Planet ISKCON

1. **Launch of the 2024 Live to Give Campaign**: The BBT set an ambitious goal to distribute **4.2 million copies of the *Bhagavad-gita*** by January 2025, building on the previous year’s success of distributing over 3.78 million copies. This campaign aims to spread Krishna consciousness globally and fulfill Srila Prabhupada’s vision of making spiritual knowledge
Read More...

The **World Holy Name Festival (WHNF) 2024** inspired global participation through several impactful initiatives and events, fostering a sense of unity and devotion among devotees worldwide. Here are the key highlights: 1. **Theme of Love and Peace**: The festival’s theme, “Srila Prabhupada Wants You to Chant for Love and Peace,” served as a powerful call
Read More...

In 2024, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) celebrated several significant achievements and developments: 1. **Lifetime Achievement Awards for Stephen Knapp**: Stephen Knapp, known as Sri Nandanandana Dasa, a dedicated disciple of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, received two prestigious Lifetime Achievement Awards for his global contributions to spreading Krishna consciousness and Vedic culture. 2.
Read More...

In the ever-evolving landscape of telecommunications, innovation is key to maintaining competitive edge and enhancing user experience. One such groundbreaking advancement is laser communication technology, which promises to deliver high-speed, secure, and efficient data transmission. A renowned Singaporean telecom firm is spearheading this technological revolution by planning comprehensive tests of laser communication systems in Northern Australia.

The post Singaporean Telecom Firm to Test Laser Communication Technology in Northern Australia appeared first on Tech Tomorrow.

Srila Prabhupada writes, “The village of Mahesa Pandita, which is known as Palapada, is situated in the district of Nadia within a forest about one mile south of the Cakadaha railway station.”

Mahesa Pandita used to dance in the ecstasy of krsna-prema just like a madman. In the Gaura-ganodesa-dipika it is written that in vraja-lila he was the cowherd boy named Sriman Mahabahu. 

He was an especially close friend of Nityananda Prabhu, and was present at the festival of yogurt and chipped rice in Panihati that was held by Nityananda Prabhu. His birthplaced was in what is now called Cakadaha.

The eight wave of the Bhakti-ratnakara observes that when Sri Narottama dasa Thakura visited Khadadaha he visited Sri Mahesa Pandita and took darsana of his lotus feet. There the Bhakti-ratnakara points out that Mahesa Pandita was an extremely exalted soul, a great mahanta. 

In Caitanya-Bhagavata, Vrndavana dasa Thakura also refers to him as a great mahanta, and says that Mahesa Pandita was especially dear to Nityananda Prabhu. Mahesa Pandita passed away on the 13th day of the dark moon in the month Pausa, which corresponds to December-January.

To see notes, click here

The post How to be sensitive without becoming sentimental Address to counsellors Mumbai appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Apple has once again positioned itself at the forefront of technological innovation with the announcement of its upcoming smart doorbell. This device is set to transform the way homeowners interact with their doorways by integrating advanced facial recognition technology, facilitating seamless keyless entry, and enhancing overall home security.

The post Apple to Launch Smart Doorbell with Advanced Facial Recognition for Keyless Entry appeared first on Tech Tomorrow.

When it comes to enjoying YouTube content offline, converting videos to MP4 format is a game-changer. One of the most reliable and user-friendly services for this task is YouTube mp4. In this comprehensive guide, we will delve into the world of YouTube MP4 conversion, exploring the benefits, the process, and the best practices to ensure you get the most out of your favorite videos.

The post Mastering YouTube MP4: A Comprehensive Guide appeared first on Tech Tomorrow.

Bhaktivedanta Manor | Class
Read More...

Yamuna-devi—Serving Vani and Vapuh

There is so much to be said about Srimati Yamuna-devi dasi!

