Planet ISKCON

Today, we will discuss an important concept from the Bhagavad Gita: Work as Worship—or as it is commonly expressed in Hindi, Karmahi Puja Hai. However, the Gita does not teach that “work is worship” in the literal sense but rather emphasizes work in the mood of worship. Let’s explore this idea in three parts, with a focus on Chapter 18, Verse 46, of the Bhagavad Gita.

In this verse, Krishna says:
“By whom this entire material existence is pervaded, and from whom it has emanated—worship that Supreme Lord through your work. By such worship, a human being can attain perfection.”

The key phrase in Sanskrit here is svakarmana tam abhyarcha, which translates to “By your work, worship Him.” This is often oversimplified as “work is worship,” but the Gita’s teaching goes deeper: worship Him through your work.

Let us now examine this concept in three parts:

1. The Appeal and Validity of “Work is Worship”

The phrase “work is worship” resonates universally because societies, both ancient and modern, often assign value—or lack thereof—to different types of work. In hierarchical societies, certain professions are revered as sacred, while others are considered menial or profane. For example, temple priests might be seen as performing “sacred” work, while scavengers might be viewed as engaging in “lowly” tasks.

Even in today’s largely secular world, this discrimination persists in different forms. For instance, someone working in a politically incorrect field might face social disapproval, or rural professionals might be looked down upon by those from urban, elite backgrounds. Human society has a tendency toward prejudice, leading to the undervaluation of some work and the workers performing it.

However, the Gita’s perspective helps challenge this bias. While all work has value, it also acknowledges that not all work holds the same degree of importance or requires the same level of competence. For instance, the role of an army commander differs in value and complexity from that of a foot soldier. Both are important, but their responsibilities and contributions are distinct.

2. The Problems with Equating Work with Worship

Equating “work” with “worship” can be problematic because not all work is inherently virtuous or aligned with higher principles. Work driven by selfish motives, exploitation, or unethical practices cannot be equated with worship. The Gita emphasizes that what entangles us is not work itself but the mindset and motivation behind it.

The term karma (action) in the Gita refers to work performed with the right intention, aligned with dharma (righteousness), and directed toward the service of the Divine. Thus, it is not the act itself but the consciousness with which the act is performed that elevates work to the level of worship.

3. Transforming Work into Worship

To transform work into worship, the Gita advises cultivating the right attitude. Work should be performed selflessly, with dedication, and as an offering to the Divine. This approach elevates even mundane tasks into acts of spiritual significance.

For example, in a functional hierarchy like a kitchen preparing a feast, the head chef oversees the entire operation, while others may cut vegetables or perform smaller tasks. While there is a natural hierarchy, no role should be seen as inferior. Each contribution is integral to the success of the whole.

The Gita teaches us to see all work as interconnected and essential, while simultaneously recognizing that disparity in roles does not justify discrimination. By performing our svadharma (our prescribed duties) with devotion and detachment, we can attain liberation.

The concept of work as worship urges us to transcend societal biases and perform our duties with humility and reverence. By aligning our work with divine purpose, we not only fulfill our worldly responsibilities but also progress spiritually. The Gita’s wisdom reminds us that the value of work lies not in its external form but in the spirit with which it is done.

The Transition from Functional to Moral Hierarchy

Sometimes, a functional hierarchy—the idea that certain types of work are more important than others for the sake of functioning—gets misinterpreted as a moral hierarchy. In a functional hierarchy, a leader or manager might hold more responsibility, but this doesn’t mean they are morally or spiritually superior to someone performing less prominent tasks. However, when functional hierarchies are automatically equated with moral hierarchies, it creates an unhealthy distortion.

Disparity leads to discrimination when people are judged solely by their work, and those performing what is deemed “lesser” work are derided. A functional hierarchy is essential for efficiency, but it does not—and should not—imply a moral hierarchy. For example, a worker might possess stronger moral character—being more honest or upright—than their manager. Conversely, the reverse could also be true. The point is, morality cannot be assumed based on one’s role in the functional hierarchy.

Discrimination Across Cultures and the Distortion of Work Hierarchies

In India, the caste system is often criticized for its role in perpetuating discrimination. One tragic example is the treatment of untouchables—those relegated to jobs considered “impure,” such as sanitation work. The term “untouchable” literally meant that physical contact with these individuals was seen as polluting.

This practice, however, is a distortion of Vedic principles. Foundational texts like the Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavatam do not mention untouchability. Instead, the concept of hierarchy in work stems from functional necessities. For example, those engaged in sanitation work might need to take extra precautions for cleanliness to avoid the spread of germs. This functional precaution was misinterpreted over time as moral condemnation, leading to demeaning and discriminatory practices.

This issue is not unique to India. In medieval Europe and even in the 17th-19th centuries in the UK and America, rigid social hierarchies devalued common laborers while glorifying the aristocracy. In the Arab world, similar biases were evident, with birthright often determining perceived superiority. These examples reflect a universal human flaw: the tendency to let disparity devolve into discrimination.

The Need for Dignity of Labor

To counteract these distortions, there must be a recognition of the dignity of labor. All work has value, though not all work holds equal importance in every context. A hierarchical view of work, based on its contribution to society, is natural. However, the intrinsic value of individuals is independent of the work they perform.

The Bhagavad Gita underscores this point by teaching that every living being is a part of God. This intrinsic spiritual connection provides a foundation for respecting all individuals, regardless of their profession. The idea of work as worship aligns with this truth: it highlights that both work and workers are valuable and deserve respect.

The Ethical and Philosophical Dimensions of “Work as Worship”

The phrase “work is worship” holds great value as an ethical principle for social reform. It promotes respect for all professions and reduces discrimination in society. However, as a philosophical principle for spiritual elevation, it requires deeper scrutiny. Is all work intrinsically worship?

Consider examples of harmful or unethical professions:

• A robber who spends their day planning thefts.
• A professional assassin or mercenary who kills for money.
• A beggar who views begging as a full-time job.

Clearly, not all work can be considered worship. Harmful work deserves condemnation and legal punishment, not glorification. This raises the question: who decides what work is “good,” and on what basis?

Work and the Intent Behind It

The phrase “work is worship” can be misleading if taken to mean that any work, regardless of its nature or intent, is sacred. Instead, the Gita emphasizes the consciousness and intention behind the work. Work becomes worship when performed with dedication, responsibility, and a sense of service.

For instance, years ago, I was invited to speak at a factory on the topic of “work is worship.” The organizer’s intent was pragmatic: to inspire the workers to be more diligent and responsible. However, this utilitarian approach misinterpreted the Gita’s teachings. The Gita cannot be reduced to slogans for immediate practical gains.

If hard work alone were worship, then a donkey—known for its tireless labor—would be the ultimate worshipper. Yet, donkeys are often used as symbols of pointless or directionless effort. Hard work must be purposeful and intelligent to hold value, both in ordinary life and in spiritual practice.

The Gita’s Vision of Work

The Bhagavad Gita offers a nuanced vision of work. It teaches us to act not out of compulsion or selfish gain but with a sense of purpose, dedication, and detachment. Reducing the Gita’s wisdom to simplistic slogans undermines its depth and transformational potential.

While the concept of “work as worship” can inspire diligence, it must be understood in light of the Gita’s broader teachings. Work itself is not intrinsically worship; it becomes worship when aligned with higher principles and performed with the right intention.

The phrase “work is worship” holds ethical value, promoting respect and dignity for all professions. However, as a philosophical principle, it requires qualification. Not all work is worship; it is the attitude and intention behind the work that elevate it to an act of worship. By understanding and applying the Gita’s teachings, we can transform our work into a meaningful and spiritual offering, transcending both functional and moral hierarchies.

Why Do We Need Worship?

The idea of “work is worship” often creates the misconception that work can entirely replace worship, rendering worship unnecessary. This leads to the question: Does work itself elevate our consciousness? If the purpose of life is spiritual growth and the spiritualization of our consciousness, does work inherently help achieve that, or does it entangle us further in material concerns?

In practice, when we work, we often become passionate, calculative, and at times manipulative. Without a spiritual grounding or a spiritualized consciousness, work tends to entangle us more than it liberates us. While some individuals may maintain a good consciousness while working, this does not imply that work itself produces such consciousness.

The core issue with equating work with worship is that it often results in dismissing the need for worship altogether. Statements like “Why pray or worship when you can simply do your work?” undermine the deeper aspects of life that extend beyond work. While work is essential, it is not the sole purpose of life, and ignoring this fact leads to a limited and materialistic outlook.

The Gita’s Perspective: Work as Worship

The Bhagavad Gita introduces a more nuanced understanding: the concept of work as worship rather than “work is worship.” These ideas are fundamentally different.

1. Work is Worship: This suggests an intrinsic equivalence between work and worship, implying that all work is worship, with no need for any distinct spiritual practice. This perspective is flawed because it assumes that every action—regardless of its morality or intent—is an act of worship.
2. Work as Worship: This recognizes that work can become a form of worship when performed in the same prayerful and spiritual consciousness that characterizes worship. In this framework, work becomes a subset of the broader circle of worship. Worship encompasses activities like prayer, meditation, and deity worship—acts distinct from earning a living or performing professional duties.

The Gita explains this with the verse “Swakarmana tam abhyarchya siddhim vindati manava” (Bhagavad Gita 18.46), meaning “By worshiping the Lord through one’s work, a person attains perfection.” This does not imply that all work automatically leads to spiritual growth but emphasizes that work must be performed in a specific consciousness to become a means of worship.

Misinterpretations of the Gita

Sometimes, people oversimplify the Gita’s teachings to suit their convenience. For example, some mistakenly claim that the Gita says, “Whatever you do will lead to perfection.” This misinterpretation arises from the verse “Mam vartmanuvartante manushyah partha sarvashah” (Bhagavad Gita 4.11), which states that all people are on Krishna’s path. While this is true in the ultimate sense, it does not mean that every path or action leads directly to God. Actions performed without spiritual intent may take many lifetimes to result in spiritual progress.

The Gita offers specific prescriptions and proscriptions—guidelines on what actions elevate or degrade our consciousness. Krishna does not tell Arjuna that all violence is worship; instead, He teaches Arjuna the consciousness in which violence, when performed as duty, can become worship.

Moving from “Work is Worship” to “Work as Worship”

To integrate work into the realm of worship, one must approach it with spiritual intent. For instance:

• Work done with detachment: Performing one’s duties without selfish attachment to results helps align work with spiritual principles.
• Work offered as service to God: Seeing work as a means of serving a higher purpose transforms it into an act of worship.

This requires understanding the broader Vedic framework of Purusharthas—the four goals of human life:

1. Dharma: Righteousness or ethics, ensuring individual and societal well-being.
2. Artha: Resources and wealth, necessary for survival and thriving.
3. Kama: Legitimate desires, fulfilled in harmony with Dharma.
4. Moksha: Liberation, the ultimate spiritual goal.

Dharma forms the ethical foundation of all other pursuits. Without it, material pursuits (Artha and Kama) can lead to chaos and exploitation, hindering individual growth and societal harmony.

“Work as worship” aligns with the Gita’s teachings, emphasizing the need for a spiritually grounded consciousness in all activities. By integrating work into a broader framework of spiritual growth, we not only perform our duties responsibly but also transform work into a means of elevating our consciousness.

The Role of Artha and the Path to Moksha

How does Artha (resources) come about? It requires human effort. Grains don’t grow automatically in fields—agriculture demands labor. While some fruits may grow naturally, cultivating crops involves effort. Yet, human effort alone is insufficient; divine grace is also necessary. We may till the soil and sow seeds, but without rain, our efforts will not bear fruit.

This principle applies universally: resources are essential, and they must be generated. Often, Artha is equated with money. While this is a valid association, it is not a complete one. Money today is the primary means by which we access other resources, but Artha more broadly refers to all forms of resources necessary for survival and growth.

In this context, Dharma is said to precede Artha. This means that while everyone seeks resources, we should pursue them ethically, not unethically.

Kama as Ambition and Desire

The third Purushartha is Kama. While Kama is often narrowly understood as lust, in the context of the Purusharthas, it has a broader and more positive meaning. Kama signifies ambition—the drive to achieve, to create, and to do something meaningful.

One fundamental drive shared by all living beings is the instinct for procreation. In humans, this drive extends beyond biology. Human offspring require far more care and nurturing than most other species. This parental nurturing, rooted in Kama, is one expression of ambition and love.

However, Kama is not limited to procreation or physical desires; it includes the broader human drive for achievement and fulfillment. As Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs explains, beyond basic survival, humans seek recognition, accomplishment, and meaning. Kama refers to this ambition, the desire to strive for something greater than oneself.

Yet, just as Artha can be pursued unethically, so can Kama. Hence, both must be guided and regulated by Dharma.

Moksha as Liberation and Fulfillment

The final Purushartha is Moksha, which refers to liberation. Moksha signifies freedom from the constant craving for external achievements and recognition. It is about finding inner contentment and ultimate meaning.

Over time, thoughtful individuals naturally begin to reflect on their lives. In their youth, their primary focus may be on achievement—on “making it big.” However, as they grow older, they often start seeking something deeper and more enduring: a sense of legacy and fulfillment.

While Kama is associated with external accomplishments, Moksha is about inner peace and spiritual fulfillment. It represents a shift from the pursuit of what is externally valued to what is internally enriching.

The Interplay of the Four Purusharthas

Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha are not isolated goals; they work together to create a balanced life. Artha, for example, has two distinct meanings in Sanskrit: it can mean wealth, but it also means meaning. Thus, the pursuit of Artha should ideally result in wealth that is meaningful—not just wealth for its own sake.

To lack money is undoubtedly a problem, but having only money—and nothing else meaningful—can be a far greater issue. True contentment comes not just from making money but from using it to create a purposeful and fulfilling life.

An analogy can help illustrate this balance. Consider an airport:

• Dharma is the flat, stable ground that forms the foundation. Without it, nothing else can function.
• Artha and Kama are the superstructures—like the control towers and runways—that make operations possible.
• Moksha is the airplane taking off, soaring into the open skies of liberation.

When grounded in Dharma, Artha and Kama serve as a launchpad for Moksha. But without Dharma, Artha and Kama can become insatiable. The endless craving for wealth (Artha) turns into lobha (greed), and unregulated desires (Kama) can lead to bondage.

Thus, a life balanced by Dharma ensures that our pursuit of resources (Artha) and ambitions (Kama) not only supports our material existence but also prepares us for spiritual growth, culminating in Moksha.

Artha and Human Effort
Artha, the pursuit of resources, arises from human effort. Grains don’t grow automatically in fields; agriculture requires effort. While fruits may grow on their own, cultivation demands labor. However, human effort alone is insufficient. Divine grace plays a critical role. We may till the soil and sow the seeds, but without rain, our efforts yield no result. This principle—that resources must be generated and depend on both human effort and divine grace—applies universally.

Artha is often equated with money, and while this is valid, it is not comprehensive. Artha broadly refers to resources, with money being the primary medium to access other resources in today’s society. Everyone needs resources to survive and thrive, but they must be sought ethically. Dharma precedes Artha, ensuring that resources are pursued righteously, not unethically.

Kama: Beyond Lust
The third Purushartha, Kama, is often narrowly interpreted as lust. Within the framework of Purusharthas, however, Kama has no negative connotation. It represents desire, ambition, and the drive to achieve or accomplish something meaningful. At its biological level, Kama includes the drive for procreation, essential for species propagation. In human society, this extends to nurturing progeny, which requires care and connection far greater than in most species.

Yet, Kama is not limited to procreation. It encompasses all forms of ambition—the desire for achievement, fulfillment, and creativity. While Artha focuses on resources for survival, Kama drives us to pursue aspirations beyond mere necessities. When grounded in Dharma, Kama becomes a force for personal and societal upliftment. Without Dharma, it risks devolving into insatiable desire.

Moksha: Liberation and Fulfillment
The final Purushartha, Moksha, signifies liberation—freedom from material cravings and a focus on ultimate meaning and inner contentment. While youthful ambition often dominates the early stages of life, reflective individuals eventually seek lasting contribution and fulfillment. Moksha is the culmination of this search, transcending the external achievements associated with Kama.

Integration of Purusharthas
Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha are interconnected. Dharma provides the ethical foundation. Artha and Kama build the material and aspirational superstructure, while Moksha represents the ultimate goal. Without Dharma, Artha leads to greed (Lobha), and Kama becomes insatiable desire. Grounded in Dharma, however, both can lead to personal growth and spiritual elevation.

Karma and Purusharthas
Karma, or action, encompasses all four Purusharthas. Duties related to worship reflect Dharma. Work done to earn a living generates Artha. Family responsibilities fulfill Kama, and spiritual practices guide us toward Moksha. These dimensions of karma align with the progression of human life, integrating work and worship.

Varna and Liberation
Traditional views of Varna suggest a hierarchical progression across lifetimes, where diligent performance of one’s duties in one Varna leads to rebirth in a higher Varna, ultimately culminating in Moksha. For example, a Shudra performing their Dharma, Artha, and Kama diligently may be reborn as a Vaishya, and so on.

The Bhagavad Gita, however, introduces a transformative perspective. It teaches that liberation is accessible from any position in life if one works with devotion and a worshipful consciousness. This democratization of spiritual progress emphasizes that Moksha is attainable through sincere effort, irrespective of Varna.

Work as Worship
The Gita’s teaching, “By doing one’s duties as worship, one can attain perfection,” highlights that all actions, when performed with devotion, lead to liberation. This principle transcends social roles and professions. Whether a Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, or Shudra, one can achieve perfection through dedicated and conscious effort.

Karma and Consciousness
To transform work into worship, one must recognize the divine in every aspect of action. The body, the senses, and one’s talents are all manifestations of divine grace. For instance, the unique ability to sing beautifully is not merely biological but a gift from the divine. Krishna emphasizes this in the Gita, saying, “I am ability in human beings.”

By aligning work with this divine consciousness, one’s actions become a means of spiritual elevation. Whether pursuing Dharma, Artha, Kama, or Moksha, karma imbued with devotion leads to ultimate fulfillment.

The Purusharthas provide a holistic framework for understanding life’s purposes. Grounded in Dharma, Artha and Kama support personal and societal growth, while Moksha offers liberation and contentment. Through the Bhagavad Gita’s vision, work becomes worship, and every action, when performed with devotion, becomes a step toward perfection.

The senses enable us to manifest certain abilities, and these abilities are gifts from God. Similarly, our efforts—while essential—require more than just talent to yield greatness. Talent must be combined with commitment and discipline to achieve excellence.

Even so, hard work is not always enough. Sometimes, we feel inspired to give our best, and other times, we don’t. Inspiration is like a mysterious gift; we cannot predict when or where it will arise. This inspiration, a driving force behind our efforts, often feels like a force beyond us, animating us and pushing us forward. It is not something entirely within our control, and its unpredictable nature reminds us of the divine influence permeating our lives.

While we may attribute our successes to our hard work, it is important to reflect on what enabled us to work hard at a particular moment and not at another. This force that drives us in moments of peak performance often feels like a gift from God. Alongside inspiration, destiny—another factor beyond our control—is also governed by God. In this way, our entire journey of work and effort is deeply intertwined with the divine.

Understanding this connection helps us bridge the gap between work and worship. Worship involves consciously connecting with God, but if we recognize how our work is also rooted in divine grace, we can approach it with a worshipful mindset.

In Bhagavad Gita 18.46, Krishna explains:
“yataḥ pravṛttir bhūtānāṁ yena sarvam idaṁ tatam”
“By Him, all beings are set into motion, and by Him, the entire world is pervaded.”

This verse illustrates that the world emanates from God and is sustained by Him. Both the tools and the abilities we use for our work come from the divine. For instance, a software engineer writing code may seem far removed from the domain of worship. Yet the creativity and brilliance required for coding are manifestations of divine grace. These abilities are not merely biological—they are sacred gifts from God.

This inclusive vision expands our understanding of God’s domain, which is not limited to temples or places of worship but encompasses the entire world. When we see the divine in all aspects of life, our work transforms into worship. However, this transformation requires a conscious effort to recognize the divine influence in every sphere of our lives—not in a sentimental way but in a deeply philosophical and experiential manner.

The Gita helps us cultivate a higher motivation for our work. Our perspective on work determines how inspired and dedicated we feel toward it. For example:

• Mode of Ignorance (Tamas): A teacher with this mindset might think, “I’m just struggling to teach these unruly students.” This problem-focused vision leads to low motivation.
• Mode of Passion (Rajas): A teacher in this mode might think, “I’m working hard to earn a living and climb the career ladder.” While more motivating than ignorance, this vision is self-centered.
• Mode of Goodness (Sattva): A teacher here might think, “I am training the future leaders of the world.” This purpose-centered vision transcends self-interest and inspires greater dedication.

These three modes—ignorance, passion, and goodness—represent different levels of consciousness. In ignorance, problems dominate our vision, leaving us demotivated and stuck. In passion, we focus on self-centered goals, which provide some drive but lack depth. In goodness, we align with a higher purpose, finding meaning and motivation even in the face of challenges.

For example, when someone is depressed, they often feel overwhelmed by problems, unable to see any purpose. Conversely, having a clear sense of purpose helps us overcome difficulties. While a purpose in the mode of passion is material and self-focused, a purpose in the mode of goodness is broader and more inclusive.

The Gita encourages us to see beyond immediate struggles and self-centered goals. By recognizing the divine presence in all aspects of life, we can elevate our work into an act of worship. When we approach work with this expanded vision, it not only uplifts our efforts but also brings us closer to God.

When basic survival needs or fundamental drives are met, individuals may initially operate in the mode of passion. However, when we recognize that our work contributes to something greater, our motivation becomes stronger.

Adopting the vision of “work as worship” transforms how we perceive our actions. We begin to see ourselves as part of God’s plan. What is God’s plan? It is to create a better world and a better version of ourselves. Krishna’s mission, as described in the Bhagavad Gita, is to establish Dharma in society. He tells Arjuna to fulfill his duty as a warrior and assist in this mission. By doing so, Arjuna not only helps create a better world but also purifies himself internally.

We may not always perceive our work as directly aligned with the Lord’s mission, but maintaining a functional society is a prerequisite for spiritual growth. Krishna emphasizes Lokasangraha (the maintenance of societal order) in Chapter 3 of the Bhagavad Gita. Even amidst the challenges of the modern world, such as pandemics, society continues to function at a basic level—providing necessities like water, electricity, and the internet.

While it’s valid to question the moral and spiritual direction of society, we must acknowledge its role in meeting material needs. By living in such a society, we are beneficiaries, and it becomes our responsibility to contribute to its maintenance. This contribution is also part of the divine plan. When we perform our duties with spiritual consciousness, we help create a better world and inspire others through our example.

More importantly, working in a spirit of service transforms us internally. It purifies our hearts, aligning us with God’s will and paving the way for liberation (moksha). This inner transformation creates a “better me,” making us more receptive to spiritual growth.

How to Transform Work into Worship

1. Work Doesn’t Replace Worship:
Work alone cannot spiritualize our consciousness. We need dedicated time for exclusive worship to align ourselves with the spiritual grounding of reality. Daily worship helps us internalize the vision that God permeates everything, including our work.

2. Combine Diligence and Dependence:
Krishna advises us in the Bhagavad Gita to diligently perform our duties while depending on Him for the results. This balance of effort and surrender ensures that we remain focused on the process rather than being overly attached to the outcomes. If we obsess over results, our work becomes self-centered and disconnected from the divine.

3. Cultivate Equipoise:
An essential aspect of worshipful work is maintaining equanimity in success and failure, gain and loss, joy and sorrow. Krishna repeatedly emphasizes this in the Bhagavad Gita:
“Victory and defeat, profit and loss, happiness and distress—remain equipoised.”
This equanimity reflects a God-centered consciousness. When the world dominates our consciousness, we become emotionally volatile. But when our purpose is to purify ourselves and please God, we remain steady amidst life’s ups and downs.

4. Engage in Prayerful Remembrance:
Begin and end your day with prayer. Before starting work, dedicate it to God; after completing it, offer the results to Him. Even if constant remembrance of God during work isn’t feasible, regular intervals of prayer help spiritualize our consciousness. For instance, ending the day with “Narayanayati Samarpayami” (“I offer everything to Narayana”) reinforces the idea that our work is an offering to the divine.

Integration of Work and Worship

When worship directs our work, we gain clarity on why we are working and can align our efforts with a higher purpose. Similarly, work animates our worship by showing us the importance of purifying our hearts to contribute better to society. This reciprocal relationship allows spirituality to permeate all aspects of life, removing the artificial division between “spiritual” and “mundane.”

Everything becomes part of our spiritual journey. By working with values (ethics and Dharma), we create things of value (material and social contributions) and eventually realize what holds ultimate value—our elevated consciousness.

Summary

When we work with values (Dharma), create meaningful wealth and contributions (Artha and Kama), and spiritualize our consciousness, we progress toward liberation (Moksha). Whatever our role in society—be it a Kshatriya, Brahmana, Vaishya, or Shudra—our work, when done with devotion, can lead to perfection. As Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita:
“Siddhim vindati manava” (“Through such work, one attains perfection”).

By aligning our work with God’s plan and maintaining a spirit of worship, we harmonize our external actions and internal growth, bringing spirituality into every aspect of life.

Summary of the Session

Today, I discussed the concept of “work as worship,” moving from the idea that “work is worship” to “work as worship.” Here’s a brief summary:

1. The Appeal of “Work is Worship”:
   • Society naturally has functional hierarchies where some types of work are deemed more important than others. Unfortunately, these hierarchies can devolve into moral hierarchies, leading to the devaluation of certain work or workers.
   • In this context, the principle of “work is worship” serves as an ethical reform, emphasizing that all work and workers have inherent value.
2. The Limitations of “Work is Worship”:
   • Equating work with worship oversimplifies the concept. For example, can immoral activities, like robbery or murder, be considered worship?
   • If work replaces worship entirely, it may not elevate consciousness but instead entangle us further in material desires.
3. Work as Worship in the Gita:
   • The Bhagavad Gita teaches that work becomes worship when performed with the right consciousness, as an offering to the Lord. By working in this mode, one can achieve liberation.
   • Work and worship are like two distinct circles with overlapping domains. To spiritualize our actions, we must consciously position our work within the overlapping domain of worship.
4. The Four Purusharthas (Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha):
   • Dharma: Spiritually grounded ethics and principles.
   • Artha: Resources needed for functioning in the world.
   • Kama: Ambitions or desires.
   • Moksha: Liberation from material entanglements.
   • These four are like the components of an airport: Dharma is the foundation, Artha and Kama form the superstructure, and Moksha represents the airplane’s takeoff.
5. Varna and Liberation:
   • Traditionally, one’s Varna (social role) determined their duties and spiritual progress. However, the Bhagavad Gita asserts that liberation is possible from any Varna, provided one works in a mode of worship.
   • This involves seeing all components of work as connected with and sustained by God.
6. Spiritualizing Work:
   • Our vision determines our motivation. A teacher, for instance, may see their work differently based on their mindset (ignorance, passion, goodness, or pure goodness).
   • In pure goodness, we see work as part of God’s plan to create a better world and a better self.
7. Practical Steps to Work as Worship:
   • Set aside exclusive time for worship to internalize a spiritual vision of work, the worker, and the world.
   • Work with diligence and dependence, trusting that God will handle the results.
   • Accept results with equanimity, avoiding emotional extremes.
   • Cultivate prayerful remembrance of God before, during (if possible), and after work.

By following these steps, we integrate work and worship, ensuring that our actions align with spiritual principles.

Addressing the Question

Question:
In Bhagavad Gita 18.48, Krishna says one should not give up their natural occupation even if it has faults. However, what about professions that involve unethical activities, such as selling drugs, alcohol, or butchering animals? Should one continue in such professions while practicing Krishna consciousness, or should they change their occupation to progress spiritually?

Answer:
This is an excellent and nuanced question. Let’s break it down:

1. Context of 18.48:
   • Krishna acknowledges that all occupations have inherent faults, like fire being accompanied by smoke. However, the emphasis is on performing one’s prescribed duties (Svadharma) with dedication and detachment.
2. Ethically Challenging Professions:
   • Some professions, like selling alcohol, butchering, or drug dealing, conflict with the principles of Dharma because they harm society or exploit others. In such cases, continuing such work while aspiring for spiritual progress creates a conflict of values.
3. Progressive Transition:
   • For individuals in such professions, the recommendation is not to make abrupt changes unless possible. Instead, they should gradually transition to more ethical and Dharma-aligned occupations. The key is intention and effort toward improvement.
   • While in the transition, one should practice Krishna consciousness diligently, offering prayers, and seeking guidance on how to align their livelihood with spiritual principles.
4. Focus on Purification:
   • The ultimate purpose of any work is self-purification and contribution to society. If a profession obstructs spiritual progress or harms others, it becomes necessary to change it. Krishna consciousness provides the strength and clarity to make these shifts over time.
5. Practical Considerations:
   • Some individuals may feel trapped due to financial or societal pressures. In such cases, they should begin by introducing spiritual practices into their lives (chanting, worship, study of scriptures) and seek guidance from spiritual mentors or communities. Over time, these practices create the internal clarity and external circumstances needed for change.

Conclusion

The principle Krishna outlines in 18.48 is about accepting the imperfections inherent in all work and focusing on spiritual growth. However, when a profession directly contradicts Dharma, a progressive shift is necessary. By working in a spirit of worship, one can elevate their consciousness and eventually align their livelihood with Krishna’s teachings.

Hare Krishna. Are there any further questions?

Prabhuji, even within the working class, such as the Vaishya community, things have changed. Nowadays, they have to sell a variety of products, which may not always align with traditional values.

There are multiple levels at which one can be connected with the Lord. In the Vedic culture, for example, in the Chaitanya Charita Amrit, there is a story of a fisherman who was fishing, and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu jumped into the ocean. The fisherman caught the Lord in his fishing net. The fisherman is described objectively, with no moral judgment or condemnation. He became ecstatic by the mercy of the Lord when he touched Him. Similarly, various professions are described in Vedic tradition. Even in the first canto, Prabhupada mentions that when Krishna came to Dwarka, prostitutes were also attracted to Him.

This raises an important question: how can someone in such a profession still be considered a devotee of Krishna? There are two distinct aspects to consider here: one’s social situation and one’s spiritual disposition. At one level, these two are related, but at another level, they should not be conflated.

For example, our social situation does affect our spiritual disposition. If someone visits a bar and says, “I will maintain spiritual consciousness in a bar,” it might be possible, but it’s challenging. From one perspective, is going to a bar a bad thing? There’s a popular series called Socrates at a Bar in philosophy. From a Western cultural viewpoint, drinking wine in a bar is just part of the culture. It’s not considered morally reproachable. However, a bar is also a place where people lower their barriers and engage in conversations they might not otherwise have.

The purpose of visiting a bar can vary. For someone who works at a bar, the purpose might be to earn a living rather than to drink. They are not immune from temptation, but their purpose is different. On the other hand, someone who goes to a bar to drown their sorrows or escape their problems is in a different situation. For someone whose culture does not include regular visits to a bar and who goes there to escape life’s problems, that is spiritually detrimental.

But for someone who frequents a bar as a regular activity, it may not have as strong of an effect, although reform is still necessary. The impact of such an activity depends on whether it is driven by a desire for gratification or simply a regular part of their social life.

Let’s take another example: Hare Krishna Kirtan. There are traditional instruments used in the Kirtan, but today, many devotees perform Kirtan with contemporary Western music, like rock or jazz. Can Hare Krishna Kirtan be done this way? Yes, Krishna can be glorified in every style. For someone raised in a traditional Indian environment, if they hear the Hare Krishna mantra in a Western style, what will resonate more strongly for them might be the music itself, not the mantra. Their remembrance may lean more towards Western music than Krishna. On the other hand, if someone familiar with Western music hears the Hare Krishna mantra in that format, it might draw their attention to Krishna in a way that feels familiar.

What strengthens or weakens one’s remembrance of Krishna will differ from person to person. This highlights the relationship between spiritual disposition and social situation. These two are connected but should not be conflated.

Let’s apply this idea to profession. For someone in a family tradition, say, a butcher, starting to practice Bhakti, the act of killing animals is clearly not morally justifiable. But, Bhakti is a new element added to their life, and that’s important. On the other hand, for someone living a life without such a profession, if they choose to engage in it, it will likely have a much stronger impact on their consciousness.

Killing animals will affect the consciousness of a butcher, but since it is habitual for them, it won’t take a dominant place in their awareness. If they start practicing Bhakti, that is a positive step. As they continue, they will progress in their spiritual journey.

The Vyadha Gita in the Bhagavatam, a section of the Mahabharata, is quite radical and subversive. It describes how a sage, who lives a very pure and uplifting life, receives wisdom from a butcher. The wisdom shared by the butcher is profound. This story does not recommend that everyone become a butcher, but it teaches us that we shouldn’t approach the world with preconceptions. We don’t know the past life of a butcher or why they are caught in that profession. One’s profession is just one part of their life.

Does it define their entire life? Not necessarily. Sometimes someone may be circumstantially caught in a particular profession, and it may not be so easy to change it. So, we shouldn’t reduce people to their profession and say, “Because you are in this profession, you are condemned.”

Not necessarily. A person can be in a profession as seemingly anti-spiritual as being a butcher and still possess spiritual wisdom. Now, one might ask, “If they have so much spiritual wisdom, why are they caught in that profession?” Well, that question should be investigated. It is not a justification for staying in an anti-spiritual profession. Rather, it demonstrates how spirituality can transcend the boundaries we might impose on it. Spiritual consciousness is not confined to particular professions.

There are professions that are detrimental to spiritual consciousness, and there are those that may be more conducive to it. As much as possible, we should choose professions that are conducive to spiritual well-being. However, we should not impose our preconceptions onto reality.

Now, regarding Krishna’s statement in the Bhagavad Gita that “all work is covered by fault, just as fire is covered by smoke,” the point is not to condemn or reject one’s work as profane. Arjuna should not think, “I have to kill, so maybe I should not perform this work.” Arjuna’s work as a Kshatriya is not killing. Yes, killing in war is part of his duty, but it is not the essence of his work. A Kshatriya has many responsibilities, and killing in battle is just one aspect of that.

Arjuna shouldn’t reject his work thinking it is profane. He should perform it with spiritual consciousness. Similarly, we shouldn’t make the blanket statement that someone who is a butcher must reject their work to become spiritual. They can start their spiritual journey from where they are. Yes, all work has faults, but that doesn’t mean all work has the same degree of fault.

For example, Brahmanas might conduct yajnas in which animals are killed, whereas butchers may slaughter animals daily. There is a significant difference between these types of work. The statement that “all work has faults” doesn’t mean that all work is equally faulty. Some work is more faulty than others. If one can move toward a profession with fewer faults, that is desirable.

As devotees, we aim to avoid professions that involve breaking the four regulative principles. While we may live in an interconnected world where we cannot control how our work may be used, we must choose professions that are as free from fault as possible. Just because a profession has faults, we don’t have to immediately reject it. We should perform our work with as much spiritual consciousness as possible.

If someone is caught in an anti-devotional profession, they may need a plan to transition out of it. However, developing and acting on that plan will take time. This doesn’t mean their spiritual life is on hold while they work on changing their profession. Bhakti spirituality is not bound by any material situation. We can progress spiritually from wherever we are.

That said, if someone is part of a spiritual institution, the institution may have certain standards. If someone is involved in a profession that violates the four regulative principles, they may not be eligible for initiation. Initiation is not only a spiritual connection but also an institutional one. However, this does not mean that one’s spiritual journey is hindered.

We must recognize that our social situation affects our spiritual disposition, which is why we should choose a situation that supports our spiritual growth. At the same time, we don’t have to wait for our social situation to change in order to cultivate a spiritual disposition.

So how that will be how the specifics will interact that will vary from context to context.

So thank you very much for your thoughtful questions and we’ll continue our exploration of the Bhagavad Gita in the last line.

The next few sessions till we complete it.

Hare Krishna Bhagavad Gita ki jaya.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The post Gita key verses course 48 – Can I be spiritual and still be ambitious? Can my work be my worship? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila, Chapter Ten describes the branches of the tree named Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

TEXT 1

sri-caitanya-padambhoja-
  madhupebhyo namo namah
kathancid asrayad yesam
  svapi tad-gandha-bhag bhavet

TRANSLATION

Let me repeatedly offer my respectful obeisances unto the beelike devotees who always taste the honey of the lotus feet of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. If even a doggish nondevotee somehow takes shelter of such devotees, he enjoys the aroma of the lotus flower.

PURPORT by Srila Prabhupada

The example of a dog is very significant in this connection. A dog naturally does not become a devotee at any time. But still it is sometimes found that a dog of a devotee gradually becomes a devotee also. We have actually seen that a dog has no respect even for the tulasi plant. Indeed, a dog is especially inclined to pass urine on the tulasi plant. Therefore the dog is the number one nondevotee. But Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s sankirtana movement is so strong that even a doglike nondevotee can gradually become a devotee by the association of a devotee of Lord Caitanya. Srila Sivananda Sena, a great householder devotee of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, attracted a dog on the street while going to Jagannatha Puri. The dog began to follow him and ultimately went to see Caitanya Mahaprabhu and was liberated. Similarly, cats and dogs in the household of Srivasa Thakura were also liberated. Cats and dogs and other animals are not expected to become devotees, but in the association of a pure devotee they are also delivered.

TEXTS 2–6

jaya jaya sri-krsna-caitanya-nityananda
jaya advaitacandra jaya gaura-bhakta-vrnda

All glories to Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Lord Nityananda! All glories to Advaita Prabhu, and all glories to the devotees of Lord Caitanya, headed by Srivasa!

ei malira-ei vrksera akathya kathana
ebe suna mukhya-sakhara nama-vivarana

The description of Lord Caitanya as the gardener and the tree is inconceivable. Now hear with attention about the branches of this tree.

caitanya-gosanira yata parisada-caya
guru-laghu-bhava tanra na haya niscaya

The associates of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu were many, but none of them should be considered lower or higher. This cannot be ascertained.

yata yata mahanta kaila tan-sabara ganana
keha karibare nare jyestha-laghu-krama

All the great personalities in the line of Lord Caitanya enumerated these devotees, but they could not distinguish between the greater and the lesser.

ataeva tan-sabare kari’ namaskara
nama-matra kari, dosa na labe amara

I offer my obeisances unto them as a token of respect. I request them not to consider my offenses.

TEXT 7

vande sri-krsna-caitanya-
  premamara-taroh priyan
sakha-rupan bhakta-ganan
  krsna-prema-phala-pradan

I offer my respectful obeisances to all the dear devotees of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the eternal tree of love of Godhead. I offer my respects to all the branches of the tree, the devotees of the Lord who distribute the fruit of love of Krsna.

PURPORT

Sri Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami sets the example of offering obeisances to all the preacher devotees of Lord Caitanya, without distinction as to higher and lower. Unfortunately, at present there are many foolish so-called devotees of Lord Caitanya who make such distinctions. For example, the title “Prabhupada” is offered to a spiritual master, especially to a distinguished spiritual master such as Srila Rupa Gosvami Prabhupada, Srila Jiva Gosvami Prabhupada, or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada. When our disciples similarly wanted to address their spiritual master as Prabhupada, some foolish people became envious. Not considering the propaganda work of the Hare Krsna movement, simply because these disciples addressed their spiritual master as Prabhupada, they became so envious that they formed a faction with other such envious persons just to minimize the value of the Krsna consciousness movement. To chastise such fools, Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami very frankly says, keha karibare nare jyestha-laghu-krama. Anyone who is a bona fide preacher of the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu must be respectful to the real devotees of Lord Caitanya; one should not be envious, considering one preacher to be very great and another to be very lowly. This is a material distinction and has no place on the platform of spiritual activities. Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami therefore offers equal respect to all the preachers of the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who are compared to the branches of the tree. ISKCON is one of these branches, and it should therefore be respected by all sincere devotees of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

COMMENT by Giriraj Swami

Even among Gaudiya Vaishnavas, we must be careful to avoid offenses. We must respect and recognize the service of all Vaishnavas. As Srila Prabhupada once said, if we do not give credit where credit is due, we will become envious.

TEXT 85

tanra madhye rupa-sanatana-bada sakha
anupama, jiva, rajendradi upasakha

TRANSLATION

Among these branches, Rupa and Sanatana were principal. Anupama, Jiva Gosvami and others, headed by Rajendra, were their sub-branches.

PURPORT

In the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika (195) it is said that Srila Jiva Gosvami was formerly Vilasa-manjari gopi. From his very childhood Jiva Gosvami was greatly fond of Srimad-Bhagavatam. He later came to Navadvipa to study Sanskrit, and, following in the footsteps of Sri Nityananda Prabhu, he circumambulated the entire Navadvipa-dhama.

COMMENT

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has described Jiva Gosvami’s Navadvipa parikrama, and this parikrama of Nityananda Prabhu and Jiva Gosvami forms the basis of the Navadvipa parikrama we perform now, under the guidance of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

PURPORT (continued)

After visiting Navadvipa-dhama he went to Benares to study Sanskrit under Madhusudana Vacaspati, and after finishing his studies in Benares he went to Vrndavana and took shelter of his uncles, Sri Rupa and Sri Sanatana. This is described in Bhakti-ratnakara. As far as our information goes, Srila Jiva Gosvami composed and edited at least twenty-five books. They are all very celebrated, and they are listed as follows: (1) Hari-namamrta-vyakarana, (2) Sutra-malika, (3) Dhatu-sangraha, (4) Krsnarca-dipika, (5) Gopala-virudavali, (6) Rasamrta-sesa, (7) Sri Madhava-mahotsava, (8) Sri Sankalpa-kalpavrksa, (9) Bhavartha-sucaka-campu, (10) Gopala-tapani-tika, (11) a commentary on the Brahma-samhita, (12) a commentary on the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, (13) a commentary on the Ujjvala-nilamani, (14) a commentary on the Yogasara-stava, (15) a commentary on the Gayatri-mantra, as described in the Agni Purana, (16) a description derived from the Padma Purana of the lotus feet of the Lord, (17) a description of the lotus feet of Srimati Radharani, (18) Gopala-campu (in two parts), and (19–25) seven sandharbhas: the Krama-, Tattva-, Bhagavat-, Paramatma-, Krsna-, Bhakti-, and Priti-sandharba. After the disappearance of Srila Rupa Gosvami and Sanatana Gosvami in Vrndavana, Srila Jiva Gosvami became the acarya of all the Vaisnavas in Bengal, Orissa, and the rest of the world, and it is he who used to guide them in devotional service. In Vrndavana he established the Radha-Damodara temple, where, after retirement, we had the opportunity to live from 1962 until 1965, when we decided to come to the United States of America. When Jiva Gosvami was still present, Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami compiled his famous Caitanya-caritamrta. Later, Srila Jiva Gosvami inspired Srinivasa Acarya, Narottama dasa Thakura, and Duhkhi Krsnadasa to preach Krsna consciousness in Bengal. Jiva Gosvami was informed that all the manuscripts that had been collected from Vrndavana and sent to Bengal for preaching purposes were plundered near Visnupura in Bengal, but later he received the information that the books had been recovered. Sri Jiva Gosvami awarded the designation Kaviraja to Ramacandra Sena, a disciple of Srinivasa Acarya’s, and to Ramacandra’s younger brother Govinda. While Jiva Gosvami was alive, Srimati Jahnava-devi, the pleasure potency of Sri Nityananda Prabhu, went to Vrndavana with a few devotees. Jiva Gosvami was very kind to the Gaudiya Vaisnavas, the Vaisnavas from Bengal. Whoever went to Vrndavana, he provided with a residence and prasada. His disciple Krsnadasa Adhikari listed all the books of the Gosvamis in his diary.

The sahajiyas level three accusations against Srila Jiva Gosvami. This is certainly not congenial for the execution of devotional service. The first accusation concerns a materialist who was very proud of his reputation as a great Sanskrit scholar and approached Sri Rupa and Sanatana to argue with them about the revealed scriptures. Srila Rupa Gosvami and Sanatana Gosvami, not wanting to waste their time, gave him a written statement that he had defeated them in a debate on the revealed scriptures. Taking this paper, the scholar approached Jiva Gosvami for a similar certificate of defeat but Jiva Gosvami did not agree to give him one. On the contrary, he argued with him regarding the scriptures and defeated him. Certainly it was right for Jiva Gosvami to stop such a dishonest scholar from advertising that he had defeated Srila Rupa Gosvami and Sanatana Gosvami, but due to their illiteracy the sahajiya class referred to this incident to accuse Srila Jiva Gosvami of deviating from the principle of humility. They do not know, however, that humility and meekness are appropriate when one’s own honor is insulted but not when Lord Visnu or the acaryas are blasphemed. In such cases one should not be humble and meek but must act. One should follow the example given by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Lord Caitanya says in His Siksastaka (3):

trnad api su-nicena
  taror iva sahisnuna
amanina mana-dena
  kirtaniyah sada hari

“One can chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking himself lower than the straw in the street. One should be more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige, and should be ready to offer all respect to others. In such a state of mind one can chant the holy name of the Lord constantly.” Nevertheless, when the Lord was informed that Nityananda Prabhu was injured by Jagai and Madhai, He immediately went to the spot, angry like fire, wanting to kill them. Thus Lord Caitanya has explained His verse by the example of His own behavior. One should tolerate insults against oneself, but when there is blasphemy committed against superiors such as other Vaisnavas, one should be neither humble nor meek: one must take proper steps to counteract such blasphemy. This is the duty of the servant of a guru and Vaisnavas. Anyone who understands the principle of eternal servitude to the guru and Vaisnavas will appreciate the action of Sri Jiva Gosvami in connection with the so-called scholar’s victory over his gurus, Srila Rupa and Srila Sanatana Gosvami.

COMMENT

In the olden days in India, Sanskrit scholars tried to show their proficiency by traveling and challenging other scholars and learned persons to debate. If one was successful, he would be champion. And if he was able to defeat all of the other scholars throughout India, he was known as digvijaya, the greatest champion in Sanskrit knowledge and scriptural argumentation. Just like today there is competition among the cricket teams: they go all over the world and face rival cricket teams, and there is fierce competition to win the match. So, in the olden days, there used to be competition to win debates about Sanskrit and shastra.

But Rupa Gosvami and Sanatana Gosvami were pure devotees of the Lord. They had no desire to waste time arguing and debating, to gain name and fame. So when the scholar came to debate, Rupa and Sanatana said, “You want to claim that you have defeated us? All right, you can tell people.” And they each gave him a certificate: “You have defeated me.” But when the same scholar came to Jiva Gosvami, Jiva Gosvami did not like the fact that the scholar was falsely advertising that he had defeated Rupa and Sanatana. Therefore, to uphold their honor, Jiva Gosvami engaged in debate with the scholar and defeated him.

Sahajiyas disrespect genuine acharyas. Generally, sahajiyas lack knowledge of scriptures. They think that study of scripture and discussion of siddhanta are for lower–class Vaishnavas. They want to hear krsna-lila, talks of the pastimes of Radha and Krishna in Vrindavan—not philosophy. Once, when Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura visited Radha-kunda, the babajis became excited because they thought that, as an acharya, he would speak about krsna-lila. But to curb the sahajiyas’ pride, he spoke on the Isopanisad—not even the Bhagavad-gita—to establish the fact that the sahajiyas should first learn the basic knowledge of the revealed scriptures.

Some sahajiyas think that initiating disciples is another form of materialism. And they blaspheme genuine acharyas for having many disciples. They cannot understand that the discussion of shastra and the training of disciples are transcendental, and so they blaspheme bona fide spiritual masters like Srila Jiva Gosvami. When Jiva Gosvami defeated the scholar, the sahajiyas thought that he was being proud and wanted to show that he knew more than others. They could not understand his real motives—to defend the names of Srila Rupa Gosvami and Srila Sanatana Gosvami and to curb the false prestige and false propaganda of the scholar. One of the basic principles of devotional service is that one should not tolerate blasphemy of the Lord or a devotee. Sahajiyas think that being humble means to tolerate all sorts of insults. And personally we should tolerate insult. But when there is insult to the spiritual master or the Vaishnavas or Krishna, we should not tolerate. If we are able, we should defeat the opposing party. The sahajiyas like the verse trnad api su-nicena taror iva sahisnuna / amanina mana-dena kirtaniyah sada harih. But Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the author of the verse, Himself showed the example that although for one’s own sake one can be meek and humble and tolerate all sorts of insults, in relation to the spiritual master and the devotees one should not tolerate. Therefore, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came to the place where Jagai and Madhai had insulted Nityananda Prabhu, ready to kill Jagai and Madhai. And thus He showed the real meaning of trnad api su-nicena.

PURPORT (continued)

Another story fabricated to defame Srila Jiva Gosvami states that when Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami showed him the newly-completed manuscript of Sri Caitanya-caritamrita, Jiva Gosvami thought that it would hamper his reputation as a big scholar and therefore threw it in a well. Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami was greatly shocked, according to this story, and he died immediately. Fortunately a copy of the manuscript of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta had been kept by a person named Mukunda, and therefore later it was possible to publish the book. This story is another ignominious example of blasphemy against a guru and Vaisnava. Such a story should never be accepted as authoritative.

COMMENT

Mundane people are so envious that they do not hesitate to criticize such a great personality as Srila Jiva Gosvami. They even manufacture stories. Here the story is that Jiva Gosvami was afraid that Sri Caitanya-caritamrta would diminish his reputation as a devotee and scholar and therefore out of envy he threw the manuscript in a well so that the book would be lost. Indirectly, they charge that Jiva Gosvami was responsible for the death of Krishnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami. Such a claim is absurd—and offensive.

PURPORT (continued)

According to another accusation, Srila Jiva Gosvami did not approve of the principles of the parakiya-rasa of Vraja-dhama and therefore supported svakiya-rasa, showing that Radha and Krsna are eternally married.

COMMENT

Svakiya-rasa means relationship with one’s own wife. And parakiya-rasa means relationship with someone who is not one’s wife, who is either not married at all and thus is under the protection of her parents, or who is married to someone else and thus is under the protection of her husband.

PURPORT (continued)

Actually, when Jiva Gosvami was alive, some of his followers disliked the parakiya-rasa of the gopis. Therefore Srila Jiva Gosvami, for their spiritual benefit, supported svakiya-rasa, for he could understand that sahajiyas would otherwise exploit the parakiya-rasa, as they are actually doing at the present time. Unfortunately, in Vrndavana and Navadvipa it has become fashionable among sahajiyas, in their debauchery, to find an unmarried sexual partner to live with to execute so-called devotional service in parakiya-rasa. Foreseeing this, Srila Jiva Gosvami supported svakiya-rasa, and later all the Vaisnava acaryas also approved of it.

COMMENT

Once, a man asked Srila Prabhupada, “Krishna enjoyed with the wives of others, so did He not commit adultery?” Srila Prabhupada replied, “Everyone and everything is the property of Krishna. Your wife is also Krishna’s property. So, who is committing adultery?” Because all souls belong to Krishna, Krishna’s relationship with them is svakiya.

PURPORT (concluded)

Srila Jiva Gosvami was never opposed to the transcendental parakiya-rasa, nor has any other Vaisnava disapproved of it. Srila Jiva Gosvami strictly followed his predecessor gurus and Vaisnavas, Srila Rupa Gosvami and Sanatana Gosvami, and Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami accepted him as one of his instructor gurus.

COMMENT

If Jiva Gosvami had actually deviated from the line of Rupa and Sanatana, how could Krishnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami, who elaborately described radha-krsna-lila in parakiya-rasa, especially in Sri Govinda-lilamrta, have accepted him as siksa-guru? All the acharyas in the line following Rupa Gosvami accept the transcendental parakiya-rasa, and they also accept Srila Jiva Gosvami as siksa-guru. When they accept Srila Jiva Gosvami as siksa-guru, there cannot be any fault or deviation in him. He argued in favor of svakiya-rasa simply to pacify some ignorant disciples who could not appreciate the transcendental parakiya-rasa, and to curb the sahajiyas, who would falsely try to imitate parakiya-rasa and thus go to hell. Jiva Gosvami is faultless, and bona fide followers of Sri Jiva, or of any acharya, will defend the acharya from false accusations. Jiva Gosvami did it for his gurus, Srila Rupa and Sanatana Gosvamis, and here Srila Prabhupada is doing it for Srila Jiva Gosvami.

We too should follow this principle. We should not tolerate blasphemy of the acharyas and pure Vaishnavas; we should defend them to the best of our ability. And if we are not able to defeat the criticism, then at least we should not hear it. We should leave the place.

Hare Krishna.

Are there any questions or comments?

Devotee: [inaudible]

Giriraj Swami: The spiritual master may not protest, because he is following the principle of humility, but the disciples can. When Sisupala blasphemed Krishna, none of the Pandavas could tolerate the insults, and they were ready to kill him. But Krishna said, “No!” He tolerated. Then finally He Himself killed Sisupala and delivered him. But the Pandavas were bound to become upset, and they were bound to take action.

Devotee: [inaudible]

Giriraj Swami: The associates of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu are in the highest grade. Among devotees in the highest grade we shouldn’t distinguish between big and small in a material way, just as we shouldn’t distinguish between the leaves of the tulasi tree—“That one is big, so it is better” or “This one is small, so it is lesser.” All are the same because they are parts of the tulasi plant. We may distinguish between a tulasi leaf and another type of leaf, which is not sacred like tulasi, but among the tulasi leaves we should not distinguish.

Srila Prabhupada ki jaya!
Gaura-premanande hari-haribol!

[ A talk by Giriraj Swami on Srila Jiva Gosvami’s disappearance day, January 14, 1994, Mauritius]

Dear Devotees, Are you looking to go deeper in your Bhakti and enrich your spiritual journey? Check out His Holiness Devamrita Swami’s podcast ‘On the Way to Krishna’! Over the past two years this amazing podcast has been a source of spiritual nourishment for devotees worldwide. Maharaja shares profound insights from sacred texts like the
Read More...

ISKCON Kurukshetra celebrated a significant milestone as 100 devotees successfully completed the Bhakti Shastri course and are now set to embark on the transformative journey of the Bhakti Vaibhav course. The event also witnessed the enrolment of 80 new students in the latest Bhakti Shastri batch, reflecting the growing enthusiasm for studying Srila Prabhupada’s teachings
Read More...

I was again present for the ecstatic New Year’s eve Harinama that went around the Circular Quay, Opera House, Rocks area of Sydney. This was organized by Pratapana prabhu and the devotees from the Govinda’s asrama in Darlinghurst.

As usual, the area was packed out with people coming from all over for the two fireworks, one at 9.00pm and the other at midnight to welcome in the new year. We usually go between 5.00pm and 7.00pm because any later would be almost impossible due to the crowd jam.

So today we are discussing one of the key concepts in the Gita about the subtlety and the complexity by which the modes interact with each other. So I’ll talk about this based on 18.35 in the Bhagavad Gita, which talks about intelligence in the mode of ignorance. Krishna is speaking here that actually he is giving the characteristics of laziness, fearfulness, lamenting, illusion, and dreaminess. When one doesn’t give that up, that is intelligence in the mode of ignorance. So we’ll discuss these two concepts today: how knowledge and ignorance, we normally think of knowledge as the opposite of ignorance, but how they may not be opposite, and how intelligence and foolishness can both go together. And then lastly, we will try to discuss how knowledge and intelligence can work for us and not against us.

Now in the overall flow of the Gita, this is an analysis of how action works or how we can make action work in a way that is uplifting and not degrading for us. In the previous session, we discussed the various factors in action, and we also discussed what the concept of the doer is or what it means when it is said that we are not the doers. It primarily means we are not the sole doers. So today we’ll discuss how there are two resources which are critical for action, and how these resources relate to each other and what it means for us when we function in our lives. So for example, the way the Gita differentiates between knowledge and intelligence, let’s look at that first.

Now we can use the word knowledge in various senses. Knowledge can refer to the information content in our brain. It can refer to, “Oh, this person has a lot of knowledge.” Somebody can have a lot of political knowledge, somebody can have sports knowledge, somebody can have philosophical knowledge, so it can refer to information content in the brain. Knowledge is also used in a more nuanced sense when Krishna talks about Jnana in the 13th chapter. It talks about qualities, values, virtues. So the self and its value system can refer to knowledge, and knowledge can be referred to as vision or our map of the world. Krishna uses Jnana in that sense, how we perceive the world. So if we wanted to, if the word knowledge is a little confusing in this particular context, here what it means is perception. How are we perceiving the world?

So we could also say that this perception in the three modes, when we act, we perceive the world, then we process that information in our head, and then we pursue something—we act to achieve something. So that is, so perception is what Krishna talks about in terms of knowledge. And then what does intelligence mean? So knowing, intelligence can mean knowing how and why to keep things in perspective. Intelligence, it is, we have discussed earlier how it refers to keeping things in perspective and making sure that small things don’t overshadow big things in our life, that we keep small things small and keep big things big. So that is one way of understanding intelligence. Here, it refers basically to how we function purposefully in the world. So in that sense, if you want to use a driving metaphor, I’ll come to this metaphor toward the end again in the talk.

Say if you’re driving, somebody has a proper map. And by map, I just don’t refer to Google Maps, but also one is perceiving, “Okay, this is the right turn over here. This is a school section, so I have to drive slowly over here.” So it is taking in the information properly. So having a proper map, having a proper awareness of the territory in which we are driving, that is knowledge. And then just having that awareness is not enough for actually driving well. Driving well means knowing when to press the gas, when to press the brakes, how much distance to keep between one vehicle and the next vehicle, how to take turns properly. So there is a driving awareness, and then there is driving ability. So when Krishna uses the word knowledge, he’s referring to driving awareness. And when Krishna is referring to intelligence, he’s referring to driving ability.

So when he talks about intelligence, you’ll see he’s talking about how we navigate, how our senses and how we pursue purposeful activities in our life. That’s what he’s talking about in terms of intelligence. So why is this important? Because say in today’s world, we will be able to, we’ll see many people who are at one level very knowledgeable. And at another level, they seem to be ignorant, they seem to be foolish. So that means in terms of, say, their awareness, they might be very intelligent, they might have a lot of awareness, but in terms of their ability, they may not have much ability.

Now this kind of cognitive resonance struck me for the first time in my college days. When I studied engineering, I saw it as I was more interested in science. And I thought the study of science and overall scientific knowledge, applied scientific knowledge also, as a way to improve human society and not just improve human society by providing better facilities for living. But I thought that just the quest for knowledge would be so exciting and fulfilling that that would improve human character also. But then I noticed that there were people who were brilliant, as people were far more—the students were far more brilliant than me. And yet, behaviorally, they seemed to be deficient. They had many bad habits, and they seemed to be indulging in activities that were self-destructive. Somebody who could brilliantly process any electronics engineering problem, a person was a chain smoker, and I couldn’t understand why. So that person had the ability, a lot of ability, but in terms of activity, sorry, in terms of awareness, that person had a lot of information, but in terms of actual functioning in the world, it was not so good.

So that’s why we discussed two things as a topic today: how can somebody be knowledgeably ignorant? And how can somebody be intelligently foolish? So we see this a lot in today’s world because we have progressed a lot in various branches of knowledge. So whether it be in the—not just scientific knowledge, scientific knowledge, there’s phenomenal progress, but in various other areas also, there can be linguistic knowledge in which there can be a lot of progress. And what to speak of some people might study humanities, and they will study philosophy, and they might have a lot of philosophical awareness, we could say. But does that translate into any more uplifting or enlightened form of living? Not necessarily. So that’s what we’ll try to discuss today. And so once you get these two definitions of knowledge and intelligence clear for ourselves, let’s move forward.

So Krishna talks about knowledge in the three modes. And what does he say about this knowledge in the three modes? In knowledge and ignorance, what happens over there is this: knowledge and ignorance is when one only sees the things that confirm our existing conceptions and we reject everything else. So Krishna talks about this in 18.22, and there he says that, “When one takes one thing to be everything, that is knowledge in the mode of ignorance.” And so if you consider knowledge to be like a big circle, it’s only one small fragment of that knowledge one is taking, and one is rejecting everything else. So that is knowledge in the mode of ignorance. And knowledge in the mode of passion is “Pratakvenatuyatgyanam nanabhavan pratakvidhan vittisarveshu bhuteshu tadgyanam viddhirajasam.” So where one sees only the material side of reality and not only the material side, it’s only the sensual side.

In the context of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna uses the example that when one looks at people and sees that their bodies are who they are essentially and there’s nothing beyond that, that is knowledge in the mode of passion. So then there is knowledge in the mode of goodness where one sees matter and spirit both, where one sees that there is one indivisible reality beyond all the variable realities that are seen at the surface of the material level. That is knowledge in the mode of goodness. So we could extrapolate this: specifically it refers to how—so to put it in one way, in goodness they say matter and spirit both. So it’s more of a holistic vision. In passion, there is only material vision and material vision in pursuance of one’s desires. And in ignorance, there is not even a complete material vision. There is only that part of material reality which reinforces one’s conceptions. That is knowledge in the mode of ignorance.

So we could say that many people have prejudices. Say some people have prejudices or biases, and when they are prejudiced or biased, what happens basically? So if somebody has a prejudice that people from this community are like this, say people from this religion are like this, people from this country are like this, then whoever they see those people who behave like that, that reinforces their idea. And if anybody doesn’t behave like that, they just reject that idea. They just reject that perception. It doesn’t just enter, they don’t even process it—they neglect it completely. So that is how people live in what is often called the echo chamber.

An echo chamber occurs when we only hear those who agree with us and reject those who disagree, effectively blocking out diverse perspectives. This leads to the misconception that we are learning, while in fact, we are only reinforcing our pre-existing beliefs. At some level, a certain amount of processing of information is inevitable because the world is too complex for us to take in everything at once. To revisit the driving metaphor, imagine if we believe that a road is smooth in a certain locality. If we ignore the parts of the road that have bumps or potholes, we are missing crucial aspects of reality, which leads to an unhealthy approach. So, the challenge here is that we might have a map, but it becomes so dominant that we no longer see the actual territory; we only see the map. We need to see both—the map and the reality it represents—if we are to function holistically.

One aspect of reality cannot be taken as the entire reality. For instance, knowledge in the mode of ignorance occurs when we take only one small fragment of reality and treat it as the whole. This creates a false sense of understanding, where we gain information that only confirms our biases, further blinding us to other perspectives. This reinforces ignorance rather than removing it. A clear example of this is scientism—the belief that science is the only legitimate means of understanding reality, disregarding anything that cannot be scientifically measured. This kind of knowledge may provide information, but it doesn’t eliminate ignorance; it reinforces it by narrowing the scope of perception and rejecting broader realities.

When we talk about knowledge in the modes, knowledge in the mode of goodness helps to remove ignorance. In the mode of passion, knowledge may reduce ignorance but still lacks a holistic understanding. Knowledge in the mode of ignorance, on the other hand, just reinforces ignorance by narrowing our worldview. People often make assumptions based on limited information—this is the cognitive dualism at play. If we look at a painting, for example, we can focus either on the individual colors or the overall depiction of a face. Both are real, but they offer different perspectives. Similarly, in life, we are constantly processing both physical and non-physical realities, such as values and emotions, which cannot always be measured or seen in purely physical terms.

This duality also plays out in cognitive and substance dualism: cognitive dualism refers to our ability to perceive reality in multiple ways, and substance dualism acknowledges that there are two levels of reality—physical and spiritual. To understand the world accurately, we must process it using both perspectives, not just one. For example, if we consider a moral action like honesty, while honesty itself is not physically measurable, we perceive it through actions and make inferences about its presence. Thus, to function effectively in life, we need to move beyond empirical observations to make inferences based on values and virtues.

Krishna’s teachings in the Gita reflect this complexity. Knowledge in the mode of ignorance is fragmented, leading us to believe we know more than we do and preventing us from understanding the full picture of reality. Intelligence in ignorance justifies our wrongdoings, while intelligence in passion pursues only those things we desire, often with some level of regulation, but still limited to material goals. In contrast, intelligence in the mode of goodness helps us discern what is truly beneficial and aligns our actions with a higher, more holistic purpose. Krishna’s guidance helps us understand that the pursuit of knowledge and intelligence must go beyond narrow perspectives to lead us toward a life of meaningful purpose and liberation.

When Krishna says that when one pursues something wrong, it is taken to be the right thing, that is intelligence in the mode of ignorance. Going back to the example of driving, consider the lane you should drive in and the side of the road you should be on. This isn’t just awareness but also the ability to drive properly. This is intelligence. However, when one lacks that understanding, they drive destructively, harming themselves. This is intelligence in the mode of ignorance, where people may pursue the wrong things and convince themselves it is the right path.

In the mode of goodness, we understand what is worth pursuing in life, and we pursue it accordingly. But in ignorance, we may pursue wrong things and justify them, even persuading others that they are right. This leads to rationalization, where we tell ourselves rational lies, misleading our own perception of what is truly necessary.

For example, advertising today is a brilliant use of intelligence. The way products are marketed, the kinds of images and sounds used, and the special effects are all carefully designed to trigger specific desires. Intelligence is at work here, but it is being used to manipulate people, keeping them in ignorance. The advertising industry makes us believe that we need things that we don’t actually need, turning luxuries into perceived necessities, and driving people to obsess over acquiring them.

This is how intelligence can be misused in ignorance. We end up doing things we don’t need to do, believing that we need to do them. If we compare life to driving, knowledge is like a map, and intelligence is our driving ability. We need both—awareness of the road and the skill to drive properly.

It becomes complicated when knowledge and intelligence are influenced by the modes of nature (goodness, passion, and ignorance). A person may have knowledge in the mode of goodness but act in ignorance, or they might have knowledge in passion and intelligence in ignorance. Just because someone has good knowledge doesn’t mean their intelligence will align with it, and vice versa. For example, someone might have a great map (knowledge) but poor driving skills (intelligence), leading them to head in the right direction but causing damage along the way. Alternatively, someone with good driving skills (intelligence) but a poor map (wrong knowledge) may drive smoothly but miss their intended destination.

Thus, knowledge and intelligence are distinct faculties. A person’s knowledge might be in goodness, but their intelligence may not be. This is why the interplay between the modes is so complex. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna, “You are speaking wise words, but your emotions and actions are unwise.” This shows a disconnect between knowledge and intelligence.

We must strive to align both knowledge and intelligence in a way that elevates us. One modern example of this complexity is the degeneration of secularism. Secularism began as a neutral stance toward religion, which was reasonable at the time, especially as the world became more connected. Before modern transportation and communication, different regions had different cultures and religions, so it made sense for the state to remain neutral. In ancient India, for instance, King Yudhishthira, though a Vaishnava, respected all religious traditions within his kingdom—Shiva worshippers, Shaktas, and impersonalists alike.

However, over time, secularism evolved, and its original neutrality became distorted, leading to complications that could not have been anticipated. Similarly, many ideologies, starting with good intentions, can become degenerated when they are no longer aligned with their original principles.

Secularism, in the sense of neutrality toward religion, aligns closely with Vedic values. In ancient times, the king’s duty was to establish dharma—a term encompassing basic moral conduct and societal order—rather than to enforce bhakti (devotional practices). The king was tasked with maintaining law and order, allowing individuals the freedom to pursue their spiritual growth in their own ways. Facilities were provided for people to practice their beliefs and pursue spiritual aspirations as per their inclinations.

However, neutrality in this context did not imply passivity. For instance, the Pandavas in the Mahabharata respected and interacted with various spiritual traditions. They worshiped the devatas (deities), and there was no taboo surrounding these practices. Though these interactions occurred within the broader Vedic tradition, they exemplify an openness and inclusivity. While other religions as we know them today did not exist during the Mahabharata’s time, the state refrained from enforcing a singular religious belief system.

This can be seen as a form of humility in governance—a recognition that the king cannot legislate matters of the heart. Governance focused on societal well-being, prohibiting harmful actions such as theft or violence, while leaving personal beliefs and meditations to the individual. Beliefs cannot be imposed; they must be inspired. This distinction between dharma (societal law) and bhakti (personal devotion) reflects a separation akin to the modern idea of separating religion from the state.

This principle of secularism resonates with the philosophy that laws should consider not only the good they can achieve when enforced by virtuous leaders but also the harm they might cause if enforced by those with malicious intent. In Vedic society, this was reflected in the delineation of roles: kshatriyas (warriors) maintained order, brahmanas (priests) provided spiritual guidance, and vaishyas (merchants) managed commerce. Each group operated within its jurisdiction, maintaining balance in society.

In the Western world, secularism emerged more prominently after prolonged conflicts over religious dominance, such as the Hundred Years’ War and the Protestant Reformation. Initially, much of Europe was under the Catholic Church’s authority, with the Pope acting as a figure above kings. However, with the Reformation, Europe saw divisions between Catholic and Protestant states, leading to wars and colonial conflicts across the globe. Over time, Western societies adopted a model where the state’s primary role was to maintain law and order, leaving matters of faith to individuals.

This neutrality toward religion was initially beneficial, as it reduced conflicts and fostered coexistence. However, over time, this neutrality evolved into apathy and eventually antipathy toward religion. In modern times, many states implement policies that inadvertently or explicitly marginalize religious practices. For example, during recent global lockdowns, many religious places were closed, while abortion clinics remained open, deemed “essential services.” This raises questions about the criteria used to determine what is essential, revealing a subtle bias against religion.

Secularism, when practiced as genuine neutrality, respects the domain of the heart and personal belief. However, when it becomes dismissive or hostile toward religion, it risks undermining the foundational values of mutual respect and freedom of conscience. True secularism upholds the balance where the state enforces basic societal morality without encroaching on individual spiritual freedoms. This nuanced approach resonates with the Vedic tradition’s emphasis on maintaining societal harmony while respecting personal spiritual growth.

Understanding the Disconnect Between Life’s Functioning and Purpose

Modern life often feels increasingly disconnected from its overall purpose or larger picture. While society’s functioning demands considerable intelligence—evident in innovations like electricity, the internet, and essential services—its underlying value system may lack soundness, leading to potential societal catastrophes.

Dharma and Bhakti: Clarifying Their Roles

In English, there is often no precise word to distinguish between dharma and bhakti. Dharma, as described in the Bhagavad Gita, is not merely religion but refers to law, order, and moral structure in society. Bhakti, on the other hand, is devotion and one aspect of religion, yet it transcends religion in its pure form.

Neutrality toward an object of devotion is acceptable. However, apathy or antipathy toward morality and societal values is harmful. When life becomes excessively compartmentalized—separating the spiritual, moral, and material dimensions—it leads to dysfunction and destruction.

Knowledge and Intelligence: Their Interplay

The Bhagavad Gita emphasizes living with both knowledge and intelligence. Knowledge refers to awareness, like having a map for direction, while intelligence involves the ability to act correctly, akin to having the skill to drive. The interplay between these two determines whether life is well-regulated and well-directed.

Knowledge and Intelligence in the Three Modes

1. Knowledge in the Modes:
   • Ignorance: Awareness limited to fragments of reality or distorted perceptions.
   • Passion: Awareness focused only on material realities.
   • Goodness: Awareness of both material and spiritual dimensions.
2. Intelligence in the Modes:
   • Ignorance: Rationalizes and perpetuates harmful behavior.
   • Passion: Driven by self-centered goals without higher purpose.
   • Goodness: Guides regulated living and ethical decision-making.

Complex Interactions

Knowledge and intelligence interact in nuanced ways. For example, scientism—a fixation on empirical data without spiritual context—can represent knowledge in ignorance. Similarly, secularism, while maintaining neutrality in governance, may lead to excessive compartmentalization, ignoring the interconnectedness of morality, belief, and societal values.

Maya and Ignorance

Maya, meaning illusion, plays a role in leading individuals toward ignorance by presenting misleading options. However, the responsibility lies with the individual who chooses wrongly. Maya does not cause ignorance; rather, it tests us. Just as a teacher sets an exam with incorrect answer choices, maya provides illusions, but it is up to us to discern and act wisely.

Integrating Knowledge and Intelligence

To lead a meaningful and fruitful life, one must harmonize knowledge and intelligence:

• Knowledge helps direct our actions.
• Intelligence helps regulate those actions.

The Bhagavad Gita inspired Arjuna to live both well-directed and well-regulated. Similarly, when we align our consciousness with spiritual wisdom—”Krishna-ize” it—knowledge and intelligence become our allies, leading us to a balanced and purposeful life.

Summary

1. We discussed how life’s functioning can disconnect from its purpose.
2. Clarified dharma (law and order) and bhakti (devotion).
3. Explored knowledge and intelligence in the three modes, emphasizing their interplay.
4. Addressed maya’s role as an external factor influencing ignorance while emphasizing personal responsibility.
5. Highlighted the importance of integrating knowledge and intelligence for a meaningful life.

Q&A Discussion

Question: Does maya put us in ignorance, making us act blindly?
Answer: Maya, as an agency of illusion, provides options that may lead to ignorance. However, we are responsible for choosing those paths. Often, in hindsight, we realize our ignorance during past actions. This self-awareness highlights the need for cultivating knowledge and intelligence grounded in spiritual wisdom.

I think this is where I need clarity. How could we have avoided the situation? Sometimes, I feel like—yes, thank you—if ignorance is already present, how do we come out of it? What causes it? Maya (illusion) definitely plays a role. Its influences are present within our consciousness and circumstances. We need to start wherever we can.

There are things that are clearly black or white—actions we know are right or wrong. Then there’s a lot in between: the shades of gray where we’re unsure of what to do. Instead of starting with the ambiguous shades of gray, we should focus on the black and white. Let’s try to do the things we know are right and avoid what we know is wrong. Gradually, we can grow from there.

Countering ignorance isn’t easy. First, we need to recognize it. But wherever we do recognize it, we should act on it. Growth in any area is incremental. Just like in exercising, we don’t start by lifting heavy weights. Even in a gym where others lift big weights, we begin with what we can manage. Similarly, we start with the basics and build from there. Focus on what’s clearly black and white, and then address the shades of gray.

Now, about a follow-up question: I’ve had situations where I now realize I acted out of ignorance. One thought that comes to mind is—was it destined to happen due to my past karma? Could it have been unavoidable? How do we understand the balance between destiny and free will?

This is tough. When we reflect on certain decisions, we may now see them as wrong, but at the time, they might have felt inevitable. Was that destiny? Determining what’s right or wrong isn’t always straightforward. There are three factors to consider: content (what we do), intent (why we do it), and consequence (the outcome).

For example, a surgeon using a knife to operate has a good intent—to heal the patient. The content—performing surgery—is correct. However, if the consequence is a failed surgery leading to the patient’s death, things change. The surgeon might realize later that certain types of patients are more vulnerable, and adjustments are necessary.

Similarly, during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the intent was to save lives, and the content—developing the vaccine—was sound. But unforeseen consequences, like adverse reactions, required some vaccines to be paused or reevaluated. Sometimes, we learn about right and wrong through consequences, even when intent and content were appropriate.

If we try to correct someone, our intent might be good, and we may express ourselves respectfully. But if the person reacts aggressively or defensively, the consequence may teach us it’s better to avoid correcting them in the future. Consequences sometimes define the appropriateness of an action.

So, was it destiny? Or something else? Reflecting on life is like driving on a road. If we meet with an accident on what’s usually a smooth road, we might call it destiny. But if we were distracted, sleepy, or otherwise negligent, it’s on us.

The best approach is to learn from every situation and move forward. Sometimes, despite our efforts, things go wrong. At such times, we can accept it as destiny and move on.

Take the Mahabharata: both Bhishma and Duryodhana fought on the side of adharma. But were they morally equivalent? No. Bhishma was circumstantially bound by his vow, while Duryodhana acted out of malevolence. Bhishma’s actions could be seen as influenced by destiny, while Duryodhana’s stemmed from envy, anger, and obstinacy.

The Bhagavad Gita differentiates between such warriors. Some, like Bhishma, are like rivers flowing naturally toward the ocean—fulfilling their destiny. Others, like Duryodhana, are like moths drawn to fire, willfully choosing destruction.

Does this address your question?

From paramparanam, there’s a question: if we keep making wrong choices, does Maya (illusion) present us with more wrong choices, thus further conditioning us? Do we develop a taste for wrong choices?

Yes, that does happen. This isn’t just a static process—it’s a dynamic one. A static test, for example, would be a fixed set of 10, 50, or 100 predefined questions that follow a fixed sequence. A dynamic test, on the other hand, adapts based on how we perform. If we give a wrong answer, the next question may adjust accordingly, testing us at a lower level. If we answer correctly, the next question might test us at a higher level.

The tests of Maya are dynamic, much like a live interview. In a written exam, all questions are predetermined. But in an interview, the questions can shift depending on the answers given, probing deeper into areas of understanding. Similarly, Maya’s exams evolve based on our previous choices.

Even if we develop a taste for wrong choices, we still retain the ability to choose. For instance, someone addicted to alcohol may have limited freedom, but within those limits, they can still choose whether to take one drink, two drinks, or ten. While past choices can narrow the scope of our current choices, they don’t entirely take away our ability to choose.

Think of a dynamic test: after a series of wrong answers, the questions may become simpler, but the ability to answer correctly or incorrectly still remains. Similarly, wherever we are, we retain the capacity to make the right choice and either ascend or descend from that point.

The Last Question

Is the mind superior to the intelligence, or is the intelligence superior to the mind? Why is the mind said to be a product of ego in goodness, and the intelligence a product of ego in passion?

This involves multiple layers. While I could explain this through the technicalities of Sankhya philosophy, let’s approach it from a functional perspective.

The mind’s function is to maintain our material existence, while the intelligence’s function is to expand our material existence.

Mind and Intelligence in Functionality

1. Mind’s Function: The mind operates in the realm of dualities: “Do this, don’t do this,” or “Choose this, not that.” It perpetuates material desires by presenting repetitive choices.
2. Intelligence’s Function: Intelligence expands possibilities. It introduces newer and broader ways of engaging with the material world.

For example, technological advancements involve significant intelligence. These advancements have expanded the avenues for worldly enjoyment. In the past, watching a movie required visiting a theater. Today, we can stream endless movies online. Similarly, the accessibility of obscenity has increased exponentially—what was difficult to access in the past is now available instantly.

This illustrates how intelligence expands the scope of material engagement. Thus, from a functional perspective:

• The mind is associated with maintenance (mode of goodness).
• The intelligence is associated with creation/expansion (mode of passion).

Spiritual Application

While intelligence can expand material options, it can also expand spiritual options. For example, during times when physical visits to temples became challenging, intelligence enabled the use of online platforms for spiritual discussions and classes, making them more interactive and accessible.

The mind proposes desires, but the intelligence decides how to act on them. If intelligence simply serves the mind, it finds ways to fulfill every desire. However, intelligence can also regulate the mind by evaluating whether a desire is worth fulfilling.

When intelligence regulates the mind, it helps us elevate spiritually. But when it obeys the mind, it deepens our material entanglement.

The Role of Ego

From the perspective of Sankhya philosophy, the mind is a product of ego in goodness, and the intelligence is a product of ego in passion.

• Ego in goodness maintains the status quo, so the mind keeps proposing repetitive desires (e.g., eating the same food repeatedly).
• Ego in passion creates and expands, so intelligence generates new ways to fulfill desires.

However, intelligence is like a double-edged sword. When it serves the mind, it aggravates illusion and bondage. But when it disciplines the mind, it becomes a tool for liberation.

Summary

The intelligence that obeys the mind becomes our enemy, reinforcing our entanglement. The intelligence that regulates the mind becomes our friend, guiding us toward spiritual growth.

Does this answer your question?

Thank you for your attention and participation.
Hare Krishna.

The post 47 Why some people are knowledgeably ignorant or intelligently foolish appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Hare Krishna. Thank you for your patience today. We are discussing today one of the philosophically critical as well as somewhat confusing concepts of the Gita, that is the concept of doership, which we may often have heard: we are not the doers. Then the next question comes up: why are we held responsible if we are not the doers? So we’ll be discussing that topic today. We’ll base it on 18.14 in the Bhagavad Gita: Adhishthanam tatha karta karanam che purthak vidam, vividhas che purthak cheshta, daivam chayvatra panchamam. Adhishthanam tatha karta. Here, five factors that contribute to action are described. Adhishthanam is the field of action, that is the body, specifically karta, which is the doer. Karanam is the senses, the instruments of action. Che purthak vidam, the different kinds of senses are there. Then vividhas che purthak cheshta and the different kinds of endeavours are there. Daivam chayvatra panchamam. The fifth is daiva, destiny.

So let’s look at this. I’ll be talking broadly today about five broad conceptions. I remember one of the first classes I heard, or one of the first classes I gave, was about verse 3.27 where it is said that to think that we are the doers is an illusion. I said that if we think we are the doers, it often leads to confusion. If we hear that we are not the doers, it raises many questions. So, what questions are raised? One devotee, who was known to be quite lethargic and always escaping responsibility, said, “If I’m not the doer, then why should I do anything at all?” I replied, “Okay, if you should not do anything, then why eat at all?” This is something that gives us pleasure, we do it, but that which requires effort or sacrifice is what we often don’t want to do.

So what exactly does it mean that we are not the doers? Some people are literally so lazy, or we could say figuratively so lazy, that if they were given the world championship award for laziness, they would ask, “Can it be home delivered?” But to say that we are not the doers, is that something which is meant to justify lethargy? Not at all. So let’s look at the session. We will start with discussing how work relates to bondage. The point of doership is very strongly related to bondage. So, how does work relate to bondage? Then we’ll analyze action in terms of the five factors that are mentioned in this verse. Then, what does being a doer or non-doer actually mean? Then we will talk about action in terms of the modes, and lastly, how the Gita recommends non-doership in the sense of giving up not action, but giving up the sense of attachment in action. So not renunciation of action, but renunciation in action.

Now, in today’s world, when we read the Vedic scriptures, the repeated emphasis on how we are entangled and how we need to be liberated can seem very strange because people ask, “Where are we bound? What is this whole idea of bondage?” And what is the idea of being entangled and wanting to be liberated? Is it a problem at all? We can start from a perspective that we can observe and then move forward.

Where are we all bound? Some of us, maybe some people, get trapped in abusive relationships. Some people may have an exploitative boss. If that’s the only job we have and we don’t have any alternative, we have to be there. Sometimes we have certain relationships where — now, abusive is a very broad word — but there may be unpleasant relationships, and we are there in those. What do we do? Sometimes we ourselves may be bound by addictive habits. So not only do some habits become addictive, but they may also be self-defeating. Now, what is the difference? Well, some people may be just addicted to caffeine, TV watching, or things that are not immediately harmful. But self-defeating behaviors are those that lead people into heavy drugs or alcoholism, which destroy their health and life. There are degrees of this.

Now, in today’s world, even if we don’t talk about bondage in terms of physical slavery — which was present in many parts of the world in the past — we are all experiencing around us a large amount of psychological entanglement, psychological bondage. Essentially, any kind of addictive habit or self-defeating behavior leads to this. Eventually, people who get addicted may succumb to criminal behavior and be imprisoned for their crimes. Being imprisoned is a very visible form of restriction or bondage, but when we are bound by our own behaviors, it may not be so easily visible. When we are in particular relationships, that may or may not be visible, depending on the relationship. The fact is, we all get bound at times, and we don’t want to be bound. At the same time, the nature of the world is such that it entraps us.

Many people nowadays don’t want to get married because they feel that marriage is so entangling. But the reason is not that they are detached or want to pursue something spiritual; they just feel that marriage is entangling. But then what happens is, if they don’t marry, they get entangled in loneliness or superficial relationships where they pursue one thing after another, after another. So there is no easy way to escape the clutches of bondage in this world. The overall entanglement, as Bhagavad Gita explains, is the soul’s entanglement with the world. The soul is spiritual, but it gets bound in the world. The soul performs actions, and as a result of those actions, the soul gets reactions. By those reactions, the soul gets bound. This bondage of the soul to the world leads to the repetition…

It leads to old age, disease, death, rebirth, and that cycle goes on and on. So basically, when we perform actions, what drives us to do them? The soul desires to enjoy, and the desire to enjoy is what binds us. So, in this way, we are all entangled.

Now, all that I talked about earlier, such as exploitative bosses, abusive relatives, self-destructive or addictive habits, or even prison, are all entanglements in the world. We all get caught somewhere or the other in this world. But even if someone is living free from any of these specific attachments or entanglements, they are still bound simply by having a body that goes through inevitable sufferings.

So, when we talk about bondage, what do we really mean by it? Bondage or imprisonment or any kind of incarceration refers to a restriction in freedom. Even in prison, a person can move about, but within strict limits. We are all bound in terms of time. We would all like to remain young, healthy, and active. But as time passes, we are restricted more and more, and it’s an irreversible restriction. We can’t do much against it.

If we consider the last form of bondage, say, someone is in jail, the two most important questions that person will have are: What got me here? and How can I get out of here? These are the two driving questions in all spiritual philosophy, especially the philosophy spoken in the Vedic scriptures. Other religious traditions also talk about the world in similar terms. For example, the Bible says the world is a “veil of tears.” Their understanding is that we committed original sin, which is why we are trapped here and need salvation through Jesus’ grace.

But all spiritual traditions, especially the dharmic ones such as the Bhagavad Gita, focus on these two essential questions: What got me here? and How can I get out of this entanglement? These are the driving questions, and answering them is the fuel of philosophy.

Now, what is the cause of entanglement? This is the background that brings us to the Bhagavad Gita. In the 18th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna asks more or less the same question he asked at the beginning of the Gita: Should I fight or should I not fight? However, his question now is more nuanced, as his understanding has evolved. Sometimes we think that as we grow, all our questions will be answered. While yes, many questions are answered, as we evolve spiritually, our questions become subtler and more nuanced. We never become omniscient, so we never have no questions. Sometimes, we may not have questions that stir us deeply enough to ask them, but Arjuna, having heard the Gita, repeats the same question—though this time, his question is more refined. He asks, What is the difference between renunciation and the renounced order? This is the essence of his question, and Krishna will answer it using the concept of doership and non-doership.

What binds us? As I mentioned in the previous diagram, it is the action that gives rise to reactions that binds us. Arjuna’s understanding was that action itself binds us. Krishna’s clarification is that it is the intention behind the action that binds us. So, it is not the action itself that entangles us, but why we do it—our motivation. Understanding this difference is critical for understanding the solution to the problem. It’s like diagnosing a disease: knowing the cause of the disease is essential for providing the right treatment. Yes, we are entangled, and this is a disease, but what is the cause of the disease?

Now, why does intention matter? Let’s consider an action: someone is giving charity, which is generally a good thing. However, suppose someone gives money to an alcoholic. Why do they give money? Perhaps it’s because the alcoholic will become more drunk and commit domestic violence, or maybe they want to manipulate the alcoholic. In this case, the action of charity is good, but the motivation is harmful. The intention to make the person more addicted and manipulable makes the act of charity bad. So, even though charity is good, if the motivation is bad, the outcome is also bad.

On the other hand, suppose someone kills a serial killer. The action is cruel and brutal, but if the motive is to protect society from this harmful person, then is the killing really bad? No, if this action is required for establishing order in society, then it may not be bad.

These two examples show how actions that are apparently good may be ill-motivated, and actions that are apparently bad may be well-motivated. The key takeaway is that it is our intention that determines whether our action entangles us or not. So, our intention is crucial.

