![\"\"](\"https:\/\/lh3.googleusercontent.com\/-u443o3z2rKw\/VfbQuNFbfRI\/AAAAAAAATxk\/Cdak4zKc38s\/s0\/2015-09-14_15-50-37.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
By Urmila Devi Dasi <\/strong><\/p>\n Sanskrit Terms for Self: Definition and Use in Sacred Literature of the Vedas<\/strong><\/p>\n There are two basic words for self in Sanskrit, the original language of India, as well as the language of philosophers and theologians there today. The first term is \u0101tm\u0101 or \u0101tman, and the second is j\u012bva or, both words combined as j\u012bv\u0101tman. The former word is defined as: \u201c1. the soul; the individual soul, 2. self; oneself\u201d (Apte, 1988, p.78). The latter\u2019s definition, derived from the root j\u012bv, \u201cto live,\u201d is: \u201c1. the principle of life, the vital breath, life, soul, 2. the individual or personal soul enshrined in the human body and imparting to it life, motion and sensation, 3. life, existence, 4. a creature, living being\u201d (Apte, 1988, p. 221).<\/p>\n Satsvar\u016bpa (1977) sums up the definition of j\u012bva, \u201cThe verbal root j\u012biv means \u201cto live, be, or the noun j\u012bva refers to the individual living being, or soul. According to the Vedic analysis, the living being (j\u012bva) is separate from the body, yet, within each and every body (including those of men, beasts, and birds) an individual soul (j\u012bva) resides. Individual consciousness is the symptom of the j\u012bva\u2019s presence\u201d (p.26).<\/p>\n These two terms are used in context throughout the sacred literature called the Veda, as well as in philosophical treatises which expand or comment upon these. Among these, the most universally studied among many schools of thought is the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101 (also referred to simply as the g\u012bt\u0101). Although scholars wrangle over various dates, according to the text itself the conversation recorded therein would have taken place slightly more than 5,000 years ago. The \u0101tma is described there in the following way: \u201cyath\u0101 sarva-gata\u1e41 sauk\u1e63my\u0101d, \u0101k\u0101\u015ba\u1e41 nopalipyate, sarvatr\u0101vasthito dehe, tath\u0101tm\u0101 nopalipyate, (word for word) yath\u0101\u2014as; sarva-gatam\u2014all-pervading; sauk\u1e63my\u0101t\u2014due to being subtle; \u0101k\u0101\u015bam\u2014the sky; na\u2014never; upalipyate\u2014mixes; sarvatra\u2014everywhere; avasthita\u1e25\u2014situated; dehe\u2014in the body; tath\u0101\u2014so; \u0101tm\u0101\u2014the self; na\u2014never; upalipyate\u2014mixes. (translation) The sky, due to its subtle nature, does not mix with anything, although it is all-pervading. Similarly, the soul situated in Brahman vision does not mix with the body, though situated in that body\u201d (chapter 13, text 33).<\/p>\n As for the term j\u012bva, we find the following reference: \u201cmamaiv\u0101\u1e41\u015bo j\u012bva-loke, j\u012bva-bh\u016bta\u1e25 san\u0101tana\u1e25, mana\u1e25-\u1e63a\u1e63\u1e6dh\u0101n\u012bndriy\u0101\u1e47i, prak\u1e5bti-sth\u0101ni kar\u1e63ati (word for word) mama\u2014My; eva\u2014certainly; a\u1e41\u015ba\u1e25\u2014fragmental particle; j\u012bva-loke\u2014in the world of conditional life; j\u012bva-bh\u016bta\u1e25\u2014the conditioned living entity; san\u0101tana\u1e25\u2014eternal; mana\u1e25\u2014with the mind; \u1e63a\u1e63\u1e6dh\u0101ni\u2014the six; indriy\u0101\u1e47i\u2014senses; prak\u1e5bti\u2014in material nature; sth\u0101ni\u2014situated; kar\u1e63ati\u2014is struggling hard. (translation) The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind.\u201d (chapter 15, verse 7).<\/p>\n The self is, according to the g\u012bt\u0101, the essential living being, a part of God, who is different from the body and mind, although struggling with them. A realized self ceases to struggle because of no longer identifying with this body and mind. Rather, a j\u012bva in spiritual consciousness knows itself to be of a godly nature. This mentality is described in an older Veda, the \u012a\u015bopani\u1e63ad. There, it is stated, with reference to the \u0101tma, \u201cOne who always sees all living entities as spiritual sparks, in quality one with the Lord, becomes a true knower of things. What, then, can be illusion or anxiety for him?\u201d (Mantra seven).<\/p>\n Ancient Philosophers<\/strong><\/p>\n The relation of the self to the body and mind is that the self animates the body. Kapila, living before the g\u012bt\u0101 was recorded, is one of many philosophical teachers whose conversations with disciples form parts of the \u015ar\u012bmad Bh\u0101gavatam, transferred from oral history to written form soon after the g\u012bt\u0101 was also written down. He explains, \u201cUnder the supervision of the Supreme Lord and according to the result of its work, the living entity, the soul, is made to enter into the womb of a woman through the particle of male semen to assume a particular type of body\u201d (canto 3, chapter 31, text 1). \u201cIn this way the living entity gets a suitable body with a material mind and senses, according to its fruitive activities. When the reaction of its particular activity comes to an end, that end is called death, and when a particular type of reaction begins, that beginning is called birth\u201d (canto 3, chapter 31, text 44).