Buckland Hall
Powys, Wales
20–21 January 1996

by Kenneth Cracknell

A chill, damp weekend in Wales: a late nineteenth century coal-owner baronial gothic mansion looming out of the mists: doors opening to belated travellers and then warmth, laughter, a great wood fire in the hall and the unmistakable aromas of India from the kitchen. We had come on a Friday evening as guests of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness for a weekend of intense interfaith dialogue, mingled with prayer and worship, and the indispensable informal conversations outside the formal programme. 

But who, in this context, is 'we'? 'We' were a group of eleven Christians responding to the invitation of Shaunaka Rishi Dasa, Director of  ISKCON Communications Europe, to join with twelve preachers and teachers from ISKCON. Why had the Christians responded? I believe four reasons predominated.

First, there was our basic commitment. Each one of us was deeply committed to interfaith activity and would regard any invitation from another faith community as a pressing  priority.  

Second, some of them had already experienced the value of talking to members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (or, put more technically, followers of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, as expounded by their great master, Sri  A. C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada. They revere the teachings of the Bengali sixteenth-century saint Caitanya, and focus their devotion upon Krsna, seeking to enter into a love relationship with him). A Saturday conference at Bhaktivedanta Manor last September had left them wanting an opportunity to follow up contacts made there.

The third reason is perhaps the most significant. With our accumulated experience (I worked it out to being over two hundred and fifty years' worth between us), we were more than willing to go beyond generalised discourse and vague abstractions, so often characteristic of interfaith dialogue in its earliest stages. The opportunity to focus the conversation  by having just one dialogue partner who  represented a very specific form of Hindu belief and devotion was extremely attractive.

Fourth, it had long ago dawned on all of us that scholars and sages of ISKCON were highly trained and immensely acute exponents of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, so much so that they could represent the highest form of that philosophy extraordinarily well to their  fellow westerners.  We were to have the opportunity to discuss with these men and women ideas and concepts with which we were more or less familiar through our reading and study. We were eager to learn from those who embodied these teachings in their life and practice.

I cannot, of course, speak for the devotees' reasons for inviting us. I am sure, like all of us, they wanted to speak of their faith and commitment, hopeful for a better understanding of why ISKCON was their chosen path for their walk with God. In this they follow the precept of their spiritual master Srila Prabhupada who wrote:

But increasingly they go further than this because, I surmise, of their new-found sense of vocation to enable westerners to understand Indian philosophy. As they are for the most part westerners themselves,  they have a unique  opportunity  in this regard and are very aware of their responsibility to  ensure true understanding of Vaisnavism. 

How did we proceed?  Since the devotees are incredibly early risers (and therefore early retirers) nothing happened on the Friday evening. This was refreshing, and this particular veteran of many  weekend conferences offers it as a model. Because we were all up in good time, and fortified by our vegetarian breakfast, by 9.00 a.m. we were ready to plunge straight into the two formal keynote papers on the 'nature of the self'.

From the Vaisnava side Ravindra Svarupa Dasa offered a paper setting out the nature of the soul as 'a separated, minute fragment of God, the Supersoul'. Because souls are spiritual they belong in the spiritual kingdom, where almost all souls dwell ('the eternally liberated souls')  A tiny minority of souls ('fallen or conditioned souls') inhabit this material world. If they turn away from God and divine service they fall into the inhospitable realm of external material energy. Consciousness discloses the presence of spirit within the material world. The 'I' of the human person is spirit (aham brahmasmi, I am soul), with the corollary 'I am not matter'. Human beings reach their full potential when they realise I am not my body. The renovation of real life is bhakti-yoga, re-connecting the soul with the Supersoul by devotional service whose keynote is love (prema). Souls in this state are fully joyful. In Ravindra Svarupa's eloquent words:

So lucid a statement not only offered much for the Christian participants to try to come to grips with, but reflected a single internal coherent position. How different was the task undertaken by Keith Ward. For there is no one single Christian understanding of the soul. In masterful fashion Rev. Prof. Ward located the fullest exposition of the soul / body relationship in Aquinas' adoption of Aristotelian philosophy, and went on to show how the collapse of the synthesis achieved by Aquinas has left Christian theologians in not a little confusion, some indeed doubting the existence of the soul as a separate and distinguishable entity within the human personality.  Prof. Ward showed how some recent Protestant theology had, in fact, given upon the ideas of immortality and the soul, using eternal life as a metaphor for the presence of God in this  present life.

