Is the soul ever impure or is it only the subtle body that is impure?

So I’ll rephrase your question, three parts in it. First is that the soul, basically based on the third chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, essentially does nothing. The soul acts through the mind and intelligence in this world and we don’t say that.

Second is that when people say that the soul does this, soul does that, we feel agitated by that. The third is that basically all that is happening, the soul is doing is there’s a borrowed consciousness here and apart from that, what we never purify the soul per se, what we purify is the subtle body. So there’s a pure consciousness, there’s a borrowed consciousness, a reflected consciousness.

Okay, so there’s three parts to it. Let’s start with the third part. First is this, there’s definitely a clear difference between conditioned consciousness and pure consciousness.

In fact, in the Bhagavad Gita itself, Krishna categorically says that there is a, what is the word for it? He says chitta is a transformation of material nature in 13.6 and 7 where he says so what we have in the material world is, he’s saying that consciousness is a product of material nature. So what is he referring to? He’s referring to conditioned consciousness over here. So what are the components of this consciousness? We have our convictions, we have our diksha and dvesha, sukha and dukha, corresponding experience.

So all that is referring to our conditioned experience. So a human male will be attracted to a human female or a human male will be attracted to human food and if the soul goes into say a hog’s body, it will be attracted to a hog female and hog food. None of this has anything to do with the soul.

So that particular part that it is the conditioned consciousness that is presently active and what we purify is the subtle body where the conditionings are present and because of which the consciousness gets misdirected. Correct. I’ll just say when you’re drinking that water, one more sentence if you allow me.

I can say one sentence. We say we are a spiritual being having a human experience. Similarly, a rat has a spiritual experience with a rat’s experience.

A rat is a spiritual being with a rat’s experience. So everybody has a is a spiritual being with the experience depending upon the subtle body. Correct.

So to equate our, so as far as purification is concerned, we may use the word, so often the confusion comes because we may use the word pure soul or great soul. Exactly. Now there is fundamentally in our philosophy, an unarticulated switching or unclarified, unemphasized, unexplored switching between using the term soul literally and metaphorically.

So for example, we may often say put your heart and soul in service. That is clearly, it is not that you take the heart and your soul and put it, cannot do that. So it is metaphorical usage.

So there is quite extensive implicit usage of the soul in the metaphorical sense. So when Krishna says Mahatma or Punyatma, so Mahatma, the soul is Anu. The soul is very small.

So what is Mahatma? It is the consciousness of the soul is fixed on the supreme reality. And that is how, because the consciousness evolved to appreciate and be absorbed in supreme reality, the soul is considered to be great. But Atma there has different meaning, isn’t it? Atma has many meanings.

So when he says Mahatma, he is not meaning a soul there. He is meaning Mahatma. It has many meanings, the word Atma, isn’t it? No, but no other meaning will work over there.

So great mind, great body, great intelligence, it has many different meanings, but no other meaning works over there. Are you saying that person has a great mind? No, no, no. My point is that the point that Atma has different meanings does not apply over here.

So what applies over here is a metaphorical sense. In the literal sense, the Atma can refer to the mind, the body, and the soul. It can refer essentially to what in Sanskrit, the word Atma often refers to what we conceive of as ourself.

That’s why we have the word Dehatmabuddhi. So where you think of the Deha to be the Atma or Kamaatmanah Svargapara. In the second chapter, Krishna says Kama is their Atma.

They think of their desires to be their very self. They define themselves by their desires. So Atma has many different meanings, I fully agree with you on that part.

But the literal meanings of the Atma, see the Atma as a term can point to many literal things. But it can also point to something non-literal. So literally it can point to the body, mind, or soul.

Philosophically accurate, it is normally the soul, but it can also refer to the mind, body, sometimes it can refer to the intelligence also at times. But it also, it means what you think of your very essence to be. So in that case, it can be also non-literal.

So Mahatma refers basically to the Atma being Mahaan. The Atma being Mahaan in the sense that Atma’s consciousness is focused on the Mahaan, the great reality. So Punyatma again refers in this case, the consciousness of the pious or pure.

So in that sense, when we talk about Atma in the non-literal sense, it is referring to what we think of as our essence, or what is the defining characteristic of someone, what is the defining characteristic of the consciousness of a person. So there are many things which are referred to that way. So the word like pure soul, great soul, they are very much acceptable and widespread usages in the tradition.