In October of 1970 I was one of a group of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples from America going to join him in India. On the way, we stopped in Brussels, and it was there, in an apartment, that I first met Yamuna-devi—and Malati and Shyamasundar (I had met Gurudas before, in Boston). Upon entering, I could immediately feel their intense, extraordinary devotion to Srila Prabhupada—it was so palpable, so tangible; the room was just suffused with their devotion—and we spent the next several hours there together. As enthusiastic as I was to go to India to be with Srila Prabhupada, I felt like I could stay there forever; I never wanted to leave the association of these amazing devotees who were so attached to Srila Prabhupada and so capable of serving him in such different ways.

Gurudas had arranged a cheap flight on a small airline, and so, that evening we boarded an old converted dual-propeller cargo plane, bound for Bombay with a stop in Cairo. In my mood of Krishna consciousness then, I was quite oblivious to things around me. I wanted to avoid maya—anything that could distract me from Krishna—and didn’t pay much heed to anything that didn’t relate directly to my service. I was focused on the idea of chanting and hearing every word of the Hare Krishna mantra distinctly, on always thinking about Krishna and never forgetting Him. And I had heard that Srila Prabhupada had said that if you have trouble hearing you should chant loudly. And sometimes, to really get into the holy names—and to break out of any possible lethargy—I would jump up and down. One or two of the devotees told me that they were anxious about how people in Egypt might react to my chanting, but I was determined.

There was unrest in Egypt at that time, and when we landed in Cairo we were met on the tarmac by soldiers and armed security guards with bandoliers of bullets around their chests and machine guns over their shoulders. And as we deplaned, walking down the steps, the men were pointing machine guns in our direction. Then Yamuna, as I was later told, saw the guards suddenly point their guns up and down, shifting their aim. And when she turned around to see why, she saw me behind her, walking down the stairs chanting japa, jumping up and down.

Anyway, we escaped Egypt and flew to Bombay, where, as arranged by Srila Prabhupada, we were taken to Kailash Seksaria’s house. There I went through a period of confusion—some things were difficult for me to understand and cope with—and I wasn’t sure what to do. I was a relatively new devotee, at least compared with the others in the group, and somehow I just got the inspiration to go to Yamuna and Gurudas for help. What they told me was extraordinary, and for me, revolutionary. I entered their room feeling completely at a loss, but they turned the whole thing around, saying that Srila Prabhupada had sent me to engage them in thinking about him and about topics of deep significance. They turned the whole thing completely around, and I believe they were completely genuine in the way they took it and in what they said. And that was the beginning of what proved to be a very close relationship with them both.

While we were staying at Seksaria Bhavan, Srila Prabhupada introduced a new tune for the Gurvastakam prayers in the morning. He tried to teach some of the men, but they couldn’t quite get it. Then he decided to instruct Yamuna-devi, in the presence of us all, and she picked it up right away. Afterward, Srila Prabhupada told Yamuna, “Learn to listen. You cannot follow nicely unless you hear nicely, and you cannot lead nicely unless you have learned to follow nicely.” And gradually the rest of us learned the new melody.

In Bombay Srila Prabhupada was invited to attend the Vedanta Sammelan in Amritsar, and so a party of seven men and two women—Yamuna and Kausalya—traveled there with him by train. The Vedanta Ashram offered us two small rooms and the use of the large common courtyard just outside. Srila Prabhupada occupied one room, Yamuna and Kausalya the other.

Srila Prabhupada was very protective of the women, and he would have them ride to programs with him in his car (while the men took rickshaws). He did programs in the morning and evening—and often in between. Kausalya told me that driving to one engagement, he had mentioned that he needed new shoes. “Stop at the next Bata shoe store,” he had said. In the store, he had told Yamuna and Kausalya, “You choose the shoes for me,” and sat down. So, they looked all around the store and found some white crisscross plastic sandals that they thought would be just right. Each of them carried one shoe up to Srila Prabhupada, and they slipped them on his feet. He smiled and asked, “Do you like them?” They responded, “Yes.” “Then we will buy them.” And so he did.