With these two presentations the stage was set. After a mid-morning break the Conference sat down to plan its strategy for dealing with this massive and complex subject. In the event it was decided that we should work in three groups throughout the remainder of the time, each tackling the same broad topic for one hour, and then coming back to the plenary to report on progress and to  decide what the next issue to be taken up should be.

Happily there was no pressure to reach agreed conclusions. We decided only that there should be this present record, indicating some of the content which we tackled and, we hope, some of the material which might engage us in our next dialogue.

But first, here are some of the comments about the process of the dialogue itself, and the worthwhileness of being engaged in it. I record them now to give some sense of the immense amicability and freedom of the conversations that took place.

Vaisnavas have written to me saying that they were moved by the 'openness and  humility of all the members of the Christian churches present' and indeed have expressed amazement at the 'lack of false ego' in these participants.  

They expressed gratitude for the 'real willingness to understand' the Vaisnava  philosophy. Many say that they discovered a real increase of 'respect, appreciation and esteem' for Christians and Christianity, calling our time together 'essential and extremely productive work'. Interestingly for more than a few, our being together was a moment of encountering  things they thought they had left behind when they came to Krishna consciousness. One correspondent commented on the fact that he had faced, discovered and appreciated the message of Jesus. 'Maybe,' he writes, 'this cannot strike you in the same way as me, but it is actually amazing to realise that after living thirty years in a Christian society, you have to wait to receive a "divine gift" and then get to know the religion of your country in a broad and comprehensive perspective.'  

Many others have spoken appreciatively of new insights and fresh understanding of elements  within their Catholic or Protestant upbringings that hitherto had been meaningless or even untrue to them. For some, the reality of Christian faith and devotion came alive as they joined with us in the Catholic morning office and a Protestant / ecumenical act of prayer and meditation.  Perhaps it  was this last aspect that led a senior Vaisnava to say that he had left the  weekend with a 'far stronger sense of a shared path of devotion to a personal God of grace uniting both Christian and Vaisnava.  We have an important journey to travel together and we are only at the beginning.'

For their part the Christian participants found the experience, in the words of one of their number 'intellectually demanding, well-organised, enjoyable and instructive'.  Many commented afterwards on the sense of fun that pervaded the intense seriousness of the discussions, for there were outbreaks of great hilarity, not least when one Vaisnava commented (about reincarnation), 'It does make the Odyssey a lot less problematic'. After a moment of blank incomprehension, the light dawned: our friend had said 'theodicy'. Ah yes, we thought, after the laughter ceased, but was there not sense in which we were taking about 'the odyssey' of the soul throughout our sharing together?   

Christians, too, appreciated the moments when we could share in reflection and prayerfulness with the devotees. We counted it a profound privilege when at the very last moment, and in the closing minutes of the conference, our friends spontaneously decided that they would offer their kirtana to Krsna in our presence. Such loving, joyful worship made one Methodist participant wish that she too should have risen from her seat and joined in the singing and the dancing before the Lord.

And now back to the content of the discussions. Ravindra Svarupa Dasa and Keith Ward had performed their task magnificently and the room buzzed with  innumerable questions.  Extraordinarily courteous negotiations then took place as to which of these issues were the ones most needing attention: the nature of the soul in relation to modern conceptions of personality, the nature of eternity, the meaning of resurrection, the concept of the Parousia, the doctrine of karma, the Vaisnava understanding of the 'subtle body', the relation of the Vaisnava 'liberated spirits' to the Christian understanding of  purgatory and paradise; the list is almost inexhaustible. In any case, an order of procedure was decided upon and off we went. Reportage fails at this point, for now the basic work was done in our three groups, where it was possible for everyone's questions to be addressed, even if not fully answered.

Yet some flavour of the discussions can be communicated. First, here is a list of questions remaining in the mind of a devotee, which gives a true sense of the scope of the discussion:

Second, some thoughts from a Roman Catholic participant. Commenting that the Hindus knew their Sanskrit texts well and quoted from them freely, he notes that it was a puzzle to them that Christians should depend upon scriptures which were written in different languages, and indeed in different cultural and linguistic genres. It was hard, he thought, for them to understand why Christians should have developed a discourse about the soul which originated in Aristotle and which was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas. He responds to the basic question  What is wrong with the Bible?  by reflecting that Christians undertake their theology, not by explicating a text within the framework of a defined cosmology but in terms of a narrative.  His reflection on the dialogue is that like so many interfaith encounters, it is not possible for Christians to match text against text, concept against concept. 

