives. Understanding this verse can thus be a great impetus for our spiritual practice, because it gives us a capsule that includes the whole philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness inside.

These explanations are described in the Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā, chapter 24. Here I’m just giving a summary, so you can get the main thread of the discussion.

The verse is composed of 11 words: (1) ātmārāmāḥ, (2) ca, (3) munayaḥ, (4) nirgranthāḥ, (5) api, (6) urukrame, (7) kurvanti, (8) ahaitukīm, (9) bhaktim, (10) ittham-bhūta-guṇaḥ, and (11) hariḥ.

What Mahāprabhu does is gradually reveal the meaning of the verse by exploring the individual meanings of each word.

He establishes three important principles:

a) Bhakti is superior to liberation. As Kṛṣṇa mentions in Bg 18.54, liberation is not the ultimate destination; it is just the beginning of a new stage. Even one who has achieved liberation will find greater happiness in loving devotional service to Kṛṣṇa.

b) Kṛṣṇa’s qualities and pastimes are transcendental. They attract even great liberated souls, who have completely lost their attraction to material enjoyment. Therefore, His qualities cannot be material.

c) Bhakti is universally accessible. Not only liberated sages, but philosophers, yogīs, ordinary people, and even ignorant people can become devotees through contact with Kṛṣṇa’s devotees.

What makes devotional service so accessible is that a person does not have to first become liberated before starting his practice of devotional service, because bhakti itself purifies one from material desires and awakens devotion to Kṛṣṇa, provided it is practiced sincerely and in proper association. Conversely, other schools have much tighter prerequisites. To follow the path of karma, one has to be a righteous follower of the Vedas; the path of jñāna requires one to be a renunciant, and yoga has even higher prerequisites. Only the process of bhakti is powerful to the point of purifying all classes of people and sublime enough to attract even great sages who have already exhausted the benefits of these other processes.

Thus, bhakti is both the means of spiritual perfection and the perfection itself. Liberation is not the ultimate purpose but just a by-product. The real result of bhakti is achieving loving service to Kṛṣṇa.

Mahāprabhu’s explanation

He starts with the basic meaning of the verse: Even great sages and self-realized persons become attracted to the devotional service of Kṛṣṇa because His transcendental qualities are extraordinarily attractive. In other words, Kṛṣṇa attracts even great, liberated sages.

From there, he expands the meaning by examining each individual word.

Let’s go one by one:

1) Ātmārāmāḥ (those who find pleasure in the self)

Initially, ātmārāma suggests someone satisfied in spiritual realization, without dependence on material enjoyment. They find pleasure in the ātmā, the Absolute Truth.

However, Mahāprabhu explains that apart from “the Absolute Truth,” the word ātmā has six other meanings: the body, the mind, endeavor, firmness, intelligence, and nature.

Therefore, the meaning of “ātmārāma” changes according to how we read the word “ātmā”. Therefore, the ātmārāmas who are attracted to Kṛṣṇa are not only great sages; it includes many other categories of people, ultimately, everyone:

Body: If we take ātmā as the body (deha), then ātmārāma is someone seeking satisfaction through the body and senses.

Mind: If atmā is taken as the mind (mana), then ātmārāma is someone absorbed in mental activity.

Endeavor (prayatne): Someone who seeks pleasure in work and activity.

Firmness (dhṛti): Someone whose satisfaction comes from steadiness and determination.

Intelligence (buddhi): Someone who searches for happiness in studies and intellectual activity.

Nature (svabhāva): Someone who acts according to his nature and finds happiness in this way.

In this way, the verse not only applies to great sages; it also applies to philosophers, yogīs, ordinary people, and even the sinful, like fruitive workers and hedonists. All of them become attracted to Kṛṣṇa.

2) Munayaḥ (the sages)

Initially, muni means a thoughtful sage, like the four Kumāras. These certainly become attracted to Kṛṣṇa. It is described that the four Kumāras were already completely absorbed in the impersonal aspect of the Absolute Truth, but still, they were immediately attracted to the worship of Kṛṣṇa simply by smelling the aroma of the tulasī leaves offered to Lord Nārāyaṇa. Similarly, Śukadeva Gosvāmi was attracted simply by hearing about Kṛṣṇa’s activities.

Mahāprabhu broadens the word to include those who are thoughtful, persons who are grave or silent, ascetics and others who undergo great vows, those in the renounced order and saints.