Now, this brings us to the second section of our discussion: action analyzed in terms of the five factors. What are the five factors?

1. Adhishthanam tatha karta: The place of action, the body, or the field of action.
2. Karanam cha pruthak vidha: The instruments or senses.
3. Vividhasha pruthak cesta: The various endeavors or efforts.
4. Daivam caivatra panchayamam: The destiny, or the higher beings under the supreme being.

Let’s take a simple example to understand these five factors: Suppose there’s a cricket match going on, and there’s a batsman. The field of action is the Adhishthanam. It refers to the body of the batsman or the cricket pitch where the action is happening. Why does it matter? If the body is injured or the pitch is waterlogged, the batsman can’t perform. So, when we discuss these five factors, Krishna means that these are the factors that contribute to the action and its result.

In this case, the soul is the karta, the batsman. Imagine if a person dies on the cricket field. Even if the batsman is in good form and the fielder is alert, if the soul leaves the body, nothing can be done. There are also the instruments of action, like the senses. The difference between the field of action and instruments of action is that for particular activities, certain senses are especially important. For a singer, the throat is crucial; for a surgeon, the fingers; and for a batsman, the arms are key.

For different people and activities, certain senses are essential, and when those senses are not functioning properly, actions can’t be completed. For example, a batsman may be physically fit, but if their hand is sprained, they cannot bat. In such cases, the necessary action cannot take place.

Beyond physical ability, endeavor is also required. The batsman must practice, undergo training, and work out for years with coaching before reaching a high level of skill. Why is all this effort necessary? Because it improves the person. An average batsman can become a decent one with practice, while a talented batsman can become excellent. Talent refers to potential, while excellence is the transformation of that potential into reality.

Beyond talent and practice, destiny also plays a role in shaping outcomes. It refers to external factors that are beyond our control, like the pandemic, which halted sports, air travel, and tourism for months. Even when everything else is favorable, things may still break down unexpectedly.

For any action to yield results, multiple factors must align. I’m now linking this to the first point, which suggests that being bound by motivation and intention is crucial. We are only one factor in the process. To illustrate, if we consider the five factors of action — the soul, the body, the senses, endeavor, and destiny — it’s clear that while we can exert effort, we cannot always control the outcome.

Even when we are fully prepared, sometimes the result doesn’t come. For instance, the batsman may have a fit body, trained senses, and ample talent, but if destiny doesn’t align, the desired result may not materialize. There are famous stories of artists or poets who became celebrated only after their death, as their works never gained recognition during their lifetime. Similarly, a batsman might perform well but be thwarted by an unforeseen storm or injury, preventing the action from even taking place.

So, while it’s true that we must act for results to occur, even our best efforts don’t always guarantee success. The balance is understanding that we are doers, but not the sole doers. We contribute to the process, but we do not have total control.

Regarding the concept of doership, we can look to the Bhagavad Gita for insight. The Gita suggests that we are not the sole doers, but it also recognizes our role in actions. In one well-known verse (Bhagavad Gita 3.27), Krishna explains that actions are performed by the three gunas (modes of material nature), and the soul, due to its ego, mistakenly believes itself to be the doer.

However, this doesn’t mean we are completely detached from action. In Gita 18.63, Krishna tells Arjuna, “Do as you desire,” affirming that Arjuna does have a choice in the matter. Arjuna’s response, “Karishe vachanam tava” (“I will do your will”), shows his acceptance of his role in action. This demonstrates that while we are not the sole doers, we still participate in the process.

The Bhagavad Gita reconciles this apparent contradiction in Chapter 18, Verse 16, which states that those who believe they are the sole doers are deluded. Their perception is superficial because they fail to see that their actions are influenced by external factors beyond their control.

Understanding that we are not the sole doers brings humility and detachment. We can put in our best effort, but the result is not always guaranteed. Our role is contributive, not decisive. We can do our part, but we must recognize that destiny and other factors also play a role.

In conclusion, while our actions matter and we must take responsibility for them, we should not believe that we are the only ones shaping the outcome. Recognizing this truth helps us approach life with balance, humility, and understanding.

One reason people have recognized the value of religion is that many thinkers understand it serves certain fundamental needs. These needs are important for human beings. We are not merely rational creatures; we are also meaning-seeking beings. While rationality may provide a small sense of meaning—such as explaining why a fruit falls from a tree or why plants grow in certain ways—it doesn’t answer the bigger questions of life, like “What is the purpose of life?” Rationality falls short in answering these profound questions.

Interestingly, even atheists have begun to recognize the utility of religion. Some atheists have written books arguing why religion matters, not because they believe in a deity, but because they understand that religion offers a social value. For instance, there are atheists who claim, “I don’t believe in God, but I believe in belief in God.” In other words, belief in God—whether or not God exists—benefits people, especially in terms of physical and mental health. Studies, such as those compiled in the Oxford Handbook of Science and Religion, support this idea, showing that those who express belief in God through actions tend to be healthier, recover faster from illnesses, and have more stable mental health.

The point I’m making here is that faith doesn’t necessarily have to be directly in scripture or God. Faith can take many forms, and it is often tied to a person’s worldview. Our motivations for actions are deeply influenced by this worldview, which is rooted in our faith.

To understand someone’s driving motivation in life, we must look at their actions, particularly the key actions they take. The 17th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita addresses this idea by examining what a person eats, what kind of austerity they practice, what kind of charity they give, and what sacrifices they make. These actions are shaped by the three cosmic cycles we exist within: the physical, the social, and the spiritual.

For the body, some austerity is necessary. The body may crave excessive sleep, indulgence, or sensual pleasures, but some self-discipline is needed. For society, charity is required. For the higher reality, cooperation and sacrifice are necessary. Thus, the way we interact with the world reflects our level of faith.

In the Gita, Krishna categorizes actions according to the three modes of material nature: goodness, passion, and ignorance. He explains how actions, food, austerities, charity, and sacrifices can be influenced by these modes. Krishna tells Arjuna that the true problem lies in our motivation. It is not just our actions that matter; it’s why we are doing them. The key to liberation is understanding the underlying motivations and changing them accordingly.

Arjuna asks Krishna about the renounced order (tyaga) and sannyasa, terms often translated differently by various commentators. Krishna explains that even renunciation can be influenced by the three modes. This is a powerful insight: giving up action itself can be done in different ways, according to the modes of nature.

Renunciation in ignorance is when someone gives up responsibilities because of illusion or irresponsibility. In passion, renunciation occurs when a person avoids duty because it causes them trouble or discomfort. And in goodness, renunciation involves giving up worldly attachments and associations, which leads to freedom from bondage.

Krishna teaches that if Arjuna truly wants to renounce, he must not only give up action but also renounce attachment to worldly things. It’s not merely about abandoning responsibilities; it’s about transcending attachment to the fruits of those actions. By doing this, a person can remain active in the world without being entangled by it.

Thus, Krishna’s message to Arjuna is that true renunciation comes from understanding the deeper motivations behind our actions and making choices that lead to spiritual growth, detachment, and liberation.

The entire Bhagavad Gita is aimed at helping us reach a higher level of understanding. Of course, there are even higher levels beyond this, but the Gita provides a solid foundation for further progress. It’s like a 100-story building: if someone is already on the 10th floor, they are on their way to higher floors. Renunciation in the mode of goodness, as described by Krishna, is like being on the 10th floor—it’s an important step, but there is always more to ascend.

Renunciation can also be understood in terms of the three modes, as can many other things in life. In the 18th chapter, Krishna analyzes action and its factors in greater detail. In the 17th chapter, we explored how faith can be analyzed through the three modes, and now Krishna begins to examine action more closely. He addresses various components involved when we act, such as knowledge, action, the actor, intelligence, determination, and happiness. All of these can be influenced by the three modes.

Take knowledge, for example. When faced with decisions, such as whether to take the COVID vaccine, people may have different opinions based on the knowledge they have. Some are eager to take the vaccine, while others are apprehensive, thinking it might not be fully tested. Even with knowledge, desires often drive our choices. An alcoholic may resolve not to drink again, but in a moment of weakness, the desire for immediate pleasure takes precedence, leading to relapse. Knowledge, like desires, can also be influenced by the three modes.

Krishna also differentiates between knowledge and intelligence. Knowledge is our perception and how we absorb information, while intelligence refers to how we apply that knowledge—how we regulate or indulge our senses and how we think about our actions. Determination is also key: we may have the intelligence to do something beneficial, but our determination to follow through may waver. Many people make New Year’s resolutions only to abandon them after a short time. Krishna’s analysis helps us understand that our actions are much more complex than simply renouncing them.

So, how does liberation happen? We have discussed the analysis of action in the three modes. Krishna advises Arjuna that it’s not about renouncing action altogether, but about cultivating an inner detachment. True renunciation involves detaching from worldly association and aspirations, while still engaging in action. The Bhagavad Gita’s central teaching is that we should act with inner renunciation. Karma Yoga, a form of action with detachment, is one such method. In Karma Yoga, we perform our duties without attachment to their fruits. Krishna talks about “work as worship” in the Gita, which we’ll explore further in the next session.

Ultimately, how do we disentangle ourselves from worldly entanglements? By making our motivations selfless. If our motivation is not for personal gain but for a higher cause, our actions will lead to less entanglement. Arjuna is not fighting to win a kingdom, but to establish Dharma and serve Krishna. As we cultivate selflessness in our motivation, we become less bound by the world. The more selfless our motivation, the less our actions entangle us.

Beyond Karma Yoga lies Bhakti Yoga, the highest form of yoga. In Bhakti Yoga, we work for the pleasure of Krishna, offering everything we do to Him. When we work as instruments of Krishna’s will, there is no entanglement in worldly results. Krishna will take the karma and give us yoga—transcendental connection through His grace.

The Gita’s ultimate message is that we don’t need to change our occupation or lifestyle; we need to change our motivation. Arjuna’s duty as a Kshatriya remains, but his motivation must shift. This shift in motivation is the essence of Krishna’s teaching. By studying and applying the Bhagavad Gita, we can change our motivations and transform our lives, no matter where we are or what we do.

Why is this the case?

We discussed the five factors of action using the example of a cricket match, where we concluded that not only are the results not within our control, but even the action itself can sometimes be beyond our control. For example, our senses may fail, our intelligence might not function as expected, or our body may not be physically capable of performing a task. Therefore, the key factor that reflects our level of consciousness is not what we do, but what we desire to do. Our desires, in turn, shape our consciousness.

Now, let’s consider what we want. What are our basic desires? We have discussed these in terms of the three modes of nature. In the 17th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains how even faith can be influenced by the three modes. Those who are faithful to the scriptures and devoted to the Lord are elevated, while the faithless who reject the scriptures are degraded. But what about those who are faithful yet not to the scriptures themselves?

In the contemporary world, we see some people who accept the social or psychological utility of religion, even without firm belief in God. Medical science also supports the idea that religion can be beneficial for mental health. This indicates that faith plays a universal role in shaping our actions, and it can be observed in everything we do—whether in how we eat, perform rituals, or engage in charity.

Krishna also talks about how even giving up an action is an action in itself, influenced by the three modes. This relates to the concept of renunciation, where Krishna explains that the components of action—knowledge, action, the actor, intelligence, determination, and happiness—are all shaped by the modes of nature.

To avoid becoming entangled in the world, we must strive to make our motivations as selfless as possible. Karma Yoga is one step toward this selflessness. Karma Yoga offered to Krishna takes this a step further, and Bhakti Yoga represents the highest level of selfless action. Krishna tells Arjuna that, while he is not the sole doer, it is still his responsibility to act. Arjuna agrees to take action, but Krishna teaches him that his motivation should be for a higher purpose—not to get revenge or gain a kingdom, but to establish dharma, to act in accordance with his Kshatriya duty, and to ultimately please the Supreme Lord.

When we act with this higher motivation, there is no question of becoming entangled in worldly attachments. Krishna’s message is clear: we do not need to give up our occupations, but we do need to change our concepts and purify our motivations.

Regarding Renunciation in Action:

When should one renounce action? Generally, we pray before doing an action and thank the Lord afterward. But what about during the action itself? As our devotion to Krishna deepens, we will remember Him more during our actions. Initially, we may be focused on the external aspects of what we are doing—our appearance, how we are perceived by others, etc. But as we continue practicing bhakti, we begin to focus more on why we are doing something.

For instance, a person giving their first public talk might be very self-conscious, worrying about how they are perceived and trying to impress others. But with more experience, they will shift their focus to the purpose of the talk—why they are speaking and what they hope to convey. Similarly, as we practice bhakti, we become less focused on the world and more on Krishna, who gradually moves to the forefront of our consciousness.

At the beginning of our practice, we should try to offer our actions to Krishna. A prayer like “Narayanayati Samarpayami” (I offer this to the Lord) helps us maintain that detachment. Even in the midst of action, we can offer our body, mind, and intelligence to Krishna.

Regarding Yukta Vairagya:

What is mature renunciation according to the Gita, and what is the balance for a practitioner in the perfectional stage?

Yukta Vairagya refers to a balanced form of renunciation that connects us with the Supreme Lord. It acknowledges that while we are in the world and need to interact with it, our actions can be purifying and elevating when performed with the right motivation. As we practice bhakti, we become more detached from material desires, and our focus shifts toward the Supreme.

Yukta, in this context, means being connected with Krishna, and vairagya means renunciation. Together, Yukta Vairagya implies renunciation that is guided by devotion and connection to the Lord. As we practice bhakti, our motivations become purer, and we gradually let go of attachment to the world. This process is gradual, like a person recovering from an illness. If someone has a fracture, they experience pain when moving their body, but to heal, they must endure some discomfort. In the same way, detachment is a gradual process, and with each step, we become more focused on the Supreme.

In conclusion, Yukta Vairagya is not an abrupt renunciation but a steady shift in our consciousness, moving from attachment to detachment as we deepen our connection with Krishna.

Bearable Pain and Spiritual Growth

When recovering from an illness, if a patient takes on unbearable pain, the healing process will be hindered, and recovery may not occur. But how does one know what constitutes bearable pain? Typically, a doctor or physiotherapist will guide them, offering advice on what exercises or movements are safe. Ultimately, each patient recovers at their own pace because everyone’s body and mind are unique.

Similarly, in spiritual practice, growth requires a certain level of bearable discomfort. If we want to grow spiritually, we must be willing to step out of our comfort zones and embrace a level of challenge. There are things in life that give us comfort and pleasure, and the thought of giving them up may seem impossible. However, with some effort, we can regulate or even reduce these comforts.

We need to determine what level of discomfort is bearable for us. This is where yukta vairagya (renunciation in connection with Krishna) comes into play. Right now, we may not have complete detachment from the world or a fully strong attachment to the Supreme Lord. But that’s the goal—the perfectional stage. At our current level, we engage in the world not just to serve Krishna but also because we still have desires. The key is not to indulge those desires more than necessary. What is necessary, however, requires honest introspection and self-awareness.

Just like a patient in recovery who has to give up comfort for healing, we, too, must give up some of the comforts of material life to grow spiritually. But the question is, how much comfort should we give up? The amount of renunciation should be a bearable amount of pain. This is how we can understand yukta vairagya at our level. We are not called to renounce everything all at once, but to engage in spiritual practice while being mindful of our limitations.

Balancing Preaching and Financial Responsibility

If a grahastha (householder) wants to preach but lacks sufficient financial resources or support, should they postpone their preaching until they are financially stable? The answer is no; it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Preaching doesn’t need to be a full-time endeavor. One can begin by sharing Krishna consciousness wherever they are, in whatever capacity they can, and as financial security increases, one can devote more time and energy to spiritual activities.

We shouldn’t neglect our material responsibilities, but at the same time, we shouldn’t postpone spiritual efforts. The principle is simple: if we use what we have in Krishna’s service, Krishna will provide more. But if we don’t use what we have for His service, why would Krishna give us more?

Pleasure-Seeking and Spiritual Growth

If we want to go to the spiritual world because we see the material world as a place of suffering, and the spiritual world as a place of happiness, is that renunciation in the mode of passion? Not necessarily, though it could be. The key here is that a devotee is not focused on pleasure; they are focused on love—loving Krishna and serving Him. In that love and service, joy naturally follows.

Service to Krishna, however, requires effort. In the Bhagavad Gita (9.13-9.14), Krishna explains that the greatest devotees worship Him with undivided devotion and work with great determination. If someone is already so attracted to Krishna, why is effort still required? Because anything in this world requires effort, and spiritual growth is no different. If someone is merely seeking pleasure, they won’t be able to make meaningful progress in their service to Krishna.

For example, when Srila Prabhupada came to America, he didn’t come seeking pleasure; he came with a higher purpose to spread Krishna consciousness. Had he been pleasure-seeking, he could have stayed comfortably in Vrindavan.

We all need pleasure, but the key question is: What kind of pleasure are we seeking? There are different levels of pleasure. One can seek pleasure in ways that only gratify the senses without any concern for others or the world. Or one can seek pleasure through fulfilling responsibilities, making contributions, and ultimately, serving Krishna. The highest level of pleasure is in the reciprocation of love with Krishna.

While we all desire to go to the spiritual world, we must remember that the true joy of the spiritual world comes from loving and serving Krishna, not from mere pleasure-seeking. The devotee’s struggles in this world are not due to a desire for sensory pleasure but because they are distracted from serving Krishna. A devotee does not mourn the loss of sensory gratification but desires to serve the Lord without distraction.

Desire for Pleasure and Spiritual Purpose

We all desire to go to the spiritual world, and in one sense, any reason for striving toward that goal is valid. However, if our primary motivation is simply to seek pleasure, we may find that even the association of devotees and the practice of bhakti become troublesome. The pursuit of material pleasure might even tempt us to think that the material world offers more immediate satisfaction.

This desire for pleasure is not exactly renunciation in the mode of passion, but it can resemble it. To progress spiritually, we need to elevate our understanding beyond the mere pursuit of pleasure. A devotee is not driven by the quest for pleasure, but by the desire to serve. The essence of devotion lies in service, not in seeking personal enjoyment.

Ethics and Motivation in Actions

The question of whether the intention behind an action or the action itself is more important has been debated extensively. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna emphasizes the importance of motivation. Arjuna, for example, is told to fight the war because it is his dharma, his duty as a Kshatriya, even though he is reluctant. The context in which the action is performed shapes its spiritual significance.

In the case of Arjuna, Krishna encourages him to act with the right motivation, not necessarily because the action itself is the most important aspect. However, this doesn’t mean that action itself is unimportant. Actions, motivation, and consequences all matter.

For instance, if someone accidentally causes harm, like in an accident, their culpability depends on the specific circumstances. Karma is complex, and we cannot oversimplify it. Following the spiritual master’s instructions is crucial, but it doesn’t mean that other aspects of life—like common sense and responsibility—can be ignored. Spiritual life requires intelligent decision-making, and we cannot neglect the practical aspects of life, even while engaged in service.

For example, when some devotees died in a car accident while rushing to distribute books, Srila Prabhupada was asked if this was part of Krishna’s plan. He responded gravely, saying that while their intention was noble, they should have exercised more caution. Their service to Krishna was commendable, and they will receive blessings for it, but there is also a level of personal responsibility in the way we approach situations.

This aligns with the story of Ajamil in the Bhagavatam, where he initially went to the forest to gather wood for a yajna, but he became distracted by impure thoughts and actions. This shows that while we may be engaged in service, we must also remain mindful of what we focus on and how we conduct ourselves.

Conclusion: The Role of Intention, Action, and Consequence

In summary, when it comes to spiritual actions, it’s not just about the action itself, nor is it solely about the intention. Both the action and the motivation play a role, and the consequences of our actions also matter. Krishna emphasizes that motivation is central, especially in the context of Arjuna’s war, but it doesn’t mean that consequences are insignificant. Every action must be carried out responsibly, with intelligence and caution.

Thank you very much.

Srimad Bhagwat Gita Ki Jai.

Shri Prabhupada Ki Jai.

The post 46 If we are not the doers why are we held responsible – Gita 18.14 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Hare Krishna. Thank you very much for joining today for this discussion on the Bhagavad Gita.

Today, we will be discussing one of the most important, yet often misunderstood or under-applied verses from the Gita, particularly in terms of how we conduct ourselves and our relationships with others. Applying this verse in our practical devotional life can be a game-changer. The topic we will explore is: “Speak to give peace of mind, not a peace of your mind.” This is based on Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 17, Verse 15.

In this verse, Krishna speaks about the nature of the words we use. He advises that we speak words which do not agitate others. Our speech should be truthful, pleasing (priya), and beneficial (hitam). Additionally, Krishna mentions that repetition of scripture is also a form of the austerity of speech or discipline in speech.

Today, we will cover four main points:

1. The power of speech
2. How to regulate and use the power of speech
3. Why we may self-righteously misuse this power
4. How to speak purposefully and effectively

1. The Power of Speech

Words can have a tremendous impact—both constructive and destructive. The power of speech can be life-saving or life-damaging, depending on how we use it.

Constructive Speech: Words can be encouraging, appreciative, and motivating. They can empower others and give them strength. In fact, if someone is contemplating suicide, a few encouraging words can save their life. Speech can literally be life-saving.

Destructive Speech: On the flip side, speech can be incredibly damaging. Words can hurt more than swords because, while swords leave visible wounds that may heal, words leave invisible wounds that can devastate a person’s emotional and mental state. When faith is shattered, it is like a broken pot—it can be fixed, but it will never be the same as before. This shows that words have the power to damage deeply and irreparably.

As Chanakya Pandit says, “One who wishes to rule the world needs expertise of tongue more than expertise of sword.” Historically, leaders needed not only skill in battle but also the ability to inspire and motivate their soldiers. However, while some used their speech to create devastation (like Hitler, whose oratory caused immense suffering), others used their words positively to inspire and empower people. This shows that words shape our world in either constructive or destructive ways.

2. Regulating the Power of Speech

We all carry a loaded weapon with us every day—our tongue. And unlike a gun, we don’t need a license to have it. While we don’t carry a physical weapon, our words are like a loaded gun, and we must be cautious in how we use them. Words can break hearts, stir anger, and create lasting damage.

For those of us who are articulate, we must be even more careful. The ability to speak well means we can have a greater impact, whether positive or negative. We need to remember that every time we speak, we have the power to either build someone up or tear them down.

3. Why We Self-Righteously Misuse This Power

We often misuse our speech when we are angry or upset. For instance, when I get angry, I can use my words in a way that is harsh, sarcastic, or unforgiving. In these moments, I must remind myself of the importance of choosing words that are not just a release of my anger but are also responsible and kind.

Even when we speak about Krishna, our words must serve our own purification and the edification of others. This is why Krishna’s guidance on speech in the Gita is so crucial—it helps us regulate our emotions and avoid misusing the power of our words.

4. Speaking Purposefully and Effectively

Krishna emphasizes four qualities of speech in this verse:

1. Anudvega Karam: Speech should be non-agitating. We should avoid saying things that stir negative emotions in others.
2. Satyam: Speech should be truthful. Lies, half-truths, or deceitful words can cause harm, so honesty is essential.
3. Priyam: Speech should be pleasing. While the truth can be hard to hear, we must find ways to express it in a way that doesn’t harm others.
4. Hitam: Speech should be beneficial. Our words should help others grow, both materially and spiritually.

Krishna also highlights the importance of scripture in speech, as citing sacred texts is a form of austerity. Repeating the words of scripture in our daily speech is a form of spiritual discipline.

In conclusion, we must recognize the power of our words and use them thoughtfully. Whether it’s in our relationships with others or in our service to Krishna, we should aim to speak words that promote peace, love, and understanding. By doing so, we will not only purify our hearts but also contribute positively to the world around us.

These are four components of disciplined speech: Vanmayam tapa ucyate. So, it’s interesting—the concept of austerity of speech. The austerity of speech, I have translated here as “discipline of speech.” Why specifically austerity or discipline? See, austerity means that there is something we can do, but we voluntarily choose not to do.

For example, austerity in eating, such as fasting. That means we have food to eat, but we choose not to eat. If somebody is starving because they don’t have food, then they’re not really fasting. That’s not fasting; that’s starving. Fasting as austerity means I have food, and I may even have the right to eat it, but I voluntarily choose not to eat it for a higher purpose.

Similarly, when we talk about disciplining our speech, we have the power to speak and may even have the right to speak, but we carefully regulate our speech. Just as we may perform austerity of the body—when we fast, we regulate what goes into our mouths—when we talk about vanmayam tapa, we regulate what comes out of our mouths.

There are two types of austerity: annamayatapa (regulating food) and vanmayatapa (regulating speech). In both, there’s pleasure in eating whatever we like, but we carefully regulate what we eat for a higher purpose. Similarly, we may speak many things and find pleasure in it, but we regulate our speech for a higher purpose. That’s vanmayatapa, austerity of speech.

In the austerity of speech, there are two aspects: being sensitive and being sensible. Being sensitive means we consider people’s feelings and the emotional impact of our words. At the very least, what we speak shouldn’t agitate others. The theme of our talk is “Speak to give peace of mind.” At the best, we aim to speak in a way that uplifts others and makes them feel happy. This is the emotional side of speech.

On the other hand, speech should also be sensible. This means it must be truthful (satya) and beneficial (hita). While many truths may exist, not all truths are beneficial to hear. For example, if a student in their first year finds math difficult, they may express their frustration. While it’s truthful that math can be challenging, telling the student about a 500-page book they will have to study is truthful but not beneficial at that moment.

Thus, truthful speech is the lower bar, and speech that is both truthful and beneficial is the higher bar. This is sensible speech.

Now, let’s look at extremes. If something is sensitive but not sensible, it can be harmful. For instance, in medicine, sometimes pain must be caused for a greater good. If a doctor avoids giving an injection to a child to avoid hurting them, they might be sparing the child from immediate pain but allowing greater harm in the future. Similarly, if we avoid speaking truth because we fear hurting someone’s feelings, we might let them continue on a harmful path. This is being sensitive but not sensible.

On the other hand, if we are sensible but not sensitive, we risk being harsh. For example, a doctor who operates without anesthesia is being sensible about saving the patient’s life but is not sensitive to their present suffering.

When we communicate, we need to be concerned for both the present and the future. If we focus only on the future and ignore the present, we risk being ineffective. If we focus only on the present and ignore the future, we risk being irresponsible.

So, finding the balance between sensitivity and sensibility is key. It’s not always easy to know the balance, but it’s easier to recognize the extremes. If we go off balance, we will feel a “bumping” sensation, like going off the road. Speaking the truth without compassion is hard-hearted, and having compassion without truth is empty-headed. Both extremes make speech ineffective.

To summarize, effective speech must be both truthful and compassionate. We must care for people’s feelings while also considering their future. To achieve this, we can think of speech in terms of two axes: the content of speech (whether it is truthful or not) and the consequence of speech (whether it is compassionate or not). By ensuring both aspects are balanced, we can speak in a way that benefits others emotionally and practically.

So, the best form of speech is when it is kind-hearted and level-headed, as this is most likely to be effective. This means that there is both truth and compassion. If there is only truth without compassion, we may be logically correct, but we won’t be psychologically correct. Our speech will fail to have the desired effect. On the other hand, if there is neither truth nor compassion, it can be worthless or even destructive, as is the case with gossip or rumor-mongering, which are unhealthy forms of speech.

If we are compassionate without being truthful, then our speech becomes “empty-headed.” Nowadays, political correctness can go to extremes, where we are so sensitive that we avoid speaking the truth altogether. Let’s examine these ideas one by one.

Political correctness is not always bad. Certain words can convey unnecessary negative connotations, which need to be avoided, and that’s perfectly fine. However, political correctness can sometimes go to extremes, especially when moral posturing about sensitivity comes at the expense of sensibility. For example, biologically speaking, there are two genders, but gender theory now suggests that gender is a social construct rather than a biological fact. Some gender theories even claim there are 12, 7, or 63 genders, each with its own pronoun. In some places, such as Canada, it has become a legal offense not to address someone by their preferred gender pronoun.

While we do not want to offend people, moral posturing often becomes a way of demonstrating sensitivity without being sensible. Yes, people have their individuality, and we should be sensitive to their gender challenges, such as gender dysphoria. But when reality is rejected in the name of political correctness, are we truly helping people, or are we hurting them?

In the Western world, especially in Europe and America, there is ongoing debate about transgender women—those who transition from male to female. Some claim that transgender women are women because that’s how they identify, but there are concerns, particularly in sports competitions. Transgender women who were originally men may easily win female competitions, leaving women who have trained for years at a disadvantage. Should there be a distinction made here? Is it right to allow transgender women to compete in women’s categories? This is a politically volatile issue, but the point is that sometimes political correctness can go to extremes.

Likewise, logical correctness can also go to extremes. When communicating with people, we must inspire them, not just instruct them. Many can tell others what is right and what is wrong, but people need to be inspired to act on the right thing. Often, before people care about how much we know, they need to know how much we care. If we present an airtight rational case and expect people to follow, we may find they ignore our advice because their hearts were not touched. We are not merely creatures of logic. While logic is one factor we consider in decision-making, it is not the only one. That’s why simply speaking the truth without compassion often doesn’t work.

When there is neither truth nor compassion, the speech becomes particularly destructive, as seen in gossiping. What happens when we gossip? We tend to gossip when we hear something we like about someone we dislike. For instance, if we hear negative news about someone we already have negative feelings toward, we may feel a perverse joy in sharing it with others. Another way to define gossip is the Sanskrit word prajalpa, meaning unnecessary or damaging speech. When we speak negatively about someone to those who cannot do anything about it, it is irrelevant and harmful.

Gossiping also involves poking others into issues that are not their concern. For example, spreading news of political scandals or drama in another group is not relevant to those who cannot influence the situation. In our movement, we need to remember why we’re here: to move toward Krishna. If we have the resources, inspiration, and experience to continue moving toward Krishna, why should we focus on what is happening elsewhere? This doesn’t mean we remain ignorant, but we should not make it our duty to spread negativity.

In the Bhagavatam, Uddhava does not inform Vidura that Krishna has left the world because bad news will spread on its own. Why share bad news? While there are times when we must share unpleasant truths, especially in positions of responsibility, gossiping is unnecessary and counterproductive.

Effective speech, therefore, should open people’s eyes and hearts, not shut their mouths and minds. When we speak to open people’s eyes, we help them see things differently. Instead of merely telling them which way to go, we show them the consequences of their choices and let them decide which path to take. Opening people’s hearts means gaining a place in their hearts so that they trust us and are willing to follow our guidance.

Conversely, shutting people’s mouths means insulting them while refuting their arguments. While we may win the battle by proving them wrong, we risk losing them for good. If we make others feel insulted, they will likely never come back, especially in today’s world where spirituality is just one option among many. Therefore, we must speak to inspire and connect with others, not to belittle or alienate them.

Why should people come to us if they feel insulted by us? Now, let’s talk about closing people’s minds. What does this mean? It means that we present such unacceptable arguments that people decide we’re not worth engaging with. We might present arguments that seem logical to us, but from their perspective, these arguments may be completely unconvincing. If someone gives an answer we find nonsensical, we may decide, “I’m never asking this person again.” In that moment, their mind is closed to us.

Effective speech means being aware of the impact of our words and adjusting them to achieve the desired effect. We should moderate and modify our speech in ways that help open people’s hearts and minds, not close them. This brings us to the second part: regulating the power of speech.

The third part involves understanding why we may misuse the power of speech out of self-righteousness. Sometimes we justify speaking strongly by quoting from the Shastra, saying that a Sadhu’s words are like a surgeon’s scalpel—they may cause pain, but are necessary to cut through illusions. Examples from the scriptures, such as Vidura’s words cutting through Dhritarashtra’s illusions in the Bhagavatam, or the sages Angira and Parvat Muni helping Chitraketu Maharaj, are often cited as instances of strong speech.

While this metaphor of a surgeon’s scalpel can justify strong speech, let’s break it down. Surgery is not performed casually. First, consent must be given. A doctor cannot just drag a patient into the operating room and start cutting; they need the patient’s consent. Similarly, before speaking strongly, we must have the person’s consent—do they recognize that they are wrong and in need of correction? People often don’t acknowledge that they are wrong, or even that they need correction.

Now, let’s assume we are competent “surgeons” in this metaphor. Even then, we still need consent and should consider non-surgical treatments before resorting to strong words. Non-surgical treatment means trying a more positive and gentle approach first. For example, if someone is speaking something wrong, instead of immediately labeling it as stupid, we can appreciate their desire to learn. “I understand where you’re coming from,” or “I can see why you would think that” helps open the conversation without conflict.

Here are four “A’s” to approach non-surgical correction:

1. Appreciation: Even if someone’s understanding is wrong, we can appreciate their desire to know. For instance, if someone quotes a spiritual teacher with an incorrect perspective, we can still acknowledge their curiosity about spirituality.
2. Acceptance: Even if the point is wrong, we can accept that the person has made a sincere effort to understand. This creates a space for more open dialogue.
3. Acknowledge: We can acknowledge the validity of their concern. Even if their expression of it is mistaken, the underlying concern might be worth addressing. This shows respect for their effort to engage with the topic.
4. Address: Instead of countering or crushing their argument, we can address the concern beneath their words. Sometimes, by addressing their deeper concern, we can help them rise to a higher understanding without confrontation.

For example, if someone says, “God is impersonal,” we might say, “I understand why you think that, and in a way, it’s true. God has an impersonal aspect, but He is also personal. The Bhagavad Gita says that the personal aspect is the highest and most complete revelation of the Absolute Truth.” This approach helps raise their understanding without directly confronting their perspective.

In conclusion, before speaking strongly, we must first consider whether we have consent, if we have attempted a gentler approach, and if we are ready to administer our words with care, just like a surgeon with a patient. Only then can our speech have the desired effect, both in terms of truth and compassion.

Telling someone, “Mayavadis are meant to go to hell,” or “Stop speaking like this,” is not going to be effective. Strong words like these are more likely to close minds rather than open them. We must try non-surgical intervention before resorting to strong words.

In this context, anesthesia and pain medication represent the warmth of the relationship, trust, and appreciation that soften strong words. Without a solid relationship, our words can feel like a sudden, unprepared surgery. Anesthesia, in this metaphor, is the trust and bond between us and the person we are trying to help. Without it, our words can seem harsh and unthoughtful. Pain medication, on the other hand, represents the ongoing support from a compassionate, empathetic team that can help minimize the hurt caused by strong words.

We may pride ourselves on how many people we’ve brought to Krishna, but who knows how many we may have driven away with our forceful or inappropriate words? If we only focus on speaking the truth without considering its impact, we might unknowingly alienate those we seek to help.

Now, let’s move on to how to speak purposefully and effectively. Some argue that our scriptures are full of strong speech, but it’s essential to understand that these strong words were effective because they were spoken at the right time and with the right relationship. Take the example of Vidura speaking to Dhritarashtra. Vidura’s words cut through Dhritarashtra’s illusions, but that only worked because Vidura had built a strong, patient relationship with him over time.

Vidura didn’t speak harshly right away. He had been advising Dhritarashtra for a long time, but Dhritarashtra rejected his advice. Only when Dhritarashtra lost his attachment to Duryodhana after his son’s death did he become ready to hear Vidura’s words. So, it wasn’t just the strength of Vidura’s words, but Dhritarashtra’s readiness to hear them that made the difference. Words spoken at the wrong time or in the wrong way can backfire and close someone’s heart.

Vidura’s patience is a key lesson. He didn’t burn bridges with Dhritarashtra by speaking harshly too soon. He didn’t join the battle and kill Dhritarashtra’s sons, which would have closed Dhritarashtra’s heart to him forever. Vidura understood that timing and relationship were critical in delivering his message effectively.

Now, this doesn’t mean we should never speak strongly, but we need to consider the consequences of our words. When people have wrong conceptions or are making wrong choices, sometimes strong words are necessary. However, the goal is not just to speak the truth, but to correct misconceptions or help others make better choices. We must also be mindful of how our words affect the person’s willingness to accept the truth.

The choice is not always between speaking the full truth or compromising the truth. Sometimes, it’s about whether our words will attract people to the truth or alienate them from it. Speaking the truth harshly can lead to the person walking away feeling alienated, even if we believe we are correcting their mistake. The key is not just what we say, but how it’s received.

When people make wrong choices, we may be tempted to correct them forcefully, but we need to consider the impact on the relationship. Sometimes, it’s more productive to allow them to make mistakes and learn from them, as long as we maintain the relationship. For example, with parenting, we may need to be firm when children are young, but as they grow older, if we force them to follow a particular path, they may resent us. Forcing them may ruin their relationship with us and with Krishna. Sometimes, letting them make their own choices and learn from them is more productive in the long run.

If we say, “One day you’ll realize your stupidity and come crawling back,” even if the person is wrong, we risk damaging the relationship permanently. It becomes an issue of pride, not truth, and they may never return, even if they eventually realize their mistake.

In conclusion, speaking strongly can be necessary at times, but we must carefully consider the effect of our words. Are we correcting misconceptions and helping people make better choices? Or are we pushing them away? The goal is to speak with purpose, compassion, and awareness of how our words will impact the relationship and the person’s willingness to change.

Sometimes, preserving the relationship is more important than being right. Some might argue that there are references in our tradition where people speak strongly, and yes, those references exist. However, there are many other references that emphasize sensitivity in communication. Let’s look at a few examples:

For instance, in Nectar of Instruction (Updesha Amrit), it is said that great devotees are free from the tendency to criticize others. Bhakti Siddhanta Thakur also advises, “Don’t criticize anyone, whether devotees or non-devotees. They have their own conceptions; let them be. Correcting them is the responsibility of their spiritual master, not yours.”

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna speaks about how harsh speech is a characteristic of the demoniac, not the divine. He says in the verse Anudvika Karam Vakyam that words should not agitate others’ minds. Even if we are enlightened and others are not, Krishna tells us not to disturb people’s minds but to engage them in a way that gradually elevates them.

Krishna also teaches how to handle differences of opinion without being disagreeable. He says that while some people believe activities like Yajna (sacrifice), Dhana (charity), and Tapas (austerity) should be renounced, others think they should be performed. Krishna refers to the former group as “Manishinaha” (those who have controlled their minds), acknowledging their respect for the path of spiritual disentanglement, even if their conclusions differ.

This shows that we should look for the good in others rather than zero in on their faults, delighting in criticizing them. We need to appreciate where others are right rather than simply pointing out where they are wrong. The Shastras provide ample examples of sensitive speaking, and this is seen in both the Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam, among others.

Looking at Prabhupada’s example, we can see he used the word “fools and rascals” sparingly. He used the term 2,791 times in his conversations, 1,373 times in his lectures, and only 157 times in his written works. Despite Prabhupada speaking strongly at times, he always did so in contexts where the trust had already been established, and the audience was receptive. He reserved stronger language for situations where he had earned the right to correct, such as with his intimate disciples, while his written works were generally more measured.

In fact, in 1976, when a disciple asked if they could transcribe his lectures, Prabhupada replied that it would be unnecessary, as his message was already contained in his books. This shows that Prabhupada preferred his teachings to be shared in a considered, respectful manner.

Prabhupada’s sensitivity is also evident in his dealings with life members in India. For example, when a disciple began growing his beard and dressing like a hippie, Prabhupada’s response was gentle. Instead of criticizing harshly, Prabhupada simply pointed out the difference between the pictures of the prostitute from Haridas Thakur’s story, one before and one after her spiritual transformation, highlighting that a devotee’s appearance should reflect their seriousness in practice.

Thus, while Prabhupada did use strong words when necessary, his overall approach was one of balance. He spoke effectively, using strong language only when the situation warranted it. His example teaches us that to be faithful to Prabhupada’s mood is not about mimicking his use of strong language but about speaking effectively to fulfill his purpose.

To correct someone, we need the right relationship, the right context, and the right disposition. Criticizing someone publicly may humiliate them and make them less receptive. Furthermore, we need to be sure that our own information is accurate. Correcting someone based on faulty information or logic is not helpful and may even harm the relationship.

In conclusion, humility in speech means recognizing that our words alone will not have an effect unless they align with destiny or Krishna’s will. Before speaking, we should pray, not as a ritual, but genuinely ask Krishna to speak through our hearts and open the hearts of the audience. When we examine Prabhupada’s mood in Markine Bhagavat Dharma, we see his deep dedication and humility. Prabhupada prays, “Krishna, you make my words understandable to them.” This is not just about his accented Bengali English, but his desire to connect with their hearts. His prayer was remarkably successful, as it helped him transform countless hearts and inspire people.

Rather than focusing on speaking strongly, we should focus on speaking humbly. We must discern when we are acting as Krishna’s agent and when we are acting out of ego—speaking to prove others wrong versus speaking to give them peace of mind. The ultimate peace of mind comes when we connect people to Krishna, speaking in a way that inspires them to engage with Krishna, rather than simply instructing them.

For our speech to be effective, the greatest quality we need is virtue. Humility and tolerance are crucial when presenting our worldview, understanding, and dealing with wrong conceptions or choices. We must act not just to correct others, but to correct them in a way that allows them to receive the correction positively.

Today, I discussed how we can speak in a way that gives people peace of mind rather than a piece of our mind. First, we explored the power of speech: Constructive speech can encourage and save lives, while destructive speech can devastate. Words shape worlds, as Chanakya said, and for that, we must speak with sensitivity and sensibility. Truth without compassion is hard-hearted, and compassion without truth is empty-headed. We should aim to speak in a way that acknowledges others’ feelings and cares about their future trajectory.

We often feel justified in speaking strongly, thinking that it will cut people’s illusions. However, as we discussed, the example of the surgeon and the need for consent, preparation, and appropriate intervention shows that we cannot simply rely on strong words. Our words must come from a place of relationship, respect, and preparation.

Prabhupada’s example further emphasizes this point. He spoke strongly at times, but he also understood when to speak gently. He was sparing in his use of strong words, especially in his written works, and only used them when appropriate in private conversations with his disciples. Being faithful to Prabhupada’s mood does not mean speaking harshly, but speaking effectively—choosing the right words at the right time to serve the purpose of Krishna’s mission.

Finally, humility in speech involves knowing that Krishna will act through us and the hearts of those we speak to, not just our words. Our goal should be to connect with Krishna and inspire others to do the same, speaking with humility, sensitivity, and a focus on the ultimate peace of mind—connecting to Krishna.

Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

Prabhupada spoke in different ways at different times, and we need to consider the context—Deshikaal Patra (time, place, and circumstance). Rather than judging whether speech is harsh or strong, the key is effectiveness. From my experience, I haven’t seen that strong speaking is effective. Often, when people continue despite strong speaking, it is due to their sincerity, not because of the forceful speech. I’ll share an example from my college days: a close friend, a social activist, came to our temple. Someone spoke strongly against a popular spiritual teacher, calling him a “demon.” This made my friend stop attending our programs, and soon, very few people came. This person later became a Mayavadi sannyasi in that very same organization. What did we gain by speaking strongly? Nothing but damage.

Sometimes, people ask if speaking flowery words dilutes the principles. While it’s true that Prabhupada emphasized the importance of purity in practice, our preaching isn’t about finding one moon and extinguishing a thousand stars. The problem arises when we focus on criticizing other paths instead of building relationships. The Vedic culture is multi-level: those who cannot practice pure bhakti are given alternative paths, like worshipping the devatas. Even impersonalism, while not the highest, is respected. For example, the Bhagavatam does not criticize Shamik Rishi, even though he was an impersonalist. Instead, it shows respect for his path, just as King Parikshit showed respect for him.

When we engage with people, we must remember that we cannot always know someone’s spiritual level. People may follow a Mayavadi teacher without fully understanding Mayavada or impersonalism, attracted by other qualities like social service or charisma. So, are we speaking flowery words? It’s all about context. “Flowery words” is a value judgment. Our speech should help people come toward Krishna, not extinguish their potential for growth. We may end up engaging in debates about the nature of God, thinking we’ve won, but the other person might walk away thinking that the whole concept of God is confusing and opt for atheism instead.

In the end, our actions sometimes create barriers to our message. Websites like Quora often depict ISKCON as fanatical or judgmental. Are all those people foolish? No, they’ve likely had negative experiences with strong or dismissive preaching. Unfortunately, our movement can sometimes be our own enemy, damaging its own preaching. I’ve met many people who were victims of harsh or strong preaching, and I’ve tried to help them salvage their spiritual lives.

As for the question of dilution, it’s important to understand that this is also a judgment. Was Prabhupada diluting when he accepted life members? He didn’t force them to dress a certain way or chant 16 rounds immediately. Instead, he spoke with them reasonably, welcomed them, offered them prasad, and showed kindness. Prabhupada’s ability to balance strong philosophical teachings with compassionate engagement is often understated. The recordings we have focus on his strong words, but they don’t always capture the full scope of his interactions, which were often gentle and respectful.

So, when we look at today’s movement, which is mostly congregation devotees, we must ask ourselves: how do we define a devotee? Everyone is a volunteer, and many come to Krishna Consciousness from different backgrounds. Speaking strongly in a judgmental way can push people away, making spirituality an option they reject. Instead, we should aim to speak in ways that draw people in, fostering their connection to Krishna through respect and understanding.

The content shared in the discussion emphasizes the importance of effective communication in spiritual or philosophical conversations, especially when conveying truths that may be difficult for some people to hear. Here’s a breakdown of the main ideas discussed:

1. The Balance of Strong Speech and Compassion

It is important to speak the truth boldly, especially in spiritual settings, but this should be done with awareness of its potential emotional impact. Strong speech should not be aimed at attacking individuals but rather addressing the ideas or philosophies they hold. When delivering a strong message, we should be mindful of how it might affect others emotionally.

2. The Danger of Harsh Speech

While it is necessary to speak the truth, the speaker warns that harsh speech—speaking in a way that disregards the feelings or emotional state of others—can be counterproductive. Such speech, even when true, may drive people away or alienate them, especially if they feel personally attacked or criticized. This is seen in how many people who are disgruntled with ISKCON have gone to other religious movements due to feeling hurt by strong speech or the presumption that one side is always right.

3. Context is Key

The speaker stresses that context plays a major role in how a message is received. The same philosophical truth can be presented in different ways depending on the audience’s emotional state, background, and understanding. For instance, if someone is an atheist, attacking them directly for their beliefs might be unproductive. Instead, engaging them in a conversation, making them feel like a partner in exploration rather than an adversary, may lead to more productive outcomes.

4. Avoid Making It Personal

When discussing spiritual or philosophical issues, it’s crucial not to make it personal. The focus should be on critiquing ideas rather than criticizing the individual. For example, if someone holds a particular belief, rather than criticizing their character, it’s more effective to discuss why their belief may be flawed and provide alternative perspectives.

5. Understanding the Audience

In order to communicate effectively, it’s important to understand your audience—to know their experiences, emotional triggers, and context. This understanding allows us to tailor our speech in ways that minimize unnecessary harm while still delivering important truths. For example, if someone is struggling with depression, using a sensitive approach may be more helpful than offering harsh criticism of their lifestyle.

6. Sensitivity to Personal Experiences

Sometimes, certain topics—like suicide or mental health—might be too painful for certain people to hear, especially if they’ve had direct experiences with them. In such cases, it’s important to adjust the examples or avoid triggering personal pain, if possible. The idea is that we must be mindful of emotional dimensions while still conveying the message that material life is transient and ultimately unsatisfactory.

7. Spiritual Speech and Emotional Impact

The overall message is that effective spiritual speech should aim to elevate, inspire, and guide people without causing unnecessary harm. Strong truths are necessary, but how we speak those truths matters just as much as what we speak. Sensitivity, empathy, and understanding are crucial elements in making sure the message lands in a way that helps others grow rather than pushing them away.

Conclusion

In sum, strong speech is important in conveying the truth, but it must be delivered with compassion and care for the emotional state of others. Understanding context, avoiding personal attacks, and tailoring our approach based on the emotional needs of the audience are all essential aspects of effective communication in spiritual matters. The goal is not just to be right but to be effective in helping others on their spiritual journey.

So thank you Param Kurn Prabhu for that important question and thank you everyone for your participation.

The post 45 Speak to give peace of mind not a piece of your mind – Gita 17.15 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

So, today we discuss the 16th chapter, 24th verse, where we’ll be talking about the role of rules in spirituality.
Three questions we’ll discuss: Is spirituality a matter of the heart? Why are there rules? And what if we can’t follow the rules?
This is based on 16.24.

Tasmad shastram pramanam te, karya akarya vyavasthitau, gyatva shastra vidhanoktam, karma kartum iharhasi.

So, tasmad shastram pramanam te.
Therefore, by the praman, praman is an authorized source of knowledge, and that is shastra.
By scripture, karya akarya vyavasthitau. Understand properly, vyavasthitau, systematically, karya and akarya—what is to be done and what is not to be done.
Gyatva shastra vidhanoktam. And having understood gyatva, shastra vidhan, whatever the teaching of scripture, karma kartum iharhasi, it behooves you, iharhasi, for you to do the right action.

So, there are three things over here. Krishna is saying that from scripture, use scripture as a source of knowledge to understand right and wrong actions, and with that understanding, act appropriately.
So, in the broader context of the Gita, it is about whether Arjuna should fight or not. In the overall context of our life, this verse is saying that we should make scripture a guidebook for our life.

Now, scripture contains a lot of things. The Bhagavad Gita itself has a lot of information, a lot of analysis, a lot of explanation or revelation.
One important aspect of what scripture contains is guidelines about how to act. There are dos and there are don’ts.
So, that is what we’ll focus on because here Krishna is talking about scripture as a guidebook for acting in life.

So, if the Bhagavad Gita is a spiritual book and we want to grow spiritually, isn’t it a matter of the heart?
And if it is a matter of the heart, then why do we need rules? And if there are rules and we can’t follow them, does that mean our heart cannot be nourished or grow?
We’ll discuss these three questions today.

So, often rules are seen as external, particular disciplines, practices, and the heart is seen as internal, and spirituality is about the heart.
So, isn’t it a matter of the heart? Yes, it is. At the same time, what is the heart? The heart is like a field that needs to be carefully cultivated.

Now, some things grow naturally in a field, but not everything that grows naturally in a field is desirable.
So, if the heart is like a field, then the Bhagavad Gita has used in the 13th chapter the metaphor of kshetra. Kshetra is like a field.
And in the kshetra, certain things happen. So, if you have to cultivate the heart, now the important thing is not everything in the heart is loving or lovable.

Now, whenever we talk about the heart, we talk about love. That’s the usual association. And God is love. Just be filled with love. Act with love.
Now, love is a very sweet sounding word. And it’s important, of course, love is the deepest aspiration of the human heart to want to love and be loved.
At the same time, the heart is not just filled with love. The heart is filled with many other impurities apart from love also.

So, therefore, if you consider from that perspective, what all does the heart contain?
If we use the metaphorical comparison of the heart with the field, then the heart contains weeds of impurities.
And then it also contains the seeds of virtues, seed of ultimately the topmost virtue, devotion.

So, what do we need to do? Just like in the field, the weeds have to be removed and the seeds have to be cultivated.
So, just as cultivating a field requires careful action, similarly cultivating the heart also requires careful action.

So, yes, it’s a matter of the heart. But within the heart, the desirable has to be cultivated. The undesirable has to be eliminated.

Now, that raises the question, what is the heart? So, is it the biological organ?
Well, of course, that is one way of referring to the heart or one thing we refer to when we use the word heart.
But generally, when we use the word, say, “You broke my heart,” we’re not really saying that the biological organ broke into pieces.
So, that’s not what we are referring to. We are referring to the seat of emotions.

So, normally in spiritual, say, when spirituality is a matter of the heart, devotion is a matter of the heart. When we say it, we’re talking about the seat of emotions.
Now, what exactly is the seat of emotions? So, we could say it’s a combination of the mind and the soul.
The soul is the spiritual essence that we are, and the mind is the surrounding mind, is the first… we could say the first covering around the soul.
Here, I’m referring to the mind as using the mind as a generic reference to the subtle body.

So, the emotions are present in the mind also.
So, if you consider the seat of emotions, then there are emotions that come from the soul, and there are emotions that come from the mind.
So, both can refer to the heart. I’ll explain how both refer to the heart. But let’s first look at the mind and soul a little more closely.

So, if you look at it from this perspective of emotions, the mind is the seat of material emotions because the mind itself is material. It’s subtle matter, but it’s still matter, whereas the soul is the seat of spiritual emotions.
So, the soul is, if you remember a long session in a session several months ago, we had discussed the inner screen, the inner seer, and the outer scene.
So, the inner screen is like the computer screen on which we say we are playing a virtual game. We are playing a video game of some virtual reality, something like that.
So, then, “Hey, this person is attacking over here. This enemy is attacking and we are fighting, we are winning, we are losing.”
We will have a panorama of emotions over there. Now, all those emotions are associated with what’s going on on the screen. So, that’s the mind. So, the seat of material emotions.

Now, I have not yet used the word source because it’s not… we really can’t talk about the source here.
Emotions have no existence without consciousness, and consciousness ultimately comes from the soul.
So, no emotion can be experienced if there is no soul, and there is no consciousness. Here we are talking about seat means where they rise from.
A king is seated on a throne. That doesn’t mean the king originated on the throne.

So, the particular emotions, they may come from various sources, but we are talking about seat means where they reside primarily.
So, that is this. So, where the soul is by nature pure, and the soul has a nature to love the Lord.
That nature is dormant right now. But so the soul is also spiritual emotions.

So, again, spiritual emotions are not just love. In relationship with Krishna, there are various rasas, there are various emotions.
There is anger, there is fear, there is humor. So many emotions are there, but it’s all connected with Krishna and the transcendental world.

So, now with respect to the mind, the emotions can be pure, impure, or mixed depending on the kind of impressions that we may have.
In the previous session, we discussed about the divine and demoniac nature.
So, we talked about two levels of inertness. The mind can have virtue or vice.
In the demoniac, the virtue is a lot more. In the devoted and the divine, in the godly, the virtue is much more.

So, accordingly, there can be pure or impure or mixed emotions in the mind.
Now, the emotions that are associated with the soul are always pure because the soul is pure.
And now the mind is very dynamic. So, every action that we do creates impressions on it.

So, right now, say you are hearing this talk, every time you hear, it’s not just the information that is going in that’s important.
But along with that, the very activity of hearing creates an impression. And those impressions are important because they shape our future actions.
On the other hand, in most of material existence, the soul proper is inactive. That’s why sometimes we have songs like “Jeeva Jago, Jeeva Jago,” O soul, awaken, awaken, “Uttishta, Jagrta, Praapyavaram, Nibodhata.”
The Upanishads say that arise, awaken, activate yourself, attain that which is eminently desirable now for you.

So, that refers to the awakening of the soul.
So, when we do spiritual actions, devotional actions, that is when the soul becomes awakened. Otherwise, our actions don’t really touch the soul. And in that sense, the soul is the non-doer.
So, the soul’s consciousness is entangled, but it is more the conditioned consciousness.

The soul is not even aware of spiritual reality, let alone experiencing any emotions in relationship with it.
So, based on this understanding, for most of us, for most of the time, the emotions we experience are material. They largely come from the mind, stimulated by external factors. At the same time, there are emotions associated with the soul, and we do experience them sometimes. We want to experience them more and more.
When we talk about the heart, it can refer to the mind when we are speaking of superficial emotions. For example, when someone is materially attached and loses something precious, they might metaphorically say, “My soul is shattered.” But this is in a non-literal sense. In reality, it was their mind that was very invested in that thing, and they were disturbed by the loss. They might feel distressed or devastated, but the soul’s emotions are not involved here.
When we are relating to Krishna, that’s when the soul truly comes into the picture.

Now, regarding emotions and love: I’ve mentioned cultivation. The paradox is that the matters of the heart can’t be left solely to the heart. Why?
Because when we talk about the heart, what are we referring to? The surface matters of the heart—essentially the matters of the mind—can overshadow and predominate over the deeper matters of the heart, which are connected with the soul.
If we consider the heart to be multilayered, when we say, “Follow your heart,” what do we mean? We mean follow your deepest longings and aspirations. It doesn’t mean just doing whatever you feel like doing, even if the emotion is fleeting and fickle.
So, the heart has surface matters, and if we consider it broadly as the seat of emotions, we don’t want to be carried away by fleeting emotions or surface-level feelings. We want to reach the deeper, more meaningful emotions.
For example, if we like to read something—whether it’s informative, educational, or spiritual—that can give us a sense of deep fulfillment. But if we get a notification on our phone, we might feel the urge to check it or watch a video. This urge isn’t coming from the heart; it’s the mind leading us away from deeper fulfillment.
Thus, not every feeling necessarily comes from the soul. This is why matters of the heart can’t be left solely to the heart. We want to cultivate the deeper aspect of our heart and not let the surface emotions overshadow it. And that’s where rules come in.

Just as cultivating a field is not simple—it requires knowledge and understanding—cultivating the heart requires guidelines and rules. There are principles, rules, and methods for cultivating the heart, just as there are for farming.
Rules are not just about controlling or imposing a way of life; they are meant to help us grow. They help us bring out the best within us and drive out the worst.
Earlier, we talked about weeds and seeds: we need to remove the weeds and nourish the seeds. Rules help us do this.
There are rules in daily life—traffic rules, school rules, etc. Even if we are good at something, like singing, we can’t reach our full potential without discipline. A good singer needs commitment, which involves following certain rules. For example, committing to practice for an hour each day or avoiding foods that might harm the throat.
When talent is combined with commitment, it leads to greatness. The same applies to emotions: we may have some emotional capacity, but rules help our devotion grow further.

In spiritual life, rules come from the scriptures and saints. The scriptures are guidebooks on how to develop love for the Lord and grow spiritually. The saints, who have walked the path themselves, know the pitfalls and can help us avoid them.
So, it’s not just the scriptures; it’s also the saints. Spirituality is a living tradition, and the scriptures alone don’t give all the answers—saints provide guidance on how to apply those teachings in different situations.
At a general level, rules help bring out our best and drive out our worst. In spiritual life, they empower our virtues and disempower our vices. This is how the rules of spiritual life work.

When we talk about rules in spiritual life, we might wonder, how does love relate to rules? Isn’t the ultimate purpose to develop love for the Lord?
Yes, but first, let’s consider love in general and then look specifically at love for the Lord.
Imagine a pendulum: on one side, there’s the belief that love knows no rules at all, and on the other side, there’s the view that love is only known through rules. According to this view, it’s only when we follow the rules and become disciplined that we can truly experience real love.
So, which is it? Actually, the balanced understanding is that love respects rules, and at times, love transcends rules as well. Let’s break it down.

When does love know no rules?
Normally, when we are driving or walking on the road, we follow traffic rules for safety. But imagine a mother sees her child in the middle of the road, lost and unaware of the danger. In this case, the mother may rush in to save the child, even though breaking the rules (entering the road) is unsafe.
Why would she break the rules? Because she cares more for the child’s life than for the rules themselves. Traffic rules are meant to protect people and promote smooth travel, but when someone’s life is at risk, love transcends the rules.
So, when we say love knows no rules, it doesn’t mean love is careless. In fact, love is more careful—it prioritizes something more important than rules.

When is love known only through rules?
Now, let’s understand how rules can lead to love. Rules, in this context, represent commitment and diligence.
Some of the deepest connections we develop—whether with people or activities—are through diligence. When we connect with people, it’s not just about initial attraction; the bond deepens through commitment. When that person needs us, we’re there for them, and when we need them, they’re there for us. This mutual support strengthens the relationship.
Love at first sight may be powerful, but the true test is what happens over time. After many years together, enduring challenges, sharing a deep understanding—that’s a much deeper form of love.
How does this happen? Through commitment. Commitment means following the rules: caring for each other, being faithful, and taking responsibility. This consistent commitment deepens the connection.
So, when we talk about love and rules, we’re not referring to a rigid set of dos and don’ts, but to the commitment that helps deepen the relationship.

Balancing the Two
Both perspectives are true. Love transcends rules at one level, but love is also known through rules. Without commitment and consistency, love remains superficial. If we are merely attracted to someone, we may claim to be in love, but if the attraction fades, it shows the relationship was not built on anything lasting.

Returning to the earlier idea of the heart referring to the mind or the soul, we can see that surface emotions may be strong but fleeting. Deeper emotions may not always be as expressive, but they are more enduring.

Spiritual Life and Rules
Now, let’s apply this idea to spiritual life. In devotion, love can transcend rules.
When devotion becomes spontaneous, love transcends the rules. But transcending the rules doesn’t mean ignoring them; it means caring for something more than the rules. In these cases, breaking the rules is not disrespectful to the Lord—it pleases Him.
For example, in the Ramayana, Shabari was offering berries to the Lord. She tasted them first to check their sweetness before offering them. Normally, offering food that has been tasted is considered sacrilegious. But her love for the Lord was so pure that He accepted her offering, despite the apparent breach of rule.
Similarly, the Gopis of Vrindavan left everything behind to meet Krishna when they heard His flute. According to societal codes, it would have been improper for women to go out alone at night, but the Gopis’ love transcended societal norms. Their actions were not immoral but trans-moral—glorious and pure.

There is a stage in spiritual life where love transcends the rules, but this is the state of spontaneous devotion. And spontaneous devotion doesn’t come automatically. It is the result of conscientious practice, which requires discipline.
Conscientious devotion gradually leads to spontaneous devotion. And conscientious practice means following rules.

The Role of Rules in Spiritual Life
Love is not just something that happens suddenly. Yes, it can be felt suddenly, and that’s wonderful, but love also needs to be nourished and cultivated to grow deeper and stronger.
In conscientious devotion, there is a synergistic relationship between feelings and actions. Sometimes, we feel our way to actions—our feelings inspire our actions. At other times, our actions (through prescribed sadhana, such as chanting or performing pujas) shape and nurture our feelings.

Devotion often starts with a desire: “Hey, I like this. I want to do this.”
Some days, we wake up and feel like we want to take darshan of the Lord. We act on that feeling and go to see Him. Sometimes, we feel our way to actions. But other times, we don’t feel like doing something, yet we do it anyway. And as we act, the feelings start to come gradually. This is conscientious devotion, where we don’t deny our feelings, but we don’t depend on them either.

We understand that at our level, feelings can be fickle. If our deeper heart (the soul) is activated, we will feel a connection with Krishna. However, if our mind is hyperactive and dominated by the lower modes—passion and ignorance—the soul can become buried, and we may not feel any devotional or spiritual emotions at all.

At such times, we may have to simply act our way to feelings. When we act in devotion, even if we don’t feel like it, our actions can eventually lead to the emotions we desire. Similarly, when we feel a devotional desire, we act on it.

In bhakti, we start where we are. If we feel devotional, that’s wonderful, and we should seize the opportunity to do as much as we can. But sometimes, we don’t feel that way. Even then, we see it as an opportunity to discipline ourselves and purify our hearts. By performing devotional practices, we express our love for Krishna—not because it feels good, but because we want to please Him.

This dynamic is present in all relationships. For example, a mother might not feel like caring for her crying baby in the middle of the night, but she does it anyway. As she picks up the baby and comforts it, her natural love and affection for the child grow. Similarly, in our relationship with Krishna, even when we don’t feel devotional, our actions can bring out the love within us.

In this context, rules help us cultivate devotion. They guide us in conscientious practice, which eventually leads to spontaneous devotion. In the scriptures, we learn what to do and what not to do in devotional life. As it says in the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, bhakti is a form of cultivation: “Anya-bilashita-shunyam, jnana-karma-adyanavritam, anukulyena krishnanushilanam bhaktir uttama”—bhakti is the practice of cultivating the desire for Krishna’s service, free from ulterior motives.

Why do rules matter? Some say devotion is more than just following rules—and that’s true. Devotion is about more than rules, but it’s not less than them. What is the “more”? It’s the desire for devotion. Rules are essential, but they must be infused with a desire for devotion. In other words, we act our way to feelings and pray for the Lord’s help: “Krishna, when I come to see You, I may not feel devotional, but please help me to feel devotion.”

To understand this better, imagine a pendulum. On one side, if we only follow rules without any desire, it becomes mechanical—just going through the motions. On the other side, if we only focus on desire without practice or discipline, it can lead to sentimentalism—feeling emotional without the grounding of rules. The key is balance: following rules while also nurturing the desire for devotion. This combination transforms our heart.

Devotion is often associated with emotion, and sometimes people think that if we follow rules, there’s no room for emotion. But love is expressed in many ways, and emotions aren’t always overt. For example, when a child does well in school, the mother may express her love with a hug and congratulations. This is an emotional expression of love. However, love can also be expressed by concealing emotion.

For instance, if a child is leaving for a hostel and feels sad, the mother might not cry openly, because doing so could cause the child to become more upset. Instead, the mother conceals her emotions to help the child remain strong. Similarly, if a loved one is injured, the mother, or a doctor treating the child, may need to suppress her emotions in order to provide the necessary care. In these cases, love is expressed by controlling and concealing emotion.

In bhakti, love for Krishna also goes beyond emotions. It’s about dedication. Emotions should deepen our dedication, not distract us from it. If we become overwhelmed with emotions, we might forget our responsibilities. For example, if a child is hurt, the mother can’t afford to be paralyzed by emotion; she must care for the child. Similarly, devotion to Krishna is about service—keeping our focus on Him and serving Him with dedication.

In the Nectar of Devotion, there is a story of Krishna’s servants, Rakta and Chitra, who are fanning Krishna. As they gaze at His beauty, tears come to their eyes, but they suppress their tears because they don’t want their emotions to interfere with their service. Their dedication to service is more important than their emotions.

Similarly, in devotion to Krishna, we strive for balance: emotions should enhance, but not overpower, our service. Devotion is not just about expressing emotion; it’s about dedicating ourselves fully to Krishna, offering Him our hearts and actions.

This passage addresses several important themes about the nature of devotion and the role of rules, emotions, and submission to Krishna in spiritual practice.

Key Concepts from the Passage:

1. Unemotional Devotion in the Gita:
   • The Gita doesn’t emphasize effusive emotion but rather stresses calm, stoic dedication to action and service.
   • Arjuna’s breakdown in the first chapter of the Gita highlights how excessive emotion can interfere with one’s judgment and duty. Krishna guides him to rise above these emotions and perform his duty without being overwhelmed by them.
2. Different Expressions of Devotion:
   • Gita: Stoic devotion, focused on disciplined action and service.
   • Bhagavatam: Contemplative devotion, inward and absorbed in remembrance of Krishna.
   • Chaitanya Charita Amrita: Ecstatic devotion, marked by outward expressions like dancing and singing in love for Krishna.

The devotional approach varies based on context, but in all cases, the devotion is for Krishna.

3. Rules and Emotions:
   • Rules in devotional practices serve as a foundation that can help us connect with Krishna, even when we don’t feel a deep emotional pull.
   • While the Gita emphasizes disciplined action over emotional expression, the Bhagavatam and Chaitanya Charita Amrita allow for a more expressive form of devotion, each suited to different contexts.
4. Nascent Devotion:
   • If someone is not able to follow rules or express love for Krishna, the key is the intention to connect. Even if someone is not following the rules perfectly, their heartfelt calling out to Krishna can lead to spiritual progress.
   • Nascent devotion reflects a genuine desire for Krishna but may lack the full discipline or consistency of a more mature practice.
5. Challenges in Following Rules:
   • Not everyone can easily follow every rule. Bodily conditionings, like physical health or temperament, can influence one’s ability to follow certain practices.
   • For example, some people may struggle with early mornings or fasting, and these challenges shouldn’t diminish their devotion. Determination can be impacted by bodily factors, and one should understand that different people may find certain practices more difficult than others.
6. Understanding Limitations:
   • Acknowledging one’s physical or mental limitations (such as the difficulty in waking early or fasting) is important. The goal is always to connect with Krishna, and sometimes adjusting practices to one’s situation is necessary.

In summary, the passage underscores that while following rules is essential for spiritual growth, it should be balanced with a heartfelt desire to serve Krishna. Emotion in devotion varies across different texts, with the Gita promoting disciplined action and the Bhagavatam and Chaitanya Charita Amrita celebrating ecstatic devotion. Ultimately, devotion is about the heart’s longing for Krishna, and even if we struggle with rules, sincere effort can lead to growth.

But that doesn’t mean we have to deprecate those who are not following the rules. We can avoid these binaries and not minimize or trivialize the importance of rules. We don’t disrespect those who follow the rules either; we appreciate them. However, we don’t have to deprecate or minimize those who don’t follow the rules. Spiritual advancement should not be reduced to just following rules; it is multifaceted. So, we focus on the purpose, not on the rules themselves. We all have certain conditionings, and because of those, following rules may not always be easy.

For instance, consider bodily limitations—like the inability to eat certain foods, bathe with cold water, or wake up immediately. These are understandable as bodily limitations. But what about rules of a different nature? For example, some may struggle with anger, greed, or lust. These challenges come from the conditioning of the mind, not the body. So, it is important to recognize that these struggles are also a matter of conditioning. In this context, resolute intention is more important than righteous action. We know from the Bhagavad Gita that even if a devotee performs terrible activities (Sudhara Acharo), if their intention is to serve Krishna, they are still considered well situated.

Krishna emphasizes that it is not the righteousness of the action that matters, but the virtuous, resolute intention behind it. Krishna’s teachings highlight the importance of intention over action. He tells Arjuna to consider such a person as well situated because their intention is pure. Krishna’s compassion is evident here; he warns that resolute intention will eventually lead to righteous action. As Krishna says, “Kshipram bhavati dharmatma,” soon such a person will become saintly, virtuous, and peaceful because their intention purifies them.

Krishna declares that those with a resolute intention to serve Him, even if their actions are imperfect, will never perish. When Krishna refers to a “devotee,” He is not referring to someone whose actions are always righteous, but rather to one whose intention is steadfast in serving Him. This understanding can be extended to our struggles with moral principles and emotions. We may sometimes assume that following the rules is the sole indicator of Krishna consciousness. For example, if someone isn’t waking up early, doing their practices on time, or following specific moral principles, we might think they aren’t Krishna conscious.

However, Krishna consciousness is inclusive, meaning both following and not following rules can still fall within it. Even if someone cannot follow all the rules for any reason, they are not excluded from Krishna consciousness. The essence of Krishna consciousness lies not in rigidly following rules, but in staying connected with Krishna, regardless of moral or physical shortcomings. If someone fails in their practices, they can still “fail well” by maintaining their connection to Krishna. Krishna consciousness is not about meeting external standards; it’s about staying devoted and connected to Krishna, no matter the circumstances.

In Krishna consciousness, even if we fall short in our practices or virtues, the key is to remain connected to Krishna. It’s not about perfect success but about staying committed, even in failure. As Krishna says, even if one falls, they are still within His grace as long as they remain resolute in their intention. The difference between falling “down” within Krishna consciousness and falling “out” of it is significant. If someone falls down but still remains committed to Krishna, they are still part of the path. However, if someone falls out and abandons their connection with Krishna, they are no longer on the path.

Somebody might be in the renounced order, where they are respected and gain prestige and fame. If they are unable to maintain that renounced order, they can transition into the householder order and still practice bhakti. Of course, moving from brahmachari to grahastha is not a fall-down; it is simply a progression. However, if someone was a sannyasi and then becomes a grahastha, conventionally, this is seen as a reproach, implying a fall. But even in this case, they can still fall within Krishna consciousness. The key distinction is that if someone gives up the practice entirely, equating Krishna consciousness solely with a particular standard, they are falling out of Krishna consciousness. So, if you can’t follow the rules, it’s not the end of the road. It simply means that you need to take a different road to Krishna consciousness.

We can still fall within Krishna consciousness, even if we fall short of certain standards. Krishna consciousness is not just about following rules; it is about staying connected with Krishna, regardless of how we might fail. Now, Krishna consciousness is quite nuanced. In fact, the opposite is also true. For example, a seeker may start by following rules and rise from lethargy to become very determined—waking up early and following moral principles. This is progress in Krishna consciousness. However, it’s also possible that someone may rise in Krishna consciousness but in a way that leads them away from it. For instance, they may become so proud of how strictly they follow the rules that they are more interested in their own glories rather than Krishna’s glories. This indicates they are no longer truly Krishna conscious.

This is why it’s important to understand that Krishna consciousness is not merely about the rigid following of rules, nor is it meant to minimize devotion. The two are very different. There is a difference between falling down and falling away. We may fall down, but we don’t want to fall away—falling away means we give up the practice of bhakti entirely. When we fall down within Krishna consciousness, it means that we previously thought Krishna consciousness was only about following certain rules. But when we cannot follow those rules, we can still remain in Krishna consciousness at a different level. So, how do we fail? We continue to move forward, acknowledging that devotion is not just about our ability to follow rules but about our heart’s intention to move toward Krishna.

When we stay connected with Krishna, remembering Him, we gain higher insight. Through this insight, we will understand the futility of sensuality and develop a higher taste for loving Krishna. With this insight and taste, we will gradually cut off attachments and illusions that hold us back. So, the most important thing is to stay connected with Krishna. If we remain connected, we will be cleansed, and through this purification, we will become contented. These three—connection, cleansing, and contentment—are progressive. It all begins with being connected to Krishna, and that is the pathway to perfection in life.

The level at which we stay connected to Krishna may vary from person to person. We don’t need to judge those who cannot stay connected at a particular level; instead, we should understand the inclusive nature of Krishna consciousness. It encompasses both success and failure, as long as the direction remains toward Krishna.

To summarize what I’ve shared today: I discussed three main things: Why we follow rules, why rules are needed, and how devotion is a matter of the heart. Devotion requires cultivation, just like a field requires following rules to ensure healthy growth. Without rules, one might be good, but with rules, they can become the best version of themselves. Rules help bring out our virtues and disempower our vices. I also discussed how love knows no rules, but love is known through rules. Love respects rules and occasionally transcends them. Love transcends rules not because it doesn’t care, but because it cares for something greater.

We need to practice conscientious devotion now, which involves following rules. Over time, this will lead to spontaneous devotion. Often, we may act our way to the right feelings, and eventually, those feelings will guide our actions. We begin wherever we can, and through this process, we rise toward greater connection with Krishna.

When we talk about conscientious devotion, it does involve following rules, but is devotion just about following rules? Is it more than that? Yes, it is. Devotion is not just about following rules; it is more, not less. We discussed how if there is only adherence to rules or only desire for devotion, it can be unbalanced. Purely following rules can become mechanical, while solely desiring devotion without rules can be sentimental. However, combining both—rules with a heartfelt desire for devotion—leads to transformational devotion.

In the scriptures, we see different types of devotion. The Bhagavad Gita portrays a more stoic form of devotion, the Bhagavatam’s devotion is more contemplative, and the Chaitanya Charitamrita is ecstatic. These variations are based on context. Even a great devotee like Arjuna can restrain their devotion. We don’t have to be exhibitionist; devotion can be expressed both through open emotions and through the restraint of emotion. This same principle applies to devotion.

I also discussed the challenges of following rules. The four quadrants we talked about include nascent devotion, mature devotion, and superficial devotion. Nascent devotion is when someone is beginning and may struggle with rules. Mature devotion is when someone follows rules with a heart that longs for Krishna, while superficial devotion involves following rules without love or submission to Krishna. A person may parade their devotion without real growth.

Nascent devotion should be nurtured. Krishna consciousness is not just about following rules; different people have different conditions. Some may struggle with physical practices like fasting, bathing in cold water, or waking up early. That’s okay—do what you can. One vision is that Krishna consciousness means following rules, but not following them doesn’t mean you’re not Krishna conscious. Krishna consciousness includes both adherence to rules and deviation from them.

Even if we fall, we don’t have to fall out of Krishna consciousness. We can fall in Krishna consciousness, as the verse “Apichet Suduracharo” suggests. If someone’s intention is virtuous and they have resolute determination, they will eventually rise to a higher spiritual level.

In bhakti, the most important thing is staying connected to Krishna through remembrance. This connection serves as a sword, cutting through illusions, giving higher taste and insight. Over time, we become cleansed, contented, and more devotional.

Now, regarding a question on deity worship at home versus in the temple, different levels of rules apply in different contexts. Just like traveling by car, train, or plane requires different protocols, temple worship has more rules, as the deity in the temple is considered more manifest. As you practice, you’ll get used to the rules, and it will become easier to see beyond them, focusing on your connection with Krishna. Rules are there to help nourish your devotion, but it’s okay if some rules feel too overwhelming—just do what nourishes your heart and respect higher standards when appropriate.

For Sahajiyas, who might not follow rules, they fall into nascent devotion, but if they don’t follow rules because they think they’re beyond them, that’s problematic. This leads to sentimental rather than transformational devotion.

The verse “Sarthave Sattvam Vishnu” is a rhetorical device, emphasizing the same point through both affirmation and negation. It’s common in scripture to repeat something in different ways to stress its importance.

Contemplative emotion in the Bhagavatam refers to how many exalted devotees are described in a more contemplative way rather than in ecstatic expressions. For example, while characters like Prahlada Maharaja may dance and sing, figures like Sukadeva Goswami or Maharaja Parikshit are shown in a more meditative mode. The Bhagavatam emphasizes the power of hearing and absorption in Krishna.

As for the question on sharing Krishna consciousness and the potential for pride, the cure for pride is not repressing our talents but purifying our intentions. If you share Krishna consciousness and receive appreciation, it’s important to stay humble. The issue isn’t sharing ideas, but recognizing that we should not seek praise for ourselves, but rather seek Krishna’s approval. Avoiding pride isn’t about repressing our abilities; it’s about refining our intentions and motivations.

Well, is it that simple? Just like if we get exposed to some explicit images, we may feel lust at that time. But does that mean that before that, we had no lust in our heart? Lust is there, but maybe it’s not provoked. Similarly, pride is also there in our hearts. It’s not provoked. So, of course, we don’t want to deliberately go out and expose ourselves to sexually explicit stimuli. Similarly, we don’t go out and deliberately do activities solely for our own praise. But if something is for the service of Krishna, yes, there might be some desire for personal appreciation also. That’s okay.

What happens is that when we start serving Krishna, through that service, we start realizing, actually, yes, getting appreciation from others gives me some pleasure, but serving Krishna gives me much greater pleasure. Somebody might sing very nicely. Initially, they may sing and want others to appreciate. Once, I gave a class, and I had prepared very well for it, feeling that the whole delivery was of high quality. After the class, nobody appreciated it, and I was extremely annoyed. Then, somehow, that thought struck me: when I was giving the class and preparing for it, I was absorbed in Krishna. That is important. When I was absorbed, I was relishing everything so much. So, people didn’t appreciate. Maybe if I had done something wrong, it’s fine, but maybe everybody was busy, or whatever happened, they didn’t appreciate. That realization came that, okay, even if they had appreciated, what would have happened? They would have spoken for a few moments, and I might have remembered it for some time. But if I remembered Krishna for an hour while giving the class, for several hours while preparing the class, that is much more important.

That contrast wouldn’t have come if I had thought that only when I become pure enough and have no desire for appreciation would I give a class. Well, then I might be waiting for the rest of eternity. So we start our service, and we can always have some senior well-wishers who can tell us if we start becoming proud, arrogant, or presumptuous. If they tell us, we can take that feedback into consideration. That way, we can all learn when to stop being creative or resourceful in Krishna’s service.

But in general, as I said, the cure for pride is not repression of talent. If you have talent, use it in Krishna’s service. By using that talent, we’ll get some glorification from the world but also a connection with Krishna. Gradually, we’ll realize that connection with Krishna is actually more relishable, and then we won’t be attracted to the glorification of the world. However, if we don’t use our talent, we may not do that service, but somebody else will. And when they do that service and get the appreciation, we’ll start feeling envious, thinking, “Why couldn’t I have done that?” That is not a healthy attitude at all.

If somebody gives a wonderful class and then everybody says, “What a great class that was,” we may snidely try to pull them down. For instance, we might say, “Did you see how much prasad they are eating? Don’t get impressed by that. They are not sense-controlled; they are attached.” We try to pull them down in a snide way. We don’t have to be like that. We do our service, and through that connection with Krishna, we’ll become purified of whatever desire for appreciation we have.

There is another big subject I’ll briefly mention. The desire for appreciation is different from the desire for glorification. Appreciation is more about fostering a human connection. When we want appreciation, if we have done something and someone appreciates it, we get connected with that person more and more. How do our connections happen? They happen through reciprocation. Appreciation doesn’t have to be exhibited to the whole world. It can just be a matter of reciprocation.

In contrast, glorification means we want the whole world to know what we did, and that is the primary purpose of doing it. I think the need for reciprocation and appreciation are normal human needs. If we don’t get that fulfilled in the devotee circle, we will seek that fulfillment in other circles. We all want to love and be loved. And how do we know we are loved? There are many ways. One way is when we are valued and appreciated. So we want that too. It’s a need.

We can’t dehumanize ourselves by reducing the human need for appreciation to the ego’s need for glorification. Once, Prabhupada was asked by a devotee who was a very good Kirtaniyer. He was doing Kirtans when Prabhupada entered the temple, and Prabhupada just patted him on the head while passing by and said, “Good Kirtan.” The devotee felt so gratified and enlivened. He spontaneously asked Prabhupada, “Prabhupada, sometimes I feel proud.” Prabhupada just patted him on his head again and said, “What’s wrong with that?”

Now, we may say pride is a demonic quality, and there’s so much wrong with it. But the point is that we’re doing something worthwhile for Krishna, and yes, if some little pride comes, gradually it will go away because we will get the taste of Krishna through that devotional service. So the cure for pride is not the repression of talent. It is the purification of intent.

There is a Geeta Daily article on this topic. Most of the classes I give, I would say 70 to 90 percent of the content is already there on geetadaily.com in different articles. For those who would like to reflect more on this, especially if there are any quotes I use in class, most of them will already be there as articles. You can either subscribe to Geeta Daily or visit Geeta Daily to find those articles.

In the future, since I’m not sharing the PowerPoint, I can try to share links to Geeta Daily articles related to the classes I’ve spoken about. For example, in today’s class, I would say “Love is both expressed and concealed.” There’s an article about that. Then there’s an article about “Falling out of Krishna Consciousness and falling in Krishna Consciousness,” with the exact title. There’s also an article about “The surface level of the heart and the deeper level of the heart,” and “Devotion is more than rules and not less.” You can find articles on these topics on Geeta Daily.

Please feel free to reach out if you’d like to join the WhatsApp group, where I can share related articles. Thank you very much for your time, and I hope this class was useful to you all!

Thank you.

Hare Krishna.

Hare Krishna.

The post 44 Isn’t spirituality a matter of the heart Why so many rules Gita 16.24 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

So today we will discuss the topic of the divine and the demoniac nature. This is Chapter 16 from the Bhagavad Gita. And what we’ll discuss is: are people basically good, and are some people innately bad? This is based on Gita 16.6. Krishna is speaking here that there are two kinds of living beings. In this material existence, in the created world, there are two kinds of people: the divine and the demoniac. Krishna says, “I have spoken about the divine nature in detail.” The detail refers to this being the sixth verse. In the first three verses of the Gita, Krishna has spoken about the divine nature. But earlier, he also talked about the qualities of the godly in the 12th chapter, in the 13th chapter, early in the 10th chapter, and in the second chapter when he talks about Sita Pragya. The 12th chapter talks about the devotees, and the 13th chapter talks about the characteristics of those in knowledge. So all those refer to his Vista Rahasya Propto. I have talked about this in detail, 254 to 72, 13 to 20, 13, 8 to 12, and 10, 5, 6 also. So, like that, he has talked about the divine qualities. Now, Asuramparth Meshudu, I’ll talk about the demoniac qualities, or the qualities of demoniac people. One significant word Krishna uses is Abhijatosi, which means they are born with these characteristics. So sometimes we put it this way: some people are wise, and some are otherwise. Those with divine nature are wise, and those with demoniac nature are otherwise.

Now, let’s look at these. We’ll discuss first: Are some people innately bad? What makes some people bad or demoniac? And how are they reformable? When we talk about people’s innate nature, there are different theories about human nature. We could go into many details, but in our chapter on relationships, we have discussed this briefly. So I’ll just mention it here. We have discussed it in detail. So there is one theory that people are innately good, and society makes them bad. For example, communism operated on this ideal, and social determinism is what they believe about human nature. Communism is more of a political ideology about how society should be organized, whereas the underlying view of human nature is social determinism. That means everybody is an influence of their society. So if somebody has become a brutal terrorist, why? It’s because the society did not integrate them properly.

Currently, in France, there is an attempt to contain the radicalization of Islam. Much of the Western media often only coddles radical Islam. You may be aware that there was a brutal beheading of a school teacher who showed some cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in his class. The New York Times had an article titled “A Teacher, A Killer, and the Failure of French Social Integration.” That title means why did this person become a killer? Not because there’s something innately bad with the ideology they were believing or because there’s something dark in their own nature, but because French society failed to integrate them. It’s possible, but it’s not necessarily a social failure. Generally, the idea is that people’s bad deeds are considered social failures.

On the other hand, there is—if you can imagine a pendulum—one side where people are innately good, and if they behave badly, society makes them bad. On the other side is the belief that people are innately bad. This is the belief of many religions, not just ideologies, but religions that propagate ideas like original sin. In the Abrahamic tradition, Adam and Eve sinned against God, and since that time, what is called the original sin has passed down to all of humanity like a genetic defect. Therefore, everybody is innately bad. Of course, here, Christians may say that actually, because we are made in the image of God, we are good, but without the saving grace of, say, Jesus, we will tend toward badness. We will tend toward evil. Now, both of these ideas have their utility and their flaws. Yes, society does influence people.

And some people, just from childhood, seem to be too violent, too aggressive. So the idea is that if we say that only society makes people bad, then what about people who live in a good society, who are relatively from good families, have wealth and prosperity, yet they also become evil? If you say people are innately bad, then the question arises: not everybody is equally bad. If the original sin has contaminated everyone, then why is not everyone equally contaminated?

So the Bhagavad Gita reconciles these two visions by talking about two levels of innateness: the soul and the mind. The soul is by nature good and godly because the soul is a part of God. But the mind, how it is, depends on the impressions.

Let’s look at this from a diagrammatic perspective. You can see here three levels: the soul, the mind, and the body. When we talk about innate nature, what are we talking about? If we consider innateness at the level of the soul, then the soul is always pure because the soul is a part of God. So, is everybody innately good? We would like to believe that people are innately good. And yes, that belief is vindicated if we look at the level of the soul. Yes, everybody, at their deepest core, is good. But at the same time, at a functional level, everybody may not be good because the soul is covered by the mind and the body.

The mind has impressions. It carries these impressions based on past karma. Past karma can refer to the karma we have done in this life previously or in our past lives. When a child is born, the child is not born as a blank slate. The child has impressions from the past, and those impressions prompt the child to act in different ways.

So when Krishna says some people are born with divine nature and some are born with demoniac nature, it means that there are people who have done particular kinds of activities in their past lives. Those who have done demoniac activities in their past lives form those kinds of impressions on their mind. And that’s why they’re born with a demoniac nature.

So, can some people be innately evil? Well, at the level of the soul, no, but at the level of functioning in this world, some people may have something twisted inside them because of which they may behave in terrible ways. So it’s not just that society makes people bad.