Using the image of the Odyssey, he suggests that for Hindus the narrative is a journey which leads back eventually to 'the original state of relationship which is constantly called to mind in the bliss of devotion'. Odysseus is therefore one model, for in all his endless journeying he is always on the way home. Abrahamic faith, on the other hand, is on a different journey, always looking for another city. Perhaps, suggests this correspondent, Christianity has ways of combining both Odysseus and  Abraham.

Another comment in this area came from a Vaisnava, who wrote that he was  impressed by the way in which Christian teaching and practice has emphasised discovering divine purpose in this world, not simply postponing it to the next. Some Vaisnavas, he thought, could 'fail to act purposefully in their lives and their society in the name of detachment from the physical.'

The same correspondent took up some of the pastoral issues that were raised in the conference. He writes:

Last, there were some critical reflections from one of the two Swamis present. He noted on the Christian side a lack of willingness to explore the issues through the realms of reason and logic (is this not how our previous writer's assessment that Christians undertake their theology through narrative, is bound to be perceived?). While noting that reason and logic are not the ultimate parameters, the Swami suggests that they are very useful in understanding things as they are, and highlights what he sees as the insufficiently focused nature of the discussions during the weekend.  'I  would,' he writes, 'like to have seen an in-depth study of one point and some resolution of that.' He also comments that certain major points went unchallenged in the discussion. One significant one was Keith Ward's acceptance of Darwinian evolution as being harmonious with his Christian beliefs.  In these comments was seen the disparity between Christian faith and Vaisnava philosophy, for here conversation was not just Christians with Vaisnavas but Vaisnavas with evolutionists. Thus he raises one important issue for the Vaisnavas. He comments, 'Part of my thinking process was questioning whether what I was hearing was Christianity ... what Jesus taught and what is written or originally written in the Bible.'

Those last comments lead to some closing reflections from this rapporteur:

Finally, let me stress once again the importance of this conference. There have been other kinds of gatherings sponsored by ISKCON ― meetings of scholars of religion (see for example a fine volume of essays edited by David G. Bromley and Larry D. Shinn, Krishna Consciousness in the West: Bucknell University Press, 1989), but to my knowledge our coming together in Wales was the first  where there was appropriate interfaith dialogue at this theological level, in which leading ISKCON scholars and Christian theologians were engaged in mutual challenge and response.    

From our side I can only say that many other Christian scholars and thinkers need to experience the enormous benefits such dialogue brings. To them I can only say, 'If you are ever invited by our ISKCON friends, do not hesitate to respond ― previous knowledge of Gaudiya Vaisnavism is not required, only openness and commitment.' To my Krishna Consciousness friends, I say simply, 'Thank you'.    

Participants from the Christian side: Michael Barnes (Cambridge), Marcus Braybrooke (Oxford), Kenneth Cracknell (Cambridge and Texas), Gavin D'Costa (Bristol), Elizabeth Harris (Oxford), Penelope Johnstone (Oxford), Christopher Lamb (London), Peggy Morgan (Oxford), Brian Pearce (London), Kathleen Richardson (London), Keith Ward (Oxford).

Participants from the Vaisnavaite side: Akhandadhi Dasa (Bhaktivedanta Manor and Bengal), Anuradha Devi Dasi (Bhaktivedanta Manor), Kripamoya Dasa (London), Premanarva Dasa (Sweden), Ranchor Prime (London), Ravindra Svarupa Dasa (USA), Sacinandana Swami (Germany),  Sarvamangala Devi Dasi (London), Shaunaka Rishi Dasa (Belfast), Sita Devi Dasi (London), Sivarama Swami (Bhaktivedanta Manor and Hungary), Virabhadra Dasa (Italy).

_______________________________________________

The Nature of the Self: A Christian Understanding

by Keith Ward

The background to Christian thought about the self

Christian thought about the self builds on the foundations laid by Biblical Judaism. Genesis 2,7, part of the second creation account in the Book of Genesis, states that 'the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.' Humans are formed of dust, of material energy, and they will return to dust. They are given life by the breath of God, which can be given and can be taken away by God. The Hebrew word for breath is 'Neshemah', but in Genesis 6,17 the same thought, 'breath of life', is expressed by the word 'Ruach', which can be translated as 'air' or 'spirit'. So humans are pieces of matter formed and given life by the spirit of God, or by spirit which emanates from God, as breath emanates from a living being.

Another important element in the Biblical creation stories is given in the first creation account, which states that 'God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' (Genesis 1,26) Humans image God, like reflections in a mirror or sparks from a fire. They are given 'dominion' over the natural world. Just as God creates and cares for all creatures, so humans are to share in this Lordship, by caring for the natural world and ordering it to the glory and service of God.

