In the past, I wrote a few articles about the origin of the soul, according to the way Prabhupada explains it in different passages. However, although Srila Prabhupada explains this topic in a quite detailed way in different places, at the same time he cautioned us about the danger and ultimate uselessness of discussing it. Why is that?

Imagine a crazy person who thinks he is Napoleon. The crazy man looks at you and asks: “How did I become Napoleon?” This is a question that has no sane answer because it starts from a false premise. He was never Napoleon and will never be, but somehow, in his insanity, he thinks he is the great emperor, and starting from this false premise he asks how it happened and how can he go back to his original self. This is a question that comes from insanity, and it is impossible to answer it. The only way to answer it is to somehow convince him that he never became Napoleon in the first place. As soon as he understands it, it will be easy for him to understand everything.

Similarly, in this material world, we live in an insane condition, thinking that we are separated from Krsna. There is nothing that is not an energy of Krsna. Everything is inside Krsna and He is everywhere. Srila Prabhupada explains that both the internal energy and the material energy are in reality not different because both come from Krsna. The energy is in nature not different, what makes it material is that we try to separate it from Krsna. When something is connected with Krsna it is considered spiritual (just like a temple, a deity, or Prasadam), while things that we consider separated from Krsna are material. Again, the energy is not different, but our consciousness makes it act in one way or the other.

For a pure devotee, like Arjuna, there is no difference between the material world and the spiritual world, since both are places where Krsna executes his pastimes. Srila Prabhupada mentions that Arjuna is always following Krsna in His different incarnations in the different material universes, and therefore Arjuna technically never goes back to Godhead. However, at the same time, he is considered a Nitya-Siddha, an eternally liberated soul, not different from eternal associates like Uddhava. This is because Arjuna is always with Krsna, and therefore for him, there is no material world.

What we call “Maya” is not the material world, but the energy of Krsna that allows us to fall into illusion and forget Him. That’s the energy that allows us to fall asleep, so to speak. As Srila Prabhupada makes clear in His purports, the soul is an eternal servant of Krsna. We are eternally connected with Krsna in a bond of love. This love for Krsna is eternally present in the soul and can’t be ever broken. That’s our true ego, who we really are. There is no possibility of us becoming anything else.

There is no chemical process that can convert gold into plastic or some other material. A golden ring will be always gold, no matter what we do. We may cover the ring with plastic and say that it is a plastic ring, but as soon as the plastic covering is removed, we see that the gold is still there. Actually, the ring never became plastic, although it was artificially covered by a layer of plastic. Its real nature as gold was still there the whole time, it never changed.

Similarly, we may temporarily forget about our true nature and become false enjoyers of this material world, but this is a temporary condition, an artificial imposition. As soon as the artificial contamination is removed and our original Krsna Consciousness is awakened, we understand that we actually never left Krsna’s company.

Srila Prabhupada explains this condition by making an analogy with someone sleeping. When we sleep we never leave our bed, but our consciousness goes somewhere else and we see so many imaginary situations. We may dream that we are Napoleon, and inside our dream, we may not remember that we ever were anything else, but as soon as we wake up we understand that in reality we never left our bed, and the idea of being Napoleon and fighting in Europe was just part of a dream. The question is thus not about understanding how did we become Napoleon, but about how to wake up from the dream. As soon as we are awakened, everything becomes clear.

Similarly, we are always with Krsna. In fact, we are with Krsna right now. He is even present as Paramatma inside our hearts to remind us of this. The only thing that prevents us from understanding this and associating with Him are the different material coverings we currently have, including the false ego, mind, intelligence, senses, and physical body. By chanting the holy names and serving Krsna and His devotees these coverings slack and we gradually can see ourselves in our original identity as eternal servants of Krsna.

The question of “How did I fall into the material world” or “How did I become separated from Krsna” is thus part of the material trap, because it starts from the illusory conception that we are separated from Krsna, or that we are now something else apart from eternal servants of Krsna. Starting from a false principle, these questions are similar to the crazy man asking how did he become Napoleon. They are thus impossible to answer. The more we become absorbed in such questions the more it reinforces the material illusion.

We can practically see that devotees who become too absorbed in this question usually end up concluding that the soul is not an eternal servant of Krsna, coming to the conclusion that the soul comes from the impersonal Brahmajoti or some other position where there is no propensity for service, which is precisely the wrong answer. In this way, this philosophical pursuit ends up just reinforcing their material conditioning and making their spiritual journey harder.

On the other hand, devotees who instead follow Prabhupada’s advice of avoiding the misleading question and instead study his books starting from the simple point that we are eternal servants of Krsna (a point that he reinforces every three or four paragraphs, literally) usually have no doubts in this regard.