And they may not be understood by those who are using it to be non-literal. But they are non-literal. And now, that’s the first part.

So now the second part is getting agitated. I think there’s a lot of philosophical imprecision in, I won’t say incorrectness, but imprecision. In now, of course, there could be a debate between what is imprecision and what is incorrectness between people.

So but like, what is the adjustment and what is the deviation? One person may call it just I’m just adjusting for the same purpose. It’s a detail I’m adjusting. Somebody says no, it’s a principle you’re changing.

So I think, let’s give the benefit of doubt to people and assume that it’s a philosophical imprecision. So over a period of time, I have found that in our institution, because of the impetus or even the emphasis, pressure for preaching for everyone, there is a corresponding de-emphasis on philosophical precision. And there’s a lot of intentional or unintentional emphasis on utilitarianism.

That means whatever works. Like we say, utility is the principle. Now, those four things, preaching is the essence of all that.

Prabhupada never put them together as himself four statements. They’re attributed to him, but it’s not that he has put them together. So utility is the principle.

Now, each of those can be derived from different aspects of our philosophy, no doubt. It was four quotas. So now utility is the principle could be derived from yukta vairagya.

But utilitarianism can almost become like a use and throw kind of thing that has to be very carefully avoided that connotation. So that’s why I have found that to expect philosophical precision in the general classes is a bit of a unrealistic expectation that will put us only for agitation. Now, which points are important for us? We may try to clarify them with our circle of devotees.

But in general, in the devotee community, trying to emphasize will only alienate us. Especially when I go to preach to the university students. When I talk about the soul, how I direct them is purify your intelligence, strengthen your intelligence.

Through that you conquer the mind, do all those things which are required, so that you’re able to realize who you are. Correct. So I emphasize the importance of intelligence very much.

Very much. Because buddhi yoga, I used in the second chapter, buddhi yoga, Krishna says. That is perfectly fine.

That is perfectly fine. See, I’m talking about two different things. I was talking about you getting agitated when people speak.

So I would say that that is something which I should take it away. It is just the nature of a preaching movement. So there is, I was reading in a Christian academic article, that there is always a distance between the Christian scholars and the Christian teachers.

Those who are pastors and the priests and then leave alone the masses. So it’s almost like a two level Christianity. Now the pastors may try to correct some of the conceptions of the masses.

But then the pastors themselves may have some conceptions that the scholars may not agree with. So there is that multiple understandings of the same passage that is inevitable in religious communities. And we have to choose our battles.

Some people may consider some things to be extremely important. And they may emphasize that and they may want to correct that. But for others, they might just come up with nitpicking.

So if suppose somebody becomes a community leader, somebody becomes a spiritual master, they may say you should not use Hari bol. You should use only Hare Krishna mantra. Just say Hare Krishna.

Never greet people by Hari bol. You may say that Hari bol is an instruction. You’re telling somebody to say Hari.

It is not a greeting. So everybody has their things which they emphasize. Now there are places in the Shaitan Charitaam also where the Hari bol is used.

You can get into whether that’s a precise argument or not. But my point is that for everybody else, it does seem that you’re making a small thing very big. So that’s how it is.

And now going back to the point about what does the soul actually do? Well, I’ll start from the complete non-theistic idea, a non-spiritual vision. We’ll come increasingly closer to our vision. And keep your thing always at 13, 13, 13.

Keep that in mind. So from a philosophical, rational perspective, there’s a prominent thinker who said that there is no concept in the history of religion that is more dead than the idea of the soul. Because he said, at least with the idea of God, you can have some rational discussion.

With the idea of soul, it is an utterly useless idea. Because those who say, he’s talking primarily about Hindus, Buddhists say that there’s no soul ultimately. So Hindus say that you are the soul and you are nothing but the soul.

And then they say that the soul does nothing. So basically, it’s completely, you cannot argue with them about the reality of the soul. Because if every activity attribute to the brain, yeah, but the soul doesn’t do anything.

So they made the soul a completely, what is the word for it? It is a concept which is so elusive, that you cannot pin it down to refute it. From a psychological perspective, there are whole books written about this, how you know, the idea you’re not the body or the soul is a psychologically toxic idea. That is what leads to people, a body denying spirituality, that leads to people betraying themselves, because who they are physically, who they are emotionally, they all betray, because I am none of this.

So people let themselves get suffocated. People let themselves get abused. Because all this is happening to the body.