In the afternoons when there was some free time, Yamuna-devi would chant in the courtyard. It was quite cold in Amritsar in November, but it would be a little warmer when the sun came out in the afternoon, and she would sit cross-legged with her back erect and chant Hare Krishna maha-mantra japa continuously with her eyes closed—nonstop. She told me then that when she chanted, her ears and mind and heart opened up to the holy names and that the names would enter and she would just hear the sound. She would be fully absorbed in the sound, not even thinking that she was chanting the holy names or that these were names she was hearing—she was just absorbed in the sound.

After Amritsar, Srila Prabhupada and his party traveled by train back to Bombay. On the way, the train stopped at the New Delhi station, and a gentleman, a lawyer named D. D. Gupta, who had been corresponding with Prabhupada and had been informed of his stopover, came to meet him. He requested Prabhupada to leave some disciples in Delhi to start the activities there. Prabhupada turned to Gurudas, who was riding in the same compartment, and said, “This man is inviting us. Get down and see what you can do.” Gurudas asked for some devotees, and then he and Srila Prabhupada agreed on a team: Yamuna-devi, Gopala, Bhakta Bruce (now Bhanu Swami), and me.

Mr. Gupta arranged for us to stay in two rooms in Old Delhi, near Delhi Gate. The rooms were very basic—just plain concrete with whitewash on the walls—and they abutted the courtyard at the center of the building. We would have to walk around the courtyard to use the simple latrine (though, in urgent cases, we would often have to run!).

Mr. Gupta, it turned out, was a peculiar man. He was an advocate, but not a very big one. And he was miserly. He would keep his used, dead batteries in a drawer, in the hopes that they would come back to life. The whole situation was very austere, but it was wonderful being with Gurudas and Yamuna. We were like a family, with Gurudas and Yamuna like our older brother and sister, taking care of us in the absence of our father, Srila Prabhupada.

After leaving us in Delhi and spending some days in Bombay, Srila Prabhupada proceeded to Indore for the Gita Jayanti Mahotsava, and our small party joined him there. Once, when we entered his room, he looked up from his desk, and Yamuna-devi remarked, “Srila Prabhupada, you look just like a picture I have seen of your guru maharaja looking up from his desk.” And Srila Prabhupada replied, with all humility, “All that glitters is not gold. My guru maharaja was like gold; I am like iron.”

From Indore, Srila Prabhupada and his party traveled to Surat, in Gujarat, where we received an overwhelming reception. And something happened there—I actually haven’t thought of it for years. One day, I was chanting my rounds on the roof of the house where we all were staying, and somehow my mind got fixed on the idea that . . . I had heard that Srila Prabhupada said that if you can deliver just one soul back home, back to Godhead, then your own deliverance is assured. Somehow I thought of my girlfriend from before I joined, and I considered, “Maybe I should have her come and join me, and I will make her a pure devotee, and then I’ll go back to Godhead.” It all made perfect sense to me, but I thought I had better consult Gurudas and Yamuna. I was very serious, and they questioned me, “Why her in particular? There are so many souls that you could deliver back to Godhead—why her?” Indirectly, they pointed out my attachment for her, and they induced me to abandon that strategy.

After Surat, Srila Prabhupada stopped in Bombay, where he met with the few devotees based there. We were all staying at the Sea Palace Hotel, which was pure vegetarian and belonged to Sri Ramchand Chhabria, who knew the devotees from England and was himself vegetarian. While we were there, a new issue of Back to Godhead magazine came, and the first article was Srila Prabhupada’s poem “Markine Bhagavata-dharma,” written when he initially arrived in America, in Boston. We had never seen the poem before; it had never been published. Gurudas, Yamuna, and I got together to look at the magazine, and Yamuna read the poem out loud. It was written in a mood of deep humility and dependence on Krishna. And when she got to the end—“Signed—the most unfortunate, insignificant beggar, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami”—she burst into tears. She couldn’t contain herself.

Years later, in September 2002, after celebrating the anniversary of Srila Prabhupada’s arrival in America, I wrote Yamuna-devi, “Two days ago I spoke of the time Srila Prabhupada’s poem ‘Markine Bhagavata-dharma’ first appeared in English in BTG and you read it to Gurudas Prabhu and me and at the end you cried.” And she replied, “I sang this prayer this year on Vyasa-puja day, and all the while torrents of tears fell. One of my weaknesses is tears.”