The Genesis creation stories express their belief that the material universe is created for the sake of the forms of goodness it makes possible. Humans do not exist eternally, but originate as parts of the material universe. They have a special role in the universe, which is to shape it to express the glory of  God. They also share in the Spirit of God, and so are able to relate in friendship and love to God. They can be seen as mediators between the material and spiritual realms, ordering matter to become a manifestation of spirit, and offering the material realm, through their consciousness and actions, as a sacrifice of praise to God.

Early Hebrew thought does not make a great distinction between humans and other animals. Presumably every living thing, not just humanity, is filled with the 'breath of life'. If humans are uniquely in the image of God, this uniqueness lies in their role as stewards of the created world and as the 'priests of creation', who offer it in worship to the Creator. It does not lie in any ontological uniqueness (in being a soul-substance, for example), except insofar as responsible stewardship and worship of God both require reflective thought and fully intentional action. One might fairly say that, on the Biblical view, humans are complex structures of matter which have become capable of self-consciousness, reflection and purposively self-directed action. They lie at one end, on earth, of a continuum of living things, with a responsibility for the well-being of the material order of which they are part.

It is not surprising, then, that there is little sign of a belief in the immortality of the soul in the thought of the Hebrew Bible. But there are factors pulling in another direction. The Creator is pure Spirit, with consciousness and will. Thus materialism, the theory that there cannot exist consciousness without a material brain, must be false. According to the prophets, God has a desire for relationship with created personal beings. This cannot be a relationship between material beings, so again the possibility, and indeed the fact, of an immaterial, spiritual, personal relationship, is asserted by the Bible. The Creator is a Lord of justice and of mercy, taking vengeance on evil and bringing good to those who love Him. But it became increasingly obvious that those who love God do not always flourish.

So the idea developed of a further life in which the personal consciousness that had developed on earth could experience a fullness of personal relationship with God, and in which justice could in some way be done. At first a shadowy afterlife in Sheol, a grey half-life, was postulated. Later, possibly under Zoroastrian influence, the idea of resurrection became widely held. The dead would rise to their bodies to Judgement, and according to the lives they had led, enter into an eternal love of God, or an eternal exclusion from the Divine presence. At the time of Jesus, this belief was widespread, but by no means universal among Jews, and even today belief in a life to come is not binding on Jews. That is the background against which Christian belief developed.

The traditional Christian understanding of the self

Jesus taught the resurrection of the dead, and appeared after his own bodily death to the apostles. So Christians are committed to belief in resurrection. As Christianity moved into the disintegrating Roman Empire, it adopted the philosophy of the Greeks to express religious beliefs. After a thousand years of a rather uneasy alliance with Platonism, it was the philosophy of Aristotle which got taken into Western Christian thought by the thirteenth century theologian Thomas Aquinas. His view of the soul was based on Aristotle's 'De Anima', and has become what may be called the traditional Western Christian view.

In Aristotle's view, Forms are universals or defining natures which are given actualisation and individuated by matter. The soul is the Form of the body, a particular instantiation of a defining nature. However, Aristotle seems to think of a soul, not merely as an abstract definition, but as an actual power which enables a body to act in a certain way. Nutritive souls cause plants to grow and multiply. Animal souls cause animals to perceive and move. Rational souls cause humans to think and intend. Humans are distinctive in having rational souls, which are those properties of bodies which enable them to think and intend.

In the case of plants and animals, such souls are material properties, and are not separable from the bodies which manifest their activity. This may be true of humans as well, but Aristotle canvasses the possibility of the organ of thought being immaterial, since understanding is not a material activity, and thus possibly has some sort of existence without the body. Aquinas amplifies this view, and asserts that the rational soul is a spiritual principle of thinking and intending which can exist without a body, but whose proper function is to animate a particular material body, to which it is intrinsically fitted.

Thinking, after all, is closely dependent on a sense-activity to provide objects of thought. Intending is dependent on a body which can act in the world. So the soul is that which gives a  particular complex material body the capacity for reflection and rational agency. It is the subject of the experiences and actions of a particular body. This view can be developed in two ways. One gives a quasi-materialist interpretation (which was probably Aristotle's own), so that talking about the soul is simply a way of talking about the properties of a material body which enable it to think. To say that humans are rational souls is just to say that they are animals which can think. The thinking cannot exist  without the body, the matter, which makes the activity possible. But one can also give a quasi-dualist interpretation (which was certainly Aquinas'), so that the thinking subject can exist substantially. If it does, however, it exists 'unnaturally' or 'improperly', since each soul or substantial intellective form is meant to be the active principle of a material body, and indeed of a particular material body.