<\/p>\n How the self becomes entangled with the body, taking its pains and pleasures as its own, is thoroughly explained by Bharata, another ancient sage. His taught that the real life of the self is spiritual. A person who understands this position does not feel bodily pains and pleasures as being part of the self at all, any more than one would accept a dream as ultimate reality. He explained that the mind and body are coverings for the self, acquired because of desire. How the soul manages the mind determines whether, to what extent, and in what way the self identifies with the body and therefore feels the pains and pleasures of the body as its own. (\u015ar\u012bmad Bh\u0101gavatam, canto 5, chapter 11, texts 1-17)<\/p>\n The Principal Philosophers in the Vedic Schools of Thought<\/strong><\/p>\n All philosophers who reference Vedic texts as authoritative distinguish both between the self and the mind, and between the self and the body. Within that broad mutual understanding of the self, however, exist quite different ways of thinking among philosophers which lead to variant worldviews. For example, although the g\u012bt\u0101, accepted by all followers of the Vedas, clearly states that the j\u012bva or self is a separated part of God, there was one famous thinker who taught a philosophy of monism, positing that all selves are essentially one with each other and with God. \u015aa\u1e45kar\u0101c\u0101rya, or \u015aa\u1e45kar\u0101 (788-820), is the founder of the Advaita philosophy, which, in the West, is often taken to be the main understanding of what is considered as Hinduism, even though it represents a deviation from the original tradition and by no means is the understanding of a majority of those who follow the Vedas. \u015aa\u1e45kara took strict vows of asceticism at the age of eight. He taught that there is ultimately only the existence of pure spirit, Brahman. All concepts of an individual self are due to ignorance. The plurality of j\u012bvas, which seem obvious to our ordinary experience, are simply designations, or names that are neither real nor unreal. The appearance of many selves can be explained like the one sky appearing inside many pots or the one moon reflected in many ocean waves. In both cases there is only one; the appearance of many is an illusion. (Purusatraya, 1993, pp. 6-7)<\/p>\n \u015aa\u1e45kara\u2019s philosophy is known as nondualistic because he said that the j\u012bva is identical with God. Although there are many Vedic statements which say the Absolute Truth is Supreme Person and the j\u012bvas is subordinate, a part of God, \u015aa\u1e45kara\u2018s idea is that j\u012bvas are themselves the Absolute Truth. Therefore, according to him there is ultimately no variety or individuality in spiritual existence. (Satsvar\u016bpa, 1977, p. 49) \u015aa\u1e45kara\u2019s ideas show up in various forms and permutations far beyond his own homeland and very short life.<\/p>\n Living in South India, R\u0101m\u0101nuja (1017-1137) strongly countered \u015aa\u1e45kara\u2019s teachings. If all concepts of an individual self are due to ignorance or false designation, as \u015aa\u1e45kara taught, then, R\u0101m\u0101nuja explained, ignorance must also be real. But if real, then non-dualism becomes dualism because both spirit (Brahman) and ignorance would co-exist. If ignorance is unreal, we are driven to self-contradiction or infinite regress. \u015aa\u1e45kara taught that knowledge would destroy the illusion that the self exists and, through knowledge, a person would again merge into oneness; R\u0101m\u0101nuja said that knowledge does not destroy what is real, but reveals it. (Introducing Vedanta, section: The Seven Impossible Tenets) R\u0101m\u0101nuja sees knowledge as an attribute of the j\u012bva. Knowledge is the essence of the self and the self has knowledge as well. Although the self is eternal and unchangeable, its knowledge is subject to change. Mundane knowledge comes into being when the mind and senses come into contact with objects of the world. But spiritual knowledge always exists with the self, although it may be dormant when the self is in a conditioned state. (Purusatraya, 1993, pp.15-16)<\/p>\n R\u0101m\u0101nuja taught that the body is an instrument for the j\u012bvas who either live eternally in a spiritual form or in the material world in a form made of gross elements. Every living body has an \u0101tm\u0101, including the bodies of plants and animals. It is the self who experiences events; the body acquired by karma, or works done in previous lives, determines the kind of experiences the self goes through. Because the self always has a body whether material or spiritual , self and body are inseparable, although they are different. (Satsvar\u016bpa, 1977, p. 51)<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough it is the philosophical work of R\u0101m\u0101nuja that marks the first major attack on the non-dualist Vedanta, historically it is the dualist school of Madhva that provided the most determined and resolute opposition to the Advaitins (of \u015aa\u1e45kara)\u201d (Introducing Vedanta, section: Madhva) . Madhva (1239\u20131319) \u201cmaintained that although the j\u012bvas are superior to matter, they are distinct from the Lord and are His servitors. Whereas the Lord is independent, the j\u012bvas are totally dependent on Him. \u2026 In addition, Madhva explained that each person molds his own karma , and that through bhakti one can eliminate all his karma and return to his original position of serving the Lord in the eternal spiritual world\u201d (Satsvar\u016bpa, 1977, pp. 51-52).