Remembering our eternal connection with the Lord

Do we have an eternal relationship with the Lord, or have we just always been in this material world without ever having contact with Him?

Many have doubts about the relationship of the soul and Krsna, or in other words, about our relationship with Him. Do we have an eternal relationship with the Lord, or have we just always been in this material world without ever having contact with Him?

However, when we study the books of Srila Prabhupada, the question becomes very clear: The soul is an eternal servant of Krsna, we somehow come in contact with the material energy due to our free will and now that we come to understand that this temporary material world is not our place, it's time to go back to Godhead.

This idea can be found in every few paragraphs in the commentaries of Srila Prabhupada. See this passage from the prayers of Pṛthu Maharaja to the Lord, for example:

"It is explained in the previous verse that one has to hear glorification of the Lord from the mouth of a pure devotee. This is further explained here. The transcendental vibration from the mouth of a pure devotee is so powerful that it can revive the living entity’s memory of his eternal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In our material existence, under the influence of illusory māyā, we have almost forgotten our eternal relationship with the Lord, exactly like a man sleeping very deeply who forgets his duties. In the Vedas it is said that every one of us is sleeping under the influence of māyā. We must get up from this slumber and engage in the right service, for thus we can properly utilize the facility of this human form of life. As expressed in a song by Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda, Lord Caitanya says, jīva jāgo, jīva jāgo. The Lord asks every sleeping living entity to get up and engage in devotional service so that his mission in this human form of life may be fulfilled. This awakening voice comes through the mouth of a pure devotee." (SB 4.20.25)

If we go to the Bhagavad-Gita, for example, we can find it just at the beginning of the introduction:

"Arjuna was in a relationship with the Lord as friend. Of course there is a gulf of difference between this friendship and the friendship found in the material world. This is transcendental friendship, which cannot be had by everyone. Of course everyone has a particular relationship with the Lord, and that relationship is evoked by the perfection of devotional service. But in the present status of our life, not only have we forgotten the Supreme Lord, but we have forgotten our eternal relationship with the Lord. Every living being, out of the many, many billions and trillions of living beings, has a particular relationship with the Lord eternally. That is called svarūpa. By the process of devotional service, one can revive that svarūpa, and that stage is called svarūpa-siddhi – perfection of one’s constitutional position. So Arjuna was a devotee, and he was in touch with the Supreme Lord in friendship." (Bg intro)

The reason Srila Prabhupada makes this point so frequently in his books is simple: That's the conclusion of the scriptures. When the texts of the Bhagavad-gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Caitanya Caritāmṛta, Sat-Sandarbhas, etc. are interpreted under the right conclusions, the meaning is self-evident. Many disagree with the conclusions of Srila Prabhupada because they can't properly understand these points, or because they learn from people who don't properly understand, but this is their fault.

There are many passages in the Srimad Bhagavatam that explain in detail the original nature of the soul, such as the teachings of Lord Kapila in the third canto, and the allegory of King Purañjana in the 4th canto. Take for example the following verses spoken by the Lord (appearing in the form of a Brahmana) to the daughter of King Vidarbha.

"Who are you? Whose wife or daughter are you? Who is the man lying here? It appears you are lamenting for this dead body. Don’t you recognize Me? I am your eternal friend. You may remember that many times in the past you have consulted Me. My dear friend, even though you cannot immediately recognize Me, can’t you remember that in the past you had a very intimate friend? Unfortunately, you gave up My company and accepted a position as enjoyer of this material world.

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."

However, similar explanations are found everywhere in Prabhupada's teachings. One will have difficulty in finding even a single chapter where similar ideas are not explained. Let's take verse 4.20.25 of Srimad Bhagavatam, for example. This is not a verse that directly describes the original position of the soul. It is just a regular verse with glorification to the Lord:

sa uttamaśloka mahan-mukha-cyuto
bhavat-padāmbhoja-sudhā kaṇānilaḥ
smṛtiṁ punar vismṛta-tattva-vartmanāṁ
kuyogināṁ no vitaraty alaṁ varaiḥ

Prabhupada translates it as:

"My dear Lord, You are glorified by the selected verses uttered by great personalities. Such glorification of Your lotus feet is just like saffron particles. When the transcendental vibration from the mouths of great devotees carries the aroma of the saffron dust of Your lotus feet, the forgetful living entity gradually remembers his eternal relationship with You. Devotees thus gradually come to the right conclusion about the value of life. My dear Lord, I therefore do not need any other benediction but the opportunity to hear from the mouth of Your pure devotee."

