We tend to think, “The whole point of having senses is that we should use these to enjoy the pleasures we can see, hear, taste, feel and smell. Otherwise why would these senses exist!?” I partially agree, but want to refer you to the initial part of the 15th chapter of Bhagavad Gita: this world is an inverted reflection of spiritual reality. The senses that we have right now are a reflection of senses we are capable of having.
To explain this fully, I will go back to explain what a “soul” is, where it originates, and how it comes to exist with an ego, mind, intellect, and body of five senses.
The soul in a “pure” (or “unawakened”) state is consciousness only. It manifests no identity, no will, and therefore of course has no mind, intellect or senses; but it has the inherent potential for such things because it is a ray of light emanated from the original sun. The emanation has qualities of what it emanates from, much like a child possesses traits of its parents. Since the original “sun” of the atoms of “light” is itself a distinct entity, the potential for individual distinction exists implicitly in each ray of light which emanates from it.
The unawakened soul is merely an unknown, unidentifiable wave of light vibrating homogeneously in the entire infinite expanse of spiritual light (“bhramajyoti”). By some catalyst (perhaps the freewill of the Supreme?) an individual particle/wave in that spiritual light is quickened to awaken and activate it’s potential. It is this quickening which will cause the seed-like kernel of the pure soul to spout appendages of identity, intellect, mind and senses.
The quickened soul awakes to perceive that the spiritual light is a border between two huge, endless realms of manifest existence, wherein countless activities are taking place in fascinating sequences and to wondrous ends. On one side all activities are centered upon the source of all “light”, Godhead – like planets harmoniously orbiting the central Sun. On the other side, each individual atomic wave of light gets a chance to make itself the central locus of all activities, attentions, desires, and affections.
There is a deep purpose why there are two realms and not one. It expresses the essential importance of freewill and the ability to make a choice in the grand scheme of what existence itself seeks for in the first place. Existence seeks the highest enjoyment, that is love. Love is freely given. Therefore there must be two realms, the soul must be given choices and freedoms, or else the purpose of Divine Existence would not have been able to unfold.
And so the awakened soul’s original free choice occurs in the act of choosing either the Godhead-centered realm or the self-centered realm as the field in which it wishes to grow and sprout it’s identity.
When this awakened consciousness is thus drawn into the realm it chooses, it is immediately bathed in the divine energy of that realm – like a seed placed into soil and bathed in profuse sunlight and water. In the triplicate energy of the realm it enters – like a seed entering soil, light and water – the hitherto unmanifest uniqueness of the spark of light sprouts.
We can wonder if what sprouts from the soul is new to it or if it is an expression of some potentiality that was always latent in it. It is possible that the soul possesses, even when submerged in the non-being of the spiritual-light, an indelible unique “stamp” as a result of being a ray of light emanated by a specific aspect of the spiritual-sun. I favor this perspective. In either case, new or inherent, what sprouts from the soul is undeniably what it is and what it becomes.
A cascade of blossoms now sprout from the soul-seed. The first is an individual locus which we call “identity” or “ego” – which is astrologically the Sun. From this springs the well of things which the individual reflects upon, feels, and wants. This we call the “mind” – which is the astrological Moon. From the mind springs forth the ability to interface and exchange with the subjects and objects of our reflection, feeling and wanting. We call this “intellect” and in astrology it is Mercury. This interface-facilitator (intellect) finally generates the actual instruments that literally interact with the subjects and objects we feel for. We call these instruments “the senses” and they are Venus in astrology.
This cascade of sprouting from the spiritual atomic spark occurs in both realms: Godhead-centered or self-centered. This is one of the important implications of the Bhagavad-Gita’s fifteenth chapter analogy of the Banyan tree inverted due to being reflected, as if on the edge of a pond: Like a reflection, the manifestations of reality are superficially identical in both the God-centered realm and the self-centered realm. The difference is essential, not superficial. It lies in what the entire manifestion is centered upon.
Thus in both the “spiritual” and “material” worlds the living being has an identity, a mind, intellect and senses, i.e. a body.