Later, He even applies the word “muni” to birds and bumblebees, supporting it with descriptions of creatures absorbed in Kṛṣṇa’s flute and the descriptions of His glories. This implies that not only human beings but even lower animals and plants become attracted to Kṛṣṇa, as can be noted in His pastimes in Vṛndāvana.

3. Nirgranthāḥ (those without knots or bindings)

Mahāprabhu gives different meanings to grantha and the prefix nir-:

a) Someone without the knots of ignorance (a liberated soul).

b) Someone without connection to scriptures (an illiterate or ignorant person).

c) Someone who does not follow the Vedic regulations (illiterate, lowborn, misbehaved, unregulated).

d) Someone without wealth, or, conversely, someone possessing a lot of wealth.

The word nirgranthāḥ, therefore, describes both the liberated transcendentalist and the helpless fool completely submerged in ignorance. Both can come to the platform of service to Kṛṣṇa. Later, Mahāprabhu illustrates this point by telling the story of the hunter Mṛgāri, who became a great devotee by the association of Nārada Muni. This makes the point that even the lowest person can become a devotee through the association of a pure Vaiṣnava.

4) Api (even, although, indeed)

In the primary meaning of the verse, “api” establishes a contrast: even though the sages are already liberated, they engage in devotional service.

Mahāprabhu, however, gives the word many other meanings: possibility, question, doubt, censure, aggregation, appropriate application of things, and extravagance.

This introduces many more meanings for the verse, opening interpretations such as:

a) Even liberated persons become devotees.

b) Even ignorant persons can become devotees.

c) Indeed, various categories of living beings engage in devotional service.

Basically, the previous words included all classes of living entities; all of them become attracted to the service of Kṛṣṇa, and now, api denotes different ways they become attracted. We can see that with each word, the inclusiveness of the verse is dramatically expanded.

5) Urukrame (the Lord who performs extraordinary activities)

Uru means great, and krama means steps. Originally this refers to Kṛṣṇa, as Vāmanadeva, who captured the whole universe with His steps.

Mahāprabhu adds several additional meanings: power, trembling, a systematic method, argument, and a forceful attack by stepping forward.

In this way, the word describes Kṛṣṇa’s inconceivable potencies, responsible for the creation, maintenance and annihilation of innumerable universes, as well as His spiritual activities.

This makes clear that the ultimate object of devotion is not some form of impersonal principle but the Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa, who possesses extraordinary personal qualities and potencies.

6) Kurvanti (they perform)

Up to here, we have many classes of people and living entities that become attracted to Kṛṣṇa. However, what is their engagement, or the process followed by them?

Here the word kurvanti indicates the process of bhakti itself. As He explains:

“The word ‘kurvanti’ means ‘they do something for others,’ since it is a form of the verb ‘to do’ indicating things done for others. It is used in connection with devotional service, which must be executed for the satisfaction of Kṛṣṇa. That is the purport of the word ‘kurvanti.’”

In other words, they do not simply contemplate Kṛṣṇa or cultivate knowledge about Him. They actively perform devotional service. This point becomes even more significant later, as the discussion progresses into superiority of pure devotion to mere self-satisfaction.

7) Ahaitukīm (without ulterior motive)

This word comes from the root “hetu” (motive, or cause).

Mahāprabhu connects it with three goals that are excluded from pure devotional service. In other words, because Kṛṣṇa is so attractive, different classes of people come to serve Him without becoming distracted by these three classes of things. This makes the point that the pleasure derived from these three is vastly inferior to the pleasure of loving service to Kṛṣṇa, or, alternatively, that their quality is inferior.

What are these three things?

a) Bhukti (material enjoyment).

b) Siddhi (mystic perfections).

c) Mukti (liberation).

One may initially approach Kṛṣṇa looking for these things (as Kṛṣṇa explains in chapter seven of the Gītā); as they progress, they lose attraction to them, because devotional service makes us develop a higher taste.

8) Bhaktim (devotional service)

Here we come to the main point, the practice itself. Mahāprabhu identifies ten divisions of bhakti: one is sādhana-bhakti, the other nine are stages of development of prema-bhakti.

He then explains how devotional love develops according to one’s relationship with Kṛṣṇa. There are five primary rasas (neutrality, servitorship, friendship, parental affection, and conjugal love), and each of them has unlimited details and variations. They are explained in detail in The Nectar of Devotion.