<\/p>\n In his work, Vi\u1e63\u1e47u-tattva-vinir\u1e47\u0101ya, Madhva defines the self as that to which a person refers when he or she says, \u201cI.\u201d It is the self or j\u012bva who feels happiness or misery, who is subject to repeated births within material bodies, and it is the self who can finally get liberation by the process of loving God. The state of the self in liberation, he explains, is not as a formless point or colorless being, but as an individual with a transcendent form, name, and characteristics. (Purusatraya, 1993, p. 40)<\/p>\n Madhva differs from R\u0101m\u0101nuja in some important ways. Madhva defines the selves as images of God; R\u0101m\u0101nuja as exactly like God but of smaller size and limited creativity. (Introducing Vedanta, section: Madhva). More importantly, Madhva defines three classes of j\u012bvas, one of which is eternally damned. (Purusatraya, 1993, p. 42) No other philosopher who allies with the Vedas considers that any \u0101tm\u0101 is, by nature, unable to achieve liberation. Madhva also distinguishes himself by insisting on absolute and eternal distinctions between the j\u012bva and God, one j\u012bva and another, and between the j\u012bva and matter. (Kapoor, 1976, p. 169) R\u0101m\u0101nuja, on the other hand, posited that the j\u012bva is an attribute of God, not totally separate as Madhva claimed, nor totally one as in \u015aa\u1e45kara\u2019s conception. Yet Madhva criticized that R\u0101m\u0101nuja failed to explain the relationship between God and the souls except by analogy. (Kapoor, 1976, p. 165)<\/p>\n Today\u2019s followers of Madhva are numerous and important; those of R\u0101m\u0101nuja number in the hundreds of millions and make up probably the largest numbers of those considered as orthodox Hindus, although there are different branches among his followers. A lesser known teacher, Nimbarka, is significant because he represents one of four ancient schools of Vedic thought and does have followers today mostly in northern India. Little exact information on his life and birth are known, though it is most likely that he lived between the time of R\u0101m\u0101nuja and Madhva. (Purusatraya, 1993, p. 51) He taught that the j\u012bvas are parts of God, both identical and different from Him. He said that the identity with God is real and eternal, while the difference is unreal and accidental, due to designations like the body and senses, and will cease after liberation. However, the identity of the j\u012bva as separate from the Lord is as real as its identity with Him. He seeks to reconcile both points of view. (Kapoor, 1976, p. 167) Nimbarka details categories of souls not according to an intrinsic nature as does Madhva, but in terms of how the self is presently situated in relation to material or spiritual inclinations and sub-categories of these. (Purusatraya, 1993, p. 53)<\/p>\n Many people in the present western Indian state of Gujarat are in the line of followers of Vallabha (1481-1533), who was originally from South India. Like Nimbarka, he categorized j\u012bvas according to their present inclinations and activities, though his system was far simpler. He delineates three main groups which are as follows: (a) souls which are always free, (b) souls which are in bondage in material nature, and (c) souls who have become free by the process of loving service to the Lord, having previously been in a position of bondage. The second group he further divides into three categories that are as follows: (a) those that are fully busy with material affairs, (b) those trying for the spiritual according to scriptural rules, and (c) those worshipping the Lord with love through grace. (Purusatraya, 1993, p. 60)<\/p>\n While Madhva, R\u0101m\u0101nuja, and Nimbarka teach that the bondage of particular souls is due to the free will of those souls, and \u015aa\u1e45kara implies free will though he cannot explain the origin of the ignorance that covers the j\u012bva, Vallabha attributes the material covering of some j\u012bvas to the will of the Supreme. Vallabha writes that all j\u012bvas have the powers of God because of being of the same nature. The bound j\u012bvas, however, have their powers, especially bliss and knowledge, obscured for the sake of divine sport. Such a philosophy seems to make God responsible for the j\u012bvas\u2019 good and bad deeds, and deprive the selves of free will. This teaching puts