Aquinas was able to develop a view of the soul, the subject of thinking and willing, as able to exist after death in a disembodied state, by the grace of God. In that state, development or purification of the soul is possible (in Purgatory), preparing it for eventual resurrection. But it will not form a complete person until the resurrection of the body, when it will once again have its proper organ of perception and action in a public, communal world. The resurrection was to be of this earthly physical body, with all its physical attributes, though in a perfected form. At the Last Judgement, when earthly history has come to an end, all souls will receive their own bodies, and will enter into their eternal destiny, for final union with or exclusion from the presence of God.

Disagreements on this subject between Catholic and some Protestant theologians are fairly minor. They mainly arise from the fact that some Protestants insist that the soul never exists in a disembodied state, and so 'sleeps' between death and the General Resurrection. This makes any thought of development of the person after death, or of possible repentance after earthly death, virtually impossible to conceive. The traditional Catholic view, however, also denies the possibility of repentance after death, and the doctrine of Purgatory, as officially formulated, seem more like a time of punishment than of positive development. So many theologians, probably most, feel that the traditional views need to be restated in some way.

A contemporary interpretation using a more Biblical basis

Strangely, the main New Testament passage dealing with resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15, 35–50, did not play a large part in developing the classical Christian tradition. There, Paul makes it clear that the physical body (soma psychikon; literally, the mind-body) dies, and what is resurrected is a spiritual body (soma pneumatikon), as different from the physical as wheat is from the seed from which it springs. He explains that it is impossible to envisage what this body will be like. But it will be incorruptible and glorious, and thus not subject to the laws of space-time. It will be fully part of the 'body of Christ', and thus be a part of God, wholly devoted to the Divine will and expressive of the Divine action. It will not be in this material realm, but in a 'new creation', which has no need of any sun or light and heat. It will live with other resurrected bodies in a community of creative understanding and love.

One might think of the 'mind-body' as the body which is immersed in this physical world, its attention focused on physical realities and its actions directed to the mastery of nature and the gratification of feelings. The 'spirit-body' will be a body constituted by its intimate relation with God. Its attention is focused solely on the Supreme Lord and its actions will shape nature to endless forms of beauty and happiness, under the direction of the Supreme Lord. It is useless to ask about its form or shape. Nevertheless, it will be perfectly suited to enable the soul to actualise those sorts of capacity which had a largely frustrated expression in the material world.

In one passage, Paul  writes that as the physical body decays, the spirit body begins to take shape, even during this mortal life (2 Corinthians 4, 16–5,5). 'Eternal life', for Christians, is not just something which begins after death. It is the quality of life seen in relation to the eternal God. So the spirit-body exists even during life. Paul typically speaks of humans as made up of body, soul and spirit (1 Thessalonians 5,23). In this context, one can interpret the soul as the mind oriented solely towards the material world (the 'false ego'), and the spirit as the personal subject interpenetrated and empowered by the Spirit of God (the true self). For those who are 'in Christ', the Kingdom in a sense exists on earth. Yet it does not exist fully, since it still confronts and is not free from the evil and conflict which mark all human affairs. As long as freedom, conflict and suffering exist, the Kingdom cannot exist in its fullness. This material world, even if it once could, cannot now fully actualise the Kingdom of God.

On this view, the material world comes to have the function of generating souls, subjects of thinking and willing. In a 'fallen' material realm of conflict and suffering, they have responsibility for fighting evil and striving for justice and the flourishing of the natural order, for the coming of the Kingdom of God. However, the Kingdom can only be fully established in the spiritual realm, in which evil is eradicated and all created life shares in the Divine life. In that Kingdom, the Bible supposes, the natural order will be beautiful and pleasing, animals will take their proper place in the community of sentient beings without conflict, persons will live in creative communion, and God will be present in and through all things.

After death, there may be various sorts of 'embodiment' for the soul, various modes of interaction with an environment in which development in understanding can take place, or in which, perhaps, evil souls can repent and turn back to God (Cf. I Hebrew 3, 18–20). This would correspond with the 'Sheol' of the Hebrew Bible, or the 'Paradise' of which Jesus spoke on the cross (Luke 23, 43), seen now as a place of purification and preparation for the final Kingdom, when all humanity would be united in love for a present and unhidden God. There is no need to speak of wholly disembodied souls. One can rather see the possibility of different sorts of embodiment for the same subjects of action and enjoyment, culminating in the pure spiritual Kingdom of God.