To say the senses are created to enjoy the sense objects of the world is true if we only consider the senses within the self-centered realm. If we broaden our awareness of Venus and senses – as we should, because the reflected tree is not the real tree after all – we can see that the better definition of senses is that they are the instruments with which we interact with sense objects. The motive of self-enjoyment in such interactions is present only when the soul is in the self-centered realm. When the soul instead inhabits the Godhead-centered realm, sensual interactions are without any selfish motive for enjoyment. Their motive is the enjoyment of Godhead. Thus in that realm, souls are extremely beautiful, attractive, talented, delicious, delighted and wonderful – because they are connected directly and explicitly to the ever expanding infinite enjoyments of the Supreme Life, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has the appropriate moniker “Sri Krsna” – the all-attractive enjoyer.
The Enquirer 
Ooooops, with due respect, this became very creative…I really respect you and you have an inspired way with words to express siddhanta, but is this siddhanta? You can get that impression by the self-assured style of putting it. There are acaryas in our succession that would not sign what you just wrote, there among our paramguru. Some would say that all of them wouldn’t, including Jiva goswami. I suscribe to that. This, our original position, is a hugh discussion amongst devotees, and I just wanted to say that. The tone of the article is another and that, I feel, is missleading. Sorry, usually really dig what you write. Dandavats pranam.
LikeLike
Thank you Kausalya for your respectful post. This is the result of my best application of heart and mind to what I have been taught by my Gurus, including of course A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Your argument so far seems to be that you feel some people you highly respect might not agree with my presentation. I can understand how that would affect you, but I do not personally feel the same way.
If you would like to point out anything in my presentation that you feel is disagreeable, and explain why you feel it is so, I would be open to hear you out and discuss it with you. Likewise if you would like to present an alternative explanation on the subject.
LikeLike
Vraja Kisor Prabhu,
Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
This article of yours seems to raise the issue of the origin of the jiva. Srila Prabhupada explained in a letter, “We are all originally situated on the platform of Krishna consciousness in our eternal personal relationship of love of Krishna. But due to forgetfulness we become familiar with the material world, or maya.” I found that quote in an edifying essay by His Holiness Jayadvaita Swami about the origin of the jiva (citing letters in Srila Prabhupada Siksamrta, Volume Two, pages 1157–1176). Please visit here to read more: http://www.jswami.info/jiva I recommend this essay because it supports its thesis with strong logic and also with extensive citation to authority, primarily Srila Prabhupada.
Of course this issue of the origin of the jiva has not been agreed upon by all devotees who are initiated in the line of Srila Prabhupada. For example, Satyanarayana Das, who is very scholarly, disagreed with the position cited above, and, although originally a grand-disciple of Srila Prabhupada, eventually took shelter outside of Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON.
Does the article you wrote reflect the same idea as that proposed by Satyanarayana Das: that the jiva soul originates in the undifferentiated brahman, and not in a spiritual planet with a spiritual body, associating with the personality of the Lord?
Wishing you well,
Your servant,
Atmanivedana das
LikeLike
Dear Atmanivedana Prabhu,
Namaste. Jai Prabhupada. Thank you for your reference to Jayadvaita Swami’s article. I am a hardcore, dyed-in-the-wool fan of Jayadvaita Swami.
I particularly like how Jayadvaita Maharaja [in the “Endless Arguments: Maya’s Trick” section of the article] steers us away from contentious argument on the topic. I wrote this article in the course of explaining the nature of Venus to an astrology student. I posted it here out of the feeling that it might be edifying and inspirational to many souls seeking answers to such questions. I did not wish it to become a point of debate among the choir. (It was, probably, foolish of me to open the article to comments. I apologize.).
Naturally we all have different variations in how we understand things. After all we are individuals. I like how Jayadvaita Maharaja points to the importance of allowing individual viewpoints to differ on details [from the 4th Paragraph onward of the “Don’t Figure It Out—Get Out” section].