From Bombay, Srila Prabhupada went to Allahabad for the Ardha-kumbha-mela, and Yamuna-devi and I were there with him. Srila Prabhupada spoke on the story of Ajamila and the holy name from the Sixth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam. Only the first two cantos had yet been translated and published, so Prabhupada read from his Sanskrit Bhagavatam with commentaries, sometimes translating from Sridhara Svami’s and occasionally from Jiva Gosvami’s. While there, I heard that Srila Prabhupada had said that he was speaking for Yamuna. And in April 2007, when Yamuna visited me in Carpinteria, I asked her about it. And she told me something that etched an indelible impression on my heart.

As she explained, she always thought that she had as much right as anyone else to walk or sit close to Srila Prabhupada. And generally when he spoke, she would sit in front of the vyasasana at his feet. She had never really distinguished in terms of etiquette that men should walk closer to Prabhupada, and women further away, or that men should sit closer to him, and women further away. The movement had been like that—like a family. In Allahabad, however, one of the sannyasis explained to her that in India the women sat apart and that she should, too.

About 10:30 the next morning, after she hadn’t sat at the foot of Prabhupada’s vyasasana as usual, Srila Prabhupada noticed Yamuna passing by his tent and called her: “Yamuna, come in here.” She entered and offered her obeisances, and before she got up, he said, “So, you don’t want to hear anymore?” Yamuna burst into tears; Prabhupada—hearing from him—was her life. “Where were you this morning?” he asked, and Yamuna told him what had happened. Prabhupada was silent.

That, as she told me, was a turning point in her life; it changed her whole orientation in Krishna consciousness. She suddenly had the realization that she would not always have Prabhupada’s company. Since 1967, when Srila Prabhupada recovered from his stroke, she had never been able to conceive of ever being separated from him. The devotees were so dependent on him for everything, it was inconceivable to them that he would not be with them. But, she told me, every disciple must come to a personal realization that there will be a time when the spiritual master will not be present. And for her that moment came in Allahabad, after her talks with the sannyasi and then with Srila Prabhupada.

Sitting in Prabhupada’s tent, she asked him, “How much time did you actually spend with your guru maharaja?” “Very few occasions,” he said; “maybe five or six. But they were very intimate. We used to walk and talk so many things.” Then he said, “Those who think that association with the spiritual master is physical, they are no better than a mosquito sitting on the lap of a king. And what is the business of a mosquito? Simply to suck blood. So many of my godbrothers, they were big, big sannyasis, and they thought like that, and they simply sucked blood.”

Yamuna took Prabhupada’s words as confirmation. She now understood that she needed to go to another place to explore her relationship with him and her service to him in separation. She began to consider the question of vani (words, instructions) and vapuh (body, form), and she got more and more insight into it. As she told me, it is something “unlimitedly deep and profound. You can hear the terms on the surface, but vani means to again be in Prabhupada’s presence”—to be in his presence in separation as much as when you were in his physical association. “So that was a turning point for me, to realize that Prabhupada was going to leave this planet: ‘He is an old man, and he is going to leave, and I have to prepare.’ ” She took it that from that moment she must start mentally preparing—find a way of continuing in Krishna consciousness that was not based on Srila Prabhupada’s personal association.

“So, that is that story of hearing,” she continued. “Prabhupada said, ‘I am speaking because you want to hear so much. I am speaking as much because you want to hear so much.’ So he knew that hunger. I never expressed that to him, but he knew.”As Yamuna often said, Srila Prabhupada was completely aware of every disciple in every way—both their internal consciousness and the external manifestations of their service.

Vani and vapuh became a major theme in Yamuna-devi’s life—how to maintain one’s connection with Srila Prabhupada through vani to the same degree and with the same intensity as in his physical, even close personal, presence. She was convinced that it was possible, and she arranged her life in such a way as to always receive his guidance and mercy—to always be in his association.