Going back to the earlier point of social determinism, it’s not that society makes people bad. Two people may be born in the same family—two brothers, for instance. One becomes a criminal, and the other becomes an upstanding citizen. Both may have the same upbringing, but they choose different paths. It’s not just social influences; it’s also individual choices. And these individual choices are shaped by the individual karma that somebody is carrying.

Also, if you consider the Christian idea of original sin, the problem with that idea is, as I said, why is everybody not equally sinful? Our understanding, the Gita understanding, is that people have different levels of wrong tendencies because of the different levels of impressions in their mind.

Now, let’s look at what makes some people demoniac. If we take the same graph and visual as earlier, with the soul in the center and the mind and body around it, we can see that the white represents virtuous tendencies—the good impressions in the mind—and the black section represents the dark, evil impressions. Those who are born with demoniac nature may also have some good, but it is very little. On the other hand, within them, the evil is much worse, much greater. And that’s why, as Krishna describes, their characteristics are arrogant, violent, ignorant.

You can summarize this as: they think they know everything, even though they don’t know much, and they think if anybody doesn’t agree with them, they will destroy them. So ignorant, arrogant, and violent—that is their characteristic. These are unhealthy characteristics. These are people born with demoniac nature.

In contrast, those born with the divine nature have much more virtuous impressions within their mind. These impressions come from their past karma. Of course, actions in this life also affect this, and we will talk about that shortly. But those born with divine nature are inclined toward virtue.

Like that, in verses 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3, Krishna describes the divine qualities. In their case, the virtues are much more prominent.

Now, if you consider the demoniac nature further, the whole 16th chapter could be considered a description of those with demoniac nature. So, let’s look at these descriptions one by one. First, they reject any non-material reality. Krishna describes this in 16.8 and 16.9: there is no God, no foundation, no ultimate reality. Therefore, they ask, “What is the purpose of life?” Once you reject anything higher, then only the lower remains. If we reject the idea that there is a God, then what remains is the world and the pleasures that the world offers. Verse 16.9 says: “What other purpose is there for life than sensual pleasure?”

And then they become bound by their various desires for pursuing pleasure. Krishna says that they are bound by hundreds and thousands of desires. Why are they bound? Because they have devoted themselves to the fulfillment of karma and krodha (desire and anger). One characteristic of this is: the more our worldly desires, the greater our worldly anxieties—immeasurable anxieties, even to the point of death.

Why are desires and anxieties related, especially material desires and anxieties? Because whenever we have material desires, we seek things outside. Not only do those things give us pleasure, but they become the very purpose of our existence. Without them, our life itself seems pointless. So when we become so dependent on them, and things outside are not in our control (we may like to believe they are, but they are not), we experience greater fear, worry, and anxiety.

That’s why there is great chinta (anxiety). So, basically, the first two verses talk about the worldview, about the totality of reality. Once you reject the idea that there is a God, then what remains is the pursuit of material pleasures. And as they pursue this, they seek money. And they will pursue money at all costs. Krishna describes this in 16.13 and 16.14, saying that they will do anything—anyayanartha sanchayan, anyaya (injustice)—to earn money. For example, he describes the common mentality: “This much money I have attained, and that much I can attain more.”

So, at one level, everybody thinks that way. But beyond that, what makes them demoniac is that they start thinking, “If anybody comes in the way of my getting money, I am ready to even kill them.” The person thinks, “I have killed this enemy; now I’m going to kill that one as well. And then I will be Ishvara.”

Ishvara means the controller, and it can also mean God. So, basically, the demoniac believe that by gaining more power, position, and pleasure, they will become God. And for that purpose, they are ready to even kill.

There is this ordinary covetous mentality—”ordinary” doesn’t mean it is desirable, but it is widespread. Everybody wants more, but what are we ready to do to get more? What makes them demoniac is not just their desire for more, but what they are ready to do to fulfill that desire.

And then what happens? They are not just satisfied with gaining ungodly pleasures by ungodly means. They also want prestige. They want not just prestige, but even the prestige that comes from religion. That means after they gain money and power by ungodly means, they may perform some godly activities. They may give some charity, or they may do some sacrifices.

They think that if they give charity and perform sacrifices, people will praise them for how pious they are. Some people go to the temple to take darshan—”Oh, I want to behold the Lord.” But some people go to the temple to give darshan. For them, going to the temple is basically a photo op. They’ll post it on their social media, and people will think, “Oh, what a nice person.”

Especially if someone is a movie celebrity—now, I don’t want to paint all movie celebrities with the same brush—but for some of them, they may do all kinds of movies with gross sensuality. But they don’t want to lose the religiously minded public, so on a festival, they might go to a temple and take a photo. People will then think, “Oh, such a nice person. They go to temples too.” For them, it could just be a show.

Similarly, people may perform yajna, but they’re not doing it for the name of God. They’re doing it for naam (name and fame). When they do sacrifices, it’s just for show.

In this way, the demoniac not only perform ungodly activities, but they also contaminate godly activities with ungodly motives. So, we could say that the demoniac ruin everything. These are very dangerous people.

When Krishna is describing, “Asoma maya hata shatru dhanishe cha paranapi,” meaning, “These people I have killed and those I will kill,” he could be referring to Duryodhana. Arjuna is also thinking of Duryodhana. Sometimes when two people are talking, they refer to a third person but don’t mention their name, perhaps because they don’t want to specify it. But both of them know who is being talked about.

Duryodhana had these characteristics. In royal families, sometimes there is envy about who is going to become the successor or who is more popular. Envy, though bad, is not necessarily disastrous or dangerous. But from that envy, what did Duryodhana do? He was ready to even kill his own brother. He was ready to kill Bhima. When they were just teenagers, he made a plan during a picnic to kill Bhima. He made a feast, but for Bhima, he prepared a special feast. His plan was to kill Bhima, or at least attempt to. This is the mindset of a person with demoniac nature.

If you consider the spectrum of human beings, we could say there are people with demoniac nature, there are people with divine nature, and then there are people who have a mix of both. Although this has been shown in a particular proportion, we could say that at the extremes, the number of those with divine or demoniac nature may be very small. What will really differ is the mix of both in most people.

Earlier, we talked about the black-and-white conceptions of spirituality. We also need to avoid black-and-white conceptions of human nature. Sometimes, if someone is presumptuous, they might give a Bhagavad Gita to a person and say, “Read this 16th chapter, and from verse 6 onwards, you will find yourself there. And from the first three verses, you will find me.” The first three verses describe people with divine nature, and the remaining verses describe those with demoniac nature. This is presumptuous. We cannot presume—and it’s arrogant, disrespectful, and plain wrong—to say that the people we are dealing with are of demoniac nature. Most people will be somewhere in the mix.

So, earlier we talked about avoiding black-and-white conceptions, but it’s important to remember that black and white is not always bad. When a child is learning, first the child has to identify colors that are radically different. This is black, and this is white. Then the child can start identifying shades of gray. The key point is that there are shades of gray, and there are a few people who might be very demoniac, or very divine, but most will be somewhere in between.

What differentiates them is that even those with divine nature may have dark desires, but those with divine nature fight against their dark desires. When anger arises, when greed arises, when lust arises, they try to restrain it. Krishna will later talk about these three as the three gates to hell, which characterize those with demoniac nature. Lust, anger, and greed are the gates to hell, and the wise people fight against them. They try to restrain them and renounce them, whereas the demoniac people fight for them.

For example, Ravana had lust, and he abducted Sita. He was not the least apologetic or repentant about the fact that he abducted a married woman against her will. He fought and killed, and not only did he die, but his entire kingdom was devastated and his army killed for his desires.

So, just the presence of dark desires doesn’t make a person demoniac. It’s the attitude toward the dark desires that matters. Are they fighting for them or fighting against them? If they are fighting against them, they are not considered to have a demoniac nature. They are considered to have a divine nature.

Here’s the corrected and refined version of your text with improved clarity and grammar:

---

There is nothing beyond matter.
So, we could say these people are pure devotees of matter. Just as for pure devotees of Krishna, there is nothing except Krishna existing, for them there is nothing except matter existing.

Just as those who are devoted to Krishna understand that Krishna, as God, has inconceivable powers, such people will ascribe inconceivable powers to matter. For example, matter, which doesn’t experience anything, somehow evolves into consciousness and develops the capacity to experience things. Somehow, matter, which never organizes itself on its own unless there is some conscious agency, has organized itself into this whole world. That’s fanatical materialism.

Now, if you consider science, science is in one way functionally materialistic. When scientists function in the world, they operate with the presumption that anything we observe in the world must have a natural explanation from factors within the world. By “in the world,” I mean we observe any material phenomena. In science, the term used is “natural phenomena.” If we observe natural phenomena, we want a natural explanation for it, not a supernatural one.

For example, when Newton observed the apple falling, he believed in God. He even considered his scientific study as searching for an understanding of how God fashioned the universe. “Oh Father, I think thy thoughts after thee,” he said. He would consider his scientific discoveries as spiritual insights into how God created the world. So, he was definitely not materialistic.

At the same time, when he saw the apple fall, his question wasn’t “What made the apple fall?” in the sense of “God made the apple fall.” He wanted to understand the material mechanism behind it. So, scientists are functionally materialistic.

Some scientists may be fanatically materialistic, but they are a small minority. We cannot lump all scientists into one category. Functionally materialistic is different from fanatically materialistic.

Now, why is science functionally materialistic? The technical term for this is “methodological naturalism.” As a methodology, science is naturalistic. This means it looks for natural explanations for natural phenomena because the idea is that if something supernatural exists, we can’t control it, we can’t model it, we can’t create anything out of it. For example, if God made something happen, there’s not much we can do about it. But if gravity made the apple fall, we can understand how gravity works, and we can use that knowledge to make airplanes and other devices.

Functional materialism is not necessarily wrong and doesn’t necessarily imply that someone is atheistic. Why am I discussing this? Because we want to avoid the temptation to brand everyone who disagrees with us as demoniac, or everyone who is non-spiritual as demoniac. There is a broad spectrum of beliefs. Similarly, not all materialism is the same.

Not all atheism is the same, either. Some people are simply atheists, while others are anti-theists. We discussed earlier the radicalization of religion. Atheists basically say that God doesn’t exist. They may say this because they have either never seen convincing arguments for God’s existence or they’ve had bad experiences with people who represented God, such as hypocrisy or arrogance, which put them off.

On the other hand, anti-theists believe that the very idea of God is evil. Not only do they claim God doesn’t exist, but they also want to destroy people’s faith in God and legislate religion out of existence. These are fanatical atheists, not functional atheists. So, we cannot say that all atheists are demoniac.

We must look at various aspects of their lives. Yes, they reject the existence of God, but that doesn’t mean they will pursue sensual pleasures in the same way as a demoniac person.

Now, do atheism and materialism intersect? Yes, they do. Both reject any higher reality. However, they are overlapping but not identical. Why? Because there may be materialistic people who still believe in something higher. They may believe in some devata (deity), some higher power, or even in God. They may think that if they pray to God, He will fulfill their worldly desires. These people are religious materialists. So, religious materialists fall into a separate category that doesn’t overlap with atheism.

Among atheists, there may be some who believe that there is something higher, something beyond matter, but they may not accept that it is God. They might say, “It’s just a mystery.” They may find the conceptions of God they are taught by various religions to be naive or intolerant, but they are somewhat spiritually minded.

One prominent example is Albert Einstein. Einstein’s views have become a battleground for both atheists and theists to support their ideologies. There are quotes from Einstein where he talks about God, such as “God does not play dice,” and other quotes that suggest he rejected the traditional idea of God. Both sides use his quotes to argue their point.

But, if we look at Einstein’s views in context, it becomes clear that he rejected the idea of God as presented by the religions he was exposed to, especially the Abrahamic ones, which he found parochial. At the same time, his study of science made him feel that there must be some higher intelligence, some higher organizing principle, without which nothing would function. So, he accepted that there was something higher, but he didn’t necessarily define it as God in the conventional sense.

The point here is that we should avoid using figures like Einstein to justify simplistic caricatures of people who disagree with us. It’s not always a matter of clear-cut categories.

So, as I mentioned earlier, not all sensual pleasures are the same. Those with divine nature may also pursue sensual pleasures, but they do so in the context of life’s four primary goals—purusharthas—as we discussed in an earlier session. These four goals are dharma (virtue, morality, religion), artha (prosperity), kama (pleasures), and moksha (liberation).

Dharma is the cultivation of virtue and moral practices. Artha is the material prosperity one earns through dharma. Kama is the enjoyment of desires, and moksha is liberation from the cycle of birth and death. When one fulfills desires as part of this system, it is not entangling. Sensual indulgence, when aligned with dharma and artha, gradually leads one to realize that these pleasures are not the ultimate goal, and one seeks something higher.

And then one will rise toward moksha, which is liberation.
So, when dharma, artha, kama, and moksha are present, life is sustainable. I’ll explain why it is sustainable in the next slide. But it’s uplifting because what happens? By doing dharma, one is cultivating virtue. Because of that cultivation of virtue, one’s sensual inclinations gradually diminish. Their sensual inclinations get regulated and eventually purified.

In contrast, if you look at demoniac people, they are often dismissive. Dismissive about what? Dharma, artha, kama, and moksha. For them, there is no dharma, no moksha. They dismiss the idea of cultivating virtue and reject the idea of anything higher in life. Because of this, they simply pursue prosperity and sensuality—wealth and sensuality.

Now, this is unsustainable. Why? Because if you consider the way the world is going right now, we have, for example, disrupted the environment in our pursuit of prosperity. Many of the ways in which we are living are quite disruptive and not sustainable. We need to move toward alternative forms of fuel, or at least do something to sustain the environment.

But what happens? Both the divine and the demoniac may pursue sensual pleasures, but the difference is that the demoniac sees sensual pleasure as life’s only purpose and will pursue it at any cost. Artha and kama are all they pursue without considering anything higher in their lives.

I mentioned that they may even murder for money. So, how do we know whether someone is divine or demoniac? One way to understand this is by looking at their boundaries—what are the things they will never do?

It could be different for different people. For example, someone might say, “My elders may do something unreasonable, and I might get angry, but I will never yell at them. I will not raise my voice against them because that’s cultured behavior.” Similarly, if two people start fighting, they might behave like civilized human beings and not resort to violence. That’s a boundary. However angry I get, I will not hit anyone. In every family, disputes arise, but when it escalates to domestic violence, it becomes alarming. At that point, we may begin to question if we want to be with such a person.

We all get provoked at times, but the key is identifying the boundaries we won’t cross, even when provoked. For example, someone might say, “I may get angry and yell, but I won’t go as far as to kill someone.” That is a boundary. Of course, not killing someone isn’t just about being law-abiding—there are many aspects to law and order, but the point is there are boundaries.

If someone kills when provoked, then they are demoniac. But again, not everyone who behaves in a materialistic way is necessarily demoniac. Even materialistic people have their boundaries. Just because someone is sensual doesn’t mean they are equally given to excessive sensuality.

I remember speaking at Amazon in Seattle, where we discussed moral relativism. Someone argued that morality is subjective: whatever people believe to be right, is right for them, and whatever they believe to be wrong is wrong for them. However, when I asked this person if there are things in the world they believe are wrong, they gave examples like terrorists, child abusers, and rapists.

I asked, “Do terrorists think they are doing something wrong? They might believe they are doing a virtuous deed.” Just because they believe they’re right doesn’t make it right. This is not moral relativism. So, they agreed that not everything is subjective, and some actions are wrong universally. Boundaries of right and wrong may differ among people, but we all agree on certain principles.

No one is actually a moral relativist. Later, an Amazon executive, one of the managers who attended the seminar, said that people have their boundaries. With respect to those boundaries, people are not moral relativists but absolutists. They have clear lines that they won’t cross. For example, in Amazon’s apparel division, they sell clothes that may sometimes be skimpy, but they have a policy that they will not depict children wearing those clothes, as they don’t want to encourage pedophilia in any way. So, they have boundaries.

Now, demoniac people are defined by boundaries that are extremely loose, or sometimes there are no boundaries at all. Whatever they want, they will do for sensuality.

So, if demoniac people will do whatever they want for their desires, what checks them from doing something wrong? Let’s look at what checks us. We have two inner restraints: one is the power of conscience, and the other is the fear of consequences.

Conscience tells us, “Don’t do this. Don’t do that.” If our conscience is strong, we won’t even consider doing certain things, and if we try, we will feel bad, and that will stop us from continuing. The fear of consequences usually comes from having well-developed or at least functional intelligence. “This will get me into trouble, so I won’t do it.”

These are the two primary restraints we all have. For demoniac people, though, these two restraints function very differently. In practical terms, they have no conscience. For example, Duryodhan, when it was pointed out to him that he had wronged the Pandavas, said, “Even if I introspect, I don’t see anything wrong that I have done.” He didn’t admit any wrongdoing, let alone correct it.

They may fear consequences, but that fear is only there as long as they don’t have enough power to counter those consequences. Once they gain enough power, they can avoid the consequences. For example, mafia dons who can kill without fear of law enforcement—they don’t worry about the consequences because the law is in their pocket.

So, for demoniac people, if they have boundaries at all, those boundaries are simply because they don’t have enough power to avoid the consequences. They are not bound by conscience or moral principles, but by their ability to escape the consequences.

When we hear about such descriptions of demoniac people, there might be a tendency to “otherify” them, to treat them as an entirely different species. But the reality is, there are degrees of demoniac behavior, and most people, even those who may seem far removed from virtuous behavior, have their boundaries.

So, child abusers, rapists, psychopaths, terrorists, sociopaths, serial killers, school shooters, and murderous dictators—they are often referred to as animals, beasts, or less than human. We may almost treat them as though they belong to a different species entirely. But it’s not that simple.

The same dark tendencies that exist in them, to an extreme degree, also exist within us—albeit to a lesser degree. Remember the diagram of the dark side and the bright side? The dark side is much larger in them, but that darkness is also within us. We can’t just label them as demoniac and see ourselves as good people. I may be a good person, but that dark side is also within me, though it may not be as strongly expressed or developed. It’s there. And if I’m careless, if I indulge in it without mindfulness, my dark side may grow as well.

We must avoid treating them as if they are a completely different species. It’s easy to say, “I would never do anything like that.” But if we look back at our own lives, we realize we have all done certain dark deeds that might shock us today. “How could I have spoken like that? How could I have acted in such a way?” We all have moments where we realize our dark side may be much stronger than we thought. It may be darker than we initially believed.

Of course, this doesn’t mean our dark side is as extreme as those of murderers, sexual predators, or tyrants. But we all have a dark side, and sometimes it can lead us to do things darker than we would ever expect.

We need to have a healthy fear of what we are capable of. Be terrified of how terrible you can become in order to never become that terrible. What does this mean? When we see demoniac people, we shouldn’t just say, “Those are horrible people. They are demons.” We must understand that if we don’t control our own dark side, we could end up just like them. That’s why we must be careful.

When we read the epics, such as the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, or the Bhagavatam, it’s easy to identify with the virtuous characters—perhaps the Pandavas, or Ram, Hanuman, or Vasudev Devaki Nanda Maharaj. We may even identify with the Lord himself in our devotion. However, to gain the full benefit of studying the scriptures, we should also try an intellectual and emotional exercise: identify with Kamsa or Ravana. What made them act the way they did?

While the situations in these epics may seem far removed from our lives, consider this: If we were in Germany during the Nazi regime, who knows? We might have become part of the Nazi machinery, either actively participating or passively allowing it. Would we have resisted? We don’t know. Books have been written about ordinary people who ended up committing horrendous acts. One example is the story of a Polish police regiment during World War II. Initially just regular law-abiding officers, they were forced to carry out Nazi orders, killing thousands of people by the war’s end.

There is also the famous Stanford prison experiment, where students assigned the role of jailers became brutally abusive toward the prisoners, even though the prisoners were also students and not criminals. Within days, the jailers turned violent, and the experiment had to be shut down. These ordinary students became capable of cruelty in a short time. This shows that even well-meaning people can fall prey to their darker sides under pressure.

So, we cannot stay proud of our purity or our virtue. We need to protect and nourish it because, in provocative circumstances, we too could do terrible things. We shouldn’t just identify with the demoniac people in an abstract way; we need to look at them and cultivate a healthy fear of our own dark side, which can be just as destructive if not properly controlled.

Now, are demoniac people reformable? Yes, everyone is reformable. The question is, after how long, and at what cost? They may have a dark side, but they can counter it. The problem is, they may not want to. Some people have lust, anger, and greed, and they see these traits as sources of power and pleasure. They don’t want to give them up. Even when they recognize that their desires are becoming uncontrollable, they may not know how to fight these internal enemies. When the enemy is external, at least we can fight it. But when the torment is from within, what do we do?

Are demoniac people reformable? Yes, but it is not easy. For them to reform, they need to change their mental impressions. Their conscience is weak, and they may not even know how to activate it. Some may not even want to change.

If they encounter highly evolved spiritual saints, however, these saints may help activate their conscience. We have the example of Narad Muni transforming Murghari, a hunter who used to sadistically kill animals. Narad Muni’s association changed him. But Krishna, as a peace messenger, went to Duryodhana, and he was not transformed. Ravana, too, was not transformed.

For most demoniac people, activating their conscience is extremely difficult unless they face a severe consequence. In Narad Muni’s case, he also gave Murghari a vision of how the animals he had killed would come back to torment him in the future. This vision of severe consequence helped. But sometimes, people do not learn from such consequences in this life, and they may only learn in their next life, where they are reborn with a better disposition.

So, when it comes to controlling demoniac people, we can’t just be assertive with them. To be assertive would mean to be aggressive.

1. Passive, Aggressive, and Assertive Modalities:

• There are three ways to deal with people: passive, aggressive, and assertive.
• Passive and aggressive are extremes, whereas assertiveness is the ideal.
• However, when dealing with demoniac people, assertiveness often requires aggression because mere discussion won’t suffice.

2. The Need for Confrontation with Demoniac People:

• If people have a divine nature, conflicts can often be resolved through discussion and removing misunderstandings.
• Demoniac people, however, don’t just misunderstand—they have malevolent intent. They want to hurt others.
• Thus, confrontation, not just discussion, is necessary to deal with them.

3. Social Determinism and Aggressive Intervention:

• Social determinism suggests people shouldn’t be treated as criminals or unjustly punished.
• While it’s true that minor crimes shouldn’t result in harsh punishment, some people may not want to reform and require aggressive intervention.
• In some cases, capital punishment may be necessary, though there are valid ethical concerns regarding miscarriages of justice (e.g., wealthy people evading punishment).

4. The Concept of Hell and Aggressive Intervention:

• Just as we have prisons for wrongdoers, demoniac people may face aggressive intervention in the form of going to hell.
• The concept of hell can be controversial today, especially given the descriptions of eternal punishment that seem incompatible with a loving God.
• However, it’s important to understand that in the Bhagavad Gita, it’s not God sending people to hell; rather, it’s their own actions (karma) that lead them there.

5. The Role of Karma and God’s Presence in Hell:

• Just as the law of gravity causes someone to fall if they step off a building, karma causes people to face consequences for their actions.
• God does not send people to hell with a personal agenda; it’s their own wrongdoings that lead them there.
• God is always present, even with those in hell, as His love never forsakes anyone. This shows His infinite grace.

6. Differences Between the Gita and Abrahamic Religions on Hell:

• In Abrahamic religions, hell is often seen as eternal, and non-believers are sent there regardless of their actions.
• In the Bhagavad Gita, hell is not eternal. Those who go to hell are wrongdoers, and hell serves as a “tough classroom” where they can reform.
• God never rejects anyone; He accompanies all souls, even in hell, waiting for them to reform.

7. The Purpose of Hell in the Gita:

• The purpose of hell is to help individuals develop fear of consequences and gradually reform.
• Hell is not a permanent state. People will eventually be restored through God’s love.
• The timeline for deliverance depends on the person’s free will: turning to Krishna and practicing bhakti will expedite the process, while cultivating vice will delay it.

8. God’s Love and Infinite Grace:

• God’s love is present everywhere, including in hell. He waits patiently for everyone to reform.
• Krishna never rejects anyone; His response is based on how we use our free will.

9. Summary of Human Nature:

• There are two views on human nature: people are inherently good or inherently bad.
• The Gita offers a middle path: at the level of the soul, everyone is good, but at the level of the mind, influenced by impressions, people can be good or bad.
• Those with a divine nature have mostly good impressions from past actions, while those with a demoniac nature have mostly bad impressions.

10. Demoniac Behavior:

• Demoniac people reject God and higher realities. Their nature leads them to harm others.
• They need aggressive intervention, not just passive or even assertive approaches, to be dealt with.

They pursue sensuality as life’s only purpose. They’re ready even to kill for that purpose. And they use religion for prestige, not for purification. Although there is this characteristic of divine and demoniac, it’s a spectrum. We shouldn’t label people very casually as demoniac just because they’re materialistic or atheistic, because we discuss nuances. There can be functional materialists, not fanatical materialists. Most scientists are methodological naturalists or functional materialists. Even among atheists, some who are antitheists can be called demoniac, but not every atheist. So this Gita chapter talks in terms of black and white, because a black-and-white understanding is also required before we can identify shades of gray. Before and after this, Krishna has talked about the three modes. In the three modes, we can understand the shades of gray within the black and white as well.

Then we talked about demoniac people, their inner restraint, and the lack of conscience power, but they have fear of consequences only as long as they’re not powerful enough to counter the consequences. Can they be reformed? Yes. But it may take a long time, and they may not even want to be reformed. For them, sometimes, they have to face severe consequences in this life, or they may die and face severe consequences thereafter until they become reformable. Then we talked about how punishment is needed for some people. For demoniac people, you can’t just be assertive in terms of talking and explaining things to them. Assertiveness requires aggressiveness. There has to be confrontation. Sometimes they need to be punished, whether by being put in jail or sent to hell. We discussed how hell doesn’t point to a God who is cruel or unloving. It is also part of God’s loving plan for everyone. The Abrahamic conception of hell and the Gita’s conception of hell are significantly different. Within the Gita’s conception, no one is condemned forever. Everybody gets the consequences of their actions, but they also always have the opportunity to reform and attain the Lord. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna. Sorry for going a bit over time today.

So, okay, it was ignorance, arrogance, and violence. Let’s look at some other questions.

Okay. A lot of questions. So, what happens to those who are in Brahma Jyoti? Usually, they are cleansed of most of their impressions, and then they will start over. Yeah, it’s something like starting from the beginning in the material world. Well, not exactly starting over again. They are still overall pure. So those who go to Brahma Jyoti might come back from there. If they are fortunate enough to associate with devotees, they might get elevated quickly and liberated. Yes, but generally, to go outside the material world, the subtle body also has to be given up.

Why is it that in Satyuga, there are more people with divine nature, and demoniacs are the lowest? Yes, that happens because there are two distinct things here: there are many universes, and souls can exist in different species at different levels of activity or dormancy of consciousness. Generally, if the souls of demoniac nature are in animal species, they will just act like animals. Now animals may also have some variety, like some dogs being more kind and others more aggressive, but it’s not a huge variety in behavior like the spectrum of human behavior, because humans have much more free will. So the souls of demoniac nature might be in lower species at that time. In Satyuga, souls in human bodies may be more pious and virtuous.

Is karma wiped out at the time of annihilation? I haven’t heard anything like that. Karma can only be wiped out by the practice of bhakti. The passage of time doesn’t wipe out karma. So, it’s more likely that in the more pure ages like Satyuga, the souls with demoniac nature are elsewhere. They are not in human bodies. That’s why the world can be overall with divine nature.

Okay. So the question here is, how do you differentiate between being selfish and protecting one’s self-interest? If somebody has been exploited in the past, when they try to be selfless but then are exploited, they again gravitate towards selfishness. How do we motivate them to balance it? I think this is something delicate. We also have to be intelligent. Intelligent means we need to observe when we act in a particular way with people: What is the effect? What is the response? Is it leading to something good? Say, if we help someone, like giving charity to a poor person, but if they use it to get drunk and then cause domestic violence, we aren’t really helping them. So we can look at the consequences of our actions. Sometimes the people we help may even turn against us. They might start demanding more and more or develop an entitlement mentality. Rather than generalizing from our specific experiences, we can learn from them. There’s a difference between learning from experience and generalizing from experience. Learning from experience means, yes, people can act this way, so I should be careful. Generalizing from experience means, because people act this way, people are bad. No, that’s not fair.

So, envision a pendulum. If we are naive, we might think everybody is good. But we can go to the other extreme, where we become cynical and believe everyone is bad. The balance is that everyone deserves the opportunity to earn trust. We don’t believe everyone is good or bad, but rather we say, “I don’t know. Let me give them some opportunities and see.” So, by giving people opportunities to earn trust, we deal with them as individuals. If we’ve been burned before, it’s understandable to be cautious, but we don’t have to be so cautious that we never get involved. Being selfless is good, but we can’t be brainless. The point is that we have to use our intelligence. We can try being selfless in small ways and see the result. If there’s a good result, we can move forward; otherwise, we won’t. That’s how we can maintain balance. Then, thank you.

Among functional materialists and fanatical materialists, which is more dangerous? I would say fanatical materialists are much more dangerous. Functional materialists, on the other hand, might not be as dangerous unless influenced by fanatical materialists. Otherwise, they’re just going through life. Most people in material existence are functionally materialistic. Krishna himself spoke in the Bhagavad Gita 5,000 years ago, and he said those interested in spirituality are one among thousands. So, most people are functionally materialistic. Does that make them bad or dangerous? Not necessarily.

There are a lot of questions. Let me see how many I can answer now.

For Kshatriyas, when they kill, they do not incur sin, but then what about the Nazis? Does that rule apply only when they are following their duties? For example, a policeman does not get punished when shooting civilians while shooting a killer.

Yes, this does not apply to the dharmic people, like Hitler’s stooges. I agree fully. Our individual responsibility is not taken away from us because of society’s actions. If everybody is robbing, then I may also be inclined to rob, but does that make robbery a lesser crime? While the court might show some leniency if a person grew up in such a situation, a wrong thing is still wrong. Just because everyone else is doing it doesn’t make it right.

So, just because society is engaging in demoniac activities does not make those activities right. However, people need to be strategic. There is no point in becoming a mindless martyr. If you don’t participate, the Nazis will just kill you. So, you need to be intelligent about how to handle the situation. Some Germans helped the Jews escape during the Holocaust. There are stories like Anne Frank’s, where she survived for a while, finding goodness even in those times.

If everybody is doing something wrong, and for us to do the right thing is difficult, doing the wrong thing may not be as culpable as when everyone is doing the right thing and we do the wrong thing. Still, a wrong thing does not become right just because everybody is doing it. Our individual agency and responsibility are not taken away by society’s situations.

In the famous Nuremberg Trials, many Nazis said they were simply following orders. But the Nuremberg Trials ruled that this could not be used as justification because what they were doing was brutally wrong.

Does this address your question, Athena? Yes? Thank you.

Now, when we say that everybody will be delivered, what about those who will forever misuse their free will? Well, everyone has the potential to misuse their free will, but that’s unlikely. Sooner or later, people will awaken. Maybe they will face enough consequences, or perhaps they will be fortunate enough to meet saints. Through this, they will gradually reform and be delivered. It may take a long time, and that’s why we try to provide opportunities for reform as much as possible.

Now, regarding the question from Param Karuna Prabhu about Lord of the Flies by William Golding — it’s a very good book illustrating how ordinary people can become demoniac as well.

When the divine fights the dark side, it means that one can either ignore or combat it. Sometimes, lower desires can be ignored. We just continue doing whatever we’re doing, and the desires may come and go. But sometimes, these desires start pressing us too much. When this happens, we have to find more active ways to defend ourselves, such as chanting intensely to fortify our defenses.

Sometimes neglecting the mind works, but it isn’t always enough. Imagine being in a fort where people outside are screaming and threatening you. If they don’t have any weapons, you can neglect them, and they will eventually go away. However, if they have weapons, they may force their way in, and we need to actively defend ourselves. In this case, we use stronger purifying activities such as chanting more, reading more, praying more, or keeping ourselves busy with positive, spiritual activities.

Now, there are questions about the conception of hell in the Bhagavad Gita and how to reconcile Krishna as a compassionate God with verses like 16.19, where Krishna says he sends people to hell. Sometimes when reading the Gita, we forget that Krishna is not just an abstract principle — he is a person with emotions. He experiences the full range of human emotions, though he is not controlled by them.

For example, when Krishna says, Tanaham Dushyataha Kruran — “I cast them to hell,” Prabhupada translated Kruran as cruel, and Dushyataha as envious. But Prabhupada uses “mischievous” here because Krishna is speaking with his heart, expressing his concern and exasperation with people like Duryodhana.

When Krishna says, I will cast them into hell, it is not to be taken literally, but as an expression of his frustration and concern. The purpose is not to send people to hell, but to guide them toward reform. It’s a loving warning, like when a parent says, If you do this, you will have no place in my house — it’s not literal, but a way to deter the child from harmful actions.

We should understand that some of Krishna’s statements are directional, not literal. They are meant to convey a truth in a more emphatic way, and they should be interpreted in context. For instance, Krishna says that everyone can be delivered, but it may take time. People who misuse their free will may face consequences, but the possibility of reform and awakening is always present.

In conclusion, the overall teachings of the Bhagavad Gita emphasize the possibility of reform for everyone, regardless of their past actions, and it is important to understand the context of Krishna’s words when interpreting them.

Thank you very much for your participation. Hare Krishna!

The post 43 Are some people innately bad – Gita 16.06 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Hare Krishna. Thank you very much for joining today. Today, we’ll be discussing one of the most commonly quoted verses from the Gita, 15.15. We’ll explore the topic of how to see God’s hand in our life, beginning with a philosophical perspective on God’s hand in material existence and then moving toward practical applications in our lives. This is the verse. Now, there are two distinct points in this verse that we need to understand, along with the correlation between them. The first point talks about God’s inner presence and action in our lives. Close to the heart, God resides. In the heart, close to every living being, He resides, and from there, He gives knowledge, remembrance, and forgetfulness. This describes the inner presence and action of the Lord.

The second half of the verse states, “Vedaishcha sarvair aham eva vedyo”, which means that by all the Vedas, it is Krishna who is to be ultimately known, and “Vedantakrit vedavid eva chaham” explains that He is the author and knower of the Vedas. How can Krishna claim to know the goal of the Vedas? The Vedas are a vast body of literature, but Krishna asserts that He knows them because He is their creator. As the author, through the literary incarnation of the Lord, Vyasadeva, Krishna composed the Vedas. Now, what is the link between these two sections? One is that Krishna resides in the heart and acts within it while the other is that He is the goal and author of the Vedas. The connection lies in the fact that these are two broad sources of guidance for the soul in the material world. Krishna asserts that He is the guiding force in both ways.

This section is part of Chapter 15, often referred to as “the eyes of knowledge.” Chapter 15 comprises 20 verses, making it one of the smallest chapters in the Gita, along with Chapter 12. Despite its brevity, Chapter 15, also known as Purushottam Yoga, succinctly covers the philosophy of living. The chapter is divided into four parts. Verses 1 to 5 describe the world as a place of illusion, exemplified by the upside-down tree metaphor discussed in the last class. Verses 7 to 11 delve into the soul’s transmigration in the material world, explaining how the soul is entangled and moves from one life to another, seeking worldly pleasures. This section concludes by explaining how we can raise our consciousness to a spiritual level and begin to see the divine by observing how even our material needs and desires are fulfilled by a higher arrangement.

The verses 12 to 15 focus on perceiving the divine action within the material world, explaining how one can see non-material or divine influence in sustaining the material. This section concludes with verse 15.15, the most important verse in this chapter, which we will analyze today. The final section, verses 16 to 20, discusses the various features of spiritual reality, ultimately identifying the Supreme Lord as the highest reality. The entire chapter presents a condensed philosophy of living in material existence by addressing four aspects: entanglement in material existence, transmigration, perception of the divine within material existence, and realization of ultimate spiritual reality.

Today, our topic focuses on how to see God’s action in our lives, based on verses 15.12 to 15.15, with verse 15.15 as the centerpiece. We’ll explore three aspects: appreciating how God sustains us materially, understanding how God reciprocates with our desires, and recognizing how He bestows His grace. The term Jnana Chakshu (“eyes of knowledge”) is significant here, as mentioned in 15.10 and implied in 15.11, describing how one with spiritual vision can perceive the soul’s entanglement in the material world and God’s actions within it. The Jnana Chakshu enables us to see how our existence depends on many factors beyond our control, even if we are not fully aware of them. This perspective forms the foundation of our discussion today.

How many of us are constantly aware that we are breathing? Usually, we only become aware of it when the air is no longer fresh, or we start feeling suffocated for some reason. That’s when we realize, “I’m not getting enough air.” Air is a basic necessity for existence, yet we often take it for granted. It’s not just air; there are many other things we need. We often think of basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, air, and water. However, beyond these, there are numerous subtle factors necessary for life to exist on Earth. For instance, the temperature has to be regulated enough to support life.

When analyzing material existence, the Vedic texts often describe three levels: Adhi Atmik (pertaining to the self), Adhi Bhautik (pertaining to the social and material world), and Adhi Daivik (pertaining to natural or divine forces). At the Adhi Atmik level, for us to exist, our body must function properly. At any given moment, countless processes within the body occur without our awareness, such as digestion, blood circulation, and respiration. If any of these processes fail, we cannot control them much, and significant harm could occur. At the Adhi Bhautik level, social factors play a role in our existence. For society to function, there must be peace, but history has shown us that wars, crimes, and brutalities are all too common. Social harmony is essential. Lastly, at the Adhi Daivik level, nature must function harmoniously. Natural disasters such as tornadoes, heavy rains, floods, or famines can disrupt life. Our existence depends on countless factors beyond our control, even if we are unaware of them.

In recent times, the environmental movement has made us increasingly conscious of human impact on the environment. This awakening began roughly 50 years ago, while significant human impact on the environment started about 200 years ago with industrialization. Gradually, people are becoming more aware of the need to protect and preserve the environment, though there is still much progress to be made. This growing awareness is akin to a newborn’s gradual understanding of the world. A newborn cannot survive without immense parental care and protection. Initially, newborns cry when they are hungry, need a diaper change, or feel physical discomfort. At this stage, they are unaware of the world beyond their immediate needs. Gradually, as they grow, they begin to recognize their caregivers, particularly their mother, as someone who loves and provides for them. This growth in awareness reflects a broader truth: as we grow, we start to understand and appreciate the factors and people that sustain us.

Awareness and growth go hand in hand. Biological growth happens automatically, but psychological and spiritual growth require effort. As we mature, we are expected to recognize how much others do for us and to reciprocate. However, during adolescence, children often become more critical of their parents, focusing on what they perceive as shortcomings. It is usually only after they become parents themselves that they truly understand the challenges of parenting and develop a greater appreciation for their own parents.

Growing biologically means physical changes such as hormonal shifts and an increase in size. Growing psychologically means learning to manage emotions more effectively. For instance, children cry when they are angry, displeased, or lose a game. They may throw tantrums, but as adults, we are expected to handle emotions with greater maturity. While biological growth is automatic, psychological growth requires conscious effort. Similarly, spiritual growth is not automatic—it demands conscientious effort and introspection. A person may grow physically but remain emotionally immature or spiritually stagnant. Childlike innocence is a virtue, but childish immaturity is not. True growth involves progressing at all levels—biological, psychological, and spiritual.

Growth must happen conscientiously. There are various levels of growth: physical growth, psychological or emotional growth, and spiritual growth. Psychological growth primarily involves learning to manage our emotions better, so we don’t get swayed by everything that happens to us or around us. For example, when a small baby is uncomfortable, they may start crying immediately. However, when an adult is uncomfortable, they may not cry but instead seek help more consciously, perhaps by calling someone specific. This reflects greater awareness and emotional maturity.

At a spiritual level, growth involves an increasing awareness of life’s spiritual dimensions. We begin to recognize that life couldn’t be sustained without a sustaining principle. We become aware of the supreme spiritual reality—God—and His role in our lives. Spiritual growth is not merely about external practices like chanting more rounds, memorizing verses, or spending more time worshipping deities. While these activities stimulate and manifest spiritual growth, the essence of growth is connecting our consciousness with Krishna. These practices make our consciousness more receptive to Krishna’s presence—not just in specific manifestations like a deity or a sacred activity but throughout our lives.

The phrase “always remember Krishna” doesn’t necessarily mean constant factual recollection of His form as a bluish-black cowherd boy playing a flute and wearing a peacock feather. While such a visualization is helpful, especially during moments of quiet reflection, the deeper meaning is to become conscious of Krishna’s role in our lives while functioning in the world. For instance, as I speak now, my body is functioning—my throat is producing sound. I do not fully understand how this happens, but if I become conscious of it, I would feel grateful. Remembering Krishna in this context means recognizing His role in enabling us to function, grow, and exist.

Spiritual growth involves seeing Krishna’s hand not only in the extraordinary moments of life but also in the ordinary ones. We often attribute God’s presence to special events, such as when a prayer is answered, a disease is cured, a relationship progresses, or we achieve a career milestone. While it’s good to see Krishna in these moments, we should also see His hand in everyday occurrences. For instance, the fact that we have food to eat or that we are alive—both are signs of God’s grace. So many things could go wrong, yet they don’t. As we grow more aware of this, we naturally develop gratitude.

Gratitude arises when we focus on what is right in our lives rather than what is wrong. If we dwell on what is wrong, we may feel resentful instead. Unfortunately, many things that are right in our lives go unnoticed because we take them for granted. The material world is such that everything eventually declines over time unless we make a conscientious effort to maintain or improve it. Recognizing what is right helps cultivate gratitude, and gratitude is a very healthy emotion to nurture.

The Bhagavad Gita explains how God sustains us materially, offering specific examples at the cosmological, terrestrial, and physiological levels. In verse 15.12, Krishna says:
“The light of the sun, which illumines the whole universe, and the light of the moon and fire—know that these originate from Me.”
The Gita highlights how the energy of the sun sustains everything. The moon reflects the sun’s light, and even fire and electricity ultimately derive from solar energy. For instance, stored solar energy in plants provides fuel and energy, and many modern energy systems indirectly rely on the sun. Krishna declares that the energy of the sun, the fire, and all sources of light originate from Him.

The sun is the source of all energy, and without it, nothing could exist. Science has confirmed this reality in various ways. For instance, solar flares—powerful surges of energy from the sun—can disrupt Earth’s atmosphere. If a solar flare penetrates the Earth’s atmosphere significantly, all electrical and electronic devices could stop working entirely. That this rarely happens demonstrates how the universe sustains us in a delicate balance.

From a non-theistic perspective, some might call this a “lucky accident.” However, this term is misleading. Lucky accidents merely prevent bad things from happening; they don’t create or sustain the intricate systems that make life possible. For example, a lucky accident might prevent a car crash but wouldn’t transform a car into a luxurious Rolls Royce. In this context, the intricate harmony sustaining life isn’t a random occurrence but evidence of a purposeful design.

While Krishna consciousness transcends the mere acknowledgment of God’s existence, understanding this sustaining principle is valuable. Krishna states in the Bhagavad Gita that the sun’s energy originates from Him. The sun does not have independent energy; it is powered by Krishna’s divine energy. This understanding elevates our awareness to see how Krishna sustains material existence at various levels.

At the terrestrial level, Krishna highlights the Earth’s unique conditions that support life. The Earth floats in space, and while science attributes this to gravity, the nature of gravity remains a philosophical question. Science often names phenomena rather than fully explaining them. For example, gravity is described as the force that causes objects to fall or planets to orbit. But what is gravity? Newton offered a mathematical formulation of observed phenomena, while Einstein proposed that gravity is a feature of space-time distortion caused by massive objects. However, even these explanations are constructs within scientific models, not ultimate truths.

Krishna and gravity are not competing explanations—they are complementary. Science helps us quantify and utilize phenomena like gravity, but Krishna consciousness provides the ultimate sustaining principle. For instance, the Earth’s precise distance from the sun ensures a temperature suitable for life. If the Earth were closer, it would be too hot; if farther, too cold. Similarly, the Earth’s rotation speed is perfect for maintaining a balance between day and night. These factors align in ways that make life possible, demonstrating divine orchestration.

Krishna further explains that He nourishes vegetation as the moon. Some studies suggest that moonlight makes vegetables juicier and more nutritious. Beyond such specifics, the very growth of vegetation is a miracle. From tasteless soil and water, we get fragrant fruits like mangoes, which are not only nutritious but also visually appealing and aromatic. As Einstein noted, we can either see nothing as a miracle or everything as a miracle. The existence of plants that produce edible food is remarkable and depends on numerous factors beyond human control.

Human ingenuity, such as irrigation systems, has reduced dependence on nature to some extent. However, these systems still rely on the basics provided by nature, such as the availability of water. We can channel water but cannot create or ensure its presence. This dependence points to a higher power sustaining nature itself. Nature’s intricate balance cannot be explained as a purely mechanical force because, according to the scientific law of entropy, systems tend to disorder over time unless guided by an overarching principle. That principle is Krishna.

From a physiological perspective, Krishna explains in Bhagavad Gita 15.14 that He is the fire of digestion. Digestion, or metabolism, is a miraculous process. While we may take pride in earning our food, the effort required to digest it far surpasses the effort to procure it. The elementary canal’s peristaltic movements and other digestive processes involve an extraordinary amount of work. Despite advances in science, creating artificial digestive systems has proven nearly impossible due to their complexity. A digestive machine would need to be the size of a factory several miles long.

Many of the processes sustaining our existence operate below the radar of our awareness. Krishna says that if we see these processes spiritually, we can recognize them as divine arrangements. By acknowledging God’s hand not only in extraordinary events but also in the ordinary details of life, we can deepen our awareness of His action in our lives.

Krishna describes how we can see his presence in the world, whether it’s through the extraordinary (as in Chapter 10, Vibhuti Yoga) or the ordinary elements that sustain us (as in this discussion). While Chapter 7 highlights Krishna as the essence of things (e.g., the taste of water), each chapter emphasizes different facets of his interaction with the material world. Beyond the physical, Krishna also acts at a psychological level, especially in our hearts.

Extraordinary Manifestations

1. Inspiration:
   Inspiration is an extraordinary phenomenon that often feels like a sudden, complete answer placed within us by a higher source. This is seen in creative and scientific breakthroughs, such as the work of Gauss and Mozart. The cognitive leap in such moments suggests a divine intervention, which many great minds have acknowledged as God’s grace.

Similarly, gifted individuals, like Shakuntala Devi, exhibit remarkable talents that seem beyond explanation. This sudden clarity or “knowing” in various fields is an example of the Super Soul’s guidance in our lives.

2. Instincts in Animals:
   Instincts, or “programmed intelligence,” are another example of divine guidance. For instance, bird migration demonstrates remarkable precision, with birds traveling across continents and returning to the exact tree their ancestors lived in. While mechanisms like Earth’s magnetic field may offer a partial scientific explanation, they don’t fully account for how such intelligence is passed down or executed. This reflects the divine hand guiding even animals’ lives.

Ordinary Manifestations

Krishna’s actions are also present in the everyday aspects of life, though these often go unnoticed. For example:

• Nourishment: Ordinary food sustains us far more than occasional delicacies, yet we overlook its significance. Similarly, the divine sustenance in everyday life is often underappreciated.
• Digestion: The complex process of metabolism, which science struggles to replicate artificially, is another miracle of divine arrangement.

Super Soul’s Role in Our Lives

Krishna, as the Super Soul, not only sustains us physically and psychologically but also inspires and guides us through both extraordinary moments and the ordinary flow of life. Recognizing his hand in these aspects allows us to deepen our connection with the divine.

Knowledge, Remembrance, and Forgetfulness: Krishna’s Role

Krishna states that he provides knowledge, remembrance, and forgetfulness. These three aspects operate not only at the spiritual level but also in our daily functioning and even across lifetimes. Let’s explore how these principles manifest.

1. Knowledge:

Knowledge enables us to function in the body we have received. For instance:

• Transmigration of the Soul:
  When the soul moves from one body to another, the new body comes with an entirely different environment. However, the soul adapts seamlessly. In humans, some knowledge is taught by parents, but in animals, much of it is instinctive. This innate ability to function comes from Krishna.
  • Example: A child prodigy playing a complex musical instrument effortlessly, or a baby animal knowing how to walk shortly after birth.
  • Even everyday skills, like speaking or walking, require complex coordination, which we perform without conscious effort. These abilities are manifestations of knowledge granted by Krishna.
• Daily Life:
  When we perform tasks, consciously or unconsciously, Krishna provides the knowledge we need. For example:
  • While speaking, we instinctively choose the right tone, pause, and grammar without analyzing every rule.
  • Similarly, musicians, artists, or athletes often “just know” how to do things, which is a reflection of the innate knowledge Krishna provides.

2. Remembrance:

Remembrance allows us to access relevant knowledge or tendencies from this or previous lives:

• Unfulfilled Desires and Talents:
  • Desires from past lives influence the kind of body and tendencies we acquire in this life. For instance, someone with a deep inclination toward music may have practiced it in a previous life, and Krishna facilitates this remembrance to continue their journey.
  • This is why certain individuals feel drawn to specific activities, such as art, science, or service, from a young age.
• Practical Functioning:
  • Krishna ensures we remember what is necessary at the right time. For example, when interacting with someone, we recall relevant interactions to engage meaningfully. However, we do not recall everything at once, which could overwhelm us.

3. Forgetfulness:

Forgetfulness is a necessary blessing that helps us focus and function effectively:

• Avoiding Cognitive Overload:
  • If we remembered every single detail about someone or every interaction, it would lead to cognitive dysfunction. Krishna ensures we forget irrelevant details, allowing us to function without distractions.
  • For example, we forget past traumatic events over time, which helps us heal and move forward. Forgetfulness thus becomes a gift, especially in cases where people struggle to let go of painful memories.
• During Transmigration:
  • Forgetting past-life memories prevents us from becoming overwhelmed by unnecessary baggage. This allows us to focus on the life and body we currently inhabit.

Daily Application of Knowledge, Remembrance, and Forgetfulness

1. Knowledge:
   • Enables us to function unconsciously, such as walking, speaking, or writing, without analyzing every step.
   • Talents like music, art, or athletic ability reflect Krishna’s role in providing innate knowledge, further refined through practice.
2. Remembrance:
   • Allows us to connect to our talents, tendencies, and experiences from this and previous lives.
   • Guides us toward fulfilling our desires or pursuing our innate inclinations.
3. Forgetfulness:
   • Protects us from distractions, unnecessary memories, or traumatic experiences.
   • Enables focus by discarding irrelevant information and ensuring mental clarity.

Krishna’s statement—”I provide knowledge, remembrance, and forgetfulness”—highlights his active involvement in our lives at every level. Whether it is the innate instincts of animals, the talents of prodigies, or the ability to focus and function daily, Krishna’s divine presence orchestrates it all. Recognizing this allows us to approach life with gratitude and a deeper understanding of his grace.

So there is knowledge we could say is more of the reservoir of relevant information, wisdom, whatever you want to talk about. Remembrance is what we draw from it, and forgetfulness is what is withdrawn from it—withdrawn from our consciousness. So this is constantly happening and enabling us to function, and that is the super soul doing that. Now, what is the role of the super soul in our spiritual growth? Basically, the same things—remembrance, knowledge, and forgetfulness—if you consider, depend on what is our desire. If you want to enjoy sensual desires, we will get the remembrance of how we will get the remembrance of the pleasure of enjoying. Oh, you enjoyed this; you enjoyed this food at this time; you enjoyed that particular TV show at that time; oh, you enjoyed that particular activity at that time. And those desires will keep coming to us, and quite often, the consequences of enjoying will be forgotten. Oh, you wasted so much time; you felt so miserable after that. And then the basic knowledge about how to go about enjoying—so somebody, somebody’s an alcoholic, and they get an urge again. And now when they get the urge, oh, I want to drink. They might have gone; they might have embarrassed themselves by drinking too much and abusing alcohol and made a mess of things, lost money, but whatever, they forget all that. And then they might not even consciously palate, you know, okay, maybe if I go there, there are probably no friends over there, nobody will detect me. Sometimes they may think consciously; sometimes they will not even think consciously—it will just happen.

So this knowledge, remembrance, and forgetfulness is in reciprocation with our desires. Now, if you have a desire to grow spiritually, then what we’ll remember is the joy of spiritual experiences, yes, and what we’ll forget is the pleasures of sensuality. We’ll forget the troubles, the austerities in spirituality. Oh, they don’t; this joy is so fulfilling; I want it. And knowledge is, okay, if I want that, how do I go about serving Krishna? So basically, remembrance, knowledge, and forgetfulness happen very dynamically and reciprocally for us, and that’s how we are able to move on. And now, if you are practicing bhakti and we are still getting remembrances of past sensual indulgences, what that means is right now, we just have to strengthen our devotional desire. And as the desire becomes stronger and stronger, then at a particular time, when we’ll come, the remembrance itself will go away, and it has happened to us for many things. Some of us might have been eating meat before we started practicing bhakti, and now even if we see meat, we’re not tempted by it. So that remembrance of the pleasure, remembrance of the enjoyment may not come, and that is not done by our effort; that is done by divine grace.

Just like every day, when we are tired and when we sleep, sleeping is a very routine activity, but how extraordinary it is, we realize when we are not able to sleep. Many times, if you’re not able to sleep, what happens? We might lie down in bed; there might be no noise around us; we might close our eyes, but it’s the switch that turns off our consciousness so that we can go from a wakeful state to a sleeping state. That switch is not in our control. So then, even sleep is a gift of God. Similarly, forgetting is a gift of God; remembering is a gift of God. Now, just because these things happen normally, in an anomaly, or effortlessly for us, that doesn’t mean that they are not having some higher arrangement behind them.

Thus, in our day-to-day lives also, we can start seeing Krishna’s action dynamically. And, of course, Krishna doesn’t just reciprocate with our desires; Krishna goes beyond reciprocating with our desires also. Krishna’s presence inside is that he is not just our destination, who exists in the spiritual world higher, far away from us—he’s also our companion; he’s present in our hearts. Suppose you take a flight, say you are in New York, and you go to LA to meet someone. Now, we have not met that person, and maybe we’ve not seen their photo, but we’re eager to meet them. And then somebody sits next to us in our flight, and we chat with them, but we’re not; we’re too eager to meet this person. And we get there, we go to the address, we knock on their door, and when they open the door, we find that person—the same person who was sitting next to us in our flight—but we didn’t know about them, and so we thought we didn’t really regard them very much.

So like that, we are on a journey; we are trying to go to Krishna, who is in the spiritual world, but actually, Krishna is right now next to us in our heart itself. So Krishna, if we even have a little desire for serving him, Krishna will magnify that desire. If we have a little desire to offer our thoughts to him, he will attract us. So now, when Krishna guides—in this verse, I said that there are two aspects: one is he’s present in the super soul, and the other is he’s present in the Vedas. So actually, both of them are ways in which Krishna is guiding us. Now, of course, not every voice that comes from within is God’s voice. There can be the voice of our ego or our mind also. That’s why we need education, purification, and devotion. We need to study scripture to understand what God’s plan and purpose overall for life is. Then we need purification—so that the voices of, say, greed, anger, or ego, they decrease—they’re not so blatant or loud. And then when there’s devotion, then that becomes our direct connection with Krishna. And then, “I’ll give you the intelligence by which you can come to me.” It is inside us; they become one with our consciousness. So the voice of the Lord, as it manifests externally through our guides, and as it manifests internally through our inner guide, it all becomes one, and then our life journey becomes very clear and confident.

So Krishna is actually very close to us. How close or how far is he from us? He’s just one thought away from us. He’s there in our hearts. If you just turn to think about him, he is there. And we may think of practicing bhakti as very difficult: I have to chant so many rounds; I have to read so many books; I have to do so many activities. Ultimately, bhakti is just about offering Krishna one thought—just offer him one thought. And then, after that, offer one more thought. Actually, if we offer him one thought…

He will give us many more thoughts about how to offer him many more thoughts, and then in this way, gradually, we will become absorbed. So Krishna is always reciprocal. However, with a devotee, Krishna is reciprocal but not always proportional. We may take one step toward Krishna, and he may take a hundred steps toward us. We may offer one thought to him, and he may give us a hundred thoughts about how we can remember him more, how we can become attracted to him more. In that way, he is not just reciprocating on the basis of law—”okay, I’m meant to be here; I’m functioning.” He is personally there, caring for us, and he will help each one of us to become elevated, to become attracted to him, and to ultimately attain him.

So Krishna’s presence as the super soul in our heart is for our sake. He is, we could say, the personal avatar of Krishna for each one of us. By looking at the dynamics of how the world functions externally and by looking at the dynamics of how our thoughts function internally, we all can see Krishna’s action around us—inside and outside—and thus become inspired and guided to move toward him.

So I’ll summarize. I spoke today on the topic of how to see Krishna’s action in our life. I talked about three broad sections: how to see Krishna’s actions materially, Krishna reciprocating with our desires, and lastly, how to see Krishna going with our desires.

First, I talked about how Krishna sees our desires and how we can see his action materially. Our existence depends on many factors beyond what is in our control, and as we grow from a newborn baby to an adult, we realize how much those around us are doing for us. Those physical, social, and environmental factors shape our existence. As we grow psychologically, we become aware of what others are doing, and we feel like reciprocating. When we grow spiritually, our awareness goes beyond just the people around us to the ultimate Lord, to the spiritual level of reality.

Then we talked about 15.12, 15.13, and 15.14, which describe Krishna sustaining us cosmologically, terrestrially, and physiologically—through the sun, through the suspension of the earth through gravity, through digestion, and through photosynthesis for getting edible food and vegetation. Then we discussed the super soul’s action in our life. We discussed how instinct and inspiration are examples of the super soul’s guidance in animals and humans. He reciprocates by giving us knowledge, remembrance, and forgetfulness—during transmigration from one life to another, during our functioning in life, in terms of habits, our tendencies, and our desires.

Beyond that, he helps us and goes out of his way to reciprocate with us if we try to turn toward him. If we have a strong desire, then he will give us the forgetfulness of whatever is undesirable. Forgetfulness, like sleeping, is a switch not in our control—it is in Krishna’s control. He is just one thought away, present in our heart as a guide. Internally and through scripture externally, both guide us together. Through education, purification, and devotion, these voices will become one for us. If we offer him one thought, he will offer us many more thoughts in return, and that’s how we’ll ultimately be able to attain him.

So thank you very much. Hmm, I can see there are some questions here. I’ll keep a record of these questions and try to answer them in the next session because today, I have to rush for another class in about 10 minutes. I have a class and have to go to the temple hall from here. So thank you very much for your attention and participation.

The post 42 How to see God’s hand in our life – Gita 15.15 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Thank you all for joining today. We’re diving into one of the most vivid yet often misunderstood metaphors from the Bhagavad Gita: the metaphor of the upside-down tree. This unique imagery, found in the 15th chapter, serves as a profound representation of our material existence and its entanglements. Through this session, we’ll explore what this metaphor represents and its deeper spiritual significance.

In our previous session, we discussed the three modes of material nature as described by Krishna, particularly focusing on how these modes bind the soul to the material world. Starting from Chapter 13, Krishna delves into an analytical perspective—what could be termed as Jnana—to redirect our attention from the material world to the ultimate spiritual reality, which is Krishna Himself.

Chapter 13, for instance, identifies the root cause of our bondage: illusory desire. Krishna explains this beautifully in the verse:
“Purusha prakriti stho hi, bhumte prakriti jaan gunan, karanam guna sangosya, sadasad yoni janmasu.”

This verse, which Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur describes as the “seed of material existence,” highlights two key causes of bondage:

1. The soul’s desire to enjoy the material world (kama).
2. The influence of the modes of material nature (guna-sanga).

This seed verse (13.22) essentially encapsulates the problem of material existence, and the chapters that follow unravel its implications and the path to liberation. Chapter 14 elaborates on the three modes—sattva (goodness), rajas (passion), and tamas (ignorance)—and how they perpetuate bondage.

The 15th chapter then presents a metaphor to help us understand the nature of our entanglement. This is the famous metaphor of the upside-down tree, found in the verse:
“Urdhva-mulam adhah-shakham, ashwatham prahur-avyayam, chandamsi yasya parnani, yas tam veda sa veda-vit.”

This verse describes a peculiar tree:

• Its roots are upwards, and its branches extend downward.
• It is called ashwatha, often translated as a banyan tree, and is said to be imperishable.
• The leaves of this tree are the Vedic hymns (chandamsi).
• One who truly understands this tree is said to know the Vedas.

This statement—that understanding this tree equates to knowing the Vedas—is quite significant. Clearly, Krishna is not referring to a literal tree; this is not a botanical lesson. Instead, the tree is metaphorical, representing the material world and its entanglements.

Interestingly, Krishna does not explicitly say, “This tree represents the material world.” The metaphor is implied rather than directly stated. This requires us to use our intelligence to infer its meaning, as it is not self-evident on the surface. The deeper significance of the tree, its roots, branches, and leaves, must be uncovered through thoughtful analysis and reflection.

In today’s session, we’ll explore the structure and symbolism of this tree, its connection to Maya (illusion), and what it teaches us about the nature of the material world. By understanding this metaphor, we can gain insights into how to cut through the entanglements of material existence and move toward liberation.

Let’s begin.

In this context, we find that the metaphor of the upside-down tree in the Bhagavad Gita not only refers to the world but also helps us understand its true nature. When we grasp the essence of this tree, we can also grasp the teachings of the Vedas and learn how to navigate our lives in this world.

To begin, let’s look at the nature of the world itself. One recurring observation we can make is that something always seems to be wrong somewhere. With news constantly pouring in from around the globe, it’s clear that there are many issues at play—natural disasters, conflicts, and calamities that affect countless people. Yet beyond these specific events, there’s an underlying sense that something is fundamentally amiss in the world.

What is it that is wrong? There are a few broad categories we can consider:

1. Dissatisfaction:
   One of the most apparent issues in the world is a universal sense of dissatisfaction. People are often unhappy with what they have, with who they are, or with how the world around them operates. Even when people go on vacation or visit a resort in hopes of escaping daily life, they may still feel a nagging sense that something is wrong. This dissatisfaction is pervasive, both on a personal and global scale.
2. Moral Degradation:
   Another problem that adds to the dysfunction of the world is moral degradation. Left unchecked, humanity’s moral compass tends to decline. This isn’t about mere nostalgia for the past or moralizing about how things used to be better. It’s a recognition that human actions are directly causing harm. Whether overtly evil or covertly destructive, people’s choices and behaviors are often hurting others and the world at large.
3. Physical Destruction and Decay:
   Beyond mental and moral concerns, there is the inevitable physical deterioration of the world. Everything in the material world decays, breaks down, and is eventually destroyed. Whether through natural forces or human actions, the world faces continual decline and destruction.

To better understand these issues, we can categorize them into three types of distress:

• Adhidaivic: Distress caused by nature (e.g., natural disasters).
• Adhibhautic: Social distress (e.g., conflicts, inequality).
• Adhyatmic: Psychophysical distress (e.g., dissatisfaction, mental and emotional struggles).

These categories help us see that the dissatisfaction we feel often stems from internal struggles, external actions, and the inevitable decline of the material world.

Now, if we look at history, thinkers have long tried to comprehend the nature of the world. No one has ever truly viewed the world as a perfect place where everything is wonderful. But the pressing question remains: If the world isn’t wonderful, can it be fixed? And if so, how?

One answer comes from the idea of modernity. Modern thought proposes that human effort, especially through technological progress, can fix the world’s problems. The belief was that if we could advance technologically, we could conquer nature’s disasters, provide for our material needs, and thus alleviate our dissatisfaction. The expectation was that through progress, life would become safer and more comfortable, leading to a more harmonious existence.

A related idea is that transhumanism, a branch of science concerned with overcoming human limitations, shares some surprising similarities with the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita. Transhumanists identify the same problems the Gita points out—old age, disease, and mortality—and their solution is technological advancement. The goal is to combat these issues and extend human life indefinitely.

But even beyond these technological hopes, there was the belief that reason and rationality could bring about moral improvement. It was thought that as humanity evolved, reason would overcome ignorance and superstition, leading people to make better decisions. If people acted rationally, they would understand the consequences of their destructive behaviors and choose moral paths.

Yet, as we look at these solutions, we must ask: Are they truly addressing the root cause of the world’s problems? Is it really just a matter of more technology or better reasoning, or is there something deeper that needs to be addressed?

The First and Second World Wars were profound shocks to the modern psyche. Despite having advanced science and technology, humanity continued to behave in ways that were deeply destructive. In fact, these advancements were sometimes used to cause even greater harm. The wars demonstrated that technology alone cannot prevent mankind from making choices that lead to destruction.

Now, it’s true that certain problems can be addressed through human effort. For example, in the case of a pandemic, we work together to find cures and mitigate the disease. Specific issues like these can and should be fixed through human ingenuity. However, when we look at the world as a whole, the problem is more complex.

Some people believe that the world will be fixed by divine intervention. For instance, Christianity teaches that the Second Coming of Christ will transform the world into a paradise. This belief suggests that if we propitiate God, the world can become a place where all desires are fulfilled. This idea has also influenced movements like the “prosperity gospel” in America, which holds that worldly prosperity is a sign of God’s favor. In essence, if we satisfy God, the world will become a happier, more fulfilling place.

But the Bhagavad Gita offers a different perspective. It doesn’t promise that the world will become a perfect place for enjoyment. Rather, the Gita teaches that the purpose of life is not to indulge in worldly pleasures but to transcend the material world. The world can be fixed enough for us to carry out this transcendent purpose, but we need to approach it with the right mindset. By combining human effort with divine guidance, we can cooperate to fix the world in a way that supports our spiritual progress.

In an earlier discussion, we likened the world to a hospital, not a hotel. A hospital doesn’t provide luxury or endless comfort—it provides what is necessary for recovery. The goal is not to stay in the hospital but to transcend it. Similarly, the purpose of the world is not for enjoyment but for spiritual growth. Just as a patient must cooperate with the doctor to recover, we must cooperate with divine wisdom and intelligence to transcend the limitations of the material world.

The world is “fixable,” but this fixability depends on the intelligent cooperation between humans and the divine. Without this cooperation, the world cannot fulfill its purpose of supporting our transcendence.

This brings us to the concept of Maya, or illusion. The fundamental problem we face is not that the world is inherently evil, but that we are caught in illusion. So, what exactly is the nature of this illusion?

When we say something is wrong, is it merely an illusion? To explore this, we need to understand that illusion can occur in two ways. First, there’s illusion in perception. For example, when a stick is placed in water, it appears bent, even though it isn’t. Similarly, a mirage may appear to be water, but it is not. These are examples of how our senses can mislead us.

But is this the kind of illusion we’re talking about in the material world? Are the things we find attractive simply illusions in perception? Yes, at some level, this is true. The material world presents many things that seem appealing—attractive people, objects, experiences. But this attraction isn’t entirely illusory. The beauty or appeal we perceive is real to some extent, though it may not be what it appears to be.

This leads us to a deeper understanding of Maya. It’s not just about mistaken perception; it’s about illusion in conception. This means that we conceive of things as having purposes or meanings that they don’t actually have. We may think that the purpose of the world is to enjoy sensory pleasures, but the true purpose is spiritual growth and transcendence. This is the deeper illusion we are caught in—misunderstanding the nature and purpose of the world itself.

In the Bhagavad Gita, the metaphor of the upside-down tree is used to describe the illusory nature of the material world. This metaphor goes beyond simple perception and addresses deeper misconceptions, especially how we conceive the world and our own identities.

To illustrate this, imagine a child encountering fire for the first time. The child might mistakenly think of the fire as a toy because it looks shiny and attractive. This is not just a perceptional illusion but a deeper misconception—illusion in conception—where the child wrongly associates the fire with something safe and playful, rather than recognizing it as something dangerous. This deeper misconception is what the Gita highlights as the true form of illusion in the material world.

The Bhagavatam further explains that the fundamental illusion in the world is the belief that everything exists separately from Krishna. For example, we might find someone physically attractive, but the illusion is thinking that this attraction exists for our enjoyment. A spiritual perspective sees the attraction as a reflection of Krishna’s divine power, and the goal is to direct our attraction toward Krishna, recognizing the divine spark in everything.

Furthermore, we also experience illusion in self-identification. Just as a madman might think he is a king, we mistakenly identify ourselves as our bodies and the roles we play in society, which are temporary and not our true nature. This false self-identification contributes to the confusion and dissatisfaction we experience in life.

Ultimately, the material world itself is illusory because it encourages wrong perceptions, wrong conceptions, and false self-identifications. The upside-down tree metaphor illustrates this concept, symbolizing how the world appears to be one thing, but in truth, it is a reflection of deeper spiritual realities. Through various texts, such as the Bhagavatam and Shankaracharya’s works, this metaphor helps us understand the complex nature of the material world and the spiritual wisdom needed to transcend it.

This metaphor points to the need to perceive the world and ourselves from a spiritual perspective, recognizing the divine presence in everything rather than being trapped in illusions.

The upside-down tree metaphor in the Bhagavad Gita represents the disorienting and illusory nature of material existence. Prabhupada explains that being upside down feels unnatural and uncomfortable, much like how a thoughtful person feels something unnatural about life in this world. There’s a sense that something is wrong or off in the material world, but it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what.

When we think of the concept of “upside down,” we often imagine a reflection. In a mirror, we see an image that reverses left and right, but when something is reflected in water, it appears upside down, which is more aligned with the metaphor. The upside-down tree in the Gita signifies that the material world is a reflection of the spiritual world, but it’s distorted. This distorted reflection exists because of the conditioned soul’s desires. The desire to enjoy the material world creates the illusion, and if these desires were absent, this reflection would not exist.

The “normal tree” in this metaphor refers to the spiritual world, which is the true reality, while the upside-down tree represents the illusory material world. Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur further explains that the higher planets in the material world are closer to the roots of the upside-down tree, symbolizing that beings in higher realms are closer to reality, or spiritual truth. Conversely, those in lower realms are farther away from this truth.

Water plays a significant role in this metaphor. Just as a tree requires water for growth, the material tree grows through the influence of the three modes of nature (goodness, passion, and ignorance). The more entangled we become in these modes, the more the tree of illusion grows.

The Vedic hymns are compared to the leaves of the tree. In a tree, leaves are crucial for perpetuating the tree’s life cycle, just as the words of the Vedas nourish and sustain material existence. Krishna refers to the Vedic words as “flowery words” in the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, implying that they are part of the material illusion unless understood in the proper spiritual context. Thus, while the Vedic texts can guide us, they are also part of the reflective material world, and true understanding requires transcending this reflection to grasp the spiritual truth.

In the upside-down tree metaphor, the Vedic hymns are compared to flowers. Flowers are attractive but short-lived, symbolizing the material benefits derived from rituals in the Vedas. The Vedas offer numerous ceremonies and sacrifices designed to fulfill specific desires, such as having a child or curing a disease. These rituals, like flowers, attract us but do not provide lasting satisfaction. Even if one’s desires are fulfilled, the sense of fulfillment is temporary, and soon another desire arises, highlighting the fleeting nature of material enjoyment.

The true fruit of the material world, according to this metaphor, is distress. While one may climb the tree (engage in worldly pursuits), the ultimate outcome is suffering. Krishna often refers to the world as temporary and filled with distress, reinforcing that material pursuits lead to dissatisfaction and pain.

This metaphor emphasizes the unnaturality of material existence, portraying it as a reflection of the spiritual world. The message is clear: we should move from this illusory reflection to the reality of the spiritual world. One of the most famous Vedic aphorisms, tamasoma jyotir gama (from darkness to light) and mrityorma amritam gama (from death to immortality), suggests the journey from illusion to truth, from ignorance to knowledge, and from suffering to liberation.

To move from the reflection to the reality, Krishna advises using an “axe” (asanga shastra), a tool that can cut through attachment and illusion. By severing the attachment to the material world with spiritual wisdom, one can transcend the reflection and reach the true reality. This represents the path of liberation, where one breaks free from the cycle of material desires and suffering.

 Context: The discussion is about the metaphor of the “upside-down tree” from the Bhagavad Gita, which is often not well understood but is a significant metaphor in understanding the nature of the world.

 Background: The 13th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita explains that the soul is bound by material existence due to illusionary desires (Purusha prakriti stho hi). The 15th chapter uses the metaphor of the upside-down tree to further explain this bondage.

 The Metaphor: The “upside-down tree” is described in the verse:

• “Urdhamulam adhashakham, ashwatham prahuravyam” (Bhagavad Gita 15:1).
• The roots are upward, and the branches are downward, symbolizing a reflection of the real tree (spiritual world).
• This tree represents the material world, which is disorienting and unnatural.

 Vedic Significance: The Vedic hymns are likened to the leaves of this tree, symbolizing rituals and ceremonies that can give temporary material benefits. They are short-lived like flowers on a tree.

 The Role of the Tree:

• The tree represents the material world where we are bound by illusion.
• The roots of the tree are higher (closer to spiritual reality), and the branches are downward (symbolizing the illusionary aspects of the material world).

 Human Dissatisfaction: The world inherently has issues:

• Dissatisfaction with life, with people, and with circumstances.
• Moral degradation and the tendency for humans to harm others.
• Physical destruction and deterioration.
• The world is constantly in a state of decline, which reflects the illusionary nature of material existence.

 Maya (Illusion):

• Maya refers to the illusion in both perception and conception.
• Illusion in perception involves seeing things wrong, like mistaking a stick in water for being bent or seeing a mirage.
• Illusion in conception means misunderstanding the purpose of things, like the child mistaking fire for a toy.
• The ultimate illusion is seeing the world as separate from Krishna, the true reality.

 Fixing the World: There are different views on fixing the world:

• Human Effort: The idea of modernity suggests technology can fix the world’s problems, but the World Wars showed that technological advancement alone doesn’t solve deeper issues.
• Divine Intervention: Religious perspectives like Christianity suggest that God’s grace can fix the world, but the Bhagavad Gita suggests that we must transcend the world through spiritual wisdom, not just fix it for enjoyment.

 The Purpose of the World:

• The world is not meant for enjoying; it is a place for transcending material illusions.
• The world should be understood as a hospital, not a hotel – a place to cure our spiritual ailments, not a place for constant enjoyment.

 The Role of the Modes: The growth of the upside-down tree is nourished by the three modes of material nature. The more one gets entangled in these modes, the more the tree (material existence) grows.

 Higher and Lower Realms: The higher planets are closer to the roots (spiritual reality), and the lower realms are further away, representing the disorienting nature of material existence.

 Maya’s Illusory Nature: The world is illusory in both perception (seeing things wrong) and conception (understanding them wrongly). The ultimate illusion is to see anything separate from Krishna.

 Spiritual Liberation: The goal is to transcend the illusion of the material world and realize that everything is connected to Krishna. By understanding the world as a reflection of the spiritual reality, one can move from darkness to light and from death to immortality.

 Key Message: The upside-down tree metaphor illustrates the unnatural and illusory nature of material existence. To transcend this illusion, one must seek spiritual wisdom and move towards the reality of Krishna.

In conclusion, the metaphor of the upside-down tree from the Bhagavad Gita illustrates the illusory and disorienting nature of the material world. It suggests that the world, while appearing real, is actually a reflection of a higher spiritual reality, with the roots representing the eternal truth and the branches symbolizing the transient, illusionary aspects of material existence. The Bhagavad Gita encourages us to transcend the illusions of perception and conception, realizing that the ultimate truth lies in understanding our connection to Krishna. True liberation comes from moving beyond material attachments and recognizing the spiritual reality that underlies all of creation. The world is not meant for enjoyment, but for spiritual growth, and by overcoming the illusions of maya, one can attain enlightenment and eternal peace.

The post 41 What is the upside-down tree metaphor Gita 15.01 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

We are entering the New Year, and on such occasions we take stock of what and how we did in the previous year and what we want to do in the next. Studies have shown, and probably many of us have experienced, that most New Year’s resolutions are broken during the first week. Still more are broken in the first month, and almost all are broken within the first three months.

Why does this happen, and what can we do? We are creatures of habit. We have developed certain habits over however many years—perhaps lifetimes—and to change our habits requires sincere desire and determined effort. One study showed that when a person is trying to develop a new habit, he has to consistently, diligently, strive to adhere to the new practice for at least thirty days. After thirty days, he is able to follow more easily but can be derailed by stress or changes in his life. After ninety days, it becomes just as easy to follow the new habit as not, and after a year, it is easier to follow the new habit than not.

So, what new habits do we want to develop in the next year? That depends on our goals. When I visited Pune some years ago, the Malhotra brothers arranged a program for me in the main hall, and at the end of the talk the general in charge of the Southern Command of the Indian Army asked an important question: “What is the aim for which we are born—what is the aim of our life? It certainly could not be to amass some wealth and ultimately die, or to make a building and then die, or to marry and procreate and then die. For our minor activities in life, we have the aims set first, before we get going to achieve them. When we train our people in the army, whatever they have to do, we first tell them what the aim is. And once they are clear what the aim is, then we decide what means to adopt to achieve it. And invariably we don’t go wrong. Now here it is—to my mind, my whole life is going to waste; I am still not very clear what is the aim of my life. Would you kindly enlighten us about the aim of life so that thereafter we can be very, very clear as to what we have got to do to achieve that aim?”

Srila Sanatana Gosvami asked the same question of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu:

“ ‘ke ami’, ‘kene amaya jare tapa-traya’
iha nahi jani—kemane hita haya

“ ‘sadhya’-‘sadhana’-tattva puchite na jani
krpa kari’ saba tattva kaha ta’ apani”

“Who am I? Why do the threefold miseries always give me trouble? If I do not know this, how can I be benefited? Actually I do not know how to inquire about the goal of life and the process for obtaining it. Being merciful upon me, please explain all these truths.” (Cc Madhya 20.102–103) He said, “In ordinary dealings people consider me to be a learned scholar (pandit), but I am so learned I do not even know who I am. So please tell me who I am and what is the goal of life.” And Lord Chaitanya replied, “By constitution you are an eternal servant of Krishna—jivera ‘svarupa’ haya—krsnera ‘nitya-dasa’—and the goal of life is to be reinstated in your constitutional position as His loving servant.”

If someone understands that he is not the body, that he is the soul within the body, and that his real relationship is not with the body or things related to the body but that, as he is a spiritual soul, his real relationship is with the Supreme Soul, then he can adopt the methods that are suitable for reviving his eternal relationship with the Supreme Soul, Krishna.

Srila Prabhupada formed the International Society for Krishna Consciousness to give people this knowledge: We are not the body but the soul, part and parcel of the Supreme Soul. Our real relationship is with Him, and our duty and goal in life is to revive our eternal loving relationship with Him, with God, Krishna. The whole process of sadhana-bhakti is to help us to awaken that eternal love for God.

nitya-siddha krsna-prema ‘sadhya’ kabhu naya
sravanadi-suddha-citte karaye udaya

“Pure love for Krsna 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 22.107) That love is eternally there within the heart, just as fire is within a match. You just have to strike the match and the fire will come out. Similarly, we just have to strike the heart by chanting and hearing about Krishna and that love will come out.

The main process is the chanting of the holy names of the Lord. We are in a Hare Krishna temple. We are part of the Hare Krishna movement, and we are known as Hare Krishna people. We are meant to chant Hare Krishna. And by our chanting Hare Krishna, the mirror of our minds can be cleansed (ceto-darpana-marjanam), the blazing fire of material existence extinguished (bhava-maha-davagni-nirvapanam), and ultimately our dormant love for Krishna awakened. Param vijayate sri-krsna-sankirtanam.

But there is also the matter of the quality of the chanting. Queen Kunti prays to Lord Krishna,

janmaisvarya-sruta-sribhir
  edhamana-madah puman
naivarhaty abhidhatum vai
  tvam akincana-gocaram

“Your Lordship can easily be approached, but only by those who are materially exhausted. One who is on the path of [material] progress, trying to improve himself with respectable parentage, great opulence, high education, and bodily beauty, cannot approach You with sincere feeling.” (SB 1.8.26) People on the path of material advancement want good birth (janma), material opulence (aisvarya), material learning (sruta), and physical beauty (sribhih). They cannot approach the Lord with feeling. And when we chant the holy name, we are trying to approach the Lord. The holy name of Krishna and Krishna Himself are the same.

nama cintamanih krsnas
  caitanya-rasa-vigrahah
purnah suddho nitya-mukto
  ’bhinnatvan nama-naminoh

“The holy name of Krsna is transcendentally blissful. It bestows all spiritual benedictions, for it is Krsna Himself, the reservoir of all pleasure. Krsna’s name is complete, and it is the form of all transcendental mellows. It is not a material name under any condition, and it is no less powerful than Krsna Himself. Since Krsna’s name is not contaminated by the material qualities, there is no question of its being involved with maya. Krsna’s name is always liberated and spiritual; it is never conditioned by the laws of material nature. This is because the name of Krsna and Krsna Himself are identical.” (Padma Purana, Cc Madhya 17.133)

Commenting on Kunti’s prayer, Srila Prabhupada cites scripture, that by uttering the holy name of the Lord even once, one can destroy the reactions to more sins than one is able to commit. “Such is the power of uttering the holy name of the Lord. There is not the least exaggeration in this statement. Actually, the Lord’s holy name has such powerful potency.” We are all suffering because of sinful reactions. If we were freed from sinful reactions, we would no longer have to suffer. As Prabhupada explains, however, “there is a quality to such utterances also. It depends on the quality of feeling. A helpless man can feelingly utter the holy name of the Lord, whereas a man who utters the same holy name in great material satisfaction cannot be so sincere.” Lord Krishna is akincana-gocaram, easily approached by those who are akincana, who have no material possessions.

Now, these statements may give rise to some questions. This word akincana means “without material possessions,” or “without a sense of false proprietorship.” Of course, there should be no duplicity in the matter, but this principle allows us, for example, to have an opulent temple. We may have a beautiful property, but as long as we remember, “This is Krishna’s property. This is Srila Prabhupada’s property. It is not my property; I am here only to serve them and use this property in their service,” we can be free from false proprietorship, false prestige, and false designations. And in that mood we can chant the holy name with feeling, approach Krishna with feeling. Otherwise, there is a subtle rivalry going on between us and Krishna. We come into the material world out of envy of Krishna. In effect, we want to take His position. We want to be the proprietor and controller and enjoyer (isvaro ’ham aham bhogi), which is actually Krishna’s position. While chanting Krishna’s name, we may be thinking, “Why should I be chanting Krishna’s name? People should be chanting my name—‘Giriraj Maharaja ki jaya!’ ” That is our sorry plight. We don’t want Krishna to be the center; we want to be the center. So, we chant the holy name with ourselves in the foreground and the holy name in the background. That is our tendency as conditioned souls.

The proper process is to chant with attention. We let go of all those thoughts about ourselves—“I” and “me” and “mine”—and focus on the holy name, on Krishna. Those other thoughts are irrelevant. They may come up, but we don’t pay them heed. We just focus our attention on Krishna, on the sound of Krishna’s holy name. And when we do that, we can actually feel His presence. We can appreciate that the holy name is Krishna Himself reciprocating with our sincere desires to serve Him.

This practice requires effort. We are habituated to think that we are the center of existence and that everything revolves around us. We see everything in terms of ourselves, not in terms of Krishna. But our habits can change. There is a saying that up to the age of twenty, you think that people are looking at you and like you, from the age of twenty to forty that they are looking at you and don’t like you, and then, after the age of forty, that they aren’t even looking at you or thinking of you. So, we have to reform this habit of thinking that we’re the center, always thinking about ourselves and that everyone else is thinking about us, too. We must know that Krishna is the center.

Once, when I was chanting my rounds at the beach in Carpinteria, I was sitting alone, chanting with attention—making a serious effort to be attentive—somehow thinking of different people who were close to me, and feeling how much they were suffering. I was actually feeling their pain. As I continued chanting, that sense of feeling for others expanded to people who weren’t so close to me, and then to the people on the beach, whom I didn’t even know. There weren’t many, but there were a few people surfing. And I was really feeling their suffering. Srila Prabhupada had joked that the surfers were actually “sufferers,” but I was actually feeling their suffering.

Then the feeling went beyond the human beings. There were pelicans at the beach. They fly very high and then suddenly zoom down and crash into the water. I understood that they were hovering high in the sky looking for prey and that when they saw some potential food they came straight down and crashed into the water. Ordinarily I would think, “Oh, how picturesque—flying so high and then diving into the ocean.” But now I was feeling, “They are in anxiety. They are hungry. They need food and are searching: ‘Where is food? Where is food?’ And when they see something and dive straight down and crash into the water, although they are birds, still, coming from that height at that velocity and crashing into the water is bound to be a shock to their system. And they don’t know whether they will actually get that fish or not. And whatever happens, after they come down, they go up and start the same process all over again. They are never satisfied—‘Now we can just relax.’ ” I was thinking, “What a life, full of anxiety, full of pain!”—and feeling it.

And the dolphins and the sandpipers and the seagulls—the same thing. I was feeling so much suffering on all sides. It was as if the illusion of material happiness and charm had been lifted, and this whole beautiful panorama became a horrible scene of intense suffering, which I was feeling. And I was just chanting, chanting, chanting. Then a little ladybug landed on my hand. Growing up, I thought that ladybugs were auspicious and cute. But this time I looked at the ladybug and thought, “This ladybug is suffering”—and, again, feeling it. Looking at the ladybug, I thought, “I don’t think I can take much more of this. I am feeling too much suffering; I am going to have a breakdown.” I wanted to help these creatures. I was feeling their suffering and desiring to help them, but it was getting to be too much.

Then I had the type of breakthrough that one gets when one chants with attention, with an effort to chant with attention. Suddenly I felt as if Krishna were speaking to me, revealing something to me. I got the intuition, or inspiration, in my heart that Krishna loves these creatures more than I do, more than I can even imagine. He loves them so much that He accompanies them as the Supersoul in whatever species of life they enter. And not only does He love them more than I can ever imagine, but He can actually do something to help them. I may feel for them and want to help them, but what is my capacity to help them? I may not even understand what’s troubling them. Parents sometimes experience that their baby is crying and they want to help but don’t know what the baby wants. They may think the baby is hungry, but the baby may be troubled by something completely different. Or even if they do understand what is causing the suffering, they may be unable to relieve it.

So, I was thinking, “Not only does Krishna love them, but He can actually do something to help them.” And then I came to the bottom of it. The problem was that I was trying to take the position of Krishna. In the Bhagavad-gita (5.29) Lord Krishna says,

bhoktaram yajna-tapasam
  sarva-loka-mahesvaram
suhrdam sarva-bhutanam
  jnatva mam santim rcchati

“A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries.”

When one recognizes that Krishna is the enjoyer, Krishna is the proprietor, Krishna is the best friend, one attains peace. I thought of what Srila Prabhupada often said, so simple yet profound—that your best friend is not he or she who poses as your best friend but he or she who tells you that Krishna is your best friend. Suddenly this whole problem of how to help these suffering souls became very easy. I didn’t have to help them personally; I just had to direct them to Krishna, who could really help them. And it was such a relief.