The lotus feet of the Lord are just like a flower, full of saffron particles. The voice of pure devotees carries these transcendental saffron particles in the form of transcendental vibration. What is the effect of receiving these transcendental particles through the auditory sense? Smṛtiṁ punar vismṛta-tattva: The forgetful living entity gradually remembers his eternal relationship with the Lord.

This verse is from the 4th canto, therefore it follows a sequence of conclusions that were already established in the previous cantos. In the teachings of Lord Kapila in the third canto, the eternal relationship of the soul with Krsna was already established, and the process by which the eternal soul can temporarily forget this relationship was explained. The word smṛtim in the verse means "remembrance" and it is reinforced by the word punaḥ (again). What is it we are supposed to remember? Vismṛta-tattva: the forgotten truth of our eternal relationship with the Lord. Srila Prabhupada translates this section as "When the transcendental vibration from the mouths of great devotees carries the aroma of the saffron dust of Your lotus feet, the forgetful living entity gradually remembers his eternal relationship with You."

Words such as "smṛtim" (remembrance) and "anusmaret" (he remembers) and other variations of the root "smṛ" (to remember) are used in many verses to explain the process by which the soul attains the transcendental position. They make clear that the relationship of the soul with the Lord is eternally existing, different from the material conditioning that has a beginning, although long lost in the past. Since the relationship of the soul with the Lord is truly eternal, it is defined as "tattva" (truth) and it predates the soul coming in contact with material energy. The contact with the material energy makes the soul forget this eternal relationship, and Krsna consciousness is the process of remembering this covering and remembering this eternal connection.

Srila Jīva Goswami, explains it nicely in his Paramātma-sandarbha (83.2):

ghano yadarka-prabhavo vidīryate, cakṣuḥ svarūpaṁ ravim īkṣate tadā
yadā hy ahaṅkāra upādhir ātmāno, jijñāsayā naśyati tarhy anusmaret

"When the cloud originally produced from the sun is torn apart, the eye can see the actual form of the sun. Similarly, when the spirit soul destroys his material covering of false ego by inquiring into the transcendental science, he regains his spiritual awareness."

The sun creates a cloud by evaporating water from the surface. However, when the cloud manifests, we can't see the sun. The sun existed before the appearance of the cloud and continues to exist behind the cloud. If the could is somehow torn apart, we can again see the sun. Similarly, due to free will the soul comes in contact with the material nature and accepts a temporary material identity centered around the false ego, which covers the original spiritual consciousness of the soul, just like the cloud covering the sun. When this covering of the false ego is destroyed (naśyati) by the process of transcendental inquiry (jijñāsayā) then the soul remembers (anusmaret) his eternal nature.

The word used here is "anusmaret", which can be translated as "he remembers" or "he regains". There is no possible interpretation of the word that may suggest obtaining something that didn't exist before, just as in the word "smṛtim" used by Pṛthu Maharaja.

How is it that many come to the opposite conclusion studying the same verses? The following commentary by a contemporary author may give some clues. He starts by quoting the same verse I mentioned:

"Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has written in his Śrī Paramātma-sandarbha (83.2):

When the cloud originally produced from the sun is torn apart, the eye can see the actual form of the sun as well as that of its own nature. Similarly, when the spirit soul’s material covering of false ego is destroyed by inquiring about Paramātmā, he becomes fixed in remembrance (anusmaret) of the Lord’s svarūpa as well as his own."

As you can see, the translation given by him follows the same spirit as the translation I used. No great disagreement up to here. The problem is what comes after it:

"The Sanskrit word anusmaret in the original Sanskrit verse is generally translated as “remembers” or “regains.” Herein, “fixed in remembrance” does not mean that the soul was previously spiritually aware of Kṛṣṇa, then lost that awareness, and then regained it. Such words as “regains,” “forgets,” and “remembers” are not meant in historical context. Rather, “Something is there that I don’t know about.” The ācāryas use words like “remember” or “forget” to indicate that although the soul has never experienced his relationship with Kṛṣṇa, nevertheless it is a natural reality – it is natural to the soul."

He himself agrees that the anusmaret means to remember or regain. However, he proceeds to give his interpretation of the meaning by saying that it doesn't mean that the soul was previously spiritually aware of Krsna, contradicting his own translation of the verse. To justify this, he proceeds to argue that the word is used in the sense of “Something is there that I don’t know about”, which is a creative interpretation, to say the least.

Could it be true? There are many passages in the scriptures where the correct interpretation of certain words doesn't follow the primary meaning, and many words are used in metaphorical ways. However, this is usually done in verses where the primary meaning of the words contradicts ideas established in other passages of the scriptures.