Then came the Bombay pandal. Shyamasundar Prabhu, who was the temple president, divided the work into different departments, with one devotee in charge of each. (Often, that devotee was the department.) And Yamuna-devi was in charge of the Deities. We had very little money then. Although we were raising funds for the pandal program, we needed it all for the event. And the treasurer, Rishi Kumar, was very tight with the money, which Srila Prabhupada considered a good quality for the treasurer. Sometimes Rishi Kumar would put a sign on his office door: “Closed for three days.” So, Yamuna-devi was charged with raising the funds for the Deities. That was the year we got big marble ones. In the pandal we had small brass Deities, and on the last day of the program there was to be a procession from the pandal, at Cross Maidan, to Chowpatty, where there was to be a program at the beach, at which Sri Sri Radha-Rasabihari would be revealed for the first time to the people of Bombay. And she just couldn’t raise the money.

One day while she was out endeavoring to raise funds for the Deities, Yamuna became so disappointed and distraught that she just sat down on the sidewalk and wept. A black limousine with a distinguished-looking gentleman in the back seat stopped on the road before her, and the man got out of the car and asked her what was the matter. “We’re having a pandal program,” she explained, “and I’m in charge of the Deities’ outfits and decorations, and I have to raise the money, but no one is giving, and we’re running out of time.” “Don’t worry,” he replied. “I am the chairman of two of the biggest temple trusts in Bombay. How much do you need?” “Two thousand five hundred rupees,” she replied—which was really a lot back then. “Don’t worry,” he said. “Just come with me to my office, and I’ll give you a check for the whole amount.” She was that sincere and dedicated.

From Bombay, Srila Prabhupada sent Tamal Krishna and me to Calcutta to arrange a similar pandal program, and eventually Yamuna-devi also came, and soon she was engaged in the service of the Deities there, Sri Sri Radha-Govinda. Every morning we would look forward to the darshan of the Deities. The worship was so beautiful—so devotional.

One day at the pandal site I approached Yamuna-devi and told her that I had some questions regarding my future and the future of the movement that I just could not answer, but that I didn’t want to approach Srila Prabhupada with them directly. The whole mood then was, “Don’t disturb Srila Prabhupada. He has to translate. He has important things to do. Don’t go to Srila Prabhupada.” When I told her my questions, however, she responded, “No, you should go to him. You are just the type of devotee he would want to spend time with, and these are just the types of questions he would want to answer.”

So, based on her advice, I approached Srila Prabhupada in his room at the temple, and my meeting with him was very significant. “Before joining the movement,” I said, “I was interested in making movies, and I even made one. So I was thinking maybe I should make movies about Krishna consciousness.” Srila Prabhupada replied, “That, others are doing. Our main medium is books.”

Then I said, “Srila Prabhupada, now you are here, so everything is all right. But what if, in the course of time, when you are not here, ISKCON falls from the standard? What should I do?” And Srila Prabhupada replied, “You are also one of the important members of the Society”—actually, I was really very new at the time, but . . . “You are also one of the important members of the Society, so you work for the correction. But don’t leave.”

These instructions have been guiding me ever since. And it was Yamuna-devi who advised me to go and ask Prabhupada directly.

After Calcutta was the Delhi pandal. Again Yamuna-devi arranged beautiful Deity worship, for Sri Sri Radha-Gokulananda, who later went to Bhaktivedanta Manor in England. The darshans were spectacular. But after the program, she was very sick. She was staying in the same, large house as Srila Prabhupada, and he noticed that she was missing. He inquired and found out that she was sick. She was resting in a very small room—like a closet. Because she was sick, she had to have her own room, and that was what the devotees could offer. Srila Prabhupada went to visit her and found that no one was really taking care of her, and he became concerned and assigned a devotee to take up that service. It was cold, and I think Prabhupada gave her his own room heater—perhaps the only one. And he said that we have to take care of our devotees when they fall ill.