So, this is our mission: to serve Krishna. And serving Krishna means doing what Krishna wants, and Krishna wants that we should bring other souls to Him. As He says at the end of the Bhagavad-gita (18.69), His dearmost servant is he who preaches the message of the Gita. Na ca tasman manusyesu kascin me priya-krttamah/ bhavita na ca me tasmad anyah priyataro bhuvi: “There is no servant in this world more dear to Me than he, nor will there ever be one more dear.” Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also said, yare dekha, tare kaha ‘krsna’-upadesa: “Wherever you go, whomever you meet, just present the message of Krishna.” And that is something any of us can do. It is actually very easy. Any of us can do it.

When devotees, myself among them, first came to Bombay, two of Prabhupada’s early disciples, Shyamasundar and Malati, had a small daughter, Sarasvati, who used to approach respectable gentlemen who visited our center. Although only three or four years old, she would approach them and say, “Do you know who is Krishna?” And then she would answer, “Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” Srila Prabhupada commented, “That is preaching. She is repeating what she has heard from authorities, and even if she doesn’t have full realization, what she is saying is perfect, because she has heard it from authorities—Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” So, any of us can preach. We can simply repeat what we have heard from authorities—“Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” “Chant Hare Krishna and your life will be sublime.” “Come to the Hare Krishna temple.” And that will please Krishna.

When I noted devotees here on book distribution, in December, I could feel the enthusiasm to distribute Srila Prabhupada’s books. I thought, Srila Prabhupada is pleased. They have the spirit to distribute his books. The books are as potent and effective now as ever. So many people I meet—when I ask them how they came to Krishna consciousness, it goes back to a book. They got a book. The formula that Srila Prabhupada gave us over forty years ago still works. By giving them Prabhupada’s books, we are giving them Krishna and Prabhupada, the message of Krishna through Prabhupada, and that is enough to awaken their sense of Krishna consciousness and begin them on the path. Many of us are here because of Srila Prabhupada’s books.

So, we should try to develop the habit of putting Krishna in the center, putting the holy name in the center, putting Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Srila Prabhupada and their mission in the center, and that will make all the difference. Our spouse can be there, our children can be there, our house can be there, our work can be there—everything can be there—but with Krishna in the center, everything will be beautiful and peaceful. And as long as we persist in habits that may have been with us for many lifetimes—thinking that we are the center, we are the lords, we are the enjoyers, we are the proprietors—there will be so many problems, and in the end whatever we have will be taken away from us anyway.

So, it is most auspicious that we are beginning the New Year in the association of devotees. My request is that we use this coming year, and this valuable human form of life, for their proper purpose, in Krishna consciousness, and that in this endeavor we help and support one another. We can’t do it alone. And I pray that I can always remain in the association of such wonderful devotees, because I am sure that in this association, hearing their instructions, I will be nudged along on the right path, back home, back to Godhead.

Hare Krishna.

[Adapted from a talk by Giriraj Swami, January 2, 2010, Bhaktivedanta Manor, England]

 

 

By Vijaya Das

The end of the year is almost upon us and what a year it's been. We haven't had such a successful year since 1983! In the Large Temples category, the temple that increased the most last month was Melbourne, Australia, with 15,495 book points. One reason they did so big was that the #1 book distributor in the world serves in Melbourne and--surprise, surprise--that distributor is a Vaisnavi! Mahalaxmi devi dasi earned 5,215 book points, the first time in decades that the top distributor is a lady. May Mataji inspire more Vaisnavis to go out and receive Lord Caitanya's mercy because she definitely received it last month. Among the Medium Temples, Perm, Russia, increased the most with 3,967 book points. We haven't heard much from Russia since the war with Ukraine began, so it's nice to see Perm back up on the charts. Must be a lot of prem in Perm! Continue reading "WSN November 2024 – World Sankirtan Newsletter
→ Dandavats"

Krishna’s Home is a dedicated assisted living facility specifically designed for devotees of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). Located in Tucson, Arizona, this unique haven offers a nurturing environment for individuals seeking support in their later years while remaining connected to their spiritual community. Overview of Krishna’s Home Krishna’s Home is designed to
Read More...

By Dandavats Staff Writer (Based on the North American RGB Rules and Regulations found here This document outlines the rules and regulations for the North American Regional Governing Body (RGB) of ISKCON. It details the RGB’s composition, including its membership (GBC members, Zonal Supervisors, Temple Presidents, and ex officio members), election procedures, and responsibilities. The
Read More...

Uddharana Datta Ṭhākura, the eleventh among the twelve cowherd boys, was an exalted devotee of Lord Nityananda Prabhu. He worshiped the lotus feet of Lord Nityananda in all respects.

The gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā, verse 129, states that Uddharana Datta Ṭhākura was formerly the cowherd boy of Vrndavan named Subāhu. Uddharana Datta Ṭhākura, previously known as Śrī Uddharana Datta, was a resident of Saptagrama, which is situated on the bank of the Saravati River near the Triśabighā railway station in the district of Hugalī. 

In the Caitanya Bhagavat, Antya-Kanda,Chapter Five, it is said that Uddharana Datta was an extremely elevated and liberal Vaisnava. He was born with the right to worship Nityananda Prabhu. It is also stated that Nityananda Prabhu, after staying for some time in Khaḍadaha, came to Saptagrama and stayed in the house of Uddharana Datta.

In Saptagrama there is still a temple with a six-armed Deity of Śrī Caitanya Mahaprabhu that was personally worshiped by Śrīla Uddharana Ṭhākura. On the right side of Śrī Caitanya Mahaprabhu is a Deity of Śrī Nityananda Prabhu, and on the left side is Gadadhara Prabhu.

There are also a Radha-Govinda murti and a salagrama-sila, and below the throne is a picture of Śrī Uddharana Datta Ṭhākura. In front of the temple there is now a big hall, and in front of the hall is a Madhavi-lata plant. The temple is in a very shady, cool and nicely situated location.

Govindas restaurants, affiliated with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), are renowned for their commitment to vegetarian cuisine that is both spiritually and physically nourishing. These dining establishments, found in various cities around the globe, serve meals that are not only delicious but also prepared with a unique spiritual significance. ## **Culinary Philosophy** At
Read More...

Bhaktivedanta Manor, nestled in the serene Hertfordshire countryside near Watford, England, is a remarkable spiritual sanctuary that attracts thousands of visitors each year. This stunning estate, originally a mock Tudor mansion gifted to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) by George Harrison in 1973, spans 78 acres and features lush gardens, an organic farm,
Read More...

Hare Krishna. Welcome to our session on the Gita ki verses. Today we’ll be discussing the topic of why is life so tough and if God loves us, why doesn’t he make our life easier? So this is based on a well-known verse from the Gita 8.15, which often strikes people as pessimistic.

Maa mupetya punar janma, dukkhaal ema shaashvatam, naapnuvanti mahatmanaha, samsiddhim parmaam gathaha.

Krishna is in this section of the Gita stressing the importance of spiritual practice by contrasting the nature of the material and the spiritual worlds. In the previous sessions in the 7th chapter, through various angles, we discussed how God manifests in this world in various ways. And then in the 8th chapter, which is in Sanskrit called Akshara Brahma Yoga (the imperishable Brahman or attaining the Lord at the time of death), the idea is stressed on the temporality, the temporariness of the world and thereby focus on the transcendence, the transcendental reality.

So this verse says, “maa mupetya,” those who attain me, “punar janma,” birth again, “dukkhaal ema shaashvatam.” So this world is dukkhaalaya; the word “alaya” means abode, like the word Himalaya. Himalaya is a place where “hima” means snow, so it is a place of snow. So similarly, this world is a place of distress, “dukkhaal ema shaashvatam” and it is temporary.

They will not come again to this world; they are mahatmas. “Mana” is mind, “maha” is great. So these great-minded people, these great souls, “samsiddhim parmaam gataha,” because they have attained the supreme destination, “parmaam samsiddhim,” completely attained.

So it’s interesting, in this verse, the stress is not so much on the point that the world is a place of distress, but that a destination beyond this distressful world can be attained by those who are devoted to Krishna. So it’s almost like a given truth. It’s something which doesn’t even need to be questioned or discussed. Suppose if someone says that, “If I get a better paying job, then I’ll move out of this locality and I won’t have to come back here.” So when somebody makes a statement like that, it’s implied that that locality is not a good locality to live in. So when somebody is having a discussion like that, not only is that implied, but it’s implied in a way that doesn’t even require discussion or justification. It’s assumed that it’s like a self-evident truth. So we’ll start with that as our discussion today. We’ll be discussing three points: how there’s a universal spiritual truth that has been taught by many of the world’s traditions.

And then, based on the understanding of that truth, we will look at what love means. First, we look at a naive understanding of love and then we look at a deeper understanding of love. Here, we’ll be talking about love in terms of appreciating God’s love for us and then expressing our love for God.

So what is this universal spiritual truth? That across traditions, this is something which has been commonly taught. Say, for example, in the Bible, it is said that the world is a veil of tears. And this world is a place where so many distresses will come upon us that eventually we will cry. And a veil indicates it’s like a valley. It’s something which is deep and dark, and we have to pass through it. And Dukkha is considered in Buddhism to be the first noble truth. Dukkha that is called that.

Now different philosophers have argued about their particular philosophies. And some people may say that this world is unreal or whatever. Say, our selfhood itself is unreal. That the idea of God is unreal. Well, okay, all these things can be argued and counter-argued for. But at a practical, experiential level, distress argues for itself. When pain comes in our life, it can be overwhelming. Pain argues for itself. So we might or might not believe in, say, the existence of a soul, of another world, of God, or even of this world. But when pain comes, we can’t deny the existence of that pain.

So now, it is echoing such universal spiritual teachings across traditions. So if we consider Christianity to be the prominent representation of Western religious systems, although it originated in the Middle East, it spread across the West. And Buddhism as a prominent Eastern religious system, which is also now spread across the West significantly. So the Gita, in many ways, predates both of them. And the Gita is saying the same thing several thousands of years ago that this world is an abode of distress.

So now, what is the point of understanding this? Without some ground level understanding of things, we may have unrealistic expectations. Say, for example, if somebody is going through a desert, and say now a child is being taken to a desert by the parents. The parents may love the child, but whatever they do, the heat of the desert is simply going to be the fact of life over there. You can try to protect yourselves by having a fan or something like that, but the heat is a given fact. Now if that given fact itself is not accepted, then what happens? Then the child might start chronically complaining to the parents, “Now why is it so hot? Why did you bring me here? Why are you not protecting me from the heat?”

But no, there are certain given truths. So that the world is a place of distress is, or was, we could say a given truth in pre-modern times. But often in our world, in our times, the word belief has a negative connotation. Believers are often looked down upon because the idea is that generally the word believer is associated with God. And it is said that how can you believe in something which you have never seen? So belief is looked down upon. But belief is a feature of the human psyche itself. And now, what we believe in can vary, but we all believe in something or the other.

So in modern society, one of the most foundational beliefs is that the world is a place of enjoyment and life is already enjoyable or will soon become enjoyable with some material progress. Now material progress can refer to technological advancement, or it can also refer to some mental adjustment. Just change your attitude and life will become enjoyable. It’s almost dogmatic. There are many thinkers who try to have a progressive view of history. A progressive view of history means that they try to say that life in the past was bad, and now it is better, and in the future, it will become even better. Now, in the last century, with the two world wars, it literally devastated this idea, this progressive view of history. Because in the last one century, and even the last century itself, the first half of the last century, more people were killed in violent warfare than were killed in the preceding 19th century combined together. So it was devastation. Unfortunately, human memory can be incredibly short-lived. And thus, till this corona pandemic hit the world, the last 50 or 60 years after the Second World War, we enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity.

And the idea again became prominent that life is enjoyable. Of course, we have mental distress and we’re trying to deal with that. So the point here is not that, just like if a person is going through a desert, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do anything to protect ourselves from the heat. But we also understand that the heat is going to be there and we start with that baseline expectation or baseline acceptance, we could say. Then, okay, it’s going to be hot. Now, let me see what I can do about it. But if I’m resenting, “Why is it hot? Why is it hot? Why is it hot?” then that baseline expectation itself is a problem. So the world is a place of distress, and this modern belief that life is enjoyable or will soon become enjoyable, this sets us up for frustration.

Why is the world a place of distress? We have discussed this topic earlier in our sessions. So there is a purpose. So this particular verse, when it says that if you focus on Krishna, then you won’t attain this world, which is a place of distress. What that means is that in one sense, attaining Krishna is the purpose of the world. And then if that purpose is fulfilled, then there’s no need for being in this world. So in that sense, the world is like a hospital. And the purpose of the hospital is to treat and cure the patient. Say if somebody is infected by the coronavirus, then if there’s a severe infection, they will be hospitalized, or even if not hospitalized, they are quarantined.

Now, being quarantined, being isolated, being immobilized is not a pleasant thing. But for a particular purpose, it is done till we become cured. And then after that, we can resume our normal activities. So if you understand the purpose, then it’s easier to bear some difficulty, whatever might be there. So the purpose is the healing of our consciousness. What does healing mean? A diseased consciousness is a consciousness that is attached to matter and that is constricted because of the attachment to matter. Matter is temporary, spirit is eternal. If our consciousness expands to the eternal spiritual level, then that is the purpose of existence. And once that purpose is fulfilled, then the Bhagavad Gita says we do not have to be present in this world of distress. Just like there is a hospital, but there is a whole world beyond the hospital.

So an implicit truth in pre-modern cultures was that there is a world beyond this world and that world is life’s ultimate purpose. So in the light of the purpose, the statement doesn’t seem so pessimistic. Otherwise, the world is the place of distress. Why are we so pessimistic? But if we say the hospital is the place where there will be pain. Oh, okay. But it’s not that somebody has to live in the hospital forever, especially if the disease is curable and a cure is available. Then the person can soon go to the hospital. So the Gita’s stress is, in this verse, on taking the cure.

So to take the cure, we need to understand what is the disease and then take the treatment. So this is an example of a purpose-centered expression of love. This will be a segue to our next point: that if a bird gives birth to a baby, normally birds reproduce through eggs. Now the egg, the baby bird has to crack the shell on its own. The mother bird does not crack the shell in nature. Why? Because the baby bird has to grow and develop the strength by which it can crack the shell. Similarly, our consciousness is constricted right now. We have various material attachments with which our consciousness is constricted and we need to break those attachments. So breaking the shell is vital. And for breaking that shell, whatever is required, we need to do that.

So the purpose of the world is to heal our consciousness from its diseased attached condition based on centered matter to a spiritual level. So a naive understanding of love, let’s look at this and then we’ll look at a deeper understanding of love. So a naive understanding of love is sometimes love can defeat the purpose of love. So overprotection can be underprotection. Say for example, parents, naturally parents love their children and they want to protect their children. Now one vital aspect of protecting one’s child is preparing one’s child for the future. So especially in life, there are problems, in the world there are disagreeable people and every individual has to learn to deal with these on their own.

Now of course, in the growth journey, when the child is very small, the parent, especially the mother, actually protects the child. So when a child cries in the middle of the night, the mother doesn’t tell the child, “This is not the right time to cry, shut up and go to sleep.” But no, that time the child has no awareness of anything and then the mother immediately, in one sense, unconditionally offers love to the child. Now as the child grows up, the child is expected to behave in a particular way. Now that doesn’t mean that every aspect of the behavior has to be stereotyped, but if there is a basic decent, polite behavior, then other children want to play with the child. Now other people want to be with that child.

So if the parents don’t discipline the child in that way to regulate the behavior, then what happens? When the child grows up, the child becomes disagreeable, nobody wants to be with that child, and then that loneliness, that isolation can be actually much more painful than some amount of discipline given earlier by which you may want to act like that, you may want to speak like this, but no, you cannot speak like this, you cannot do like this. So there has to be some amount of discipline required. So overprotection, what are we meaning here by overprotection? That one part of protection is preparation.

So in life, each of us eventually has to fight our own battles, and if somebody else keeps fighting the battles for us, then we don’t grow up and that is unhealthy, that is counterproductive. So this is the key point: that if we think that love means that somebody else will fight our battles, then that is a misunderstanding of love and this is not just in the parent-child relationship, but this dynamic applies everywhere. Now if we consider help that can harm, that happens say in the arena of social service, where social service can lead to disservice. How? Suppose somebody is an addict and they are given handouts. Now many addicts, if they get some free money, they get some dole, they may use it not to get food or some basic hygiene or basic requirements for health, they may just use it to drink or get stoned.

So what happens? The intent might be to help and in that sense, one is expressing one’s care, one’s concern, one’s love, but it is a help that harms the other person and if the addict has that expectation that say that if people care for me, then they should give me the object of their addiction, then that is a distorted understanding of love. So now when naturally, if you consider the previous example, this example, that when an addict does not get the object that they want, then it causes distress and it’s not just psychological distress, sometimes there can be physical withdrawal symptoms which are painful, but still, protecting the addict from that pain means that not just simply giving the addiction to the addict substance that will continue the addiction but helping them deal with that pain.

The Role of Distress and Love in Growth:

1. Attachment and Co-dependency:
   • In relationships, especially when dealing with addictions (e.g., alcoholism), there can be a phenomenon called co-dependency, where a partner enables harmful behavior by covering up the consequences.
   • Helping an addict involves knowing when to shield them from consequences and when to allow them to face the results of their actions in order to learn and grow. This is akin to a parent allowing a child to face consequences to learn responsibility.
2. God’s Relationship with Us:
   • God (Krishna) does not enable us to continue in our attachment to material things. While life’s difficulties may arise due to our attachment, these challenges are not an indication that God doesn’t love us.
   • Distress in life, like a tragedy in a movie, does not solely come from the temporary nature of the world; it stems from our emotional entanglement with transient things. Krishna wants us to shift our consciousness from material attachments to higher spiritual understanding.
3. Growth Through Distress:
   • Distress is often seen as an obstacle, but it can be a path to growth. Just as discomfort in a hospital motivates us to heal and leave, life’s difficulties prompt us to awaken and grow spiritually.
   • The Bhagavad Gita teaches that life’s struggles are not signs of God’s lack of care, but rather, they serve as opportunities for spiritual awakening and growth.
4. The Deeper Meaning of Love:
   • True love involves preparing loved ones for challenges, not just protecting them from them. Just like a mother bird lets its chick struggle to break the shell, love helps individuals grow by facing difficulties.
   • In the case of Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna’s empowerment did not mean that Arjuna would be free of obstacles. Rather, Krishna provided the strength to face and overcome those challenges. Empowerment from Krishna meant gaining the strength to endure distress and continue on the path of righteousness.

So although victory was assured for Arjuna, that does not mean that victory came painlessly. Just like if a person is sick, when there is sickness, there is going to be some distress. If a doctor says, “Okay, now we have found a cure for your sickness,” just having a cure—even a cure that works—does not necessarily mean that the treatment is going to be painless. Sometimes we evaluate the treatment based on whether it is removing my pain right away, rather than on whether it is actually curing the underlying disease. So that may not be the best criteria for evaluating the treatment.

Similarly, if we think that God’s love means that the world will no longer be a place of distress, that is a misconception. Krishna loves us as we are, but He loves us too much to let us stay as we are. We discussed this theme earlier—whether God’s love is conditional or unconditional. It’s unconditional in the sense that He always loves us, wherever we are, however we are. But it’s also conditional in the sense that He wants us to grow, He wants us to develop. He loves us too much to let us stay as we are. This again brings us back to the example of parents and children. Now, should parents love their child conditionally or unconditionally? At one level, we may say, “Of course, you should love unconditionally. Whatever you do, I am with you.” That’s true, but as I said earlier, parents also have to discipline the child.

What parenting studies have shown is that children thrive best when there is an atmosphere of love that is both conditional and unconditional. That means, “Yes, whatever happens, I value you, I love you,” but at the same time, “I want you to develop your potential. I want you to become all that you can be,” and that means there has to be some amount of discipline, some amount of dedication. Somebody has to do the disciplining, somebody has to instill the dedication. That’s why, quite often, there is a traditional family structure—nuclear family—where there are two parents. Then one parent can offer unconditional love, and the other parent can offer conditional love. If it’s one parent alone, and that parent has to offer both conditional and unconditional love, that becomes very difficult. Single parents might be very dedicated, but parenting is not one person’s job intrinsically.

So the point here is that God’s love is both conditional and unconditional. It’s unconditional in the sense that no matter how attached we may be or how many distresses may be in our life, Krishna is always there in our hearts with us. He never abandons us. He stays always with us, always ready to help us. He’s the well-wisher of everyone. Simultaneously, He wants us to grow. He wants us to develop our potential, and if we don’t do that, then we are missing out on the joy that comes from expanding our consciousness, from linking with the eternal, from developing a personal relationship with the Divine and experiencing unending joy thereof. And He doesn’t want us to be deprived of that.

That’s why the idea here is that the world is a distressful place. But this distress doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist or that God doesn’t care. It means that we need to expand our consciousness beyond this world. We need to learn to see that our stable attachment, our enduring purpose, is not something in this world. When we change our expectation from God, then we’ll find that God’s love is always with us. If we expect that the distresses of the world go away, then they may not go away. Of course, they will go away at times, but they will not necessarily go away according to our time or our plan. But if we see that we want a shelter for our consciousness beyond this world, and we seek that in God, then we’ll find that shelter is available. If we turn towards Krishna and try to absorb ourselves in Him through the practice of bhakti, then that shelter will be available for us. And in experiencing that shelter through absorption in Krishna, we’ll find that His love for us is always available.

So, I’ll summarize what I spoke about today and then we can have a few questions. I started by talking on this topic: Why is life so tough? If God loves us, why do we still have problems in life?

So, three points: First, I discussed how it’s a universal understanding that was present in pre-modern times. Whether we talk about Christianity, which says that the world is a veil of tears, or Buddhism, which says distress (dukkha) is life’s first truth, or the Bhagavad Gita itself, which says, “This is dukkha-leya-mishasvatam.” It’s a universal understanding. Like if the desert is going to be hot, the modern belief is that life is enjoyable or life can soon become enjoyable if we just make some adjustments. There can be some material physical development or there can be some mental adjustment. No, the fact remains that the world is a place of distress. Now, this is not pessimistic because implicit in the spiritual texts is the idea that there is a life beyond this world.

It’s like the world is a hospital and there is a world—and our home—beyond the hospital. The purpose of the distress, in one sense, is that we expand our consciousness beyond matter to spirit. And what makes this world stressful? Firstly, it is a material world where things are temporary. Secondly, it is our attachment to those temporary things. The fact that there is a tragedy movie on TV does not necessarily make us feel bad. It is when we get emotionally involved in the movie that we feel bad.

Then we discussed the naive understanding of love and the deeper understanding of love. Three examples: if parents pamper the child and overprotect the child, actually overprotection means underprotection. It works out to be that the child will not be prepared to face life’s challenges. The love defeats the purpose of love when the parents don’t prepare the child. Similarly, charity that is used by addicts to further their addiction: the state may want to help, but the help harms. The third example was of a codependent partner of an addict: if the addict’s partner or significant other tries to keep covering up the problems, then not having to endure the consequences of one’s actions may make the addict continue those actions. Enduring the consequences can often be a deterrent to repeating those actions.

So, God does not want to become our codependent when we have an unhealthy relationship with matter, and because of our attachment to it. Then we talked about how God loves us as we are, but He loves us too much to let us stay as we are.

Children thrive best in a relationship, in a parental relationship, where the love is both conditional and unconditional. Unconditional in the sense that they accept you however you are, but conditional in the sense that you have so much potential and you need to discipline yourself to develop that potential. The example of the bird in the shell: the bird does not crack the shell for the baby bird; the baby bird has to do it on its own.

We discussed Arjuna. Krishna empowered Arjuna, but Arjuna being empowered didn’t mean that he didn’t face any problems. Rather, he got the strength by Krishna’s grace to face the problems. So, rather than expecting life to be problem-free, if we expect that life is purposeful in terms of always sticking to the purpose of expanding our consciousness, then we will find that Krishna’s inner presence, which gives us the strength to face life’s problems, can be experienced through the practice of bhakti. And therein, we will experience God’s love for us.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments?

In this discussion, we address how to prioritize activities in bhakti when time is limited and the nature of distress in life. Here’s a summary:

1. Prioritizing Bhakti Activities: In bhakti, there are many activities to engage in, but it’s crucial to focus on the “big things” that nourish us spiritually. These include regular sadhana (spiritual practice) and studying scriptures. When time is limited, it’s helpful to choose one activity and commit to it for a set period, such as a month, and dedicate yourself to it regardless of external circumstances. This creates a steady connection with Krishna and shows seriousness about spiritual growth.
2. Dynamic Nature of Life: Life is dynamic, and our priorities might change depending on the context. For instance, while driving, you may listen to a class, but if there’s heavy traffic, that may become impractical. In such cases, you shift your focus temporarily but keep the overall purpose in mind, adjusting priorities accordingly.
3. Purpose Provides Perspective: The key to navigating daily life is remembering your ultimate purpose. While driving, for example, your goal may be to reach your destination, but you can also use that time productively by listening to spiritual content. Having a clear purpose helps you prioritize tasks and revisit your goals to ensure you’re moving in the right direction.
4. Distress in Life: Karma or Nature of the World?: When we face distress, it can be difficult to pinpoint the exact cause. There are two ways to approach understanding distress: analysis and synthesis. Analysis involves breaking down the causes, such as past karma or the nature of the world. However, in real life, it’s often a combination of both. The world is inherently full of distress (dukkha), but specific events might also arise due to our own actions (karma). When we face difficulties, we analyze the situation to see if our actions contributed to the problem, but we also recognize that distress may arise simply because it’s a feature of life itself. Both perspectives are complementary, and synthesizing them helps us respond pragmatically.

The idea is to face life’s challenges with awareness and humility, understanding that some things are beyond our control, while others can be addressed through self-correction.

So, if somebody is having some severe relationship problems, then we try to introspect, analyze, and see what it is that we could do to improve the relationship. And we all can do certain things. At the same time, we all have certain basic natures. And different people have different degrees of compatibility. So, we don’t want to, in the sense of taking, there is one thing is taking responsibility and the other is blaming. Now, we understand that blaming someone else is a problem. But we may not understand that blaming ourselves can also be problematic.

So, what is the difference between taking responsibility and blaming ourselves?

So, if somebody has fallen down, taking responsibility means, “Hey, I was careless. I didn’t notice the water over there, that’s why I slipped and fell. Let me get up, let me rise up, and start walking.” That is taking responsibility. Blaming means somebody has fallen down, and you say, “You stupid fool, can’t you watch? You are so stupid, you will keep falling down.”

So, somebody stands next to a person who has fallen down and keeps pounding, beating that person.

So, now in our case, we might do like that: “Oh, I’m so stupid, I’m so sinful, I’m so fallen.” And if by that attitude we keep beating ourselves up, then that is unhealthy.

So, that’s the way we have to, the key principle is whether we analyze the cause of our suffering in terms of some action that we have done or the generic nature of the world being Dukkhalan. The key principle is that we need to feel encouraged to rise and resume our forward motion in life, our movement toward Krishna, our service to Krishna, our journey toward Krishna. If we don’t feel inspired that way, then something is wrong, and we need to revisit our understanding of things and get a more constructive understanding.

If someone lives a life of luxury and comfort and they don’t experience distress at all, the statement that the world is a place of distress seems to be like a statement by which people are being forced to turn toward God. Yeah, that’s possible. We all have a certain amount of karma that we have done in our previous lives. And some people may have done a lot of good karma in their previous lives, by which they have a life of comfort and luxury in this life. And when they have that kind of life, then what happens by that? They may relatively experience less distress in this life, particularly.

So, ideally speaking, that less distress should be seen as less distraction from spiritual life. Somebody doesn’t have to worry too much about how to earn a livelihood. Then they can focus on something bigger. But unfortunately, they may start obsessing over something smaller. They might start pandering to their senses and just neglecting life’s bigger responsibilities, and that would be unfortunate.

So, every situation brings with it some pluses and minuses. And from the Bhagavad Gita’s perspective, if somebody is having a relatively happy life, there are degrees of distress and there are degrees of happiness. Some people may have relatively less distress in their lives. And that’s fine. We understand that past karma can act as a buffer to some extent to life’s sufferings. But still, even they have to grow old; eventually, they have to get diseased, they have to die. Those can’t be avoided. And sometimes if somebody has had a very comfortable life, then their death can actually be quite painful because they may become attached to their life as they’re living it and then losing that can be extremely painful.

So now as far as whether God is forcing us? No, there’s a difference between warning and threatening. That is, say, somebody holds a gun to our head and says, “You do this, otherwise I’ll shoot you.” That is a threat. But if we are driving on a road and there’s a notice over there that says, “Slow down, sharp curve ahead,” and say there’s a picture showing that you’ll fly off a cliff and fall down, you may die because of that. There’s a picture like that. Now, that is not a threat. That is a warning. Generally, the difference between a threat and a warning is that when the person is threatening, that very person is personally involved in making us suffer the particular action, particular thing that they are threatening. Whereas a warning is, “This is how things are, and therefore guard yourself.”

So it’s not that Krishna personally causes suffering to people who do not align with life’s purpose, who do not live spiritually. But there is a nature to the world, and those who live in material consciousness get attached to temporary things. They suffer when those temporary things are taken away. So Krishna is not personally inflicting suffering on people who are wrongdoers. There is a law of karma, and according to that law, things happen. So in that sense, the statement is not a forcible threat. It’s just an intelligent warning.

So how can we explain the message of the Gita to those who do not believe in the Gita? We need to see what is their particular need and see how we can address that need at that particular time. And generally, people’s felt need needs to be addressed before their actual need can be addressed. Just like going back to the doctor’s example. If a patient is in pain, now the patient may not understand what is the root cause. The patient basically feels the pain, and if the doctor addresses the pain, the patient feels good. So an ideal treatment involves both a medicine for curing the disease and for addressing the pain.

So now, in the case when somebody’s going through distress, we also need to be there to emotionally support the person as much as we can. So now, when Abhimanyu passes away, Krishna does not throw philosophy at that person. Krishna basically states that in this world, distress visits everyone, but in great people, the character of a person is seen by how they face the distress. That is, whether they do actions which increase their and others’ distress, or they do actions which decrease others’ distress. And so Krishna tells Arjuna, “The Pandavas also and your brothers are also suffering over here, so don’t act in a way that increases the suffering.”

So now, this question, as well as a little question of how do we console a family member if a family member has passed away because of Covid, I think there is an earlier session that explains how to deal with the death of a loved one. You can find an elaborate explanation for that. I would not want to repeat that right now.

How can we increase or broaden our understanding of Bhakti in terms of, say, Brahmachari Ashram or Grihastha Ashram? Generally, we are very influenced by the people whom we hear from or people who guide us. So if they have a particular conception of Bhakti, we naturally develop that conception of Bhakti. That’s why it’s important that we hear from different devotees and broaden our understanding by hearing, by associating, and by asking questions.

Now, some of us, whatever understanding we may have, if that is what inspires us, that is what drives us forward, and especially if that doesn’t make us judgmental towards others who have a slightly different understanding, then that is healthy. But if our understanding of Bhakti makes us judgmental towards others, then that is unhealthy. That is something which we will have to protect ourselves from, and one way to broaden our understanding is by hearing from different people.

So each of us may have a particular understanding. Now, it’s not just Brahmachari Ashram or Grihastha Ashram, it could be that what service is most important. Some devotees may feel book distribution is the most important service. Some devotees may feel that temple construction is the most important service. Some people may feel that doing big festivals like Yatras and others is the most important service.

Which is most important? Well, there can be many most important things because we all have an individual relationship with Krishna, and each of us may see certain things as most important. So rather than obsessing over what is more important or less important, we can focus on that which most connects us with Krishna, and we also understand that there are other things which may most connect others with Krishna.

So, some devotees may feel that just studying Bhagavatam, going deep into Shastra, and relishing Shastra and sharing Shastra is the key thing that inspires them in their spirituality. That’s fine; they do that. So recognizing that we are all individuals and Krishna can inspire different devotees in different ways. So just because I feel inspired in a particular way doesn’t mean that somebody else can’t be inspired in a different way. And so others don’t have to be wrong for me to be right. I can be right, and they can also be right.

Now, this doesn’t mean that everything is right and there are no wrongs. No, there are some basic conceptions in Bhakti which are clear—that Krishna is life’s ultimate goal. There are certain activities of Bhakti which are cardinal practice principles. That’s fine. But beyond that, there are many aspects which can vary from person to person. So when we focus more on the purpose and not so much on the process, the purpose is to link with Krishna. How do we link with Krishna? It may be through one ashram or the other ashram. It may be through one limb of Bhakti or another limb of Bhakti, as the primary thing that inspires us. That can vary from person to person.

So, when we focus on the purpose and see that the process can be individualized according to different people’s inspiration and nature, then we can have a broader understanding of Bhakti.

So one last question now:
Why does Krishna not allow us to enjoy this material world?
Well, it is not that Krishna doesn’t allow us to enjoy the material world. It is just that the material world itself is a temporary place. It is a place of distress because of its temporariness. Now, if we say, “Why couldn’t Krishna make this world an eternal world?” we could argue like that, but then where do we stop that argument? Ultimately, the joy in the spiritual world comes from loving Krishna. Krishna is all-attractive. He has the six opulences and he is eminently lovable.

So, if we consider in our own lives, what gives us happiness is not just the things that we have, but ultimately it is the relationships we form. We may have satisfying relationships in the world, but still, even those satisfying relationships are also temporary. Now, we may say, “Even if they were eternal?” Yes, the people whom we love have certain deficiencies and virtues, and we care for them, we cherish their love as they are, but ultimately, our heart longs to love Krishna, and Krishna is the only person with the six opulences, and Krishna has no substitute.

So, if we were to enjoy separately from him, enjoyment would not come just from Krishna providing us with lots of things in the world to enjoy or even making this world eternal. Krishna would have to create another Krishna, another object of love, with the six opulences. And if a person with six opulences is present in the world, then this world becomes like a spiritual world. Then again, what will happen is that we wouldn’t be the focus of attention. It is that person who will be the focus of attention.

The point here is that our consciousness needs to expand beyond us, and we need the supremely fulfilling object of love, and that object is Krishna. So, the material world is the place where Krishna is not manifest directly; the spiritual world is the place where Krishna is manifest directly. So, to the extent we choose to love and seek a substitute for Krishna, to that extent, distress is intrinsic as a consequence of that choice. The material world is structured in such a way that the consequence of that choice soon becomes apparent for us. But it is not that Krishna has created the material world as a place where we will experience distress. Rather, distress is intrinsic to the choice as a consequence of seeking a substitute for Krishna. And that’s why, ultimately, we need to turn toward him, and that’s how we can experience lasting happiness. It’s not that Krishna doesn’t want us to enjoy separate from him; it’s that our heart’s longing for lasting love itself will not let us be happy separate from Krishna.

Thank you very much.

So, if we are chanting particular mantras for worshipping the devatas, some devata from our childhood, and then, while practicing bhakti and doing lots of services, we stop chanting those mantras, and then say our parents, our mother, who taught us to chant Bhagavad Gita verses, also feel unhappy because we have stopped doing it, and we also start feeling guilty, what do we do?

Yes, there are certain principles which are universal, and there are certain preferences which can vary according to context. So, in principle, as you quoted, when we water the root of the tree, there is no need to water the particular leaves. Similarly, when we are worshipping Krishna, the devatas are automatically worshipped—that’s the principle.

Beyond that, in a particular context, if each of us needs to do certain things, I think in an earlier class, I mentioned this point that Bhaktivinoda Thakur talks about how a devotee’s heart is in the practice of bhakti. Bhakti festivals and practices are important, but if there are certain other religious festivals—say at the time of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, the worship of the goddess was quite big. If a devotee has to go to a program like that, that’s fine. Occasionally, a devotee doesn’t put their heart in that and sees the goddess also as a manifestation of Krishna in a particular way and worships Krishna accordingly.

So, out of deference to social custom or familial custom, if one has to do certain things, we have to see according to time, place, and circumstance. As far as feeling guilty, there is no need to feel guilty. It’s not that Krishna is going to hold it against us. We see this in the example of Indra puja, where Krishna himself told the Rajvasis to stop the puja of Indra. That was not because Krishna wanted to teach the Rajvasis to disrespect Indra. The point was different. In that particular context, Indra had developed an entitlement mentality, and Krishna wanted to correct that.

But the point is that a devotee should not feel guilty because they’re not worshipping the devatas. At the same time, if a particular thing is required as per deference to social custom, then we can do it if it doesn’t affect our practice of bhakti in an inordinate way. There is no need to be a campaigner for doing it nor a campaigner against doing it. Certain things are just required circumstantially. We do it and move forward. Now, we needn’t think of this as something spiritual—it may be progressively spiritual and definitely better than doing sensual things and other activities like that. But we don’t have to make it a big issue of controversy. The principle is that we need to have our mind as much as possible available for focusing on Krishna.

So now, imagine a situation where we make it a rigid principle that we won’t chant those mantras, and then that causes so much stress and tension in our family that, even when we are practicing bhakti—chanting Hare Krishna, going to the temple, and doing all other devotional activities—because of not doing that activity, there is so much tension that we are not emotionally focused on bhakti at all. Instead of that, if a particular activity requires a few minutes or whatever time it requires, do that and be wholehearted in the practice of bhakti. But understand that the activity itself is not spiritual.

Where the problem will come is if that leads us to think that this itself is spiritual and we should do this instead of chanting Hare Krishna. That is when confusion can arise. Just like in particular contexts, certain things may take more time, and we just do the needful, and trying to avoid them sometimes creates problems.

Can it become a faith issue? Yes, if we are doing something and we are in a position where we set an example for others and others start doing the same thing, then it can become a problem. It’s not that everybody is in our particular context, and everybody should be doing the same thing. For some people, parental relationships and family dynamics might be very significant, while for others, they may not be that significant.

At a discrete level, if each of us needs to do certain things to keep our relative situation less agitated internally or externally, then we do the needful and focus on the practice of bhakti.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you, thank you very much.

The post Gita key verses course 28 – Why is life so tough? – Gita 8.15 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Hare Krishna. So today we continue our discussion on the Bhagavad Gita. We’ll be discussing the seventh chapter, 24th text, and the topic we’ll be discussing is: Is the ultimate reality personal or impersonal?

A quick overview of what we have discussed in the previous sessions: in the last session, we discussed different Gods. The overall theme of the seventh chapter is that we are discussing how God manifests in the world. Now, continuing that thread of discussion, we are exploring how, when we start from the world and try to conceive of God, we arrive at particular conceptions and how those conceptions may not be the fullest or the most complete.

This is 7.24 in the Gita. Krishna is speaking here: avyaktam vyaktim aapannam. Avyaktam means unmanifest, and vyaktim aapannam means to become manifest. So, those who think that “I was unmanifest before, and now I have become manifest” are lacking in intelligence. They do not understand my ultimate transcendental nature. I am imperishable, and avyaya also means imperishable. Anuttamam means transcendental. Tama is darkness. I am transcendental. I am supreme. I exist beyond matter and material conceptions.

So, based on this verse, let’s begin our discussion today. I’ll be talking about three broad points. First is the inconceivable multilevel nature of the ultimate reality. Second, within this multilevel conception, we’ll examine where the impersonal conception is right and where it goes wrong. Then we’ll look at the transpersonal conception, which is Krishna.

The Inconceivable Multilevel Nature of the Ultimate Reality

When we talk about inconceivability, we can begin with our day-to-day experiences, wherein we notice that ordinary objects, as we start studying them deeper and deeper, become more and more complex. Even in science, material reality, when examined in depth, reveals layers of intricacy. For example, quantum physics is so complicated that a prominent quantum physicist once said, “If you think you have understood quantum physics, then you haven’t understood it.” The universe is not only stranger than what we imagine; it is stranger than what we can imagine.

Quantum physics, with its array of particles, makes no sense to our normal way of perceiving things, and yet, it works. The math behind it is remarkably powerful. The point here is that as we delve deeper into things, they become increasingly complex. Physical reality itself is complex—although much of it, or at least some of it, is perceivable to us through our senses. But when it comes to the ultimate reality, which is beyond the reach of our senses, it becomes even more challenging to comprehend.

One of the defining attributes of the ultimate reality is said to be that it is achintya—inconceivable. Jiva Goswami, a prominent Vaishnava Acharya from the 16th century, writes that the achintyatva (inconceivability) of the absolute truth means that the supreme is, by definition, superior to our intelligence. If we could fully understand the supreme by our intelligence, then our intelligence would itself become supreme. By definition, the supreme must surpass our intellectual capacity, meaning the absolute cannot be comprehended solely through intellectual analysis or conquest. Therefore, the ultimate reality must be approached with humility.

Why is this point important in the light of our discussion today about whether the ultimate reality is personal or impersonal? Because understanding the nature of ultimate reality is inherently complex and not easy. Some people claim the ultimate reality is personal, while others claim it is impersonal. This debate has persisted for millennia. So, what is correct?

Niels Bohr made an interesting statement: “The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement, but the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.” In ordinary dealings, the polarity of true and false applies. For instance, in math, 3 + 7 = 10 is true, and 3 + 7 = 11 is false. But when it comes to profound truths, the opposite of a profound truth may not be falsehood—it could be another profound truth.

The claim “God, the ultimate reality, is personal” is a profound truth. The claim “The ultimate reality is impersonal” is also a profound truth. To assert that one is right and the other is wrong oversimplifying and distorts the matter. Both have truth and reality at a profound level. That’s why we should approach this topic with humility, avoiding the notion that “my understanding is right, and yours is wrong.”

For example, personalists might consider the impersonal understanding wrong, while impersonalists might consider the personal understanding wrong. However, our understandings lie at various positions on a spectrum of rightness and wrongness. We need to carefully and humbly seek to understand things as they are.

Thus, the first point I made is that the ultimate reality is multilevel and inconceivable.

Where the Impersonal Understanding is Right—and Where it Goes Wrong

When we say something is inconceivable, does it mean it can’t be understood at all? No, it means it can’t be understood exhaustively or completely. Still, we can gain some understanding.

Let’s now explore where the impersonal understanding is valid and where it falls short. Intuitively, we know that many saints and great devotees have communed with God or experienced divine presence. When they pray, they often treat God as a person. Many have described God as a person with whom they interacted deeply.

So, the personal understanding at one level is widespread, but at another level, there is an impersonal understanding. Why might somebody think that the ultimate reality is impersonal, and what could be right or wrong about their understanding? It’s not that their understanding is entirely right or wrong, but rather that there are aspects of their understanding that are correct and others that are not so accurate.

At the very first level, one reason why people think the ultimate reality cannot have a form and cannot be a person is the belief that the ultimate reality, often referred to as God, is unlimited. Normally, when we encounter anyone with a form or personhood, they are limited. For example, if somebody has a form—say, I am situated here right now in India, near Mumbai—then I am not in America. If you are in New York, then you are not in New Zealand. Having a form inherently limits us.

Personhood also implies limitation in the sense that different people possess different qualities—everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, form is often seen as temporary. For instance, even the most attractive forms, after some years or decades, lose their attractiveness. So, if God is unlimited and not confined by space or time, how could God have a form? This line of reasoning leads people to conclude that God must be formless or impersonal.

Now, it’s true that form implies limitation, but we can turn this argument around: does formlessness make something unlimited? Consider a person living in a house—it may be an apartment or a mansion, but it is finite and has a form. Suppose someone detonates a powerful bomb, demolishing the house entirely. What remains? The form is gone, but what is left is a heap of debris. Is that debris unlimited? No, it is also limited.

So, while form may involve limitation, the removal of form does not automatically remove limitation. Therefore, if we argue that the ultimate reality must be unlimited and formless, this does not necessarily equate formlessness with unlimitedness. On the other hand, the term “formless” inherently implies “less”—a lack of something. This suggests that the ultimate reality, being formless, is deficient or devoid of form. However, form is one of the most attractive realities in the world—whether it is the form of people, objects, or products, we are naturally drawn to forms.

If form is one of the most attractive aspects of existence and the ultimate reality is the source of all existence, then claiming that the ultimate reality lacks form—something present in the very creations it has sourced—leads to a deficient understanding. In this sense, describing God as formless can also limit God, as it denies God one of the most appealing and significant aspects of existence.

That’s one perspective. Another argument raised by those who support the impersonal conception is the idea that if God has a form, why should it resemble ours? This notion is often referred to as anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism means attributing human-like form to the divine.

Some people argue that if there were a community of elephants, they would likely envision God as the largest and most majestic elephant. Similarly, a community of eagles might conceive of God as a mighty eagle. Since we are human beings, we naturally imagine God in human-like form. This reasoning suggests that our depiction of God as a person with a form is merely a product of our imagination.

This is a valid concern. If we have attributed a human-like form to God, it could indeed be a projection of our imagination. However, the critical question is: when God is worshiped in a particular way, or when the ultimate reality is conceived in a specific form, how can we determine whether that form is purely imaginary?

This brings us to an important point. While the concern about anthropomorphism is valid, it can also be a double-edged sword. The same reasoning can be turned around. Instead of saying that God’s form is anthropomorphic, we could say that our form is theomorphic. The term theomorphic implies that our form is modeled on God’s form, not that God’s form is modeled on ours.

The two ideas are significantly, if not radically, opposite. Now, we might ask: with so many forms in existence, why should our form be modeled on God’s form? The reason is that the human form, among all forms in nature, is the one that can bring us closest to God.

Here, “form” refers to species, or bodily forms. The soul evolves through various species during material existence, and the human form represents the pinnacle of this evolution. In the human form, the soul’s consciousness is most evolved, making it closest to perceiving and pursuing the ultimate reality. Thus, the human form is uniquely suited for realizing the divine and, consequently, the divine form.

Because the human form is rich with spiritual potential and pregnant with transcendental inclinations, God has arranged it to be modeled on His own form. It is not that we have imposed a particular form on God; rather, God has granted the form that is closest to attaining Him to be modeled on His own. In this sense, it is not that God is anthropomorphic, but rather that our form is theomorphic.

Now, moving forward, let’s revisit the earlier concern: if God does have a form, wouldn’t that limit Him? Not necessarily. As discussed earlier, while form may imply limitedness, formlessness does not inherently remove limitation. What truly causes limitation is not form itself but matter. Matter—whether it has form or not—is finite and limited.

This concept can be illustrated with a graph on an XY axis. On the negative Y-axis is matter or the material, while on the positive Y-axis is spirit or the spiritual. Material form, being on the negative axis, is inherently limited—finite in time and space. In contrast, a spiritual form, though it may appear limited, has the potential to be unlimited.

For example, in the pastimes of Krishna, who is revealed in the Bhagavad Gita as the ultimate reality, He often appears finite in form but performs actions that are impossible for any finite being. A classic example is the pastime where Krishna, as a child, opened His mouth to show His mother, Yashoda, the entire universe inside it.

This incident occurred when Krishna’s friends accused Him of eating mud. When Yashoda confronted Him, Krishna denied it, saying His friends were lying. She then asked Him to open His mouth, and when He did, she didn’t just see His tongue or teeth—she saw the entire universe. She saw the sky, the earth, the oceans, even Vrindavan, and herself inside Krishna.

Now, some might dismiss this as mere mythology, but to understand the conception of God as revealed in scripture, we cannot impose our own interpretations. Instead, we must see what scripture actually says. The Bhagavata Purana (or Shrimad Bhagavatam) repeatedly declares Krishna as supreme and describes His pastimes. In these pastimes, Krishna demonstrates how, despite appearing in a finite form, He is not limited by it.

God’s unlimitedness is extraordinary. He is unlimited but not confined to His unlimitedness. For instance, tall people may find their height advantageous in certain situations but inconvenient in others, such as needing to bend to pass through a door. They are “stuck” with their tallness. God, however, is not like that.

God is unlimited, but He is not restricted by His unlimitedness. For the purpose of His pastimes and to reciprocate love with His devotees, He manifests in a personal form. While this form may seem limited to us, it is not limiting to Him. For example, if God manifested only as an unlimited entity—like the sky—it would be challenging to have a personal relationship with Him. How do we hug the sky or interact with it in a meaningful way?

Thus, God, while unlimited, can manifest in a form that appears limited but is not bound by those limitations. This is because His form is spiritual. Spirit has the potential to be unlimited, even while appearing limited.

This brings us to the earlier point about the inconceivable nature of the ultimate reality. How can something have a form and still be unlimited? This is not easy for us to conceive, which is why it is often described as inconceivable.

To explore this further, let us examine the concept of the spiritual form as presented in scripture. Impersonalists may quote that the ultimate reality, or Brahman, is described as Nirguna (without qualities) and Nirakar (without form). However, the same scriptures also contain vivid descriptions of the divine form. Great devotees and saints have glorified this form in their verses, and it is adored and worshipped.

So, both descriptions—the ultimate reality as formless and as possessing form—exist in scripture. What does this mean? To reconcile these apparent contradictions, we turn to a hermeneutical principle called Arthapatti.

Hermeneutics refers to the art of interpreting texts, particularly scriptural ones. Arthapatti is a strategy used to reconcile seemingly contradictory statements. Consider a traditional example: there is a young man named Devdutt. One statement says, “Devdutt doesn’t eat any food throughout the day.” Another statement says, “Devdutt’s weight is increasing.” These two statements seem contradictory because, if someone doesn’t eat, their weight should decrease.

If we know both statements are true, we must reconcile them by postulating a third statement. In this case, we might infer that Devdutt eats at night, which explains both his weight gain and his fasting during the day.

To resolve the contradiction using Arthapatti (postulation), the third statement would be: “Devdutt eats secretly at night.” This reconciles the apparent contradiction between the statements “Devdutt does not eat during the day” and “Devdutt’s weight is increasing.” Similarly, scripture contains two seemingly contradictory assertions:

1. The ultimate reality has no form.
2. The ultimate reality has a form.

How do we reconcile this? The Arthapatti here is that the ultimate reality has no material form but does possess a spiritual form. The statements about formlessness refer to the absence of a material form, while the statements about form refer to the existence of a non-material or spiritual form.

On the “negative axis” (material reality), there is no form. However, on the “positive axis” (spiritual reality), there is profound existence. This leads to the term transpersonal.

Often, the term impersonal may be misunderstood to imply “less than a person,” while the term personal might suggest that God is a person like us. The term transpersonal, however, captures the transcendental nature of God as a being who is more than a person. This means that:

• God’s impersonal aspect does not lack personality.
• God’s personal aspect is not limited to a personality like ours.

The ultimate reality is thus transpersonal, a holistic understanding that encompasses both the personal and impersonal aspects:

• Personal: God has form, but it is spiritual, existing on the positive axis.
• Impersonal: God is not bound by a personality similar to ours, nor limited by material constraints.

This understanding can be seen in the Shrimad Bhagavatam (Canto 8, Chapter 3, Verse 39), where the devotee Gajendra prays to the ultimate reality for protection. In his prayer, Gajendra refers to the divine as both Arupaya (without form) and Ururupaya (with many forms):

• Arupaya: No form.
• Ururupaya: Many forms.

How can the same ultimate reality be described as having no form and many forms? Gajendra then describes this ultimate reality as performing astounding deeds (karma). The reconciliation is that God has a spiritual form—one that is not material—and this form is capable of extraordinary, inconceivable actions.

This brings us to the transpersonal conception. So far, we’ve discussed:

1. The inconceivable nature of the ultimate reality.
2. The limitations and completeness of the impersonal conception.
3. The transpersonal understanding that reconciles the two.

Let’s now delve deeper into this transpersonal conception using a classic verse from the Shrimad Bhagavatam (1.2.11):

“Those who know the truth declare that the ultimate reality is one, but it is perceived in three ways: Brahman (the impersonal aspect), Paramatma (the localized aspect), and Bhagavan (the personal aspect).”

The ultimate reality is singular but can be perceived differently depending on one’s perspective. A helpful metaphor for understanding this is the experience of a cake.

Imagine you’re in a room, and from the kitchen nearby, you catch the fragrance of a cake. Intrigued, you move closer to the kitchen and see the cake. Finally, you’re offered a piece, and when you taste it, you experience the fullness of the cake.

In this analogy:

• The fragrance represents the impersonal aspect of the ultimate reality (Brahman), which is distant and abstract.
• The shape of the cake represents the localized aspect (Paramatma), which is closer and more defined.
• The taste represents the personal aspect (Bhagavan), which is the most complete and intimate experience.

The cake remains one object throughout, but your experience of it changes based on your proximity and interaction. Similarly, the ultimate reality is one, but the level of perception varies:

1. Brahman is the aspect of eternal existence (Sat)—it is the underlying, unchanging reality amidst the flux of the material world.
2. Paramatma is the aspect of consciousness (Chit)—the divine presence that pervades and observes all existence.
3. Bhagavan is the aspect of bliss (Ananda)—the personal and loving form of the ultimate reality.

These three aspects—Sat, Chit, and Ananda—are inherent attributes of the ultimate reality. They are also what every living being inherently seeks:

• Sat: The desire to live eternally.
• Chit: The thirst for knowledge and understanding.
• Ananda: The longing for happiness and fulfillment.

Thus, the ultimate reality, being complete in Sat, Chit, and Ananda, fulfills the deepest aspirations of every soul.

This analogy and explanation deepen our understanding of the transpersonal conception, illustrating how God encompasses both personal and impersonal aspects while transcending them entirely.

The ultimate reality can be perceived at varying levels of proximity and depth. Let us explore this step-by-step with an analogy of experiencing a cake:

1. Distant Perception – Eternal Existence (Brahman):
   When perceived from a distance, the first aspect of the ultimate reality that thoughtful seekers notice is its eternal existence. Across different spiritual traditions, the initial realization is often not of a personal or relational ultimate reality but rather of something that exists beyond this temporary material world.

Similarly, when we sense the fragrance of a cake from afar, it is still the same cake, but our experience of it is limited to its aroma. In the context of the ultimate reality, when only the eternal aspect is perceived, it is referred to as Brahman or Brahmajyoti. This impersonal realization is the understanding of the ultimate reality as eternal existence (Sat).

2. Closer Perception – Consciousness and Awareness (Paramatma):
   As one draws closer to the ultimate reality, they begin to perceive not just its existence but also its consciousness. The ultimate reality is seen as overseeing and organizing the world with intelligence and design. This aspect reflects the divine as an observer and supervisor.

The Bhagavad Gita (13.23) describes this as:

“Upadrashta Anumanta cha”
Meaning, the ultimate reality oversees and permits the functioning of the world.

In the cake analogy, this is like moving closer and perceiving its shape. Similarly, at this stage, the seeker perceives the ultimate reality as Paramatma, the localized aspect of God who is both immanent in the world and aware of it.

3. Innermost Perception – Joyful and Loving Personality (Bhagavan):
   When one comes even closer to the ultimate reality, they experience its most intimate aspect—that of a sentient being who is not just a neutral judge or overseer but a source of joy, love, and reciprocation. This is the Ananda aspect of the ultimate reality, wherein the divine is understood as Bhagavan, the personal and relational God who engages in loving pastimes with His devotees.

In the analogy, this is like tasting the cake, which offers the fullest and most fulfilling experience. Similarly, realizing the ultimate reality as Bhagavan is the most complete understanding, where Sat (existence), Chit (consciousness), and Ananda (bliss) are fully realized.

Transition from Impersonal to Personal:

The aspect of Paramatma serves as a transition point between the impersonal (Brahman) and the personal (Bhagavan). When someone is “in office,” such as a military leader or a judge, they might appear neutral or distant because they focus on duties and rules. However, this does not mean they lack emotions or personal relationships outside their professional role. Similarly, the Paramatma aspect reflects the divine in an overseeing capacity, where personal interactions are not prominent but still latent.

Names and Nomenclature of the Ultimate Reality:

The ultimate reality is known by various names, such as Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan, Ishvara, and Jagdish. In a generic sense, all these names can refer to the same absolute truth. However, in a technical sense, these names are used to describe specific attributes or realizations:

• Brahman: Refers to the impersonal aspect, where the ultimate reality is perceived as eternal existence.
• Paramatma: Refers to the localized aspect, where the ultimate reality is seen as the overseer of the world.
• Bhagavan: Refers to the personal aspect, where the ultimate reality is understood as a source of love and joy.

Using the cake analogy:

• At a distance, one perceives only the fragrance (Brahman), but the cake still retains its shape and taste.
• Closer inspection reveals the shape (Paramatma).
• Finally, tasting the cake reveals its flavor (Bhagavan).

At all stages, the cake remains whole. Similarly, the ultimate reality is always complete as Sat-Chit-Ananda (eternity, knowledge, and bliss). It is only our perception that is partial or incomplete at different stages.

Application in Traditions:

In the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, specific nomenclature emphasizes these distinct realizations:

1. Brahman realization is the pursuit of the impersonal aspect, focusing on eternal existence.
2. Paramatma realization highlights the awareness of God overseeing the universe.
3. Bhagavan realization focuses on the personal and relational aspect of God.

In some contexts, Brahman may also be used generically to refer to the ultimate reality. For instance, in Gajendra’s prayers, the term Brahman is used to refer to Vishnu. Similarly, in the Madhva tradition, a treatise titled Brahman is Vishnu elaborates on the equivalence of Brahman and Vishnu.

By understanding these levels of perception and their corresponding nomenclature, we gain a clearer insight into the multifaceted nature of the ultimate reality, allowing us to appreciate both its impersonal vastness and personal intimacy.

So, Brahman doesn’t necessarily always, when it is used in scripture, refer to the impersonal aspect. Sometimes the word Brahman is a generic reference, and it can be used to refer to the personal aspect also. But within the technical analysis that is done to understand the different levels of the absolute, there is a particular nomenclature that is used. So, within this nomenclature, Brahman is the name used for the ultimate reality, which is only pursued as the eternal. Paramatma is the name used for the ultimate reality, which is pursued as eternal and cognizant. And Bhagavan is the term used for the ultimate reality, which is eternal, cognizant, and blissful.

Having said this, sometimes Krishna may be referred to as Paramatma. Why? Because these names, when they are not used in a technical context, are generic references to the absolute truth in its completeness. So now, another way to understand this point is that when the ultimate reality is perceived as mere existence, then there are no material potencies and no spiritual potencies.

What do we mean by material and spiritual potencies? This is, again, Jiva Goswami’s analysis in the Sandarbhas, that when there is simply existence, this world is like a temporary illusion, and the ultimate reality has nothing to do with this world. So, the ultimate reality exists because this world is an illusion. When we wake up from a dream, the dream has no reality. Similarly, the ultimate reality has nothing to do with this.

When the ultimate reality is perceived simply as existence with no material potencies or spiritual potencies, that conception is called Brahman. Paramatma is the conception of the ultimate reality where it has material potencies, meaning it is overseeing the material world. That is the Paramatma conception. And the ultimate reality as having both material and spiritual potencies is Bhagavan. Bhagavan is that aspect where, yes, there is a Lord who controls this world and oversees this world, but then the Lord also has qualities and attributes which are completely non-material.

He has a form, He has a personality, which are all spiritual, and with which He reciprocates with His devotees in the spiritual world. So here, when we say material potencies, “potency” can include form, personality, qualities, and activities. Brahman has no material potencies in the sense that there is no material form. Now, does Bhagavan have a material form? Not exactly a material form, but He has a form that can manifest even in the material world.

When Krishna comes, His form is not material, but it manifests in the material world. And Krishna can control, and He does control, material things. That is, spiritual doesn’t mean that He has nothing to do with the material or that He can’t do anything material. It means He is not entangled or contaminated by the material, but He does control material things. So that is Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan—the three levels.

Now, the concluding point here with respect to concept and nomenclature is that Krishna is both the highest manifestation of the absolute truth and the whole absolute truth. This means, in this particular diagram we discussed earlier, Krishna can refer to the ultimate reality. For example, when Krishna says to Arjuna that He—Krishna—is standing before Arjuna, and Krishna says to Arjuna that nothing exists beyond Him, in Bhagavad Gita 10.39, He says, “Nothing would exist without Me.”

So, when He says this, what does it mean? He is referring to Himself as the ultimate reality: “By Me, all of existence is pervaded.” Now, when Krishna is saying this, how do we make sense of it? Krishna is present in front of Arjuna on his chariot, so Krishna is in one place. Then how is He pervading everything?

There are times when the word Krishna is used, and Krishna is referring to Himself. So, the word Krishna can refer to the ultimate reality in all the manifestations—Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan. And sometimes, when Krishna says, “Come to Me,” that means, “Don’t go there.” When you come to Me—if the ultimate reality is everywhere—then what is the point of Krishna saying, “Come to Me”? What is the point of saying, “Surrender to Me and come to Me,” when He is everywhere?

Or Krishna says that you will attain Him if you understand His transcendental pastimes in truth, then you will come to Him. Now, if Krishna is everywhere, what is the meaning of coming to Him? Here, when Krishna is using “Me,” He is referring not to Krishna as the ultimate reality but to Krishna in the feature of Bhagavan. That is, although God exists everywhere, that doesn’t mean He does not exist at a particular place.

In His Brahman manifestation, He pervades all of existence. As Bhagavan, He is present at a particular place, where by that presence, He reciprocates loving relationships and loving pastimes with His devotees. So Krishna refers to both the ultimate reality as well as the topmost manifestation of the ultimate reality—that is, the Bhagavan aspect.

So again, based on context, we need to understand what, in the Bhagavad Gita as well as in other scriptures, when the word Krishna is used or “Maam” is used when Krishna is speaking, is it referring to?

This is a technical and profound subject, but essentially, the concluding point would be that Krishna, God, is both personal and impersonal—He is transpersonal.

To summarize, we can take your questions. Today, I discussed the topic: Is the ultimate reality personal or impersonal? I started by talking about the inconceivable nature of the ultimate reality. Even matter, when studied deeply, is too complex, as seen in quantum physics. So what to speak of the transcendental reality, which is not perceivable?

It is not simplistic to say the ultimate reality is personal or impersonal. The opposite of one profound truth—”God is personal”—is another profound truth—”God is impersonal.” Both are profound, and we need to approach the ultimate reality with humility.

Then, we discussed what “inconceivable” means—beyond our intelligence. By definition, our intelligence alone cannot conquer or comprehend the absolute fully. We then discussed where the impersonal conception is right and where it goes wrong. We discussed four points:

1. Forms are limited, and the ultimate truth is unlimited. That is true.
2. Just formlessness doesn’t make anything unlimited. A house can be demolished, but the debris doesn’t become unlimited.
3. If you say something is formless, it is deprived—it is less.
4. If form is very attractive in this world, how can the source of this world not have that which is most attractive?

Lastly, we discussed how Krishna’s form is spiritual and beyond material limitations, as seen in His pastimes and descriptions in the scriptures.

So, the Arthapatti is that God has no material form but has a spiritual form, so Arupaya and Uruupaya come from Rajendra’s pastime. The last part was more technical about how the three levels of the Absolute can be explained using the cake metaphor. The cake may be pursued only in terms of fragrance—that’s like pursuing the ultimate truth only in terms of eternal existence. This refers to the Brahman aspect of ultimate reality: pure existence without any potencies, just mere existence.

Then, when the ultimate reality is said to have potencies to control and orchestrate this world, that is the Paramatma conception, where Sat and Chit are perceived. Finally, Sat, Chit, and Ananda together represent the ultimate reality reciprocating love and gaining joy through it, which is the Bhagawan aspect. Within the Gaudiya Vaishnava analysis, Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagawan are technical terms that signify particular conceptions of the Absolute.

Otherwise, generically, Brahman can also refer to the ultimate reality. In essence, Brahman also refers to Krishna. Additionally, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna sometimes refers to himself as the transpersonal Absolute and, at other times, as the complete material reality. Ultimately, God is not just personal in the sense of having limitations like us, and God is not impersonal in the sense of being less than a person. Rather, God is transpersonal.

Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

Okay, so how do we understand the manifestation of the Lord as the Devatas? The Devatas are manifestations not in the sense that they are non-different from him, but rather in the sense that some of his power is manifested in them to a significant degree. Thus, it is not said that the Devatas are entirely the same as the Divine. There are various levels of manifestation.

We will talk about this in more technical detail in a future session. But for now, there are the manifestations of Krishna or Vishnu, such as Ram, Narasimha, Varaha, and Vamana, who are non-different from the Absolute—they are all equally God and equally the ultimate reality. However, there is also one supreme being, God, and then there are other manifestations at intermediate levels.

We humans also manifest as sparks of God and exhibit some potency of God, but the potency we manifest is far less than what the Gods or Devatas manifest. However, what Krishna or Vishnu manifests is the fullest. The Devatas are manifestations in the sense that some of his potencies are manifest in them.

Why do impersonalists (rankaris) have so many followers? Well, it’s not exactly that impersonalists themselves have many followers. It is more that spiritual teachers, who do not demand their followers to follow many rules but still give them an appearance of spirituality—a feeling that they are being religious and connected with God—attract a lot of people.

If you observe, most impersonalists with mass followings talk about bhakti in their discourses. They may claim that the ultimate reality is niraka nirva, but in their talks, they often describe the leelas and bhakti as a way to Brahman or mukti. However, this is not a scriptural understanding; it is their own concocted idea. They use bhakti as a tool in an impersonal mode.

What attracts mass followings is not their philosophy but their bhakti, even though it may lack scriptural alignment. Often, such leaders proclaim themselves as God because they interpret that everyone is Brahman. They assert, “I am realized Brahma; you are not yet realized Brahma, so you worship me as Brahma.”

This is why they have people chanting their names in bhajans and recounting the leelas of their gurus, whom they consider divine. It is not possible to talk much about Brahman itself because of its abstract and philosophical nature. Instead, they lean on relational and devotional concepts to sustain discussions. Moreover, their laxity in rules allows people to feel spiritual without surrendering to a rigorous practice.

Now, we cannot gauge the correctness of a conception by the number of followers it has. Materialistic people have always been more numerous than spiritual ones throughout history, but this does not imply materialism is right or spirituality is wrong. This world is a place of maya (illusion), and it takes intelligence to pursue reality. Advertisements often make false claims, yet many people are persuaded by them. Similarly, incorrect or incompletely correct ideas can also gain mass followings.

Thank you.

Now, about the path of devotion—can one start with the Brahman realization and then gradually progress through Paramatma to Bhagawan? In the path of devotion, we start with the Bhagawan conception itself. When practicing bhakti, we worship Krishna in his deity form. However, while worshipping Krishna, we may not fully appreciate or understand Krishna’s true nature.

On the other hand, someone following an impersonal path and pursuing or realizing Brahman might be more realized in the temporary nature of material things. This is in contrast to someone worshipping Krishna but being infatuated with temporary things and seeking them from Krishna.

So now, when we are on our spiritual path, does a devotee first consciously realize the Brahman aspect, then the Paramatma aspect, and then the Bhagawan aspect? Well, these aspects are not like three discrete things. It is not that Brahman is here, Paramatma is here, and Bhagawan is here. They are all one reality. As devotees, it could be that we go through a progressive realization. For example, we are practicing bhakti, and while practicing bhakti, we slowly start realizing that there is something eternal beyond the temporary.

Maybe we go to some sacred place, and there we see magnificent temples. By simply seeing the height of the temples, we start thinking there is something beyond all this—something eternal. Now, of course, because it is connected with Krishna, it is not simply a Brahman realization. But if you just appreciate the eternity of something beyond the temporality of the various things in the world, we could say that is, in some ways, an appreciation of the Brahman realization, the Brahman aspect of the Absolute.

Then the Paramatma is the ultimate reality with material potencies—not attributes, but potencies. So then, say in the course of our life, when we face difficulties and terrible things happen, we wonder, “Why is this happening to me?” But then we see that, even through bad things, something good comes out, and we understand there was a plan, there was a purpose. When we see that things were purposefully orchestrated, and even from the bad, good came, and we see the hand of God in that, then that is, in some ways, realizing the Paramatma aspect.

When we see God’s hand leading us through darkness to light in this world, that is the Paramatma aspect. Then, say, when we experience non-material divine devotional joy independent of our material situation—so we might be in great anxiety, materially very sick and in pain, but then we start glorifying Krishna, we start hearing about Krishna, speaking about Krishna, singing about Krishna, and we experience non-material joy independent of whatever our material situation is. Even if it is not resolved, we experience a flood of love for Krishna and attraction for Krishna within us—then that could be said to be an experience of Bhagawan.

Now, will these be linear? No, they can all happen in parallel. We can be relishing the personal aspect of the Absolute and, at the same time, getting a deeper realization of the eternity of that being, the eternal reality beyond. So devotees will not necessarily go through Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagawan realizations in a strict sequence. Devotees already have a Bhagawan conception through the practice or study of devotional books. During our spiritual journey, we realize different aspects of the divine. Ultimately, of course, we realize the personal aspect of the Absolute.

Do souls in animal bodies also have a spiritual form? If animals also have souls, why is the enjoyment they pursue limited compared to what humans seek? It is because, firstly, the soul is the same, but the consciousness—the extent to which it is expressed—depends on the body. Just like if there is a light source, a bulb covered by a very thick film, the light that comes out may be very diffused and not very bright. But if the bulb is covered by a very thin film, the light that comes out is brighter.

The soul enters an animal body because it has a lot of material conditioning and desires for material pleasures. Because of this, spiritual consciousness doesn’t manifest much. In the human form, however, the soul has evolved through various lower species, and now it has the opportunity for spiritual growth. That is why there is a greater manifestation of consciousness in humans, which enables a greater variety of ways to pursue pleasure.

We can experience more pleasure when we are awake than when we are asleep. For example, if someone is singing a lullaby to put a baby to sleep, it can be comforting. But the beauty and the melody of the lullaby can only be truly relished when the person is awake. Wakefulness and sleep represent different levels of consciousness.

When there is greater consciousness, there is a greater capacity to experience life and enjoy it. The soul itself is always what it is, but its consciousness changes. The soul’s spiritual form is latent within it, and the soul’s spiritual form manifests when it returns to the spiritual world. But right now, whether it is in a human body or an animal body, the soul exists in the form of a spark. The soul is described as being 1/10,000th the tip of a hair in size, which is how the soul is in all bodies, human or non-human. The manifestation of consciousness differs in different bodies.

Now, we explained pantheism, panentheism, and theism.

Pantheism is the idea that everything is God. This means there is no specific God with a particular form, and there is no divinity beyond nature—the universe itself is divine. Pantheism is different from impersonalism, though. Impersonalism holds that God is non-material and that the ultimate reality is distributed across all of existence, but the ultimate reality is spiritual. Pantheism may not have that idea; it could be materialistic. For example, atheistic scientists who say, “For me, the universe is God” or “The law of gravity is everywhere, and therefore, the law of gravity is like God for me,” don’t conceive of God the way religious traditions do. Pantheism could thus mean that matter itself is God for materialists.

For a spiritualist, pantheism could mean that, like Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, “Vasudeva sarvam iti”—everything is Krishna. However, this is not a pantheistic statement in the typical sense because for spiritualists, the concept of God goes beyond just being all-encompassing.

Panentheism is the idea that God is everything, but God is also something more—that is, everything manifests God, but God also has his own personal manifestation.

Theism is a Western interpretation of the Indian spiritual tradition. When European scholars came to India, they observed the multiplicity of gods being worshipped and the impersonal concept of reality. They concluded that the ultimate reality is impersonal, but it can be conceived of in whichever form we want. So, the impersonal reality can be worshipped through various forms. This is called henotheism, where the form is seen as a transitional tool to attain the formless Absolute.

In this way, most impersonalist paths that are popular are not openly monistic (monism being the belief that there is only one substance or ultimate reality) but are often henotheistic.

So they have their idea of worshipping God, and because they are quite, they seem to be quite liberal. You don’t have to worship one particular form; you worship any form, and you can worship. The guru might say that I am also Brahman, you can worship my form also. So henotheism is the idea that we can worship God, we can worship the ultimate through any form that we want because ultimately the form, the ultimate is formless, and the form is just a conceptual, just a transitional conceptual tool.

Now sometimes personalists may also become Brahman worshippers. Why is that? Well, if that happens, that’s not because the Brahman conception is higher than or more relishable than the Bhagawan conception; rather it is because sometimes those who are worshipping from Bhagawan, they might be judgmental, they might be condescending, they might be holier-than-thou. So atheism, for example, is not like a very attractive or fulfilling doctrine. 

The main reason for atheism is not because atheism is attractive but because these are often unattractive, even repulsive people—extreme people who encounter sentimentality or fanaticism among these theistic followers, they become atheistic. So similarly, somebody who experiences narrow-mindedness, bigotry, or sectarianism, extremism among those who are following the bhakti path or worshipping a personal aspect, then if people encounter such people, that will repel them. So that’s how sometimes people who are following a personal path might go towards impersonalism—not because the personal conception is less attractive and impersonal more attractive, but because sometimes the personal worshippers, because they are neophytes, they are new, they’re immature, they might repel people.

Yes, and this relates with the next question about sometimes, although we are personalists, our behavior is impersonal. Yes, that happens because there is this tendency to become self-righteous, if I think that I know what is right and this is wrong. So sometimes we, as those who are devoted to God, we are meant to manifest the love and compassion of God first, not his wrath or his judgment. Yes, God gives wisdom, and based on the wisdom, judgment is to be made, but devotion is primarily about love and compassion, not about judgment and condemnation. But sometimes what happens while practicing bhakti, because bhakti involves surrender, surrender involves following certain rules and regulations, which are important for a serious practice of bhakti and developing a personal relationship with Krishna, but because we do this, we might become quite self-righteous and proud. “I am following this. I have the correct understanding, and I have the correct practices, and you have an incorrect understanding. You have an incorrect practice.” 

So there are two aspects to any spiritual path that is what is called a doxy and praxis. Doxy is with respect to doctrine or beliefs or philosophical understanding, and praxis refers to practices. So when we practice bhakti, we become quite judgmental about, “My understanding is right, and my practice is right. Your understanding is wrong. Your practices are wrong.” So our spirituality is meant to make us more empathic. Everybody is so like us. Everybody has conditions like us. Their conditions may be different from our conditions, but everybody is struggling, and we all need to help each other. 

But sometimes our spirituality, instead of forming a bridge between us and others, says, “The other person is here, I am here,” so they are forming a bridge between us. It forms a barricade between us, a blockage between us. Why? I am high. We place ourselves on top of the barricade and say, “I am pure, you are impure. I am right, you are wrong.” So impersonal tendency comes largely because of judgmentality. Also, it may come because within the path of bhakti, we may have a superficial understanding of bhakti. Bhakti is not just about what we do, but also about how we do. So we may want to do lots of services for Krishna, and in wanting to do a lot of things for Krishna, we may neglect people. We neglect the devotees of Krishna. We trample over them. We may use and then discard them, and you did the service, now I don’t care for you. 

So when we think of success in bhakti only in terms of targets and goals and achievements and projects, then what happens is we are doing it for Krishna, but actually, what Krishna wants the most is not projects. What Krishna wants is people. Krishna wants us, and Krishna wants other devotees. All the projects are meant for Krishna. Krishna doesn’t want temples in this world. Krishna wants the souls in this world to come to him. Even the most magnificent temple in the world, eventually, it is going to—because of the nature of material things in the world being temporary—that temple is going to be affected by the ravages of time. So anyways, that was the answer to that question—that sometimes, because of being too project-oriented, we might neglect devotees, and that’s how we become impersonal.

So how is negation of the absolute truth also absolute? Well, I didn’t say that exactly—that negation of the absolute truth is absolute. What it means is in the context, what I meant was that there is a personal aspect and an impersonal aspect, and both of them are true. It is not that every negation is itself an absolute truth. That if we say, “Krishna is Krishna is all-attractive,” and somebody says that “Krishna is unattractive,” that is not the absolute. That is not the correct understanding. It is not that for every positive attribute, its opposite is also applying. It also applies to Krishna. No, Krishna is inclusive of everything, but at the same time, he manifests some things. No, so Krishna is—Krishna is beautiful. Now does that—now if Krishna includes everything, does that mean Krishna is the opposite of beauty? Is ugliness, so the negation of beauty will be ugliness? 

So is Krishna ugly? Well, not exactly. Krishna can also manifest a form which is ferocious, like Narasimhadev. That’s not exactly ugly. It’s scary, but for a devotee, it’s not scary. For those who are demoniac, it’s scary. So it’s not that the negation of the absolute truth is also absolute. It’s just that the personal conception and the impersonal conception—it’s not that one is right and the other is wrong. Both are right because the absolute truth is neither personal nor impersonal; it is transpersonal. So normally, by negation of worldly things, one can get to a transcendence. So there’s form. The forms captivate us. “No, for this form is not real. Then what is real?” So negation in the domain of matter can take us to a transcendence, and in some analytical ways, we could say that the absolute truth is so inclusive that even the opposite attributes are included in it. But that doesn’t mean that every negation of the absolute truth is itself an absolute.

Does Krishna stabilize the faith of sadhakas who are worshipping self-proclaimed godmen who claim that they are God? Krishna works in mysterious ways, and one aspect of worshipping him is to understand that he is inconceivable. So then we make choices. It’s not that every choice that we meet is what Krishna wants us to make that choice. But so we might make wrong choices, we might make mistakes, and those mistakes are because of our own desires. So now, Krishna is so expert that he can use our mistakes for helping. He can even use our mistakes to take us forward. 

So with respect to, say, somebody, somebody starts to worship, starts coming in contact with a person who claims to be God. So now, it could be that that person is just a spiritual seeker, but maybe because of their family, their culture, their context, that was the path they encountered the first time. So now, in this case, what will happen? They may explore it, and Krishna will guide them. So now, how deep should they explore it? It depends. They may explore that path, but Krishna is there with them, and what is necessary for their spiritual evolution, Krishna will do. Sometimes, somebody has to go deep into a particular path to get jolted out of it. “Hey, this doesn’t make sense at all.” But some people explore a little bit and understand, “This doesn’t make sense.” So each person is different, and each person is on their own level in their spiritual evolution, and whatever is appropriate for them, Krishna does that. So sometimes, a person has to—they quickly understand something is wrong. Sometimes they have to go a long way off to understand that something is wrong. But either way, Krishna is always with them, and Krishna is guiding them. So in that sense, Krishna is like the ultimate GPS. So GPS, we are going on a particular road, and the GPS says, “Turn right.” Then if we turn left, GPS doesn’t abandon us. GPS will keep still telling. GPS will okay, now reroute and go from here. But if you keep going left, GPS will keep rerouting. Of course, it will take us a long time for us to reach the destination, but GPS will keep rerouting. So Krishna is like that. Krishna does not plan our mistakes, but Krishna’s plan includes our mistakes. Krishna doesn’t want us to make those mistakes. So it is not that Krishna is giving us faith in something which is not good for us, but sometimes that’s what is required for us to grow.

So from our perspective, if we know someone who is worshipping some godman who claims to be God, or is worshipping some teacher who is as if they are God, that teacher is God, then we need to see what is the best role that we can play in a mode of service to Krishna. Is it that we can at that stage, with patience, with gentleness, with logic, challenge their conceptions and help them evolve to a higher conception? Or sometimes, it might be that at this stage, they’re not open to hearing anything else. Then maybe, so we—then maybe we just maintain a good rapport with them, try to have a good working relationship with them, and eventually when the right time comes, we can play a role in helping them come to a better understanding. 

So generally, just like when we enter into a lake, first we put our maybe toe in to see how cold it is. So like that, we need to—we need to explore, we need to test the pulse to understand how best we can play our part. So Krishna is playing his part, and Krishna’s part may be that he may sometimes give them the necessary conviction to go along that path, or he may give them the understanding by which they can change course. And by testing the pulse, we can move forward and gain a better understanding of how best we can play a part in Krishna’s plan.

So thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

The post Gita key verses course 27 – Is the ultimate reality personal or impersonal? – Gita 07.24 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

The Concept of Many Gods in the Vedic Tradition

Thank you for joining today’s discussion. We’re going to explore a concept that has often been misunderstood and debated—the idea of multiple Gods within the Vedic tradition. Specifically, we’ll address the question: why are there so many Gods in Indian tradition, and what does this mean for us in understanding the Bhagavad Gita and applying its teachings in our lives?

The Gita’s View on Polytheism

In the Bhagavad Gita, particularly in verse 7.21, Krishna says:
“As one desires to worship whatever form, I make their faith unshaking.”
This verse indicates that Krishna himself is behind the worship of various forms of divinity. He ensures that the faith of devotees remains strong in the particular form they choose to worship.

So, the question arises: why does the Vedic tradition present the worship of many Gods? And how does this system work harmoniously under Krishna’s divine guidance?

Three Key Topics to Address:

• Why Are There Many Gods?
• How Do They Serve a Common Purpose?
• How Does This Reflect Krishna’s Compassion?

We will explore these topics by examining the conventional understanding of religious systems. The two broad categories for understanding worship are monotheism (the belief in one God) and polytheism (the belief in many Gods). The Vedic conception, however, is distinct—it can be described as polymorphic monotheism, which means that there is one Supreme God who manifests in many forms at many levels.

Monotheism vs. Polytheism

Monotheism, as seen in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), centers around the belief in one God. These religions often criticize polytheism, which was prevalent in the ancient world, particularly in Europe before Christianity became dominant. With the rise of Christianity in Europe, the idea of multiple Gods was considered a form of chaos, with gods allegedly competing for supremacy. This notion was spread further by European colonists, who, upon arriving in India, saw the worship of multiple deities and mistakenly labeled it as polytheism.

In contrast, the Vedic conception of divinity is not polytheistic. It is a form of polymorphic monotheism, where there is one Supreme God, Krishna, who manifests in various forms and at different levels through many divine personalities, such as Indra, Surya, and Shiva.

The Vedic Approach: One Supreme God with Many Subordinate Gods

Unlike the Abrahamic view, which holds that there is one true God and many false gods, the Vedic tradition teaches that there is one Supreme God (Krishna) and many subordinate Gods. These subordinate Gods are not false but are real divine personalities who serve a common purpose in the cosmic order.

In the Vedic system, the many deities are seen as cooperating under Krishna’s guidance, rather than competing for power. Each deity has a specific role in maintaining the balance of the universe, and they function together harmoniously under the supreme direction of Krishna.

The Abrahamic Perspective on Idolatry

In contrast, the Abrahamic religions often viewed idols or deities as false gods. When conquering new territories, the rulers in these traditions would destroy idols, believing it was a righteous act. This destruction of idols is celebrated in many religious texts, including the Old Testament and in the life of Prophet Muhammad.

However, in the Vedic tradition, deities like Indra, Chandra, Surya, and Shiva are not considered false or inferior. They are seen as real, powerful entities who are part of Krishna’s divine plan.

The Vedic conception of divinity doesn’t fit into the Western categories of either monotheism or polytheism. It recognizes one Supreme God, Krishna, who manifests in various forms across different levels of existence. These manifestations are real divine personalities, and their worship serves a common purpose of bringing devotees closer to Krishna. This system reflects Krishna’s extraordinary compassion, allowing people to worship Him in forms that resonate with their particular inclinations and needs.

The Abrahamic View vs. Vedic View of Divinity

In the Abrahamic religions, the concept of false Gods is often associated with the idea that these false Gods detract from the worship meant for the one true God. To the extent that these false Gods are destroyed or rejected, the true God’s glory is enhanced. This idea was historically put into action, such as in India, where many mosques were built by demolishing Hindu temples. The sacred imagery from these temples was often repurposed for mosque construction, symbolizing the idea of stepping on the false Gods to reach the true God.

While this intolerance is often enacted by extremists, the intolerance in conception is mainstream in Abrahamic religions. The idea is that no other Gods should be worshipped because they are considered false and compete with the true God. Understanding this mindset is crucial in appreciating the differences with the Vedic conception of divinity.

The Vedic Conception: Cooperation Rather than Conflict

The Vedic tradition differs significantly from this view. Instead of seeing other Gods as false or competing with the true God, the Vedic conception can be understood as a cosmic cabinet ministry, where there is one supreme God (Krishna) who serves as the “prime minister” and many subordinate Gods who are like cabinet ministers, each with their own roles and responsibilities. Just as ministers may have occasional conflicts over minor issues, all the Gods in the Vedic tradition work together under Krishna’s leadership to administer the cosmos and help elevate the lives of the devotees.

Intrinsic Cooperation for Cosmic Administration

In the Vedic tradition, despite any occasional disagreements, the Gods work cooperatively for the administration of the universe and the elevation of individuals. This cooperation reflects a deeper, cosmic harmony. It is not a matter of one deity competing against another, but of each divine personality fulfilling their role to help individuals progress on their spiritual journey.

The Role of Different Forms of Worship

The Vedic tradition also recognizes that people are at different levels of spiritual consciousness. This is why there are different forms of worship to accommodate various stages of personal development. For example, the Matsya Purana explains that the 18 Puranas are divided into three categories based on the three modes of nature: goodness, passion, and ignorance. Six Puranas correspond to each mode, recommending different deities and forms of worship depending on the devotee’s state of consciousness.

This system is not rigid, and it is not to say that every worshiper of Shiva is in ignorance or every worshiper of Vishnu is in goodness. Rather, this typology serves as a guide for understanding how the practice of worship is designed to help people progress spiritually according to their nature and stage of consciousness.

Krishna’s Compassion in the System of Worship

Now, let’s look at how this system reflects Krishna’s extraordinary compassion. A story from the Abrahamic traditions can help illustrate this. Many of you may know the story of the Prodigal Son, a parable from the Christian tradition.

In the story, a wealthy father has a son who, feeling constrained by his father’s control, demands his share of the inheritance and leaves to live independently. The son squanders his wealth on indulgence and eventually ends up in poverty, working for an exploitative master who makes him feed pigs. At his lowest point, the son remembers how even his father’s servants were treated better than he is now. He decides to return home, hoping for some mercy from his father.

When the son returns, despite having rejected his father and squandered his wealth, the father joyfully welcomes him back, celebrating his return. This story reflects the unconditional compassion of the father, who represents Krishna in the Vedic tradition. Krishna, like the father in the story, is always ready to welcome back those who have gone astray, regardless of their past mistakes, as long as they come back with a sincere heart.

The prodigal son story, found in biblical literature, illustrates how great God’s love is. Despite our rejection, God does not turn away from us but instead accepts us back when we return. While this is true, the Vedic tradition goes further, suggesting that God doesn’t simply wait for our return—He actively works to help us return. One of the ways God does this is by creating the system of worship of the devatas, or gods, as part of a divine arrangement to guide us back.

Let’s extend this metaphor. Imagine the prodigal son is not simply a wayward son, but the son of a king. The father, seeing his son’s suffering, understands that if he approaches directly, the son may not return. So, the father sends his representative—a minister—to invite the son back. The minister’s role is to offer something better than what the son is currently receiving. By returning to the kingdom, the son is coming back under the king’s influence, even if he hasn’t yet returned to the royal palace itself.

This is how the worship of the devatas works in the Vedic tradition. When individuals are not yet ready to directly worship Krishna or serve Him, He arranges for them to worship representatives of His—gods who serve as administrators in His cosmic system. These gods, though serving as intermediaries, are still connected to Krishna and, by worshiping them, individuals are elevated to higher levels of consciousness, even if they’re not yet ready for direct service to Krishna.