What I also like about the article is it’s historical context. When printed (in a 1993 issue of Back to Godhead magazine) it represented a sane, detached middle ground in a debate which became an insanely polarized brawl. “Sane” and “detached” are two very great keywords to describe Jayadvaita Maharaja and are two key reasons why I love and respect him so much.
The reader of that article may easily infer that the topic is debatable and controversial throughout the breadth and history of the entire Krsna-bhakti / Gaudiya Vaishnava school. As far as I can see, however, this is not the case and should be pointed out. The topic is a matter of contentious debate only among the contemporary followers of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada. Outside of this group there is very little if any difference of opinion on the topic.
I personally feel that many or most of the students of Srila Prabhupada interpret his words on this topic in a manner that I prefer not to, for in my opinion that manner of interpretation causes the message one receives from his words to fork from the message of the sources from which his words come.
Sri Gaurahari, of course the founder of Gaudiya Bhakti, explained this to Sanatana Goswami, arguably the foremost among the original six acaryas of his school. Krishnadas Kaviraja expresses his rendition of those instructions in the Madhya Lila, 20th chapter of his biography of Sri Gaurahari, entitled Caitanya-Caritamrta. The 108th verse reads:
jivera svarupa hoy krsnera nitya das;
krsnera tatastha shakti bhedabheda prakash
“The constitutional nature of the soul is to eternally be a servant of Krsna. That soul is a ray of light that is part and parcel of the borderline between the spiritual and material energies.”
I have expanded the translation somewhat. Literally the second line reads “[the jiva’s svarupa] is a different but non-different (bhedabheda) ray (prakash) from Krsna’s marginal/borderline energy (krsnaera tatastha shakti).”
Gaurahari explains what he means by “ray” (prakash) in the very next verse, saying it is “sūryāḿśa-kiran” like a ray of light emenated from the sun, or the brilliance emanated from fire (agni-jvala).
sūryāḿśa-kiraṇa, yaiche agni-jvālā-caya
svābhāvika kṛṣṇera tina-prakāra ‘śakti’ haya
Next he quotes Vishnu Purana to explain “bhedabheda” – the concept of being different but not different at the same time. Light is not different from fire, and sunlight is not different from the Sun – yet they are also not entirely identical:
eka-deśa-sthitasyāgner jyotsnā vistāriṇī yathā
parasya brahmaṇaḥ śaktis tathedam akhilaḿ jagat
There are three terms in the second line of verse 108: “ray” (prakash), “difference/non-difference” (bhedabheda) and “marginal energy” (tatastha shakti). Having clarified the first two, Gaurahari now elaborates on “marginal energy” (tatastha shakti):
krsnera svabhavika tina sakti parinati;
cicchakti, jiva-sakti, ara maya sakti
“Krsna naturally radiates three energies: (1) The real, spiritual world [cit-shakti], (2) The living souls [jiva-shakti], and (3) the illusory, material world [maya-shakti].”
The marginal energy is the living souls. Thus living souls do not emanate from the real, godhead-centered, spiritual world, nor from the illusory self-centered material world. We emanate from the “tatastha” – the “margin” or “border” between the two (i.e. bhramajyoti).
The question may arise, “If it comes from the border between matter and spirit, is a soul spiritual or material in nature?” Perhaps to address this question, Krsnadas Kaviraja tells us that Sri Gaurahari next quoted the Vishnu Purana:
visnu sakti para prokta ksetrajnakhya tatha para
avidya karma samjnanya tritiya saktir isyate
“The one energy of Godhead operates in threefold ways: (1) the energy of transcendental activities, (2) the living being, which is also transcendent, and (3) the energy of ignorant activities.”
This clarifies that the borderline energy is also “spiritual.” Therefore in this sense we all originate in the spiritual “world” – the spiritual energy – and our nature is originally spiritual. Although the specific location of origin WITHIN that spiritual realm is the borderline [tatastha-shakti], not the heart of it [cit-shakti].