Thus the Christian view of the self is that it emerges from the material order, but it is destined for a spiritual order. It is born in a 'body of death', oriented to the desires of the senses and the pride of the mind, doomed to frustration and the ultimate failure of its earthly hopes. But it is destined to receive a 'resurrection' of body of spirit, and for Christians that is the teaching Christ comes to inaugurate. The apostles saw Jesus after the death of his material body in his spirit-body. They believed that they received the Spirit in a new and powerfully transforming way through loving devotion to him. The Divine Spirit began to shape their spirit-bodies, so that they would become 'like Christ', and would eventually be wholly united to God through and in Him. At the end of historical time, they believed, Christ would return and transform the whole material realm into its true spiritual form, wherein all humans, living and dead, could achieve their true destiny.

The traditional view of the soul uses Aristotle's philosophy in an imaginative way to show how the soul is both essentially embodied and yet not irrevocably tied to a specific material body. The traditional view of resurrection arguably remains too materialistic, however, and a return to the Pauline teaching of a spiritual body points the way to an interpretation, at once newer and yet more Biblical, of how the spiritual realm can be seen as the reality of which this material realm is a shadow and corruption. Existence in that spiritual Kingdom, ruled by a clearly known and worshipped God, beginning even now in this material life, is the proper object of Christian hope.

_______________________________________________

The Nature of the Self: A Gaudiya Vaisnava Understanding

By Ravindra Svarupa dasa

The sparks of God

The soul, or self (atma), is described as a separated, minute fragment of God, the Supersoul (paramatma). God is like a fire; the individual souls, sparks of the fire. As the analogy suggests, the self and the Superself are simultaneously one with and different from each other. They are the same in quality, for both the soul and the Supersoul are brahman, spirit. Yet they differ in quantity, since the Superself (param brahman ― supreme brahman ― in Bhagavad-gita 10.12) is infinitely great while the individual selves are infinitesimally small.

In the Upanisads some texts assert the identity between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul, while others speak of the difference between them. The way the Vaisnava Vedanta resolves this apparent contradiction recognises identity and difference as equally real.

Such a reconciliation is conveyed in the Katha Upanisad (2.2.13) in the words nityo nityanam cetannas cetananam eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman. ('There is one eternal being out of many eternals, one conscious being out of many conscious beings. It is the one who provides for the needs of the many.') This text states, in effect, that there is a class division in transcendence. It says that there are two categorically different types of eternal, conscious-hence, spiritual-beings. One category is singular in number (nityo), a set with only one member. This, then, is the category of God, who is one without a second. The other class is plural (nityanam), containing innumerable members. This is the category of the souls. The members of both classes are brahman, spirit. Yet one of them is unique, peerless, in a class by Himself, for He is the singular independent self-sustaining sustainer of all others. Each of the others possesses a multitude of peers, and all of them alike are intrinsically dependent upon the one. The one is the absolute, the many are relative.

The energies of the Absolute

Fundamental to the Vaisnava Vedanta is the doctrine that the Absolute Truth possesses energies. (The impersonalistic Advaita Vedanta, in contrast, denies the reality of the energies.) The energies are divided into different categories; one of them is comprised of the innumerable individual souls.

The 'Absolute Truth' denotes that from which everything emanates, by which it is sustained, and to which it finally returns. The products of the Absolute are thought of as its sakti, its energy or potency. Heat and light, for example, are considered the energies of fire. Just as the sun projects itself everywhere by its radiation yet remains apart, so the Absolute expands its own energies to produce (and, in a fashion, to become) the world while remaining separate from it.  Unlike the sun, the Absolute can emanate unlimited energy and remain undiminished. (The arithmetic of the Absolute: One minus one equals one.) In short, while nothing is different from God, God is different from everything.

The host of souls makes up the category of divine energy called the tatastha-sakti. Tata means 'bank', as of a river or lake. Tatastha means 'situated on the bank'. The souls are characterised as marginal or borderline energy because they are, as it were, between two worlds. They can dwell within either of the two major energies, the internal (antaranga-sakti) and the external (bahiranga-sakti). The internal potency is also known as the spiritual energy (cit-sakti), and the external potency is also called the material energy (maya-sakti). The internal potency expands as the transcendental realm, the eternal kingdom of God. The external potency expands as the material world, which is sometimes manifest and sometimes unmanifest.