The worship of these gods often starts with a desire for material benefits. People may seek relief from fear, desire, or other needs, which are common motives for worship. By worshiping the devatas, individuals are participating in an authorized system and are indirectly engaging with Krishna’s cosmic administration. Over time, however, they may begin to question: “If I’m worshiping these gods, do these gods themselves worship someone?” This inquiry often leads them to discover that the gods, too, turn to a higher divine power—specifically, Vishnu. In moments of cosmic danger, the devatas themselves approach Vishnu for protection and guidance.

In this way, the system of worship, as arranged by Krishna, provides a pathway that helps individuals gradually elevate themselves, moving from worship of the devatas to eventually seeking Krishna Himself. This arrangement reflects the profound compassion and care Krishna shows in guiding every soul back to Him.

In the Vedic tradition, the idea of worshiping the devatas (gods) is understood as part of a gradual progression toward Krishna, much like a person who serves a king’s minister and wonders if the minister has a higher authority. Over time, the individual may realize that there is a greater power above the gods—the supreme Lord, Krishna. This awareness might lead them to worship Krishna directly. However, even when they come to Krishna, they may do so with mixed devotion, much like the prodigal son returning to his father but not yet fully ready to accept his role as a prince.

This mixed devotion is an important stage in the spiritual journey. People may come to Krishna seeking material benefits, much as the son initially returns to his father out of necessity rather than pure love. However, through association, purification, and gradual understanding, they begin to see that Krishna is not merely a giver of desires, but the fulfillment of all desires. This marks a shift from mixed devotion to pure devotion.

Krishna, in His compassion, sets up the system of worship by giving power to the gods and faith to their worshippers. The gods do not compete with Krishna but are part of a divine arrangement that helps souls progress toward Him. Krishna provides the necessary tools for this progression by granting faith to those who worship the gods. This process is not about Krishna’s glorification; rather, it’s about elevating souls toward Him. Even if a soul doesn’t return to Krishna immediately, any step closer to Him is considered a success.

Krishna’s approach is selfless—He is not concerned with personal glorification. Unlike worldly rulers who may want to be recognized as the ultimate authority, Krishna’s goal is the elevation of the soul, even if it means using intermediaries like the devatas. The system of worship is not about forcing worship of Krishna; it’s about creating pathways that eventually lead souls back to Him.

This is in contrast to the biblical view of God as a jealous figure who punishes those who worship other gods. In the Bible, worshiping false gods leads to calamities, as God is depicted as fiercely protective of His honor. The Vedic tradition, on the other hand, does not portray God as jealous but as zealous for the welfare of the soul. Krishna is not concerned with whether He is directly worshipped but with whether the soul is progressing and being elevated. His compassion is manifest in the systems He has set up to guide souls toward their ultimate spiritual destination.

To clarify the concept of Krishna giving faith to the worshippers of the devatas, there’s some confusion that arises from different interpretations. While the verse itself doesn’t explicitly mention the Super Soul in the heart, Prabhupada in his purport connects it to the Super Soul, suggesting that Krishna grants faith through this divine presence within. Another interpretation, like that of Madhvacharya, points out that even the Puranas glorifying the devatas ultimately come from Vishnu, as all scriptures, including the Vedas and Puranas, are considered to emanate from the divine breath of Vishnu.

One challenge that arises from this is when reading certain Puranas, such as the Shiva Purana, it might appear as though Shiva is supreme. Similarly, other Puranas might elevate different gods. This can seem contradictory, but the purpose of such glorifications is not to establish the supremacy of one devata over others but to inspire wholehearted worship. The idea is to encourage faith in people, motivating them to worship and thus progress spiritually.

While the different texts may emphasize the glory of individual devatas, this isn’t a contradiction but rather a paradox. On the surface, it may seem that the devatas are being positioned as supreme, but deeper understanding resolves this apparent contradiction. Just as an academic paradox might state that “the least corrected papers are the most correct,” where fewer corrections indicate greater accuracy, the paradox here suggests that the glorification of the devatas is a means to elevate people, not to undermine the supremacy of Krishna.

Ultimately, all forms of worship point toward one common purpose: the elevation of the soul. The devatas are not rivals to Krishna but part of a divine system to guide souls toward Him. The distinction between Vishnu and Krishna lies in their moods. Vishnu, in His role as the cosmic administrator, can be seen as “God in office,” while Krishna, as the playful and loving deity in Vrindavan, represents “God at home.” Despite this difference, they are ultimately one and the same, and all worship serves the overarching goal of the soul’s spiritual elevation.

This passage delves into the complexities of the worship of devatas (gods) and their relationship with Krishna, specifically addressing the different levels of spiritual devotion and how these forms of worship fit into the broader picture of spiritual elevation.

The first part of the passage highlights the unique way Vishnu and Krishna are glorified in the scriptures. In the Bhagavata Purana, for example, Vishnu is described as “Anantakoti Brahmanayak,” the source of countless universes, emphasizing His supreme status. On the other hand, Shiva is called “Vishvanath,” the master of the universe, yet his role is seen as subordinate in the grand scheme of things. This difference in glorification doesn’t contradict the essence of devotion; it simply reflects the different roles that each devata plays in the cosmic order. Vishnu and Krishna are often depicted as being the ultimate source, with other devatas having specific roles to fulfill.

As the passage continues, the focus shifts to understanding the role of devata worship in spiritual development. The key point here is that worship of devatas is not inherently wrong, but it depends on where someone is in their spiritual journey. To illustrate this, the passage uses a metaphor of a father with two children. One child gets 80% marks and the other gets 40%. Both children come home with a 60% score, but for the child who usually scores 80%, this is a regression, while for the one who normally scores 40%, it’s an improvement. Similarly, if a person who worships Krishna with mixed devotion (80%) turns to devata worship (60%), it’s a step down, but for someone who starts at the level of materialism (40%), moving to devata worship is a step up.

The passage also emphasizes that Krishna, while teaching that worshipping the devatas is for those with “meager intelligence,” has created this system of devata worship as a stepping stone for souls to gradually elevate themselves. Krishna’s system of worship isn’t something to be patronized but understood as part of the divine plan. The devatas, like Shiva or the goddess Chandi, are still respected figures, and worshipping them can lead to higher spiritual understanding.

There are examples in the lives of saints like Vallabhacharya and Chandidas to show how devotion to the devatas can ultimately lead to a deeper understanding of Krishna. Vallabhacharya, for instance, initially worshipped Shiva in distress but was guided by Shiva himself to worship Krishna. Chandidas, a devotee of the goddess, was later honored by other Vaishnavas, despite initially worshipping another deity. These stories demonstrate that even worship of the devatas can be part of a broader spiritual progression.

The passage concludes with a reminder that Krishna’s compassion is reflected in the system of devata worship. While Krishna may say that worshipping the devatas reflects “less intelligence,” He still encourages this system because it can lead people closer to the ultimate goal of pure devotion to Krishna. The idea is not to argue about who is supreme but to understand that the various forms of worship in the world all serve a purpose in elevating souls. The ultimate goal, however, remains pure devotion to Krishna, without material desires.

While worshipping his Shaligram Sheela, he looked across his brother’s garden and saw a beautiful flower. In his mind, he thought, “This flower is so beautiful, let me offer it to my god, the Shaligram Sheela.” So, he mentally offered the flower. The result was that when Chandidas was worshipping Goddess Chandi, he used the same flower for her worship. As he was worshipping, Chandi immediately appeared before him and said, “I am pleased with your worship. What do you wish?” Delighted and thrilled to see Chandi, he replied, “I am grateful that you have come, but before I ask for anything, please tell me why you are pleased today. I have been worshipping you for so many years, but this is the first time you have appeared.”

Chandi replied, “Today, you have offered me the prasad of Vishnu.” Surprised, Chandidas asked, “What do you mean?” She explained how her brother had mentally offered the flower to Vishnu, and there is a form of worship called manas puja, where if we can’t physically perform an offering, we can at least do it in our minds. Chandi continued, “By mentally offering the flower to Vishnu, you have given me the prasad of my Lord.”

Chandidas then asked, “Does that mean worshipping Vishnu is better than worshipping you?” Chandi replied, “Of course. Vishnu is not just my master; he is the master of my master.” She further explained that her Lord is Shiva, and Shiva is often depicted with meditation beads in his hands. Once, Parvati asked Shiva, “So many people chant ‘Om Namah Shivaya,’ but whose names do you chant?” Shiva replied, “Rama, Rama, Rama, I chant the name of Rama.” Rama, of course, is another manifestation of Vishnu.

As Chandidas understood that worshipping Krishna is better than worshipping Chandi, he became a great devotee of Krishna over time, writing extraordinary poetry glorifying Krishna. His poetry became widely celebrated, and Lord Chaitanya heard it.

The key point of this story is not just that Chandidas, who was worshipping Chandi, became a worshipper of Krishna. It is also that Chandidas did not reject Chandi. He still respected Chandi as the teacher who guided him to Krishna. He kept the name Chandidas and did not change it to Krishnadas. This illustrates the progression: someone may begin by worshipping a deity, and with sincere devotion or blessings, they can rise to worship Krishna. It shows the importance of respecting the gods, as they play a part in Krishna’s plan.

So, how can we make this progression work? Suppose we have acquaintances who worship the devatas (gods). How should we approach it? We must recognize that we need to respect the gods. If we pass by a temple dedicated to a deity, we can offer our respects there. We don’t need to see them as the Supreme but can respect them as great souls who can bless us to worship the Supreme better. We have the example of the gopis, who were the topmost devotees and worshipped Katyayani (a form of Goddess Durga) to attain devotion to Krishna.

The gods are much more powerful than us in the cosmic hierarchy. We exist at the terrestrial level, the gods exist at the celestial level, and Krishna exists at the transcendental level. I will talk more about the structure of the cosmos in the eighth chapter. But for now, suffice it to say that the gods exist at a higher level than us and need to be respected.

Often, we may respect the gods but disrespect their worshippers. We might only focus on Krishna’s teaching that those who worship the gods are unintelligent, but we must also recognize that they are still more intelligent than the majority of people who don’t worship anyone at all and may be godless materialists. We must understand that if someone worships a particular deity, Krishna is in their heart and guiding them. Krishna has a plan for their journey, and we should play our part in that plan.

I’ve spoken before about the Abrahamic religions, which have a strict idea of one true God and false gods. They often destroy the false gods. As devotees, we may not be intolerant toward the gods, but sometimes we are intolerant toward their worshippers. This intolerance can come from the mentality of the Abrahamic faiths, which many of Srila Prabhupada’s early disciples came from. They had grown up with the idea of one true God and false gods, so when they encountered the system of various gods in our tradition, they were often intolerant.

Prabhupada taught that we should respect the gods, so they would do so, but they would often demean the worshippers of the gods. We might carry this intolerant mentality not toward the worshipped gods, but toward their worshippers. We need to understand that people can be quite elevated at their level of worship. Someone might be a very devoted worshipper of Shiva, Durga, or Ganesha, and their devotion should be respected.

Now, if we can provide a proper philosophical understanding to help them gradually move toward worshipping Krishna, that’s excellent. But if we can’t, we don’t need to condemn them. They are at the 60% level, and if we can help them progress to 80%, that’s great. But if we insist on quoting scriptures and debating, and they become confused and eventually reject the process, we’ve done a disservice. Instead of helping them progress, we’ve pushed them backward, from 60% to 40%.

We don’t need to be intolerant. We can present the philosophy as clearly as possible, and if they accept it, that’s wonderful. If they don’t, we must accept that Krishna has a plan for them, and they may need to evolve more before they are ready to worship Krishna, just as a prince estranged from his father needs to be gradually brought back to the kingdom without force or resentment.

Our purpose is ultimately not to disrupt people’s faith but to elevate their faith as much as possible. By doing so, we help them understand this profound system of worship. Just as Krishna is zealous in guiding us, we can also be zealous, not by pushing people, but by expertly helping them rise to a higher level of consciousness.

To summarize, today I spoke about the system of worship of the devatas. I focused on three key points:

1. Understanding the system of polymorphic monotheism: Traditionally, in Western thought, there was monotheism in the Abrahamic religions, and prior to those, the Greek and Roman traditions endorsed polytheism. However, the Vedic system doesn’t fit neatly into either category. It is more accurately described as polymorphic monotheism—there is one divine being who manifests in many forms at different levels through many persons.
2. The difference between Vedic conceptions and other traditions: In the Vedic conception, it’s not a matter of one true god versus many false gods. Instead, there is one Supreme God and many subordinate gods. Understanding this system reveals a progression of faith and devotion, reflecting compassion. We used the metaphor of the Prodigal Son to illustrate this. In the Abrahamic tradition, the father waits for the son to return, symbolizing love. In the Vedic tradition, Krishna doesn’t just wait but actively works by sending his representatives. If the prince is not yet ready to return to the king, he starts by working with the king’s representative or minister. Similarly, Krishna gives faith to the worshippers of the devatas and power to the devatas, setting up the entire system for the soul’s progression.
3. The progression of worship: Krishna is not jealous; He is selflessly compassionate. He doesn’t seek His own glorification but wants the soul’s elevation. I also talked about how Krishna’s system works. Worshipping devatas may be seen as less intelligent compared to worshipping Krishna, but Krishna Himself has created the system through the Vedic scriptures. The level of worship depends on the individual. A materialistic person (40%) is at one level, worshippers of the gods (60%) are at another, and worshippers of Krishna (80%) are at a higher level. The ultimate is pure devotion to Krishna (100%).

I also discussed how this progression has historically worked with figures like Vallabhacharya and Chandidas. For us to make this progression work, we need to respect the gods and those who worship them. We should not disrupt their faith but elevate it as much as we can.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

Questions:

1. Why did Krishna allow the system of worship of the various gods?
   Doesn’t having so many gods and scriptures about them create confusion?
   Well, if confusion were to be created, even the four sampradayas would also create enough confusion. If you read the history of Vaishnavism, for example, Madhvacharya’s writings indicate that he refuted various previous teachers who taught incorrect ideas. Among those he refuted was Ramanujacharya. Sectarianism doesn’t require a sectarian ideology—it requires a sectarian mentality. The human mind is vulnerable to sectarianism, and it can arise over any pretext. For example, if tomorrow all racial differences were removed, new reasons for quarreling would arise by the afternoon. In Christianity, there are over 55,000 Protestant groups despite the acceptance of Jesus as the savior. Sectarian division can arise even in systems that promote unity.

So, we understand that Krishna’s purpose is compassionate. The system of worship of various gods is designed to help people gradually rise to higher levels of consciousness. Krishna creates the system, and it is ultimately for the elevation of the soul. The confusion arises because of the sectarian nature of the human mind. Even though Krishna’s system might lead to confusion, this confusion is an unfortunate byproduct of the human mentality. As people become more purified and rise to the mode of goodness, sectarianism can be overcome.

2. Why didn’t they write just one scripture?
   This is a question that often comes up. While the Vedic scriptures are vast and varied, they offer different paths to the same ultimate truth. The existence of multiple scriptures caters to the different spiritual capacities and inclinations of people. If there were only one scripture, it might not address the diverse needs of different individuals. Moreover, the existence of multiple scriptures allows for a variety of interpretations and approaches, ensuring that everyone, based on their level of understanding, can progress on the path of devotion.

I wouldn’t say that there should only be one scripture. As I mentioned earlier, the idea that there should be just one scripture is an oversimplification of reality. Reality itself is complex, and the human mind is even more so. There are various shades of gray within black and white, and the hope that everything should be black and white reflects a naive understanding of reality. As finite, fallible beings, we must learn to live without absolute certainty. In which area of life do we have absolute certainty? For example, during the current COVID-19 pandemic, if a vaccine were to be developed tomorrow, could we be sure that it will work for everyone? In no area of life do we have absolute certainty.

The Vedic system is created with an understanding that people are at different levels of consciousness. The Abrahamic understanding often presents a binary—right and wrong, one and zero. This way of thinking is also prevalent in us. We have inherited the Abrahamic understanding, which sees things as strictly right or wrong. However, reality does not operate based on digital logic; it is more like analog logic. Attempting to reduce reality to a digital framework often leads to confusion. We need to expand our intelligence to understand how broad and magnificent reality truly is.

Confusion can result because life is complex, but reality itself is complex. Therefore, the systems designed to elevate people must also be sufficiently complex. If someone is not able to worship Krishna at the moment, we might see it as confusing, but for others, it may be a stepping stone toward greater understanding. In the Abrahamic tradition, there is the idea that if you don’t accept Jesus as your savior, you will go to hell. But this is not the Vedic understanding. The Vedic system is much more accommodating. Rather than asking why reality cannot be reduced to fit our binary framework, we need to expand our understanding to embrace the complexity of the world.

Regarding Worship and Participation in Other Festivals:

When it comes to worshipping Lord Shiva, for example, if we have family or friends who worship him or if we need to participate in social events, such as festivals of Lord Shiva, we can do so respectfully. Bhaktivinoda Thakur mentions that a devotee may participate in three kinds of festivals:

1. Festivals related to Lord Vishnu/Krishna, where the devotee’s heart is primarily focused.
2. Festivals of other devatas, such as Kali or Durga Puja, out of social convention. During these festivals, a devotee can mentally remember that these devatas are ultimately devotees of the Lord and can pray for the enhancement of their devotion.
3. Local or cultural festivals, such as national holidays or social events, can also be participated in, out of deference to social convention.

A devotee can respect Lord Shiva as a great devotee and a powerful being who can aid in the spiritual journey. In places like South India, where people follow the traditions of the Sringeri Sharadamba Temple, there is a specific disciplinary succession.

In my next session, I will talk about the worship of the impersonal manifestation of the divine. But for now, let me emphasize that it is not easy to fit people into certain conceptual categories.

On Categorization:

Rather than trying to fit everything into neat categories, we should see categories as guides. Every person within a category is still an individual. If we look at a cross-section of Christians, for instance, their understanding of Christianity can vary widely. The same holds true for devotees—no two devotees have exactly the same understanding of bhakti. We shouldn’t simply reduce people to categories. Even in times of war, such as the American Civil War over slavery, it wasn’t as simple as all people in the North being good and all people in the South being bad. Some families were torn between the two sides, and many people were neutral, trying to bring about a peaceful resolution. While politically the North and South were at war, individually, people had different mindsets.

Similarly, we must recognize that people are individuals and cannot be reduced to categories based on their affiliation with a particular group. Groups may have certain ideologies, but that doesn’t mean every individual within that group adheres to the ideology in the same way. We must approach people as human beings, not as abstractions, and help them in their spiritual journey accordingly.

On Exclusivist Religious Statements:

When other religions claim that if you don’t worship God in a specific way, you will go to hell, why is this said, especially when the ultimate goal of all religions is to attain love of God?

I think I explained this in my 4.11 class. Exclusivist statements like these often have a purpose—they are meant to encourage focus. For example, imagine a patient who has visited many doctors without committing to one. He goes to a 13th doctor, who gives him a diagnosis and a treatment plan. The doctor might tell the patient to forget what the other doctors said and follow his treatment. This is not meant to reject the other doctors outright but to help the patient focus on a single course of treatment.

Similarly, in exclusivist religious contexts, the statements that if you don’t follow a particular doctrine you will go to hell are designed to help focus the followers’ attention. However, these statements can sometimes be overemphasized by followers, leading to a prevailing ideology that if you don’t worship in a specific way, you’re condemned. In reality, these statements are more about focus than categorical rejection of other paths.

On Worshiping Krishna vs. Worshiping Other Deities:

Is someone who worships Krishna intrinsically or automatically higher than someone who worships other deities?

This is a nuanced question. Worshiping Krishna is the highest path, but that does not mean those who worship other deities are automatically lower. The Vedic system allows for various paths, and different levels of consciousness lead to different practices. The key is not simply what deity one worships but the level of devotion and understanding with which they engage in that worship. Krishna Himself is merciful and accommodates those at different levels of consciousness, guiding them gradually toward higher understanding.

The post Gita key verses course 26 – Isn’t one God enough? Does the Gita teach polytheism? – Gita 07.21 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

So today, we are discussing the 7th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, specifically the topic of prayer. Does God hear our prayers? And when our prayers go unanswered, what can we do? I’ll discuss this based on verse 7.19 of the Bhagavad Gita. Before we get to that verse, let’s quickly review where we are in our discussion so far.

In the previous two sessions, we discussed how Krishna, in the 7th chapter, begins giving a more affirming understanding of God. To connect with Krishna, we don’t necessarily need to detach ourselves from the world, but we can attach ourselves to Krishna, and we can do that through the world as well. By “through the world,” I mean that we can look at the world and see God in it. In that connection, we discussed in the second-to-last session how science approaches the world, and in the previous session, we looked at how even sexuality can be incorporated into the Gita’s vision of spirituality.

Today, we will continue that theme and examine how people approach God, often with different conceptions, and what happens when our prayers are not answered. This is a continuation of the same theme because the underlying idea is that most people, including us, approach God because something in our life is wrong and we want it to be fixed. To some extent, this is a material conception with which we approach God. So, let’s explore this further today.

Krishna says that after many lifetimes, some people become full of knowledge, surrender to Him, and understand that He is everything. Such great souls are extremely rare. The underlying idea Krishna is expressing is that those who surrender to Him realize that He is everything. Verse 7.19 is the culmination of a four-verse sequence starting from verse 7.16, where Krishna talks about how people approach Him for different purposes. We will use these verses as a starting point for our discussion on how we can perceive God in different ways when we approach Him in prayer.

I’ll discuss understanding the purpose of prayer, how our vision of God changes, and how we evolve in our understanding of God’s help. Some of the points in this class I may have mentioned briefly earlier, but here they will be more specifically focused on prayer.

Prayer is almost like a universal language of humanity. Across the world, different people in different situations, including tribals or aborigines, may have different ways of trying to appease the unknown. Some may perform dances, others might engage in voodoo worship, or whatever rituals they follow. Most of these are done with a material conception. What does that material conception mean? It means we pray so that we can get God to change something that we cannot change. For example, if there is a drought or a famine in a particular place, certain rituals or forms of prayer might be done to ask God to end the drought. In modern times, during cricket matches in India, people may pray so that India wins the match. The idea is to get God to change something that we cannot change.

However, there is also a separate, deeper spiritual understanding of prayer. That understanding is to connect with God and, in doing so, change ourselves. The purpose of praying is to connect with God. We see this in our bhakti tradition, where many prayers are offered with no request at all. Consider the Brahma Samhita prayers, often recited in our temples: “Govindam adipurusham tamaham bhajami” – “I worship Lord Govinda, the original person.” The idea here is that we simply adore and worship, seeing prayer as a means to connect with Him and become absorbed in Him. This is the primary purpose of prayer, with nothing beyond that.

So, we also see this in the teachings of Prahlad, where he mentions that there are nine ways of connecting with Krishna, and one of them is prayer. Let’s explore how one moves from a material conception to a spiritual conception, and whether the material conception is wrong. We’ll look at these things a little later.

Basically, let me explain: I may have a problem, and I need it fixed. Yes, we do need to be fixed, but among our needs, there are material needs, which are like painkillers, and spiritual needs, which are like curative medicines. Earlier, we discussed what we live with and what we live for. In a similar way, our material needs and resources are like what we live with—they are important but they are painkillers. Spiritual needs, on the other hand, are like the curative medicine. When we have a divine purpose to live for and connect with the divine, with Krishna, it provides us with a sublime satisfaction that takes us beyond any other agitation we may have.

This is a diagram we have discussed earlier. Let’s look at this pattern with specific examples. Suppose someone is sick and they don’t have a painkiller or any medicine—then they will be miserable. That’s the bottom left quadrant, which we’ll call the first quadrant. Now, suppose someone is in pain, and the main thing they think about is how to become free from that pain. They don’t think too much about what the disease is or what the cure for it is, they just want relief from the pain.

Now, why are material needs compared to painkillers? For example, we all have certain needs like breathing, hunger, and thirst. Hunger can be unbearably painful, and thirst can be unbearably painful. It is important to have food, water, and other basic needs. But think about it: after we get food, what happens? People who are starving are unhappy, but are people who are well-fed truly happy? Not necessarily. Once the need is taken care of, it’s like a painkiller—when the pain is numbed, we need another dose soon after.

In this way, our material existence is like a disease condition, and our material needs are like painkillers. We keep needing them again and again. Of course, we need them, but they are not the primary focus. Now, if someone takes only painkillers, this means their material needs are fulfilled, but their spiritual needs—connection with Krishna—are not. In such a case, they might be comfortable or happy for a time, but not for long.

On the other hand, if our spiritual needs are fulfilled, and we are connected with Krishna and absorbed in Him, but our material needs are not completely fulfilled, it is not easy, but it is bearable. We may get some glimpses of this, say, when we fast on certain holy days. Normally, we think we can’t fast, but on those days, we fast and realize it’s not that impossible. We discover that it is bearable, but not sustainable. Sustainability happens when both our material and spiritual needs are taken care of.

One vision of prayer is that it provides for our material needs, acting like a painkiller. If we consider Krishna like a doctor, then no doctor wants their patient to be in pain. But the doctor doesn’t just want the pain to be covered up; the doctor wants the pain to be cured. Therefore, a balanced approach involves taking care of both material and spiritual needs. A proper doctor would give both painkilling medication and curative medication. That’s the balance.

Sometimes, in certain phases, if one of these is not present, it is far better that the painkilling medicine is not there because at least the cure is going on. So, what happens to us? We often have a limited conception of prayer. The idea is that if God doesn’t fulfill the particular thing I want, then what’s the use of worshiping Him? Let’s explore this further.

Now, let’s talk about our material and spiritual needs. What exactly do we mean by spiritual needs? For that, we need to evolve in our vision of God. God is not just the fulfiller of our desires; He is the fulfillment of our desires. God’s greatest blessing is that whatever we get from Him is no match for God Himself. This was the point discussed in this particular verse. Evolved spiritual seekers understand this. It might take many lifetimes to realize this, but once they do, they understand that God is everything. If I have Krishna, I don’t need anything else. Whatever attractiveness might exist in the world, all of that is present in Krishna.

So, this is about the four levels at which we might approach God: fear, desire, duty, and love. At the first and second levels, it’s a material conception, at the level of beauty, it’s a transitional conception, and love is the highest level. Let’s look at these quickly.

Most world religions function at the level of fear, meaning that if I don’t worship God, He may punish me, so let me pacify Him by worshiping Him. This is better than atheism, but it is based on a very negative conception of God as a stern judge or a punisher.

Fear is the level at which many religions are criticized for inducing fear in people about some hell in a future life, or fear of other consequences. Some argue that religion manipulates through fear. Fear can be a very dangerous tool for power, and it can be easily abused. This is not a healthy or sustainable way of relating to God. In fact, many cults, when they try to control their members, create a lot of fear about the afterlife and dehumanize and demonize anyone who doesn’t belong to the cult. There is fear of God, and fear of everything that isn’t connected with God in the way prescribed by that particular religion or group.

Now, when we talk about these levels, it’s important to understand that they are not confined to any particular religion. Fear-based approaches to God exist in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and even in tribal groups. In some ways, this might be better than atheism because at least it includes some conception of God. Fear also takes different forms. For example, consider the fear of law. Should ordinary citizens be afraid of the police? Ideally, the police shouldn’t be violent or act like terrorists, but there should be an understanding that if I do something wrong, I will be punished. For instance, people often break traffic rules with impunity in India, but when they go to the US, UK, or Australia, they follow the traffic rules carefully. Why? Because they fear they can’t just bribe their way out of trouble. Fear, in this case, is a tool for order and discipline.

In the Bible, it is said that “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom,” but that is only the beginning. If fear is all that’s present in our religion, then how can we have a meaningful relationship with God?

The next level is the level of desire. This is what we discussed earlier, where most people approach God because they have many desires. They think, “If I can’t get these things, maybe if I pray to God, He will give them to me.” This conception of God is more positive, not as a cosmic punisher, but as a source of fulfilling desires. The problem with this conception is that it’s utilitarian. If God doesn’t fulfill my desires, then what’s the use of worshiping Him? And if God fulfills my desires, then what’s the need to worship Him after that? It becomes a transactional relationship, which is very utilitarian.

Within this approach, deception can also arise. For example, if people think that all they need is to have their desires fulfilled, they might end up worshiping someone who claims to be God, but is actually just a magician who does tricks for them. This is a very naive understanding of God. When the conception of God is primarily based on desire, the problem is that people might think that if they can get their desires fulfilled from some other source, there is no need for God.

For instance, “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name, give us our daily bread.” This is a good prayer at one level, as people are going to God and praying to Him. But a rabbi might say that this shows a love for bread, not for God, because the primary interest is in getting bread from God. If that bread can be obtained by some other means, then what is the need to go to God? This is the level of desire, a utilitarian concept.

Krishna talks about four categories of people who come to Him, and we can place them in these categories we are discussing. He says there are people who are inquisitive, people who are in distress, and people who are seekers of well-being. Those in distress or seeking well-being generally fall into the categories of fear or desire. Even those who are inquisitive are often still seeking information, driven by desire, and are not beyond personal interest.

The next level, beauty, is a steadier conception of God. This level represents a more mature understanding of one’s relationship with God. If we consider a child-parent relationship, should a child have some fear of the parents? Yes, there should be some discipline and fear, but fear shouldn’t be the sole basis of the relationship. Similarly, with desire—if a child only relates to the parent to get things, such as money or gifts, then that is not a very pleasant relationship. A child who calls the parent only when they need something is not nurturing a healthy relationship.

The level of beauty, then, involves a more balanced and mature understanding of God. We recognize that we have so many things we need for our existence, and they are provided for us without our making any effort. We may think that we work hard and earn money to get our food, but no matter how hard we work or how much money we make, if nature doesn’t provide the basic ingredients for our food, we will get nothing. We can’t create air or sunlight, or many of the foundational necessities for our living. God has already provided us with so much through nature.

The Gift of Nature and the Importance of Gratitude

Imagine if we had to pay a bill to nature for everything it provides. A science magazine once suggested that if we had to pay the sun for the energy it gives, just a week’s worth of electricity in one state, like Oklahoma, would cost more than the entire annual budget of the world. This illustrates the immense abundance provided by nature and by God. Everything we receive is a gift, and our relationship with God should be rooted in gratitude for what has already been given, not in craving for what we don’t have.

Often, the word “duty” has a negative connotation, as it can become burdensome over time. The highest level, however, is one based on love. At this level, we approach God because He is so lovable. We realize that it is Krishna, the all-attractive form of God, whom we desire to pray to. At this level, we seek no material gain, yet God reciprocates our devotion. This pure love satisfies the heart because the heart longs for love above all else.

Pure Devotion: The Example of Prahlad Maharaj

Prahlad Maharaj is an example of someone who had pure love for God. He was the son of the emperor of the world and had everything anyone could desire. Yet, despite his material prosperity, he wanted something more—devotion to God. He was willing to give up everything for that devotion. In his prayers, there is no material request; instead, there is loving reciprocation and complete absorption in God.

Three Levels of Devotion

Devotion can be categorized into three levels:

1. Circumstantial Devotion: This is devotion driven by fear or desire. For example, someone might pray to God when they are in trouble, asking for help out of desperation.
2. Intelligence-Driven Devotion: This type of devotion is rooted in intelligence and understanding. It involves recognizing God’s greatness and wanting a personal relationship with Him. Even if one doesn’t yet have that connection, their devotion is sincere and driven by a desire to develop it.
3. Transcendental Devotion: This is the highest level of devotion, based purely on love. It is characterized by selfless devotion to God without any material expectation.

Understanding God’s Responses to Our Prayers

As we grow in our understanding of God, we also evolve in our understanding of how God answers our prayers. To illustrate, consider the relationship between a parent and child. A child might want a toy from their parent, but the parent’s love for the child is not dependent on whether the toy is given. If the child reduces the parent’s love to the gift of a toy, they miss the greater love the parent has for them.

Similarly, when we pray to God, it’s important not to reduce our understanding of His love to simply whether or not our material desires are fulfilled. The issues we face, like career setbacks or health problems, may seem serious, but from the eternal perspective, they are temporary. While it’s natural to feel concerned about them, we must also recognize that God’s love for us goes beyond these temporary struggles.

Limited Resources, Unlimited Desires

In the material world, we live in a situation where resources are limited, but needs are unlimited. A good example of this can be seen in the Second World War, where both German and British soldiers prayed for protection, yet casualties occurred on both sides. Similarly, if we look at a situation like a cricket match between India and Pakistan, children in both countries may pray for their team to win. However, only one team can win, and this highlights the reality that not all desires can be fulfilled.

God is unlimited, but the material world is limited. While God may sometimes intervene and perform miracles, He does not typically alter the natural course of events. Thus, there are times when our prayers may not result in the outcomes we expect. Understanding this is key to deepening our relationship with God.

God’s Protection: A Divine Example

In scriptural examples, such as the story of Parikshit Maharaj in the Bhagavatam, we see that God’s protection transcends the material world. Even before Parikshit was born, the Lord protected him in the womb. This demonstrates that God’s intervention is not bound by material circumstances. He is capable of performing miracles to protect His devotees, and this is a glorious example of God’s love and care for His devotees.

Parikshit Maharaj: Protection Beyond the Physical

Parikshit Maharaj began his life as a child in the womb, protected by divine intervention. However, as he grew older, he was cursed to die within seven days. The Bhagavatam recounts his life, beginning with his protection and ending with his death. Initially, his protection was physical—protected from dangers in the material world. But later, when he was cursed, protection came in a different form.

When a snake came to bite him, Parikshit Maharaj’s body was attacked, but his consciousness was no longer attached to it. Instead, he had become absorbed in Krishna by hearing the Bhagavatam. This absorption in Krishna’s presence became his ultimate protection. The snake bit his body, but his consciousness was focused on Krishna, which shielded him spiritually. This illustrates that the greatest protection comes from being absorbed in Krishna, not merely in physical safety.

Absorption in Krishna: The True Protection

Lord Kapila in the Bhagavatam teaches that those who take shelter in Krishna and become absorbed in hearing His pastimes are shielded from worldly troubles. They are not disturbed by life’s difficulties because their consciousness is rooted in Krishna, transcending the material world. Absorption in Krishna is the highest form of protection.

Miraculous Interventions: Protection Beyond the Physical

Throughout religious traditions, there are stories of miraculous interventions. For example, Lord Nrsimhadeva protected His devotee Prahlad Maharaj from countless attempts on his life, such as being thrown into fire or hurled off a mountain. Similarly, in the Bible, Moses parted the sea to protect the Israelites from the Egyptian soldiers, showcasing that God can suspend the natural laws to protect His devotees.

These examples, while miraculous, are often seen as temporary physical interventions. However, they highlight the divine protection that transcends the material realm. God’s protection is not limited to physical well-being; His true protection is spiritual.

Understanding Protection: Material vs. Spiritual

Sometimes, we may experience distress in life—whether through serious accidents, illness, or loss. We might wonder why God isn’t protecting us, especially when other devotees seem to have miraculous protection. However, protection doesn’t always mean physical safety. Sometimes, God’s protection is spiritual, shielding us from negative consequences and elevating our consciousness, even amidst difficulties.

For example, some devotees may pass away in peaceful settings, surrounded by others chanting the holy names, while others may suffer tragic accidents. Does this mean one is protected and the other is not? Not necessarily. Protection can manifest in many forms. While physical protection is important, it’s not the ultimate form of protection.

The Story of Prahlad Maharaj

The story of Prahlad Maharaj is a perfect example of spiritual protection. Despite being subjected to brutal treatment by his father, Prahlad remained absorbed in Krishna. His devotion was so deep that, even though he faced great physical danger, he was spiritually untouched. His ultimate protection came from being fully absorbed in Krishna’s love.

Absorption in Krishna: The Key to Spiritual Protection

When we understand that Krishna is all-attractive and the source of all desires, we can become absorbed in Him. This absorption is the greatest form of connection with God and brings us spiritual protection.

When we pray to Krishna, we should not view prayer merely as a means to get something. Sometimes our prayers will be answered in the way we expect, and sometimes they won’t. However, if we see prayer as a means to connect with Krishna, it will always work. Prayer will lift the burdens we face, not by necessarily removing our problems, but by elevating our consciousness above them.

The Power of Prayer: Shifting Our Focus

Often, the real problem isn’t the situation itself, but how we obsess over it. The more we focus on our problems, the larger they seem to grow in our minds. It’s not that the problem becomes bigger, but that our consciousness becomes consumed by it.

In prayer, we must shift our focus away from the problem and turn towards Krishna. When we focus on Krishna, we are reminded of His greatness, and this makes the problems in our life seem smaller and more manageable. Prayer connects us to Krishna and lifts us above our problems.

Release or Relief?

There are two types of relief that prayer brings:

1. Release from the Problem: In some cases, the problem will be resolved entirely, and the difficulty will vanish.
2. Relief Amidst the Problem: In other cases, the problem may persist, but our consciousness rises above it. The problem remains, but it no longer burdens us as it did before.

This can be likened to entering an air-conditioned room after being in a hot environment. If you stand at the door, expecting the entire room to cool instantly, you will be disappointed. However, if you enter and let the cool air surround you, you’ll find relief. Similarly, when we turn to Krishna, we experience a gradual shift in our consciousness that offers both relief and, sometimes, release from the problems we face.

Prayer: A Path to Spiritual Connection

In the world, we often face a mix of challenges and distress. When we pray to Krishna for relief from these challenges, sometimes our problems are resolved quickly, but other times, they might not be removed immediately. However, the act of prayer doesn’t necessarily change the external circumstances right away. Instead, it opens the door to a deeper spiritual experience—allowing our consciousness to enter a space of peace, like stepping into an air-conditioned room. This room represents the place where our consciousness can be absorbed in Krishna.

When we approach prayer in this way—not just asking for material changes but seeking to deepen our connection with Krishna—we will find that prayer always works. It brings us strength and helps us connect to Krishna, offering a spiritual protection that transcends material solutions.

Should We Pray for Specific Problems?

This raises the question: if we face particular issues, such as health problems, relationship challenges, or career instability, should we pray to God for these things? Some might argue that God already knows our needs, so why pray? While it’s true that God knows everything, prayer is not just about conveying our needs. It’s an expression of our relationship with God. Just like in a parent-child relationship, saying “I love you” deepens the bond. Similarly, expressing our concerns to Krishna helps deepen our connection with Him.

When we are burdened by something in our heart, it can be hard to focus on Krishna alone. By praying about our problems, we unburden our hearts and create space for Krishna in our consciousness. Even if our focus is initially on the problem, we can use it as a starting point to pray for Krishna’s guidance.

A Story of Devotion: Guru Maharaj

Consider the story of Guru Maharaj, who was deeply insulted and felt devastated. He wanted to sit on his father’s lap, but his stepmother refused, declaring that only children born through her could do so. Feeling humiliated, Guru Maharaj vowed to not only sit on his father’s lap but to sit on a throne greater than hers. Desperate, his mother advised him to worship Vishnu, and under the guidance of Nadanmuni, he meditated and performed austerities to gain Krishna’s blessing.

When he finally had a vision of Vishnu, he became spiritually enriched and realized that, having attained Krishna’s presence, he no longer desired anything else. His prayer transformed from asking for material desires to pure devotion.

This story demonstrates that while we may start praying for material desires, prayer can purify our heart and elevate our devotion to a higher level. Initially, Guru Maharaj sought Krishna for material reasons, but through his devotion, he transcended those desires.

The Evolution of Devotion

For us, it’s important to recognize that it’s not wrong to pray for relief from our troubles. Prayer may not always bring an immediate solution to our material problems, but it connects us with Krishna. The key is to remember that we are gradually working toward a pure devotion, but we must first start by connecting with Krishna, even if our motivations are initially material.

Through association with devotees—those who are motivated by transcendental love for Krishna—we can elevate our consciousness. Devotional practices, even if circumstantial at first, will eventually purify our hearts and deepen our connection with Krishna.

The Best Prayer: Service to Krishna

When Srila Prabhupada was asked about the best prayer to offer, he replied: “Please engage me in Your service.” Our eternal relationship with Krishna is one of service. Prayer, in its purest form, should be an expression of our desire to serve Krishna. Even if nothing external changes, offering our consciousness to Krishna through prayer is an act of service. When we pray with this attitude, we align ourselves with Krishna’s will, and the burden of our problems decreases.

The purpose of prayer is not simply to ask God to change our external circumstances. At the material level, prayer may start as a request to change something, but at the spiritual level, prayer connects us to Krishna. As we deepen our devotion, our prayers become less about asking for specific material outcomes and more about establishing a relationship with Krishna.

Like a patient going to a doctor, we may seek relief, but if we reject treatment just because it doesn’t meet our expectations, we are sabotaging ourselves. Prayer is like the doctor’s treatment—it might not always give us what we expect, but it always works in ways that help us grow spiritually.

Ultimately, prayer is a tool for spiritual evolution. It brings us closer to Krishna, and as we grow in our devotion, our problems become less overwhelming. Prayer may not always change our material circumstances, but it transforms our consciousness, and that, in itself, is the greatest blessing.

The Balance Between Material and Spiritual Needs

When both our material and spiritual needs are unfulfilled, life becomes unbearable. If our material needs are met but our spiritual needs are neglected, it’s like taking a painkiller—it may relieve temporary discomfort, but it’s unsustainable in the long run. On the other hand, if our material needs are unmet but our spiritual needs are fulfilled, it becomes bearable. This is the situation where we might pray to Krishna for something, and it doesn’t happen immediately, but through prayer, we are at least connecting with Krishna. This connection itself is uplifting, providing relief even if the material issue persists.

What Are Spiritual Needs?

In this context, spiritual needs refer to our deeper connection with Krishna. We often approach God not only to fulfill material desires but also to deepen our understanding of Him. We talked about the four levels at which we approach God—desire, duty, and love. Additionally, devotion progresses in three stages: circumstantial, intentional, and transcendental. These stages reflect the evolution of our relationship with God, from seeking help for material needs to serving Krishna with pure love.

What Happens When Our Prayers Are Not Answered?

When our prayers go unanswered, we might wonder why. The scriptures describe God’s intervention in various ways—sometimes in miraculous forms, but often in subtle ways that may not align with our expectations. If we reduce our relationship with God to simply fulfilling our desires, it’s like a child seeing a parent’s love only in the toys they are given. A deeper relationship with Krishna is about more than material fulfillment; it’s about spiritual connection.

Relief Amid Problems: The Role of Prayer

Even if we don’t get an immediate resolution to our problems, prayer can still bring relief. The problems we face might feel like a blazing heat, but prayer can offer relief, like entering an air-conditioned room. When we pray, we connect with Krishna, and that connection helps to alleviate the inner distress, even if the external situation remains unchanged.

Praying for Material Needs: The Story of Dhruva

We can look to the story of Dhruva to understand how material prayers can be answered. Dhruva prayed to Krishna for a kingdom greater than his father’s, and through his devotion, he ultimately achieved his material desire while also attaining spiritual realization. This demonstrates that material prayers, when offered with devotion, can lead to spiritual growth.

The Importance of Association

When we are in the association of devotees, we learn the proper attitude toward prayer and develop a continuous relationship with Krishna. By praying to serve Krishna, we position ourselves auspiciously for spiritual growth. True prayer is not about getting God to fulfill our desires but about deepening our connection with Him.

Absorbing Ourselves in Krishna Through Work

One common question is: How can we absorb ourselves in Krishna when we have to engage in work? The key is to approach our work with the understanding that it is an offering to Krishna. Before starting, remind yourself that the work is for Krishna. After completing the task, express gratitude to Krishna for giving you the ability to serve through that work. Even during the work, recognize that your abilities are gifts from Krishna.

This approach can be applied to any task, as long as we reorient our lives with Krishna as the ultimate purpose. For example, Arjuna, during the battle of Kurukshetra, didn’t chant Krishna’s name while fighting, but his purpose was to serve Krishna through his actions in the war. Similarly, we don’t have to constantly chant while working, but if we remember that our work is meant for Krishna, it can be done as an offering.

The Role of Distress in Devotion: The Example of Prahlad

The distress that Prahlad Maharaj faced was due to his devotion to Krishna, and it set an example for others. Devotees may face suffering, not because they’ve done something wrong but because Krishna has a higher plan. Prahlad himself acknowledged that his suffering was part of Krishna’s plan to teach others the principles of pure devotion. Sometimes, suffering comes upon us even when we haven’t done anything to deserve it, and through it, we learn how to maintain our devotion despite challenges.

What Does It Mean When Krishna Takes Away a Desire?

Sometimes, when we pray to Krishna for something, it may seem like He fulfills our desire only to take it away shortly after. This could be a sign that the material desire was not truly beneficial for our spiritual growth. Krishna may remove the desire to guide us toward a deeper connection with Him, helping us detach from material things and focus on spiritual fulfillment instead. It’s important to trust that Krishna’s decisions are always in our best interest, even when they don’t align with our expectations.

In summary, prayer is not just about seeking material fulfillment; it is about developing a deeper, spiritual relationship with Krishna. Even if our material desires are not fulfilled, prayer can provide relief and strengthen our connection with God. Through prayer, we can move from circumstantial devotion to intentional and transcendental devotion, allowing us to navigate life’s challenges with a sense of purpose and peace.

Understanding the Role of Krishna’s Arrangement and Karma

When something happens in our lives, we can view it in three ways:

1. It comes due to our past karma.
2. It comes by Krishna’s arrangement.
3. It comes through Krishna’s arrangement acting through our past and present karma.

The key is to always maintain a mood of serving the Lord. If we are given particular resources, we should use them to serve Krishna. If we don’t have those resources, we continue to serve Krishna in whatever way we can. When Krishna provides something, we recognize that it’s given so that we can use it in His service. When Krishna takes it away, we understand that He now desires us to serve without those things.

The Case of Chitraketu Maharaj

An example of this is Chitraketu Maharaj. He desperately wanted a child, and after performing rituals, he finally had a son. However, his son was taken away shortly after birth. This taught him that nothing, apart from Krishna, can truly satisfy us. Desiring anything more than Krishna is not beneficial. Chitraketu’s attachment to having a son as an heir, even though it was for service to Krishna, was a lesson in realizing that what Krishna wants is what we must accept.

If we approach life with a relationship centered on serving Krishna, we can more easily accept the arrival and departure of material things. Whether we have or lack material resources, the goal is to always be focused on serving Krishna.

The Dynamics of Karma and Prayer

Karma is not a simple or static concept. While we carry the reactions of past lives, how we act in this life also matters. Karma is dynamic—it’s not like a fixed path where we simply face the inevitable consequences of past actions. Instead, we also have the opportunity to act in ways that influence our current and future circumstances.

Praying to Krishna is part of this process. We may not fully understand how prayer interacts with our karma, but prayer is a tool that helps us connect with Krishna. We should not view prayer simply as a way to change our material circumstances, but as a way to deepen our connection with Krishna. Through prayer, we can learn to use material circumstances as an impetus to serve Krishna.

Is Prayer Meaningless in the Face of Karma?

Some might ask, “What’s the use of praying to Krishna if everything is determined by karma?” One way to view this is through the example of a sports player. In a long career, players often face wrong decisions, where they are given out unfairly or not given out when they should be. Over time, the total number of “wrong” decisions evens out. Similarly, even if we can’t change all our karma, prayer can still help us navigate it more gracefully. If we face 10 problems and prayer helps reduce it to 9 or 8, that’s still a benefit.

The key takeaway is that prayer helps to soften the burden of karma, even if it doesn’t eliminate it entirely. It’s not about avoiding all suffering but finding spiritual relief through our relationship with Krishna.

Balancing Material and Spiritual Needs

Sometimes devotees enter spiritual practice with high expectations, thinking their material needs will be fulfilled automatically. For example, someone may join an ashram expecting their material desires to be taken care of, but then they feel disillusioned when those desires remain unmet. The solution lies in realistic understanding: Bhakti is not a quick fix for material problems, but a path to spiritual fulfillment.

Practical education is important to help devotees understand the balance between material and spiritual needs. Bhakti is not about rejecting the material world entirely, but about seeing everything as an opportunity to serve Krishna. While spiritual growth might not immediately resolve material problems, it provides a deeper perspective on how to navigate them.

Realistic Expectations in Bhakti

Bhakti is about cultivating a deeper connection with Krishna, not about expecting material rewards. Sometimes devotees may misinterpret the teachings or expect the material world to become perfect through bhakti. However, Bhakti encourages a holistic approach that includes both spiritual practice and practical solutions to worldly problems. Srila Prabhupada, when departing, emphasized the importance of organization and intelligence in spreading Krishna Consciousness. This means providing holistic care for devotees, addressing their material needs while nurturing their spiritual growth.

Ultimately, we are learning how to balance our material and spiritual needs, and how to accept whatever Krishna arranges for us, knowing that He desires our well-being. Karma, prayer, and service all interact in ways we may not fully understand, but the key is to approach all situations with a mood of serving Krishna. Even in difficult times, the practice of bhakti helps us maintain spiritual focus and offers relief from the burdens of life.

Balancing Material and Spiritual Needs in Bhakti

In the practice of bhakti, it’s important to recognize that spiritual growth is a lifelong process. Sometimes, devotees may find that only their special spiritual needs are being met, but their material needs remain unaddressed. This is something that needs to be communicated to help devotees make arrangements for their material needs as well.

As devotees gain more experience, they also become more mature in understanding how bhakti is to be practiced. Bhakti is not just a short-term endeavor; it’s for a lifetime. While we should be serious about practicing bhakti, it’s also possible that we may live longer than we expect. Therefore, it’s essential not to neglect our health or other practical aspects of life. If we don’t take care of our body now, we may not be able to serve Krishna effectively in the future, no matter how enthusiastic we are.

Practical Example: Vajendra’s Story

Srila Prabhupada often referenced the story of Vajendra, the elephant caught by a crocodile. Vajendra struggled in the water, but if he had been on land, he could have fought the crocodile. This story illustrates that we must also recognize the practical aspects of our situation in life. We should understand how best to balance our practice of bhakti with the realities of our circumstances.

The Importance of Personal Responsibility

Blaming authorities for our challenges is a common reaction, but we must understand that our movement is still young, and both the authorities and the devotees are learning together. The locus of responsibility for our spiritual lives always rests with the individual. It’s not the responsibility of our spiritual master, the authorities, or the institution to manage our spiritual growth. Arjuna didn’t outsource his responsibility to Krishna; instead, he learned from Krishna and made his own choices.

We must approach bhakti with the understanding that while we learn from authorities, we must also use our intelligence and take personal responsibility for our spiritual journey.

Cultivating Gratitude in All Circumstances

Being grateful in all circumstances is not easy, but it is possible. Even if we can’t be grateful for every situation, we can still practice gratitude by looking beyond the situation itself. There are three key steps to cultivating gratitude:

1. Look for the good around the bad: Even in difficult situations, look for positive aspects. For example, if you’ve lost your job, instead of focusing solely on the loss, find the good around it, such as marketable skills or new opportunities.
2. Look for lessons and growth: Often, bad situations lead to personal growth or lessons that will serve us in the future. Reflect on how challenges can help you grow spiritually.
3. Look for the good that may emerge from the bad: Sometimes, difficult situations bring unexpected benefits. Reflect on how challenging times in the past may have led to better opportunities later.

By practicing these three steps, we can begin to see the good in even the most challenging circumstances, helping us maintain gratitude even when it’s difficult.

Inquisitiveness and Duty in Bhakti

In bhakti, inquisitiveness can come from different motivations. If a person is merely curious or intrigued by devotional practices without a deeper understanding, this is often a form of superficial inquisitiveness. However, if the inquisitiveness is driven by a sincere desire to connect with Krishna, it becomes more aligned with duty.

The sages who asked profound questions were motivated by duty and intelligence, seeking to understand the ultimate reality and connect with Krishna. Their inquisitiveness was purposeful, rooted in their practice of bhakti, not just for personal curiosity.

Karma and Absorption in Krishna

The difficulty we face in absorbing ourselves fully in Krishna is often due to the momentum of our past karmas. Our minds have developed patterns based on previous actions and conceptions, making it challenging to focus on Krishna. However, by practicing bhakti gradually and with intention, we can overcome these obstacles.

The key is to start with what we can do, even if it’s just a small effort, and then gradually increase our focus on Krishna. Over time, through consistent practice, we will develop greater absorption in Krishna.

Thank you very much.

The post Gita key verses course 25 – Does God hear our prayers? Gita 7.19 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Topic Introduction: The Bhagavad Gita’s Teachings on Sex and Spirituality

Thank you all for joining today. In this session of our continued Bhagavad Gita course, we’ll delve into a very relevant and insightful topic that the Gita addresses. The seventh chapter, titled “Knowledge of the Absolute,” offers deep wisdom on issues that are central to human life. Today, we’ll primarily focus on two questions: Can sex be spiritual? and What is the difference between lust and love?

Krishna’s Perspective on Sex in the Bhagavad Gita

In the 7th chapter, verse 11, Krishna says:

“I am strength among the strong, especially the strength that is free from attachment and cravings, and I am the sex that is not contrary to religious principles.”

What does this mean? Krishna is highlighting that strength, when free from personal desires and attachments, is aligned with spiritual progress. Similarly, sex, when it adheres to dharma—meaning it does not violate religious principles—can be seen as part of the spiritual framework.

The Flow of the Bhagavad Gita: Detachment to Attachment

To understand this context, it’s important to look at the flow of the Bhagavad Gita. In the earlier chapters (up to Chapter 6), Krishna emphasizes detachment from the material world. The focus is on how detaching from worldly distractions allows us to connect with a higher spiritual reality.

For example, in 6.47, Krishna says:

“Among all yogis, the one who worships Me with unwavering faith and devotion is considered the highest.”

The Gita presents a gradual ascent from detaching from matter to becoming attached to the spiritual essence, ultimately culminating in attachment to Krishna, who is the Supreme reality.

A Shift in Mood from Detachment to Engaged Attachment

From the 7th chapter onward, the focus shifts. Rather than only detaching the mind from material things, Krishna now suggests a more integrated approach. The first verse of Chapter 7 emphasizes:

“Make your mind attached to Me, and I will describe the process for you.”

Krishna offers a path where attachment to Him naturally leads to the detachment from material desires. It’s like if someone is carrying a heavy bag of stones—rather than telling them to just drop it, you could show them something better to hold, like a bag full of jewels. As their attention shifts to the jewels, the stones naturally fall away.

A World-Engaging Path to Spirituality

The Gita now offers a world-encompassing approach to spirituality. Rather than a world-rejecting path (detaching from matter and focusing only on the spirit), Krishna guides us to see that spirit pervades matter. Spirituality isn’t about rejecting the world but recognizing that the world itself can be used for spiritual growth. This approach aligns with modern life, where science and technology help us improve the material world, and spirituality enhances our personal growth.

Krishna as the Essence of All Things

In Chapter 7, verse 7, Krishna describes Himself as:

“I am the thread of truth that pervades all of existence.”

This is an important point: Krishna is the underlying essence of all things. Everything in the world has a defining essence, and Krishna is that essence. When we start to see Krishna as the pervading force in all things, we can engage with the world spiritually, recognizing His presence in everything we encounter.

Today, we’ve seen that the Gita’s message regarding sex and spirituality is not about denying the world but understanding how the material world can be engaged in a spiritual way. When we connect with the spiritual essence of life, even things like sex can be aligned with higher spiritual principles.

In the upcoming sessions, we will continue exploring how the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita help us navigate our relationship with the world and the divine, ultimately guiding us toward a deeper connection with Krishna.

Krishna says that he is the essence behind the abilities of all great people. Whether we think of a cricketer like Sachin Tendulkar, a tennis player like Roger Federer, an artist like Michelangelo, or a musician like Mozart, we recognize them by their exceptional abilities. These abilities are what define them, and Krishna says, “I am that essence.” He explains how he pervades all of existence as the underlying thread of truth, offering examples to illustrate this. In verses 7.8 to 7.11, Krishna gives various examples, one of which highlights that he is the transformative force behind the strength in people. Krishna says, “I am the strength of the strong”, but this strength is not just any power. It is the power that is free from attachment, free from selfish desire. For instance, consider a situation where political or crowd power is being misused, such as in riots. This is not the kind of strength Krishna refers to. Rather, the strength Krishna speaks of is power used for good, for selfless purposes. Similarly, Krishna says, “I am the desire that is in line with dharma”, meaning the desire that is aligned with the principles of virtue. Today, we focus on sexual desire, which, in the Vedic tradition, is one of the four primary goals of life: dharma, artha, kama, and moksha. While one can fulfill desires (kama) and earn wealth (artha), these pursuits must be regulated by dharma, the principle of virtue. Krishna is emphasizing that not all desires are divine, but those that align with dharma are manifestations of the divine.

Now, let’s explore the implications of Krishna’s declaration. We’ll discuss three parts: how to see everything in light of life’s ultimate purpose, how to deal with things that divert us from this purpose, and how to harmonize things with it. The ultimate purpose of life, as we know from the Bhagavad Gita, is spiritual evolution—the development of our soul’s eternal connection with Krishna. Everything in life is meant to help us move towards a stronger, deeper relationship with Krishna. From Chapter 7 onward, Krishna focuses on an inclusive vision of spirituality—how even activities of the world can be used for spiritual growth.

When Krishna says “I am the thread underlying all of existence”, he is reminding us that everything is connected through him. We can connect with Krishna through everything, even through the things that may seem to disconnect us from him. The Gita teaches us that fixing our mind on Krishna doesn’t mean rejecting the world; rather, it means engaging with the world in a mood of service to Krishna. This principle will be elaborated in Chapter 10, where Krishna explains that all that is attractive in this world is a manifestation of his splendor. Whether it’s a person, a thing, or an experience, its attraction comes from Krishna, who is the source of all attraction.

Let’s take a practical example. Many things can distract us, like sports, movies, novels, or news. Let’s consider novels like Harry Potter or The Hunger Games. People get captivated by these stories. Someone who is not interested might wonder, “What’s so special about these books?” But the answer lies in the fact that these stories captivate us because they contain a spark of Krishna’s energy. Not everyone experiences this spark in the same way. For example, Indians are passionate about cricket, while Americans, who might not be familiar with the sport, may not understand its appeal. But for the fans, the attraction comes from Krishna’s energy embedded in the game.

To illustrate this further, imagine Krishna as the ocean, and we are all pursuing drops from that ocean. We each pursue different things in the world that captivate us. These “drops” are reflections of Krishna’s beauty and energy, and we are naturally drawn to them. The point is that everything attractive ultimately connects to Krishna. The key is not to reject these things but to recognize that their attraction is rooted in him.

Consider another metaphor: a person in a desert walking toward an ocean. There are three possible paths: one that leads directly to the ocean, one that leads away from it, and one that runs parallel to it. Similarly, we all pursue different aspects of Krishna’s energy, but in the end, all paths that lead us toward beauty, goodness, and attraction are connected to Krishna, whether we consciously realize it or not.

The Gita teaches us that we can harmonize everything in our lives with Krishna’s ultimate purpose by recognizing the divine essence in everything. Whether it’s our desires, our talents, or the things that captivate us, we can redirect them towards spiritual growth, seeing everything as an opportunity to connect with Krishna.

So what do we mean over here? Suppose, along this path where you see the arrows, there are some drops of water over there. Now, what may happen on seeing such drops is that the person may say, “Oh, I’m thirsty; I need some water, so let me look for this water.” In looking for that water, they start pursuing it and move in that direction. So now, all the water in the vicinity of the desert, which is near the ocean or that oasis, where has it come from? That water has come from the ocean itself. But not all those drops will take that person toward the ocean. If there was a stormy wind, and because of that, the water came or some water got swept, there are drops in the direction indicated by the red arrows. The red arrows show that these drops are in a direction opposite to the ocean. So, if someone starts chasing those drops, they will not go closer to the ocean. Or, if someone starts chasing the drops shown by the black arrows, which are parallel to the ocean, again that person will not get to the ocean. Why not? Because those drops are not taking them toward the ocean. It is only the white arrows, the drops in that direction, which will take them toward the ocean.

So, just the presence of water, the presence of drops of water, indicates the presence of the ocean. But the direction in which the arrows of the drops are present doesn’t necessarily indicate that this is the direction where the water is.

So, what does this mean for us practically? Everything attractive comes from Krishna, but everything attractive doesn’t always take us to Krishna. The source and destination may not always be the same. If something attracts us toward Krishna or something we find attractive, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will take us toward Krishna. It may take us away from Krishna as well. So, that’s why we have to know what life’s ultimate purpose is, and then we see how whatever we are doing reflects or where the direction we are going takes us—whether that is taking us toward life’s ultimate purpose or away from it. To the extent we can see that, to that extent we can act properly.

Just because I feel attracted to it, should I do this? Well, not necessarily. Even if we understand that, okay, I’m feeling attracted to this because I’m attracted to Krishna—rather, this is a manifestation of Krishna—well, it is a manifestation of Krishna, but is it going to take me toward Krishna? That is something we have to consider. So, we need to become conscious of Krishna in the things that make us unconscious of Krishna.

For example, suppose somebody’s an alcoholic, and as soon as they think of a bottle of alcohol, they just get captivated by it—thinking, “When can I drink it?” Then they drink it, and maybe get into an alcohol-induced stupor, fall asleep, or experience a hangover. Through all that process, they’re not conscious of Krishna at all. So, is that alcohol Krishna? Well, alcohol is not Krishna, but the capacity of that alcohol to attract someone—that capacity is actually a spark of Krishna. Now, Prabhupada said that if someone cannot give up alcohol, he said this in his book On the Way to Krishna, then they can think that the taste of alcohol is Krishna. By thinking that the taste of alcohol is Krishna, what will happen? They will remember Krishna. And by such remembrance of Krishna, they will one day become devotees of Krishna—they’ll become attracted to Krishna. So, not by drinking alcohol will they go toward Krishna, but by remembering Krishna, and this capacity of alcohol to attract comes from Krishna. It will take me toward Krishna if I remember Krishna.

So, that’s why normally alcohol makes somebody unconscious of Krishna. But, rather than simply getting captivated by it, if one thinks, “Okay, what is it that is captivating me so much?”—well, what is captivating me is actually Krishna. It is a spark of Krishna that is manifesting over here. So, learn to become conscious of Krishna in the things that make us unconscious of Krishna.

Normally, when we are captivated by some temptation, we just don’t think about Krishna at all. Similarly, when there is a great threat, say a pandemic has swept across the world or we might live in a place where there is a threat of a storm or things like that, even the destructive power of nature ultimately reminds us of how there are realities bigger than us. Nature is working under Krishna’s control. So, many times when people experience natural calamities, they see this as a god-like power. This is scary. It jolts us out of our daily conceptions and routines.

So, whenever something just grips our attention, rather than simply letting our attention get caught in it, we can think and understand, “Okay, this is manifesting a spark of Krishna’s splendor.” Now, we may not remember it at that time, but even if we remember it before or after, at least that remembrance of Krishna is there. So that makes us conscious of Krishna.

Now, Prabhupada writes in one of the purports in this same section, 7.8 to 12, that the jurisdiction of Krishna extends everywhere, and one who knows this is fortunate. So, the jurisdiction of Krishna—Krishna is not… some people have this idea that this whole world is profane. Profane is the opposite of sacred—it’s unholy, impure. God is pure, and we need to give up the impure to go toward the pure. Well, yes, we definitely need to purify ourselves, but to consider the world to be profane or impure is an incorrect understanding. The jurisdiction of Krishna extends everywhere, even in what we consider the profane world. There, Krishna’s jurisdiction is there, and if we can pursue that Krishna connection, then we are fortunate.

So, this was a broad thing—we need to see everything in life in terms of life’s ultimate purpose. Then, how do we deal with things that distract us from life’s purpose? One of the major distractors is sex, and the attraction between the male and female that eventually leads to sex. So, this particular section, I’m going to discuss this topic: dharma aviruddha bhuteshu, kamo smibhara tarshaba. Krishna says, “I am sex life that is not contrary to religious principles.” So, how can sex life be related to life’s ultimate purpose?

So, what is sex pursued for? If you want to consider that broadly speaking, let’s, before we start with human beings, start with animals or nature in general. The primary purpose of sex is reproduction. So, if somebody has lived on a cow farm, for example, where cows are taken care of, then there are biological or environmental cycles. The cows go into heat, and when they are in heat, they start exhibiting certain behaviors, certain symptoms. At that time, they need to be united with the bull, and when the cow and the bull come together, conception happens, and eventually reproduction occurs.

So, if we consider the animal world, it is largely biologically triggered—there are certain hormones secreted in the body, and they are, of course, associated with certain seasons and environmental cycles. But the point is, in nature, sex is primarily a means for reproduction. So, there is union, population, and procreation, and, of course, there are a few organisms that reproduce asexually, but that’s very rare, especially as consciousness develops.

Now, if we consider the microscopic organisms like bacteria and others, or plants, even in plants, there’s no literal physical union like in animals. Plants have reproductive organs, the flower, the androecium, and the gynoecium. The pollen is blown by the wind from one flower to another, and when it falls in the right place, reproduction happens.

So, basically, the soul evolves through various species, and the lower the species in which the soul is present, the less the expression of consciousness. Just like in microscopic organisms or even in plants, the expression of consciousness is very limited. And the pleasure associated with the expression of consciousness is also very limited. So, there is practically no sexual pleasure in animals. There is reproduction, but the point I’m making is that reproduction is something pursued by all living beings, and it’s essential for survival.

As consciousness develops in the natural world across various species, one of the major ways reproduction is pursued is through sex. Now, while reproduction is the primary purpose, there are a couple of other purposes as well. When we consider society among various species in nature, the human progeny requires the most care and the longest care compared to other species.

For example, if you consider birds, sometimes birds lay eggs and sit on them until they hatch. Sometimes, species like seagulls or some other aquatic birds just have their progeny and go away, and sometimes the parents and the progeny don’t even see each other much. So, there are different ways in which the newborn progeny depends on its parents in its formative years or infancy. That varies from species to species. But a human progeny, a human baby, after it is born, is completely helpless. If a baby were abandoned all alone, it wouldn’t survive.

So, by nature’s arrangement, pair bonding refers to two members of a species coming together for reproduction. There is a bonding that forms between them, and pair bonding enables the couple to be united together so that they can carry on the responsibility of reproduction. And, of course, there is pleasure. There is the release or activation of hormones and the release of certain fluids in the body, leading to an intense sensation of pleasure when one unites for the process of sex.

Now, if you consider broadly these three purposes, the primary purpose is reproduction. That is how human beings survive and reproduce. The remaining two purposes are like add-ons, which assist the first. So, pair bonding and pleasure help. As I said, the male and female in the human species have to take responsibility and care for their progeny. Unless they are reasonably bonded together, they cannot do that.

In more polite circles, the word for sex is often “physical intimacy.” Now, physical intimacy or pair bonding—the point of that is that when two people are together, and they take on the responsibility of having a child, they can take care of the child. The Bhagavatam, in its third canto, says that the whole process of bonding with another human being, the whole process of taking care of a third human being, involves a significant level of anxiety and responsibility. And unless there were some pleasure, people would not take it up.

So, the pleasure is given within nature, and it helps to mitigate the anxiety associated with pair bonding and reproduction. Now, of course, when we bond with a human being, that itself gives some pleasure. When we see a child, and the child grows up to become a wonderful human being, that also gives pleasure. It’s not that pleasure is only in the sexual act, but the point is that there is a significant amount of anxiety that comes with it.

Now, if you consider broadly the purposes for which certain things are done, in traditional society as well as modern society, in traditional society it was understood that reproduction is the primary purpose. Of course, people wanted to have a life partner, there was pair bonding, and of course, there was hope for pleasure. But if you consider, say, the Bhagavatam or even Germanic sagas from Europe and other places, often kings would have anxiety about having an heir—who would succeed, who would carry on the responsibilities. In fact, even now, people from one or two generations before us often have this anxiety: “Who will carry on our dynasty? Who will carry on our legacy? Who will carry on the name of the dynasty?” That’s why they say you need to procreate. That is considered one of the duties within the broader Vedic tradition.

Now, sometimes people who are too influenced by modern and postmodern views ask, “What’s the point of continuing one’s dynasty? What does it even mean?” It doesn’t make any sense because we often have a very fragmented view of ourselves. We consider ourselves entirely autonomous units, capable of doing whatever we want, and we feel that we deserve the freedom to do whatever we want. But we are not entirely autonomous. We exist in various larger units. We exist in a dynasty, in a nation, in a community, and each of these brings certain duties with it.

So, traditionally, marriage and producing children have a sanctity associated with them because that’s how one continues the existence of the human species and also continues a particular dynasty. We are living because of all that our ancestors did in the past, and then we need to pass it on to a future generation. We need to continue the dynasty.

So, the idea was that sometimes the pleasure motive can dominate and drive people. Sometimes, pair bonding, the ritual for pair bonding, is marriage. So, traditionally, union between a man and a woman would happen after marriage. Through marriage, a formal pair bonding happens, and then people take on the responsibility of having children. But it could happen that, in the past, a man and woman get very strongly attracted to each other. When they get attracted, they might unite, even without formalizing their relationship through a sacred marriage. However, when this happens, and especially if pregnancy occurs, people would understand that they have to take responsibility and then get married. This would be called a “shotgun marriage.” A “shotgun marriage” means that the father of the girl would stand with a shotgun behind the head of the man and say, “You have to take responsibility.”

Now, this is a very elaborate subject, but I’ll mention it briefly. In the past, the institution of marriage was considered extremely important and sacred, and sometimes it mattered as much as, or even more than, the person to whom someone was getting married. I repeat: the institution of marriage mattered as much, or if not more, than the person to whom someone was getting married. This means that if I am married, then I am committed. I have to take responsibility, and I have to make sure we make this work.

Now, it’s not that in the past, when marriages were arranged, people were always happy in all the marriages. But when the primary purpose was clearly understood—that this is a responsibility and a sacred responsibility—then the other purposes, such as how well one gets along with the person or how much pleasure one gets in bonding with them, were secondary.

When the primary purpose of reproduction is set aside and pair bonding is sought, we can separate pair bonding and pleasure. Pair bonding is more about an emotional connection with the other person, while pleasure is more about physical stimulation that comes with the act of copulation.

Now, if we consider the situation when the primary purpose of reproduction is set aside, then all that matters is pair bonding or pleasure. Any activity that is not pursued for a higher purpose, not pursued with a sense of positive responsibility, soon devolves into meaninglessness. For example, when pleasure is divorced from pair bonding for procreation, the pleasure itself gradually becomes pointless.

What do I mean by that? From the 1960s onward, especially in America and Western cultures, there was what is called the sexual revolution. Psychologists like Sigmund Freud, who observed mental health problems starting in the early 20th century, suggested that these issues were caused by various factors, including urbanization, which uprooted people from their traditional settings and their sense of belonging. Urbanization and commercialization made people feel lonely in an ultra-competitive environment.

Freud proposed that most mental health problems were due to sexual repression—the repressed desires of the libido. Some people felt the solution was unrestricted sexual expression. They believed that marriage and other traditional structures didn’t allow them to express love freely. As a result, the sexual revolution led to sex being separated from marriage.

Now, of course, in the Western and Westernized world, it’s quite common for people to come together without any thought of marriage. But what happened as a result of this? In the 1990s, Harvard Medical School conducted a survey (which has been repeated by other institutions as well), and it found that people who lived through this “free sex” culture often felt very lonely and guilty. Lonely because, although their bodies were coming in touch with many other bodies, their hearts remained untouched. They knew they were just using someone else to relieve an itch, and the other person was using them for the same purpose.

Eventually, what happened was that sexual pleasure itself became pointless. This is the irony: the more sex is glamorized, the more it is trivialized. What do I mean by glamorized? In traditional cultures, whether in India or the West, sexual activity was not publicly depicted. Physical intimacy and acts associated with it were generally private. But now, public depictions happen, and there’s a huge sense of mystique surrounding it, as if something extraordinary or wonderful is going to happen. But ironically, the more the media glamorizes sex, the more, in real life, sex becomes trivialized.

Trivialized means that there are cases where people go to a bar, drink, pick up someone, and the next morning, they don’t even know the name of the person they had sex with. It becomes something very trivial.

The Power of Sex and Its Impact on Society

It’s ironic that the more we glamorize sex in our imaginations, the more trivial it becomes in real life. While some treat it casually, thinking that sex is just about doing whatever they want with whoever they want, it is far from trivial. In fact, sex is an incredibly powerful force, one that is too significant to be simply “tamed” or approached lightly.

A clear example of this is seen in the contemporary MeToo movement, where many women in the workplace shared their experiences of sexual exploitation by their employers and others in positions of power. While this behavior is reprehensible, the movement reveals something deeper about society’s view of sex.

In mainstream culture, there’s often the assumption that sex is personal and enjoyable—much like any other recreational activity. The pioneers of the sexual revolution, for example, championed the notion of “get your religion out of my bedroom.” They argued that sex should be an individual choice without interference, likening it to any casual pleasure like eating food or watching a movie.

While individuals do have the freedom to think and act as they choose, the question remains: Is sex really just another casual pleasure? Mainstream media often portrays sex in a way that suggests it is no more significant than watching a football game or enjoying a night out at a bar. Yet, is it really that simple?

Consider this analogy: If someone were to force you to watch a football game, you wouldn’t hold a grudge for decades or file a lawsuit over it. It’s a passing activity. But sex isn’t like that. Even if we didn’t want it, there’s a significant emotional investment and a sense of personal privacy involved. The consequences of sex are profound and long-lasting, unlike other recreational activities.

The Glamour and Trivialization of Sex in Media

The media tends to both glamorize sex with a sense of mystique, while also trivializing it by suggesting that it can be done impulsively, at any time, and with anyone. However, in reality, sex is far more complex and impactful than this portrayal.

Sex isn’t just another enjoyable activity on a menu of pleasures. It’s a powerful force that can shape our emotions and lives in profound ways. The urge for sex can sometimes lead people to do harmful things—such as sexual exploitation—highlighting just how potent and risky this force can be.

Why Sex Has Traditionally Been Regulated

Traditionally, sex has been regulated not because it is inherently sinful, but because it is recognized as an incredibly powerful force. The comparison can be made to nuclear weapons. Just as nuclear weapons are in a category of their own due to their destructive potential, sex, among all human pleasures, holds a similarly exceptional power.

Sex is capable of creating new life, something no other pleasurable activity can do. After eating food, for example, we simply digest and expel it from our bodies. But sex is unique in that it can result in the creation of life, an outcome that carries enormous significance and consequence.

While modern society may attempt to treat sex as just another casual pleasure, its real power cannot be ignored. It is too significant, too transformative, and too capable of affecting human lives in deep ways. The regulation of sex in traditional societies wasn’t about repression, but rather about respecting its immense power. Like nuclear weapons, sex requires careful handling, deep respect, and understanding of its potential consequences.

The Relegation of Purpose and the Consequences in Modern Society

In modern society, the primary purpose of life has been relegated to something incidental or even non-essential. This disruption of the natural order leads to people pursuing sex not for pair bonding, but for pleasure alone. Sex, which is sacred and powerful, when not properly regulated, can create chaos in society. This is exactly what we see happening more and more today.

Ironically, surveys from the 1960s to the early 2010s show a clear paradox. Despite greater freedom and liberty, people are more anxious and more lonely. Books like The American Paradox highlight how, amidst plenty, anxiety has increased, and marriage stability has decreased. More and more people are struggling with loneliness. The reason for this is clear: When we disconnect something from its higher purpose, we invite disorder and frustration into our lives.

Pleasure vs. Life’s Purpose

Seeking pleasure is not inherently a problem. In fact, all humans seek pleasure, but we also seek meaningful pleasure. Earlier, I mentioned how if someone offered you the chance to live with no financial concerns or social responsibilities, but only to watch comedies forever, you might enjoy it for a while, but eventually, you’d become bored. Why? Because we seek purpose, not just pleasure. The same principle applies to sex. When we pursue sex purely for pleasure, without considering its higher purpose, it leads to problems.

Sex, Kama, and the Role of Dharma

Sexual desire is a part of human life, but like all aspects of life, it must be pursued with a sense of balance. In the Kama Sutra, the famous text about sexual pleasure, the goal is not to encourage indulgence but to emphasize that Kama (pleasure) should not be pursued independently of Dharma (righteousness), Artha (prosperity), and Moksha (spiritual liberation). Kama is just one aspect of life, and it should always be aligned with the other purposes.

When we talk about male-female attraction, it’s important to distinguish between romantic, erotic, and pornographic depictions. In many traditional cultures, including India, romantic attraction is described as a relationship where physical attraction is part of a broader connection and a desire to build a life together.

The Nature of Attraction

In romantic attraction, the focus is on building a relationship. For example, in Vedic literature, the romantic attraction between figures like Arjuna and Subhadra is described as part of a deeper connection. Erotic attraction, however, places an inordinate emphasis on the physical, often elevating the sexual aspect over the relationship.

Finally, pornography completely detaches sex from any context of relationship, procreation, or pair bonding. Instead, it objectifies individuals purely for personal pleasure, dehumanizing them in the process. This is the most harmful aspect of the modern view of sex.

Sex in Sacred Texts vs. Pornography

Though sacred texts, including the Bhagavatam or Ramayana, may contain explicit descriptions, they are often framed in the context of romantic attraction or relationships. These texts do not promote or glorify the harmful aspects of sexuality found in pornography. Pornography, as we know it today, is about triggering desires and manipulating individuals for selfish purposes, rather than recognizing the sacredness and significance of the human experience.

The Disruption of Purpose in Modern Society

In modern society, the primary purpose of life has been diminished, often treated as incidental or non-essential. This shift leads people to pursue sex not as a means for pair bonding, but simply for pleasure. Sex, which is sacred and powerful, when unregulated, creates chaos in society. We are witnessing this growing trend today.

Ironically, surveys from the 1960s to the early 2010s reveal a paradox. Despite increased freedom and liberty, anxiety has grown, and loneliness has risen. Books like The American Paradox show that amidst material abundance, mental well-being has declined. Marriage stability has weakened, and more individuals report feeling lonely. This is clear evidence that when we sever something from its higher purpose, we invite disorder and frustration into our lives.

Pleasure vs. Purpose

Seeking pleasure isn’t inherently bad. Humans naturally seek pleasure, but we also yearn for meaningful pleasure. For instance, imagine being offered a life free of financial worries and social responsibilities, where your only activity is to watch comedies. At first, it might seem enjoyable, but eventually, you’d grow bored. Why? Because we crave purpose, not just pleasure. This principle applies to sex as well. When sex is pursued merely for pleasure, without aligning with its higher purpose, it leads to problems.

Sex, Kama, and Dharma

Sexual desire is a part of life, but like any aspect of life, it must be pursued with balance. The Kama Sutra, a well-known text on sexual pleasure, does not encourage indulgence for its own sake. Instead, it emphasizes that Kama (pleasure) should never be pursued independently of Dharma (righteousness), Artha (prosperity), and Moksha (spiritual liberation). Kama is just one facet of life, and it should always be considered in relation to these other purposes.

When discussing male-female attraction, it’s crucial to differentiate between romantic, erotic, and pornographic depictions. In many traditional cultures, including India, romantic attraction involves a deeper relationship where physical attraction is part of a broader connection, with the ultimate goal of building a life together.

The Nature of Attraction

Romantic attraction is about forming a relationship. For example, in Vedic literature, the romantic connection between Arjuna and Subhadra illustrates a deeper, meaningful bond. Erotic attraction, however, overemphasizes the physical aspect, reducing the relationship to just the sexual dimension.

Pornography, on the other hand, detaches sex entirely from any relationship, procreation, or pair bonding. It objectifies people for personal pleasure, dehumanizing them in the process. This is one of the most harmful consequences of the modern view of sex.

While sacred texts like the Bhagavatam or Ramayana may contain explicit references, these are often part of a broader romantic context, focusing on relationships rather than mere sexual pleasure. These texts do not promote the harmful aspects of sexuality found in pornography. Pornography, as we know it today, is about triggering desires to manipulate individuals for selfish purposes, rather than recognizing the sacredness and significance of the human experience.

If one pursues one’s sexuality, then through sex, one can also pursue life’s purpose and experience God. The Gita’s message is that God is so inclusive that even through activities seen as non-devotional or non-spiritual, such as sex or war, God can be experienced if God is the ultimate purpose of what we are doing.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

When I say that we can connect with Krishna through activities that disconnect us from Him, does this mean we can connect with Krishna through gambling or stealing? No, and I was very careful when I mentioned that. Prabhupada said that if someone cannot give up drinking alcohol, then while drinking alcohol, they can think of Krishna. It is not the drinking of alcohol that will take them toward Krishna, but remembering Krishna that will gradually help them grow spiritually. They grow spiritually until they eventually become connected with Krishna and attain Him.

The idea is that the remembrance of Krishna is what will take us toward Him. Those particular activities won’t take us toward Krishna, but sometimes we become so frustrated with a particular activity that we’re trying to give up, yet we can’t, and it pulls us in so much. We become very frustrated and disheartened by that. But we need to understand that the activity is attracting us because the spark of Krishna is being manifested in it. We need to see how that spark—whatever is the spark over there—Krishna is that pole. So, how can I connect with Krishna more congenially, more attractively, more holistically? That connection with Krishna is what will help us come toward Him. So, that devotional connection can be reinforced by properly seeing the things that disconnect us—not by engaging in those things.

If everything comes from Krishna, does everything unattractive also come from Krishna? Yes, of course. Does that mean it contradicts Krishna being all-attractive? No, Krishna is all-attractive. But depending on how much something is disconnected from Krishna, to that extent it manifests or doesn’t manifest Krishna’s all-attractiveness.

For example, the sun is the source of light, but the further we go away from the sun, or the further we turn away from it, the more we see darkness. There will be no darkness if there were no sun, because the concept of light and darkness exists because the sun is there. Darkness doesn’t exist by itself; it is caused by turning away from or moving away from the sun.

Similarly, when people say someone is unattractive in a particular way—whether physically, in terms of personality, or otherwise—we understand that this is the result of one’s own past karma. This is not meant to demonize the person, but to understand it contextually. Why did they do that particular karma, which has led to this reaction? It’s because they were captivated by something disconnected from Krishna. So they did activities involving negative karma, being impelled by things separated from Krishna. In that sense, everything comes from Krishna, but not everything reflects Krishna’s attractiveness. How much it reflects Krishna’s attractiveness depends on how close it is to Krishna or how far it is from Krishna. The further it is, the less it will reflect Krishna’s attractiveness.

Can we say that the extent of care that a species needs is related to the level of intelligence of the species? The more intelligent the species, the more care it requires? Yes, there’s a very interesting analysis of how many characteristics in a particular species are inherited and how many are developed or cultivated. The lower the species, the more it functions by inherited characteristics. For example, if a dog is a pet and taught certain skills, does that mean its puppies will automatically learn those skills? Not really. The puppies may grow up in an environment where they can learn those skills faster if they are with the parent.

So, in lower species, most of the behavior is determined by inherited characteristics. But in humans, behavior is shaped largely by acquired characteristics. When we meet a person, we see how they speak and behave. While some of these behaviors are inherited, much of it is learned throughout their life. The inherited characteristics form the foundation, but the acquired characteristics shape the behavior significantly. These acquired characteristics take time to develop and require training.

In this sense, humans require significant care because their behavior, which comprises intelligence and cultured behavior, must be learned. And the ultimate training required is to pursue spiritual growth and develop spiritual love for Krishna. Humans are arranged by nature to require a significant amount of care for the acquired characteristics to be properly learned.

Thank you. It’s best to have one question at a time. I’ll answer some questions now.

Why has divorce become so prevalent, and marriage so unstable? Why do people engage more in illicit ways? What is the practical solution for this?

This is a complicated issue, but I’ll talk about it in three broad aspects. One is the cultural glamorization of sex and often the demonization or ridicule of traditional regulations surrounding sexuality. Often, traditional regulations are considered old-fashioned or primitive, and words like “moral policing” are used. People think they’re doing something special when they break from tradition.

For example, the human urge for sensual pleasures has always existed. But in modern movies, when there are explicit scenes, they’re often called “bold scenes.” Is that really bold? It’s basically being explicit. But by calling it bold, what happens is that the opposite of bold is cowardly. Does that mean someone who dresses traditionally is cowardly, and someone who dresses explicitly is bold? When language is manipulated, the culture broadly depicts the glamorization of sexuality as something special. This makes people crave something that is not normally available.

So what happens when sex is associated with marriage is that one’s mind is always imagining, “Oh, there is so much pleasure, so much pleasure, so much pleasure.” But once someone gets married and engages in the activity, they experience some pleasure. However, afterward, one realizes that the mind was just hyper-imagining. The reality is different from the imagination. But when there is constant bombardment of sexual imagery, people start thinking that it’s not that sex doesn’t give pleasure, but rather, the person they are having sex with is not giving them pleasure. They may think, “Maybe I should try with someone else.” Rather than gaining any realization or renunciation, the constant sexual stimulation offers so many alternatives, and people start to believe the next alternative will be better than what they have in the present.

The constant cultural glamorization of sex is one major reason why marriages are breaking down, because people feel they will get something better somewhere else. So, why restrict themselves to marriage?

The second factor is the way modern society works, reducing people to economic units within the system. Modern socio-economic structures are not very marriage-friendly. If people are educated to believe their primary self-worth comes from the amount of money they earn or from their position in the corporate world, then marriage, especially one that leads to procreation, seems less appealing. Unless marriage is associated with the fulfillment that comes from taking care of children, there is little incentive to stay in a long-term commitment.

This is particularly relevant to women. While modern culture often claims men and women are equal, women have the unique ability to bring new life into the world. When women are taught to set aside this unique power and strive to be equal to or better than men in the corporate world, one of the key incentives for marriage—pregnancy and child-rearing—becomes a career obstacle. The idea that having children will be detrimental to their career—because of the time spent taking care of children—removes one of the key motivations for staying in a committed relationship.

We can’t change the cultural glamorization of sex, but we can minimize our exposure to it. Similarly, we can’t change the socio-economic structure of society, but we need not buy into the definitions of success that society foists upon us. It’s not necessary for a woman to rise through the corporate ladder the same way a man does. Men and women are different by nature; women are more inclined toward relationships. This is part of nature’s arrangement, enabling them to care for babies who can’t express themselves with words. Without heightened emotional sensitivity, how could mothers care for such children?

The pressure to conform to corporate or socio-economic definitions of success leads to disempowerment, especially when it comes to having children and forming long-term relationships.

Finally, if there is no understanding of a spiritual purpose for life, relationships are often viewed solely for pleasure. If pleasure is absent, people may think there’s no point in the relationship. But if there’s a broader understanding that relationships serve a higher purpose—not just physical gratification but spiritual evolution—then whatever challenges arise in the relationship become opportunities for growth. Relationships can teach humility, tolerance, and sensitivity to the perspectives of others. There’s a reason to work through challenges if one sees the relationship as a means to grow spiritually. Without this understanding, people may think, “If I’m not getting pleasure, what’s the point of this relationship?” So, the lack of a spiritual purpose also destabilizes marriage.

When Prabhupada says that marriage is legal or illegal, it’s always troublesome, and it leads to obstacles in Krishna consciousness, implying that in householder life, spiritual advancement is almost nil—how do we understand this?