him at odds with the Vedic sages who strongly taught a philosophy of both individual responsibility and reactions for deeds (karma). (Kapoor, 1976, p. 174)<\/p>\n Officially becoming a disciple in the line coming from Madhva, Caitanya (1486-1534) essentially started his own school of practice and philosophy, and is considered by many to fulfill scriptural predictions for being an incarnation of K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a, the Lord Himself and the original speaker of the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101. When Caitanya decided, at the age of 24, to take vows of asceticism, he explained to his widowed mother the doctrine of the self. He explained that the \u0101tm\u0101 is within the body and is simply imagining itself to be someone\u2019s mother or husband, man or woman, due to false designations. Traveling through various bodies due to reactions to work (karma), when the self fortunately attains a rare human body, the j\u012bva can get free from illusion and bondage by developing affection for God. (Locana dasa\u1e6ch\u0101kura, trans. 1994, pp. 205-206)<\/p>\n After becoming a renounced monk, Caitanya taught philosophy to a number of his leading disciples, some of whom wrote books and had disciples of their own. One of his most famous discussions was with San\u0101tana Gosv\u0101m\u012b, a former government minister in Bengal who took up the life of a religious to learn from Caitanya. Caitanya explained the self to San\u0101tana as a spiritual energy of the Lord, in the position of an eternal servant. The j\u012bva is marginal, as it can choose to live either under the shelter of the material or spiritual energy. Choosing matter, the self becomes covered to various degrees, thus getting all kinds of miseries and fear. Then, instead of serving God, the j\u012bva tries to compete with Him. To rectify this mistake, the self should worship the Lord through the process of devotional service. This worship must be done under the guidance of saintly persons, sacred literature, and the Lord within, because a j\u012bva cannot become free solely by its own efforts. Upon gaining freedom, the self regains knowledge of its real identity. This identity is that of inconceivable oneness and difference with God, like the relationship of a particle of sunshine with the sun. (K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a dasa Kavir\u0101ja, ~1610, trans. 1996, Madhya 20.108-126)<\/p>\n The understanding of simultaneous identity and non-identity, called in Sanskrit, is acintya-bhed\u0101bheda-tattva, is at once a harmonizing and an expanding of the previous philosopher\u2019s explanations of the relationship between the self and God. \u015aa\u1e45kara proposed only oneness. Madhva taught only difference. R\u0101m\u0101nuja, Vallabha and Nimbarka attempted to say that both existed while emphasizing one or the other. Caitanya\u2019s philosophy was that both exist equally and are completely real and describable. Yet the fact that opposites can co-exist in the same measure cannot be conceived by the human mind, however well described with logic and analogy. The term, acintya, meaning beyond the power of conceptualizing, acknowledges the limits of grasping the full reality, or tattva, of the spiritual relationship. Followers of Caitanya<\/strong><\/p>\n One of Caitanya\u2019s disciples, R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101mi, (1489-1564) took his master\u2019s teachings and systematized them. R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101mi is today considered the leading preceptor of the many millions of people who form the branch of Madhva\u2019s school which comes through Caitanya, called the Gau\u1e0d\u012bya Vai\u1e63\u1e47avas. R\u016bpa, while saying that the qualities of God are unlimited, described them in 64 main categories. He then explained that the perfected j\u012bva exhibits the first 50 of these in minute degrees. (1541, trans. 2000, p. 176)<\/p>\n R\u016bpa also delineates in great detail the nature of the perfected form, mood, and activity of a j\u012bva who has realized its true nature in love of God. He described, for example, the five main loving relationships a realized self can have with the Lord, which are as follows: (a) neutrality, as in reverent worship without activity; (b) active service in a variety of ways, and in many types of spiritual bodily forms for the self; (c) friendship of several types; (d) parenthood where the self takes the role of a seeming superior to the Lord; and (d) conjugal lover where the self is the wife or beloved of the Lord in several types of relationships. (1541, trans. 