In other words, bhakti is not just a process of religion but a process that culminates in transcendental loving relationships with Kṛṣṇa, which are, in turn, the ultimate goal of life and the highest perfection.

9) Ittham-bhūta-guṇaḥ (possessing such extraordinary qualities)

In this way, different classes of people become attracted to Kṛṣṇa, who possesses transcendental qualities, and they express this attraction by practicing devotional service without attraction to material goals.

However, how exactly does this attraction manifest? This is explained by the word ittham-bhūta-guṇaḥ.

Kṛṣṇa possesses such transcendental sweetness that even the happiness of impersonal Brahman realization becomes insignificant compared to His transcendental qualities.

For example, the four Kumāras are attracted by the fragrance of the Tulasī leaves offered to Him, Śukadeva Gosvāmi was attracted by hearing His pastimes, the gopīs are attracted by His beauty and personal qualities, and other devotees are attracted by mercy, friendship, affection, and other qualities.

Devotional service is thus not just some form of religious duty devotees perform. They serve Kṛṣṇa because of genuine attraction to His transcendental qualities and derive a degree of transcendental pleasure from this service that has no parallel.

10) Hariḥ (He who removes and attracts)

Hari is another name of Kṛṣṇa. It has two meanings:

a) He who removes ignorance, material suffering, sinful reactions and obstacles to devotional service.

b) He who bestows transcendental love.

This word indicates the reciprocation of Kṛṣṇa. He is not an inert deity. He directly reciprocates the service of His devotees by taking away all obstacles and actively helping them to progress in the direction of the ultimate goal.

11) Ca (and, also, certainly)

Mahāprabhu explains that this last word includes meanings such as addition, aggregation, emphasis, connection, and certainty. As a result, “ca” allows combining different classes of ātmārāmas with other different meanings, creating unlimited meanings.

As He mentions:

“When the conjunctions ‘ca’ [‘and’] and ‘api’ [‘although’] are added to this verse, the verse can assume whatever meaning one wants to give it.”

The deeper progression

After explaining the meaning of the individual words, Mahāprabhu details and exemplifies numerous interpretations of the complete verse. These detailed explanations go through the rest of chapter 24 of the Madhya-līlā:

a) The jñānīs become devotees (107–153).

b) The yogīs also become devotees (154–164).

c) Scholars, foolish persons, birds, animals, and even trees become devotees (165–210).

d) Even the sinful and unregulated become devotees (221–283).

e) Everyone can become a devotee (295–311).

In this way, we can summarize his teachings in five points:

1) Even liberation is not comparable with bhakti. Those who are already free from material contamination find a superior happiness in serving Kṛṣṇa.

2) Even ignorance, material attachment, or bad habits are not a disqualification for one to start on the path of devotional service. One does not need to be liberated to start in the process.

3) The attraction to Kṛṣṇa is the eternal nature of the soul. It becomes covered by material association, but it can be awakened by association with pure devotees.

4) Kṛṣṇa is the ultimate object of satisfaction. In this way, the true ātmārāma is not simply someone who is self-satisfied but a pure devotee who finds complete satisfaction in the loving service of Kṛṣṇa.

5) All living entities, regardless of their current position or consciousness, have the tendency to become attracted to devotional service to Kṛṣṇa and have the potential to awaken love for Him to the highest degree. This is awakened through the association of devotees and the practice of devotional service.

These five points describe the essence of the philosophy taught by Mahāprabhu and the very essence of what we are trying to practice.

Read more:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

Nowadays, more and more products and services are offered as subscriptions. Instead of just paying upfront once, like before, companies try to sell everything as indefinite monthly payments. The idea is simple: a company can earn much more long-term with a subscription than by just selling a product once.

The basic technique is well known: make subscribing very easy, renewing automatic, and unsubscribing incredibly difficult, so once one gets in, in a moment of weakness, one can’t easily get out. That’s a perfect description of life in this material world.

Here we go from one body to the other, going through different cycles in our material experience. In each life we are offered different illusory goals to pursue: house, car, family, social prestige, personal gratification, fame, etc. These different goals and images create impressions in our consciousness that nourish different material desires that keep expanding. In each life we find many difficulties and frustrations, but we also find some material pleasure and new material goals we keep pursuing. All these images are stored in the mind and nourish a material consciousness that keeps carrying us from one body to the other. As long as our material consciousness continues, our material subscription is automatically renewed. Death is thus simply the end of a cycle that leads to the start of a new one, called birth.

Why does the subscription keep renewing? Because we remain attached to material life. Try to turn off the phone or computer for five minutes. Close your eyes. What images come to your mind? These are the thoughts that, at the time of death, can carry us to the next body. This is what makes the subscription automatically renew.

Kṛṣṇa explains this in the Gītā (13.22):

“The living entity in material nature thus follows the ways of life, enjoying the three modes of nature. This is due to his association with that material nature. Thus he meets with good and evil among various species.”

How to end it? That’s the tricky part. Renewing is easy; we just continue as usual. Canceling, however, demands active effort. We need to make a decision, call the office, resist all the offers of discounts and extra services, resist all the reminders of the features and functions we will lose access to, and keep insisting that we don’t want a different plan; we want to get out.

Material life is extraordinarily difficult to cancel by our own strength. Even intelligence, austerity, wealth, or philosophical knowledge can’t independently free the conditioned soul from the grasp of material nature. Just as the operators on the other side of the line are trained to keep insisting until we decide to keep the service, Māyā has the function of testing our determination. What is the solution then? We call the CEO:

“This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.” (Bg 7.14)

Kṛṣṇa is the controller of Māyā. The way to become free is connecting directly with Him. When He sees that we are sincere in getting out and gets in our case, Māyā immediately gives up. His order is supreme. Māyā is His energy, not His rival. Kṛṣṇa also explains this in the Gītā (9.10):

“This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of Kuntī, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.”

What does it mean to surrender to Kṛṣṇa? We need to understand his teachings in the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and apply them to our lives. We should keep a clean life, chant the mahā-mantra regularly, and work for Kṛṣṇa. By following this regulated spiritual practice, we can come to Him, as He promises in the Gītā:

“Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, become My devotee, offer obeisances to Me and worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me.”

One does not have to be an important person to speak with the CEO. He explicitly remembers us that all classes of subscribers can call Him:

“O son of Pṛthā, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth – women, vaiśyas [merchants] and śūdras [workers] – can attain the supreme destination.” (Bg 9.32)

In Kali-yuga, everyone is a śūdra, which includes all the men. Vaiśyas are rare people who have slightly higher qualifications. Women are mentioned separately so no one could argue that they are excluded. So, no matter if one is a woman or a śūdra, it does not matter; if we are dissatisfied with our material subscription, we can call the CEO, and He can order Māyā to release us. It’s our choice.

What is the difficulty then? The problem is that we keep choosing “Remind me later.”

See what Kṛṣṇa explains in 2.62-63:

“While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust develops, and from lust anger arises. From anger, complete delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost one falls down again into the material pool.”

Our material bondage is perpetuated because of desire and attachment; it is not because of the lack of an escape route. Kṛṣṇa is in the heart of everyone; as soon as someone shows a sincere desire, He can put him or her in contact with someone who can offer guidance. The problem is for us to develop this sincere desire to get out. We are like a person watching one more reel before getting up from bed, and then another, and another...

This process is also explained in the Gītā. That’s 3.39:

“The wise living entity’s pure consciousness becomes covered by his eternal enemy in the form of lust, which is never satisfied and which burns like fire.”

As long as we keep putting fuel into the fire of material lust, it will keep burning. The way to stop is by gradually suffocating it by a combination of material regulation and the acquisition of a higher taste in the spiritual practice.

One interesting detail to understand is that our desires can be quite contradictory. We may desire to become free from suffering, while simultaneously desiring the very causes of suffering. It may sound illogical, but it is incredibly common. An alcoholic may desire to become free of hangouts and all the difficulties that his habits cause. This part is easy. The problem is that he continues to desire to drink! As long as he doesn’t come to the conclusion that drinking is the source of his problems, there is no point in disliking the hangouts. One has to pass through the stage of knowledge, understanding the consequences of drinking, and then realization. When he finally decides to stop, it comes the hardest part: resisting the impulse to relapse.

Similarly, canceling our material subscription passes through acquiring transcendental knowledge, starting our spiritual practice, realizing it, making a firm decision to avoid the causes of material life, renouncing our ego, ambitions, etc., and then keeping our decision firm until the current subscription ends (at death), resisting the “remind me later” button that keeps blinking on the screen.