Because souls are spiritual, their original home is the spiritual kingdom. Almost all souls dwell there. These are called eternally liberated souls. Only a tiny minority of souls inhabit this material world. These are called fallen, or conditioned, souls.

Souls are small samples of God. Hence they possess a minute quantity of that freedom which God possesses in full. Although they are eternal, full of knowledge and bliss, and although their dharma, or essential nature, is to serve God, they may still, in the exercise of that freedom, wilfully turn away from divine service. Thereupon these souls fall into the inhospitable realm of the external, material energy.

Because souls are constitutionally servants, even the rebellious souls remain under God's control, but that control is now exercised indirectly and unfavourably through the agency of material nature. Souls do not have the freedom not to be controlled by God, but they do choose freely how they wish to be controlled. Those who will not voluntarily be controlled by the Lord are controlled involuntarily by material nature. For this reason, spiritual souls become incarcerated within matter. Under the superintendence of the Lord, there is a confluence of the marginal and the external energies, and the creation arises.

Spirits in the material world

The presence of spirit within the material world is disclosed immediately to us by consciousness. Consciousness is the symptom of the soul. It is the current or the energy of the soul. Consciousness does not arise as a by-product of the material energy. A material object like a table or chair is entirely an object and in no way a subject. It does not undergo experiences. It has no significance for itself. An embodied soul, a living being, on the other hand, is a subject; it has significance for itself as well as for others; it undergoes experiences. The claim that the soul is an unknowable 'metaphysical entity' beyond all possible experience is simply false. Not only do we experience the soul; the soul is the very condition for our having any experiences at all.

Thus, souls are fundamental, irreducible entities in the world. Each living, conscious being is of a different category from the material energy which embodies and surrounds it. The Upanisads declare: aham brahmasmi, I am not this body. Human beings achieve their full potential when they realise this.

The material elements, of which living bodies are made, are traditionally given as eight: earth, water, fire, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego. They are arranged in sequence from the grossest to the subtlest, that is, from the most apparent to our senses to the least. The first five are the gross elements (maha-bhuta-s); the last three, the subtle elements (suksma-bhuta-s). The gross elements become more intelligible to us when translated as: solids, liquids, gases, radiant energy and space. The subtle elements, taken together, make up what we in the West generally call the 'mind'. The subtle element manas, or mind, is the locus of habit, of normal thinking, feeling and willing according to one's established mind-set. Buddhi, or intelligence, is the higher faculty of discrimination and judgement; it determines mind-sets and comes to the fore when we undergo conversions or paradigm shifts. Ahamkara, or the sense of self, is the faculty by which the embodied soul assumes a false or illusory identity in the material world.

Conditioned souls attain human form after transmigrating upward through the scale of beings; thereupon they become capable of self-realisation and liberation. Liberation means giving up false identification of the self with the gross and subtle material coils and regaining one's original spiritual form as a servant of God.

Even in the conditioned state, the soul always remains a spiritual being. Like a dreamer who projects his identity onto an illusory, dream-self, the conditioned soul acquires a false self of matter. Although the self is by nature eternal, full of knowledge and full of bliss, this nature becomes covered by illusion. Identifying with the material body, the soul is plunged into the nightmare of history, trapped in the whirlpool of repeated birth and death (mrtyu-samsara). This false identification by the embodied souls with their psychophysical coverings is the cause of all their suffering.

The quest by conditioned souls for happiness in this world inevitably fails. The eternal souls naturally seek eternal happiness, yet they seek it where all happiness is temporary. The fulfilment of the most common and basic desire, that of self-preservation, has not once met with success. Indeed, the deluded souls do not know that matters are just the opposite of the way they seem. Gratification of the senses is in fact the generator of suffering, not happiness. This is because each act of sense gratification intensifies the soul's false identification with the body. Consequently, when the body undergoes disease, senescence and death, the materially absorbed living beings experience all these as happening to themselves. Death is an illusion they have imposed upon themselves owing to their desire to enjoy in this world. So enjoying, their agony continues unabated. A mind brimming with unfulfilled yearnings propels them, at the time of death, into new material bodies, to begin another round.

Recovering the authentic self

Fallen souls have been granted a false material identity because they reject their authentic spiritual identity. The traces of that rejection are found everywhere. We see that all organisms, from microbes on up, are driven by the mechanism of desire and hate, by 'approach' and 'avoidance'. This duality is the reverberation of the original sinful will that propelled them into this world. The original sinful desire is: 'Why can't I be God?' And the original sinful hate, 'Why should Krsna be God?'