Srila Prabhupada’s teachings stressed heavily on the line, “Jivera svarup hoy nityera krsna-das.” This conveys that the purpose and nature and constitution and design of the soul is to function within the god-centered realm as “Krsna-das” a being whose senses are centered upon augmenting the joy of the Divine Cynosure, Sri Krsna. To not be in that realm is to not be where we belong. That is certain. In my estimation as a student of his student, this is the main theme Srila Prabhupada communicates when he talks about the origin and nature of the soul. His students must not interpret his words to contradict the fundamental principle of the VERY NEXT line of Gaurahari’s original teaching: that we are rays from the marginal energy (tatastha-shakti bhedabhed prakash), NOT an entity which originates in the spiritual realm proper (cit-shakti).
Srila Prabhupada aptly points out, as Jayadvaita Swami quoted in his article, that falling from the brahmajyoti is not really a “fall.” In the brahmajyoti we have not yet achieved the heights that we were created for, designed for. Therefore it is not literally that we have “fallen.” Rather we have failed to achieve what we are meant to be. This is very, very similar to a “fall” but is even more humbling.
Once the living entity is situated in the God-centered realm there is no possibility of falling from God-centered consciousness. This is incontrovertible and established in very primary and non-esoteric texts, such as Bhagavad Gita 15.6:
yad gatvā na nivartante tad dhāma paramaḿ mama: “Those who enter that supreme realm of mine never abandon it.”
Jayadvaita Swami quoted Srila Prabhupada telling some people that even in the God-centered realm there is still the theoretical option of leaving it. In my estimation this instructs us of the centrality and eternity of freewill in the fabric of divine reality. However, once having made the decision to enter the god-centered realm the soul never comes to regret that decision and thus the option to second-guess itself is never taken.
This is consistent the authorized descriptions of “prema” – the condition the soul attains in that Godhead-centered realm. Srila Rupa Goswami, easily the most important original teacher of Gaurahari’s school, in the Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu, probably the most essential book he wrote, right at the beginning describes that one of two hallmarks of Prema is that it saturates the soul with such an intensity of overwhelming bliss that there is absolutely no room for awareness of anything else. (“sandra-ananda vishesha-atma”). So the soul in the Godhead-centered world is too overwhelmed with joy to even care for being aware of any other options for his or her existence.
These topics are detailed and careful. To discuss them among persons with a detailed, careful, deep and thoughtful nature is a great fortune. The internet is a tricky place though – anyone can butt in. I will probably therefore close or heavily moderate future comments on this post. I do not wish to turn a healthy debate into an injurious and time-consuming brawl.
Your servant,
Vraja Kishor das
LikeLike
Yes, I will be back. Right now struggeling with my health. Just shortly: My understanding, which is founded on the teachings of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada and other sadhus is that the souls in this material world originate from the spiritual world where they were engaged in relationship with the Supreme Person. By desiring our independence we invited The Lords external energy to cover over our true eternal nature. Our senses are originally spiritual.
Now, the following, has more a slant of my own realization, but completely based on Srila Prabhupadas teachings. The senses are originally spiritual. That’s why we can perceive and be conscious of anything at all even within this material world. Dead matter cannot perceive or be conscious of itself. That’s why it’s dead, a lower energy of The Supreme that we, the living entities, the souls, can exploit. It is meaningless to speak about consciousness without senses. How can we be concsious of anything without senses, even if it’s only a boring great bright light? Pure consciousness means senses, otherwise you’re dead. What we perceive is filtered by the material senses, that cover our spiritual senses, which we are handed out when we enter this world.
The brahmajyoti is not where we come from originally, but quite likely we have been there too and come back to this world. Srila Prabhupada states that liberation in the effulgence of The Lord is not permanent. Why, because even in that liberated state after a while the soul wants to act, it is it’s nature, it has senses, it is alive. All for now.
your servant
LikeLike
Dear Kausalya,
Thank you for your reply. As you have already read about in my first reply, below this, to the comment by Atmanivedana Prabhu, I do not agree that Srila Prabhupada teaches that we fall from the Godhead-centered realm. I believe it is a misinterpretation by his students which became enforced as the only interpretation allowed, and that overtime when you keep seeing things from a certain angle, that angle seems like the only angle.
