One important point to understand in order to become eventually free from this material world is the relationship between the soul and the mind. Although I’m a spirit soul, I have a body, and I have a mind. Just like I’m not the body, I’m also not the mind. In the case of the body, it’s easy to understand since we assume a new body at each birth, but the relationship with the mind is much more intimate, and it’s thus much harder to spot the difference. Different from the body, the mind doesn’t change at each birth, we have the same mind for as long as we are in this material world, and this mind not only stores desires and sensations but is the very tool that allows us to experience and enjoy the world.
In the story of King Puranjana narrated in the 4th canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, the material mind and intelligence are amalgamated in the figure of the queen, to which the king is very strongly attached. In many explanations, the mind and intelligence are explained separately (in the Bhagavad-Gita, for example, Krsna says we should use the intelligence to control the mind), but in this case, they are combined because when one is just enjoying materially, the intelligence becomes subordinate to the desires of the mind and work in combination with it. We can see that in the analogy the King follows the queen in all her steps, and thus enjoys and suffers together with her:
“When the Queen drank liquor, King Purañjana also engaged in drinking. When the Queen dined, he used to dine with her, and when she chewed, King Purañjana used to chew along with her. When the Queen sang, he also sang. Similarly, when the Queen cried, he also cried, and when the Queen laughed, he also laughed. When the Queen talked loosely, he also talked loosely, and when the Queen walked, the King walked behind her. When the Queen would stand still, the King would also stand still, and when the Queen would lie down in bed, he would also follow and lie down with her. When the Queen sat, he would also sit, and when the Queen heard something, he would follow her to hear the same thing. When the Queen saw something, the King would also look at it, and when the Queen smelled something, the King would follow her to smell the same thing. When the Queen touched something, the King would also touch it, and when the dear Queen was lamenting, the poor King also had to follow her in lamentation. In the same way, when the Queen felt enjoyment, he also enjoyed, and when the Queen was satisfied, the King also felt satisfaction.” (SB 4.25.57-61)
These verses show that although different from the mind, the soul develops a very intimate relationship with it, and this is the basic principle that keeps the soul imprisoned in this material world. The process of becoming free passes thus through becoming free from this deep attachment to the mind, which becomes possible by practicing the process of devotional service: As mentioned in SB 1.7.6: “The material miseries of the living entity, which are superfluous to him, can be directly mitigated by the linking process of devotional service.” Just like we become involved with the mind because at some point in eternity we desired to enjoy this material world, we can become free from it when we renounce this tendency and desire instead to reestablish our forgotten relationship with Krsna. We can see that the miseries we experience in this material world are described in this verse as “anartha” (superfluous) indicating that the soul is different from the mind, and thus doesn’t really have anything to do with it.
The relationship of the soul and the mind is furter explained by Srila Jiva Goswami in his Paramatma Sandarbha (annucheda 1, purport), where he says: yah suddho ‘pi mayataḥ paro ‘pi māyā-racitasya vakṣyamānasya sarva-kṣetrasya mayayā kalpitasya manaso ‘ntahkaranasyaitaḥ prasiddha vibhutir vṛttir vicaste visesena pasyati. pasyams tatrāvisto bhavati. sa khalv asau jiva-nāma sva-sarira- dvaya-laksana-kṣetrasya jñātṛtvāt kṣetrajña ucyata ity arthaḥ, which means:
“Even though he is by nature pure (suddhah), that is to say beyond the touch of the illusory potency maya, the individual spirit soul sees (vicaste) the (etah) activities (vibhutih) of the mind (manasah), the mind having been created by the illusory potency maya (maya-racitasya). The mind sees all fields of activity. The mind will be further described later in this book. By seeing these activities, the individual soul, who is called the ‘jiva’, enters into them. Because he thus has knowledge of two different material bodies, the soul is thus called ‘ksetrajña’ (the knower of the field of action).”
We can pay attention to his choice of words. Even though conditioned, the soul is described as “suddhah” (pure) and “mayatah paro” (beyond the touch of maya). How can the soul be pure and beyond the touch of Maya if we are now firmly conditioned, shackled to this material world? That’s what the verse explains.
Srila Jiva Goswami mentions that the soul sees (vicaste) the activities of the mind. This shows how the soul doesn’t really come in contact with Maya. Our conditioning is based on observing and identifying with the activities of the mind. He supports this point by quoting SB 1.7.5:
“Due to this external energy, the living entity, although transcendental to the three modes of material nature, thinks of himself as a material product and thus undergoes the reactions of material miseries.”
He further elaborates this point by saying: tasya manasah. kidṛśatayā māyā-racitasya. taträha jivasya jivopādhitayā jīva- tādātmyena racitasya. tataś ca tat-tayopacaryamanasyety arthah.
“Here someone may ask: “How does the illusory energy mayǎ create (māyā racitasya) the material mind (manasah)?” The answer is given in the word “jivasya”, which means “by making the individual soul think that the external material body is his true identity”.
The point made here is that the soul is fundamentally different from the mind. The mind is a thing, a product of the material energy, while the soul is a living spiritual spark, part and parcel of Krsna. The soul does not directly come in contact with Maya, remaining perpetually in his eternal, spiritual position. However, the soul observes and thus identifies with the activities of the mind, and this is the start of conditioned life.
In a modern example, this relationship could be compared with someone playing a computer game, becoming absorbed in the game, and forgetting his real life. One never really enters into the game, and being a human being he doesn’t have anything to do with the computer, but becoming absorbed in the game his consciousness becomes absorbed in an illusory reality.
Srila Prabhupada gives a similar idea using the example of a dream. When we dream we don’t leave our beds, but our consciousness becomes absorbed into different illusory situations, a process that continues until we wake up. Srila Prabhupada thus explains that the soul never really leaves his original position, although his attention becomes focused on this illusory material world.
One point of dissension for some comes later in the verse, when Srila Jiva Goswami writes: nityā anădita evānugatāḥ. atra ca kadā kidṛśir ity apekṣayam äha jāgrat-svapnayor avirbhūtaḥ suṣuptau tirohitas ceti.
Here the conditioning of the soul is described as “nityā” (continuous) and “anădita” (beginningless). Some interpret these words in the literal sense, meaning that the soul has always been under the spell of Maya, and thus was never anywhere else, but this contradicts the previous passage (as well as many other passages) that state that the original position of the soul is different from the present conditioned state. Srila Prabhupada explains this point by explaining that “anadi” simply means that it is so long in the past that it is not possible to trace the origin. He thus doesn’t translate the word “anadi” as “beginningless” but as “from time immemorial”, making the real meaning clear.
By attentively studying the Paramatma Sandarbha, we can understand that these examples given by Srila Prabhupada are directly based on the explanations of Srila Jiva Goswami. Different from what some think, Prabhupada deeply studied the Sandarbhas and incorporated the conclusions in his purports. When there are apparent disagreements with Srila Jiva Goswami, he is actually just showing a deeper understanding of the text.