Context is critical for understanding any subject. If the statement is to be taken literally—that there’s no spiritual advancement in householder life—then we look at the tradition. Almost all the great sages were householders. For instance, Vasistha Muni was a householder, and even Shungi was the son of a householder. There are so many great sages who were householders. Were they not pursuing spiritual advancement? No, they were definitely pursuing spiritual advancement.

The point here is that one shouldn’t become infatuated with material desires. When Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says, “I don’t desire these things,” he is not condemning them but acknowledging that they can be distractions. The Bhagavatam, for example, is spoken to a person who is about to die. At that point, everything worldly—even pious or virtuous things—becomes a distraction. However, when Parikshit Maharaj was a householder, he didn’t view his responsibilities as distractions or burdens. He performed his duties diligently, recognizing that they were part of his spiritual path.

In our tradition, many of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s associates, in fact most of them, were grahasthas (householders). So, when Prabhupada talks about spiritual advancement being limited in grahastha ashram, it essentially means that if one becomes so infatuated with household life that they don’t make time or mental space for spiritual growth, then advancement is hindered. However, grahastha ashram is the traditionally recommended path for spiritual growth. In fact, the word ashram itself means a place where we seek Krishna’s shelter.

Our movement, the Krishna Consciousness movement, began at a time when most of Prabhupada’s early followers came from a counterculture that had no respect for the sanctity of marriage. This culture was rejecting the world, but not in a transcendental way, but rather in an ignorant way. Engaging in sex at that time often led to illicit relations. So, it was crucial for Prabhupada to address this context in his teachings, as it was important to prevent any misinterpretation. We cannot divorce Prabhupada’s statements from the broader tradition and context in which he was speaking.

We make spiritual advancement to the extent that we connect our consciousness with Krishna. If we connect with Krishna, it doesn’t matter what ashram we are in; we can make spiritual progress.

Now, let’s address two questions.

First, what is illicit sex?

Vyasadeva had children with other men’s wives, or Parashara Muni produced Vyasadeva through a relationship with a fisherwoman—this is not considered illicit. This topic is quite complex, but traditionally, procreation was considered a primary purpose of sexual union and was a sacred duty. There were certain rules within the tradition that allowed for exceptions in cases where a couple could not have children. For example, in the case of King Pandu, who was cursed not to be able to have children, or in the case of Ambika and Ambalika, whose husbands had passed away. In such cases, a relative or another respectable person would unite with the woman for the sole purpose of procreation. There would be no long-term relationship, and it was done under regulations.

Is this illicit? Not according to scripture, which provides authorization for such practices to ensure the continuity of the dynasty. These are exceptional cases, meant to ensure that the lineage continues, and they should not be confused with the usual rules for marriage.

Similarly, Parashara Muni’s union with the fisherwoman was exceptional. The union happened at a time when the cosmological arrangement indicated that a great soul could be born, which is why he united with her. From that union, the great saint Vyasadeva was born.

Generally, sex within marriage is not considered illicit. However, there are exceptional situations in which other forms of sex are permitted, but these exceptions do not contradict the standard. They are merely allowances for specific circumstances.

Now, let’s address the next question:

In today’s world, there are extremes—either people become too attached to sex life or too detached and irresponsible. The way spiritual organizations, including ISKCON, sometimes preach can lead to confusion. Over the past 50 years, ISKCON has made both positive and negative contributions to this issue.

One thing we must understand is that scriptures are taught in particular contexts by their teachers, and how people understand these teachings depends on their individual minds. In the modern world, it’s easy for the mind to fixate on one small idea and elevate it above everything else. In mainstream culture, sex is often viewed as the central purpose of life. Anything that interferes with it is demonized. In contrast, when people join spiritual organizations that teach renunciation, they may become fixated on the idea that sex is simply trouble and should be avoided.

Prabhupada once gave a radically different perspective on marriage. He said that the purpose of marriage is to be happy in life. This is quite different from the common idea that household life is simply bondage and misery. If two people come together properly within dharma (moral principles), they can experience happiness in their relationship. It may not be life’s ultimate happiness, but it can be fulfilling.

Just as there is a fixation on the glamorization of sex in materialistic culture, there can also be a fixation on the demonization of sex within spiritual culture. When this happens, it creates imbalance and leads to problems. People may bring too much of the renunciation ethos into their household life, where attachment and detachment are seen as the only two options. But life is more nuanced than that. Attachment means emotional entanglement, where our emotions are bound with no capacity for freedom. Commitment, on the other hand, means emotional investment, where we consciously direct our emotions toward a higher purpose.

As devotees evolve, both those who practice and those who teach, we move towards a more holistic understanding. This is why it’s helpful to have more than one teacher in our spiritual journey. If we only hear from one teacher, we may begin to equate their perspective with the only way to practice Krishna consciousness. That’s why we have the guiding principles of Guru, Sadhu, and Shastra. The guru represents Krishna, but the guru is still one person. We need other teachers—either past teachers in the tradition or contemporary ones. By learning from different teachers, we gain a broader and more balanced understanding, which leads to a more fruitful spiritual practice.

Thank you very much.

The post Gita key verses course 24 – Can sex be spiritual? – Gita 7.11 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Hare Krishna,
Today we will discuss two questions: Can a rational person be spiritual, and how can science and spirituality go together? At first, this topic might seem very basic. When we talk about subjects like the existence of the soul and God, they are often introduced in the early stages of spiritual courses, like those on self-discovery or the flow of the Gita. The Bhagavad Gita, however, was spoken in a culture where the existence of God was not questioned by the audience. When Krishna spoke to Arjuna, there was no debate about God’s existence. That’s why, in the Gita’s flow, there aren’t direct references to establishing the existence of God.

Instead, there is reasoning to establish the existence of the soul because that was directly relevant to Arjuna’s concerns. Arjuna’s immediate worry was how he could fight his loved ones, and one part of Krishna’s answer was that their souls are eternal, so they’re not truly being killed. The existence of God, however, wasn’t an issue for Arjuna or the audience Krishna was addressing. Today, we will focus not on proving the existence of God, but on how rationality and spirituality can coexist, particularly in relation to science.

In the Gita, Krishna states in verse 7.7:
“Māyā sarvam idam protam sūtra-māṇi-gana-iva”
This translates to: “Just as thread underlies and unifies all the pearls that comprise a necklace, similarly, there is the divine, the ultimate reality, Krishna, who underlies and permeates everything.”

This verse points to the fundamental understanding of God. Just as the pearls of a necklace are visible but the thread is not always easily seen, in nature, many extraordinary manifestations are visible, but what underlies them—the divine essence—is not always easily visible.

Three Parts of Today’s Discussion:

1. How rationality points to something more.
2. The three levels: rational, irrational, and trans-rational.
3. How science and spirituality can work together.

How Does Rationality Point to Reality Beyond Rationality?
Let’s first understand what we mean by rationality. Rationality refers to something reasonable, logical, and guided by reason. Human beings function in two primary ways in the world: through our beliefs (conceptions) and our actions (behaviors). These two factors—how we perceive the world and how we act upon it—shape our interaction with reality. If both beliefs and actions are guided by reason, then this approach to the world is called rationality.

The opposite of rationality is irrationality. In the context of science, rationality is the focus. For example, when there is a pandemic, like the Black Plague in Europe centuries ago, people initially believed the plague might be caused by evil spirits. Some thought it was connected to cats, others to rats, but it was eventually understood to be caused by germs. This rational understanding led to scientific progress.

Science focuses on finding explanations that are based on empirical observations or can be logically inferred from those observations. This is the core of rationality, and science has made tremendous advancements by using rational methods. But there are some questions that rationality cannot answer.

Questions Rationality Cannot Answer: One of the primary questions rationality cannot answer is: Why does rationality work at all? Why should the universe be rational and orderly? If the universe is the result of unguided, random subatomic particles, why should these particles organize themselves in ways that are rationally intelligible? Even more perplexing: why should our minds, which are thought to be a product of these unguided natural forces, be structured to work according to reason?

This question points to something deeper. Rationality itself depends on an underlying order or structure, but why should such an order exist? And why should our minds be capable of grasping that order? Rationality and logic seem to point to something more than just random, chaotic forces. This is where the limitations of rationality begin to show.

The idea here is that in the world outside, consider Newton observing an apple fall, which led him to formulate the equation f = G(m1 * m2) / r². Now, why should objects follow specific rules like this? And do mathematical constructs actually exist in nature? We can argue that basic operations like addition and subtraction exist in nature, but what about more complex mathematical concepts, like imaginary numbers or integral calculus? Do they exist in the natural world? The answer is no. So, why does the working of nature correlate with these constructs?

If math is something created by our minds, and nature exists independently, then why should there be any correlation between what we think up in our minds and how the world works? This is a mystery that many mainstream scientists have pondered. Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner put it this way:
“The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research, and extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our battlement.”

This quote, though somewhat complex, asks a simple question: Why does math work? This is a question for which reason itself has no answer. If we consider the evolutionary worldview, all living beings are geared for survival, and nature is an arena where everyone struggles to survive. We are essentially biological robots driven by survival and reproduction. Given this, why should we even have the capacity to think abstractly in mathematical terms, or ponder life’s ultimate questions

If Newton was simply a product of unguided evolution, why, when the apple fell, didn’t he just eat it and move on? Why think of anything beyond survival? Why should our minds be capable of abstract mathematical thought at all, and more importantly, why should nature follow mathematical principles?

Mathematics is foundational to rationality as understood by science, especially when expressed through mathematical equations. But here’s the point: rationality works, but rationality itself has no explanation for why it works. If we only consider rationality within the logic used in modern science, then there’s no natural explanation for why material nature should organize itself according to mathematical laws, or why our minds should be capable of rational thought, expressed in mathematical terms.

God and Rationality: How Do They Relate?
The key insight here is that God is not an explanation for the unexplainable; God is the explanation for explainability. A common atheist argument is that in the past, when people didn’t know why rain fell, they attributed it to the will of gods. Similarly, when diseases occurred, they imagined spirits causing it and tried to appease those spirits. The argument suggests that primitive people used the idea of God to explain things they couldn’t understand, and even today, some religious people might argue that science can’t explain certain things, and therefore we need God.

However, this is not the view expressed in the Bhagavad Gita. The Gita talks about how the universe works under the supervision of the Divine, but it presents God not as the explanation for the unexplainable, but as the reason why things are explainable at all. For example, why should falling objects follow a particular mathematical formula, as described by Newton’s gravitational equation? Or why should matter and energy be interchangeable in a specific way, as stated by Einstein’s famous equation E = mc²? Why do these equations work at all?

It’s crucial to understand that if we present God as merely filling gaps in scientific understanding, we risk falling into a “God of the Gaps” fallacy. This concept implies that there are gaps in science, and God fills those gaps. The argument goes that as science fills in these gaps, there will be no room left for God. However, the Gita teaches that the reason why things are explainable at all is due to the divine order that governs the universe.

The Bhagavad Gita gives us a vision of God that is not simply a “God of the gaps.” Rather, it presents God as the fundamental essence that underlies everything, including the gaps in our understanding. What we can understand, we understand by the grace of God, and what remains beyond our understanding signifies that there is a higher intelligence behind everything. God is the thread that weaves through everything, including the gaps in our knowledge.

This idea connects to the metaphor of God being like the thread in a necklace, which we mentioned earlier. God is not merely at the top of a hierarchy of beings. While we might think of God as the best among beings, with a hierarchy like head of district, head of state, and so on, this is only a partial understanding of God. God is not just the best being, but the basis of all being. Without God, nothing would exist. God is the very existence that makes all existence possible.

If we focus only on the pearls in a necklace, we may never notice the thread, which is essential for the necklace’s existence. Similarly, we might question, “If God created everything, who created God?” This question, often seen as a “knockout” argument, actually reveals ignorance. Asking who created God is like asking, “Who made a circle circular?” A circle is by definition circular, and similarly, God, by definition, is the eternal existence that underlies all being. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says that He is the existence that underlies all existence (Bucha 9:10, 39). God is the cause of all causes, and nothing exists without God.

To further explain this idea, consider the example of a child reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. If the child is intrigued by the story and later learns that J.K. Rowling is the author, they may wonder, “Where is J.K. Rowling in the book?” The answer is that she is not a character in the book, but she exists outside of it. She created the timeline, the characters, the settings, and the plot, but she does not exist as a character within the story itself. In the same way, God does not exist within nature. God is not like an undiscovered satellite around Jupiter waiting to be found. Rather, God exists outside the domain of time and space.

When we ask, “Who created God?” this presumes that God exists within time. But God creates time; God is not created by it. This is why the question itself is irrational—it assumes that God is within the realm of time, which is not true. Just as J.K. Rowling exists outside her books, God exists outside the domain of time, and we must understand that God is not a person like us. God exists in a different category of being.

Now, let’s move forward and look at God and science. God is not an alternative explanation to science, but the explanatory foundation for all explanations. The more science advances and uncovers astonishing truths about reality, the more our conviction in God’s existence can grow. For example, today’s smartphones have more processing power than all the computers in the world did in the 1960s. We marvel at how fast technology works, but the principles behind it were not created by science—they were discovered. The semiconductor effect, which allows for microchips and telecommunications, existed long before we understood it.

While we appreciate the brilliance of scientists and researchers, we must recognize that the foundational realities—such as the semiconductor effect—were not created by science. If there were no semiconductor effect, there would be no electronics or telecommunications. The difference between how something works and why it exists is crucial to understanding God’s role in the universe.

The Relationship Between Technology and God

Why does the semiconductor effect exist at all? Why are some elements conductors and others insulators? Technological advancements do not challenge God’s existence because God is not an alternative explanation to science or technology. Instead, God is the foundational basis of all explanations. Technology works within the framework of natural laws, but these laws exist because of a higher intelligence—God.

Rational, Irrational, and Trans-Rational

Let’s move on to the idea of rational, irrational, and trans-rational. We usually operate within the rational realm, using reasoning and logic to understand the world. Irrational behavior, on the other hand, is when someone makes illogical or unreasonable arguments that don’t stand up to rational scrutiny. Trans-rational, however, refers to something that transcends rationality—something that rationality cannot fully grasp. This means that rationality, although useful, has its limits.

The Limits of Atheism and Rationality

Why does rationality work? From an atheistic worldview, there is no explanation for why rationality itself should work. Rationality depends on a logical structure, but within atheism, there’s no reason why things should be logical. Atheists often criticize religious practices, labeling them superstitions or illogical. But if we look at atheism through a rational lens, it presents its own contradictions. For example, atheism can explain how things work but fails to answer why they exist at all.

The Meaning of the Universe

Rationalism tries to explain how the world works—for instance, why an apple falls or how electricity flows. But when we ask, Why does the universe exist?, rationalism doesn’t provide a meaningful answer. It leads to the conclusion that life is pointless. A famous atheist physicist, Steven Weinberg, said that “the more the universe becomes comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.” Even when we break down the universe into logical, understandable components, it doesn’t seem to have any greater meaning. It’s like deciphering an ancient script—while individual words and symbols may make sense, the overall message seems meaningless.

Struggling with Meaninglessness

This is the result of an atheistic worldview. We may try to find small islands of meaning, but we’re often overwhelmed by an ocean of meaninglessness. We may be able to explain individual phenomena rationally, but the larger existential questions remain unanswered. This is where the trans-rational comes into play—an understanding that goes beyond mere reason.

Miracles and Trans-Rationality

Miracles are often seen as an example of the trans-rational. They are not against science; they are above science. For example, consider the famous miracle of Krishna lifting the Govardhan Hill. A rational person might question how someone could lift such a massive object. The explanation, however, is that Krishna didn’t need to find the center of gravity—he is the source of gravity itself.

Miracles temporarily suspend the normal laws of nature, which are governed by God. This does not mean that science is invalid—it simply means that rationality is not the ultimate reality. There are times when divinity intervenes in ways that go beyond rational explanation.

Rationality in Human Experience

This concept of the trans-rational also extends to human experiences. For instance, there are stories of parents displaying superhuman strength in emergencies—such as when a car crushes a child, and a parent somehow gains the strength to lift it. Normally, such an act would be impossible, but it points to a reality beyond pure rationality. These experiences suggest that there is more to existence than what can be explained through reason alone.

Spirituality does not reject rationality, but it acknowledges that rationality has limits. There is a divinity beyond what rationality can comprehend, and at certain points in history, and in human nature, this divinity may intervene. Rationality helps us understand the world, but it does not encompass all of reality. Spiritual experiences, like miracles, go beyond the realm of rational explanation, pointing to a higher power that operates outside the bounds of time, space, and reason.

Heroic Actions Beyond Rationality

Consider the example of the firefighters during the collapse of the Twin Towers. They knew the risks—the towers were burning, and they might collapse at any moment. Rationally, from a survival standpoint, they should not have gone in. But they did. Why? Because they weren’t just acting as biological machines driven by survival instincts. Their actions were driven by something higher—courage, compassion, and duty. This kind of behavior goes beyond pure rationality. It’s not foolishness; it’s heroism. While we shouldn’t seek death when it’s certain, risking one’s life for others is considered noble. Some of the most inspiring human actions are not driven by rationality alone but by higher values and ideals. This is where the trans-rational aspect of reality comes in—actions motivated by selflessness, love, and moral principles.

The Relationship Between Science and Spirituality

Now, let’s look at how science and spirituality can work together. Broadly speaking, science studies matter, while spirituality studies what matters.

• Science: It is the study of material objects and their interactions. Science enhances our ability to control the outer world. For example, understanding gravity or thermodynamics helps us develop technology and shape the world around us.
• Spirituality: It is concerned with understanding the deeper values and meanings in life—what is important versus what is not. Science cannot answer questions like “What should we prioritize?” or “What gives our lives meaning?” Spirituality provides the framework for us to make better choices and imbue our lives with purpose.

The Limits of Science in Determining Morality

One important distinction to make is that science alone cannot define moral values. This becomes clear when we consider the dangers of extremism, both religious and scientific.

While religious extremism is often associated with violence, extremism is ultimately a mental attitude that can be applied to any ideology, whether religious or scientific. For instance, Nazi Germany was one of the most scientifically advanced nations of its time. Adolf Hitler attempted to justify his vision of the world using science, particularly ideas rooted in Social Darwinism—a misapplication of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Ideology

Hitler’s autobiography, Mein Kampf, was heavily influenced by the concept of the struggle for existence, a central idea in Darwinian evolution. Social Darwinism misapplied the idea of survival of the fittest to human societies, which led to the belief that certain races were more “fit” than others. This idea was used to justify horrific policies, including:

• Sterilization of people with disabilities to prevent them from reproducing.
• Persecution of Gypsies (Roma) and Jews, who were seen as “unfit” races.
• The Holocaust, in which millions of Jews and others were exterminated in the name of racial purity.

The Ethical Dangers of Misusing Science

The key point here is that science alone cannot provide a moral framework. In Nazi Germany, scientific ideas were twisted to serve an ideology that led to immense suffering. From a scientific perspective, human life has no intrinsic worth—people are just biological organisms. This is why science, in itself, cannot provide the moral foundation to say that it is wrong to kill someone because they are deemed “unfit.”

The sanctity of human life is not something that can be rationally inferred from any scientific theory. The idea that human life has intrinsic value comes from moral, spiritual, or ethical beliefs, not science. Ethics and morality cannot be fully explained by scientific laws; they require a framework that goes beyond the material world.

The Study of What Matters

This brings us back to the study of what matters. Spirituality and ethics help us understand what is truly important—things like compassion, justice, and respect for human dignity. Science can help us understand how the world works, but it does not dictate how we should behave within it. As Einstein himself said, science cannot provide the ethical foundation for itself. It is up to humans, guided by a sense of what matters, to determine how to use scientific knowledge responsibly.

In summary, while science provides invaluable tools for understanding and controlling the material world, it cannot answer deeper questions about meaning, values, or morality. These are the domain of spirituality and ethics, which help us understand what truly matters in life. Humanity is driven not just by rational thought, but by higher ideals, which inspire some of our most noble and heroic actions.

The Role of Science and Spirituality in Ethics

The central question here is: Can science itself develop an ethical sense in people? The answer is no. Science is about understanding the natural world, but it doesn’t inherently provide the ethical framework for how we should live or make decisions.

This is not to say that scientists cannot be ethical. Many are, and they uphold strong moral principles. However, there is nothing within the purely naturalistic study of science to instill that sense of ethics. This is where spirituality comes in.

Spirituality helps us understand why life is sacred and what truly matters. It offers a broader view of reality, which can help us refine our values. For example, spirituality teaches that life has sanctity because every living being is a manifestation of God’s grace, and that nature, too, has its sanctity because it is part of the divine.

Through a proper understanding of what matters, spirituality helps us make better choices, see our lives as valuable, and become better human beings. Science can give us better control over the material world—better gadgets, better technology—but it doesn’t guide us on how to live meaningfully or ethically.

The Importance of Spirituality in Defining Values

Everyone has some understanding of what matters. For instance, for Hitler, what mattered was creating a new world order by eliminating those he deemed obstacles. His hierarchy of values was distorted. Spirituality helps us define and refine our values. It clarifies what truly matters and helps us align our actions with higher ideals.

Spirituality not only helps us grow in virtue but also shapes our decisions and helps us become better human beings.

When science and spirituality come together, we can improve both the world and ourselves—science improves things, spirituality improves people.

Rationality, God, and the Limits of Science

Now, moving on to a deeper question: Can a rational person be spiritual? The first point to understand is that rationality points to a reality beyond itself. Rationality—logic, reason, and mathematics—is central to science. But if we equate rationality with atheism or being anti-spiritual, then we must ask: Why should the universe have any rational order? Why should our minds have the capacity for rational thought if we’re just biologically programmed for survival?

Rationality has no explanation for why it exists or works. It doesn’t explain why our brains think rationally or why nature follows mathematical laws. These are questions that point beyond pure science.

God: The Foundation of Rationality

God is not an explanation for the unexplainable, nor is He simply an alternative to science. God is the foundation for science itself. Why is science able to discover the laws of nature? Because there is an underlying intelligence that has infused nature with rationality, which we uncover through scientific inquiry.

God is not just another being among many; He is the basis of all being. To ask who created God is like asking who made a circle circular—it’s a misunderstanding of the nature of God, who exists outside time and creates time. God is not a discovered object like an undiscovered satellite. He exists beyond nature, beyond the fabric of space and time.

Trans-Rationality and Miracles

There is also a trans-rational realm, which exists above the rational. Trans-rationality is beyond the limitations of human logic. We discussed how miracles, such as Krishna lifting the Govardhan Hill, are not against science but above it. Miracles involve the intervention of divine will into the natural order, temporarily suspending the laws of nature.

Trans-rational experiences, like acts of heroism or self-sacrifice, are often the most inspirational. If humans were purely rational, we might never risk our lives for others. But when we do, it’s an expression of something higher. These moments of selflessness show that humanity isn’t restricted to rationality alone.

Science and Spirituality Together

Science and spirituality can complement each other. Science is the study of matter—the physical world. Spirituality is the study of what matters—our values, our sense of purpose, what gives life meaning.

In history, science was misused for horrific purposes, such as by Nazi Germany in their eugenics experiments. The goal was to create a “better” human race by eliminating those deemed “unfit.” But such a horrifying ideology was not driven by science alone. From a scientific perspective, there is no inherent sanctity to human life—humans are just biological beings. It is spirituality that provides the sanctity of life and teaches us to value every human being as a spark of the divine.

The Need for Spiritual Values

The sanctity of life and nature come from spiritual understanding, which helps refine and define our values. Without spirituality, science could lead to dehumanizing practices like eugenics or environmental destruction, as it would lack the ethical framework to respect life. Spiritual growth helps us develop a deeper understanding of what truly matters, guiding us to become better people.

In summary, science can make things better, and spirituality can make people better. Together, they can create a better world.

Developing Faith Amid Doubts

A common question is: How can I develop faith in God when my mind is full of doubts and dilemmas? The key is engaging in discussions like these, where specific doubts are raised and addressed. Over time, through thoughtful dialogue and reasoning, our doubts can be resolved.

Spirituality is not about blind faith; it’s about using our reasoning to understand how we can move forward in life and deepen our connection with the divine.

Evolution and Its Implications

A common concern arises when schools teach the theory of evolution, even in religious schools. So, what can we do about this? It’s important to understand that the issue of evolution can be viewed from three different perspectives:

1. Evolution as an observed phenomenon: This refers to the fact that living beings adapt to their environments. This can be observed, and even artificially manipulated, as we see with selective breeding of plants and animals (e.g., small and large apples). This form of evolution, microevolution, involves variation within a species and is universally accepted. For example, Krishna in the Srimad Bhagavatam learned plant breeding, which is essentially microevolution.
2. Evolution as an inferred mechanism: This is the idea that species evolve into different species over time. While there is some evidence for this, the evidence is not conclusive, and many scientists still debate it. This is where some disagreement exists, but it’s not the main issue from a spiritual perspective.
3. Evolution as an all-encompassing ideology: This is where evolution is presented as a complete explanation for the origins of life, consciousness, and the diversity of life forms on Earth. This is not science but ideology. The theoretical possibility of how consciousness evolved, for example, is highly speculative and lacks coherent scientific support. Evolution as an ideology attempts to explain everything, including life’s origins, but falls short when addressing deeper questions like the origin of life and consciousness.

Understanding the Spiritual Perspective on Evolution

• From a spiritual perspective, evolution as an observed phenomenon and even as a mechanism for adaptation (microevolution) doesn’t necessarily conflict with the belief in God. In fact, the intelligence behind nature’s adaptability could point to a higher intelligence. Just like self-learning AI programs, which adapt and improve based on new data, the adaptability of nature could be seen as evidence of a brilliant designer.
• The real issue is when evolution is presented as the only explanation for life’s origin and the existence of consciousness. This attempt to explain everything through evolution is speculative and cannot explain the existence of life or consciousness, which require more than just a mechanistic explanation.
• Srila Prabhupada’s view: Prabhupada emphasized that life comes from life. Evolution, in its natural form, is a process of adaptation, but it doesn’t address the origin of life or consciousness. Evolution as an ideology—used to justify atheism or materialism—is where the issue arises for spiritual seekers.

Choosing the Right Focus

Our concern with evolution is not about rejecting scientific facts, but about how evolution is used to promote materialism or atheism and deny the existence of God. It’s crucial to address the issue at the level where evolution is misused as an ideology rather than as a scientific explanation for species adaptation.

Conclusion

In summary, the spiritual perspective is not against the observed phenomenon of evolution or even the idea that species can adapt to their environment. The concern arises when evolution is used as an ideological tool to reject the existence of God and the deeper purpose of life. We must carefully distinguish between science and ideology, and focus our efforts on addressing the misuse of evolution in the context of materialism.

For further clarification, we’ll provide answers to additional questions on our website and share them via the WhatsApp group in the next session.

Thank you. Hare Krishna.

The post Gita key verses course 23 – Can we be spiritual and rational? – Gita 07.07 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

So, today, welcome to this Gita discussion, and we are discussing the prospects of growth in spiritual life and the challenges in that growth. This is specifically one question: what happens if I am not spiritual enough by the time I die? We will discuss this based on 6.40 in the Bhagavad Gita.

So, Partha, Arjuna, na eva iha na amutra, iha is in this world, na is not, and amutra is in the next world. Neither in this world nor in the next world, vinasha stasya vidyate, there will be destruction for that person. Who is that person? Nahi kalyanakrit kashchit, that one who is engaged in auspicious activities, kalyanakrit kashchit, durgatin tata gachchati. Not only will there be no destruction, but there will also not be any poor destination for that person. In auspiciousness, that person, tata gachchati, tata is a very affectionate form of address.

So, Krishna is assuring Arjuna that you are dear to me, and there will be no destruction for one who engages in good work or auspicious work. In the context of the Gita, good work here, kalyanakrit, auspicious work, does not refer to charity or benevolence. Here, it specifically refers to the auspicious work of getting out of the entanglement of material existence, the auspicious work of rising to spiritual consciousness. And this is Krishna’s first verse in answer to Arjuna’s question, which was there in the previous three verses. That question was, what happens to a person who embarks on spiritual life but is not able to complete that journey?

So, the question of our class is the question that Arjuna asks, and what we are discussing are the words of the answer. It is a very reassuring and hope-giving answer that never will there be destruction for somebody who is engaged in auspicious work.

Now, let us try to link this with the flow of what we have been discussing till now. The Gita starts with the understanding of the question about what is Dharma. Then, we discussed various aspects about how the understanding that we are a soul on a journey of spiritual evolution is applied in various areas of life. Specifically, in this sixth chapter, Krishna talks about managing the mind so that one can transcend the world.

In the previous section, we discussed how the mind causes problems in relationships and how those relationship issues can be dealt with. The point there was that once one learns to manage the mind, one can get joy not only internally but also externally, socially.

Then, the question comes up: actually learning to manage the mind, to make it equipoised, is not easy. So, Arjuna asks two questions. The first is, just controlling the mind is very difficult. The precise question which I have mentioned, and Krishna says yes, it is difficult, but if you strive, it is possible. If you strive with an appropriate process, it is possible. That assures Arjuna. But still, there are two words which are Arjuna’s questions, 33 and 34, and 35 and 36 are Krishna’s brief answers.

But Arjuna asks, “Okay, you are saying it is possible with an appropriate process, but what if I don’t complete it? What if, say, it is a chronic disease and before the treatment can work and cure me, what if I die before that? What if I run out of time?”

Now, here we are talking about the treatment, not of the body, but of the soul. So, will whatever I do go to waste? Arjuna’s specific question is not just about what will happen to a person who is practicing spiritual life and is incomplete in that; his question is a little more specific. He gives a beautiful metaphor of clouds and says that there are broadly two clouds in the sky. Sometimes there are small, small, we may use the word cloudlets or just globules of clouds. Now, suppose one small cloud or a cloudy lump leaves one cloud and goes to another cloud, but while it is going towards that cloud, suddenly a stormy wind comes and sweeps it away.

Then it was neither in this cloud nor in that cloud; it is lost. So, Arjuna asks, similarly, he talks about two clouds of people over there. One is, there are two groups of people who are on two different trajectories. One is the pious materialists, Krishna has talked about these earlier in the second chapter when he discusses those who practice some level of Dharma to get a better material life in the future. They want to go to heavens or they want to get better worldly enjoyment. So, that is the cloud which is basically the crowd of pious materialists.

Now, there is a cloud of spiritualists who are not interested in going to heaven; they are interested in going to the spiritual world. In the Bhagavad Gita’s understanding, heaven and the spiritual world are two separate things. Heaven is temporary, whereas the spiritual world is eternal. We will discuss this a little bit more, but the question is about these two clouds. If someone wants to become among the ranks of the spiritualists but lives the path of pious materialism—religious piety—and wants to go to the level of spirituality, but in between, that person’s mind is so restless that the mind sweeps that person away, a storm comes, and yoga is disturbed, the mind is restless, and one goes away. So, what happens to such a person? So, basically, what if one doesn’t succeed in spiritual life? That is Arjuna’s question.

So, let’s look at the session we are going to discuss today. There are three parts we will discuss. In general, in any endeavor that we make, there is the fear of failure. That is the first part. Then we will discuss what happens specifically if there is failure in spiritual life. Lastly, we will discuss how to deal with the fear of failure in spiritual life. Let’s begin. Let’s look at the fear of failure. This is a fear which stops us from doing worthwhile things. There are so many people who might have some talents and they could do things, but they never do them because they fear, “What if I fail? What if I don’t succeed? What will people think of me?”

One way to deal with the fear of failure is to think that, at the time of death, we won’t regret the many things we did that turned out to be failures, but the things we never did fearing they might go wrong. See, all of us have certain talents, certain abilities, and certain aspirations, and unless we strive, we will never achieve those things. For most people, regret centers on not being courageous enough to do something enterprising, to do something worthwhile. So, how do we normally deal with the fear of failure?

In many ways, the principles for success and failure that apply in material life and spiritual life are similar. Ultimately, one has to be courageous, dedicated, and visionary, but it’s just that the direction we seek success in is different. Courage itself is not so much the absence of fear as the presence of a purpose bigger than fear. For example, soldiers in the army don’t have no fear of death. They may fear death, but if they love their country and are patriotic, the point is that their love for the country, the purpose of wanting to defend it, gives them a higher strength and helps them overcome the fear. Just like during the current COVID crisis, medical care workers are not without fear of getting infected. There is fear, but their purpose to help people who are sick and offer them service helps them overcome their fear.

So, this same principle applies in our spiritual life as well. If we have to deal with the fear of failure, we need to consider that we are striving for a purpose that is bigger than the fear of failure. What could that purpose be? We will look at that now.

Understanding what that purpose is and how a purpose in spiritual life transcends our failures is what we will discuss next. Let’s move ahead. When we talk about spiritual failure, what are the possibilities? There are broadly three possibilities in the Bhagavad Gita, in this section from 6.37 to 6.45.

One possibility is that we run out of time. Running out of time means we are practicing spiritual life, trying to develop love for Krishna and attain Krishna, but before we become pure enough to develop love for Krishna, we run out of time. Our body has a particular time duration, determined by our past karma, and that time duration gets over. It’s like having a rented car. The body is like a rented car, and we are meant to go to a particular destination, but before we reach the destination, the rental period of the car runs out. That’s one possibility: we run out of time.

Let’s look at the second possibility. Somebody might feel that this whole spiritual life is too challenging and they cannot do it, so they return to material religiosity. Arjuna was never just a religious person. Arjuna was virtuous and religious. Krishna is taking Arjuna from a religious level to a spiritual level. Now, the second possibility could be that someone is pious, virtuous, and religious, and they rise from there to the spiritual level, but they are not able to sustain that spiritual level and then return to the level of material religiosity. That’s the second possibility—somebody just goes back and starts living the way they were earlier.

This possibility is present today as well. But in today’s world, most of us, if we consider our lives before practicing bhakti, were not necessarily living religious lives. We might have been leading quite irreligious, materialistic lives. So, somebody could fall back to material irreligiosity after starting bhakti, going back to self-destructive activities once again.

Let’s fall back to material religiosity. So, there are these three possibilities, and let’s see how they are addressed in the Bhagavad Gita and other wisdom texts. The Bhagavad Gita addresses the first two because for Arjuna, the third is not relevant. Arjuna was never materially religious and was not going to fall to that level at all. However, that possibility is discussed in the Srimad Bhagavatam, and we will come to that. So, let’s move forward and look at the first two possibilities one by one.

If somebody runs out of time, what happens? This person will resume their spiritual practice in a spiritually favorable setting at another place. In one sense, for the soul, the body is like a home. Earlier, I compared it to a car. Suppose somebody is on a particular journey, and their car rental period runs out—what happens? They simply hire another car. In the same way, the person will get another car, another body. Now, Krishna says that if someone has already been practicing spiritual life seriously and is quite advanced spiritually, with no worldly interests, but they have not reached the level of desire for Krishna greater than their desire for everything else, they will be born again in this world. Krishna says, “Athava bahunaitena, athava yoginameva kule bhavati dhimatam, etadhidur labhataram loke janmayadidrusham.” (Bhagavad Gita 6.42).

In this verse, Krishna mentions that those who are yogis will be born into the family of very wise people, into a dynasty of those whose intelligence is very developed. Krishna says such a birth is extremely rare. So, what is the advantage of being born in a spiritually minded family? Right from birth, or even before birth, one’s parents will be praying for one’s spiritual well-being, not just material well-being. Parents will perform spiritual ceremonies (called samskaras) and give spiritual impressions to the child, which can help the child grow in a spiritually favorable environment.

This is a very auspicious birth, Krishna says. Another way to understand it is through an example. Suppose a student is about to graduate, but due to a transfer, they must move to a new place. The student will be admitted to the university at that new place without starting from the first year. They will continue their studies from the point they left off and eventually graduate. Similarly, Krishna says that even if someone dies before attaining complete spiritual success, their death will transition them to another favorable level of reality where their spiritual growth will continue.

Now, if someone prefers material religiosity, what does that mean? It means that the person seeks material pleasures while following the codes of ethics and virtue. Such a person desires worldly enjoyment but through virtuous actions. Krishna describes this in the following section. They will get abundant material enjoyment until they become satiated, and then they will find a materially comfortable position to resume their spiritual search.

An example of this could be a university student who gets caught up in playing sports but doesn’t abandon their studies. The student is still part of the university, practicing very seriously and professionally. The university might allow the student to suspend their studies temporarily, so they can focus on playing at a professional level, but when they return, they will pick up where they left off. Similarly, if someone desires heavenly enjoyment within the bounds of virtue, Krishna says they can go to the heavens.

To go to the heavens, a person has to acquire a lot of punya (material pious credits) by doing virtuous deeds. But even if a person is not able to perform all those virtuous deeds, they can still be elevated and eventually liberated if they stay on the spiritual path. In this case, the person might get attracted to worldly pleasures but will eventually be born into a family that is either wealthy or learned. Krishna says they will be born into a family that is cultured or wealthy, referred to as Shuchinam Srimatam.

Normally in life, when we face challenges, there are broadly two types: financial and relational. Each of these challenges can completely consume us. In our own lives, we may notice that if we are trying to practice spiritual life but have job anxiety or relationship issues, it becomes difficult to focus on spirituality. Krishna addresses this by saying that if someone is practicing spiritual life, they may go to the heavens, where their desires are satiated. Afterward, they return to this world and, if born in a cultured family, they will have basic relational skills, so relationship problems won’t be as overwhelming. If born in a wealthy family, financial problems will also be lessened. In either case, the person faces less struggle in life and can focus on spiritual growth. This is the second possibility, as explained in Bhagavad Gita 6.41.

In verse 6.40, which is relevant to today’s class, Krishna gives assurance that spiritual progress will never be lost. No matter what happens, whatever we do spiritually will never be lost. Krishna explains this further in verses 6.42 and 6.41. The underlying assurance is that spiritual efforts are never wasted. In material life, however, whatever we earn—whether wealth or success—is left behind when we die. Our material wealth doesn’t carry over into the next life. But spiritual credits go with us. Now, let’s look at the third possibility.

What happens if someone falls to material illiosity? In this case, the person faces material consequences for their actions. For instance, if someone gives up the practice of Dharma and starts following an adharmic path, they will face consequences based on what they are attached to. This is a fundamental principle of transmigration—the soul is reborn in a body that allows it to experience the desires it was attached to in its previous life.

The Srimad Bhagavatam illustrates this with the story of King Bharat Maharaj. Bharat Maharaj, initially detached and focused on spiritual growth, became distracted. One day, while meditating in the jungle, he saw a pregnant doe being chased by a predator. The doe, in fear, jumped across a river but delivered a baby deer during the escape. The baby deer fell into the river and was swept away. Bharat Maharaj, seeing this, rescued the baby deer. Though it was an act of compassion, Bharat Maharaj became attached to the deer. He stopped his spiritual practices to care for it, watching over it and playing with it. When the deer disappeared one day, Bharat Maharaj became desperate, searching for it. While searching in a hilly area, he fell and was fatally wounded. As he died, the last thoughts on his mind were of the deer, and in his next life, he was reborn as a deer.

This story illustrates how attachment to material things, even if not impious, can lead to material consequences. In Bharat Maharaj’s case, his attachment to the deer led him to be born as a deer. Similarly, someone who deviates from spiritual practice and attaches to worldly desires may face consequences. In the Bhagavatam’s third canto, a verse explains that even those born into lowly circumstances but who chant the names of Krishna have already done pious activities in previous lives. The question arises: why are they born into low circumstances if they were spiritually inclined in their past life? The understanding is that they did something wrong in their previous life, which led to their low birth. Despite this, their spiritual inclination is not lost.

This brings us to two distinct principles: the material law and the spiritual principle. These two can operate in parallel. For example, in bhakti culture, we take milk and milk products. However, someone who is lactose intolerant might suffer a material reaction, even though the food is spiritually purifying (because it is prasad). In this case, it would be better for the person to avoid milk and take other food. Similarly, material challenges may arise, but the spiritual principle will still operate, guiding the person’s spiritual journey despite material difficulties.

The spiritual principle is that taking food offered to Krishna purifies, but at a material level, there will be material reactions. So, we must be cautious of both material and spiritual factors. The material principle is that if we get attached to something, we will attain that state in a future life, as Krishna explains in the 8th chapter. We’ll discuss that in due course. The key point here is that if we perform wrong actions at the material level, there will be reactions according to the law of karma. Thus, material and spiritual laws run on parallel tracks.

Although Bharat Maharaj experienced a material reaction—being born as a deer—he did not lose his spiritual awareness. Even in his deer body, he remained conscious of his spiritual past. He remembered his previous life and understood how he had deviated. He did not spend his life as a deer, playing around and chasing after food. Instead, he stayed near the hermitages of sages, and whatever grass he got, even if it was dry, he was satisfied. His focus remained on associating with the sages, hearing the spiritual sound vibrations and the Vedic mantras. In this way, he continued his spiritual evolution. This shows that spiritual credits are never lost. However, if someone acts in a materially short-sighted or destructive way, there will be material consequences, but the spiritual credits remain. These spiritual credits draw the person toward Krishna and continue to guide them toward the Lord in this life and the next.

Spiritual credits essentially mean an attraction to transcendence. For example, someone might practice bhakti but not complete their spiritual practices in one life. If they are reborn elsewhere, possibly in a place that seems spiritually neglected, the attraction to God remains. This attraction will continue to draw them toward transcendence. Krishna explains that, almost helplessly, the person will be drawn toward transcendence, regardless of external circumstances. Bharat Maharaj lost his material position but did not lose his spiritual disposition. His attraction to the Lord remained intact, and this was special. We will never lose our spiritual credits, but we might lose time depending on how much we deviate from our path. If we run out of time, we lose only the time spent transitioning between lives. If someone has worldly desires, they may lose the time needed to work through those desires. If someone also engages in inauspicious activities, they will face karmic reactions, and their spiritual journey will continue from there.

The attraction to spirituality remains within us. All of us have varying degrees of knowledge. We have articulated knowledge, which we can express, and embodied knowledge, which is internalized. Embodied knowledge is similar to how children may play games without knowing all the rules explicitly, but they instinctively understand how to play. Similarly, if a child is born with a strong spiritual inclination from a past life, they may not be able to articulate their spirituality, but they will be naturally drawn to it. Many devotees observe that their children show a natural attraction to spiritual practices, which could be a sign that those children are spiritually evolved souls drawn to Krishna.

So, the spiritual credits that stay with us draw us toward Krishna. It’s not that if you have memorized verses from the Bhagavad Gita in this life, you’ll remember the exact verses in the next life. No, there will be an attraction toward transcendence, but you may not remember the verses themselves. After we bear the material consequences of our actions, we’ll resume our spiritual journey in an appropriate position. For instance, in Bharat Maharaj’s next life, after being born as a deer, he became Jadabharat, a highly evolved spiritualist, completely detached from the world. He focused intensely on spiritual growth and ultimately attained spiritual perfection. This illustrates Krishna’s assurance that one will never fall into inauspiciousness.

Even if we fail in our spiritual journey, we can still fail well. Failure, in this case, means that we may fail materially or spiritually, but if we strive to develop a spiritual connection and vision, even in failure, we can still make progress.

Now, how do we overcome the fear of failure, especially the fear of what will happen to us after death? Krishna says that even if we fear death, there is assurance that we will continue on our spiritual journey. To give us this assurance, there are three key principles:

1. The soul’s longing for transcendence is inextinguishable.
2. Krishna’s love for the soul is inexhaustible.
3. The opportunities for using our free will properly are interminable.

Let’s examine each of these points.

1. The soul’s longing for transcendence is inextinguishable.
The soul has an inherent taste for transcendence, and it can never be satisfied by anything other than Krishna. This is a theme that comes across in various religious traditions. Saint Augustine, in the Christian tradition, says, “O Lord, thou hast made our heart for thee, and our heart finds no rest till it rests in thee.” The idea is that the heart will never find rest in anything else. We might crave different things, acquire them, and enjoy them, but immediately, we’ll want something more. Similarly, the Bhagavatam (1.5.19) states that if someone practices spiritual life and then gives it up, they will not return to ordinary material life. Instead, they will remember the lotus feet of Mukunda (Krishna), and that remembrance will keep drawing them back toward Krishna. Although we might temporarily be allured by worldly things, the taste for Krishna will remain within us, and it will always pull us back toward transcendence.

2. Krishna’s love for us is inexhaustible.
Even if we turn away from Krishna, He never turns away from us. Krishna’s love for us is untiring. In the Bhagavatam, during the prayers of Gajendra, he prays:
“My dear Lord, although I am bound, entangled in my own karma, please liberate me.” He acknowledges that Krishna is free, and even though he deserves to stay bound, Krishna is merciful and can give him amnesty. The Lord may say, “I have been trying to deliver you for so long, but you never turned toward me.” Yet Gajendra says, “Although I turned away from you so many times, you never get tired of trying to deliver me.” This illustrates that even when we fail or turn away from Krishna, He tirelessly pulls us back. We are not alone in our spiritual journey. Krishna is with us and wants us to come back to Him. Even if we turn away, He will turn us back toward Him. A devotee who practices bhakti even once becomes “haunted by rasa,” the taste for transcendence, and this pulls them back toward Krishna.

3. The opportunities for using our free will properly are interminable.
There is no concept of eternal damnation. If we don’t turn toward Krishna in this life, we have the opportunity to do so in the next life. The chances for spiritual growth are endless. We may feel that we have tried many times and failed, but we should not become discouraged. Even if we get deviated again, Krishna will redirect us toward Him. This is the auspiciousness of our journey. However, this philosophy should not make us complacent. Instead, it should make us more serious about our spiritual growth, encouraging us to keep striving and improving.

Sooner or later, we will have to strengthen our intention. If we don’t do it in this life, we’ll have to do it in the next life. However, the next life won’t happen automatically. Unless we are ready to help ourselves, even God can’t help us. God is always ready to help, but He can only do so when we want to and are ready to help ourselves. We must do our part, and then Krishna will do His part. If we fail to do our part, it might take many lifetimes, and we may never turn toward Him. However, at some point, we must make a strong resolve to pursue our spiritual journey.

When dealing with the fear of failure, we should focus on what is within our control, rather than worrying about whether we will become pure enough to attain Krishna in this life or what will happen in the future. Instead, focus on the present—what we can do right now. Right now, we can offer our heart to Krishna, pray to Him, and offer our bhakti. What is not in our control, Krishna will take care of. Krishna may accelerate our spiritual journey and help us reach perfection in this life, but if it doesn’t happen, it will continue in the next life. The important thing is to stay focused, encouraged, and keep striving forward. Krishna will deliver us.

To summarize what I spoke about today, I addressed the fear of failure and how it can hold us back in life. Fear of failure can deter us from pursuing anything, including our spiritual path. How do we deal with this fear of failure? By understanding that not doing something will cause us greater regret than trying and failing. Even in spiritual life, failure comes with possibilities:

1. We may simply run out of time, in which case, we’ll be reborn and continue our spiritual journey from where we left off.
2. Alternatively, if someone starts desiring worldly things but in a pious way, they may go to heaven for enjoyment and then return in a family where they can focus on spiritual life.
3. If someone deviates and engages in wrong actions, there will be material consequences, but the spiritual attraction remains. The material position may be lost, but the spiritual disposition will stay intact.

In any case, failure doesn’t mean the end of the spiritual journey. The spiritual path continues, and even when we fail, we can still make progress in the future.

To overcome the fear of failure, we can meditate on three things:

1. The soul’s longing for transcendence is inextinguishable.
   No matter how many times we deviate, that longing for transcendence remains within us. It is embedded in our nature.
2. Krishna’s love for us is inexhaustible.
   Even if we turn away from Krishna, He never turns away from us. Krishna’s love for us is unwavering, and He will always draw us back to Him.
3. The opportunities for using our free will properly are interminable.
   There is no concept of eternal damnation. If we don’t turn toward Krishna in this life, we have the chance to do so in the next life. The opportunities to grow spiritually never run out.

However, we should not become complacent. We must strive to help ourselves. Unless we do our part, Krishna cannot help us. But if we do what we can in the present moment, offering ourselves to Krishna, He will take care of the rest. This is how even in failure, we can “fail well” and fare auspiciously in future lives.

Regarding the questions, here’s a summary:

1. How to fully forget past negative experiences:
   Forgetting negative experiences is a gradual process. We can expose ourselves to more positive impressions. Over time, these positive influences will override the negative ones. Some impressions are deep-rooted and take time to heal, so patience is key.
2. Is the 640 rule applicable to spiritual organizations that mix their own inventions with the Vedic process?
   It depends on what is being offered. If the organization cultivates transcendence, they will elevate spiritually to that extent. However, if the practices only focus on material benefits, such as curing diseases or gaining wealth, without fostering an attraction toward transcendence, then it will not lead to spiritual progress. The key is whether transcendence is the focus or not.
3. It depends on whether there is a conception of transcendence and whether there is cultivation of transcendence. To that extent, this verse will apply.

Why did Ajamal get a chance in this life, even though his actions were spiritually and morally degraded, while Bharat Maharaj did not?
The point here is that Bharat Maharaj ran out of time due to an accident. At the time of his death, he was not remembering Krishna; he was remembering the deer. Ajamal certainly did greater wrong than Bharat Maharaj, but because of the advice of some Vaishnavas, he had named his son Narayan. When Ajamal called out his son’s name, he unintentionally remembered Lord Narayan, whom he had worshipped in his childhood. This calling out invoked Krishna’s mercy, and thus he was given a chance. However, this does not mean that Ajamal’s sins were exempted. He had to rigorously purify himself through severe austerities after that.

What can we learn from Bharat Maharaj’s deviation?
Why do we misutilize our free will? It’s simply due to conditioning and momentum from the past. So, don’t worry too much about it. Focus on using your free will properly. Gradually, this will become a habit. You can either focus on your weaknesses and feel cursed, or you can focus on the blessings you have and use your free will properly. Every day, try to reorient yourself toward Krishna. Don’t worry about how often you misused your free will. Focus on how often you try to use it properly, and be grateful for that. This attitude will encourage more positive use of your free will.

How do we overcome natural fears and accept the higher value system of the Bhagavad Gita without doubt?
It’s not necessary to overcome all fear or go beyond all doubt immediately. Start where you are. If you have doubts or fears, address them and take small steps forward. No one expects unrealistic progress. If guilt from past mistakes holds you back, remember that Krishna doesn’t see our past mistakes—He sees our present disposition. Krishna doesn’t judge us by what we’ve done but by what we long to do. If guilt is hindering your spiritual life, see it as another form of self-centeredness. Just as cravings can be temptations, guilt can also be a temptation. Instead of being discouraged by guilt, acknowledge it and move forward, recognizing that Krishna has given you the opportunity to practice spiritual life.

Will devotees practicing Bhakti Yoga fall to animal species?
Devotees practicing bhakti yoga won’t fall to animal consciousness, though they might fall into an animal body. This means they won’t lose their awareness of spirituality, even if they are born as an animal. There are examples of animals exhibiting spiritual behavior, such as a dog in a Malaysian temple that would join devotees for evening prayers or a crocodile in Kerala that was vegetarian. While they may get an animal body, they will retain their spiritual consciousness.

Does Krishna make us forget our material longings, even after coming to the path of Bhakti?
Krishna sees our desires. If we show Him that we want to remember Him more and more, He will help us in that direction. But if we still show attachment to material things, Krishna will allow us to process those attachments. It’s like a pop-up that appears on a screen. The pop-up is there, but we have the free will to focus on it or not. Krishna doesn’t cause the pop-ups, but they come based on our past choices. He gives us the opportunity for purification, and it’s up to us to show through our actions that we desire that purification.

Why didn’t Krishna make Bharat Maharaj remember Him at the time of death?
Krishna doesn’t force remembrance upon anyone. Remembrance is a matter of our own free will. Bharat Maharaj was attached to the deer, and at the time of death, he thought of the deer. Krishna cannot override our attachments. If we are attached to something, Krishna will take us to a place where we can process those attachments and move forward. This is what happened with Bharat Maharaj.

Why doesn’t Krishna intervene to remove our material attachments?
Krishna respects our free will. He doesn’t force us to forget material desires. However, if we show through our actions that we want to move forward spiritually, Krishna will help us. Material desires may still come up, but we have the power to choose whether to act on them or not.

Offending devotees:
The concept of offense is not directly addressed in the Bhagavad Gita, but generally, if we hurt someone unintentionally, we can apologize and clarify. However, a serious offense occurs when someone intentionally tries to bring down a devotee out of envy. Such offenses can lead to temporary loss of taste for Krishna, but that will return in due course.

Krishna’s remembrance of us:
Even if we forget Krishna, He remembers us. However, just because Krishna remembers us doesn’t mean He will force us to follow Him. If we are attached to something like cricket, for example, Krishna will not remove that attachment but will let us process it. He respects our free will and will help us move forward when we are ready.

The post Gita key verses course 22- What if I am not spiritual enough at the time of death? – Gita 6.40 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Hare Krishna, Dandavats dear Devotees 😀 We are a small team of devotees running the Smaranotsava YouTube channel, in service to His Grace Balaram Shakti Dasa Brahmachari (HHRNSM) from ISKCON Chowpatty. We are self-funded and not actively seeking monetization or self-promotion. To benefit our world-wide ISKCON community with the devotional outpourings of our revered Acharyas,
Read More...

Aseem Krishna Das Life is full of bliss and ananda for the followers of Srila Prabhupada. We are blessed to have taken shelter of Srila Prabhupada. He has brought millions of people in contact with Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Sri Sri Radha Krishna, showing them the way towards an eternal life of joy in the
Read More...

Oh, my God. Thank you very much for joining today. Today, we’ll be continuing our discussion on the Bhagavad Gita. I believe the PowerPoint has already been shared with you, so we’ll be focusing on the third chapter today, specifically the 36th verse, which addresses an important and relevant theme for us.

We will be discussing the topic, so you can refer to the slideshow you have. I won’t be sharing the screen because, last time, I was told that during screen sharing, the audio quality goes down. So, this is 3:36. Arjuna is asking, “Atah kenapram?” “Purushanitchanyabala divan yogitah, so ata kena prakto yam?” By what are we impelled to do wrong? By what are we impelled to do wrong? Anichan api varitam as if we, as if we, don’t want to do it? We resolve not to do it, but still, we end up doing it. Balad eva yogitah, as if impelled by force.

So, in this context, let’s break this verse down into three parts. If you see the context, why do we sabotage ourselves? Do we have inner demons, and how can we slay them?

Why do we sabotage ourselves? We live in a world where there is a lot of hurt, and we often live in fear. Some terrorists may attack us, or if we’re on a lonely road, thieves may attack us. Nowadays, in the digital world, there may be digital creators who prey upon us, stealing our bank information or whatever. All of these are real dangers, but actually, far more than people hurting us, we ourselves hurt us. We are hurting ourselves. That is the specter of self-destruction or self-destructive behaviors. These behaviors can sometimes be very extreme, where people succumb to dangerous drugs. They can be milder, where some forms are socially acceptable. They may even glamorize cigarette smoking, which was considered a sign of being cool at a particular time. Even now, in many cultures, drinking alcohol is considered just a normal way of socializing. But all of this can easily drag people down.

Now, self-destruction, in its most extreme form, comes literally in the form of suicide. But I won’t go in that direction today. We’ll talk about that when we discuss the concept of the mind in more detail in the sixth chapter. At this stage, we need to understand why we behave in ways that hurt ourselves. What makes us behave like this, and what can we do to avoid it? If you look at it throughout nature, we see that sometimes living beings do certain things that, by their own actions, get them trapped.

So, one is, say, and that’s just the nature of the struggle for existence: the mouse is not fast enough, and the cat is too fast. The mouse gets caught. But sometimes the mouse gets caught because, in running for cheese, it goes into a mouse trap, or a fish gets caught by bait. Now, when this happens, we could say even these animals are running toward self-destruction. It is because they run into the trap or toward the bait that they get caught. And in some ways, humans are similar. We get into smoking, alcoholism, or drug addiction, and it is we who are doing something that traps us. At the same time, if we consider the differences, the animals seem to be better than us humans. Animals have two excuses which we humans don’t have.

Firstly, they don’t know in advance that it’s a trap. Mice naturally like cheese, and if they see cheese lying somewhere, they go toward it. They don’t know in advance that it’s a trap. Secondly, they don’t know that what they are attracted to also looks like food. For humans, cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol might look like food or sustenance. The objects that nourish us are different from the objects for which we perish. Not only that, we all know that these substances are dangerous. Cigarette smoking is dangerous for health—who doesn’t know that? People say, “Drink, but don’t become a drunkard.” But when they start becoming a drunkard, they know there’s a danger. Anybody who takes drugs knows the risk. So it seems that we, human beings, are destroying ourselves far more than other living beings are hurting or destroying us.

And the scale of this addiction is huge. If you look at some statistics, you can see the alarming numbers. Throughout history, there have been different forms of intoxication by which people have been trapped. You see, 1 million people around the world light up cigarettes, 15 million people worldwide succumb to drugs, and 240 million people around the world are into alcohol in a destructive way. These are alarming numbers. So what is it that makes us behave like this?

Now, of course, what Arjuna is asking is more specific. At toyam, papam, charity, purusha—he uses the word “papa” for wrongdoing or sinful activity. What makes us do that? So the context we discussed in the second chapter is how we are not the body, but the soul. Then we discussed how that knowledge applies in various contexts. One of the ways we apply that knowledge is by living selflessly. To live selflessly is to work for a higher cause. We talked about the principle of sacrifice in the last chapter.

So, overall, now I am coming to the context of the Gita. Before we go deeper into the concepts that the Gita is teaching, I started by saying that we do sabotage ourselves. I mean, the Gita raises this question: why do we sabotage ourselves? The Gita’s context is slightly different. Arjuna is not necessarily talking about someone smoking or drinking, although that was a danger at the time. But in the context of the Gita, Arjuna is asking why Krishna has spoken about how we need to live, how we need to work in a mode of sacrifice, and how we need to work with detachment. This is how we get elevated and liberated. But if that doesn’t happen, why doesn’t it happen?

Instead of living selflessly, why do we live selfishly? Instead of working with detachment, why do we get attached? And, in fact, we get so attached that this attachment can ruin us. Krishna, when speaking to Arjuna, says to work with attachment. The word he uses is nishkama—to work without selfish desire or attachment. Arjuna is asking: What makes us become attached? What makes us do the things we know we shouldn’t do? So, Arjuna’s context is in terms of the Bhagavad Gita’s flow: to work with detachment. But what is it that makes us attached—not just attached in the ordinary sense, but attached in a terribly destructive sense?

Now, Krishna answers elaborately, and I will again move back to the contemporary context, and we will return to the Bhagavad Gita’s context later. The question here is: What makes us act in destructive ways? Let’s go back to the slideshow. Nowadays, many people talk about this: Do I have inner demons?

When Mike Tyson was fighting, at one point, he got so angry when he started losing that he attacked his opponent and bit off the opponent’s ear. It was bloody, brutal, and ghastly. Afterwards, he said, “I have demons inside me.” This is a usage that’s not uncommon in today’s world, where sometimes people, when they are just unable to control themselves, do something terrible and then say, “There are many demons inside me.”

Now, what do they mean by this? Actually, there seems to be something within us that makes us do things almost as if someone else is doing them. Sometimes, we are calm and gentle, but at other times, we might start yelling at someone. When that happens, we may wonder, “Who is this person? Is this the same person? Is this a different person?” Sometimes we can become unrecognizable to ourselves.

Just like when people say houses are haunted or people are possessed, the idea of being possessed by a ghost is often used as an analogy. If someone is possessed by a ghost, the ghost starts speaking from within them or acting through them, and they behave in very uncharacteristic ways. Similarly, when people see themselves behaving in a way that is very different from their usual behavior, they might ask, “What happened? Is there a demon inside me?”

Now, the word “demon” can be taken literally or non-literally. Literally, it can mean a being within us, something that possesses us and makes us do terrible things—demons with horns, fangs, and ghastly appearances. Most people don’t have that in mind, and that’s not what’s being discussed in the Gita. But there are forces within us that are demoniac, which make us act in demoniac ways. Do we have demons in that sense? Yes, we have demonic impressions and forces. In fact, it is these demoniac forces that make demons who they are. We’ll discuss demons more in detail in the 16th chapter. But Krishna focuses not so much on the physical creatures called demons, but more on the mentality that makes people demoniac. He says that this mentality can exist even in human society. So, there are demonic impressions within us that sabotage us.

Now, how does this happen? If we consider the Bhagavad Gita, it offers us a broad model of the self: the body, the mind, and the soul—three levels of reality. This can be compared to a computer system: the body is like the hardware, the mind is like the software, and the soul is the user. So, body, mind, and soul.

Every action we take creates an impression within us, and that impression returns to us as a proposition. Now, if you go to the next slide, I’ve given an example of how the software becomes programmed. Suppose someone repeatedly visits a particular website, say they visit bollywood.com over and over. Then, if they come to a spiritual talk and hear about the Bhagavad Gita, they might want to visit bhagavadgita.com to learn more. But when they type “bhagavata.com,” instead of the Bhagavata website, Bollywood comes up as an auto-complete suggestion.

So why does this happen? Because they have chosen that behavior earlier. And that’s how the autocomplete comes up again and again. Similarly, consider an alcoholic. Suppose they go to a shopping mall, and they might have been planning to buy clothes or necessities. But as they are passing by, they enter a bar. When they enter the mall, their intention is to go to the supermarket or somewhere to buy groceries, but then they see the bar. So within the mind, it proposes, “Go to the bar, go to the bar.” They started out intending to buy groceries, but they end up taking a drink. And one drink becomes more than one drink. It is said about alcoholism that first the drinker takes the drink, then the drink takes another drink, and eventually, the drink takes the drinker.

So, I’m getting some comments here—just for your information, we have already shared the PowerPoint on the WhatsApp group, and it is also available in the Zoom group chat. I’m not sharing my screen, but you can look at the PowerPoint link that has already been shared with you. Thank you.

Now, the more time someone does something repeatedly, the stronger the impression becomes. And as the impression becomes stronger, the proposition that comes from it becomes more and more forceful. In fact, it becomes so forceful that the person doesn’t even think about it—they just do it instinctively, impulsively, without thinking. You can look at the next slide, which explains the physical and mental levels of reality. At the physical level, we do actions. When we do the actions, they form impressions, and from those impressions come propositions—”Come on, let’s do it again.” Then, when we repeat this, once, twice, thrice, and so on, the repetition leads to addiction.

So when someone says they have inner demons, what’s really happening is that the inner impressions have become so strong, and the propositions have become so swift, that they don’t even think about resisting. Even if they try to resist, they can’t—it’s just too strong. That’s how we become bound.

Now, this leads to a question. Krishna uses the word karma. Sometimes, karma is translated as “lust,” but in the context of the Bhagavad Gita, karma is much more inclusive. It refers to selfish, self-destructive desire. The word kama is also used in a positive sense in the broader Vedic literature, where dharma, karma, and moksha are considered desires that are naturally fulfilled during one’s life and are worth fulfilling. But here, Krishna uses the word karma to refer to selfish, self-destructive desire.

Now, is such desire something that we feel, or is it something that exists inside us? For example, consider lust and anger. Is anger just an emotion that we feel, or is it also something tangible inside us? We might say that everyone feels angry—it’s an emotion. But some people are more short-tempered than others. They snap off much faster. If anger is an emotion that everyone feels, then why do some people get angrier than others? You might say, “That’s just the way they are.” But what exactly is different? We are all souls at a spiritual level—we are all similar. So what makes us different?

When we consider inner impurities, the Vedic literature talks about six inner impurities called shad-rippus, which we can think of as the six inner demons: lust, anger, greed, envy, pride, and illusion. Among them, the Bhagavad Gita focuses on three: lust, anger, and greed. Krishna discusses these in the 16th chapter, 21st verse, where he calls them the three gates to hell and the three destroyers of the soul.

So, are these real things, or are they just feelings within us?

So is it that those who are short-tempered or those who are more greedy or lustful are somehow different from other people? Is it that they feel the emotion more? It’s not just that they feel the emotion more. Those impressions are also stronger within them. So, is lust, anger, or greed a thing? Well, it’s not a physical thing. It’s not an object that we can pick up and show like a phone. This is lust, anger, or greed. It’s not like that. It’s not a thing in that sense, but it is still an object. It’s not just an emotion.

So, what do I mean by this exactly? Just like if someone is visiting bollywood.com or bhagavata.com, they are making a choice to go toward Bollywood or they want to go to Bhagavata. But along with the choice they’re making by typing on the computer or phone, there is a preference that is stored in their system, and that preference comes up as autocomplete. If someone has never visited bollywood.com, when they start typing “B,” it won’t come up. This preference is not just stored on the computer. If you’re logged in with your Gmail ID, these preferences get stored not just on the computer but also with Google. Even if you shift from one computer to another, as soon as you log in, all those preferences will come up.

Similarly, lust, anger, and greed are stored not just in the brain. The brain can be destroyed, but our brain gets rewired by the way we function and act. This creates problems because, once the brain’s neurons “fire together, they wire together,” as brain science says. When this happens, those behaviors become easier. Neurons have axons and dendrites, and two different brain cells join together at the dendrites where information is passed. If we consider an alcoholic’s brain, the wiring is different. Researchers have found that when someone repeatedly consumes obscene imagery, their brain gets rewired. Now, we are not entirely products of our brain wiring, but if the brain is wired in a certain way, that behavior becomes much easier and quicker. Of course, the brain wiring can be changed—rewiring is possible.

The brain gets wired in a particular way, like preferences being stored on a computer. But it’s not just the brain that physically gets rewired. The brain is part of the body, but beyond the physical body, there is the mind, which is subtle. In the mind, impressions are also formed. The impressions in the mind are like preferences stored with Google. So, even if we go to a new computer and log in, all those preferences will come. Similarly, we bring our tendencies from previous lives into this life. That’s why when parents have children, they find that no two children are the same, even though the children may share the same genes. They are not the same in behavior. Even identical twins, who started as one, are behaviorally different.

Some children will cry, but some children cry so loudly that they bring the whole house down. The point of this discussion is that when we talk about inner demons, we are not talking about malevolent beings out to destroy us. There are no demons in that sense. When we talk about lust, anger, greed, and pride, we are not talking about some demon being there to destroy us. But it’s not just emotion that we have and need to control. Yes, we need to control it, but it’s a real thing. It’s a real impression inside us. Just like someone who has never visited bollywood.com has no stored reference, they can go to any site. But someone who has visited bollywood.com will have “Bollywood” appear as an autocomplete suggestion. They will have to exert willpower not to click on it and choose Bhagavad Gita instead. That’s why, for doing the same action, different people may require different levels of effort.

In medical parlance, there’s a question: is addiction a defect, or is it a disease? A defect means the person simply has low willpower and keeps doing the wrong thing. “Come on, have more willpower, become strong, and you’ll give it up.” So, is it a defect, or is it a disease? If it’s a disease, we can’t expect someone to cure it just by willpower. If someone has digestive issues, you can’t expect them to control their bowel movements simply by willpower. They need to see a doctor and take medication to get cured. Similarly, for someone whose “brain wiring” is impaired, willpower alone is not enough. They need a proper process to address it.

For someone whose brain and impulses are not rewired, they don’t need much willpower. They just function normally. But for someone whose brain is rewired due to addiction, willpower alone isn’t enough—they need treatment. The question is, is addiction a defect? It starts as a defect, but eventually, it becomes a disease. In the beginning, when the impressions are weak, it’s a defect. The temptation arises, but they can say no and resist it. But when the impressions are deeply rooted, just saying no doesn’t work.

So depending on the depth of the impressions, a negative habit may either be a defect or may have developed into a disease. Now, disease doesn’t mean the person isn’t responsible. They have to take responsibility for their recovery. But that responsibility involves more than just increasing willpower—it also involves taking the necessary steps to seek treatment and follow it.

Here are the corrections to improve clarity and grammar without changing the original meaning:

---

I have used the word “slay” deliberately to convey the seriousness of the situation. Krishna also uses the word “slay” at the end of the third chapter, in 3.43, where he says: “Even buddhi-parama, buddha-samsvritaha, baho, kamaru, pandahi, win over, conquer, now destroy.” Krishna uses the war metaphor quite often—defeat, kill, destroy. In fact, he uses the war metaphor right from the beginning, when Arjuna asks the question in 3.36: “What is it that impels me to wrong?” Krishna says, “It is karma, kama, shakro, dasha, rajoguna, sammo, bhava, maha papa, vidyaan.” Krishna says that this is your enemy. Not just your enemy, but the enemy of the entire world. As we discussed earlier, self-destructive desires are a significant danger to everyone in the world, and often people hurt themselves more than others hurt them.

The war imagery and personification used here serve a particular purpose—to help us recognize the gravity of the situation. Personification means treating something that is not sentient as if it is sentient. For example, we might say, “The river roared as it charged into the village.” The river is not literally roaring like a tiger or lion, but when it rushes through, it’s threatening, forceful, and the sound it makes can resemble a roar.

Krishna is telling Arjuna that the enemy is significant. The Bhagavad Gita is spoken on a battlefield, where Arjuna must face physical enemies—enemies who are out to destroy him and who have been trying to destroy him for many years. There are Karana and Duryodhana, for example, who are out to destroy him. But few of us will ever face such extreme enemies. We may have rivals or competitors, but few of us will have enemies who are actively trying to kill us, who have tried to poison, assassinate, or burn us alive. Arjuna faced such enemies, and they were right in front of him, about to attack. At that time, Krishna doesn’t even mention those external enemies. Instead, he points to the internal enemies, which are more dangerous.

This underscores the gravity of the inner war we face. Physical enemies can only destroy us once they destroy our bodies, but the inner enemies can lead us to actions that destroy ourselves and others, and they can continue to affect us in the next lifetime. If someone is lustful, greedy, or angry, or if they engage in any other kind of self-destructive behavior, it will leave an impression on their psyche and mind, which will carry over to their next life. This is why Krishna uses the scary-sounding term “Nitya Vairina” in 3.39, calling this self-destructive desire an “eternal enemy.” Here, “eternal” is used not in the literal sense of forever, but to signify that it exists from one lifetime to the next. For us, it feels almost eternal.

Now, how do we deal with this? The key question is how to overcome these inner enemies. To understand this, we can use another metaphor with respect to the impressions formed within us. I spoke earlier about three Rs. Consider a floor that is inclined in a particular direction: if water falls on the floor, it will automatically flow in the direction of the incline. For example, if there is expensive electronic equipment on one side of the floor, and we don’t want the water to reach it, simply saying, “Water, don’t go there,” won’t stop it. The water will still flow toward that area due to the incline.

Similarly, the impressions we form create inclinations in our consciousness. These impressions make our consciousness inclined in certain ways, so that our thoughts naturally follow those inclinations. For instance, if someone is very attached to cricket, whenever they have a free moment, their consciousness automatically flows toward cricket. If someone is attached to politics, in a few spare minutes, they might pick up their phone to look for the latest political news. Similarly, if someone is an alcoholic, their consciousness is not just slightly inclined toward alcohol, but heavily inclined. From the moment they wake up until they go to sleep, their thoughts are consumed with drinking.

The thoughts naturally go there whenever there’s nothing else to think about. So now, if the floor is inclined like this, and the water is going to flow in that direction, what can we do to stop it? There are three main things we can do: regulation, restriction, and creating a protective barrier. When we create a wall, the water doesn’t flow to the dangerous area. For instance, if someone is an alcoholic and they are serious about recovering, one regulation they must follow is not keeping alcohol in their home. If their house is next to a bar, they will likely succumb to temptation. Regulation means creating distance between ourselves and what tempts us.

There are standard practices considered unhealthy, and many spiritual cultures have guidelines about certain “don’t do’s.” The idea behind these is that they act as protective fences, keeping us safe. Regulation means putting up a fence around ourselves that protects us. Even if the water reaches the fence, it won’t go beyond it. Krishna suggests that the best way to deal with temptation is to avoid dealing with it altogether. While it may seem impossible to always avoid temptation, the point is that if we can, we prevent the agitation from even arising. For example, if someone has the urge to drink but there’s no alcohol nearby, they can’t indulge immediately. By creating boundaries that protect us, we take the first step.

However, regulation alone is not always sufficient. Even if someone doesn’t keep alcohol nearby, they can still go out and buy it. But regulation helps. For example, if someone has a tendency to spend excessive time on the internet, they can install filters or restrictions. A person who is tech-savvy might bypass the filters, but at least when the impulse arises, the immediate temptation won’t be available. This is where the fence can offer protection, even when willpower or intelligence falters. Every culture has some form of regulation to protect its members.

For example, sexual attraction is universal, and so every civilized culture has marriage, which acts as a regulation and provides protection. The first step, then, is regulation.

The second step is redirection. Regulation is important, but it’s never enough. If the floor is slightly inclined, regulation might stop the water from flowing too far. But if the floor is steeply inclined, even with a fence, the water will keep hitting the barrier. Over time, the barrier may erode. Just regulation can feel like deprivation—constantly saying no, no, no, without giving the desires an outlet. The cravings remain, and simply denying them doesn’t work.

Regulation is the first step. It is important, but more important is redirection. Redirection means that when our thoughts are going in a particular direction, we need to shift them toward another direction. But how do we do that? Krishna talks about regulation in the Bhagavad Gita, specifically in verses 340 and 341. In 340, he asks, “Where are these impressions situated?” These are not just fleeting emotions, but impressions that are deeply ingrained. He says these impressions are situated in our senses, mind, and intellect, inside us. So, Krishna makes it clear that when we feel tempted, we cannot blame others. The temptation exists within us, and it is only triggered by external stimuli.

Regulation, as Krishna suggests in 341, involves controlling our senses. We should not allow our senses to dwell too much on sense objects. One way to do this is to remove tempting objects from easy reach so our senses are not distracted by them. However, while regulation is important, it is not enough on its own. The next step is redirection. This means we need to redirect our desires, thoughts, and consciousness elsewhere. But how do we do that? If water is flowing in one direction, we can’t simply tell it to go back. Using our hands to push it won’t be enough either. We need a tool—a mop, a brush, or something similar—to redirect the water effectively. Similarly, when we have a bad habit, it gains momentum over time. As the habit strengthens, it becomes harder to resist, much like a truck charging toward us. No matter how firm we are, we can’t stop it. But if we get into another truck, we can move away faster, avoiding the collision.

What does getting into another truck mean in this context? It means that instead of fighting our bad habits directly, we should cultivate good habits. Let the good habits battle the bad ones. Saying “I won’t think about this” or “I won’t do that” is like trying to fight a bad habit head-on. Instead, we should create a new habit, something else to think about or do. This is like getting into a new truck, which allows us to shift focus.

But what good habits should we cultivate? There are many possibilities, but the most effective habits are those that bring us both enjoyment and benefit. Imagine two circles: one represents things we like, and the other represents things that are good for us. The intersection of these circles is where we find activities that are both enjoyable and beneficial. For example, if someone enjoys music, they can turn to spiritual music when their mind becomes agitated. Music is generally enjoyable, but spiritual music uplifts the mind. If someone likes philosophy, they can turn to intellectually stimulating, yet spiritually enriching material.

When the mind gets agitated, instead of giving in to temptation, we can redirect our focus to these uplifting habits. The key is to make these habits readily accessible. If we do this consistently, our minds will gradually shift away from harmful habits, and we’ll find ourselves naturally drawn to positive activities.

This redirection is necessary, but there’s a deeper level of change: reconstruction. If we flatten the inclined floor, water won’t flow in the same direction. Similarly, we can change our impressions by practicing bhakti. Every devotional activity, such as studying the Bhagavad Gita, chanting the holy names, doing seva (service), or simply spending time in the presence of the Lord, creates positive impressions within us. These impressions shape our actions, and over time, they become the default responses when we have spare time. When our inclination changes from worldly temptations to a connection with the Lord, we experience peace and joy.

This is the power of bhakti practice. When we become attached to Krishna, the inner demons no longer torment us, and we feel a deep sense of joy because we are connected with the source of all joy, Krishna. The more absorbed we become in Krishna, the more peaceful and joyful our lives will be.

To summarize, I’ve discussed the concept of inner demons in three parts. First, we talked about self-destructive behavior, where millions of people are addicted to substances and behaviors that harm them. Arjuna raises a similar question: why do we act destructively, even though we know the consequences? I then explained that these self-destructive tendencies are the result of deep impressions within us. Habits form over time, and these impressions shape our thoughts and actions. The more we indulge in them, the stronger these impressions become. Eventually, our habits become so ingrained that they dominate our actions.

The second part focused on how to deal with these tendencies. Using the metaphor of a floor and flowing water, I outlined three steps: first, regulation—creating boundaries to keep temptation at a distance. Second, redirection—creating positive habits that can fight the bad ones. And third, reconstruction—by engaging in bhakti, we change our default responses and focus on the Lord. Through this, our inner life becomes peaceful because we are no longer tormented by self-destructive tendencies, and joyful because we are connected to Krishna.

Thank you very much. Hare Krishna. I see there are some questions.

 Demons and their Presence: The idea that demons originally lived on different planets and now reside in human hearts is a concept without scriptural support and doesn’t align with logic. Demonic mentality has always existed, though its prominence varies over time. In the past, people may have been better at controlling these tendencies, but the impressions leading to demonic behaviors have always been present in some form.

 Mental Health and Spirituality: When addressing disorders like bipolar or split personality, the speaker advises against using supernatural explanations (such as possession) right away. Instead, one should consider psychological factors. Sometimes, extreme behaviors may appear like a different personality, but it’s more about deep-rooted impressions rather than an external entity. Resources should be provided to help people address their issues, and explanations should not be used to outsource responsibility.

 Temptations and Purity: Whether temptations are completely eradicated or simply dormant depends on the individual’s spiritual state. It’s best not to assume that temptations are fully gone but rather be cautious and humble. One should avoid putting themselves in tempting situations to test their inner state, and focus on being grateful if they’re not actively being tormented by those temptations.

 Addiction and Sensitivity: Addiction can extend beyond substances to include emotional or psychological dependencies (like approval addiction). While medical definitions of addiction are clinical, it can be more broadly used to describe unhealthy attachments. To overcome such dependencies, introspection is crucial to understand the underlying emotional needs. For example, the craving for approval might stem from childhood experiences of criticism, and understanding this can help address the root cause.

 Desires and Spirituality: At a deeper level, unhealthy cravings are often distorted expressions of healthy needs. Spirituality offers a resource for transforming these cravings. Understanding the source of desires and learning to fulfill them appropriately is essential. The key to healing lies in introspection and spiritual understanding of where desires originate and how they can be satisfied in a wholesome way.

 Setting Boundaries for Approval: Not all cravings for approval are rooted in ego. The human heart naturally desires acceptance, belonging, and value. However, it’s important to set boundaries and determine whose approval is worth seeking. Demoniac approval should not be valued, and one should focus on seeking appreciation from those who align with higher, more constructive values.

And then those people, if they are people with character and principles, then trying to act in a way by which they appreciate us will also help us to become better human beings. And in general, we have to find out who the people are who value us. There are some people who will never value us no matter what we do. So this is a principle of relationships on which I will be talking later also, but I have a Gita Daily article on my Gita Daily website. It is, “Don’t overvalue people who devalue you and value people who value you.” So if you decide this way, don’t overvalue the people who are never going to appreciate you, but find out the people who value you, and if they also have good values, then value them, and then there we can have our need for appreciation fulfilled. So thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

The post 10 Do I have inner demons? How can I slay them? – Gita 03.36 Gita Verse appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

So, I’m sharing the screen now, and we’ll start. This is our 7th session, actually the 9th session. We are on verse 3.9, which we’ll be discussing. We’ll be introducing the concept of sacrifice, specifically the sacrifice in the form of yajna. To trace back, basically, what we are doing in this course is that we are focusing on the flow of the Gita and selecting verses that help us to understand the Gita’s concepts while also taking our understanding further of the overall concepts that we need for growing in our spiritual life.

So till now, in the second chapter, we discussed various concepts of applying the principle of the knowledge that I am a soul to various walks of our life. Now we will move to specific practices that can infuse us with spiritual consciousness. This class has three parts: what is sacrifice, is it a ritual, and are rituals necessary? Each session is designed as an answer to one or more questions, and here we are focusing specifically on the forms of activities that can directly spiritualize our consciousness. We are discussing based on 3.9 in the Bhagavad Gita:
Yajna Arthaat Karmano Anyatra, Lokoyam Karma Bandhanaha, Radhartham Karma Konte, Mukta Sangha Samachara.

So, Yajna Arthaat Karmano Anyatra. Krishna tells Arjuna to perform your Karma in the form of a Yajna, to work as sacrifice. Anyatra, if you don’t do it this way, Lokoyam Karma Bandhanaha, in this world, you will experience the bondage of work, Karma Bandhanaha. But if you work in that way, for that purpose, Artha can mean meaning, and Artha can also mean purpose. But if you work for that purpose, what is that purpose? Yajna Arthaat. In the first line, also, the word Artha was there. So, for the purpose of Yajna, again, for that purpose, Artha. If you work in that way, Tad Arthaam Karma Konte, Mukta Sangha Samachara. Mukta Sangha Samachara means that you will stay free, you will stay liberated, and you will be free from bondage. Always Samachara, in this way, you can act. And Sangha is association, which is very contaminating, worldly association. Mukta means you will stay free from it.

So Krishna is also introducing another concept of bondage and liberation. This is a major theme in the Gita, which we will come to in due course. But essentially, Krishna is recommending work as sacrifice. So let’s look at what sacrifice is first. The principle of sacrifice is universal. It essentially means to give up some immediate pleasure for some higher purpose. In fact, the English word sacrifice comes from the same root from which we have the word sacred. So sacred and sacrifice share the same root. And there is a word form which unifies those two words. It’s called sacralize. Sacralize means to make sacred. And sacraments is a word often used in the Christian tradition to refer to religious rituals. So in that sense, the word sacrifice means to make sacred. The activities that make something sacred are called sacrifices.

So the principle underlying sacrifice is that there is something which we can use, which we can enjoy for ourselves, but we give it up for something higher. Now in today’s world, we may use the word sacrifice in a general sense. For example, in a cricket match, if one batsman is a lower-order batsman and another is a top-order batsman, and one of them has to get run out because they’re out of the crease, the lower-order batsman may just come out of the crease so that the other batsman doesn’t get out. At such times, it would be said that the lower-order batsman sacrificed their own wicket. Sacrifice means that it’s not necessary to give something up, but we give it up voluntarily so that a higher purpose or a higher cause is served.

Now, yajna specifically is a form of sacrifice wherein we give up something, specifically in the form of sacrificial fire. The sacrificial fire is where offerings are made. In the Rig Veda, it is said that Devanam Paramo Vishnu Avamo Agni Tadanta Sarva Devata, meaning that among all the various celestial beings, Vishnu is the highest, while Agni (fire) is the lowest, and in between are the other gods. This concept of gods we will discuss later, but in this context, what does it mean? Agni is the lowest here, not in terms of position, but in terms of accessibility. Vishnu, considered the supreme being, is transcendental and not normally accessible to people. But Agni, or fire, is considered the most accessible because it becomes the medium through which various things are offered to the higher beings. So what could be enjoyed for our pleasure is offered to the divine through the medium of fire. Thus, fire sacrifice becomes a ritual, but the principle is to give up something. It could be that we might offer some ghee (clarified butter), which is considered a delicacy and is expensive and nutritious. We offer it, and similarly, other grains could be offered, or some cloth may be offered.

The idea is that what we could enjoy, we give it up for the purpose of sacrifice. When Krishna uses the term Yajna in the Bhagavad Gita, he doesn’t use it specifically for fire sacrifices. That is just one connotation. Often, words have certain standard meanings, but they also have more general meanings. For many people, the word Yajna immediately invokes the idea of a fire sacrifice, especially for those familiar with broader Indian or bhakti culture. Krishna does use it in the context of fire sacrifices, but he also uses it in a more generic sense. Therefore, Yajna, as Krishna uses it, refers both to sacrifice in general and to the specific form of fire sacrifice.

Now, I’ve talked about sacrifice, and now I’m moving toward the topic of rituals. Is fire sacrifice specifically a ritual? When we want to perform a sacrifice, there are specific ways in which sacrifices can be done, and these specific forms are called rituals. In this image, we see a sacred fire emanating within an altar, made in a particular arrangement of brick and stone. There is a sacrificial ladle, and various other objects may be offered. This is the idea of sacrifice. The specific forms in which a sacrifice might be done can be considered rituals.

Now, I’ll move on to the second aspect of the talk: what is a ritual? The word “ritual” often has a negative connotation nowadays. When we use the word ritual, we might say, “Don’t be so ritualistic.” However, the fact is that rituals exist in every walk of life and animate every part of it. For example, when two people meet, they might shake hands as a ritual of greeting. In some traditions, people may bow from the waist, fold their hands, or rub their noses. These are all ways of greeting, and they are rituals. Sometimes, these things become so common that we don’t think of them as unusual. For instance, the handshake has become so widespread in mainstream culture that we don’t think much about it; we just do it. But why do we shake hands? Some people might punch their hands together instead. Why specifically shake hands? That is one way of greeting.

Essentially, rituals are structured ways in which we express our intentions. They provide a structure for expressing emotions and organizing our actions. For example, without the ritual of shaking hands, how would we greet someone? If we wanted to greet someone with affection, cordiality, or whatever emotion, how would we express it? We need some structure for expressing our emotions and organizing our actions. Without universally recognized cultural forms, such as rituals, there would be no way for us to express things in a way others can understand. If a person doesn’t know what a handshake means and someone extends their hand, they might wonder what to do with it. When both people understand what a particular ritual signifies, it becomes easily accessible, a structured pattern of action by which emotions can be conveyed.

Some rituals serve specific purposes. In secular life, for example, some rituals might be based on superstition or blind faith. Consider birthday celebrations, where people blow out candles. Why specifically blow out a candle? It’s just done, and nobody questions why. If we trace this practice back, it originates from medieval Scandinavian countries where it was believed that an evil spirit could haunt a person at birth. The belief was that for every year of the person’s life, an evil spirit would haunt them. It was believed that blowing out a candle would drive away these spirits. In today’s world, most people no longer believe in evil spirits, and the idea that blowing out a candle would drive them away might seem ridiculous. Yet, even without knowing the original meaning, people still engage in this practice. Today, blowing out candles during a birthday celebration is seen as a festive occasion, with people cheering and singing.

Certain emotions get associated with certain actions, even if there is no intrinsic or rational basis for them. For example, in a cricket match, when a batsman hits a shot that goes over the boundary, it’s considered a sixer. Here we see the umpire raising his arms to signal the six. Now, why raise the arms? Why not just convey the six with one’s fingers, or convey a four in the same manner? This has become a convention, and it is what is followed. When the umpire raises their arms to indicate a sixer, it has become associated with the idea of a big hit, and people cheer wildly. This is an example of a ritual.

I am using the word “ritual” in a broad sense to convey that certain external actions are used for symbolic purposes. These symbolic purposes can either relate to events in the outer world or to emotions in our inner world that we want to express. In this case, raising the hands conveys an event that happened in the outer world. The idea is that there is an association between certain physical gestures and something that is not intrinsically connected to those actions. That is the concept of a ritual. Just as rituals exist in all walks of life, they also exist in our religious lives.

