So-called soul

Expressions researched:
"so-called soul"

BG Chapters 1 - 6

According to the vaibhāṣika philosophy, the so-called soul or ātmā vanishes along with the deterioration of the body.

BG 2.26, Purport: Even if Arjuna did not believe in the existence of the soul—as in the vaibhāṣika philosophy—there would still have been no cause for lamentation. No one laments the loss of a certain bulk of chemicals and stops discharging his prescribed duty. On the other hand, in modern science and scientific warfare, so many tons of chemicals are wasted for achieving victory over the enemy. According to the vaibhāṣika philosophy, the so-called soul or ātmā vanishes along with the deterioration of the body. So, in any case, whether Arjuna accepted the Vedic conclusion that there is an atomic soul or he did not believe in the existence of the soul, he had no reason to lament. According to this theory, since there are so many living entities generating out of matter every moment, and so many of them are being vanquished every moment, there is no need to grieve for such incidents. If there were no rebirth for the soul, Arjuna had no reason to be afraid of being affected by sinful reactions due to his killing his grandfather and teacher. But at the same time, Kṛṣṇa sarcastically addressed Arjuna as mahā-bāhu, mighty-armed, because He, at least, did not accept the theory of the vaibhāṣikas, which leaves aside the Vedic wisdom. As a kṣatriya, Arjuna belonged to the Vedic culture, and it behooved him to continue to follow its principles.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

The modern theories, they are exactly like that.

Lecture on BG 2.26 -- Los Angeles, December 6, 1968:

Devotee: "According to the vaibhāṣika philosophy, the so-called soul or ātmā vanishes along with the deterioration of the body."

Prabhupāda: The modern theories, they are exactly like that. They want to... Yes, our Kārttikeya was telling that the boys, the young boys and girls, they put forward this theory that "Our parents have made the position of the world so unsafe. So we do not know when we shall, our this body will be finished. So better to enjoy this bodily sense gratification as far as possible quickly." Is not that theory you were telling me? Huh? Is it a fact they are thinking like that? Oh, now, see this nonsense. Now supposing there is soul... And why not suppose? Because experimentally you have not proved that by chemical combination you can produce such moving things.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's so-called soul, the same thing. There is no difference.

Lecture on SB 5.6.7 -- Vrndavana, November 29, 1976: Even a big scholar, while writing comments on Bhagavad-gītā, when Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru [Bg. 18.65], he warns the reader, "It is not to the person. The soul or the spirit within the person." Means he is thinking Kṛṣṇa as ordinary person, and he's a big scholar. This is going on. Kṛṣṇa condemns, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritaḥ [Bg. 9.11]. Anyone who thinks that Kṛṣṇa has a different soul... No. Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's so-called soul, the same thing. There is no difference. That is the... Otherwise how Kṛṣṇa can lift, as a seven-years-old boy, Govardhana Hill? Is it possible by this material body? No. That is not possible. This is common sense. But they cannot understand Kṛṣṇa, mūḍhā. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā.