Controversies about The Lord in the heart

Prabhupada describes the Lord in the heart as Paramatma, who is an expansion of Krsna and accompanies the Jiva. Sounds quite simple, but this is a point of controversy for many.

Subscribe to receive new articles by e-mail. It’s free, but if you like, you can pledge a donation:

In Prabhupada’s books, we receive some philosophical conclusions that seem quite simple, but often these conclusions are the fruit of very long and complicated philosophical discussions.

For example, Prabhupada describes the Lord in the heart as Paramatma, who is an expansion of Krsna and accompanies the Jiva. Sounds quite simple, but this is a point of controversy for many. For Mayavadis, for example, Paramatma and the individual soul are one and the same, and thus the many passages in the scriptures that mention Him are interpreted in a different way.

For example, the Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.1 mentions:

ṛtaṁ pibantau sukṛtasya loke, guhāṁ praviṣṭau parame parārdhe
chāyā-tapau brahma-vido vadanti, pañcāgnayo ye ca trināciketāḥ

If translated literally, this verse can be translated as: “Two persons drink the results of karma in the cave of the heart. They who know Brahman, they who keep the five sacred fires, and they who perform the three nāciketa sacrifices say these two persons are shade and light.”

We can see that this passage describes a companion for the jiva inside the heart. Because the verse is vague in defining who He is, it’s possible to interpret the companion as being either Buddhi (intelligence), Prana (the vital air), or Paramatma, the Supersoul.

Superficially, it appears that Buddhi or Prana may make more sense because the heart is a small space, and thus, how could it be the abode of the Supreme Brahman? In fact, the word “guhāṁ” actually means “cave”.

Another possible argument is that in the verse from the Kaṭha Upaniṣad, it’s mentioned that they “drink the results of karma”, suggesting that the companion assists the jiva as he experiences the results of his karma. In this way, it could be argued that the companion can’t be the Lord, because He never experiences the results of karma. Following this logic, the companion must be either Buddhi or Prana.

If accepted, this logic could be used to support the idea of monism, of the soul being just a small fragment of the Supreme Brahman, who is captured by Maya and can again merge back when liberated.

You can see that when we follow this process of logical deduction that characterizes the process of jñana, we can easily come to many mistaken conclusions. That’s why each philosopher usually has a different conclusion, and rarelly one of them understands things as they are.

In the Mayavada philosophy, for example, the soul and the Supersoul are considered one and the same. The idea of Paramatma accompanying the soul inside the heart counters this, but if we accept that the soul is alone inside the heart, accompanied by just the material intelligence or the vital airs, then the monistic philosophy gains strength.

So, should we admit defeat?

Not yet. While it’s possible to try to sustain the thesis of the companion being Buddhi or Prana using Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.1, this thesis falls apart when confronted with other references. In other passages, the scriptures are very clear in defining the companion as the Supersoul. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.12, for example, it’s mentioned:

taṁ durdarśaṁ gūḍham anupraviṣṭam, guhāhitaṁ gahvareṣṭaṁ purāṇam
adhyātma-yogādhigamena devaṁ, matvā dhīro harṣa-śokau jahāti

“The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the oldest person, and who is worshiped in the jungle of this world, remains hidden in the cave of the heart. A wise man, meditating on Him in a trance of spiritual yoga, gives up all material joy and grief.”

In this verse, the word “purāṇam” can be used only in connection with the Supreme Lord, not in connection with Buddhi or Prana. The companion is also described as the object of meditation, which again can be applied only to the Supreme Lord. In this way, it’s not possible to misinterpret the verse to sustain that the companion is anyone else apart from the Supersoul. And this is just one reference of many.

In the Vedanta-sutra, Srila Vyasadeva makes an additional argument to support the conclusion that the two companions are the soul and Paramatma: viśeṣaṇāc ca. Many verses in the scriptures describe the differences between them, and this makes it impossible to sustain that the companion is not the Supersoul, or that the jiva and the Supersoul are one.

We don’t have to go far. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.12, for example, it’s mentioned that the Lord is the object of meditation, while the soul is the one who meditates. By meditating on the Lord, the jiva gains release from all material joy and grief. The word “chāyā-tapau” from verse 1.3.1 also indicates that they are different, and so on.

There are many other verses that could be quoted.

On Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.1.1, it’s mentioned: kaścid dhīraḥ pratyag ātmānam aikṣad āvṛtta-cakṣur amṛtatvam icchan, “With a desire to attain immortality, a sober practitioner sees the Supreme Lord while closing his eyes.”

In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (3.1.,8) it’s mentioned: jñāna-prasādena viśuddha-sattvas tu taṁ paśyate niṣkalaṁ dhyāyamānaḥ, “If by the mercy of spiritual knowledge one meditates on the unchangeable, pure Supreme Lord, he can get darśana of Him.”

On Srimad Bhagavatam (4.28.54-55), it’s mentioned:

haṁsāv ahaṁ ca tvaṁ cārya, sakhāyau mānasāyanau
abhūtām antarā vaukaḥ, sahasra-parivatsarān
sa tvaṁ vihāya māṁ bandho, gato grāmya-matir mahīm
vicaran padam adrākṣīḥ, kayācin nirmitaṁ striyā

“My dear gentle friend, both you and I are exactly like two swans. We live together in the same heart, which is just like the Mānasa Lake. Although we have been living together for many thousands of years, we are still far away from our original home. My dear friend, you are now My very same friend. Since you left Me, you have become more and more materialistic, and not seeing Me, you have been traveling in different forms throughout this material world, which was created by some woman.”

The previous verse also mentions that the two companions are “chāyā-tapau” (like shade and light), indicating that one has knowledge and the other does not. In other words, one is in illusion, bound to the cycle of birth and death, while the other is transcendental. This also clearly indicates the verse speaks about the Supersoul.

Srila Prabhupada gives a completely different translation for verse 1.3.1 from the Kaṭha Upaniṣad, which I quoted in the beginning, which makes the real meaning clear:

“O Nāciketā, the expansions of Lord Viṣṇu as the tiny living entity and the Supersoul are both situated within the cave of the heart of this body. Having entered that cavity, the living entity, resting on the chief of the life airs, enjoys the results of activities, and the Supersoul, acting as witness enables him to enjoy them. Those who are well-versed in knowledge of Brahman and those householders who carefully follow the Vedic regulations say that the difference between the two is like the difference between a shadow and the sun.”

With this, the Mayavada speculation is dismissed, and the separate identity of the Lord in the heart is again proved. We can all sleep peacefully again.

You can also donate using Buy Me a Coffee, PayPal, Wise, Revolut, or bank transfers. There is a separate page with all the links. This helps me enormously to have time to write instead of doing other things to make a living. Thanks!