After the Delhi pandal, I went to Madras, while the rest of the party went to Vrindavan with Srila Prabhupada for the first time. There was one car—an Ambassador—with Srila Prabhupada and some men, and a bus with the rest of the devotees. Prabhupada was in the car, and he noticed Yamuna climbing into the bus. He said, “Wait! Wait!” He called her, knowing that she was sick, and told the men to get out. Then he had her get in the back seat with Gurudas and another man—Prabhupada was in the front with the driver—and the other men went on the bus.

In time, Srila Prabhupada got some land in Vrindavan and put Gurudas and Yamuna in charge. And she related a couple of incidents to me that I consider to be very instructive. Once, a small group of devotees went to the Radha-Damodara temple, and the Goswami in charge invited them to have prasada. The devotees sat in the courtyard, and the Goswami arranged the Deities’ maha-prasada for them. While they were honoring the prasada, he began to blaspheme Srila Prabhupada—“Why does he wear a ring?” and all sorts of things. The devotees felt extremely uncomfortable and were tempted to just get up and walk out, but somehow they decided not to. After the incident, Gurudas and Yamuna reported to Srila Prabhupada what had happened, and Srila Prabhupada instructed, “In Vrindavan there are five thousand caste goswamis, five thousand shopkeepers, and five thousand widows, and we have to keep good relations with all of them; otherwise we will end up in court, like the Gaudiya Matha.”

On another occasion, Srila Prabhupada sent Gurudas and Yamuna to meet his godbrother Professor O. B. L. Kapoor. At some stage after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura left, Professor Kapoor had taken shelter of a babaji as a siksa-guru. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had vehemently criticized these babajis, and they had staunchly opposed him. So this was a very peculiar situation, that Professor Kapoor had taken shelter of a babaji who was the type of person who was the object of his spiritual master’s criticism and in turn opposed his spiritual master. But Srila Prabhupada simply said, “That is his weakness”—that’s all. He didn’t consider that it disqualified Dr. Kapoor from helping the movement. Srila Prabhupada had a very broad view of the Krishna consciousness movement and of engaging people in it, and that was demonstrated quite vividly in Vrindavan.

Then Srila Prabhupada left us, and things did change. And I didn’t see Gurudas and Yamuna for many years. But then somehow my relationship with Yamuna was revived. She had really been sort of a mentor to me, and decades later she was again. Although so many years had passed, when we met again it was more or less the same—the relationship hadn’t changed, and we shared thoughts about Srila Prabhupada and his service and his mission. She was always very concerned about the mission, that Srila Prabhupada’s legacy should be preserved as it is and not adulterated or compromised.

I also saw that she was very absorbed in Krishna consciousness. When I think of the five main processes of devotional service (pancanga-bhakti), she was very strong in all of them.

sadhu-sanga, nama-kirtana, bhagavata-sravana
mathura-vasa, sri-murtira sraddhaya sevana

“One should associate with devotees, chant the holy name of the Lord, hear Srimad-Bhagavatam, reside at Mathura, and worship the Deity with faith and veneration.” (Cc Madhya 22.128)

She was very strong in reading and studying. Every morning she would read the Bhagavatam and the teachings of the more recent acharyas—Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura—taking special note when they spoke about the holy name. This was a major focus for her, and she would relish reading, especially instructions related to nama-bhajana and to guru-seva.

Another thing about Yamuna-devi struck me as amazing. About the time of the first Bombay pandal, when we were staying in Akash Ganga, a high-rise apartment building in an affluent part of central Bombay, she would stay back and clean. She would clean the whole place, for hours. And while cleaning, she would sing in an ecstatic mood. The rest of us were going here and there—for service, of course, but there were incidental benefits: seeing exotic India, meeting all sorts of cultured and interesting people, tasting varieties of delicious prasada—and she was staying back and cleaning. She put her heart into it and would be singing ecstatically.