Are there bad devotees? Indeed we can find some very critical, judgmental, and sometimes even dishonest people among us. Are there good atheists? Surely some are nice and good-natured persons, some are open and non-judgmental, and many can be actually quite supportive and loyal friends.

Are all devotees bad? Surely not. Many devotees are saints. Are all atheists good? Of course not. Many atheists can be quite cruel. Hitler was an atheist and he murdered 6 million Jews in concentration camps, including women, old persons, and children. Stalin was an atheist, just like Mao Tse Tung, and they were also responsible for the killing of millions of people.

Some atheists are quite pious and good-natured, but they represent the top of the pyramid. If we go similarly higher on the pyramid of devotees and religionists, we will find true saints, like our previous Acaryas, persons like Saint Francis, and so on. In other words, the top atheist can be a quite nice and pious person, but the best devotee is a true saint. If we could choose between living with the pious atheist or with the saint, it would be surely more beneficial to live with the saint.

Devotees fighting in wars is unfortunately becoming a relevant topic, as wars are spreading around the world and involving countries where devotees are present. Wars involve very strong sentiments, and such sentiments often cloud our vision. When our vision is clouded we can easily confuse Adharma and Dharma, and perform sinful activities, thinking we are doing good.

In the Vedas we read about many wars fought in the name of Dharma, starting with the battle of Kuruksetra, where the Kshatriyas who defended Dharma grouped around the Pandavas to fight the Adharmic forces led by Duryodhana. There are also other very famous battles, like Lord Rama fighting against Ravana, or many instances where demigods fought with demons to prevent them from taking the universe and advancing their exploitative agenda.

In this way, the concept of Dharmic wars is very much present in the Vedas. There were Dharmic wars in the past, and many devotees fought in them, going from pure devotees, like Arjuna and Hanuman to devotees still dealing with material desires, such as ordinary demigods. More than that, Krsna Himself took part in many of these wars, upholding his words in the Bhagavad-Gita, of Him descending whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice and a predominant rise of irreligion.

However, when we try to transport the idea of Dharmic war to the current context, we face lots of problems.

Nowadays, the word “exclusive” is usually taken as a positive adjective. An “exclusive restaurant” is a place where you can find important people, “an exclusive seat” is a comfortable premium seat on a plane, and so on. However, the word “exclusive” has also a negative connotation, which is to exclude people who don’t fit into a certain standard or stereotype. In this sense, an “exclusive restaurant” becomes a place where people who don’t belong to a certain group or have a certain level of income are discriminated against, and an “exclusive seat” is a place where not everyone can sit. On the opposite spectrum, we have the word “inclusive” which means a place where everyone is welcome.

In the past, we used to sometimes have a more exclusive mentality in our movement. We would set certain standards and would reject people who would not fit into these stereotypes. The problem is that few would be able to properly follow everything, and this would frequently create an unhealthy situation, where people would have a double life, trying to keep appearances when with other devotees but behaving differently when otherwise. Another problem is that many interested persons would often abandon Krsna Consciousness because they would not be able to follow the demanded standards. This led to a decline of our movement in many areas, as the enthusiasm of the first generation gradually waned.

One of the main topics of the Bhagavad-Gita is the discussion regarding the difference between work and renunciation. We tend to think that renunciation means to stop working and go to the forest or to some holy place to peacefully chant, but Krsna alerts us that one can do so only when he is free from desires. As long as the mind is disturbed by desires, such desires will pull us back to material activity.

One who tries to externally renounce but at the same time remains attached to different plans and desires in reality just cheats himself and falls from this platform of false renunciation later. At the beginning of the Bhagavad-Gita, Arjuna wanted to become a jnani, abandoning his duties and going to the forest, but Krsna explained the danger of this approach. The senses are so strong that they can carry away the intelligence of even a great sage, what to say about someone who still has material desires? Krsna thus alerted to the dangers of artificial renunciation and explained the superiority of Buddhi-Yoga, which is a combination of detached work, knowledge, and devotion.

Ordinarily, the paths of Karma (material work) and Jnana (cultivation of knowledge, meditation, and renunciation) are recommended according to one’s level. One who is still attached is recommended to perform karma, while one who is sufficiently purified and detached may opt to renounce work. The path to follow thus depends on one’s qualifications and purity of heart. In chapter two (2.47), Krsna says “karmany evadikaras te”, stating that Arjuna’s level on the Yoga ladder was not renunciation, but action.

