We are often questioned about the origin of the soul, or we may question others about it. Despite all the warnings from Prabhupada and previous acharyas about the futility of discussing it, it remains a popular topic.

One of the reasons is that the question itself, “What is the origin of the soul?” starts from a wrong premise, the idea that the soul has a beginning, a misconception that is very firmly rejected by Krsna Himself right in the first verses of the Bhagavad-Gita: “For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.”

Since the soul is eternal and has not come into being, the whole idea of an “origin of the soul” is bogus. The soul is just ever-existing, just like Krsna is. There is no beginning.

Another verse from the beginning of the Bhagavad-Gita that is significative in this regard is 2.16, where Krsna makes an interesting point: “nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ”, for the non-existent there is no endurance, and for the eternal there is no change. This verse explains in a few words the difference between material and spiritual. Creation is a concept that exists only in the illusory material world, in the spiritual reality everything that exists just exists, and doesn’t undergo change. There is no past or future, and everything just exists in an eternal present.

Prabhupada explains that when the scriptures define Krsna as the origin or the creator, they are just using material language to stage the relationship, making clear that Krsna is Supreme. These descriptions shouldn’t be thus taken literally but as a statement of relationship. Krsna is the source of all souls and all incarnations not in the sense that He created them at a certain date, but in the sense that He is the Supreme and we are all meant to serve Him.

Considering thus that the soul is eternal and thus by definition without an origin, the question should thus not be “What is the origin of the soul?”, but instead “What is the original position of the soul?”, and especially “How can we go back?”.

In fact, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote a whole book about this, entitled “Jaiva Dharma”, which means the original quality, propensity, constitution, or original position of the soul. In this book he surprisingly, or unsurprisingly concludes that the soul is an eternal servant of Krsna and explains the journey of establishing this original connection.

Krsna has two principal energies: the material, or external potency, and the spiritual, or internal energy. It’s quite clear that the soul is not matter, therefore, by definition, the soul is part of the internal, spiritual potency. The soul has also a constitutional, eternal propensity to serve Krsna. This prema is part of the soul and can’t be separated or lost. This is something explained by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu:

nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema ‘sādhya’ kabhu naya
śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya

“Pure love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established in the hearts of the living entities. It is not something to be gained from another source. When the heart is purified by hearing and chanting, this love naturally awakens.” (CC Madhya 22.108)

In the verse, the Sanskrit for “love” is “kṛṣṇa-prema”, therefore there is no doubt on what it speaks about. Kṛṣṇa-prema is eternally established in the hearts of all living entities (in other words, in the soul). It is eternally there. It is constitutional and can’t be ever lost, but it can be temporarily covered when we associate with the material energy. However, by the practice of the devotional process, especially hearing and chanting, this love naturally awakens. This is a very important verse that reveals the essence of the teachings of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and His whole movement.

Srila Prabhupada summarizes these ideas when he says that the soul is “an eternal servant of Krsna”. This conveys these two essential ideas, that the soul is:

1- Eternal (and therefore without begin)
2- Constitutionally a servant of Krsna.

Prabhupada also defines the soul as “part and parcel of Krsna”. This again conveys two different ideas:

1- The soul is part of Krsna.
2- The soul is eternally an individual.

In other words, the soul is part of Krsna but at the same time separated from him. This is an idea that all the four Vaishnava acaryas, starting from Ramanujacarya explained in their teachings (although in a little different way). The soul is part of the energy of Krsna. Since there is no difference between Krsna and His energy (all four acaryas rejected the philosophy of dualism), the soul is part of Krsna. However, at the same time, the soul is eternally separated from Krsna, being eternally an individual (the four acaryas also rejected monism).

The idea that the soul is eternally an individual is another very essential concept because, without the principle of individuality, there is no question of service and relationship. I can’t have a relationship with myself, the whole idea of relationship entails two or more individuals. If the idea of the individuality of the soul is rejected, we go all the way back to Mayavada’s philosophy, thinking that we are all one and all qualities and relationships are illusory.

We come them to the idea that the soul is the marginal potency of Krsna. Does it explain or origin? No.