Before we go, Māyā may offer a final deal. What about a free upgrade in our subscription? We may get some unexpected inheritance, a better job, or even the possibility of becoming a great scholar, a guru, or a respected religious leader. There is no problem in using these things for Kṛṣṇa, but if it awakens our ego and desires, we can lapse back into the automatic renewal. As Kṛṣṇa explains in the Gītā, all places in this material world share the same basic problems. A better subscription does not solve anything.

Do you remember what the verse is? Exactly! 8.16:

“From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kuntī, never takes birth again.”

The process of devotional service is not about obtaining a more comfortable material life but about stopping the cycle entirely. We may finish our current cycle in whatever subscription plan we are currently in; that’s just temporary anyway. The main point is to be fixed on where we will go next.

As Arjuna notes on Bg 6.34–35, the mind is difficult to control, but Kṛṣṇa explains that it can be controlled through practice and detachment. The entire Bhagavad-gītā teaches us this process, and at the end Kṛṣṇa points us to the unsubscribe button: “Surrender Now.”

He, however, does not force us to click on it. At the end of the Gītā, after instructing us, He allows us to choose:

“Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.”

There are two options on the screen; we can choose which to click.

Read more:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

Gaudiya Vaiṣnavas accept the conclusion that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the source of all incarnations, including the many forms of Viṣnu. This is supported by many verses of the scriptures, including Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.3.28, which is defined by Jīva Gosvāmi as the paribhāṣā-sūtra:

ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam
indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ, mṛḍayanti yuge yuge

“All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists.”

There is, however, another verse from the Bhāgavatam itself that appears to contradict this conclusion. That’s SB 10.43.23:

etau bhagavataḥ sākṣād, dharer nārāyaṇasya hi
avatīrṇāv ihāṁśena, vasudevasya veśmani

“[The people said:] These two boys are certainly expansions of the Supreme Lord Nārāyaṇa who have descended to this world in the home of Vasudeva.”

This is already the BBT translation, not the interpretation of an opposing party. It’s part of the later chapters of the 10th canto that were translated after the departure of Śrīla Prabhupāda by a team of disciples.

How can we explain it?

The first point is the context. The verse appears during the triumphal entrance of Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma in Mathurā to challenge King Kaṁsa. Kṛṣṇa had already defeated the powerful elephant Kuvalayāpīḍa, and now was entering the arena together with Balarāma.

It is described that different people of Mathurā saw Kṛṣṇa in different ways, according to their level of understanding. The wrestlers saw Kṛṣṇa as a lightning bolt, the men of Mathurā as the best of males, the women as Cupid in person, the cowherd men as their relative, the impious rulers as a chastiser, His parents as their child, Kaṁsa saw Him as death, the unintelligent as the universal form, the yogīs as the Absolute Truth, and the Vṛṣṇis as their supreme worshipable Deity.

When they finally entered the arena, they overpowered the minds of all onlookers with their effulgence. This brings us to the passage:

“O King, as the citizens of the city and the people from outlying districts gazed upon those two Supreme Personalities from their seats in the galleries, the force of the people’s happiness caused their eyes to open wide and their faces to blossom. They drank in the vision of the Lords’ faces without becoming satiated.

The people seemed to be drinking Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma with their eyes, licking Them with their tongues, smelling Them with their nostrils and embracing Them with their arms. Reminded of the Lords’ beauty, character, charm and bravery, the members of the audience began describing these features to one another according to what they had seen and heard.

[The people said:] These two boys are certainly expansions of the Supreme Lord Nārāyaṇa who have descended to this world in the home of Vasudeva.” (SB 10.43.20-23)

The words are thus presented as the words of common people, who were struggling to understand who this powerful and effulgent personality in front of them was. Some of them, thus, repeating rumors they have heard, conclude that they must be expansions of Lord Nārāyaṇa who have descended to this world as the sons of Vasudeva.

Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi, however, explains that although the statement comes from nātividvaj-jana (people who are not very learned), their words are sarasvatī-preritatayā, inspired by Sarasvatī. This indicates that the verse is not improper or incorrect, but that there is a deeper level of meaning in it that is inaccessible to ordinary people.

In other words, the commoner who spoke had the idea that Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma are incarnations of Viṣnu, and the ones who heard it probably got the same understanding, but Sarasvatī Herself made their words contain the real truth, even if hidden.