When souls evince the desire to become the Lord, the Lord responds by granting them the illusion of independent lordship. They enter the material kingdom, to be provided with a sequence of false identities ― costumes fabricated out of the material energy ― along with an inventory of objects which they think they can dominate and enjoy. Even so, the Lord accompanies them in their wanderings, dwelling in their hearts as He works to bring about their eventual rectification and return from exile. When the soul in the depth of his being, again turns to God, the Lord makes all arrangements for his inauthentic, illusory life to end.

The renovation of real life is called bhakti-yoga ― reconnecting the souls with the Supersoul (yoga) by loving devotional service (bhakti). Bhakti rests upon the principle that desire and activity are not in themselves bad. The soul itself is the source of desire and activity. The original, pure desire of the soul is to satisfy the senses of the Lord. This is called prema, or love. When souls contact matter, their love becomes transformed into lust (kama), which is the desire to satisfy one's own senses. The practice of bhakti-yoga reconverts lust into love. Desire is not suppressed or repressed; it is purified. One may call this 'sublimation', but it should be understood that when desire is thus sublimated it rests in its natural and aboriginal state.

The world, the body with its senses and the sense objects are not to be enjoyed, but neither are they to be renounced. The world is God's energy, and it should not be decried as false or evil. Rather, the elements of this world are to be engaged in divine service. When that is done, the veil of illusion is lifted, and everything and everyone are seen in their true identity: in relationship to God. The way to see divinity everywhere and in everything is to utilise everything in the Lord's service. God is the first of fact, but our materially contaminated senses cannot perceive Him. When, however, the senses become purified by being engaged in the Lord's service, they regain their capacity to perceive God directly.

Such purified souls are fully joyful. They neither hanker nor lament. Their happiness does not depend upon the course of circumstance. They see all living beings as the same. They see that all the agony and hopelessness of the world is exorcised when the illusion that has rendered us oblivious to our own identity is dispelled, and they engage themselves in the highest welfare work of rousing sleeping souls from their nightmare. For themselves, they take no mind of what becomes of the future of their lives.

Because they have no material desires, there is no further birth for them in this world. Instead, they attain their original spiritual forms in the kingdom of God, spiritual bodies suitable for pastimes of love with the Lord.

The Absolute Truth has both an impersonal and a personal feature, but the personal feature is the last word of Godhead. To say the Absolute is a person is to say that it has senses (indriya-s). Traditionally, the senses are ten: those through which the world acts upon us (instruments of hearing, touching, seeing, tasting and smelling), and those through which we act upon the world (instruments of manipulation, locomotion, sound production, reproduction and evacuation). The mind is often considered the eleventh sense. A body, accordingly, may be thought of as an array of senses organised around a centre of consciousness. Thus, to say that the Absolute is a person is to say that the Absolute has body or form.

The body of God is not material. It is a spiritual or transcendental form ― sat-cit-ananda-vigraha, an eternal form of bliss and knowledge. Though differentiated by limbs or parts, a spiritual body is nevertheless completely unified and identical with its own possessor. Therefore, in God, there is no difference between body and soul, mind and body, soul and mind. Every limb or part of that body can perform all functions of every other limb.

Because the Absolute is a person, the souls, the offspring of God, are also persons, and they fully manifest their authentic identity only in relationship with the Supreme Person. When conditioned souls act under the impetus of sense gratification, their bodies evolve materially. But when the souls act in their constitutional position, their love toward God displays itself as the soul's proper spiritual bodies. Thus, the selves achieve their full personal identity and self-expression as lovers of  God.

All relationships in this world are dim and perverted reflections of their real prototypes in the kingdom of God. The taste or flavour of a relationship is called rasa (literally, 'juice'). It is said that there are five primary rasas a soul can have toward the Lord. In order of increasing intimacy, they are passive, adoration, servitorship, fraternal, paternal and conjugal.

God and His devotees engage in eternal pastimes of loving exchanges in spiritual forms that are sheer embodiments of rasa. Such bodies are the unmediated concrete expressions of spiritual ecstasies. These unceasing, uninterrupted, ever-increasing variegated ecstasies are non-different from the souls and from the spiritual bodies that bear them. The forms and activities of the Lord and His devotees all possess transcendental specificity and variegatedness. The forms of love are not abstractions and their relations are not allegories. In the kingdom of God life is infinitely more full, vivid, and real than anything of the thin shadows that flicker here, on and off. Here, we are not what we are. There, we are truly ourselves again because we are truly God's.

< Back · Top ^