2000, p. 231-233)<\/p>\n Probably the most concise and easy to understand explanation of the j\u012bva\u2019s path from bondage to realization was described by Vi\u015bvan\u0101tha Cakravart\u012b (~1646-1754). In his M\u0101dhurya K\u0101dambin\u012b, he describes that first, a j\u012bva develops a little faith that there is a spiritual reality. Gradually that faith leads the self to spend time with saintly persons who guide the person to the practice of devotion. Through such practice, the self gradually sheds all material designations, becomes fixed in realization, attached to God, and then develops ecstasy and spiritual love in one of the ways described by R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101mi. The relationship between the self and subtle body in this process is particularly interesting. Prior to the stage of attachment (\u0101sakti), a person wanting self-realization has to forcibly withdraw the mind from material engagement. At the stage of attachment, however, absorption of the mind in spiritual matters is automatic; one is not aware of how the mind naturally goes to topics of God. (Vi\u015bvan\u0101tha, trans. 1993, p. 39)<\/p>\n A more recent follower of Caitanya\u2019s line, Bhaktivinoda (1838-1896), wrote, \u201cOne who is thoughtful should first examine oneself. From the existence of one\u2019s own self, the existence of other objects is ascertained. A thoughtful person may say, \u2018If I do not exist, then nothing else exists; because without me, how is it possible to realize other things?\u2019\u201d (1879, trans.1998, pp. 161-162). He described a very detailed account of the nature of the self, its entanglement in matter and the process of freedom. He also gave 12 characteristics of the unbound self. These are that the \u0101tm\u0101 is eternal, unlike the body and mind. The self is ultimately not contaminated by matter, and is free from dualities or possessions. Being the seer, the self is the shelter for gross or subtle objects, rather than being under their shelter. Although the body goes through various changes such as birth, growth, production of by-products and dwindling, the self is not really affected. A realized self perceives himself through transcendent senses. The self is the root of the nature and existence of the body and mind, but is not localized to any one place. Although within the material world, the soul is never truly affected by the material qualities, nor covered by matter. A person who understands this transcendent nature of the self gives up the illusion of \u201cI and mine\u201d in relation to this world. (1879, trans.1998, pp. 166-167)<\/p>\n There is a beautiful prayer that sums up the feeling of one who has understood the transcendent nature of self in loving relation to the Lord. It is as follows: A very interesting way of envisioning the relationship between the j\u012bva, mind, body, and the world has been explored by Dr. Richard Thompson (1947- ). He presents the material world as a kind of computer simulation, with the bodies of living beings like the characters seen in a role playing game. The subtle body consisting of mind, intelligence, and false ego acts as the interface much like computer mouse and keyboard, with the self as the one desiring and willing. He explains the irony of a rationalist trying to understand the existence of the self, \u201cThe problem here is that anything that we can fully describe in words is something of which we are aware, and this it is not awareness itself. But if awareness is not fully describable by words, then is it anything at all?\u2026The very feature of consciousness that disqualifies it for many modern philosophers is the starting point for meditative disciplines that try to realize the self by discriminating it from non-self\u201d (2003, p.17)<\/p>\n Western Thought<\/strong><\/p>\n The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) gives this definition of self, \u201cChiefly Philos. That which in a person is really and intrinsically he (in contradistinction to what is adventitious); the ego (often identified with the soul or mind as opposed to the body); a permanent subject of successive and varying states of consciousness.\u201d<\/p>\n While it is doubtful that in the West one will find the richness and specificity about the self that R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101mi gives in his Bhakti-ras\u0101m\u1e5bta-sindhu, there are certainly a variety of viewpoints about the self\u2019s existence and definition among Western philosophers. Reminiscent of Bhaktivinoda, Kant (1724-1804) writes, \u201cThe consciousness of my existence is at the same time an immediate consciousness of the existence of other things outside me\u201d (1969, B 276) He understood \u201cI\u201d to be not intuition, but the form of consciousness (1969, A 382), which, coincides with the view of most philosophers in the Vedic tradition in regards to the real ego. If \u201cI\u201d is meant to mean the body, mind, or the designations of this world, then such, in terms of Vedic understanding, is not the self, but rather a false ego or covering of the self.<\/p>\n The g\u012bt\u0101 (chapter 6, text 25) states, \u201cGradually, step by step, one should become situated in trance by means of intelligence sustained by full conviction, and thus the mind should be fixed on the self alone and should think of nothing else.