Religious rituals serve many purposes, and broadly, I’ve identified five purposes here. Religious rituals make us more receptive to experiencing the divine. I will talk later about the difference between religion and spirituality. For now, suffice it to say that religion connects us with God and turns us back toward Him. Religious rituals are actions that help us turn toward God. How do rituals make us more receptive? They are often based on a deep understanding of how the human mind and body interact. For example, if I am sitting in a chair, leaning back with my feet on the table and saying, “I am feeling very humble,” people would likely laugh. That is ridiculous because the posture conveys bossiness, not humility. Certain physical gestures convey specific emotions. Sitting in a bossy posture invokes bossiness, while sitting slightly bent forward indicates attentiveness.

When we go in front of a sacred image, such as in a temple, and fold our hands or bow down, these physical gestures activate the emotions of humility, supplication, and prayerfulness. In this way, physical actions trigger internal emotions, making us more receptive to experiencing the divine. When we engage in rituals, they help express devotion when it is present. If someone has a prayerful heart and they fold their hands, recite verses, and prostrate themselves before the Lord, they are expressing their devotion.

Rituals also express our desire for devotion, even when devotion is not yet present. Sometimes, engaging in external actions helps us develop the internal emotions. Even if we are not feeling prayerful or humble, folding our hands and praying or reciting verses can kindle devotion within us. At times, rituals can become merely formalities. If there is no devotion or desire for devotion, the ritual may become a mechanical or perfunctory action. Often, the term “ritualistic” is used negatively, implying that something is being done without genuine emotion. However, when the right spirit is present while performing a ritual, it becomes spiritual. Spirit plus ritual equals spiritual.

Rituals, however, can also be used to mislead or misappropriate. For example, handshaking is meant to convey cordiality and a welcoming attitude, but someone might shake hands while thinking of betraying the person behind their back. This could take the form of character assassination, rumor-mongering, or even physical harm. In the same way, rituals can be used for personal gain or to enhance prestige and power in a religious culture. Take, for example, one of the prominent Krishna temples in Juhu, near Bollywood, where some stars visit. Some may have genuine devotion, while others may just visit for a photo opportunity. India is still a deeply religious country, and on sacred days like Janmashtami, a celebrity might visit a temple to create an image of themselves as both successful and religious. In this case, their motive is not to seek the Lord but to be seen by others. If the divine is completely neglected in such cases, or if rituals are used solely for worldly image-making, they do not serve their true purpose. They conceal the wrong intentions behind the rituals.

Some people may appear humble in front of their seniors but act harshly in front of their juniors. In such cases, their humility does not stem from developed humanity or spirituality, as it should. A truly evolved human being, someone who is spiritually advanced, would be humble regardless of their social position. However, if someone acts humble in front of their superiors and harsh or judgmental toward their juniors, their humility may not be a true expression of spirituality. Instead, it might be a strategic tool to gain power within a structure, enabling them to dominate those below them. By appearing humble in front of superiors, they gain power and use it to control others.

Religious rituals often get a bad reputation when they are used not just as formalities but also cynically to impress or manipulate others. The abuse of a practice does not mean that the practice itself is bad; it only means that the abuse is harmful. Rituals are universal and essential for organizing our daily lives.

Now, let’s return to the concept of sacrificial rituals. The word yajna (often translated as a fire sacrifice) might seem difficult to understand, especially from a purely rational perspective. We take objects and put them into the fire, where they are burned to ashes. It may seem like a waste. However, there is a principle of exchange at play, and fire represents the cosmos — the universe that provides us with the necessities of life. While we work hard to obtain food, it is nature itself, or the divine, that ultimately provides it. Our efforts are secondary; nature’s provision is primary.

In this way, sacrificial rituals acknowledge and express gratitude toward the universe and the divine, who oversee its functioning. Through the ritual, we recognize that we receive what we need from the universe, and the sacrifice symbolizes our gratitude. It’s like how parents might teach children to thank others when they receive a gift. When a child receives a gift, they are taught to express gratitude. Similarly, sacrificial rituals express our gratitude to the higher forces that provide for us. Fire is the medium through which our offerings are conveyed to the divine. We don’t need to get too caught up in the specifics of the ritual; the medium of exchange can vary across cultures.

For example, if someone from a tribal background, unfamiliar with modern technology, were to visit a bank and see someone exchange a large sum of money for just a card, they might think it’s a scam. However, the card represents an entire system of economic exchange that assigns value to it. The specifics of this medium need to be understood through proper education. Similarly, fire sacrifices are a way of conveying our offerings to the divine.

The Bhagavad Gita extends the concept of yajna beyond fire sacrifices and suggests that all work in life should be approached as a sacrifice. Krishna says that yajna arises from karma (action). Thus, all work can be transformed into a sacrificial act when it is done with the intention of pleasing the divine, rather than for personal gain or immediate pleasure. Instead of working to fulfill personal desires, work should be performed for a higher purpose.

When we perform our duties, the ultimate goal is not the result but the service to the divine. Karma, destiny, and time (daiva and kala) combine to produce the outcome. By working as a sacrifice, we shift the focus from the results to the service. The fruits of our work, if they come, should also be offered as a sacrifice. This can be done by giving charity or using the results for sacred purposes. The key is that both the work itself and its outcomes should be approached as offerings, with a mood of sacrifice.

Thus, work can be performed in a spirit of service, and the results of that work can be offered back to the divine, completing the cycle of sacrifice. Both the action and its fruits are part of the ritual of sacrifice.

Here, we offer the fruits of the divine with detachment and devotion. Detachment means recognizing that this is not mine; it was actually meant for the Lord. This attitude becomes a way to express our devotion to the Lord. This principle is central to Karma Yoga, a topic we will explore in more detail in later classes. But in simple terms, Karma Yoga is the practice where Lord Krishna takes the karma (actions) and gives us the yoga (connection). This means that our work can bring us closer to the Lord, establishing a connection with Him. Our karma thus leads to yoga.

In this context, I mentioned earlier the connection between Karma, Daiva, Kaala, and Fala (result). If we don’t obsess over the result, and instead focus on performing our karma in a mood of service (seva) and sacrifice (yajna), the work elevates our consciousness. This helps us connect with the divine and increases our devotion. The Lord becomes pleased when we perform work in the spirit of sacrifice, and such actions do not bind us karmically. Instead, they elevate and liberate us.

To summarize briefly, when Krishna takes the karma, it means that He takes away the reactions of our actions. The concept of karma is complex, and I’ll discuss it in more detail later. But here, karma can refer to two things: it can mean the actions we perform, or it can refer to the reactions we experience from our actions. When we say “I am suffering from my karma,” we are referring to the reactions we are facing due to past actions. When Krishna takes the karma, He takes away the negative reactions, freeing us from being bound by them.

Bondage can be understood at both a psychological and cosmological level. Psychologically, every action creates an impression in our consciousness, which then compels us to repeat the action. For example, if someone who has never drunk alcohol tries it once, they may initially do it just for a celebratory occasion. But that experience creates an impression, and soon they may feel compelled to do it again and again. This is how attachment forms and leads to bondage. Similarly, when we work purely for material results—such as a salary—the emotional attachment to the result leads to entanglement.

But if we approach work with the attitude that our life is dedicated to the service of the Lord, and the results of our work will be used for His service, the obsession with results fades. The work itself becomes a form of devotion, and the emotional entanglement with the results is reduced. By offering everything to the divine, the impressions formed are not as deep, and we avoid getting bound. This is the essence of what Krishna teaches in the Bhagavad Gita: if we work in the spirit of sacrifice, we will not become bound but liberated. The attachment to the divine opens the door to liberation.

To summarize, I discussed the concept of sacrifice, focusing on whether it is a ritual and if rituals are necessary. Sacrifice, as explained in the Bhagavad Gita (3.9), is essential because it involves giving up something immediate for something long-term. In various aspects of life, including daily life and sports, we must often make sacrifices to achieve something substantial. Sacrifice also has a spiritual context, as it comes from the idea of making something sacred.

I also talked about specific forms of sacrifice, such as rituals. For example, fire sacrifice is a ritual that involves offering to the divine. Rituals exist in all areas of life. Simple actions like shaking hands, blowing out candles, or celebrating a six in cricket are rituals that help convey emotions and organize actions. In religious contexts, rituals serve several purposes: they make our consciousness receptive to the divine, express our devotion to the divine when present, and help express our desire for devotion when the divine is not visibly present. However, when a ritual is performed without the intention to connect with the divine, it becomes an empty shell—a mere formality.

When rituals are done without regard for the divine, merely as a tool for gaining prestige and power within a religious culture, they lose their spiritual essence. In such cases, rituals become a means for worldly gain rather than a true connection to the divine. The specific forms of rituals can vary widely, but their underlying purpose is to acknowledge the universe’s gifts and to express our gratitude to the divine.

One example I discussed earlier is the fire sacrifice, where the offerings we make to the fire—representing the divine—are returned to the universe. Fire serves as a medium, a divine manifestation that helps convey our offerings. This system of exchange between us and the divine can be understood like modern economic transactions. For example, if someone is unfamiliar with sophisticated systems, they might view the exchange of money for a credit card as a deceptive or losing transaction. But the card holds value through the broader system. Similarly, fire sacrifices are a form of offering where the divine receives our gratitude through an exchange, even if it is not immediately apparent to everyone.

Sacrifice, however, is not limited to specific rituals like fire sacrifices. It is meant to unify and guide all aspects of our life. Work, too, can become a form of sacrifice when done with the right attitude. If we work in a mood of devotion and offer the fruits of our work to the divine, then our work becomes an offering, a sacrifice. In the practice of Karma Yoga, when we perform work with devotion and without attachment to the result, Krishna takes our karma (actions) and gives us yoga (connection to the divine). This connection elevates us spiritually.

If we become obsessed with the results of our actions, the impressions created by those actions tie us to them, compelling us to repeat the cycle. This is how we become bound to our actions. However, if our intention is to serve the Lord, the impressions formed by our actions will connect us to Him, not to worldly outcomes. Instead of becoming bound, we become elevated and liberated.

Thank you. Hare Krishna.

A few questions have been raised:

1. How can someone working in a company work to please the Lord? Why can’t we work this way?

The presence of God is not confined to temples. God’s jurisdiction extends over the entire world. If we recognize that our talents are gifts from the Lord, we can use them in any field for His service. The Bhagavad Gita demonstrates how even actions like fighting a war can be performed in a spirit of service to the Lord.

Consider a family where the breadwinner works far from home. Even though the breadwinner is physically distant, they may carry a picture of their family and work diligently with the intention of providing for them. Similarly, although we may not see the Lord physically close to us, His presence is everywhere. Everything in the world ultimately belongs to Him, and devotion means offering our best to Him.

If we work as the best professionals in our field, that work itself becomes an offering to the Lord. For example, students can offer their spiritual wisdom to others by excelling in their studies. If they study diligently, they not only improve themselves but also set an example for others, leading them towards spiritual receptivity. Arjuna became the greatest archer by dedicating his skill to Krishna, and similarly, we should strive to do our work as well as we can.

2. How can we maintain spiritual life in a competitive world?

In an ultra-competitive world, the temptation is to become so consumed by the pursuit of success that we neglect our spiritual life. However, just as the breadwinner needs to periodically reconnect with their family to maintain their emotional connection, we need regular spiritual nourishment. This can include spending time with spiritually-minded people, attending spiritual gatherings, and engaging in practices that nourish our spiritual growth.

Initially, when we begin, our external work might dominate our consciousness. However, by balancing our worldly responsibilities with regular spiritual practices, we can gradually maintain a deeper connection with the divine while still performing our duties in the world.

When I first began speaking, I was very conscious of how I was speaking, whether people were listening attentively, and where I was. I was aware of the room and the setting. Over time, however, as I continued speaking, the externals—such as the setting—became less dominant in my consciousness. While I still remain aware of these factors, what became more important was the content of what I was speaking. Gradually, the externals faded into the background, and my internal intention for speaking—being to serve Krishna—came into focus.

Initially, when doing something new, it might take time to assimilate that we are doing it for Krishna. But over time, as Krishna becomes the driving force in our lives, the externals—like where we are or who we are interacting with—matter less. What becomes more significant is our intention. So, there are three key things to remember:

1. God is present everywhere, and whatever abilities we have are gifts from Him, meant to be used in His service.
2. If we connect with the Lord internally in our hearts, this connection remains, no matter what actions we are doing.
3. As we continue to do something, the externals gradually fade to the background, and our purpose for doing it—the service to Krishna—becomes the foreground of our consciousness.

---

On Rituals:

Some rituals are done simply to satisfy our beliefs, but should we continue performing them? For example, rituals like offering shraddha to our ancestors are common. It is important to focus on understanding the principle behind the ritual rather than just performing it. The specifics of rituals may vary based on time, place, and circumstances, but the core principle remains the same.

For example, when we are citizens of a particular country, we may need to stand at attention for the national anthem or salute the flag. If we move to another country, the specifics change, but the principle of respecting the country remains constant. Similarly, in rituals, the principle should always be our focus.

When performing rituals, it’s essential to engage both reason and emotion. We should analyze and understand the ritual intellectually, ensuring that we have a grounding in what we are doing. Emotionally, we should also engage with the ritual—surrounding ourselves with the appropriate atmosphere and people who help us connect to that emotion. By doing this, we can feel the deeper connection and purpose of the ritual.

A Question on Motivation in Practice:

Mira asks: Even if we do not have the mood of service and just perform rituals, like chanting 16 rounds or offering Abhishek, how do we maintain motivation when we don’t feel the divine presence or get the taste?

This is a common challenge in spiritual practice. There are days when our practices feel mechanical, and we don’t feel the divine presence strongly. But just because we don’t feel connected every day doesn’t mean we should stop the ritual. The key is to regularly reinforce our conviction and emotional connection to the practice.

Over time, we must observe what strengthens our devotion and conviction. Some days, we may feel spiritually uplifted, while other days may feel dry. By regularly exposing ourselves to practices or sources that nourish our spirit—such as reading literature, associating with like-minded people, or hearing classes—we can sustain our spiritual momentum.

It’s important to recognize that this is a long journey, and there will be times without direct spiritual experiences. Yet, continuing the ritual, regardless of how we feel, is crucial. Some rituals may naturally connect with us more than others. For instance, some may love singing, others may prefer philosophy or hearing teachings. It’s essential to find what helps us feel connected and use it to support our practice.

But that same person might have to sit and chant mantras. They might find it difficult. Then we need to balance ourselves. There are some rituals that may require strength for us to do. And there may be some rituals that are so joyful for us that we gain strength by doing those things. Then we need to make sure that we do enough of the things that give us strength, so that we have enough strength to do the things that require strength from us. That’s how we can continue.

How does work create bondage? Is it the fruit of the work or the intent with which we perform the work? In both ways, it’s not digital logic—one or zero. It’s analog. The idea is that bondage essentially means our consciousness is bound. It’s not physical groups that bind us when you talk about bondage in the world. The soul and the body are different. But what binds the soul to the body is the soul’s desire to enjoy the worldly objects that can be enjoyed through the body. This is 13:22 in the Bhagavad Gita. The soul becomes bound because of the desire to enjoy. So basically, the essence of bondage is the soul’s desire to enjoy the objects of the world through the body.

So when we are doing the work, what is it that causes bondage? For most people, it is not that they just love the work. For most people, work is something that they do so that they can get the results. And the results may be prestige, maybe money, and then they can enjoy the money. So then it is what we are desiring to enjoy that causes bondage. So if somebody loves a work very much, then that itself can also cause bondage. So it could be the intent of the work. It could be the content of the work. It could be the result, the consequence of the work. Any of these can cause bondage. So if somebody very strongly craves for something, then even if they don’t get it, still they might be bound to it. Just like in India, some students just get infatuated with wanting to get an IIT seat, a seat in one of the premier colleges in India, the Indian Institute of Technology. And they may try one year, they may try a second year, they may try a third year, they may try three, four, five years. And even if they don’t get it, they finally move on to some other college. But they are constantly regretting, lamenting, “Why didn’t I get that?” Then they are still emotionally caught in that. So the intent itself can entangle sometimes, even if they are no longer studying for IIT, they are no longer in IIT, but still they are entangled. Sometimes the work itself, we become so obsessed with the work that we forget why we are doing the work. Then the work can bind.

In the 10th canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, there is a story of the Yajna Brahmanas, those who were performing Brahminical fire sacrifices. And they got so caught in the nitty-gritties of the sacrifice. And they just got such joy in just doing that. “This should be done like this, this should be done like this, don’t do it like this.” There is a certain joy in just making things precisely and feeling, “Oh, just see how expert I am in this.” But then Krishna himself came, and they forgot about Krishna. They neglected Krishna because they just got so caught in the activity that they forgot the purpose of the activity. Sometimes the work itself can entangle. Sometimes, of course, the results of the work, that is the money that we want, the prestige that we want, that can entangle. So we have to see specifically what is it that is consuming our consciousness. And the sense of attachment is the consumption of the consciousness.

Then there are two more questions. So, OK, so what is one supposed to do to make the work into sacrifice? Just to say one does one’s work well, one succeeds professionally. But eventually, what after that? OK, two things here. First point is that whenever we work, it’s important for us to recognize that it’s a matter of consciousness. So if one keeps working, but one is also spending the adequate amount of time practicing bhakti and growing toward Krishna and growing in our devotion, then more and more the object of the work will become the focus of our consciousness. And then that’s how the work will become more and more a form of worship. So it’s not that we have to physically do any rituals that will signify the attitude of worship. It’s more about the emotion, the consciousness with which we are doing it. So Arjuna, as I said, the example of our topmost archer, he was doing his archery. And along with that, he was doing his devotional activity, but he was doing it in the mode of service to Krishna.

So as we grow spiritually, broadly three things will happen. One is while doing a particular activity, we won’t get so caught up in that activity itself. In the successes and failures, ups and downs, we’ll stay more stable because we are doing it not just to avoid failure or to gain success. We are doing it to please the Lord. So we’ll become more stable while doing that activity. Secondly, as we advance spiritually, we will want also to connect more and more with Krishna. So the times when we can do that, the times when we can read spiritual literature, go in the association of devotees, go to sacred places, those are the things we really look forward to because if we are eager, if we are getting attached to Krishna, then we pursue Krishna when he’s not directly manifested. But we also relish Krishna’s presence wherever and whenever he’s directly manifested, and we long for that. That’s the second thing.

The third thing is that when we keep practicing bhakti devotion, when we are working in the mode of worship, then we try to find more and more avenues by which we can spiritualize whatever we are doing. That means in an appropriate way, we may try to share our spirituality with others in an appropriate way. We use the fruits of our spirituality for offering to others. If we have acquired a particular position through our profession, then we may use the position to attract people toward Krishna. So if a person is very successful and then they say that it’s my bhakti that makes me tick, then people will really… So as great people do, ordinary people want to do the same thing. So that way, we can attract other people to Krishna also.

So all this will happen more as we connect with Krishna. Now, there is one elaborate question, one question which requires an elaborate answer about why Krishna refers to himself as a third person. I will answer this elaborately later, but suffice it to say that at this point, Krishna has not yet in the Gita revealed himself as God. It is when he reveals himself as the divine that he will say, “I am the object of the divine.”

I had answered this question elaborately in a previous class. You may, we will make the so that I won’t repeat that answer for those who are present. But essentially, Krishna is not revealing himself as the divine right now. He is just revealing himself, specifying himself as the teacher of spiritual knowledge. As the Gita progresses further, within the thought flow of the Gita, Krishna will reveal his position and then he will talk directly about himself in the first person.

So based on the kind of message that he is giving and the frame of reference, the context within which he is giving it, sometimes he refers to the divine in the first person and sometimes in the third person. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

The post 9 What is sacrifice? Is it a ritual? Are rituals needed? – Gita 3.9 Gita Key Verse appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

So grateful to be here among all of you today, and I’ll be speaking on the topic of happiness. What is happiness, and why is it so elusive? We discuss this based on verse 255 in the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna is describing the characteristics of one who is enlightened. Prajayata, Kaman sarvan partamano, ganaan atmanyavadmanan. So prajahati says, “Give up the Kaman”—that is, give up desires. Sarvan parthamano, Parham: what kind of desires? Desires that have arisen from the agitation of the mind. Give up all those desires. This itself seems counterintuitive. We normally define happiness as the fulfillment and satisfaction of desires. But the first thing Krishna is saying is the abandonment, the renunciation of desires. Prajati—give them up. And then atmanya evad Mana Bush—when the mind turns inwards and becomes satisfied in the self, that person is actually enlightened. So essentially, Krishna is saying, give up outer pleasures and find happiness within.

So let’s break this down into three broad parts: what happiness is, what happiness is not, and how happiness can be enduring. There are many myths about happiness that control our lives, and these myths often run like program machines, pushing us to pursue certain things we think are enjoyable. That’s why we first discuss what happiness is not. The first thing is that happiness comes from meaningful engagement, not meaningless enjoyment. Normally, we equate happiness with enjoyment—“I’m enjoying, therefore I’m happy.” But more than enjoyment, what we need is meaning. Let me explain this.

Suppose there is a small child, and one child tickles another. Or, if a small child comes to visit a family and gets tickled, what happens? The child laughs. Now, is that laughter happiness? Okay, maybe it is some kind of happiness, but if it were really happiness, then with today’s technology, we could easily make a perpetual tickling machine, and we could keep tickling ourselves for the rest of eternity. Would we be happy if somebody kept tickling us? We would eventually say, “Please stop.” Biologically, we might be laughing, but psychologically, we would want it to stop. So, laughter alone, when it has no meaning, doesn’t bring any lasting happiness. In fact, there’s a prominent Academy Award-winning comedian who committed suicide. I wrote about him in one of my books, in an article titled “After the Laughter.” We laugh in public, but the quality of our life isn’t determined by the jokes we crack.

So, we don’t want simply enjoyment. We want meaningful enjoyment. The same principle applies to humor—most of us like jokes. But if somebody told us, “From tomorrow, you have no financial obligations, no family obligations, no professional obligations. Just sit and watch comedy shows for the rest of your life,” we might enjoy it for half an hour, an hour, or a few hours. But after that, we would want to do something meaningful. We would get bored. So, often we equate happiness with enjoyment, but if that enjoyment is without meaning—just tickling or comedy—it becomes boring over time. The same principle applies to entertainment. External pleasures are like the tickling of the body and mind. They might give some pleasure, but soon, they become boring. Krishna talks about the nature of external pleasure in 18:38 of the Gita, where he says: “At vi chaitanyasa, yogam, parinami, Visha, meva, tatsukam, Raja, Sam smitham.” Here, Krishna is talking about how pleasures derived from the senses and sense objects, while initially enjoyable like nectar, eventually turn into poison. The same thing which is initially enjoyable—after a while, you don’t want it anymore. So, the very thing that seems enjoyable, if it lacks meaning, soon loses its appeal.

Unfortunately, what happens? Happiness is elusive because we seek the initial nectar. The initial nectar goes away, and then we look for some other object where there’s initial nectar, and then that object goes away, and we look for initial nectar somewhere else. That nectar initially allures us, but the nectar soon disappears, and that’s how we keep chasing. We keep chasing. We keep chasing. One of my friends works in the TV industry; they told me that it’s all about TRPs. An interesting thing is that the maximum attention people have when they are watching TV is not when they are watching a program, it is when they are surfing channels. Because while surfing channels, they are hoping that something will be good, maybe the next channel will be good, the next channel will be good, the next channel will be good. But once they start watching a program, okay, some of it might be interesting, some of it might be boring, some of it might be just okay. So the attention goes down.

We all know this, but we just keep going from one object to another, to another, to another, and it’s elusive, because we are looking for the initial nectar, and that nectar ends. So the very thing we think will give us pleasure, after some time, it stops giving us pleasure. There’s some study done that nowadays, every time a new phone gets launched—what’s the latest iPhone? 11? Okay, iPhone 10 has already been replaced by 11. So now, when a new phone is launched, people stampede in stores to get the phone, but some surveys have found that 90% of the people who buy a new version of the phone don’t use any of the new features. Then why get the phone? It’s just glamor. “Oh, I have a new phone!” But after some time, that glamor just goes away. And then when we are attracted to the glamor, okay, the next phone comes out, and again, the glamor pulls us in. So we keep looking for the initial nectar. And there is that nectar, no doubt, but it is very initial.

An American playwright, Oscar Wilde, said that fashion—everybody wants to be fashionable—so he said fashion is a form of ugliness so unbearable that we have to change it every few months. Somebody who wants to be very fashionable, the worst put-down for them is when somebody calls them old-fashioned. The same dress, the same hairstyle, whatever it is—after six months, it just becomes “old-fashioned.” “No, buy something new.” That’s how happiness is elusive, because what we are looking for is enjoyment which, in itself, does not have any meaning, and that enjoyment doesn’t last for long.

Another way of understanding this is, let’s look at it from a diagrammatic point of view. When we have external pleasures, what is happening is that the senses and the sense objects come into contact. For example, our eyes see something enjoyable, or our tongue tastes something delicious. Now, when the contact happens, there is some pleasure. And that’s what we normally with the world tout as enjoyment. Yes, there is some pleasure. However, the problem is that all three—objects, their capacity to give pleasure, and the contact—are temporary.

The objects that give us pleasure, their capacity to give us pleasure, is temporary. The same food that is irresistibly delicious today, after two or three days, starts spoiling, and we can’t even keep it in our presence. The objects themselves are temporary, then their capacity to give pleasure. How long can we? The contact between them is also temporary. If we eat some delicious food, the taste stays on the tongue for some time, and then it goes in. And most importantly, our senses themselves have a finite, limited capacity to enjoy. Quite often, when we seek pleasure, what we do is think, “I don’t have good enough sense objects to enjoy.” “I don’t have attractive enough objects. If I only had a more attractive object, I would be happy.” And people keep searching for more attractive objects.

But even if we had the most attractive objects in the world to enjoy, what limits our enjoyment is not the unavailability of the objects, but the limitedness of our senses themselves. Even if we owned a five-star hotel with the best food, how much can we eat?

I was at a program in a university in Canada, and there was a student who had a poster on his T-shirt that read, “90% of the world’s women are beautiful. The remaining 10% are in my college.” What that meant is that in today’s world, we, through the media, are presented with the most attractive-looking objects from everywhere. And when we get captivated by that kind of sensory stimulation, the sensory stimulation available in the real world always fails in comparison. So in general, we always keep hoping that there’ll be some better enjoyment out there somewhere, but the sense enjoyment, when we seek pleasure through that, is intrinsically a doomed project—not because we don’t get good enough objects, but because our senses themselves have a finite capacity to enjoy.

That’s why Krishna says that it’s not just about making a separate point. Earlier, I said the pleasure stops being pleasure when it becomes boring. But it doesn’t just become boring; it also becomes distressing, because we get hooked to it. Some spiritual teachers ask, “How does it become distressing?” Well, see, everything in this world is short-lived, except the craving.

The craving stays for a long time. Somebody who is alcoholic may drink and drink and drink enough, and then they may throw up and have a hangover and everything. But at that time, they may say, “I’m never going to drink again.” However, maybe just that very evening, they think, “When can I go and have a drink again?” Krishna says that this craving is nitya-varina—it can become like an eternal enemy. It stays on and on and on and on.

So, actually, the search for pleasure is often the cause of the greatest trouble. The search for pleasure is often the cause of the greatest trouble. If you consider addiction, nobody is born smoking a cigarette from their mother’s womb. But what happens? They think, “I’ll just enjoy a little bit.” They enjoy a little bit, but afterward, they become addicted to it. About drinking, it is said that first the drinker takes a drink, then the drink takes a drink, and then the drink takes the drinker. So people get hooked to it. The craving completely binds.

So, this seems like pleasure in the whole world glamorizes it as pleasure, but actually, it is not pleasure. It disappoints and then it torments. So now, what happiness is not? Let’s look at what happiness is. I started by saying that happiness comes not from meaningless enjoyment. Meaningless enjoyment means just some stimuli, something that stimulates our senses or our mind. But happiness comes from meaningful engagement.

If you look at it broadly, we live in a materialistic society that often defines success and happiness in terms of collecting and consuming—just get more and more and more, enjoy more and more. Alcoholism is a widespread problem, and it is a serious issue, but equally widespread and often not talked about is shopaholism. Shopaholism is when people just shop, shop, shop, till they drop. People keep shopping, shopping, shopping. Why? Because just buying gives some thrill, some pleasure. “Oh, I’m getting something new. I’m getting something new.”

So often in today’s world, collecting and consuming are considered to be sources of pleasure. The more toys you have, the more successful you are, the more famous you are. Sometimes, somebody might have a big house, but all that big house provides them is the privilege to have a lot of space in which to feel lonely and unhappy.

Now, there’s nothing against big houses, nothing against wealth, nothing against having possessions. But the problem is not having possessions. The problem is thinking that possessions will bring happiness. It’s how possessions are used that determines our happiness—not just having the possessions. So the world tells us that collecting and consuming is what gives us pleasure, but actually, if you look at the most deeply satisfying moments of our life, they are centered on something else. It’s on connecting and contributing.

When we had some very deep, meaningful, sweet interaction with someone, if you look back at our own lives, even if we went to some place where there was a lot of enjoyment, it was maybe connected with another human being. And it was not just the drinking at the party, but it was how we connected to the other human being. Even in that, that is much more meaningful than the sensual stimulation. So we want to connect with others.

Contributing means we want our existence to count. We want that by our existence, by our living, by our acting, we can do something worthwhile for someone. This is a deep-rooted need within all of us. In fact, for this sake—connecting and contributing—we are often ready to do the opposite of getting sensual stimulation. Some people make sacrifices. Somebody might decide, if there is a big crisis and people need blood, they might just donate their blood. Actually, they’re getting nothing; their body’s blood is being taken away and fully donated, because they feel they’re contributing something.

So it is actually when we connect with other human beings and contribute to others, contributing our existence, our actions, that’s what brings satisfaction. Let’s look at it a little bit more.

We all know the importance of loving and being loved. In fact, when we want to connect with people, physical attraction is obviously a part of it. But after some time, that loses meaning. What we truly desire is a deeper connection. We long to love and be loved. Harvard Medical School conducted a survey of American teenagers and youth, particularly from the 1960s when the hippie culture began. Around that time, there was what is called the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution was the idea that, in the past, there were many rules and regulations that restricted our enjoyment—and not just enjoyment, but they were seen as restrictions to expressing love. The movement advocated for no rules, just free love.

However, the result was surprising. When they studied young people who attended parties and engaged in casual encounters, they found that most of them felt profoundly lonely and guilty. Although their bodies may have been in contact with many others, they realized in their hearts that they were merely using each other to scratch an itch. One person was using the other, and vice versa. This led to a sense of loneliness and guilt. Too much focus on physical sensations diminishes deeper emotional connections, which is why there is so much loneliness in today’s world.

We want to connect, but we also want to contribute. In today’s world, even among youth, there is an increasing inclination toward activism. Activism means wanting to do something tangible, such as joining environmental, social, or cultural movements. The world feels so complex, and we often feel insignificant and lost within it. I was at a temple with a nice devotee community, but most of the kids weren’t attending the temple. Their parents were anxious, so we had a talk. I suggested an idea of activism, and the parents decided to make the entire temple eco-friendly. They invited the kids to take responsibility for this, and the kids formed a committee. Every week, they came to the temple, not just to hear the class or see the deities, but to ensure all the waste was disposed of in an eco-friendly manner. At that age, they wanted to do something, not just sit idly.

There is a zeal in all of us to contribute in some way. To the extent that these two elements—connection and contribution—are present, happiness can be considered multi-layered. While physical sensations are fine, they are peripheral. A deeper happiness comes when we connect and contribute.

So, who do we connect with? We connect with our family members, friends, and people in society. And what do we contribute? We can contribute in various ways. But what will make this happiness enduring? The happiness that comes from connecting and contributing is of a different nature. It may initially feel like poison but ends up being nectar. Connecting with another human being is not always easy. You may hope to meet someone, and the first moment you meet them, you feel a connection. But love at first sight is just the beginning. The real test is whether the connection endures.

Initially, there may be attraction, but for the connection to endure, there must be commitment. Relationships, especially deep and enduring ones, are like planting a tree. At first, you water the tree, and after a long time, the tree will bear fruit and provide shade. So, connecting with another human being at a deep level requires commitment and effort, much like nurturing a tree. Even contributing meaningfully requires that we have something worthwhile to offer.

For instance, if someone wants to contribute by becoming a doctor and serving underprivileged people, they first need to learn to be a doctor. Developing abilities requires dedication and hard work. This happiness, the deeper kind, may feel like poison in the beginning, but once we endure the challenges, we reach the nectar, and it becomes immensely fulfilling.

However, what happens when we compare these two types of happiness—the poison in the beginning, nectar in the end, versus nectar in the beginning, poison in the end? From an external perspective, the latter seems to promise immediate pleasure. The world presents endless objects with their initial nectar-like appeal. We jump from one to the next, distracted by the promise of instant gratification. Those who are not committed to anything may get distracted by anything. Even the thinnest layer of nectar will look attractive, and we get carried away.

If we want to pursue true happiness, we must recognize that we will have to endure the poison. This requires wisdom. If we let ourselves be swayed by the world’s definition of pleasure, we’ll just keep chasing fleeting sources of happiness that soon stop being pleasurable and eventually turn unpleasant. Happiness will elude us, and unhappiness will overwhelm us.

To make happiness enduring, we need a spiritual connection and understanding. Krishna, in the Bhagavad Gita, advises us not to chase after desires for external pleasure. He says, “Give up these desires, for they will end.” But what should we do instead? “Turn inward,” Krishna tells us. The Gita explains that beyond the body and mind, we are essentially spiritual beings. The soul is part of the whole, the all-attractive Supreme Being—Krishna.

The connection between the soul and Krishna is the source of ultimate happiness. When we connect with Krishna, it is a source of supreme joy. This connection, unlike fleeting sensory experiences, is eternal. The connection with Krishna is not physical; it is a connection of the heart and consciousness. When we connect with Krishna, it brings enduring happiness.

Earlier, I mentioned connecting and contributing as the key to meaningful happiness. But if we seek something eternally meaningful, something enduring, we must connect with Krishna. This connection with Krishna is the essence of bhakti. Bhakti Yoga is not just a set of rituals. It’s not just about visiting temples or performing sacred rites. All these practices have a purpose—to connect us with Krishna.

Sometimes people have a negative attitude toward rituals, but when rituals are infused with spirit, they become spiritual. When we engage in these practices with the right emotional disposition, they connect our consciousness with Krishna. To the extent that our consciousness is connected with Krishna, we experience inner serenity, stability, and satisfaction.

Now, we may ask, “How do we live in this world and function, while also connecting inwardly?” Bhakti has both aspects. There is connection internally, and there is contribution externally. Through our devotion to Krishna, we connect with Him, and through our service to the world, we contribute. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna talks about how we can spiritualize our activities in the world, turning every action into an offering of service.

The work that we do can have different motivations. We might work for remuneration to sustain our lives, but that is not the most inspiring motivation. When we perform our work as an offering to Krishna, we find deeper fulfillment. And through this devotion, we gain perfection and satisfaction.

Let me conclude with an example. There were three teachers in a school, and they were asked, “What are you doing?”

The first teacher said, “Can you see I’m trying to hammer some sense into the stupid case?” So the second teacher said, “Okay, I’m earning my living.” The third teacher said, “I am helping create the future of the world by shaping the minds of those who will be the future of the world.” The activity is the same, but the vision is different. And when the vision is different, the motivation level is different, the inspiration level is different.

So if we just look at every activity that we do, there are going to be problems. And no work in the world is easy, but if we have that vision—okay, this is such a disagreeable kind of work, so many problems over there—then not only are we fighting against the world, but we are fighting against our own mind also to get the work done. We’ll be half-hearted, we’ll be lackadaisical, we’ll not be happy. We’ll just do it, but it’ll be a struggle. If we think, “I’m just doing it for earning a living,” then what happens? The work itself is not meaningful. It is only the result of the work that is meaningful. And then the work becomes something we just have to go through so that we can get the result.

But if we can have this devotional vision—of course, there the vision was not exactly devotional, but it’s a bigger picture—and the teacher is thinking, “I’m contributing to the future of the world,” and that brings much greater motivation. So bhakti gives us this vision: that each one of us has certain abilities, we have certain gifts, and each one of us can contribute to the world. The contribution itself is what we have. Some of us have lots of talent. Some of us have small talents, and some of us can make, from an external perspective, a big contribution. Some of us can make a small contribution, but the biggest contribution that we can make is the consciousness we bring to the world.

The consciousness we bring means that if we are constantly irritable, complaining, and annoying, then we just make our hearts darker. We make the world darker around us. Krishna is present within our hearts. He is the supreme light. And when we become connected with Krishna internally, that connection brings His supreme light, that divine light, into our heart and from our heart into the world. Each one of us can make our world a brighter and better place, not just by the work we do, but by the consciousness with which we do the work.

And when we have this presence of Krishna, we are not so dependent or affected by our situations, because our happiness doesn’t depend primarily on the situation. We are connected with Krishna internally, and that brings us inner satisfaction. And then we work externally. When we work in this way, each of us can make worthwhile contributions. From the world’s measuring standpoint, some of us may be able to make huge contributions. Some of us may not be able to make such huge contributions, but each of us can make a positive difference.

Now, how much of a positive difference that will be? Actually, if we look, we all can think of certain things we are doing that are making the quality of our life somewhat worse. And you can think of certain things, and just think for a few minutes—you’re thinking of two or three things: “If I stopped doing this, small things, my life could be better. Two or three things: if I start doing this, my life will become better.”

We all may resolve to do these things, but it’s not easy to act on our resolutions, because we are distracted by pleasure, or we are distracted by trouble. All this nectar is there—why go through this poison? We get distracted. But if we are connected with Krishna internally, then we will be able to have that inner strength. And with that inner strength, each of us can make a better contribution. It may be to our children as parents, it may be in our work environment, it may be as neighbors, it may be as devotees. How much better a contribution can we make? We all don’t know that yet. Discovering that we all can be better human beings and do better things than what we are doing right now—that is what can make our life an adventure.

If we pull our act together, connect with Krishna, and let Krishna empower us, let Krishna’s love flow through us, how much good Krishna can do through us. That is what can make our life the ultimate adventure. So people think of adventure sports and adventure tours. They are all about getting some sensations—jumping out of a parachute, going to a hill station. All that is fine, but it’s superficial. The meaningful adventure in our life is when we connect with Krishna and become channels to contribute on His behalf.

And that, the Bhagavata says, is the art of happiness. Atmanya evadman, the soul connects with Krishna and then contributes in the world in a mode of service to Krishna. That is what will bring us intimate happiness.

I spoke today on this topic of what happiness is and why it is so elusive. So I started by talking broadly. We talked about 255 in the Gita. So I said there are three parts of what happiness is not: happiness is not just meaningless enjoyment, it is meaningful engagement. Meaningless enjoyment means stimulation. If somebody tickles us physically, or somebody tickles us mentally by humor, for some time it’s fine, but afterwards it becomes boring. Why? Because such pleasures are like nectar in the beginning, but poison in the end.

So we chase the nectar, and when the nectar ends, we immediately start taking a second nectar, a third nectar, a fourth nectar, and it just goes on and on. Fashion is a form of ugliness that soon becomes unbearable. And not only does it not only disappoint us, but it’s also distressing. Why? Because the senses and the sense objects are temporary. The senses are temporary, their connection is temporary, but the craving stays on and on. This craving torments us.

So what is happiness then? Happiness is not in two things. I said it is not in the four C’s. Does anyone remember those 4 C’s? Consuming or collecting? It is not in these things, but it is in connecting and contributing. Yes, thank you. Now, we can collect things, but what are we collecting them for? Is it just for consuming, or are we using those things to contribute, to connect?

Then, at a human level also, if we look, the deepest moments—the most fulfilling, most joyful moments—are when we connected with some other human being in a deeper way, and then when we did something which contributed to the welfare of someone else, which made us feel, “This is my existence. It counts.” So that brings a much deeper and enduring level of happiness.

And then lastly, I talked about how this happiness, through connecting and contributing, can be made enduring. That is, we connect not just with each other, but we connect with Krishna. So we are souls, and the soul is eternal. Krishna is eternal, and the connection between the two is established. And that connection can also be eternal, and it is established through devotion.

So we practice bhakti yoga by coming to the temple and doing various rituals. They become spiritual when we do them in the right spirit, and they establish an inner connection. And with that connection, we go out into the world, and according to our particular positions and dispositions, we make contributions. The biggest contribution we can make in the world is the consciousness we bring. If we are satisfied and cheerful, then the light of Krishna can shine through us and make our world a better and brighter place.

And we all can become better human beings and do better things if we connect with Krishna. All those intentions that we have—all those resolutions—we’ll implement them, and how much good we can do. Discovering that can become our life’s most exciting adventure. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna. Are there any questions or comments?

Yes, please. In the beginning, when you started with the words, “We should not…” like, we should give up desires, yeah? And then later, you mentioned that we have to live in this world, so we have to be doing our work. That’s basically my question: the contradiction between the two.

Okay, yeah. So, initially, I said that we have to give up desires. But then I said we have to work in the world, and we have to contribute. See, see what Krishna specifically says over there: prajati ida kaman sarwan partha manukatan. Since those desires which come from the agitation of the mind—the mind is always chasing whatever looks attractive, whatever looks pleasurable—this looks like nice nectar, that’s nice nectar, that’s nice nectar.

So if we keep chasing that which looks like nectar, we will never get much pleasure. Actually, if we keep doing whatever we like, we will end up disliking ourselves.

If somebody just, you know, if they just stay on their phone or the computer, just clicking on any site that comes up, any YouTube video—watch this now—after a few hours, they think, “I wasted so much time,” and they keep doing it day after day after day. Those people who spend hours and days and weeks on video games and internet surfing, we actually look at them and see they have extremely low self-esteem. They are just unhappy people. They’re trying to forget that, so they don’t really like themselves.

So when Krishna is saying “praja, give up those desires,” He’s saying that the desire to look for some quick nectar—that is the desire you give up. But then we work meaningfully. And at the end of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna, “Do your work. Nimitta matram bhava—become an instrument in service.” Do your service, make a contribution. That means we should be willing to go through the poison to get to the nectar.

Thank you. Yes, Krishna. One of the impediments to happiness is comparing our contribution with somebody else’s contribution. We think that our contribution is very small and theirs is so big. Therefore, that minimizes our own sense of satisfaction with what we’re doing. How do we overcome that?

When we make a contribution, sometimes we compare our contribution with others’ contributions and feel that our contribution is so small, which causes dissatisfaction. So what should we do about that?

Yes, the thing is, even when we contribute, the absorption is really critical. If somebody is making a contribution, but afterwards, they want glorification for their contribution, then if they get that glorification, they will be happy. If they don’t get that glorification, they will not be very happy.

So, we want to make a contribution, but actually, the essence of the contribution is that it helps us become more absorbed in Krishna. The contribution is not primarily what Krishna needs from us. Krishna wants our consciousness through that contribution.

There is that well-known verse just quoted in the Bhagavad Gita, 11.32 and 11.33, where Krishna says, “Dasmāt tvam pūrvasūrān māyā vaiṭaiḥ, niha nīvṛtaṁ bhavāśa miṣṭyācī”. He is telling Arjuna, “Fight this war. Rise, fight, attain victory. The enemies are already destroyed by my plan. You just fight, and when you have a flourishing kingdom, become an instrument in the fight.”

Now, this verse is actually saying something significantly deeper. As God had said earlier in 2.47, Krishna says, “Don’t be attached to the fruits of the work, Māyā ānī, and then He says, ‘yad karoshi yad ashnasi, yad juhoshi dadaśi yat’“—offer the fruits to Me. So, He says, “Don’t be attached to the fruits, offer the fruits to Me.” But this verse is telling us that the fruits are already with Krishna.

The war, the enemies are already defeated. So actually, Krishna doesn’t want the fruits from us. Krishna wants us through the fruits. It is in trying to offer the fruits to Krishna that we offer ourselves to Krishna. So if we get that priority right, ultimately, whatever service we do, yes, we want the external results to offer to Krishna. But the essential thing that Krishna wants—if Krishna wants, He can just get the results in one moment. We want to build a big temple. We might go and make endeavors to make various arrangements, but Krishna can, in the heart of the other Paramatma, inspire one person, and that person may just do everything. Also, if Krishna wants, He can do that, but He engages us so that we have some service. That’s why, if we focus on the point that the contribution is so that we can become absorbed in Krishna, then we won’t feel so dissatisfied if our contribution is less.

Another thing with respect to contribution is that a bigger contribution also means bigger distraction. Bigger distraction means, in the world, if somebody is making a bigger contribution, they might be doing it selflessly. But the more visible we become in the world, it is just the nature of the world that if we build a mountain, or if we build a mound, we have to dig a hole somewhere. So if somebody is making a big contribution, they are becoming famous in this world. Fame comes with infamy. And that, in one sense, both fame and infamy are big distractions. Fame can distract us: “I’m so great,” and then infamy comes. What happens? Anybody who becomes successful, somebody or the other will find some reason to criticize them, even if they have impeccable character. Still, people will find some reason. It’s just the nature of the world—people can’t tolerate it. Envy comes out, and then it’s very painful. So, bigger contributions don’t come free; they have their own costs. Of course, if Krishna wants us to do a bigger contribution, we’re happy to do it. But the bigger contribution also has a bigger distraction.

That’s why we can say that, at one level, Krishna knows what is the contribution that we can make best. And Krishna gives us that much empowerment. If we become purer, He may give us more empowerment. But becoming purer means focusing on Him rather than the world. So that’s why it’s not so much the quantity of our contribution, but the quality of our consciousness that matters in the realm of service.

There is a story of the monkeys. They’re all carrying giant boulders to help build the bridge for Rama, and there’s a squirrel who was carrying small dust particles, small pebbles. One of the monkeys said, “Hey, get out of the way! You’re coming in our way.” Rama told them, “She is doing her work according to her capacity, her fullest capacity, and you are doing your fullest capacity. I appreciate her, and I appreciate you.” So in the Lord’s eyes, the quantity of our contribution is not as important as the quality of our consciousness.

Thank you, Hare Krishna. Yes, in respect to connection and contribution, when one is in that position, with respect to commitment to connection and contribution, what my observation has been over time is that when devotees often get to the position of connection and contribution, various obstacles come up to test this. Sometimes the obstacles are so mind-blowing and staggering and derailing that we actually get off the path and call it quits. So my question is, how to identify this, how to relate to it, and what to do about it?

Okay, so when we come to the level of making connections or making contributions, various obstacles come, and they can overwhelm us. So what do we do at that time?

We can look at Srila Prabhupada’s example. I don’t think any human being could have faced as many obstacles as Srila Prabhupada did. He faced almost everything that he did—it just didn’t work. He tried starting a business, running a magazine, running an organization, working with his godbrothers—none of them worked. So what did Prabhupada do to move through it all? It was Ganga Vāgti—the Ganga keeps flowing toward the ocean.

Now, sometimes the Ganga might just be a small trickle flowing. Sometimes it’s a huge river. At times, it has to hit against obstacles again and again and again, maybe sneaking a little bit through, or sneaking left or right. But the Ganga keeps moving toward the ocean. So there is a path, and there is a purpose. The Ganga is not attached to this specific path. The purpose is to reach the ocean. If not by this path, then by some other path; if not by that path, some other path.

So, for us, even when we want to make a connection or contribution, we think, “This is the way I want to do it,” and sometimes things just don’t work. Srila Prabhupada was immensely determined, but he was also immensely resourceful. He wasn’t just forceful. “This is what I’m going to do now!” If this doesn’t work, “Let’s try that.” Prabhupada going to America itself was an example of not just his determination but his flexibility, adaptability, and resourcefulness. Even in America, he tried various things. He was in upstate New York initially, talking to more kind of people who other yoga gurus were going to. But then he went to the Bowery in New York City, and that’s where he got the most reciprocation.

So, there has to be that flexibility, that willingness to adapt. “Okay, this connection is not happening in this way. Maybe it will happen in that way.” “This contribution is not happening in this way. It may happen in that way.” This doesn’t mean we become fickle and give up at the first obstacle, but we need to be reasonable. Sometimes we might be inspired to do a particular thing, but maybe the time is not right, the place is not right, or the circumstances are not right. During that time, we might have to shift. So, we could decide on a reasonable amount of time and energy to put in. Suppose we are preaching at a particular point, doing a program at a particular place. We might do that for a few months, three months, six months, one year. But if we don’t get much reciprocation there, we might decide, “Okay, let me try somewhere else.”

So we need flexibility. In principle, a devotee is determined. As Bhakta Sanatan said, “If you are speaking about Krishna, if no one comes, speak to the walls. The walls will hear it. It is glorification of Krishna.” Now, that was in principle. But Prabhupada wasn’t satisfied speaking to the walls in India. He came to America. So when Bhakta Sanatan said, “Speak to the walls,” it means don’t lose heart if your service doesn’t seem to produce the results, or the connection or contribution is not happening. But that doesn’t mean we keep doing the same thing without change. We have to be resourceful.

That’s one point: like the Ganga, we have to be resourceful about moving forward. And the second thing is that when obstacles come, sometimes we may have to streamline.

There may be one activity with which we can very strongly connect with Krishna. We will be doing many things to connect with Krishna, and we may bring many things to contribute as well. But sometimes, we have to streamline and focus on that one activity through which we can connect very well. We might be doing various activities, but if we say we feel very connected by doing worship, or by doing Kirtan, or by studying the Bhagavatam, then that is what we need to focus on the most. That connection will become the source of our nourishment in general.

To conclude this point, in both our spiritual life and our day-to-day life, there are some activities that give us strength, and there are some activities that take away our strength. As Molibro quoted earlier, “Some people bring happiness wherever they go; some people bring happiness whenever they go.” What does that mean? People who bring happiness, we love to be with them. Being with them brings warmth, energy, and strength. But some people, as soon as they come, we start feeling like we can’t breathe properly, and then when they leave, we feel relief.

Now, in all our lives, both kinds of people exist. Some people, just by being with them, give us strength. Some people, being with them, take away our strength. We may not be able to entirely avoid those people if we are obligated or have committed relationships. But we have to make sure that the things that give us strength are not superseded by the things that take away our strength. We need to ensure that we get adequate strength, so we need to streamline our connection and maybe our contribution, so that we have the strength we need.

When we have adequate strength, then we can make whatever contribution we are making, whether it is less or more. So, be resourceful and vigilant. We need to be resourceful to find ways to contribute, and we also need to be vigilant to make sure that we are nourished ourselves. Only then can we go through the obstacles.

Okay, thank you. Yes, this verse talks about happiness through the self, but you’re talking about happiness with Krishna. So, I wasn’t able to understand—can you relate these two?

Okay, yes. So, here, “atman” refers to happiness through the self. But I brought Krishna into the discussion. Actually, the Bhagavad Gita has its own internal flow, and it leads toward a particular conclusion. At the same time, each verse is at a particular point in its flow. Broadly speaking, the flow of the Bhagavad Gita is this: initially, the Gita shifts Arjuna’s vision from the body to the soul. The first six chapters are primarily about how the body and soul interact and how to stay at the spiritual level while functioning in the body. So, the vision is shifted in the first six chapters from the body to the soul. There are three elements in existence: Jeev, Jagat, and Jagdish. Jeev is the soul, Jagat is the universe (the world), and Jagdish is the Supreme Lord.

In the first six chapters, Krishna shifts the vision from the body to the soul. Then, from the seventh chapter onward, Krishna shifts the vision from the soul to the whole, to Himself, to Jagdish. This is where Krishna introduces bhakti and talks about Himself and His glories—how He is the supremely attractive object and eminently worthy of our devotion. After that, in the last few chapters, Krishna shifts focus to the Jagat and how, with this spiritual knowledge, we should look at and function in the world. So, the Gita has its own thought flow.

What we did was take one verse, but we didn’t focus only on that verse. We used that verse as a launching pad to give the overall message of the Gita. This is also what Srila Prabhupada does. He might take one purport from the second chapter, but he explains it not just in that particular context, but in the context of the whole message of the Gita.

For example, in the second chapter, Krishna talks about Himself. In 2.61, He says, “Control the mind,” and in 2.61, 3.30, and 4.35, Krishna talks about focusing the consciousness on Him. In the second chapter, Krishna is primarily teaching mind control and sense control. But He also gives a hint that He is not just the teacher of mind control—He is also the object of control. The mind controls the mind and what you focus on. This becomes clearer later.

So, here in the first few chapters, verses 2.61, 3.30, and 4.35 give glimpses. But in the middle chapters, it becomes much more explicit. What I have explained is in terms of the entire philosophy of the Gita, and that is what we’ve used as a reference point to explain this verse.

Thank you. Yes, in this day and age, technology is the main thing. Back in the old days, we used to engage our kids in various activities, but now, a lot of the activities involve giving them a phone or some other technological device. And if you see what’s on some of these devices—not all of it is educational or positive—there’s a lot that is highly addictive, particularly to their minds. Then, they have to go out and make sense of the natural world, which is becoming increasingly lost. We seem to live in a screen-dominated world, and outside that screen, the real world is fading away. What is our responsibility to our kids in this environment? Technology is very addictive.

Yes, in the past, we could read books to our kids and connect with them, but now technology often consumes them. It can be quite addictive, and they get disconnected from the real issues of the world. Yes, at one level, spirituality transcends culture. At another level, spirituality permeates culture. Transcendence means putting aside the existing culture and focusing on our activities. For example, what we’re doing now is similar to what has been done in the bhakti tradition for a long time—we come together to discuss Krishna, the Supreme Lord, and glorify Him. So bhakti has activities that transcend culture. However, bhakti is also inclusive and can permeate culture.

I have a seminar on the internet and the three modes of material nature. Sometimes, we might think that the internet is all just distraction, but it’s not that simple. On the internet, there is also a culture of sharing and giving. People share knowledge and expertise. For example, if your computer isn’t working, you can go to a forum like the Apple or Windows forum, ask questions, and get answers. Wikipedia is another example, where knowledge is being widely distributed. So, in some ways, technology has become the language of today’s world. Within technology, just like in normal society, there are people in goodness, passion, and ignorance. Similarly, among netizens—the people who live in the digital world—there are those in goodness, passion, and ignorance.

In that sense, the digital world is more or less a reflection of the physical world, as it is human beings who have created it. The big difference, however, between the digital world and the physical world is that we can go from goodness to ignorance by just clicking one button. For example, if someone is in a library or a temple and they want to go to a bar or a gambling site, they would physically have to travel, which requires time, effort, and may even involve some public disapproval. But on the internet, you can go from a state of goodness to a state of ignorance in one moment, with just a click.

So now, what do we do? Especially considering that many of us are from multiple generations. Some of us have lived without the internet and feel that it’s not necessary—just practice bhakti. But others, who have grown up with the internet and social media, can’t imagine life without it. I was at an interfaith conference in Washington, and one of the Christian pastors mentioned that in the age group of 15 to 40, 40% of people who came to Christianity did so through online outreach—nearly half. So, people are seeking spirituality online as well. We can’t demonize the internet, but at the same time, we can’t be overly utilitarian about it either. There are dangers in it.

So essentially, it’s about what someone is doing on the internet. If we are connecting meaningfully and contributing meaningfully, that can also be a valid way of connecting. It may not be a physical connection, but it is still worthwhile. For example, if someone spends time surfing 100 sites just to stimulate themselves, that’s different from someone visiting a site to learn something, form meaningful connections, and contribute. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. That’s how people operate today, so bhakti can permeate the existing culture as well.

However, one issue is that it’s easy to shift from goodness to ignorance with just one click. The second problem is that digital connections can be good when no physical connection is available, but when digital connections are used to avoid physical ones, we lose the depth of contact that we need. I once saw a cartoon where a man said, “Yesterday evening, my Wi-Fi went down, so I spent some time with my family. They seem like nice people.”

There has to be some time when we connect with people physically as well. Sometimes, this has to start with the adults. For instance, at family meals, the adults should start by putting their phones away, saying to their kids, “Don’t keep your phone with you.” Actions speak louder than words. If kids feel that their parents are listening to them and not just judging them, they’ll be more open. As soon as we feel judged, we close the doors. Many times, people seek the digital world because they feel they can’t connect in the physical world. So we can’t just demonize technology. We also need to provide opportunities for physical connection and contribution.

If we do this, there can be a balanced way of operating. It’s not easy, but eventually, people get bored with the distraction. Initially, when someone gets a phone or discovers a new app or game, they’re infatuated, but over time, they just get bored. So, if meaningful connection and contribution are done both digitally and physically, then it won’t be so distracting.

Thank you very much.

The post 8 What is happiness? Why is it so elusive? – Gita 2.55 Gita Key Verse appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

So here we are now discussing the concept of destiny. What happened here? Okay, I was talking about how the Bhagavad Gita’s message can be applied till now. We discussed that this verse has four propositions within it. These four propositions are as follows:

Adhikar means rights. The idea of rights is not just a modern conception, but the context in which the idea of rights is talked about is different. The Bhagavad Gita says that you have a right to do your work, but you should not think that you are entitled to the results. Do not be attached to the results—that is the second proposition. The third proposition is maa karma phala hetur bhuru. Here, karma phala means the fruit of the work, and hetu means the cause. So, do not think that you are the cause of the results of your work. Phala literally refers to the word “fruit,” but I have used the word “results” for a particular purpose, which will be discussed later in the class. The fourth proposition is maa te sangost akarmani, where akarmani means not doing the work. This implies that you should not be attached to not doing your work.

Essentially, this means: do your work, but do not think you are entitled to the results. Do not consider yourself the sole cause of the results of your work. At the same time, do not shirk the responsibility of doing your work. The first and second points are similar—the first states that you have a right to perform your work, and the fourth emphasizes that you should not avoid fulfilling your responsibilities.

In the specific context of the Bhagavad Gita, this means that Arjuna, who was reluctant to fight the war, must perform his duty as a warrior. Arjuna was hesitant, thinking, “What if all the elders in the family are killed? I don’t want to cause such terrible bloodshed.” Krishna tells Arjuna that as a warrior, it is his duty to fight the war. He has the right to perform his work, but he is not entitled to determine the results. Furthermore, Krishna explains that Arjuna should not consider himself the sole cause of the war’s outcome, as there are greater forces at play. At the same time, Arjuna cannot avoid his responsibility to fight. Krishna emphasizes the importance of introducing the concept of destiny to reconcile these points.

How can we be responsible in doing our duty while remaining detached from the results? This is a paradox because, for most of us, we perform work to achieve a result. Our motivation, inspiration, and focus often depend on the result. Many self-help teachers tell us to “begin with the end in mind” or to envision the result to inspire ourselves and work towards achieving it. That is what makes us responsible. So, how can we remain responsible while staying detached? This appears contradictory.

To understand this, we need to consider the concept of destiny. How do things produce results? There are four factors involved, which can be summarized as the four D’s: Duty, Destiny, and Duration lead to the Desired result. In Sanskrit, this is expressed as: Karma + Daiva + Kala = Phala. Duty refers to performing your part, destiny refers to factors beyond your control, and duration refers to the specific timing required for results to manifest.

For example, a farmer sows seeds and plows the land—that is their duty. Rainfall at the right time and in the right quantity depends on destiny. The harvest season, or the duration, completes the process and leads to the desired result. Similarly, when a couple decides to have a child, they unite—that is their duty. However, conception depends on destiny, and even if conception occurs, the baby does not arrive the next day. The gestation period, or duration, is necessary. Thus, duty, destiny, and duration together lead to the desired result.

The concept of destiny itself is vast, and I won’t delve into its specifics today.

To broadly understand the concept and make sense of this particular verse and the mode of working it recommends, let us explore destiny. What exactly is destiny? If we analyze it, destiny essentially refers to the factors beyond our control that shape the results of our actions. These factors, which are outside our influence, can broadly be referred to as destiny.

From a philosophical perspective, destiny is the sum total of the reactions of our past actions that have accumulated and are unfolding in our present and future. It is a cumulative outcome. This brings us to the concept of karma, which we will discuss in more detail later. Simply put, karma is the principle of actions leading to reactions—causes producing effects. Considering the earlier discussion on reincarnation, karma implies that the chain of action and reaction spans beyond a single lifetime. This means that the consequences of our actions might not manifest immediately. For example, something we do now may result in reactions after a few months, years, decades, or even lifetimes.

When we come into this life, we carry a certain baggage, which is our karma. The way this accumulated baggage unfolds in our lives is what we call destiny. While we may believe that working hard will automatically produce results, it is not always that simple. We may perform our work, but sometimes the results do not manifest. This is because while karma is necessary, if daiva (destiny) is not favorable, karma will not translate into phala (results).

However, daiva is not arbitrary. Destiny does not randomly favor or disfavor people. Rather, it is the cumulative outcome of the actions an individual has performed and the reactions they are bound to experience. Understanding this helps us make sense of Krishna’s teaching in the Bhagavad Gita: “Do not think you are the sole cause of the results.” Karma alone does not lead to phala. Instead, karma, combined with daiva (destiny) and kala (time), results in phala.

Krishna emphasizes the importance of doing one’s duty. For example, if a farmer does not sow seeds, there will be no harvest, even if destiny is favorable. Similarly, if we fail to perform our part, no results will come, no matter how favorable the circumstances may be. Conversely, even if we do our work diligently, unfavorable destiny may still prevent the results we desire. Hence, Krishna advises, “Do not think you are the cause of the fruits, and do not be attached to the fruits.”

Now, the question arises: is everything destined? The answer is no. While a lot is determined by destiny, not everything is. Destiny determines our situations, but we determine our decisions. For instance, if we are driving, destiny could be likened to the weather conditions—whether it is stormy, snowy, or clear. These external conditions are beyond our control, but how we drive in those conditions is entirely up to us.

Destiny influences not only our external situations but also our bodies. For example, we did not choose our physical features, race, or physique; these were determined by destiny. It is as if we are given a specific car to drive at the start of our life journey. Over time, we may become attached to this “car” (our body), comparing it with others’ “cars” and sometimes feeling dissatisfied. However, the responsibility lies with us to drive the car we have been given skillfully.

In this analogy, destiny determines the car and the driving conditions, but how we drive is up to us. What we have may be determined by destiny, but what we do with what we have is determined by our free will. For instance, destiny determines our facial complexion, but we determine our facial expression. A person with a less attractive complexion can still radiate charm through a cheerful expression, while someone with stunning looks may seem unapproachable if they constantly frown.

Krishna’s teaching can be understood as a distinction between what is within our control and what is not. If we imagine a circle, everything inside the circle represents what we can control, while everything outside the circle represents what we cannot control. Krishna advises us to focus on our actions—what is within the circle—and let go of attachment to outcomes, which lie outside the circle.

Stephen Covey, in his influential book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, discusses a similar concept: focusing on the circle of influence rather than the circle of concern. By concentrating on what we can control, we act responsibly and effectively, while leaving the rest to factors beyond our control, including destiny.

The first principle Stephen Covey talks about in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People is to be proactive. He introduces the concepts of the circle of control, the circle of influence, and the circle of concern. The circle of concern represents things we worry about, while the circle of influence represents things we can actively change. Covey emphasizes focusing on what we can influence rather than worrying about what we cannot. This simple yet empowering principle has inspired many.

Interestingly, the Bhagavad Gita had already taught this principle thousands of years ago, albeit in a different language and style. Krishna’s teachings, though deeply philosophical, might not initially resonate with modern audiences because they lack contemporary jargon. Words like “proactive” and “circle of influence” are relatable and visually engaging. However, the Gita’s wisdom provides a deeper, philosophical basis for living effectively.

Krishna explains that while we cannot control everything, we have a right to perform our actions (karma). In the equation of karma, deva (destiny), kala (time), and phala (results), it is karma—our actions—that is within our control. How we “drive our car” or how we express ourselves is up to us. Krishna emphasizes that we should focus on performing our duties and not become apathetic or disheartened by circumstances outside our control.

For example, even if we remain cheerful but encounter surly and uncooperative people, we must not allow their negativity to affect us. If we stop doing our work because of unfavorable external factors, we worsen the situation. Krishna advises us to stay committed to our duties, even if the immediate results are not favorable. While destiny might delay results, our actions (karma) contribute to future deva (destiny). In this way, karma never goes to waste.

Krishna’s teaching, “maa karma phala hetur bhur,” or “do not be attached to the fruits of your actions,” does not mean abandoning goals. There is a difference between results and goals. Results are what we receive after completing our work, while goals are what we set before starting. The Gita does not discourage goal-setting. Goals are essential to keep us focused and motivated.

For instance, during the Kurukshetra war, Krishna and Arjuna planned their strategies before each day’s battle, deciding which opponents to confront. This planning, especially on pivotal days like the 14th day, was critical. On the 13th day, Jayadratha had schemed to isolate Abhimanyu, Arjuna’s 16-year-old son, who was then killed in a flagrant violation of war codes. This tragedy became a turning point for the war, leading Arjuna to set a goal of defeating Jayadratha the next day.

The Bhagavad Gita’s teachings might seem uncomfortable when they address war, especially in today’s context, where violence, particularly in the name of religion, is deeply troubling. However, the violence condemned today, such as terrorism, is fundamentally different from the war codes of Kshatriyas, who followed strict rules to ensure fairness in battle. Terrorists target unarmed civilians, whereas Kshatriyas fought only against equally armed and prepared warriors.

In essence, the Bhagavad Gita offers timeless principles for navigating life’s challenges. It encourages us to act responsibly, focus on what we can control, set meaningful goals, and trust that our efforts will bear fruit, if not immediately, then eventually.

In ancient times, war was seen as a test of skills and strength. However, during the Kurukshetra war, there was a flagrant violation of Kshatriya codes when Abhimanyu was killed after being isolated by Jayadrath. In response, Arjuna vowed to kill Jayadrath before sunset the next day or enter fire if he failed. This was a clear and determined goal. Interestingly, Krishna did not reprimand Arjuna by saying he had forgotten the Bhagavad Gita’s teachings. Instead, Krishna supported him, guided him expertly, and helped him achieve his target.

This story illustrates that setting goals is not only acceptable but essential. The difference between goals and results is key here. Goals are set before an action, while results are what we receive after completing the action. The Bhagavad Gita encourages us to set goals to stay motivated, but it also teaches detachment from the results.

Detachment does not mean apathy or irresponsibility. For instance, while driving, we need a destination (goal) to stay focused. However, if we encounter traffic, we adjust our expectations rather than obsess over delays. Similarly, a student preparing for exams should study diligently with the goal of achieving high grades. If the results of one exam don’t meet their expectations, they must move on and focus on the remaining exams instead of getting distracted or demotivated.

This balance between effort and detachment helps us perform our duties more effectively. Detachment allows us to focus on what’s in our control, while irresponsibility leads to inaction. When we embrace detachment, we become more resilient and resourceful, doing our best without being burdened by the outcome.

The Bhagavad Gita also ties this concept to the soul. Understanding that we are souls, with past lives and karmic baggage, helps us accept the situations we face in life. This broader perspective on destiny prevents us from feeling that life is arbitrary or unfair. Recognizing our past and the limitations of our current circumstances allows us to focus on what is within our control—our actions.

Ultimately, this understanding empowers us to work more effectively and maintain our enthusiasm for the tasks at hand. By detaching from results and focusing on our responsibilities, we become more productive, resilient, and aligned with our true purpose.

In ancient times, war was seen as a test of skill and strength. However, during the Kurukshetra war, there was a grave violation of Kshatriya codes when Abhimanyu was killed after being isolated by Jayadrath. In response, Arjuna made a decisive vow: he would kill Jayadrath before sunset the next day or enter fire if he failed. This was a clear and focused goal. Krishna, instead of reminding Arjuna about detachment from results as taught in the Bhagavad Gita, supported him and guided him expertly throughout the day. With Krishna’s help, Arjuna achieved his goal.

This story emphasizes that setting goals is not a problem; rather, not setting goals is. Goals provide focus, motivation, and direction. However, it is crucial to distinguish between goals and results. Goals are what we set before action; results are what we receive after the action. While we hope our goals translate into results, we must remain detached from obsessing over the outcome.

The Bhagavad Gita teaches us to balance effort with detachment. For example, when driving, we set a destination (goal) to stay focused. If traffic delays us, we adapt rather than become agitated. Similarly, students preparing for exams must study diligently with a goal in mind. However, if one exam doesn’t go as expected, obsessing over it may distract them from performing well in subsequent exams. Detachment helps us move on, maintain focus, and remain effective.

Detachment is not irresponsibility. A student claiming detachment as an excuse for not studying is shirking responsibility. True detachment means doing our best and then letting go of the outcome. It empowers us to focus on what is within our control while accepting what is not.

This concept ties into the understanding of the soul. Realizing that we are souls with past lives and karmic baggage helps us make sense of our current circumstances. Without this perspective, life may seem arbitrary or unfair. Understanding the soul’s journey allows us to accept our situation and focus on what we can control—our actions. For example, regardless of the car we are given, we can still drive it effectively.

This knowledge of the soul, combined with detachment from results, makes us more resilient, resourceful, and focused on our responsibilities. By aligning our efforts with this mindset, we can move forward positively, performing our duties with enthusiasm and effectiveness.

To summarize today’s discussion, we explored the concept of detachment as explained by Krishna in Bhagavad Gita 2.47. We delved into how the knowledge of the soul can be applied not only in moments of loss but also in daily life. Krishna emphasizes four key points in this verse:

1. You have the right to perform your duty.
2. You are not entitled to the results.
3. Do not think you are the cause of the results.
4. Do not be attached to not doing your duty.

These principles guide us to balance responsibility with detachment.

Understanding Destiny and Free Will

We discussed the role of destiny, which can be understood in two ways:

• Ordinary level: Destiny refers to factors beyond our control that influence outcomes.
• Philosophical level: Destiny is the cumulative result of our past actions and their stored reactions, which unfold in the present and future.

Destiny can be compared to driving conditions—such as weather or the type of car we have—while free will determines how we drive. Destiny sets the range of our circumstances, but within that range, we exercise free will. For example:

• Destiny determines our facial complexion; free will determines our facial expression.

The Bhagavad Gita presents this balance as an empowering principle. It encourages us to focus on what we can control—our decisions—while accepting what is beyond our control.

Goals vs. Results

We also differentiated between goals and results:

• Goals: Set before action; they inspire and focus us.
• Results: Outcomes of action; often beyond our direct control.

Setting goals is essential for motivation and direction. However, obsessing over results can distract and disempower us. Krishna supported Arjuna in setting goals during the Mahabharata war, such as his vow on the 14th day. This demonstrates that while setting goals is desirable, attachment to results is not.

Detachment means doing your part to the best of your ability and leaving the rest to destiny and divine factors. This approach makes us more effective and balanced in daily life.

Free Will and God’s Knowledge

One common philosophical question arises: If we have free will, how does Krishna know the future?
Krishna’s knowledge of the future is like our knowledge of the past—knowledge without intervention. For instance, we may know what time we woke up today, but that knowledge didn’t influence the event.

Similarly, Krishna knows all possible trajectories based on our choices. His knowledge is like Google Maps:

• Google knows where each road leads based on our chosen path but doesn’t control our decision.
• It offers advice, but we retain the freedom to choose.

Krishna grants us free will and allows us to make choices, while his omniscience encompasses all potential outcomes of those choices.

This balance of free will, destiny, and divine knowledge empowers us to take responsibility for our actions without being consumed by attachment to results.

Thank you!

Surrendering to Krishna and Setting Goals

The question arises: should we surrender to Krishna and not set any goals? Why bother setting goals if Krishna knows everything?

These ideas highlight two distinct but complementary aspects of surrender:

1. Dependence on Krishna: Trusting Krishna’s will and relying on him fully.
2. Diligence for Krishna: Using our will and efforts to serve Krishna to the best of our capacity.

Surrender is not about passivity; it’s about aligning our efforts with Krishna’s will. For instance:

• Draupadi surrendered by raising her hands in helplessness, demonstrating dependence on Krishna.
• Arjuna surrendered by raising his bow in readiness to fight, showing diligence for Krishna.

Thus, surrender means not only accepting Krishna’s will but also using our will and abilities to fulfill it. Bhakti doesn’t deny individuality; instead, it spiritualizes it.

Setting Goals in Bhakti

In the realm of devotion, setting goals is essential because it allows us to offer our individual best to Krishna. Devotees like Yashoda Mai or Radharani strive to cook the best meals for Krishna, setting goals to please him. Similarly, Srila Prabhupada envisioned temples worldwide, and Arjuna aimed to become the best archer, all to serve Krishna better.

Goal setting reflects diligence in service, but attachment to the outcome is undesirable. We strive to do our best and leave the results to Krishna.

Are We the Doer? Understanding Gita 3.27

The verse “Prakriteh kriyamanani gunaih karmani sarvashah” states that material nature, through the modes, is the doer of all actions, and the soul, deluded, thinks, “I am the doer.”

This doesn’t mean passivity or denial of free will. It emphasizes understanding the interplay of various factors in action. Krishna explains this balance further:

1. At the end of the Gita (18.63), Krishna tells Arjuna: “Deliberate deeply and act as you desire.” This emphasizes that Arjuna has free will and responsibility.
2. Arjuna responds (18.73): “Karishe vachanam tava”—“I will do your will.” Here, Arjuna exercises his free will to align with Krishna’s instructions.

Balance Between Doership and Non-Doership

Krishna elaborates in Gita 18.15–17 that action results from the interaction of five factors:

1. The body (adhiṣṭhāna).
2. The doer (kartā).
3. The senses (karaṇa).
4. The efforts (ceṣṭā).
5. Destiny or divine will (daivam).

A balanced understanding avoids extremes:

• It is distorted to think we are the sole doers, as many factors influence outcomes.
• It is oversimplified to think we are not doers at all, as Krishna emphasizes deliberate action.

In conclusion, surrendering to Krishna involves both trust and effort. By setting goals and striving for excellence, we can offer our best to Krishna while remaining detached from the results. This approach harmonizes free will, destiny, and divine will, enabling us to live purposefully and spiritually.

Why is the vision distorted? Because they’re seeing only a part of the reality. There are multiple factors that contribute to the results. To think that our actions solely determine the results of the illusion is one misconception, but to think that our actions don’t determine the results at all is also an illusion. So, we are the doers, but we are not the sole doers.

And specifically, 327 prakriti kriyamanani, what does it mean? It means that Krishna is telling Arjuna, in the context of the Gita, that you are a kshatriya. Your body-mind is designed to function like a kshatriya. A kshatriya is basically a leader, a manager, a warrior. And if you try to become a renouncer, a mendicant, you won’t live long like that. That is not your nature. So, Krishna is telling you that your body is going to function in a particular way. If you think, “I am going to become a Brahman, I am going to become a teacher, a mendicant, or a sage,” well, that conception is an illusion. Your body is going to function in a particular way. All that you can do is determine the direction in which that body’s functioning goes.

As a kshatriya, you can be a virtuous kshatriya, or you can be a vicious kshatriya. According to your body, we can’t change our car. A car is what we have. We can’t get a car to move through a narrow space like a two-wheeler. We can’t get a car to fly like a plane. Once you press the buttons, the car is going to move. If you think, “I am driving,” well, if the car stops working, you can’t go anywhere. Krishna is telling Arjuna, “You have a particular kind of vehicle, and you can’t change the nature of the vehicle. But what you can do is determine the direction where the vehicle goes.” You can live virtuously, you can live dharmically, and elevate your consciousness, or you can live short-sightedly and impulsively.

If you don’t follow the principle of dharma, you won’t sustain it. If we try to get a car to go through a narrow space where only a two-wheeler can go, there will be constant difficulty. We’ll have to squeeze in, squeeze in, and eventually, we just won’t be able to move forward. If a kshatriya lives like a brahmana, they can’t do that. Sometimes, we only look at the privileges—people say that brahmanas were more respected, more honored, which is true. But at the same time, brahmanas had to follow many more rules to maintain their purity and sanctity. So in some ways, a brahmana’s life was very regulated, like moving through a very, very small space. So you can’t live like that.

Krishna, in that verse, is telling Arjuna, “Don’t think that you are the doer of your actions in the sense that you think, ‘I am a kshatriya and I’ll become a brahmana.’ No, your body is a particular way. It will impel you to act in a particular way. But you act in that way with the purpose of dharma in mind, with the direction of dharma in mind.” So, that’s the answer there.

Now, does bhakti change our destiny? Yes, Krishna can do anything. Your question is, are there any other ways to change our destiny apart from bhakti? But first, we have to understand what exactly we mean when we say destiny is fixed. Essentially, it is the quantity of good and bad that we have done in the past, and that is going to unfold in our life. So that quantity we can’t change. But does that mean that the whole unknown is something we can’t change at all? How it unfolds in our life is up to us. It’s not entirely determined by the past.

This idea of destiny being fixed shouldn’t be distorted to become lethargic or passive in our lives. For example, when we say the idea of destiny is fixed, that the quantity of suffering in our life is fixed, and the quantity of happiness is fixed— is it that simple? Any bad situation that we are in our life, we might say, “Oh, it’s destiny that this bad situation came into my life. I can’t do anything about it.” But you can certainly do something about it. You can make the bad situation worse. No matter how terrible a situation is, it never takes away our power to make that situation worse. We might be having a very terrible relationship with someone. Can we make it worse? Yes. Just for 15 minutes, say everything that is in your heart without any restraint on the tongue, and that relationship might collapse within minutes.

So, we can certainly make things worse. And if we can make things worse, we can make them better also. By responsibly acting in our present lives, we can create a better future for ourselves. Now, regarding lifespan being fixed—well, again, things are not that simple. The same Vedic tradition that talks about destiny also has a whole branch of knowledge called Ayurveda. The literal meaning of the word Ayurveda is the knowledge that enhances Ayu, that expands life. So, if our lifespan were fixed, the whole concept of Ayurveda, a whole branch of knowledge dedicated to expanding the lifespan, would be redundant. Is Ayurveda an anti-Vedic branch? No, it is integrally a Vedic branch.

So, if lifespan is fixed, how can it be increased? How can we have a whole branch of knowledge dedicated to expanding the lifespan? Of course, Ayu is not just the quantity of life; it is also the quality of life. But quantity is a part of it. So, things are not that simple.

Just as somebody can commit suicide and shorten their lifespan, or somebody can live in a healthy way. And we don’t know what our destiny is. We don’t know what our lifespan is. But we have the responsibility to choose those actions that have the maximum possibility of creating a bright future for ourselves.

Some people might say, “Okay, by your good choices, you are not changing your destiny; you’re only reordering the destiny.” Yeah, that’s fine. Reordering means, for example, if it’s stormy weather and somebody drives recklessly, they might meet with a terrible accident. But if they drive safely in the same stormy weather, they might not meet with an accident, or they might slip, but it’s only a minor accident. Now, what exactly was destined? What was not destined? It’s very difficult to know that. Even if we say that the accident is destined and you drove safely so you didn’t meet with an accident, maybe five years down the road, you will meet with an accident.

But sometimes, when a problem comes, matters a lot. Even if you can reorder some things, that matters. For example, when a whole country is shut down because of storms and we meet with an accident, the chance of getting medical relief and being rescued will be lesser. But if it’s a normal time and we meet with an accident, the chances of being rescued are much higher. In sports, such as cricket, every batsman sometimes gets unfair decisions—wrong decisions. They may be out and given not out, or they are not out and given out. Over the period of a career, these decisions may balance out. But when a player gets a wrong decision, it matters a lot. If the player’s position in the team is already shaky, or if the team is on the brink of winning, and this player alone is leading the team to win, and then the player gets a wrong decision, the consequence of this will be much more serious than if the team is in a good situation and the player’s position is stable. In this case, one wrong decision doesn’t matter as much.

So, even if we say that we can’t change destiny and we can only reorder it, reordering destiny is not a small thing. If we have three problems and then we get ten more problems, that’s much more difficult to deal with. Or if we have ten problems and then get one more problem, that’s much more difficult to deal with than if we have one problem and get one more problem. Rather than thinking that destiny is fixed and my life is like a rigged match, we should think that in every situation, we should try to act in the best way that we can. That way, we can create a better future for ourselves.

So, are others’ duties also a part of our destiny? I’m not sure what the question means. Is it that when others do their duty or don’t do their duty, is that a part of our destiny? Yes, we are surrounded by people. Some people are more responsible; some people are less responsible. Some people grow up with very caring parents. Some people grow up with parents who may not say it, but would rather have never had a child or are not really fit to be parents. Is that destiny? Yes, it’s definitely destiny. It’s tragic, but it is destiny.

Whether others around us are dutiful or not, if somebody is sick and they go to a doctor, and the doctor is negligent or irresponsible, and a simple case becomes more complicated— is that destiny? Yes, it’s destiny.

So, how is Daiva (divine will) not arbitrary? Well, it’s not arbitrary in the sense that it’s not unfairly, without any connection to our past actions, that some bad things are given to somebody and some good things to somebody else. If somebody is getting bad, it is simply a result of what they have done in the past. So, it’s not arbitrary in the sense that it’s not for no reason that good or bad things are happening to people. It is a reaction to the good and bad that they have done. Of course, the specifics of why something comes upon someone, or when something comes upon someone, may seem arbitrary from our perspective, but there is a higher plan. The ultimate purpose of karma, destiny, and this whole system is not retributive; it is restorative. It is meant to raise our consciousness to a higher level. Now, exactly how that restorative effect comes about is too complicated for us to understand.

Can bhakti sadhana make our life easier when we are going through difficult situations? We will talk elaborately in a future session about what bhakti does and how it interplays with destiny. But very succinctly, it can work at many different levels. Sometimes the external situation comes upon us, but it is not as severe as we might expect. Its severity can be significantly reduced. For example, when a devotee’s finger gets cut, maybe the neck was meant to be cut, but only a small reaction comes. That’s divine intervention—sometimes we are in danger, but the danger comes, and we are saved. For example, if somebody boards a flight and misses the flight, and that flight crashes, that’s another example of how destiny works.

So, the practice of bhakti can minimize the hurt that comes upon us. But another way bhakti can work is by strengthening us from within. When the weather conditions are very bad, if somebody starts driving recklessly, they make things worse. Similarly, when difficulties come, we may become resentful, disheartened, or apathetic. But if that happens, then we can’t make things better. Our practice of bhakti gives us strength from within. Yes, things are bad, but Krishna is still good. Even if there is a big storm, the stars still shine above the storm in the sky. Similarly, no matter how stormy our life is, above that, Krishna and His love still exist. By focusing on that, we get inner strength, and then we can become more resilient and function properly. That’s how we can deal with situations in a more respectful, proper, and effective way.

Yes, both through the externals and through the internals, our practice of bhakti sadhana can help us deal with adverse situations.

One last question. OK, there are a lot of questions here. Is Krishna looking to see how we respond when we get what we want or when we don’t get what we want? Yes, of course. Krishna is more interested in our consciousness than our particular actions and the results that we do. The whole process of spiritual growth is a process of growth in consciousness.

So, if we are grateful when we get something we want and thank Krishna, and we don’t just forget it and start enjoying, then that is positive. It helps us in our spiritual growth. If we are graceful when we don’t get what we want, and we say, “OK, this is your will. Please give me the strength to serve you in this situation also, and help me to move on in my life. Please guide me, what do you want me to do?” If we have that attitude, then Krishna will surely help us. Krishna will see and appreciate that.

So, how we respond to situations definitely contributes to the evolution of our consciousness, and Krishna is very concerned about that.

The remaining questions I will answer later in the WhatsApp group. If you don’t get an answer, please post the questions there, and we’ll answer them in due course. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

The post 7 What is destiny? Is everything destined? – Gita 2.47 Gita Key Verse appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

So, today we are continuing our session on the Bhagavad Gita, and we are having the sixth session now.
In this session, till now, we have been discussing how the Bhagavad Gita’s thought flow progresses and how we are taking the concepts accordingly.
First, we talked about the concept of Dharma, then we talked about the concept of identity. After that, I talked about the results of understanding one’s identity—how the soul transmigrates, how we can see the departure of a loved one with a spiritual vision, and in the last section, we discussed how this philosophical understanding of the Bhagavad Gita relates to today’s conceptions of spirituality.
Today, I will talk about another question. Moving from spirituality specifically to the soul, today’s discussion will focus on two main questions:
Do animals have souls, and are humans just evolved animals?
We will discuss these questions sequentially, verse by verse, based on the Gita. This is Gita 2.30, where Krishna speaks about the soul being present in all living beings. He says that the embodied soul has two characteristics: one is nityam (eternal), and the other is avadhyo (indestructible). He says, “Therefore, Arjuna, for all living beings, do not lament their demise; it is inevitable at the physical level, but at the spiritual level, the soul will always continue to exist.”
So, broadly, we will discuss these two questions: Do animals have souls, and are humans just evolved animals? I will first discuss the conception of the soul (the first half), and in the second half, I will talk about humans and what distinguishes human beings.
Now, how can we know if animals have souls? One basic symptom of the soul is the presence of consciousness. Wherever the soul is, consciousness is present. Many materialistic or reductionistic attempts have been made to explain consciousness in physical terms, but none of them have been successful. Consciousness, if we consider it at a simple logical level, arises from something non-material. Matter is ultimately made up of atoms, molecules, and fundamental particles, and none of them have consciousness; a mere combination of them won’t produce consciousness.
So, consciousness must come from a non-material source—the soul. This is a reasonable inference. Wherever there is consciousness, we can infer there is a soul.
Now, how do we know if consciousness is present? Broadly speaking, we can see it through the presence of emotions. There are many aspects to consciousness, and emotions are one key aspect that is more easily perceivable. Consciousness also has intentionality: we observe something and, with conscious intention, decide to act. Consciousness also includes the capacity for higher-level abstract thinking—not just sequential thinking, which even computers and machines can do.
A symptom of the soul is the presence of consciousness, and animals also experience pain, joy, and sorrow. Perhaps the animals in which we can most clearly see this are those that are closest to us. For example, in Indian culture, it could be the cow; in American culture, it could be the dog. We can observe that these animals also have emotions.
To say that animals have consciousness is, therefore, a reasonable point to make. And if animals have consciousness, then it is also a reasonable conclusion that they have a soul.
There is a school of thought called solipsism, which claims that we cannot know if anyone else is conscious except ourselves. According to this view, other animals—and even other humans—could be like programmed machines or robots that are made to appear conscious.
At one level, this argument is absurd because we can sense and relate to people, and we can sense their emotions and consciousness. But from a rigid, scientific point of view, consciousness itself is not quantifiable. We can measure brain waves, but we cannot measure consciousness itself. Sometimes, when discussing abortion ethics, the question arises: when does the embryo become conscious? Strictly speaking, science cannot answer when an embryo becomes conscious, as there is no way to measure even the consciousness of the mother.
We do talk about a person being unconscious at times, and when we say they are unconscious, what we essentially mean is that they are not responding to us or to physical stimuli, and their brain waves are in a particular pattern. But these are essentially the results of consciousness.