Jīva Gosvāmi mentions this passage in a section of the Śrī Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha where he is defending the conclusion of the paribhāṣā-sūtra (SB 1.3.28): kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam – Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān Himself, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

In his exposition, he systematically examines verses that appear to suggest that Kṛṣṇa is an aṁśa (a part) or other form of incarnation of Viṣnu and shows how they can be properly understood.

So, how does he explain SB 10.43.20-23? “These two boys are certainly expansions of the Supreme Lord Nārāyaṇa who have descended to this world in the home of Vasudeva.”

He begins by explaining a previous verse, SB 10.1.2:

yadoś ca dharma-śīlasya, nitarāṁ muni-sattama
tatrāṁśenāvatīrṇasya, viṣṇor vīryāṇi śaṁsa naḥ

“O best of munis, you have also described the descendants of Yadu, who were very pious and strictly adherent to religious principles. Now, if you will, kindly describe the wonderful, glorious activities of Lord Viṣṇu, or Kṛṣṇa, who appeared in that Yadu dynasty with Baladeva, His plenary expansion.”

He calls our attention to the word “aṁśena” in the verse. He explains that aṁśena means “together with Baladeva.” Balarāma is the aṁśa, the expansion, and Kṛṣṇa is the original. Kṛṣṇa appears together with Balarāma, His expansion. There is another parallel in SB 10.41.46, where the word aṁśena is again used with the exact same meaning. This shows that this is not just his interpretation; it is the consistent meaning given in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam itself.

Therefore, as he explains, the word aṁśena in SB 10.43.23 should be interpreted in the same way. Instead of appearing “as expansions” of Nārāyaṇa, Kṛṣṇa appears “with His expansions”.

This changes the interpretation of the verse.

The superficial meaning, as the simple people of Mathurā understood it, which is included in the BBT translation, following the context, is:

“[The people said:] These two boys are certainly expansions of the Supreme Lord Nārāyaṇa who have descended to this world in the home of Vasudeva.”

How can the people not immediately recognize Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme? Jīva Gosvāmi explains that it is because He appears covered by Yogamāyā. Because of this covering, only a partial manifestation of His fullness is perceived by ordinary people. This explains why different classes of people saw Him in different ways. The central idea is that Kṛṣṇa is pūrṇa, complete, but ordinary people may perceive only a partial manifestation of Him.

The deeper meaning of the verse, however, as explained by Jīva Gosvāmi, is:

“Krsna, the Original Personality of Godhead, Krsna, togueter with Balarāma, have descended to this material world accompanied by all Their plenary expansions. They have appeared in the home of Vasudeva.”

The verse is thus understood as:

etau: these two (Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and Balarāma, His expansion, who is the source of all other expansions).

bhagavataḥ sākṣād dharer nārāyaṇasya hi: of Bhagavān, Hari Nārāyaṇa Himself.

avatīrṇāv iha aṁśena: They have descended to this world together with all their expansions (all the forms of Bhagavān Hari Nārāyaṇa).

vasudevasya veśmani: [They have appeared] in the house of Vasudeva.

In his purport to SB 10.1.2, Prabhupāda gives us the final theological conclusion, wrapping up all these conclusions:

“Govinda, Kṛṣṇa, is the original Personality of Godhead. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam. Even Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu, who by His breathing creates many millions upon millions of universes, is Lord Kṛṣṇa’s kalā-viśeṣa, or plenary portion of a plenary portion. Mahā-Viṣṇu is a plenary expansion of Saṅkarṣaṇa, who is a plenary expansion of Nārāyaṇa. Nārāyaṇa is a plenary expansion of the catur-vyūha, and the catur-vyūha are plenary expansions of Baladeva, the first manifestation of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore when Kṛṣṇa appeared with Baladeva, all the viṣṇu-tattvas appeared with Him.”

Prabhupāda also gives us a masterful demonstration of the application of these conclusions in his translation of SB 2.7.26.

bhūmeḥ suretara-varūtha-vimarditāyāḥ
kleśa-vyayāya kalayā sita-kṛṣṇa-keśaḥ
jātaḥ kariṣyati janānupalakṣya-mārgaḥ
karmāṇi cātma-mahimopanibandhanāni

Ordinary scholars usually interpret the words “sita-kṛṣṇa-keśaḥ jātaḥ” in the verse as “a portion of Viṣṇu, being born of white and black hair”, while the correct interpretation, given by Rupa Gosvāmi, is “the Lord, with beautiful black hair, descends with His plenary portion.” (the plenary portion being Lord Balarama, Kṛṣṇa’s immediate expansion).

