In Defence of Nitya-baddha Souls Posted in: Freedom From Judgement, Seeing the Divine, The Self Divine
For a westerner embracing the dharmic tradition, the concept of nitya-baddha (sanskrit) – often translated as ever-conditioned or eternally conditioned soul – is routinely confused with the idea of fallen soul prominent in Abrahamic religions. A fallen soul, in simple terms, being one who has rebelled against God, and has thus been cast out of / banished from the kingdom of God. A sinner, in other words.
But assuming eternal actually means eternal, nitya-baddhas, being eternally conditioned, can have no historic falling from grace. They are not fallen souls, rather they are made that way. Made in the sense of essence or nature. That being the case, logically they have no need for rectification or redemption. Yet the idea that individual suffering in this world is due to some sort of fall from grace/rebellion against God runs deep for those growing up in the West. Perhaps for this reason, gurus and teachers from the East sometimes brush aside the issue of the origin of the soul in this world, saying don’t worry how you got here, just worry about how you are going to get out! Unfortunately, to my mind, this brushing aside and emphasis on the quest for liberation, inadvertently fuels the notion of fall from grace.
My contention is, as without correct diagnosis a physician cannot prescribe an appropriate remedy, likewise if the reason we are here is not clearly understood, then the plan of action is likely flawed. And we could easily spend our life trying to solve a problem that does not exist.
As an aside, in this regard I hold with the conviction that God is perfect and complete, and thus everything emanating from God is perfect and complete. Us and this world included. To me the following invocation appears to be saying something along these lines …
oṁ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaṁ
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate
N.B. There exist numerous English translations of this mantra with wide-ranging meanings. Perhaps only because it fits well with pre-existing convictions 😉 … I particularly like the Bhaktivedanta Vedabase translation quoted below:
The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.
Running with the idea that the eternally conditioned nitya-baddhas are made that way, and adding to this the premise that they and this world must be perfect because they emanate from God, the somewhat-challenging question arises as to how both are perfect? This world of birth, death, disease, and old-age … this of world of victims/aggressors etc? Neither seem perfect. Perhaps we have therefore made incorrect assumptions about what is going on here, and specifically about the role of suffering? Perhaps its perfection lies in terms of purposes we have yet to ascertain?
My Tuppence: If I ask myself what might I be doing perfectly, I think it could be that I am contributing – through the lens of my own present body, senses, mind and conditioning – uniquely focused experiential appreciation of God, or aspects of God, or facets of God. Contributing (consciously > < unconsciously) – by dint of my simultaneous oneness and difference with/from God. Experientially unique – by dint of my individuality and the multi-layered context of my present viewpoint. And if this is the case, it may be I am adding in a small way to the ever-expanding completeness of God’s own self-knowing. And everybody else – species of body regardless, theist/agnostic/atheist equally, in fact every living entity – is also doing this. And might that be a worthy divine objective for the existence of us and this world? Perfect coming from perfect. Compared, say, to a prison-house for sinners?
What do you think? What do you find believable?