So, is there any objective parameter by which we can infer the presence or absence of consciousness?
We could have another set of parameters, which would refer to looking at what happens to the body when consciousness is present. Essentially, we see that the body undergoes certain changes whenever consciousness is present, and the normal physical structure, when contrasted with a body containing a living being, shows some essential fundamental differences in how the body functions.
So, normal matter undergoes primarily three changes, whereas matter that is “ensouled” undergoes six changes.
I’m sharing the screen now so you can see this.
Matter without consciousness basically goes through three phases: creation, deterioration, and destruction. For example, if we build a house, it is created, but if it is not taken care of, it deteriorates faster; even if it is maintained, it will still eventually deteriorate and be destroyed. However, matter with consciousness exhibits three more changes.
After birth, there is growth. No matter how sophisticated a robot is, it doesn’t undergo growth. Then, in addition to growth, there is maintenance. Maintenance can be due to homeostasis or processes like clotting. If, for example, the arm of a chair breaks, it just stays cracked, but if our skin is cut, it heals itself over time; clotting happens immediately, and healing occurs gradually. So, whenever the soul is present in a body, that body has the tendency to maintain itself. The soul, as we discussed earlier, is eternal, and wherever it stays, it strives to maintain and continue existing in that body. So, maintenance is another characteristic.
One way the soul tries to continue its eternality is through reproduction. If I can’t live on, at least my progeny can. Reproduction is something that no matter how sophisticated matter is, it cannot achieve. Computers, for example, can process information much faster than humans, but we don’t have computers that reproduce themselves.
The remaining two changes are similar: there is birth, which is similar to creation; aging, which is similar to deterioration; and death, which is similar to destruction at a physical level.
So, we can consider that consciousness, and thus the soul, is present wherever these three additional changes are happening. These changes occur in animals, plants, and even microbes, and therefore we can reasonably conclude that there is a soul present in animals as well.
Now, this may raise the question: Why would the idea that souls are present only in humans come up at all? If consciousness is the symptom, then animals have consciousness.
This notion, as I said, comes from the fact that certain terms are used by all theistic traditions or spiritual traditions. For example, the word soul might be used, and the word God might also be used. However, the specific conception associated with these words may differ. The term might be the same, but the concept might vary.
In the Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—there are many differences within them, but there are also overarching similarities. One similarity is with respect to the conception of the soul.
In these traditions, especially in Christianity, the idea is largely what we can call anthropocentric. Anthropos means human, and centric means centered around. So, in Christianity, to some extent, humans are placed at the center of creation. For instance, Jesus descends to deliver humanity, and God made humans, feeling that creation was complete. Humans are considered the summit of creation.
Within this worldview, the belief is that humans alone are special and can be delivered.
I talked about how the same term may have different conceptions. The difference between humans and animals in the understanding of the Bhagavad Gita is seen as a difference in degree, not in category. In Christianity, however, especially from where the idea of the soul comes up, the belief is that the difference between humans and animals is in category, not in degree. According to this view, animals don’t have souls, and only humans have souls that can attain eternal life after being delivered.
Christianity is a very large religion with many different theological conceptions. Some Christians may differentiate between the terms spirit and soul, and some may say that animals have spirits but not souls.
When Srila Prabhupada wrote his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, he wanted to be unambiguous and thus used the term spirit soul—the two are not separate. So, according to his understanding, animals do have souls, though they may not have the kind of soul that humans possess, the kind of soul that can attain eternal life.

So, why would they think like this?
At one level, there is a significant difference between humans and animals. I will elaborate on the difference between degree and category, but first, let’s try to understand different conceptions of the soul.

Broadly speaking, the Christian conception is that human souls are created at birth and then live forever in heaven or hell. The idea is that, with respect to the soul’s existence, there are two terms: reincarnation, which refers to the soul coming back in another body, and pre-existence, which refers to the past lives of the soul. Reincarnation applies to future lives, while pre-existence pertains to past lives. This entire process is called transmigration.

Now, I’m referring to mainstream Christianity; there may be specific Christian sub-sects with different beliefs, but broadly, their idea is that when a man and a woman unite, a soul is created. After creation, the soul is eternal, and this is why their definition of eternity is more like semi-infinity. Eternity, in their view, doesn’t mean no beginning and no end, as the Bhagavad Gita says. The Gita says, “There is no birth and no death, no beginning and no end.” But the Christian idea of eternity is that there is a beginning, but no end. So, from now onward to infinity, to eternity, to forever — it’s semi-infinity.

They also have the idea that the soul is inseparable from the body, which is connected to the concept of resurrection. Many of Jesus’ followers are said to have seen him in the same body after his crucifixion, which is the idea of resurrection. Resurrection means coming back in the same body, while reincarnation means coming back in a different body.

Christian belief is that the soul will be resurrected in the same body. Of course, they acknowledge that the body will be destroyed, even if carefully preserved in a coffin. But they believe that, by God’s arrangement, the same body will be reunited and reconstructed. So, although the terms may seem similar, the Christian view holds that the soul is created and eternal thereafter, and the soul and body are inseparable in some sense.

The point here is not to delve into specific Christian theology but to understand the origin of the idea that animals don’t have souls.

Now, let’s examine the balance between two extremes in the understanding of the soul, as per the Bhagavad Gita. Think of a pendulum, which swings between two extremes. One extreme is the Christian conception, which holds that only humans have souls, and we are entirely different from animals. The other extreme is the modern scientific or evolutionary view, which states that no living beings have souls — we are just evolved animals, mere physical creatures.

Between these extremes — that only humans have souls and that no one has souls — the Gita offers a balanced understanding. The Christian view is that humans are special because they alone have souls, while the evolutionary view claims there is nothing special about humans; we are just more evolved animals.

The Gita’s perspective is that humans are special, not because we have souls, but because our souls are more evolved than those in animals. There is a distinction between the idea that humans have souls and the understanding that living beings are souls. Although, for convention’s sake, we sometimes say we “have” souls — for example, “Put your heart and soul into your service” — this is a non-literal usage of the word soul. Similarly, when we say “the soul of America was shattered when the twin towers fell,” it is understood to mean the spirit of America.

When the Bhagavad Gita speaks literally, it refers to the soul as a distinct being, different from the body. So, technically, we don’t say we have souls; we say we are souls and we have bodies. This is important because, although non-literal usage can be understood in context, the literal use of the word refers to the soul as the true self.

Thus, the specialty of human beings is not a matter of category — it’s not that we have souls and others don’t — but a matter of degree: the souls in humans are more evolved than those in animals.

Now we move on to the second question: Are humans just evolved animals?
The idea that humans are different from animals has struck thinkers throughout history. What exactly differentiates humans from animals? From a Western intellectual perspective, Aristotle proposed that humans alone have reasoning ability, that humans consciously seek knowledge and desire to increase understanding, and that this distinguishes us from animals. Descartes went further, saying that humans not only seek knowledge but also have reasoning faculties to understand things rationally. Immanuel Kant further argued that we have free will and a moral sense; we can distinguish right from wrong and act accordingly, whereas animals merely follow their instincts.

These observations are true. We do seek knowledge, we do rationally understand things, and we do have a moral sense. A tiger, for example, sees a deer and, if hungry, pounces on it. The tiger does not think about the ethics of eating meat or whether it should control its impulses, such as fasting on Ekadashi. Animals lack this moral sense and free will, which allows us to control our impulses.

This brings us to the question: Are humans just evolved animals? Let’s now look at the broad Vedic conception of this difference, with the Gita as part of the Vedic knowledge.

A well-known verse from the Mahabharata, which appears in other Indian texts as well, states:
Ahara Nidra Bhai Maithunamcha Samanya Meetat Pashubhya Naranam
Dharmohi Tesham Adhiko Vishesho Dharmena Hina Pashubhi Samaanaha.

This verse describes four basic activities — eating, sleeping, mating, and defending — that all living beings engage in. These are biological activities that all humans, like animals, must do. However, the verse continues:
Dharmohi Tesham Adhiko Vishesho — it is Dharma (righteousness) that distinguishes humans from animals.
Dharmena Hina Pashubhi Samaanaha — without Dharma, humans are just like animals.

So what exactly is Dharma? It’s often translated as “religion,” but is it just religiosity or religious rituals? Would it mean that humans can perform religious rituals that animals cannot? If so, could a chimpanzee or a robot, trained to move an aarti plate, perform a religious activity? This would challenge the idea that religiosity is what differentiates humans from animals.

To understand Dharma, we must go to its etymological root. The word Dharma comes from Dhris, which means “to sustain.” Dharma is that which sustains our existence — that which enables us to live in harmony with the nature and purpose of our existence. It is what allows us to live harmoniously with our true nature and purpose.

For example, if we drive on the wrong side of the road, our existence will be unsustainable. Dharma, in its foundational sense, is what sustains us and helps us align with our higher purpose.

Either the cops will pull us over, or some other vehicle will hit us.
If we have to sustain ourselves while driving, we must drive properly.
We need to drive on the right side of the road, and roads are meant for driving.
If someone starts performing a dance on the road, unless they have special permission, they will not be able to sustain it.
They will be pulled off the road, or they will be knocked down.
So when we are on the road, it is meant for a particular purpose, and we need to function in harmony with the nature and purpose of the road.

Similarly, when we live in the cosmos, we must live in harmony with our nature and purpose.
That activity sustains our existence.
That is Dharma.

Now, Dharma is what sustains our existence. It involves metaphysical inquiry — first to understand the nature of life, the nature of our existence, and why we are living, followed by purposeful religious activity. I’ll explain what this means.

Dharma can refer to religious activity, but it is not just ritualism. It is done to raise one’s consciousness.
Let’s examine metaphysical inquiry.

To differentiate between humans and animals, this is the Vedic or Dharmic understanding, and I previously discussed the contemporary or Western understanding. Let’s see if these two can be reconciled.

If we observe animals, they use their intelligence to fulfill their bodily drives, and humans do the same.
We also think about where we can find good food, where we can sleep peacefully, how we can find the best mate, etc.
But then, we also ask the question: Why should we fulfill our bodily drives? Why live at all?
This “why” question is the womb of spiritual growth. Based on this “why” question, we have the capacity to delay physical gratification for higher realization.

This capacity to delay gratification for higher understanding is essential for progress in any area of life.
When Newton saw the apple fall, some say it fell in front of him, others say it fell on him, but either way, when it fell, he could have just grabbed the apple and eaten it. Instead, he asked, “What made this apple fall?”

This ability to delay gratification for greater understanding — for a deeper comprehension — is critical in all areas where humans differ from animals.

There are many other ways humans differ. Some thinkers claim that language differentiates us from animals.
We have a sophisticated system of communication using language. Although we use language commonly, it is very complex and abstract. Certain sounds are associated with meanings, which are in turn connected to visual marks. It’s a very complicated system.
The evolution of language has stymied thinkers, even reductionist scientists, for decades.

Language is another example of something that differentiates humans from animals. But language also demonstrates something else:
Learning a language requires the capacity to delay gratification for something higher.
A baby could just be eating food and playing, but to learn a language, the baby must put in effort. Parents and teachers also invest significant effort to teach the language.
When language is learned, a whole new universe opens up. This ability to delay gratification is defining for human beings.

We will discuss this topic further in the third chapter when we explore the concept of yajna (sacrifice).
But the key idea is that Dharma involves metaphysical inquiry followed by religious activity.
The underlying universal principle is that we can delay some pleasures in the present to secure a better future.
That better future could be through acquiring scientific knowledge, learning a language for communication, or creating art that, after significant effort, can bring pleasure to many.
But underlying it all is the impulse control required to achieve these goals. The critical question is: Why do we have this capacity?

That brings us to something deeper: As I said earlier, the “why” question is the womb of spiritual growth.

The soul is always attached to the body in any species. I previously mentioned that the soul in the human body has the most evolved consciousness.
What does it mean to have evolved consciousness? Is this just an anthropocentric statement, asserting that humans are better than animals simply because we are humans?
No, it’s not an anthropocentric view. It’s an obvious reality that, physically, we humans stand nowhere near animals.
There are lions, tigers, rhinos, and elephants that are much bigger than us.
In terms of speed, many animals are faster than us.
When it comes to weapons, our nails and teeth are barely functional, while many animals, like birds and cats, have sharper claws.

Physically, we are puny and powerless compared to many species, yet we rule the Earth now.
So clearly, there is something that differentiates humans from animals. It’s not just an egocentric idea of human superiority.

So, when we say that humans have more evolved consciousness, what does it mean in terms of understanding the soul?
Let’s explore various characteristics or symptoms that indicate our consciousness is more evolved. We can look at human culture — language, art, science — which testifies to our evolved consciousness.
We also observe that humans rule the Earth, despite being physically inferior, which further testifies to the evolution of our consciousness.
But what does this mean philosophically?

Consider this: The soul is attached to the body. Normally, whenever the soul enters a particular body, it becomes attached to that body and identifies with it.
This identification is present in all species. The soul functions as though it is the body.
This identification leads the soul to think that gratifying the body’s impulses is the way to pleasure.

I repeat this point because it is very important: Not only when we identify with the body — but how do we know if we’re identifying with the body or not? The key is, do we consider the body’s definitions of pleasure as our definitions of pleasure?

For example, if we consider eating, sleeping, mating, and defending as sources of pleasure, then we are identifying with the body. Even if we can philosophically explain that we are not the body, but the soul, the soul’s conception of happiness becomes equated with the gratification of the body’s drives.

However, there is a key difference: Although the soul is tied to the body, like in all species, the soul wants more pleasure than what the body can provide. This is a key difference between humans and animals. Animals and all living beings eat food, but animals are satisfied with whatever food is provided by nature. A cow, for millennia, generation after generation, will eat the same grass.

But humans want better food than what nature provides. That’s why we don’t just take what’s in nature — we cook it. And not only do we cook, we have hundreds of cuisines across the world, each with hundreds of items and delicacies.

The point here is that although humans identify with the body’s gratification as our source of pleasure, we want more than what the body provides. And that’s why we try to increase bodily gratification.

Now, this sometimes has unfortunate consequences. Generally, animals don’t suffer from obesity and the host of diseases that come with it, because they eat only when they are hungry. But we humans eat even when we are not hungry.

Animals, when the mating season arrives, the urge within them compels them to mate. But humans mate even when we don’t have the urge to reproduce. In fact, much of modern civilization and social culture separates physical union from reproduction. There is even a whole branch of science dedicated to separating the two.

The point is that we want more pleasure than the body can provide. We seek this by eating more than the body needs. We seek it by mating more than the body’s imperative. For humans, mating is not just a physical drive; it becomes a constant psychological obsession.

So, our longing for more pleasure than the body can produce or provide — this also differentiates humans from animals. It is a symptom that our consciousness is more evolved.

When we seek more pleasure, we begin to think, “How will I get this more pleasure?” One way, of course, is through scientific and technological advancement, where we try to create better arrangements for eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. But another way could be by distancing ourselves from the body and realizing our soul.

The evolved consciousness we have is provided to us so that we can inquire about spirituality and grow spiritually.

I mentioned briefly earlier the Genesis account, which is the first book of the Bible in the Old Testament, about how God created all living beings and then created humans, after which He was satisfied, saying that creation was complete. There is a similar account in the 11th canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, but with a significant twist.

It is said that the Supreme Being created all living beings and then finally created human beings. The Bhagavatam says human beings had the capacity for philosophical inquiry and for knowing the purpose of life. After creating humans, the creator was satisfied.

So, the purpose of existence is to inquire about the purpose of existence — first to inquire, and then later to fulfill that purpose. Only humans have the capacity to inquire about the purpose of existence, and this is what differentiates us from animals.

Now I’ll discuss one more concept and then conclude this discussion.

What I’m trying to do now is answer the question: Are humans just evolved animals? To do this, I’ll integrate both the Western and contemporary understanding of the difference between humans and animals, as well as the Vedic and Gita understanding.

To explain this difference, I use an acronym, SCID, which can help us understand both contemporary terms and also guide our spiritual growth.

There are four differentiations:

1. Self-awareness
2. Conscience
3. Imagination
4. Determination

Let me explain these.

1. Self-awareness: This means the question, “What am I doing? What am I feeling?” We can become aware of our urges. Among all living beings, we have the capacity to abstract ourselves from our body, look at ourselves, and reflect on our actions and emotions. For example, I could be sitting here, and I could visualize myself from above, asking, “What is this person doing?” We can introspect about our feelings, actions, intentions, and thoughts.
2. Conscience: From self-awareness comes conscience. Conscience means being aware of right and wrong, but also feeling the emotional response to our actions. For example, if we do something wrong, we might feel guilty or regretful. Conscience is not just about knowing what’s right or wrong, but also the emotional reaction to it.
3. Imagination: Imagination is the ability to visualize alternatives. For instance, I might realize that I acted poorly, and then imagine a better way to act in the future.
4. Determination: This is the ability to act on what we visualize. It’s not just willpower, but the capacity to take the steps necessary to change or achieve our goals.

Determination is the ability to choose to act in a particular way. As I mentioned earlier, animals can’t consciously restrain their bodily urges. While they might fast due to a lack of food or water, they don’t make a conscious decision to restrain their urges for a higher purpose. But humans have the ability to do that.

Self-awareness is understanding our emotions, while conscience is a sense of right and wrong. Animals don’t usually have this sense — they simply act according to their bodily urges. They live instinctively and follow their drives without a moral evaluation of their actions.

Imagination is a huge differentiator between humans and animals. Even if something doesn’t exist, we can visualize it. For example, we can look at a pile of concrete and imagine, “I want to build a house like this.” Animals, like birds, may create nests, but they typically create the same type of nest generation after generation. While their nests might be impressive, they lack the variation and creativity that humans exhibit in their art, music, and innovations — all products of our imagination.

Then there’s determination. We humans can commit to something, set aside our urges, and act on a higher purpose. This is where the concept of Dharma comes in. Dharma is not just about going to a temple or performing religious rituals; it’s about philosophical inquiry and purposeful religious activity. We understand that there is a difference between humans and animals, and we can analyze this difference in terms of self-awareness, conscience, imagination, and determination.

For spiritual life, we must first develop self-awareness. What kind of urges and desires do we have? Only when we become self-aware can we recognize our impure desires. We also have a sense of conscience — the inner feeling that tells us what’s right and wrong. Our spiritual growth lies in sharpening this conscience, so that we can say, “I shouldn’t do this, I should do that.”

Imagination plays a crucial role in spirituality. Our imagination is sparked by hearing spiritual texts and learning about the spiritual experiences of great saints. These experiences reveal joys far greater than what the body can provide. This in turn leads to determination — the resolve to withhold certain physical pleasures in pursuit of spiritual fulfillment, ultimately leading us to spiritual realization. That’s how we grow spiritually.

To summarize what I spoke about today: I addressed the question of whether humans are simply evolved animals and whether animals have souls. We discussed how we can know if someone has a soul or not by two key characteristics: the presence of consciousness (which can be seen through emotions) and the difference between matter with and without consciousness. Animals do have souls, and we also discussed why some believe that animals do not. This belief stems from the Christian tradition, which asserts that only humans have souls that can attain eternal life.

In contrast, the Bhagavad Gita teaches that there is something special about humans, but the difference is not in category, but in degree. The human soul is more evolved. This evolution is reflected in our ability to gain knowledge, our reasoning faculties, our moral sense, and our capacity for willpower and determination.

The Mahabharata explains that Dharma is the capacity for philosophical inquiry followed by purposeful religious activity. Humans, unlike animals, seek more pleasure than the body can provide, which drives us to create art, science, language, and ultimately, to grow spiritually. We yearn for a greater kind of pleasure, which leads to spiritual growth.

By integrating the Dharmic perspective with the contemporary understanding, we can see that self-awareness, conscience, imagination, and determination are the key traits that differentiate humans from animals. These traits can be utilized systematically for our spiritual growth.

Thank you for your attention. Let’s now address any questions you may have.

Is it simply because of upbringing? Sometimes, the same parents may have one child who is very spiritual and another who is very materialistic. This can even happen with twins, even identical twins. While the material factors — like upbringing and genes — are the same, they can be radically different. Why is that?

One possible explanation is that the soul is completely unaffected by material factors, and it’s the mind that influences our behavior. As we discussed earlier, the soul, mind, and body are connected. It’s true that the impressions in the mind are carried over from one life to the next. But when we talk about the soul functioning in the material world, we are considering the soul and mind as a combined unit. The soul itself isn’t perceivable to us, and if we were to claim the soul is unaffected by anything material, we would also be saying it is inaccessible and unobservable.

So, what we are really trying to understand is whether there’s something non-physical that differentiates various species. While the physical bodies of animals and humans are different, their non-physical components — the soul and the mind — also differ. For all practical purposes, the soul and mind are tightly intertwined. The way a soul lives in a particular body shapes the impressions it carries. In this sense, a more evolved soul means the impressions surrounding it in the subtle body are more receptive, making it a better channel for spiritual inquiry.

Now, you might ask, “Do cats and dogs eat only out of instinct, or do they eat for pleasure?” Again, this isn’t a simple black-and-white matter. Animals do eat beyond their basic instinct, and they can even become obese. But animals don’t create cuisines or make complex arrangements for food. However, when animals are in human environments, they may adopt behaviors like overeating or even mimic human activities — such as smoking — if they associate with humans who engage in such habits.

The key point is that humans have a higher intelligence, which leads us to pursue pleasure beyond the instinctual needs for food or reproduction. We make complex arrangements for eating because the pleasure derived from these biological instincts is not enough for us. Animals, on the other hand, only eat as much as is necessary to sustain themselves and are guided by their instincts.

Regarding the question, “Can we understand animals’ languages? How do we know they don’t make conscious decisions?” It’s important to distinguish between perspectives. Are we analyzing this from a contemporary rational perspective, or are we approaching it from a Vedic perspective?

In a contemporary rational context, animals do not have languages like humans. While animals can produce sophisticated guttural sounds, these are not considered languages in the human sense. For example, a bird may chirp in different ways to convey messages, but language, as we understand it, involves three components: verbal sounds that convey abstract concepts, the associated meanings of these sounds, and a system of writing or physical depiction. Animals do not possess this system.

Ethologists, who study animals in their natural habitats, have observed that while animals can communicate in complex ways, they do not engage in abstract conceptualization or written language. They communicate primarily through sounds and gestures, which are tied to their immediate environment and instincts.

Animals have been studied for centuries, and there is no evidence that they possess anywhere near the sophisticated communication system that humans call language. This isn’t just about whether animals have consciousness or whether they are thinking deeply and making decisions — that’s a different matter entirely. How could we even know? The only thing we can rely on is evidence.

From the perspective of tradition, we sometimes encounter stories of talking animals, such as in the Ramayana, where monkeys talk. However, these aren’t ordinary monkeys; they are Vanaras. In the cosmic hierarchy, Vanaras are considered to be, in some ways, superior to humans, though not always. These aren’t simply monkeys as we know them; they belong to a different species.

While animals certainly have systems of communication, they lack the complex systems that characterize human language. The level of thinking animals are capable of is inferred from their actions, and as far as we observe, they do not engage in activities that display advanced consciousness, which is a characteristic of humans.

Is there a soul present in everything? The Padma Purana mentions that the soul wanders through various species, rising from aquatic life forms to more evolved species. It doesn’t suggest that stones have souls, although there may be exceptions where certain stones could contain souls. The concept of consciousness being present in all things is part of a philosophical theory called panpsychism, which proposes that consciousness exists in all of existence. While we accept that the super-soul (God) is present everywhere, we cannot say for certain that individual consciousness is present in plants, stones, or other inanimate objects. Generally, stones don’t exhibit the biological processes like reproduction, which would indicate the presence of a soul.

What about the miracles of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, where animals are said to have danced, spoken, and sung holy names? While animals did sing the holy names, whether they actually spoke is questionable. When God is present, miracles occur. Krishna lifting the Govardhan Hill is a miraculous event, but that doesn’t mean every hill can be lifted by anyone. These are exceptional cases, not the norm. In general, animals have lower levels of consciousness, while humans have more evolved consciousness.

Does this mean that animals have consciousness? The fact that oysters, for example, don’t have a higher brain doesn’t mean they lack consciousness entirely. The soul’s consciousness is expressed according to the development of the body. If the body isn’t developed in a certain way, the consciousness won’t be either. So, while we could theoretically analyze the symptoms of consciousness in different bodies, we are speaking of a general principle — that consciousness is present where there is appropriate development.

What about animals participating in chanting, as Srila Prabhupada said? It’s possible for animals to take part in chanting, but the key question is whether they are doing it intentionally. Anyone can chant, but that doesn’t mean they are doing so with conscious choice or free will. Animals may engage in activities but may not be delaying gratification or acting from a higher level of awareness.

Are monkeys and apes lower-level human beings? Yes, apes and monkeys are biologically quite similar to humans, though their brains are less sophisticated. There are cases where the line between species may be difficult to draw, especially when there are biological similarities. In those border cases, careful analysis is needed to determine the exact distinction between species.

Is learning a sign of growth? And what about robots that learn? Learning is a sign of growth, but robots’ learning is different from human learning. Robots may be able to learn, but they don’t have the awareness to understand that they are learning. They are simply following programming and algorithms. We can discuss the distinction between AI and spiritual growth in a future session when we delve deeper into science and spirituality. For now, robots may appear sophisticated, but in essence, they are performing mechanical tasks — processing numbers, like an abacus used in the past for calculations.

Imagine we create an abacus as large as a palace, with numerous knobs, and have several people operating it at incredibly fast speeds. Even then, we wouldn’t say that the abacus has become conscious. It’s simply a physical structure with beads being moved around. Similarly, no matter how sophisticated a computer becomes, at its core, it’s still just performing number crunching.

There are three key differences between normal number crunching and what a computer does:

1. The speed — computers perform operations at incredible speeds.
2. The methodology — computations are done according to specific codes and patterns, but even those codes are ultimately just numbers.
3. The ability to simulate human actions — computers can simulate certain behaviors or actions, but simulation is not the same as the original action. There’s a categorical difference between them.

In the same way, animals may engage in activities that mimic human actions, but they don’t experience anything in the way humans do. This illustrates how learning in machines is fundamentally different from learning in humans.

For example, Garry Kasparov, the chess champion, was defeated by the computer Deep Blue in a famous chess match. Kasparov was devastated by the loss, but the computer itself didn’t understand that it had won. It simply functioned according to its programming. The creators of Deep Blue were thrilled with the result, but the computer had no emotion or awareness of its success. It played without knowing it was playing and learned without understanding that it was learning.

This highlights the categorical difference between the consciousness of conscious beings and the simulations of some of those conscious activities by machines.

Thank you very much. Are there any remaining questions? We will answer them in an audio podcast later. You can also post questions here or in our WhatsApp group, and we’ll try to answer them soon. Thank you again. Hare Krishna.

The post 6 Do animals have souls? Are humans just evolved animals? – Gita 2.30 Gita Key Verse appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Hare Krishna, so today we continue our discussion on the Bhagavad Gita. Today I’ll be discussing the topic of how we can understand the nature of spirituality. I’ll be sharing a PowerPoint now, and if at any time the PowerPoint is not visible while I’m speaking, please let me know through a message, and I will change it immediately. Today, I’ll be speaking on 2.29 of the Bhagavad Gita. We’ll be discussing these three questions: What is spirituality? Is it a state of mind? And why are so few people spiritually minded? What I’ll be discussing primarily is clarifying our conceptions of spirituality. We are moving more or less sequentially in terms of the Bhagavad Gita.

While going through sequentially, selecting the key verses, we are also trying to develop the concepts that are taught in the Bhagavad Gita. In the first session, we discussed what is the right thing to do. That is the defining, driving question of the Bhagavad Gita. The second session was about how the question of activity rests on the question of identity. I need to understand who I am, by which we’ll be able to move forward and decide what to do. Then I discussed the nature of the soul in transmigration and reincarnation, the scientific rationale for that, and what determines our next life. In the last session, I discussed how this applies in terms of the departure of a loved one and how we deal with grief. So today, we will talk about moving forward—how, once we decide, “Okay, there’s a soul and there is a spiritual side of life,” we can proceed. So today, also, in the world, there’s a lot that goes on in the name of spirituality. What exactly is spirituality based on logic, as well as the Bhagavad Gita?

The verse we’ll be discussing today is 2.29: “Ashcharyam, ashrayam, Anya, Isha, Chaitanyam.” Some people see the soul as astonishing, amazing. Others speak about it as amazing, and still others hear about it as amazing but still don’t understand it. This means that different people perceive the soul differently because some consider the idea of the soul illuminating, while others consider it befuddling. So, we won’t go into the specific, broad aspects of the four categories. The four categories basically talk about people with different levels of spiritual orientation. Those who have directly realized and are perceiving the soul with spiritual vision find it marvelous—they find it amazing. Then there are others who have understood it and who are speaking about it to gain greater awareness and share that awareness with others.

We look at how the soul is seen: the soul is awareness spread, the soul is understood, and the soul is not understood. All of this is amazing because the relationship people have with their own spiritual side varies from person to person. Let’s go back to the slide here, and we look at the word “spirituality” as it is used today. Based on the Bhagavad Gita, we can say that it can have three distinct meanings: one, it is a state of mind; two, it is a level of reality; and three, it is a process for attaining the state of mind and the level of reality.

Now, let’s look at this. The first meaning of spirituality is as a state of mind. Some people feel that if they go to a particular place, it makes them feel calm, joyful, self-accepting, and grateful. All this, they consider spiritual. So, anything that makes them feel this way, they call it spiritual. Now, it can be spiritual, but it is not automatically spiritual. I was talking about spirituality as a state of mind. Most people who practice or consider themselves spiritual, or who explore spirituality, are basically looking for this state of mind. Nowadays, we have had enormous technological progress, which has brought about a lot of physical comforts in the world outside. But somehow, there is still a lot of psychological discomfort. People are disturbed and distressed and need some relief. Anything that helps them feel calm and composed, they call spiritual, and they try in various ways to achieve that calmness of mind.

Well, if I’ve received a message that you can’t hear, I’m not sure whether others can. Okay, thank you. Now, why is it that this idea of spirituality has become a little confusing? What do we mean by spiritual? I would like to explain based on a diagram. So here, I hope this figure is visible to everyone. The Bhagavad Gita explains that there are three levels of reality: the physical, the mental, and the spiritual—so the body, the mind, and the soul. Among these, if we consider the Bhagavata, it holds that both the physical and the mental are actually material. The body is like the hardware, and the mind is like the software. The soul is the user. So basically, the soul, or the spiritual level of reality, is different from the mind. The mind is subtle and cannot be easily perceived, and that’s why it’s often considered to be something higher.

So here, if we consider the physical, mental, and spiritual, in a non-physical realm, beyond the physical level, there are two levels: the mental and the spiritual. For most people, the normal comforts of life address the physical level of reality, and anything that does not address the physical level of reality is considered spiritual. This is how the mental and the spiritual get conflated together. The mental and the spiritual are both considered more or less spiritual because both are non-perceivable by physical means. And because they are non-perceivable by physical means, we think, “Okay, whatever is higher, whatever is unknown, whatever is non-perceivable, that must be spiritual.” So, essentially, the mental and the spiritual are conflated together and considered to be spiritual. That’s why, when people talk about spirituality as a state of mind, they are actually not being spiritual—they are being mental.

Now, if we go to a quiet place in nature, and we feel calm, composed, and at ease with ourselves, more at peace with ourselves, that’s good, but at the same time, that is not necessarily spiritual. It could be, but it depends on what we are thinking about and what we are not thinking about. So, to go back to the slide, basically, I’ve talked about three things now. What is spirituality as a state of mind? Spirituality is a level of reality. Spirituality is the level of reality, meaning there is a material level and there is a spiritual level. Krishna has talked about this earlier in the Bhagavad Gita in 2.16, “Na sato vidyate bhavo, na bhavo vidyate satah.” He says that the material has no endurance, but the spiritual has no change. And this is further elaborated in 2.25, where those who have seen reality to its end understand these two categories—material and spiritual—and they are the seers of truth. So, there is a material level of reality and a spiritual level of reality.

We could say that if you consider a mountain, the bottom of the mountain represents material consciousness, and the top of the mountain represents spiritual consciousness. If we move from the material level to the spiritual level, whatever enables us to rise from material consciousness to spiritual consciousness is called spirituality. So, spirituality essentially has three distinct meanings: One, it is a state of mind; two, it is a level of reality; and three, it is a process for rising to a higher level of consciousness.

The Bhagavad Gita is very clear that the spiritual is another level of reality and that the soul is a concrete entity. The soul is not physical, but that doesn’t mean it is abstract. The soul is a concrete thing; it’s not a physical thing. It is something present in the region of the heart, and from there, the soul radiates out consciousness. The soul’s consciousness comes out through the mind to the body and to the outer world. At the physical level, there are many objects that agitate the consciousness. They may agitate us because they threaten us, or they may agitate us because they tempt us. Either way, when they agitate us, it makes us peaceless and restless, and we need some relief from this agitation.

Although modern society and its progress have made the physical level more comfortable in terms of providing the basic needs of life today (such as drinking water or reasonably comfortable temperatures), the physical level also brings more agitation. It is through technology that we get news of distress all over the world. Through technology, we are exposed to temptations from all over the world. This is not to blame technology; it’s simply an analysis of the consciousness of what is happening today. When it comes to the physical level, our consciousness gets agitated, and it needs some relief.

When anybody can elevate their consciousness to the level of the mind and calm it down, those people are considered to be spiritual. Now, that is fine. We all want peace of mind, but there are different ways of achieving this peace of mind. When we reduce spirituality to exploring only the mental level, essentially, what are we doing? We are still caught at the material level of consciousness. Krishna says that rising to genuine spirituality is very rare because we have material attachments. “Manushyanam sahasreshu” (Bhagavad Gita 7.3) says that thousands of people endeavor to know the spiritual reality, but very few can perceive anything beyond the material.

So now, we consider that the non-physical level has two components: the mental and the spiritual. Most of what goes on in the name of spirituality is like a painkiller—it pacifies us. Whereas when we address the spiritual level, when we practice processes that raise our consciousness to the spiritual level, that is like curative medicine. It’s not just a painkiller or an analgesic; it’s antiseptic, and it purifies us.

Let me talk a little more about these two differences: pacification and purification. Pacification means that when there is some kind of agitation within us—whether it’s anger, envy, or anxiety—we are in an uncomfortable situation. Gradually, that agitating emotion subsides, and we feel peaceful. That’s pacification. However, purification means that it’s not just about how we feel, but about what makes us feel the way we feel. We may say that the world is what makes us feel a certain way. If people speak harshly to us, we get angry, or if we see a tempting object, we start developing a craving for it.

But it’s not that simple. We consider that. Say there are two people, one of whom lives here and works here, and they pass by a road to go to work. On the road, there’s a bar. Now, one of them is a regular alcoholic, and the other is a TITO teller who’s never drunk alcohol. So, now, the alcoholic person, when they pass by, immediately the desire arises: “Oh, I want to drink. I want to drink. I want to drink.” For the other person, there is no desire. So now, the agitation hasn’t come just because there’s a bar outside. The agitation has come because there are impressions inside, because of the repeated choices of that person in the past. That desire, the craving for alcohol, is already present, and then it pops up.

So, pacification means the desire is not manifest. The cause of agitation is no longer there, and that’s why the agitation is not there—the external cause. But as soon as the external cause comes up, the agitation returns. So pacification simply means that presently the agitating emotions are not there. Purification means that the inner impurities, the inner impressions that make us vulnerable to being agitated, are removed. Much of what goes on in the name of spirituality is pacification of the mind, and it is helpful in its own way. When the mind is agitated, if we can calm it down, then that can help us function better. But that alone is not all that we need or seek, because the situations around us change. If our emotions depend on our situations—usually they do—then we will always be at the mercy of our situations. We will live very vulnerable lives, tossed about like tiny twigs in a stormy ocean. Every wave that comes will agitate us.

So, there are many agitative forces in the world today, which is why our minds are agitated. But the solution is not just trying to change what we perceive and calm ourselves down. Most of what goes on in the name of spirituality changes the object of perception. For example, some people might go to a natural retreat place and feel peaceful. Some others might just close their eyes and try to visualize a nice, natural scene. Some people offer guided meditations where individuals are told to imagine a particular place. Actually, more than 25 years ago, before I was introduced to the Bhagavad Gita and bhakti practices, I was also exploring spirituality in various ways. I attended a workshop where I was led on a guided meditation, and the teacher told us: “Relax, take deep breaths.

Sense your breath coming in and out. Slow it down. Now, imagine that you are sitting on the banks of a river. The river water is flowing in front of you. On the opposite side, you can see a giant mountain. Clouds are touching the peak of that mountain, and mist is forming around the top. A cooling breeze is blowing from that mountain across the river to you, and you can feel the breeze whistling by your ears. You can feel the freshness of the air as it touches your face. You are feeling calm. You are feeling relaxed. You are at peace with yourself.”

Now, as this was going on, we were all feeling peaceful. Suddenly, there was a loud explosion—apparently, there had been a car crash outside the meditation place, and chaos ensued. So, what happened? We were feeling peaceful, but the next moment, we started feeling agitated. At that time, I started thinking: “This is good. I was feeling peaceful.” But what was being done primarily was that when the objects of perception were agitating, through what was considered to be spiritual, the objects of perception were changed. And when we started to change them, the agitation stopped, and peace followed. Objects of perception can be what we physically see or what we visualize. By changing the objects of perception, we brought some peace.

Now, there are other methods where people are told, “Look at a candle in front of you,” or “Keep some kind of enigmatic picture or puzzle or whatever.” People can focus on different objects, and as long as that object is no longer agitating, we feel peaceful. That is pacification of the mind.

Now, why is pacification of the mind compared to a painkiller? As I mentioned here, it’s like a painkiller. Why? Because suppose somebody has an illness and is in pain. If they are given a painkiller, they feel relief—immediate relief. In fact, if they are given a curative medicine, say an antibiotic, they may not feel the same relief. The painkiller works faster, but it also works for a shorter period. And even its effect is not so much curing, but covering. The pain is still there; it’s just that the painkiller interferes with or impedes our perception of the pain, so we don’t sense it.

Similarly, what is mostly called spirituality is that the object of perception is being changed, and we feel peaceful. However, what needs to change are the impressions within us that make us tend to perceive certain objects in particular ways. So, an alcoholic may feel peaceful by staying away from a bar, and that’s fine as far as it goes. It’s not advisable for an alcoholic to live near a bar, especially if they want to become free from alcohol. But you cannot live in a world that is free from temptations. We mostly lose our peace of mind because of two things: temptation and tribulation. One is the promise of pleasure, and the other is the fear of trouble. The world is filled with both promises of pleasure and fears of trouble. If we simply change the objects of perception and think that this will make us peaceful, it may—temporarily. But what we really need is for the impressions within us, which direct our consciousness in certain ways, to change.

There is physical reality, mental reality, and spiritual reality. Purification means that we don’t just change the object of perception. When purification happens, the object goes here and there, and when that happens, normally we are perceiving material objects. But when we become spiritually minded, we start perceiving different objects, various spiritual objects, and ultimately we become attracted to them. Once we understand that the soul is not just the source of consciousness but also the object of consciousness, we start to perceive the spiritual reality. Spirituality means that our consciousness, by default, gets sheltered at the spiritual level. This is when we are truly becoming spiritual.

To repeat, becoming spiritual means that the default home of our consciousness is the spiritual level of reality. What do we mean by the home of our consciousness? Just like when we have no work to do, we return to our home, where we feel comfortable, peaceful, and safe. So, similarly, our consciousness has a home. To know where that home is, we can simply check what we think of when we have nothing to think of. As we learn to become spiritual, the default object of our thoughts becomes spiritual. Spiritual means we focus on our essential identity as souls. In future sessions, we’ll talk about how the soul is a part of God, and then we focus on the Divine and service to the Divine.

It’s important for each one of us to recognize that spirituality is not just a state of mind where we feel peaceful. It is a level of reality where our consciousness resides. There is a spiritual level of reality, and when our consciousness resides there, we are spiritual. Just as we may go out from our home for various purposes, we live in the material world and must perceive various material objects. That’s fine, but as long as our consciousness is sheltered at home in the spiritual level, that is when we are spiritual.

Spirituality is not just a state of mind; it’s a level of reality and a process by which our consciousness rises from the material level to the spiritual level. The Bhagavad Gita will outline various processes of spirituality, such as Karma Yoga, Gyan Yoga, and Bhakti Yoga. There’s also meditation, prayer, and mindfulness. In future sessions, we’ll talk about these.

But the essential point is that the metaphor of the mountain is key. If you consider this mountain, there are different ways one may go up: from the left, from the right, from the front, or from the back. Different religions, spiritual practices, and traditions are like different ways up the mountain. The important thing is not just what path we are affiliated with; the important thing is whether we are rising up. In a future session, we’ll talk about the difference between spirituality and religion. But right now, suffice it to say that any process that helps us raise our consciousness toward the spiritual level is spirituality.

So now, this brings us to the question: Why are so few people spiritually minded?

So the idea is that, as I said, most people are not interested in anything apart from the immediate. We are all innately pleasure-seeking, and if pleasure is available at the physical level, then we get consumed by that desire, and we don’t think of anything higher. And even somebody who thinks of something higher, most people who want to be spiritual basically want it as a painkiller so that they can continue to be materialistic. The pursuit of worldly pleasures often leads to anxiety and agitation, and we need relief from that. So what they consider as spirituality is often relief so that they can continue pursuing material life, and that is not a very sustainable way to practice spirituality, because what is happening over there is that our conception of life is not changing, and the level of reality where our consciousness resides is not changing. We are simply using spirituality, or what we consider as spirituality, in double quotes to continue our materialistic way of living while pacifying ourselves. Because most people are materialistic, they don’t even consider anything higher. And now, because simply the materialistic pursuit of pleasures is causing agitation, there are a lot of people who are seeking relief from that agitation, and then they practice something which they call spiritual, but that is simply some painkiller relief that will help them continue pursuing this material life again.

To genuinely want to know the spiritual level and to realize the spiritual level is tough; that requires effort, because just like climbing up a mountain, it requires effort. Similarly, not many people are interested in authentic spirituality, in understanding the soul and the spiritual level of reality, because they are more concerned with material pleasures and relief while they are pursuing material pleasures so that they can continue those pleasures. The Bhagavad Gita, by categorically differentiating between matter and spirit, enables us all to choose intelligently. Do I want to be spiritual, or do I just want some psychological relief that I consider as spiritual?

Now, before I conclude, one last point: is wanting peace of mind bad? Obviously not. We all want peace. We all want joy. We all want a sense of well-being. When we rise to the spiritual level of reality, those emotions also come, just like when somebody is sick and in pain, they want relief from pain. If they become healthy, take curative medicine, and become healthy, they will get relief from pain. So the more we become spiritual, our mind will become calm. We will feel more peaceful with ourselves, more content with life, and more connected with others, especially those who share similar values and purposes as us. But the point is that that is the end result, and what a painkiller tries to do is give relief from the pain without going through the curative process. Similarly, what so-called spirituality does is offer relief without purifying ourselves of our impurities. By impurities, we mean the things that keep our consciousness captivated at the material level, which are impurities from a spiritual perspective. Without purifying ourselves of impurities, if we seek only peace, then what we are getting is shallow spirituality. It is simply a painkiller.

Now, we can take painkillers, and we can take curative medicine also. In the process of bhakti yoga, which Krishna will eventually recommend, we will talk about how we can do things that help us become peaceful and joyful. But we don’t just do those things alone because they can also keep us restless. We focus on rising to the spiritual level of reality, and then peace and joy will automatically follow.

So I’ll summarize what I spoke today. I started by speaking on three topics: What is spirituality? Is it a state of mind? And why are so few people spiritual?

What is spirituality? I discussed three things. It can be a state of mind, a level of reality, and a process for attaining that state of mind and level of reality. I talked today about how, as more people become materially comfortable with progress, they still face anxiety and temptation. The mind is agitated, and we need relief. The constitution that comes from the spiritual soul to the mental and physical levels gets caught in various agitating stimuli. If we withdraw it or direct it toward a more peaceful object, that is what is considered spiritual. So, visualizing a peaceful place is considered a spiritual thought exercise, but it may or may not be. Anything that pacifies the mind is considered spiritual because there is a misunderstanding about the levels of reality.

The Bhagavad Gita says there are three levels of reality: physical, mental, and spiritual. The mental level is also material. So material has two aspects: physical and mental. From the physical perspective, both the mental and the spiritual are non-visible, and that’s why anything non-physical is often conflated and called spiritual. The Gita categorically says that the soul is not just some conception or metaphor. The soul is a concrete reality. There is a spiritual level of reality different from the material level.

If you consider the top and bottom of a mountain, the top is spiritual consciousness, and the bottom is material consciousness. The process that raises our consciousness from the physical to the spiritual level is called spirituality. I talked about how most people are materialistic, which is why they are not interested in spirituality. A few who seem to be interested in spirituality often seek calmness so they can continue their material pursuits, and that is shallow spirituality.

So what is real spirituality? When we understand that the spiritual level of consciousness is our home, and that’s where our consciousness defaults to when we have nothing to do, then that is when we are truly spiritual. How do we get to that spiritual level of consciousness? By purification. Pacification comes when you just change the object of perception. Purification happens when we clean ourselves of impressions that misdirect our consciousness toward agitating objects of perception. So, an ideal program should have a combination of both painkillers and curative medicine. Painkillers act faster but don’t last long, and thus are not sustainable. So, when we recognize what spirituality is based on Gita wisdom, then we can pursue the path seriously. Thank you. Now, I’ll take some questions, one at a time.

So now, in bhakti, we make Krishna our primary object of purification and object of perception to pacify our mind. Now, is that right? Well, yes and no. In bhakti, we do focus on Krishna, and there are verses like savai mana, Krishna pada, meaning we perceive Krishna with our eyes, hear Krishna with our ears, and taste Krishna with our tongue as Prasad. There are all these processes by which we bring Krishna into the tracks of perception. That is true, but that is not the only purpose. The essence of bhakti is that by repeatedly exposing ourselves to Krishna, we become attached to Krishna. Bhakti is not just about changing the objects of perception. It is about changing our attachments.

When Arjuna asks Krishna, in Chapter 7, verse 1, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says that the purpose of the process he is going to tell Arjuna is to make the mind attached. Now, yes, the objects of perception do affect us, and if we could spiritualize the objects of perception, it’s always helpful. So in our workplace, in our homes, if we can have more spiritual stimuli around us, that can help spiritualize our consciousness. But just making our external surroundings filled with spiritual stimuli alone is not going to make us spiritual. It is a powerful first step, but ultimately, the essence of bhakti is to make our mind attached to Krishna, and that attachment will gradually, the more you become attached to Krishna, cleanse us of whatever other attachments might be there within us.

Now, there’s a question from Lekha: How do we know if our pursuit is spiritual or material? If a material pursuit is leading to selfless service, does that counter spirituality?

This is a good question. Three points, I would say, in response to this. In terms of the nature of reality, the material and the spiritual are categorically different levels of reality in terms of mode of functioning. What is spiritual? The beginning of spirituality is lack of self-consciousness. It means I’m not so obsessed with myself—how great I am, how small I am, how powerful I am, or how powerless I am. Our consciousness becomes free from ourselves, and we start living for something bigger than ourselves.

Now, the biggest such reality is God. The Bhagavata says that Surinam sarva-bhuta—Krishna is the well-wisher of everyone. So if we focus on Krishna and strive to serve Him, we become fully spiritual. And that means we are also fully selfless because Krishna is the well-wisher of everyone. When we serve Him, we serve all living beings through Him. In this, we become more compassionate, more considerate, and that is the perfection of selflessness.

In the 12th Chapter, Krishna talks about various levels of spiritual connection. So if we consider our consciousness to be caught in myself—my pleasure, my power, my position—and then our consciousness comes out of ourselves, the one that comes out of ourselves can go up to various levels. The best is if it goes to the level of Krishna. But once it comes out of myself and goes to some cause bigger than myself, depending on what that cause is, we are on the progressive spiritual path.

So Krishna says, from verses 12.8 to 12.12 in the Bhagavad Gita, there are various levels you can connect with. The first and last levels he talks about involve detaching from the fruits of our work and working for a cause higher than yourself. Krishna says this is also a progressive spiritual path. So I would say that it depends on what the particular pursuit is that you are doing, but if it is leading to selfless service, that is auspicious. Now, the more that selfless service is done in spiritual consciousness, meaning with our consciousness aware of the ultimate spiritual reality of Krishna, and with our consciousness focused on service to Krishna, the more it becomes spiritual.

Now, how are the impurities in our mind created in the first place? Is it like the formation of habit? Yes, certainly. Basically, we can say our mind is like software. Suppose, now, you attend this Bhagavad Gita class, and you like it, but say this is the first time you’ve attended, and you feel like you want to know more about it. You go on Google and type Bhagavad Gita. But suppose someone else regularly visits another site, like bollywood.com. As soon as they type B, the browser will suggest Bollywood as autocomplete. Why does that happen? It’s simply their own past choices saved as preferences, and they come up as autocomplete. Similarly, whenever we do actions, they create impressions. It’s not just the actions we create, but their effects on us.

In the past, either in this life or in previous lives, we have had impure desires, and we’ve acted on those desires. Those actions have created impressions. Habit formation works similarly. When we repeatedly do something, it becomes imprinted in our consciousness, and we end up doing it again and again. The stronger the habit, the less we think about whether we should do it or not. It’s like the computer’s autocomplete: the mind gives a suggestion based on past impressions, and we immediately accept it.

So, in a work environment, when everyone tries to pull each other down, I feel agitated. I know I shouldn’t be disturbed, but I’m not very spiritually advanced. What can I do to keep my consciousness at the spiritual level?

Yes, it’s a tough situation. The first thing is to understand that we alone are responsible for our consciousness. Agitating stimuli might be around us, but the responsibility for our consciousness is primarily ours. It is not the world’s responsibility or our surroundings’. Whatever the surroundings, we need to keep our consciousness calm enough to function and gradually orient it toward the spiritual level of reality.

One way to deal with the situation is to take breaks. Even in a competitive work environment, everyone is entitled to breaks. People gossip, go to the cafeteria, eat, and chit-chat. Instead of doing these activities, we could choose something more spiritual. For example, if you’ve attended a class and found some striking points, you can read the wisdom codes or repeat them regularly. We can do this whenever we are agitated.

The idea is first to understand that it’s our responsibility. Second, we need to be resourceful. Find what calms our mind, and do it regularly. When we have the sanity of responsibility and resourcefulness, even if disturbance comes, we won’t be shaken as much, like waves in the ocean. If we have an anchor, we won’t be shaken by the waves.

Finally, regarding the question of getting pleasure in serving the guru, it becomes difficult to do our duty at the material level. Well, that’s understandable, but we need to understand that while in analysis, the material and spiritual are separated, in application, they are integrated. Krishna tells Arjuna to be spiritual, but also to fight a war. In a war, your consciousness needs to be fully engaged, otherwise, you might be defeated.

So, we need to expand our conception of what is spiritual. Just going to the temple or doing some service given by our spiritual authorities is important, but it alone is not spirituality. In fact, it helps us progress on the path, but it is not the full essence of spiritual life. We have times when we withdraw from the world and directly connect with Krishna, and times when we indirectly connect with Krishna through our work. We need to pursue Krishna even in our family responsibilities. Ultimately, Krishna says, work is worship. Why? Because the whole world comes from Him, the situation for work comes from Him, and the abilities to work come from Him. So, if we work in a mood of devotion, we are giving back to the Lord. That’s how we can conceive our work as spiritual.

Sometimes, when we do directly spiritual activities, we may not get as much pleasure. But if we use spirituality as an escape from life’s problems, we will eventually face problems in our spiritual practices as well. At that point, we will have nowhere to go.

Now, how can we stay calm in all situations? Well, it’s not always possible. Some waves are bigger than others. When bigger waves come, it’s difficult to stay calm, but the waves will pass. If we hold onto the anchor, the magnitude of how much we are shaken will be much less.

So was the marriage prayer to Krishna at the material level? Yes, it was at the material level. But gradually, he became purified. This is why the operational principle of bhakti is Yay nakina, prataranan Krishna—whatever we do, as long as it is directed towards Krishna, it purifies us. So when he meditated and pursued the Lord, at that time, he realized that the Lord was so attractive that whatever kingdom he was seeking was no longer attractive. Yes, we can become purified by exposure to the Lord; by exposing ourselves to Him, we can soon become purified and grow spiritually.

Now, should we expect spiritual commitment to bring pleasure only intermittently? Yes, that’s understandable, because you’re not yet fully spiritual. If we are only seeking pleasure in life, we will never be able to sustain ourselves in anything. We need to be purpose-seeking, not pleasure-seeking. There will be a whole session in the future on how to live a purposeful life. When we do something purposeful and meaningful, pleasure becomes a byproduct of that. If we seek enjoyment as the primary purpose, we will not be able to sustain ourselves, even in material life.

For example, I like writing, one of my services. But it’s not that I like writing all the time. Sometimes, in the process, I don’t get the right words, my thoughts are unclear, and it’s agony. So if I wrote only for pleasure, I would not be able to write regularly. If we start living our life only for pleasure, even the things that give us pleasure will not be done regularly. So, we need to have a purpose. If our purpose is to raise our consciousness to the spiritual level, then we can pursue the spiritual path, even if at times we don’t get pleasure.

During our routine material life, there are certain things that give us pleasure, but we don’t go out of our way to seek those pleasures. We don’t deliberately avoid those pleasures either. For example, if there’s good food, we can spiritualize it by offering it to Krishna. We don’t avoid good food to become spiritual, but neither do we go out of our way to seek it. We focus on the spiritual path, and in doing so, while being purposeful, we can enjoy the pleasures that come naturally, which help sustain us as we move forward in life.

Let’s take two more questions quickly. Can I serve Krishna by doing my job well or by doing my business? Yes, of course. How can our work be made into worship? That will be a full session later on, but at this stage, broadly speaking, there are two aspects of spirituality: world-transcending and world-transforming.

World-transcending means that we raise our consciousness above the material world and focus on the spiritual. This is important—we need to do this periodically, otherwise, we get too entangled in the world. That’s why we have our spiritual practices: sadhana, Satsang, swadhyaya, meditation, mantra chanting, study of scripture, and attending classes like this. Through these practices, we are transcending the world. But that’s only one aspect of spirituality. Along with that is world-transforming, which means we focus on the spiritual in a way that helps us grow in our lives. We contribute by using the abilities Krishna has given us to make a difference in the world.

When we have this attitude, we dedicate time for spiritual practices and inner connection with Krishna. Then we can re-envision our work as an outer contribution to Krishna. Spirituality thus connects both the transcendent aspect, which involves going beyond the world, and the transforming aspect, which involves doing our part to improve the world.

Now, business can be very consuming and agitating, inundating us with a materialistic consciousness. But anything can do that in this material world. If we are cautious enough to make sure our consciousness doesn’t get too entangled in material distractions, then yes, we can work in a way that helps us grow spiritually.

There are many spiritual teachers in India. So, are they spiritual, or are they offering just peace of mind? Now, it’s difficult to go into specifics about any particular teacher, but what we will focus on is the principle. The principle is: what is the effect? Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, and the Bhagavatam also mentions, that the result of spirituality is inner contentment and outer detachment. Bhakti parishanaya, the process of bhakti, which is a very powerful spiritual process, gives us para Ish Anubhav—the experience of transcendence. It gives us the experience of the Divine, who cannot normally be perceived because He is transcendental.

When there is para Ish Anubhav, what happens is that this experience of the Divine is so enriching, so fulfilling, that one doesn’t crave other experiences. One doesn’t crave, especially, worldly gratifications. So, if you want to know whether a particular teacher is spiritual or not, you can look at their lives and the lives of their followers. Are they becoming more attached to the spiritual reality? Are they becoming detached from worldly indulgences? If they speak a lot of good-sounding ideas but don’t actually focus on detaching from worldly pleasures, and their followers continue with their materialistic lifestyle while hearing or speaking something that sounds spiritual, then it may be questionable whether they are truly spiritual.

Having said that, it’s best for us not to be judgmental. We need to be discerning to understand what will help us and what will not. But we don’t need to condemn anyone. For example, if I am sick, I want to be cured. Am I being given just a painkiller, or am I being given a proper treatment, which may involve a combination of pain-relieving medicine and curative treatments? Similarly, we need to discern for ourselves. Discernment comes from a platform of humility, not arrogance. Judgment, on the other hand, comes from the belief that “I know the truth, and you are wrong.” We don’t want to do that, but we need to be discerning so we can progress on our spiritual journey.

Thank you very much. The remaining questions will be answered over the next week or so, and the answers will be shared in the WhatsApp group. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

The post 5 What is Spirituality? Is it a state of mind? – Gita 02.29 Gita Key Verse appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

So, welcome back to our Bhagavad Gita course, and today we will be discussing one practical application of the understanding that we are not the body, that we are the soul.
There are multiple aspects to this understanding, and an important aspect here is how it helps us deal with various life events. For example, whenever we go through the fear, trauma, or grief of seeing a loved one die. That was what Arjuna was also going to face.
So, our session will be based on 2.25. I’ll share the PowerPoint here.
How can we heal after the death of loved ones? Do we express or suppress our emotions?
So, we are discussing 2.25 in the Bhagavad Gita:
Avyakto yama cintyoyam avikaryoyam ucyate, asmadevam viditvayinam na nushochitum arhasee.
So, na nushochitum arhasee — “Oh Krishna, oh Arjuna, do not lament.” In fact, this is a recurrent theme in this second chapter. These verses, na nushochitum arhasee, na nushochitum arhasee, repeat the theme: “Do not lament.”
So, what is lamentation and what is grief? Is the Bhagavad Gita telling us that we should suppress our natural emotions? Is it because, say, we have spiritual knowledge? Is it that we are meant to become unfeeling? We will discuss this in today’s session.

Broadly speaking, the Bhagavad Gita must be understood in the context of the Mahabharata. We see in the Mahabharata that when Arjuna lost his son, he actually lost two of his sons. Iravan was the first son he lost, but a much more well-known and dear son, Abhimanyu, was also lost. Iravan didn’t live with Arjuna; he was the son of a Naga princess, and he lived with her as the heir and future king of that kingdom. That had been the arrangement made at the time. But Abhimanyu mostly lived with Krishna and Arjuna, and he was very dear to Arjuna.

On the 13th day when Abhimanyu was killed, Arjuna was devastated. He crumbled, he cried, and he yelled at his brothers, “Why couldn’t you protect him?”
Now, Krishna doesn’t throw these verses at him, saying, “Why are you lamenting?” Krishna does encourage him, and I’ll come back to how he pacifies, consoles, and encourages him. But the first point is that spiritual knowledge doesn’t mean the suppression of human emotions.

Broadly speaking, whenever we have emotions, we often think of two broad options for dealing with them: One is to express them, and the other is to repress them. Now, neither of them is entirely positive. So, the healthy way is to process our emotions. And what the Bhagavad Gita encourages us to do is process our emotions.
So, Arjuna is being told here, “Do not lament,” and yet in both the Mahabharata and the Bhagavatam, there is a description of how the Pandavas grieved after the war ended.

They grieved for all the relatives whom they had lost. Similarly, in the Ramayana, after Dashrath Maharaj passes away, there is a state-wide period of mourning that is ordered. And so, it’s not that they are all told to just neglect or suppress all their emotions. That is not the point.
The point that is made is that you focus on developing your own capacity to process your emotions and respond maturely.
So, what does it mean to process emotions? And how can the Bhagavad Gita’s knowledge help us process emotions? Let’s look at this.

We will talk mainly about how to heal when a loved one passes away. As part of that, I’ll also briefly talk about the wound that death causes, and the fear and pain associated with it.

Broadly speaking, philosophy — the Bhagavad Gita is giving us some philosophy. And the purpose of philosophy is primarily to do two things:

1. To help us make sense of life — what happens in our life, why is this happening, and what is life all about?
2. To guide us to deal with life changes.

So, when something unexpected or disorienting happens, the philosophy is meant to stabilize, anchor, and reorient us. That’s why, normally, we may not feel the need for philosophy in our lives. We just go through our daily routines, fulfilling our various roles and responsibilities. But sometimes, life throws a curveball at us. Sometimes, things start going devastatingly wrong, and that’s when we recognize the need for philosophy.

This is what happened to Arjuna as well. He was faced with a fratricidal war. And what is the point of life if all those people whom I love and venerate — I have to kill them to get a kingdom? Is the kingdom really worth it? So, he wanted to make sense of things, and then the primary question was, “What should I do?”

So, philosophy is meant to make sense of life and help us deal with life changes. When we study the Bhagavad Gita, or any philosophy for that matter, these are the two main objectives: make sense of life and help us deal with life changes.

Now, one aspect of life is that death is an inevitable reality. So, how do we make sense of death? The Bhagavad Gita explains to us that we are souls. As we discussed in the previous session, death is simply the soul moving from one body to another body. It is like leaving one rented house to go into another.

But it is not that simple because, when we are in a particular life, we are emotionally very deeply invested in the people around us, the careers we have built, and the positions we hold. And especially among these, usually, relationships are where we are most deeply emotionally invested. How do we deal with that?

So, we may understand that dying is simply leaving an old set of clothes and wearing a new set. But if we are very attached, even leaving an old piece of clothing can be painful. As far as leaving the body is concerned, we are enormously emotionally invested in it.

I’m using the term emotionally invested in a neutral and non-judgmental way. We could say that we are attached, but I’ll talk about that a little later. For now, we’ll use the term emotionally invested to describe our connection.

If we are emotionally invested in something and then we suddenly lose it, naturally, it is going to hurt us. So, how do we deal with that? That’s going to be the next part.

Broadly speaking, when there is death, how do we make sense of it? There are three main problems associated with death: one with respect to the past, one with respect to the present, and one with respect to the future.

• With respect to the past, there is the loss of everything that is dear to us. All that we have worked for will be taken away. It is very difficult to accept that.
• With respect to the present, we can see the body, especially if the death is sudden — it happens in just a few moments. If it’s a gradual death, still, we see the body, which we often identify with. Either we think of it as I am the body, or at least, this is my body. We see it disintegrating, sometimes in horrible ways. This is horrifying. It’s like if we had a car, and one day we went to our garage and saw that the car was completely wrecked. That itself would shock us. What then to speak of when it is our own body in which we live? If our house was devastated by a storm and was in ruins, that would shock us. What to speak of when we are inside the house and the house is wrecked? That scares us. So, to see our body getting destroyed is a terrifying experience.

So, that’s the present.

And then, the third is the future, as I mentioned here — the fear of the unknown. Oh, what’s going to happen in the future? What am I going to do?

For people who have no understanding of philosophy, one fear is: Will I cease to exist completely? And it’s actually very scary and disconcerting, at the very least. If not alarming, to think of a future in which we have no role to play, no say in things. In fact, we don’t even exist. So, that itself is alarming.

And if we have some understanding that we continue to exist beyond this, then there is the fear, the alarm: What is going to happen to me after that? Where am I going to go? And that is also painful.

Therefore, it’s important for each of us to recognize that these three broadly are the traumas associated with death. Let’s look at how spiritual knowledge helps us to deal with it.

We’ll discuss this in more detail when we practice bhakti yoga and talk about it in depth. But essentially, the whole process of spiritual life is that, while we are growing, we try to increase our attachment not just to the things of this world, but also to the being beyond the world — that is God, Krishna.

If we are devoted to Krishna, then, even though we are still invested in things of this world, while they will be taken away, we will be going toward Krishna. So, the process of bhakti yoga decreases the pain of the wrenching loss of everything dear to us.

The second point is that, when we are going through the destruction of the body, it is to the extent we have realized our identity as different from the body. To that extent, the body’s deterioration and destruction will not traumatize us.

So, death can either be a devastating thing or an inconvenient thing. If we are driving a car and the car breaks down, but the car breaking down is not the same as us getting a fracture. The car tire getting a flat is an inconvenience, which we need to deal with. We may fix the car, or we may hire an Uber or ask someone to give us a lift, and deal with the car later.

Similarly, for spiritually realized souls, the body breaking down is trouble, but it is more like an inconvenience. It is not a devastating misery, because they don’t identify with it. To the extent we grow spiritually, our consciousness is no longer primarily locked in the body. The more we practice bhakti, the more our consciousness becomes unlocked from the body. The more it is unlocked from the body, what happens to the body won’t cause us that much pain.

It’s like, suppose someone is very attached to cricket, and their consciousness is locked in cricket. If their favorite team loses a match, it will be unbearable for them. But if they are not as attached to cricket, then okay, they may not like it, but it’s not the end of the world for them.

That’s how the process of spirituality is meant to unlock our consciousness from the body.

The third fear is the fear of the future. When we understand that we are souls and are developing a relationship with Krishna, we realize that either we will go to Krishna or go closer to Krishna, or we will go to some other situation where we can continue our journey toward Krishna. That understanding can help us deal with the fear.

To make sense of things is more rational. When certain things happen, we need to be able to make sense of them — that’s at a rational level. To actually deal with it, though, the rational level is not enough. There is also the emotional level and the practical level.

So, emotionally, how do we deal with our emotions? And practically, what do we do? We just discussed how, at a practical level, death is going to happen. At a rational level, we understand the soul is eternal. But at an emotional level, how do we deal with the event?

This is with respect to our own death, and this knowledge, if we understand it in an emotionally mature way, can also help us deal with those near death.

Having said that, this is broadly how philosophy can help us make sense of death and deal with it. Now, let’s look at what happens when a loved one dies.

Actually, one of the reasons that inspired my spiritual search almost 25–30 years ago was that when I was in my 10th standard in India, studying, I was one of the toppers in my class. It was a moment of great success for me. The highest officer of the district where I was staying, in Nasik, came to my house to congratulate me. My papers came out, and my photo appeared in the newspapers and other places. So, it was a moment of great celebration for me.

The very day that this district collector came to my house, that very evening, my mother was diagnosed with terminal blood cancer. Although she was a gutsy woman and fought hard, the cancer was very advanced, and everything ended in less than a month — about 27, 28 days.

So, from the height of success, fame, and celebrity, there was a sudden fall. It was very difficult at that time to make sense of things. That’s when I started reading philosophical books, trying to make sense of what life is all about. After some time, it took almost five years for me to come to the Bhagavad Gita.

Although I knew of the Bhagavad Gita, I never thought of reading it to make sense of things. There are many, many other books, both by Eastern and Western authors. But eventually, I came to the Bhagavad Gita.

Then I felt that if I had known what the Bhagavad Gita teaches at that age, it would have been so much easier to process that whole event in a much healthier way.

We go through various ways in which we deal with death: denial, anger, distress, confusion. We experience so many emotions because we just can’t process that someone who is so dear to us, so important for us, suddenly is no longer a part of our life.

This knowledge can equip us to deal with such a situation if it arises in our lives or the lives of our loved ones.

Broadly speaking, let’s look at this now. I apologize, actually, I forgot to share the screen. I’m opening the PowerPoint, but I keep forgetting to share it.

Yes, so I think I’ve discussed what the trauma of death is. Essentially, when the death of someone happens, it is traumatizing. But how do we heal from it?

At one level, we understand that we are not the body. The soul is here, the body is here, the mind is here. So when the soul, body, and mind are there, just as we understand we are not the body, we also understand we are not the mind.

Earlier, I discussed how if the body is damaged, it inconveniences us, and we need to deal with the damage properly, like when our car gets a puncture. We treat the trauma of a sudden life change, such as the demise of a loved one, as an emotional wound.

When we think of physical healing, if someone gets a fracture, broadly speaking, there are two phases. The first is rest. If the hand is fractured, it’s put in a cast and we don’t move it much. Depending on the severity, the rest phase might last for two weeks, three weeks, or six weeks. Initially, some may wonder why they need a cast. They might feel they can continue without it. But if they don’t rest, the fracture will worsen.

Once the body gets used to resting, the healing is in progress. But when the cast comes off, moving the hand again might be painful. Initially, it hurts, but they must start moving it to prevent the limb from atrophying, because lack of use causes deterioration.

Similarly, with grief, there are two phases: first, we need rest. Rest means withdrawal. How does one give oneself emotional rest after trauma?

Different people deal with distress in different ways. Some may say, “Just leave me alone,” and retreat into seclusion. If that is the healthiest way for them to process the grief, they need that space. Other people, perhaps more extroverted, might need their loved ones around them to help them cope.

Whatever is required for a person to rest, they should be allowed to do so. Afterward, they must re-engage.

Re-engagement means that time is the greatest healer, and eventually, we need to move on with our lives. We can’t stop living just because someone is no longer with us. They have departed from this world, but life must continue.

There’s a difference between grieving and lamenting. Lamenting is staying stuck in a stage where emotions are expressed without processing them at all. It’s natural to shed tears and feel the trauma when a loved one passes. But the emotional wound needs healing.

If someone keeps resenting what happened, living in the past — asking, Why did this happen? Why did this person leave me? — this is lamentation. In grief, this is how we deal with the past in the present. We rest, re-engage, and move toward the future. But lamentation locks us in the past.

Lamentation builds a wall between us and the future. It keeps us trapped in the past, unable to process what happened. We live perpetually in misery, often making others miserable too.

This is the kind of lamentation the Bhagavatam warns against. Krishna is not saying we shouldn’t grieve. Proper grieving rituals exist. National mourning periods have their place. But what Krishna says is: Do not linger in lamentation.

As I discussed earlier, lamentation means staying locked in the past, unable to process what has happened, and living in misery as a result. If we understand that this has happened — as much as we might wish it hadn’t — we acknowledge it as a wound that needs healing. So, how do we heal from it?

This will be the remaining part of this talk. Essentially, there are three aspects to this process of grieving after a loved one has passed. There could be more, but these three broad categories are often at the core:

1. What has happened to them?
2. They can no longer love us.
3. We can no longer love them.

These are the three components of grief. So, how can we deal with them?

The first aspect involves philosophical knowledge: What has happened to them? The soul is eternal, indestructible, and wherever they are, they are under the guidance of Krishna.

This might raise the question: Does Krishna’s guidance apply even to those souls who weren’t devoted to Him? Yes, it applies to everyone. Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 5.29 that He is the well-wisher of all living beings. He doesn’t say He’s only the well-wisher of the devotees. Of course, there’s a special bond with devotees, which we’ll explore later, but Krishna cares for everyone. He resides in the hearts of all beings. Whether a person lived as a devotee or non-devotee, they are still under His care. Krishna has a plan for them, and He will guide them. The understanding that they are eternal souls under Krishna’s protection can offer us relief.

When we don’t know where someone is, it can drive us to anxiety — wondering what’s happening to them, especially when they don’t respond to our calls or messages. But when someone dies, there’s no way to contact them. Still, we can find comfort in knowing they are under Krishna’s care.

The second aspect of grief is that they can no longer love us. Here, we need to understand a more philosophical point: that all love comes from Krishna. Whatever love anyone offers us, it is Krishna who is offering that love through them.

For example, one of the most intimate acts of love is a mother breastfeeding her newborn. She’s nurtured the baby in her body for nine months, and now she’s feeding the child with the nourishment of her own body. This act of affection, protection, and care between a mother and child is deeply intimate. But if we look closely, the mother didn’t create the milk — it was provided by God, the same God who sent the child into the world.

Thus, the love expressed by the mother is, at its core, Krishna’s love being conveyed through her. All love we experience in horizontal relationships — with our parents, siblings, friends, or even in our experiences of knowledge and wealth — is ultimately Krishna’s love for us, expressed through these channels.

This understanding helps us cope with the loss of someone. While we don’t minimize the importance of the person through whom love was expressed, we recognize that ultimately it is Krishna who offers us love through them. When a channel is no longer open, it doesn’t negate the love we’ve received. Instead, we continue to develop our vertical relationship with Krishna because that connection is eternal.

Additionally, life is complex, and while the loss of someone close to us may leave a hole in our hearts, that emptiness may not remain as overwhelming as time passes. As our consciousness expands, the sense of loss may still exist, but we won’t be trapped in the pain of it. Krishna consciousness helps us to deal with the grief and trauma, teaching us to heal and continue moving forward.

Finally, the third aspect of grief is that we can no longer express our love for them. This is painful, but understanding that Krishna is the source of all love can help us navigate this part of the grief process.

I would like to do so much for them, but I haven’t been able to. What can I do?

Again, the same point applies — we have both horizontal and vertical relationships. When we consider the vertical relationship, we realize that we are connected with Krishna, and Krishna is also connected with them. If we engage in devotional activities and dedicate the fruits of those activities for them, that is a way we can do something for them at a spiritual level.

Because we are not physically present with them, we can’t offer comfort or speak emotional words to them. However, through devotional acts, we can still do something meaningful for them, offering it as a dedication to them.

Gradually, by understanding this, we can bring closure — both physical and emotional closure. Without closure, healing cannot begin. It’s like when we get an injury: if there’s a cut, it needs to be stitched. Once stitched, healing can begin. Similarly, we need closure. This is why, in many Dharmic traditions, the body is cremated — to provide a very clear, graphic sense of closure.

In some traditions, the body is buried, but in Dharmic traditions, it’s burnt. This might seem jarring to some, but if we understand that we are not the body, that the soul is eternal and has already departed, burning the body creates a sense of finality. It signals that the body is no longer of use, and the soul can now move on to its next destination.

For us, too, understanding that we are souls — separate from the body — can help us accept the burning of the body as a form of closure. Cremation, from a spiritual and emotional perspective, facilitates this closure, allowing us to move forward with our healing.

So, these are the key points I’ve discussed: while we may have to live with the pain of loss, we don’t have to live in that pain. The hole left in our heart may never be fully filled, but with time, our hearts can grow beyond the hole. This is how we heal from the wounds that life’s losses bring.

To summarize, today we discussed how we heal from the death of a loved one and how Bhagavad Gita philosophy can help us in this process. Essentially, philosophy offers two things: it helps us make sense of life’s events and gives us tools to deal with them.

First, we discussed death and why it’s such a traumatizing change. There are three aspects that make it painful: the past (everything we’ve lived for, which we will lose), the present (witnessing the deterioration of the body), and the future (not knowing where the soul is going). The wisdom of the Gita helps us understand these aspects — yes, we lose the past, but if we grow spiritually, we carry something valuable into the future. Even though we may lose the body, we are not losing Krishna, our eternal companion.

When we understand that we are not the body, the deterioration of the body becomes more of an inconvenience, like a flat tire, rather than a devastation. As for the future, we can find peace knowing that we are always under Krishna’s guidance, moving closer to Him.

Next, we explored how to deal with the trauma of losing a loved one. Simply stating “I’m not the body” is not enough. When something goes wrong with the body, we have to deal with it. Similarly, emotional wounds caused by the loss of a loved one must be addressed maturely. There’s a difference between grieving and lamenting: grieving is a process that leads to healing, while lamenting means staying stuck in the past, unable to move forward, and remaining in misery. Grieving and healing involve two stages — just like when treating a fracture.

We first rest, and then we reengage. Similarly, when it comes to emotional wounds, we need to rest first. This rest may look different for different people. Some may prefer to withdraw and be alone, while others might want to be with only their close loved ones. Each person should do what they feel they need in order to process their emotions, and they should be supported in doing so.

The second phase is reengagement. Even if someone feels they don’t want to reengage in life, it is essential for healing. If a limb is not used after a fracture, it may atrophy, even once the injury is healed. Similarly, emotionally, we can atrophy into loneliness and misery if we don’t eventually reengage with life.

So, how do we navigate these two phases? We understand the trauma of death by reflecting on what has happened. The person who passed is still under Krishna’s guidance. Even though they are no longer physically present to love us, the love they offered was actually Krishna’s love channeled through them. That love continues through Krishna, and if we connect with Him, we can continue to feel that love — not just through Krishna directly, but also through other relationships in the future.

What about not being able to love them anymore? Even though we can’t express our love to them in the physical form, we can still offer devotional acts, dedicating their fruits to Krishna. In this way, we can still do something for them.

Just as cremation provides physical closure, emotional closure is also needed. Losing a loved one is painful, but when we process it through the wisdom of the Gita, we realize that while the pain may remain, we don’t have to live in pain. The emptiness in our hearts may persist, but it won’t feel as consuming. The hole may remain, but our hearts can grow beyond it.

This is how we can navigate the disorienting changes in life, especially the loss of a loved one.

Now, let’s look at a question:

“My father went through a lot of pain before departing. He was always there to help me. I’m finding it difficult as I don’t have anyone who can give me the same support.”

Yes, it’s incredibly difficult to witness someone we care about enduring pain. But we must also try to think from their perspective. The chapter of their life is over now, even if it was painful. Would they want us to keep grieving endlessly, or would they want us to move on with our lives? One important expression of love is through service — doing things that please the person, or at least not doing things that disappoint or hurt them.

From this perspective, the best thing we can do for them now is to continue with our lives, using the lessons they taught us. The sacrifices they made for us helped us grow into who we are today. Moving forward and living a fulfilling life is a way of honoring them. In this sense, parents continue to live through their children.

We need to be resilient. In a future session, I’ll delve more deeply into resilience, but essentially, it comes from accepting what is unchangeable without falling into passivity. If a ball is thrown on the ground, it may hit hard but it will bounce back. In contrast, a glass paperweight will simply break. Our spiritual knowledge is meant to help us be more like the ball, resilient in the face of challenges. Life’s pain, including the pain of losing a loved one, will knock us down, but we can rise up.

Sometimes, the pain of losing someone can feel unbearable because they were our support system. The challenge is that, when they are gone, we may no longer have that support. But emotional maturity means understanding that no one is obligated to fulfill our needs. That doesn’t mean our needs won’t be met; it simply means we have to accept that others aren’t bound to do so. As we mature, we learn to manage our emotional needs independently.

So, if our loved ones have passed, what can we do? First, we can reflect on the valuable lessons they’ve taught us. Writing these down and revisiting them can be a great way to keep their wisdom alive and help us through challenging moments.

One way to connect with Krishna during difficult times is to engage in devotional activities that help us feel His presence. Krishna is our supreme father, and through connecting with Him, we can fill the sense of emptiness or loneliness we may feel. It’s important to keep ourselves engaged—not in an attempt to escape the emptiness, but to prevent it from overwhelming our lives. Gradually, this engagement can help our hearts heal.

Now, how can we offer the fruits of our activities to someone who has departed? It’s essentially a matter of praying to Krishna. While formal rituals are an option, it’s not about technicalities. What truly matters is the sincerity of the offering. You can continue with your regular devotional activities, but perhaps you decide to do something extra. For instance, you might choose to chant extra rounds of japa, read the Bhagavad Gita over the next month, or sponsor a sacred event or feast for devotees.

The key is to dedicate the fruits of these activities to the departed soul. In your heart, offer the activity to Krishna, saying, “I am doing this for them,” and pray for their well-being. While formal rituals can be performed, Krishna, being Bhavagraha Janardana (the one who accepts the intention of the heart), values the sentiment behind the act more than its external form.

If others in our family are grieving and it becomes hard to move on, it’s understandably difficult, but also crucial to address. In such times, it’s important to lead by example, especially if others are struggling to cope. You might not be the eldest or the most prominent member of the family, but you can still show maturity and resilience. It’s not about denying their grief, but rather showing them how to process it and move forward in a healthy way.

Sometimes, if family members remain stuck in a chronic state of grief, it might be necessary to create some emotional distance. If you’re drowning and trying to help someone who is also drowning, you may end up pulling each other down. First, ensure that you are stable, perhaps by taking a step back, and then, if possible, you can extend a hand to help them. However, if they continue to pull you down, you may need to temporarily let go and create some boundaries.

That said, in general, by setting a proper example and offering understanding, you can guide others in their own healing journey.

Regarding the soul’s journey, while we may wonder if we get what we remember at the time of death, it’s important to understand that wherever we go—whichever body, species, or place we enter—Krishna remains with us, guiding us. As Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita (18.61), “I am directing the wanderings of all living beings.” While we may go through different life cycles, Krishna’s guidance is always there, and He ultimately seeks to help us transcend the karmic cycle.

Krishna desires that our journey be an odyssey—a journey towards a glorious destination, ultimately back to Him. This is what He expresses in Bhagavad Gita, verse 18.62, where He says, “Become devoted to Me, surrender to Me, and you will come to Me.” While those who haven’t fully surrendered to Krishna may not immediately draw closer to Him, Krishna still remains with them, guiding them through their journey. Even if they don’t directly approach Krishna, He provides another shelter, helping them transition from one place to another in the spiritual realm.

A common question arises about whether we believe in angels, as in Christianity, where it’s said that when loved ones die, they become angels who watch over us. In comparison, we believe in the concept of rebirth. The afterlife and the journey of the soul are complex, and there are many details in the Vedic teachings, particularly in texts like the Garuda Purana. The 14 planetary systems offer insight, but the exact details of what happens after death, including the duration of any transition phase, are difficult to define with certainty.

In the Ramayana, after the war, when Lord Rama is victorious, Devas come to bless him. Interestingly, King Dashrath also appears to bless Rama. Dashrath, who had been devastated by Kaikeyi’s actions, expresses his pride in Rama. When Rama requests forgiveness for Kaikeyi, Dashrath, initially infuriated, agrees to recant his rejection. This suggests that Dashrath, from his position in the heavenly realms, is still watching over Rama. This concept aligns with the idea of Pitraloka, the realm where ancestors reside.

So, while we don’t fully reject the Christian idea, we see that the Vedic universe is vast, and there may be aspects of it that overlap with some beliefs, such as the idea of individuals playing roles similar to angels, at least temporarily. However, Christianity often doesn’t have a clear understanding of the soul’s nature. They consider the soul to be intricately tied to the body, and thus the resurrection involves the soul and body reuniting. This leads to the belief that bodies should be buried, not cremated. They also imagine heaven as a place of perpetual family reunion, where we will reunite with loved ones.

While this idea is emotionally appealing, it lacks a firm philosophical basis. It raises practical and logical questions. For instance, if someone knew their grandparents at 70 or 80 years old, would they remain eternally in heaven at that age? Would that be a perfect state for them? Would we relate to them as we did before? These questions illustrate some of the inconsistencies in this vision of heaven.

Christianity’s focus has largely been on the morality of life rather than offering a detailed description of the afterlife or God’s nature. Many of the ideas about heaven, angels, and the afterlife that people discuss aren’t directly grounded in biblical teachings but have been drawn from other traditions and theological interpretations. The Bible itself provides stories, lessons, and descriptions of Jesus’ life, but it doesn’t give an extensive account of what happens after death.

In summary, while some aspects of the Christian perspective on angels might hold a kernel of truth, they don’t align fully with Vedic teachings. The afterlife and spiritual guidance come with a deeper understanding in the Vedic tradition, where the journey of the soul is intricate and multifaceted.

So if Krishna has already arranged for what is best for the departing soul, then what is it meant to pray for the departing soul? What should be the mood and content for the prayer?

Well, if we start thinking from that perspective, then why should we need to pray at all for anything, for anyone, even for ourselves, when we’re going through difficulties? We can say Krishna has arranged everything for us. Why do we need to pray?

The point of praying is primarily connecting in the Bhakti tradition. In the Bhakti tradition, the understanding of prayer is significantly different from the understanding of prayer within Karma Kanda. Karma Kanda is basically material religiosity, where we do something for God so that God will do something for us on a material level. So, in some ways, praying is basically like requesting, “Oh God, do this, don’t do this, let this happen, let that not happen.”

But in the Bhakti tradition, if we consider the prayers, there are so many prayers, like say we have Brahma Samhita, we have so many other prayers, and there’s practically no request in the prayers. The prayers are primarily glorifications of the Lord. So in the Bhakti tradition, praying is primarily meant for connecting with God. And sometimes, if something is heavily burdening our heart, we speak that in prayer to God so that the burden in our heart becomes somewhat unburdened, and then we can further connect with God.

So sometimes, say if we are very burdened by something, we talk about that with someone else. Even if that person doesn’t offer any solutions to the problem, just talking with them gives us some relief, and we feel unburdened. The same applies here as well.

Now, there is not a national concern. We will feel that we may intellectually understand that God does everything for everyone’s good ultimately, but still, we have some emotions invested in that. So by praying, that emotional lock can become unlocked, and we can move forward in our life more gracefully. We can move forward without being hindered. So we primarily pray to connect with the Lord, and to also unburden ourselves of the emotions or experiences that are burdening us and preventing us from moving forward in life and from moving forward in our connection with the Lord.

So we’ll stop here. And there are—

Okay, I’ll take one last question. And one thing, if any further questions remain, which you have not answered, somehow on the Zoom chat, the questions get deleted when the class ends. So you could send them on the WhatsApp group, and I will try to answer them separately afterward. We will send you a link for the answers. And even for the previous sessions, if you send some questions that were not answered, I’ll answer them as well.

So what should be our immediate response to someone whose loved one has passed away?

Okay, basically, depending on our relationship, we should be there with a mood of helping them, assisting them. Now, how we can assist them will vary. Sometimes speaking philosophy about the soul can help them. Sometimes just being there to do something for them, showing that even if one important person has passed away, there are others who are there to care, can help. So if we have a service attitude, if we think, “What can I do for this person?” and we pray to Krishna, “Krishna, please give me the guidance on how I can help this person at this time,” then we can even speak the philosophy.

And sometimes the philosophy can give a lot of solace to people, but it should be done in a very, very sensitive and kind way. People shouldn’t feel that we are using the death of their loved one as a forum for stuffing our philosophy down their throats. If we try to start doing that, it will be very alienating. So we sensitively think, “I want to help,” and “How can I help?” One way we can help is by using philosophical wisdom. Another way we can help is by sometimes just being there with them, sometimes offering some healing, some kirtan, or some healing music. Spiritual music can have a calming, healing effect.

So if you maintain a service attitude, Krishna will guide us with the intelligence of how best we can help. So, thank you very much.

The post 4 Dealing with grief on losing a loved one – Gita 02.25Gita Key Verse appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

By several authors Incorporating more reading of Srila Prabhupada’s books into your daily routine can be achieved through several practical strategies. Here are some effective methods to enhance your reading practice: ## Establish a Routine – **Set a Fixed Time:** Dedicate specific time slots each day for reading. Aim for at least one or two
Read More...

In a bold move to streamline operations and enhance efficiency, Google has announced a 10% reduction in managerial roles across the company. This decision marks a significant shift in the company's organizational structure and reflects its commitment to optimizing workflows and fostering a more agile work environment.

The post Google Reduces Managerial Roles by 10% to Enhance Efficiency appeared first on Tech Tomorrow.

The *Bhagavad-gita* has significantly impacted Western cultures in various ways, influencing thinkers, writers, and the broader spiritual landscape. Here are some notable examples: — The Bhagavad-gita, a divine conversation between Lord Krishna and Arjuna, has profoundly influenced Western cultures, offering timeless wisdom and spiritual insights that resonate with seekers worldwide. Its teachings, as shared by
Read More...

The distribution of the *Bhagavad-gita* has had a profound impact on communities worldwide, influencing spiritual practices, personal development, and social dynamics. Here are some key effects observed from this initiative: 1. **Spiritual Awakening**: The *Bhagavad-gita As It Is*, as translated by Srila Prabhupada, has inspired countless individuals to explore Krishna consciousness. Its teachings provide accessible
Read More...