And somebody says, no, I’m an introvert, I need my space. No, but you’re not. That’s just your conditioning, stupid.

So you are the soul. And all this is something you have to give up. The more you identify yourself as an introvert, the more you are giving it to your conditioning.

Now, all this is, of course, misunderstanding of the philosophy. But my point is that a rigid separation between the soul and the body can be psychologically damaging for the individual who understands it. And it can be a very easy tool for psychological manipulation by the authorities.

There was a very prominent leader in Europe, a very prominent leader. He would just verbally and physically abuse his disciples. He had been a bodybuilder before.

So he would, when he would get angry at a disciple, just pick a disciple and throw him across the room. And several of his disciples would get fractured and everything. So he would say that, I want to force you through a hole so tiny that nothing except the soul will go through it.

And being ready to go through that hole is a test of your surrender. So that rigid separation, now at a philosophical level, we can see what is the precise understanding. But what I’m talking about is that from a rational perspective, as well from a psychological perspective, this notion is fraught with danger.

So, for example, you know, I have had many Western women telling me that it is in ISKCON that I came to know that I’m not the body. And it is in ISKCON more than in mainstream, everywhere else in society, that I’m constantly reminded I am the body. You are a woman, so don’t do this.

You are told you are not the woman, but you are a woman, so you don’t do this. Go here, don’t go there. So there is a significant, what they perceive as a double standard.

Now it’s not a double standard. It is a process that, okay, you are not the body, you are the soul. But to realize the soul, you have to follow certain practices.

And those practices may differ based on the body. So, when any philosophical concept is emphasized very strongly, how it is used or abused depends on the teachers. So, in Radha Gopinath temple, there was a question that many young people are coming nowadays, and they sometimes want to take selfies with the Lord.

So should we tell them not to take it? Radha Maharaj said that, yes, it’s not right to turn your back to the Lord. But he said, if we can make a notice over there, but nobody should tell people. Because once you tell that this should be stopped, then there are many people who take pleasure in imposing rules on others.

We can’t control how people will tell it to others. And many people may go with a bad taste in their mouth, and they may never come back. So they coming to the temple is more important initially, then they’re turning the back to the Lord.

Now, somebody else may disagree about this, and that’s okay. But this is a matter of priority. So where philosophical truths can be, or at least somewhat debated or debatable philosophical truths are capable of being misused in particular ways, we have to be very careful about what we emphasize.

Now, having said that, the 13th chapter is… Before you go there, can I just say one sentence here? I find that the Vedantists, they bring about a better picture, not the impersonalism, say Vedantists. They don’t talk about the soul directly, they talk about pure consciousness. You are that pure consciousness.

And then they say the source of that pure consciousness is the soul. They don’t go straightaway talk about soul. They emphasize, and they give a very beautiful analogy for this.

They say, there is a subject-object relationship. When I see this, this is the object and this is the subject. The subject and object are not always the same.

There’s a difference between the subject and the object. So my eyes is the subject, this mobile phone is the object. Similarly, go one step backwards.

My mind is the subject, my eyes is the object. Because I can see what my eyes is seeing. Then go backwards.

You are able to see what your mind is seeing, who is seeing that. That is consciousness. Beautiful way of expressing.

So this is the way I took to the Curtin University students. Excellent. See, that was the next point I was going to go to.

That in the Govinda Bhashya commentary on Vedanta Sutra, Baldev Dev Goswami addresses the question that, does the soul change or the soul not change? Because the Bhagavad Gita, for example, the soul is achala. In the second chapter, achalo yam sanatana. But then later on, it also says, the soul in goodness goes upward.

The soul in passion stays here. The soul in minerals goes downwards. The soul goes to the spiritual world.

So does the soul move or not move? And we also talk about the blossoming of consciousness or flowering of consciousness, the various stages. But that abhikaryo yam sanatana. Abhikarya is, the soul never changes.

So what does it, what changes? So the idea is that he says that there is, he uses particulars, jnana rupa and jnana svarupa. But without getting into those terms, he says that the soul doesn’t change, but the soul’s consciousness changes. And if the soul’s consciousness can evolve, it can devolve.

The soul’s consciousness is constantly changing. The pure consciousness. The soul’s consciousness means.

Which consciousness? The pure consciousness? The soul’s consciousness means the beam of light of energy that comes from the soul, which leads to the soul perceiving various things. So now the point is, if the soul is here, from there the beam of light comes up and then the beam of light passes through the subtle body, subtle body it goes outwards. So this consciousness as is manifested to us.

So the technically some commentators in Sankhya differentiate between chitta and chitta. Now chitta is a very complicated concept and in yoga sutra, it is, there are different understandings of chitta. But let’s take it that chitta is the original consciousness.

That is always pure. That is, but that pure consciousness is utterly inaccessible for us. What is accessible is chitta.

And chitta is constantly changing. So we say that we have to elevate our consciousness, purify our consciousness. So yes, see the Buddhists focus only on consciousness and not, they don’t consider soul at all.

Anattavada they have. Now sometimes we, we talk about consciousness and soul, but we don’t adequately differentiate between the two. So now from a philosophical perspective, there are in our tradition, some teachers who say the soul, the soul never falls from the spiritual world.

And they try to explain it by saying that the soul is even now in the spiritual world. But the soul experientially is where the consciousness is. And the consciousness is entangled in the body in the material world.

In that sense, we are in the material world. Now, I wouldn’t go that far. But my point is that it is true that the soul is ultimately where what we experience is the reality for us, at least at present.

And even in chapter 2 from 2.30 to all the 2.30, there is no way in the verses that is mentioning about the word soul. So what is the point of that? No, I’m just trying to say the word soul has not been used there. It is, Atma has never been 2.30, 2.40 everywhere.

So it is the emphasis is on consciousness. Interesting. Okay.

Let us think about that. Soul never been mentioned there. Abhinashita tad viddino, what is 2.18? Antavante me deha, nitya uktaha sharirenaha.

Interesting. Deha is used, Atma is not used anywhere. It’s an interesting observation.

So yeah, so the point is that, but you can, I can take the devil’s advocate and say the word chetana is also not used anywhere over there. Chetana or anything equivalent to consciousness is also not used over there. So it just says the embodied, dehi.

What that dehi is, is left ambiguous. And I would say that the, that chapter is referring more to the soul than the chetana. Because it says it cannot be cut.

2.17 talks about consciousness. It is saying that which pervades the body. It doesn’t use the word chetana.

Yeah. Yeah. No, no.

If you’re going to precise terminology, precise semantics, then Atma is not used, chetana is also not used. So some of them, some of the verses like 2.17 definitely seems to refer to chetana, 2.22, 2.23, that to give up one body, go to another body, that is not burned, that is not, that can, that can very well refer much more to the soul than the consciousness. Although it can refer to the consciousness also, but that’s a different discussion.

So my point is that how much is the soul involved? See there is the experiential understanding and there is the ontological understanding or lewd understanding, lewd understanding and the conceptual understanding. So for us, we understand the soul primarily from the perspective of our experience. We, I’m talking about we as individuals.

So we certainly have to take responsibility for our actions. So I certainly don’t agree with the idea that we are not the doers at all and the modes are only the doers. The Gita, that well-known verse 3.27 does not say we are not the doers.

All that it says is one who thinks he’s the doer is an illusion. So the Gita at the end says that in the 18th chapter towards the conclusion, Krishna tells Arjuna, now do as you desire. And Krishna also says, Arjuna also says, the whole point of the Bhagavad Gita is to guide us about what we do.

And if we absolutize the idea that we are not the doer, the whole purpose of the Gita gets defeated. So in the 18th chapter, in the five factors of action, in 1816, Krishna says that, one who thinks I am the only doer. That person is an illusion.

So we are doers, but not the soul doers. So I would say that, to say that the soul does nothing, there is definitely an element of philosophical truth to it. But that truth can be taken a bit too far.

And we have to qualify it with the understanding that each one of us has to take responsibility for our actions. And whether we use our intelligence or whatever we use for our actions. So whatever we use, we use our intelligence.

But ultimately, the soul, whoever it is, it is we who are responsible for our actions. And we will have to bear the consequences of our actions. And we need to take responsibility.

There is a difference between taking responsibility and taking credit. So now, when we desire to execute the actions, we understand that we can’t do much in material nature. And we need the help of Krishna to be able to do it.

Krishna through the material nature helps us to execute the actions. So in that sense, non-doership, if that is understood, so that we don’t become proud or arrogant, then that understanding of non-doership is okay. But if that leads to passivity or lack of responsibility, then that is not helpful.

Thank you.