For example, when the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad mentions:

kṣaraṁ pradhānam amṛtākṣaraḥ haraḥ (Material nature is in constant flux and the Supreme, Lord Hara is eternal and unchanging.)

eko rudro na dvitīyāya tasthuḥ: (Lord Rudra is the Supreme. He has no rival.)

yo devānāṁ prabhavaś codbhavaś ca/ viśvādhiko rudraḥ śivo maharṣiḥ: (Lord Shiva, who is known as Rudra, is the omniscient ruler of the universe. He is the father of all the demigods. He gives the demigods all their powers and opulences.)

yadā tamas tan na divā na rātrir/ na san na cāsac chiva eva kevalaḥ: (When the final darkness comes and there is no longer day or night, when there is no longer being and non-being, then only Lord Shiva exists.)

...it's clear that the verses speak about Lord Vishnu, and not about Lord Shiva as the demigod. In this case, the words Hara, Rudra, and Shiva are understood in the primary meaning, as names of Lord Vishnu, and not as names of the demigod.

However, when other passages of the scriptures establish a certain conclusion, and especially when this conclusion is reinforced by the previous ācāryas, the interpretation of other verses should follow these conclusions, especially when these conclusions are supported by the direct meaning of the words. If one wants to raise some novel interpretation, he must at least base it well on other passages or in commentaries of previous ācāryas that support his idea.

Instead of doing it, the author simply says: "The ācāryas use words like “remember” or “forget” to indicate that although the soul has never experienced his relationship with Kṛṣṇa, nevertheless it is the natural reality – it is natural to the soul."

Here, an argument is simply given as absolute truth, without reference or passages that support it. One is supposed to accept it based simply in the opinion of the author, even though it contradicts the translation he himself gives, the basic logic of the passage of Srila Goswami (giving the analogy of the sun and the cloud to explain the relationship of the soul with the temporary material nature) and many other verses and passages from different scriptures and different ācāryas, starting by Srila Prabhupada himself.

Srila Prabhupada used to argue that there is no point in discussing how the soul falls into the material world, insisting that the real point to discuss is how to get out. However, this is in the context of the point of the original nature of the soul as an eternal servant of Krsna being accepted, and the contact with the material nature happening somehow due to free will. If the soul is accepted as an eternal servant of Krsna, which Srila Bhaktivinoda Thākura defines as Sambandha, part of the basic foundational knowledge we need as a basis for our practice, the details don't make much of a difference. One may have different opinions and this will not be a problem for his spiritual practice.

The problem, however, is when one comes to the conclusion the soul has always been in this material world, without ever having been in contact with Krsna, that the soul has no intrinsic relationship with Krsna, having originated from the impersonal brahmajyoti or the causal ocean, that Krsna (or any of His potencies) chooses which souls come to the material world and which not, etc. These are false concepts that exist under the influence of false ego and prevent the soul from realizing his eternal nature as an eternal servant of Krsna.

The only type of relationship that can be eternal is one that is eternally existing. Everything that has a beginning has an end and exists under material illusion. This is explained at the very beginning of the Bhagavad-gita (nāsato vidyate bhāvo, nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ). If one believes the soul was never aware of Krsna, this implies the soul has no eternal relationship with Krsna. This in turn leads to the conclusion this relationship has to be established, which will lead him to seek to receive some form of so-called siddha-pranali to establish it, which ends up in some kind of imagination or imitation, another upādhi that exists under the three modes of material nature.

These ideas are incorrect and lead to an incorrect understanding of many points in the scriptures. They are not reconcilable with the conclusions Prabhupada gives in his books, which will lead one to rationalize he was mistaken or not speaking the truth in his books, which leads to the rejection of his teachings. Some go all the way to also rejecting Srila Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Thākura and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thākura. We can see that these mistaken concepts can end up leading one to reject the very disciplic succession that is supposed to uplift him and condemn one to a new birth in this material world.

The reason it is so difficult to escape this material world once we somehow come here is that to fully get out we need to become free from false-ego, which in turn implies accepting our eternal nature as eternal servants of the Lord, connected with Him in a bound of love. Any other concept apart from this will keep the soul bound to the false-ego to some degree, and prevent him from reaching the ultimate position. Mayavadis believe they are God, which is obviously not true. Because they reject their eternal nature as eternal servants of the Lord, even if they reach the impersonal brahmajyoti, they have to eventually come back to this material world. Similarly, all other concepts and attempts, apart from the correct one will result in a similar end.

There are many incorrect concepts and only a correct one. As in many other circumstances, the correct answer is often the hardest, because it implies giving up our tendency for speculation and instead accepting the correct conclusions given by the proper paramparā. When this narrow path is rejected, the result is uncertain.