\u201d In a similar way, J.G. Fichte (1762-1814) admonishes us, \u201cAttend to yourself: turn your attention away from everything that surrounds you and towards your inner life; this is the first demand that philosophy makes of its disciple. Our concern is not with anything that lies outside you, but only with yourself\u201d (1982, p. 6) He clearly distinguished between the self and not-self (p. 104 and 110), similar to Madhva who emphasized an absolute distinction between one j\u012bva and another and between the j\u012bvas and the world.<\/p>\n Hume (1711-1776) thinks that we should put our attention out of ourselves as much as possible because there is nothing but perception. (1739, p. 67) He seems to understand that all is senses and sensation (p. 103) and that our beliefs are the results of emotions rather than logic (p. 183). Yet perhaps he agrees with the concept of self being different from mind when he writes, \u201cThe same person may vary his character and disposition as well as his impressions and ideas, without losing his identity\u201d (p. 261). All that he mentions as changing relates to what Vedic influenced philosophers would identify with the mind, intelligence, and false ego\u2014the subtle body, whereas the self remains unchanged. Hume also agrees with the concept that the j\u012bvas are each separate individuals when he states that each person is \u201centirely loose and independent of each other\u201d (p. 466).<\/p>\n On the other hand, echoes of \u015aa\u1e45kara sound in the works of Spinoza (1632-1677) who writes that when the human mind has an idea, such is actually God\u2019s idea. (2000, p. 439 and 456)<\/p>\n Then there are those who wonder if there is any self at all. It is common in the modern world to teach Darwinian evolution which states that a complex combination of matter somehow developed into life. What distinguishes life from matter becomes unclear, if there is any demarcation at all. Perhaps the only difference is the degree of complexity, so that we could expect sophisticated computers to one day exhibit symptoms of life. With such a philosophy, the brain is considered to be the mind, and body is the self. William James (1842-1910) summed up this soulless view of the world by calling all our spiritual activity \u201creally a feeling of bodily activities whose exact nature is by most men overlooked\u201d (1981, p. 301). So it is not surprising to read a prominent Western philosopher declaring, \u201cSelf is the only person whom we know nothing about\u201d (Disraeli, 1826, Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, definition e).<\/p>\n Perhaps one of the most difficult terms to define is the one with which a person should be most familiar\u2014one\u2019s own self. On this journey of life, when deciding on meaning, goals, and searching for happiness, the first business would seem to be to know something of personal identity.<\/p>\n References
\nWhen giving instructions on the self to various persons, Caitanya explained the relation between the j\u012bva and the subtle and gross bodies. As soon as a soul desires not to serve the Lord, and so comes under the control of material energy, the \u0101tm\u0101 gets a covering of a subtle body. The three aspects of this covering are mind, intelligence, and false ego, the latter which causes identification with the world and particular gross bodies. This subtle body is not capable of action or enjoyment. The j\u012bva, therefore, is further covered by a body made of bones, flesh, and so forth, for the purpose of fulfilling the subtle body\u2019s desires and interacting with material nature. According to the good or bad deeds done by the self with the body, various changes take place in the subtle body which lead to taking birth in corresponding gross bodies in many species of life. Having an essentially spiritual nature of happiness, however, a j\u012bva is drawn always to look for pleasure, even though lasting happiness is not to be found in matter. Upon meeting a saintly person, the self can start to regain its true nature. (Kapoor, 1976, pp. 134-135)<\/p>\n
\nAll there is that may be indicated by the words \u201cI\u201d and \u201cmine\u201d I offer at Your lotus feet, O merciful Lord! I no longer consider even myself to be \u201cmine\u201d, O Lord! Now I have become exclusively Yours. The soul inhabiting this mortal body has given up the false ego attached to the word \u201cI\u201d, for today the spiritual sense of being Yours has entered his heart. All my possessions\u2014body, home, servants, brothers, friends, wife, sons, personal belongings, fencing, and gateways\u2014all of these are now Yours, for I have become Your servant. I am but a mere occupant in Your house. You are the owner of the house, and I am Your most obedient servant. My only activity now is endeavoring for Your happiness. (Bhaktivinoda, 1893, trans. 1994, p. 24)<\/p>\n
\nApte, V. S. (1988). The Student\u2019s Sanskrit English Dictionary. Delhi, India: Motilat Banarsidass. (Original work published 1973)
\nBhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101 As It Is (1993) (A. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhup\u0101da, Trans.) [The Song of God]. Los Angeles, California: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. (Original work published ~3000 B.C.)