First of all, as already discussed, the soul has no origin. Creation is a concept that exists only in the material world. “Marginal” also doesn’t indicate a geographical location, that’s another concept that exists only in the material world. One of the greatest problems in discussing “the origin of the soul” is that material concepts like creation, time, and geographical location creep into our thinking and make us reach all kinds of incorrect conclusions. Only when one is purified of such illusory concepts may he start to understand this difficult philosophical question.

So, if “marginal” does not indicate a geographical location between the material and spiritual words, what does it indicate? Marginal speaks about free will. The soul is marginal because the soul can choose between staying in His original position as an eternal servant of Krsna, or coming in contact with Krsna’s external potency and becoming a conditioned soul in this material world.

The soul is originally part of Krsna, and this means that the soul is originally with Krsna. Krsna in turn is always immersed in His Lila, therefore the soul is also originally in the Lila, as Prabhupada confirms when he says that “we were originally in Krsna’s Lila, or sport”, although one may question how much aware of Krsna’s pastimes the soul may be. The soul has also constitutionally a propensity to love and serve Krsna, although one may question how developed it is. The soul has also free will, therefore one one is a prisoner in the spiritual world, one may choose between serving Krsna or not.

If the soul is part of Krsna, why do the scriptures describe it as “eternally conditioned”? The point is that there is nothing really “eternal” in the material world. True eternality is a concept that does exist here. Material time itself starts at some point (time is eternal as an energy, but its effect on the material energy has a beginning). When the scriptures say that the soul is “eternally conditioned” they just state that it’s not possible to trace when our conditioning started. Anything we can’t count may be defined as “infinite”, “unlimited” or “eternal”, although, in reality, there is a quantity, a limit, or a beginning. We may say that a person who has one trillion dollars is “infinitely rich”, just because we can’t conceive how much one trillion dollars is. The material world is not the origin of the soul, therefore we can’t be eternally here in the literal sense.

So, this means we are originally from the spiritual world, but we feel from there? Not so fast. Prabhupada also explains that “no one falls from Vaikuntha” (Vaikuntha meaning any part of the spiritual world).

As you can see, that’s what makes it such a complicated philosophical problem. There are three principles that are very clearly defined in the scriptures and any attempt to explain it must not contradict any of these three points:

1- The soul is part of Krsna, eternally part of His spiritual potency, and has an eternal propensity to love and serve Krsna.
2- No one falls from the spiritual world.
3- Still we are here.

Practically all of the explanations we have around contradict one or more of these principles, therefore we can understand they are incorrect. Some say the soul has its origin in this material world and therefore was never with Krsna, some say that the soul feels from Vaikuntha, or from Goloka, some say that the soul has no love for Krsna and it has to be gained from some source, and so on. Some authors even write books about it and build their whole careers on confusing others on this topic. However, all these explanations are incorrect.

So far, the only explanation I ever saw that makes sense is the explanation Prabhupada himself gives in his books, that the soul doesn’t really fall, because even here we are always with Krsna. That’s another mistake we make when contemplating on this point: we assume that the material world is separated from Krsna. This is another incorrect concept. We are not dualists. Vaishnava philosophy is based on the concept that there is nothing separated from Krsna. We are always with Krsna, even in this material world. There is nothing separated from Krsna. However, in this material world we think we are separated from Krsna, and thus assume many identities here, sometimes as a human being, sometimes as a lower animal, a plant, or a demigod. What needs to be removed is this layer of illusion.

Krsna Consciousness is precisely based on the idea of reviving this original connection with Krsna, which is eternal, constitutional, and unbreakable. When we do that, we realize that actually we never left Krsna’s association, we just turned our backs to Him due to the influence of illusion.

Understanding the “origin” of the soul thus passes through accepting and properly understanding all these delicate philosophical concepts Prabhupada explains in his books. Devotees who accept these conclusions may eventually understand everything, while devotees who reject them are condemned to never reaching any correct conclusion.

A maths book may say that 2+2=4. One may not understand it at first, but if he accepts this conclusion and just continues studying, he will eventually understand it, as well as many other things. One who rejects this conclusion, however, trying to independently find some other answer, will inevitably come to some wrong conclusion and will remain confused about the whole thing.