Is marriage bad for spiritual life? If we study the scriptures, especially Srimad Bhagavatam, we can find many passages speaking negatively about family life, and recommending renounced life as a better path for the ones who are serious about self-realization. Taking this into consideration, would it not be better to just skip the idea altogether and instead use the time for improving our spiritual practice and go back to Godhead sooner, instead of getting bogged down in family life?

This question has two sides.

One side is that one who is genuinely renounced, bringing experience and renunciation from past lives, may do better if he skips married life since he will be able to use properly his time to cultivate his spiritual practice. This is, in general, the path recommended scriptures for spiritually advanced transcendentalists.

However, one who is not on this platform will have a hard time controlling his mind. Not only he will be forced to spend much of his energy just repressing his nature, but will probably end up developing an unhealthy relationship with the opposite sex. This will not only be a hazard to his mental health but will also undermine his spiritual practice since he will be spending most of his energy just repressing his mind and senses. People in this situation can end up developing many different mental issues and not advancing very swiftly trying to follow a renounced life. Because in this case one is not fixed, there is also a great danger of falling down at any moment.

As devotees, we like to see ourselves as transcendental to Karma. In fact, it’s said that one who chants the holy names purely even once gets free from an unlimited quantity of sins, therefore one who chants 16 rounds of the Maha Mantra daily should be completely free of karma, right? Well, the truth is that most of us are not, and we can see it practically. Bad things still happen to us and can’t honestly say that we don’t feel disturbed by it. Such karmic reactions can even have adverse effects on our spiritual path if we can’t digest them properly. Surely, if one chants purely there is no question of Karma, but are we chanting purely?

To get free of karma is actually an important step in our spiritual process, as Krsna explains in the Bhagavad Gita (7.28): “Persons who have acted piously in previous lives and in this life and whose sinful actions are completely eradicated are freed from the dualities of delusion, and they engage themselves in My service with determination”.

One who is still under the effects of karma and of the three modes of nature will have great difficulty in keeping oneself stable in devotional service since the effects of Karma, both good and bad will continue distracting him in his efforts.

Most of the world’s population consumes caffeine daily. Some statistics speak about 90%. Even in the poorest areas of India, people spare 5 rupees daily to get their tea or coffee. The reason people like caffeine is because they perceive it as something that can give them an extra drive, some extra energy, or alertness that can help them to go through the day. Nowadays this trend is also followed by a number of devotees, especially amongst the ones who have challenging lives trying to maintain their families. Even here in Mayapur many shops sell coffee and tea because many devotees consume it. However, Prabhupada was not very in favor of it, especially when consumed in the form of coffee or tea.

If caffeine can give one extra energy and increase one alertness, why is it not considered a good thing for devotees? Why can’t we just apply the principle of accepting what is favorable and rejecting what is unfavorable, accepting caffeine as something that can be favorable for our spiritual practice? The point is that it isn’t.

Of course, as with any other substance, caffeine may fix certain things on certain people, but generally speaking, the effects of caffeine are not positive, especially for devotees. Let’s try to examine this from a non-fanatic and non-judgmental standpoint.

The first point is to understand how it acts on the brain.

Srila Prabhupada once said that spiritual life is 90% common sense. Most things just follow a natural line of thought. Once one understands the line of thought he can understand the reason and meaning of most rituals, habits, and standards that follow it. Most of the time is not about finding the verse or book where it’s mentioned but simply about understanding the underlying logic.

For example, in the Gita Krsna says to offer him fruits, leaves, flowers, and water. Nothing is mentioned about kachoris or rasagulas. So why do we offer rasagulas to Krsna if that’s not what He asked? The answer is pretty simple: we understand the principle of offering whatever we have of best to Krsna. If one has only leaves he can offer it to Krsna, but if one has rasagulas he should offer that. That’s actually what Srila Prabhupada explains in the purport.

One could argue that since the idea is to offer all the best to Krsna, and not only fruits, leaves, and flowers, why shouldn’t we offer expensive products like foie gras or caviar, for example? Where is the verse where it says it shouldn’t? Indeed, there is no verse where the words “foie gras” or “caviar” are directly mentioned, but in the Bhagavad-Gita Krsna explains the difference between foods in the modes of goodness, passion, and ignorance. Both are classified amongst the foods in ignorance and therefore shouldn’t be offered to Krsna, just like things like onions and garlic.

As we can see, properly understanding it requires to understand and balancing different passages and instructions. The same applies to most other philosophical principles in spiritual life.

We can see that often one may not understand the principle and arrogantly start to challenge and ask for “sastric references”. In most cases, this means simply being arrogant.