\nBhaktivinoda\u1e6ch\u0101kura. (1994). Saranagati and Gitavali (Dasaratha Suta, Trans.) [The Songs of Bhaktivinoda \u1e6ch\u0101kura]. Union City, Georgia: Nectar Books. (Original work published 1893)
\nBhaktivinoda\u1e6ch\u0101kura. (1998). Sri Krsna Samhita (Bhumipati Dasa, Trans.). Vrindavana, India: Vrajraj Press. (Original work published 1879)
\nFichte, J. G. (1982). Science of Knowledge (Heath, P. and Lachs, J., Trans.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
\nHume, D. (1986). A Treatise of Human Nature. London, England: Viking. (Original work published 1739)
\nIntroducing Vedanta (1997). Retrieved April 23, 2004, from http:\/\/www.philo.demon.co.uk\/Darshana.htm: http:\/\/www.philo.demon.co.uk\/vedanta.htm#Vedanta
\nJames, W. (1981). The Principles of Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1890)
\nKant, I. (1969). Critique of Pure Reason (N. Kemp Smith, Trans.). USA: Bedford\/St.Martin Press. (Original work published 1929)
\nKapoor, O. B. L. (1976). The Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya. New Delhi, India: Munshiram Monharlal Publishers.
\nK\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a dasa Kavir\u0101ja. (1996). Caitanya Carit\u0101m\u1e5bta (A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhup\u0101da, Trans.). Los Angeles, California: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. (Original work published ~1610)
\nLocana d\u0101sa \u1e6ch\u0101kura. (1994). Sri Caitanya Mangala (Subhag Swami, Trans.). New Delhi, India: Rekha Printers. (Original work published ~1540)
\nOxford English Dictionary (1989). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
\nPurusatraya, S. (1993). The Four Vaisnava Sampradayas. Vrindavana, India: Vaisnava Institute for Higher Education.
\nR\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b. (2000). Bhakti-rasamrta-sindu (Dhanurdhara Swami, Trans.). [Waves of Devotion]. USA: Bhagavat Books. (Original work published 1541)
\nSatsvar\u016bpa d\u0101sa Gosv\u0101m\u012b. (1977). Readings in Vedic Literature. Los Angeles, California: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
\nSpinoza, B. (2000). Ethics Ethics (Parkingson, Trans.). New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
\n\u015ar\u012b \u012a\u015bopani\u1e63ad (1974) (A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhup\u0101ada, Trans.). Los Angeles, California: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. (Original work published prior to 3000 B.C.)
\n\u015ar\u012bmad-Bh\u0101gavatam (1972) (A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhup\u0101da, Trans.). Los Angeles, California: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. (Original work published ~3000 B.C.)
\nThompson, R. L. (2003). Maya, the World as Virual Reality. Alachua, Florida: Govardhana Hill Publishers.
\nVi\u015bvan\u0101tha Cakravart\u012b. Madhurya Kadambini (Deena Bandu, Trans.) (1993) [Cloud Bank of Nectar]. New Delhi: Allied Printers. (Original work published ~16??)<\/p>\nUrmila’s official website: http:\/\/
![\"Hare](\"https:\/\/lh3.googleusercontent.com\/-k7VV6L_F8u8\/WyYRXVkkUSI\/AAAAAAAAlAE\/gNP1XfNSHV0GlBnBHzPHpWjy-DfWllD0gCHMYCw\/s0\/2018-06-17_09-42-48.jpg\")
By Urmila Devi Dasi <\/strong><\/p>\n