We can see Prabhupāda applying this meaning in his purport:

“When the world is overburdened by the fighting strength of kings who have no faith in God, the Lord, just to diminish the distress of the world, descends with His plenary portion. The Lord comes in His original form, with beautiful black hair. And just to expand His transcendental glories, He acts extraordinarily. No one can properly estimate how great He is.”

Read more:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.

You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.

Subscribe now

Kṛṣṇa showing His universal form to Arjuna is one of the most intriguing passages of the Bhagavad-gītā. We normally think of Kṛṣṇa as the beautiful Supreme Personality of Godhead, the enchanting youth who plays the flute and performs so many wonderful pastimes. In the Gītā, however, He shows an aspect so terrifying that even Arjuna, His intimate friend, became disturbed.

“Arjuna saw in that universal form unlimited mouths, unlimited eyes, unlimited wonderful visions. The form was decorated with many celestial ornaments and bore many divine upraised weapons. He wore celestial garlands and garments, and many divine scents were smeared over His body. All was wondrous, brilliant, unlimited, all-expanding. If hundreds of thousands of suns were to rise at once into the sky, their radiance might resemble the effulgence of the Supreme Person in that universal form.”

Soon, he started offering prayers:

“O Lord of lords, O refuge of the worlds, please be gracious to me. I cannot keep my balance seeing thus Your blazing deathlike faces and awful teeth. In all directions I am bewildered. All the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, along with their allied kings, and Bhīṣma, Droṇa, Karṇa – and our chief soldiers also – are rushing into Your fearful mouths. And some I see trapped with heads smashed between Your teeth. As the many waves of the rivers flow into the ocean, so do all these great warriors enter blazing into Your mouths. I see all people rushing full speed into Your mouths, as moths dash to destruction in a blazing fire. O Viṣṇu, I see You devouring all people from all sides with Your flaming mouths. Covering all the universe with Your effulgence, You are manifest with terrible, scorching rays. O Lord of lords, so fierce of form, please tell me who You are. I offer my obeisances unto You; please be gracious to me. You are the primal Lord. I want to know about You, for I do not know what Your mission is.”

How to understand such a terrifying aspect of Kṛṣṇa?

The universal form shown to Arjuna is not just a vision of the physical universe; it includes Kṛṣṇa’s presence inside of it, and the action of all His different potencies involved in the cosmic affairs. One of these potencies is kāla, time. Kāla is the main force behind the cosmic creation; it is counted by Lord Kapila as one of the material elements, even though it has no physical form.

Material time is divided into past, present, and future, and the universal form revealed all. Arjuna could thus see not only the present arrangement of the universe, but also future events. He could thus see the terrible battle that was coming, and how most soldiers on both sides would fall in battle. An ordinary person could see a warrior being killed by an arrow, or by the blunt strike of a mace, but Arjuna could see the underlying cause, the influence of time itself. He thus saw these warriors being devoured by the numberless mouths of the universal form, some of them crushed between their teeth. This vision was terrifying, even for a great warrior like him, who was used to facing danger and seeing the horrors of battle.

One could put forward the question of free will. If the future is already fixed, does it mean we don’t have a choice? That’s not the case. Duryodhana had choices at many points. He could have stopped the cheating in the gambling match at any step, or avoided trapping the Pāṇḍavas in it in the first place. He could have stopped Duḥśāsana from grabbing Draupadī by the hair; he could have intervened when Karṇa offended her. He could have given back the kingdom to Yudhiṣṭhira at any point during their exile and begged forgiveness; he could have accepted the many peace proposals before the battle, or even surrendered his forces on the battlefield. On all of these occasions, he remained resolute in his inimical attitude against Kṛṣṇa’s pure devotees, and this sealed his destiny. All the other Kauravas who were involved would also share the same destiny. Not even Bhīṣma and Droṇa, the two most experienced commanders, could save him.