For example here are several quotes, not from letters to individuals but from Srila Prabhupada’s books, written for global posterity:
Yes, I agree that the senses are “originally” spiritual and that the soul is “originally” spiritual. As explained in my first reply to Atmanivedana, the tatastha-shakti (aka bhramajyoti) is also “para” (spiritual, transcendental to matter) as quoted by Mahaprabhu from Vishnu Purana when explaining this very topic to Sanatana Goswami. I agree that the living entity in the bhramajyoti is not really “alive” yet and is unaware of any existence at all. The senses are degined to be used in the god-centered realm – but the awakened living soul can choose to use them instead in the self-centered world. In this sense too, the senses (and soul) are “originally” spiritual but become material only when “misused.”
I agree with your assessment that the soul must have senses inherent in it, otherwise material senses could not sense. The soul cannot exist as a soul in the bhramajyoti. That is why it MUST move to one realm or the other immediately upon awakening. The soul must exist in the shelter of one of the realms. (Nityas nityanam verse). The soul has identity, intellect, mind and senses inherent in it, and when it awakens from the jyoti, it must move into a “soil” where the seed of it’s nature can sprout. If it moves into the self-centered realm – the soul’s spouts appear to be material ego, plans, desires, and body. If it moves into the Godhead-centered realm, the soul’s same sprouts are instead spiritual identity, intellect, mind, and senses. So I agree that the sensory capacity itself is provided by the soul proper. The mechanisms of the soul however are provided by God’s energy supporting the soul in either the material or spiritual realm. This is how I see it.
There are very important reasons why we cannot literally say that the soul’s original position was with fully developed senses in the spiritual world, in direct prema-relationship with Krsna. You can find these in my first reply to Atmanivedana, below. One thing I had not mentioned there is that the idea of a perfect spiritual entity being covered by Maya is Mayavadi, and we all know obviously that Srila Prabhupada strongly opposed Mayavada (nirvisesha-shunyavadi pascatya desa tarine). The soul is minute when alone, and can thus be covered by the maya shakti when it chooses to enter that realm. But the maya shakti has NO POWER to reach into the Godhead-centered realm and cover Godhead or any being sheltered there by Godhead.
Your servant,
Vraja Kishor das
LikeLike
Dear Vraja Kisor Prabhu,
Thanks for your reply!
Of course, the topmost instruction is to always remember Krishna and never forget Him. Therefore, for most persons, as you have cited Jayadvaita Maharja, it is better to get out of illusion, then to figure out how they fell into illusion. So, it is wonderful that here there is no question of debate on this point.
I highly appreciate that, as you said, you were doing your sincere best, in authoring the subject article, to edify one of your astrology students. Keep up that good work, please! I say that sincerely.
However, as you have also chosen to post this article before the world-wide community of devotees, particularly those who are members of Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON — 0n PlanetISKCON.com, I found it my duty out of fairness to those followers of ISKCON who are unaware of ISKCON’s position on origin of the jiva to ascertain before the devotees whether your position indubitably and unambiguously contradicts the position that ISKCON has officially decreed to be that taught by Srila Prabhupada: That the jiva does not originally fall from the bhramajyoti; rather the jiva originally falls from the spiritual planets in his/her personal relationship with the supreme personality of Godhead.
You have kindly clarified that your position is that the jiva originally falls from the bhramajyoti. Thank you.
I appreciate your attempt to discern and explain the acarya’s teachings on this subject matter. However, I do not wish to enter that debate. Like you said, such debates can be troublesome.
Thank you for answering my question though.
Wishing you well,
Your servant,
Atmanivedana das
LikeLike
Dear Atmanivedana Ji,
Thank you. Yes, to clarify, I openly disagree with the official position on this topic held by the Governing Body Commission (GBC) of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON).
I would also like to clarify that I never chose to post this article on PlanetISKCON.com. My guess is that they chose to subscribe to my RSS feed and import my posts into their site.
Your servant,
Vraja Kishor das
LikeLike