Similarly, every human being has many choices during his life. Many aspects of our lives are fixed, such as our position of birth, general nature, and many events we are supposed to face during our lives due to karmic results, but many others can be changed or avoided according to the path we take. Time affects everyone, and everyone has to eventually face death, but the relationship of a pure devotee with death is very different from that of a materialist. Prabhupāda gives an example: a cat carries both her kittens and mice in her mouth. For the mouse, the cat’s grasp is terrifying, while for the kittens it is simply Mom moving them to a new place. More than that, any person, at any stage of his life, can choose to surrender to Kṛṣṇa and put an end to his material existence. Material life is not Kṛṣṇa’s idea; it is our own determination that keeps us entrapped in it. We can choose between remaining obstinate like Duryodhana and being crushed by the influence of time, or surrendering to Kṛṣṇa like Arjuna and regaining our original eternal and blissful nature, away from the material bewilderment.

The example used by Arjuna of moths entering into a fire is very instructive. Moths have a predisposition to go in the direction of light, and thus when they see a fire burning at night, they are attracted by it and rush into it without understanding that this brings death. Similarly, we have an inclination to seek pleasure, but when ignorance makes us seek pleasure in irreligion, we are attracted to the fire of material energy, which consumes us in the form of time. Our life passes in a moment, and by the time we realize it, we are already in the jaws of death.

There is nothing apart from Kṛṣṇa, and therefore no one can live independently from Him. As He mentions, “There is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.” We are always connected to Kṛṣṇa through His different aspects. A devotee chooses to interact with Kṛṣṇa in His beautiful aspect as Govinda, playing blissful pastimes with His devotees in Vṛndāvana, while a materialist chooses the path of material illusion, which brings him to Kṛṣṇa’s terrifying aspect as time and death.

Time I am

After Arjuna offered his prayers, Kṛṣṇa, as the universal form, answers:

“Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. With the exception of you [the Pāṇḍavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain. Therefore get up. Prepare to fight and win glory. Conquer your enemies and enjoy a flourishing kingdom. They are already put to death by My arrangement, and you, O Savyasācī, can be but an instrument in the fight.”

When Kṛṣṇa personally comes, all the different forms of Viṣṇu and His different potencies all merge into His body. In some passages of the Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa speaks as Paramātmā, or another particular form. Here He speaks as Kāla, the all-devouring time. What is His purpose? Lokān samāhartum iha pravṛttaḥ – “I have come here to destroy all people.”

Everything that is material changes. The process of change starts with birth, and the final change is death. As long as we are not prepared to accept our original nature as pure souls, we are forced to accept one temporary material identity after another. As soon as we accept a material body, death is certain. Time is just the potency that coordinates this process.

This is ultimately His mercy, allowing us to start again multiple times, until we finally can get it right and re-attain our original spiritual consciousness. Through this process of birth and death in different forms of life, the Lord gradually coaches us into returning to our original consciousness.

One could argue that Kṛṣṇa could simply kill all the opposing soldiers using His inconceivable potency, just as He killed so many demons. That would not be a problem. Why then did He organize such a complex arrangement for Arjuna to fight? Because He wanted Arjuna to take the credit. That’s Kṛṣṇa’s nature: although He is so powerful, and the maintainer of everything, He likes to give the credit to His devotee.

This also illustrates our own situation. When Mahāprabhu appeared 500 years ago, He spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness all over India. He could have taken the whole world; He is all-powerful, but He left this part for us, so we can have the opportunity of serving Him. Just as many books were written mentioning devotees who took part in Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s movement at that time, and their accomplishments, in the future books will be written about the achievements of devotees of our times. In the same way that devotees who took part in the original pastimes were accepted as His associates and joined His eternal līlā, we also have the same opportunity, through the same arrangement offered to Arjuna. We simply have to become instruments in the fight.

Kṛṣṇa already has an arrangement for bringing us back to Godhead, and for using us as instruments for bringing other people to Him. Our mission is to stop fighting against His arrangement, and instead take part in it.

Kṛṣṇa addressing Arjuna as Savya-sācī (one who can shoot arrows very expertly) is also significant. Arjuna is an expert warrior, but this empowerment comes from Kṛṣṇa. He thus received a difficult mission from Kṛṣṇa, fighting Bhiṣma, Drona, and all the powerful Kuru warriors, but also received a great power to do so. Similarly, any devotee who surrenders to Kṛṣṇa and agrees to act according to His plan can be similarly empowered.

The spiritual path, however, is not free from challenges. Here you can find information about the traps most of us face:

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can support this work with a monthly contribution. When you subscribe, you can choose between a free subscription and a monthly contribution, and you can switch from a free subscriber to a supporter at any time.

You can also receive updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.