Later, in April 2007, when Yamuna visited me in Carpinteria, I asked her about this, and she said that Srila Prabhupada had put greater emphasis on bhagavata-marga because he wanted his books produced, so they would be there for all time, and because he wanted his books distributed, so the income from the sales would support the expansion of the mission. So he didn’t have much time to personally train disciples in pancaratrika-vidhi. But he did train her, and she considered personal service to him to be in the same category as personal service to the Deity. And, of course, she is right. Once, a devotee came forward to fan Srila Prabhupada and Srila Prabhupada stopped him, saying that he wasn’t a brahman. So, cleanliness is one of the basic principles of Deity worship. But Yamuna-devi didn’t distinguish between cleaning the guru’s ashram and cleaning the Deity room. As she told me, “In Bombay, I learned to take joy in that cleaning. Whether you are serving the spiritual master or the arca-vigraha, the cleaning is external and internal. It is a very spiritual engagement—as powerful as distributing books.”

She explained that Srila Prabhupada would teach each servant about the importance and standards of cleanliness according to the servant’s capacity to understand. And she told me how strictly he had trained her. He had his four-tiered cooker, and if he found a black spot on the bottom of any of the pots, he would really chastise the servant. She would use the word whipping. He would chide the servant, “This is not Vaishnava. This is Muslim. No Vaishnava will ever leave a black spot on any of the pots in the kitchen.” Prabhupada’s cooker was always to shine like gold.

Based on Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, Yamuna developed a whole system for cleaning his quarters in Vrindavan—an elaborate five-step procedure, going from bottom to top and top to bottom. First, she would get the big dirt off the bottom, then she would go up as far as she could reach, dusting, and then she would go back to the bottom, cleaning everything as perfectly as she could. If there was anything wrong, Prabhupada would notice and tell her about it. And keeping the rooms clean in Vrindavan was very hard: with the simmering sands of Raman Reti and the whole place being a construction zone, there was always dirt and corrosion—everywhere. The walls of Prabhupada’s rooms were pale yellow, and the floors were black stone. The floors were covered with rugs, and the rugs were covered with white sheets.

One morning when Srila Prabhupada came back from his walk, after Yamuna had gone through her five-step procedure and everything looked as clean as could be, he told her, “Please clean my room, Yamuna. Haven’t I taught you to clean?” “No, Srila Prabhupada,” she said. “How may I improve my cleaning?” He didn’t say anything. On his desk were his eyeglass case, his tilak, pens, a flower vase, a picture of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, and a staple gun. Srila Prabhupada took the staple gun, which was about two and a half inches long, removed it from its plastic case, lifted up the metal staple holder, and ran his little finger, his pinkie, across the thin metal strip between the staple holder and the hinge. . . . Dust. “When will you learn how to clean?”

If Srila Prabhupada had had the time, Yamuna-devi told me, he would have trained all his disciples in both pancaratriki-vidhi and bhagavata-vidhi, but because he was focused more on bhagavata-vidhi, he mainly trained only his close managers and personal servants—be they men or women—in both. Srila Prabhupada knew the consciousness of his disciples—he knew their capacity—and he would give them training according to their capacity to absorb it.

Cooking, like cleanliness, is also part of Deity worship, and Yamuna-devi was, of course, most expert. Once, when Srila Prabhupada was coming to Vrindavan, she went to the Vraja-vasis and asked, “What is the best way to make Vraja-vasi rotis?” They told her, “You have to get this red Punjabi wheat berry. You have to grind it in the morning, and then you have to cook it with neem wood.”

When Prabhupada came, she didn’t say a word to him, but she got that red wheat berry from Punjab, she had it ground in the morning, and she cooked the chapatis with neem wood. Then she brought them in to Prabhupada and put a hot chapati on his plate. He took one bite and said, “This is the red Punjabi wheat berry. You ground it this morning and cooked it with neem wood.” She hadn’t said a word to him—he just knew.

That was at the Radha-Damodara temple in 1972. And there is a sequel to the story about the Vraja-vasi chapatis, from Raman Reti in 1973. I am not a cook—chapatis are too technical for me—so I will read the transcription of Yamuna’s account to me in Carpinteria:

“One time when Srila Prabhupada came—I think it was the first time I met Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami; he was Prabhupada’s servant—I was on a bucket stove again, on the floor—no kitchen. I was making Prabhupada’s prasada, and as you may or may not know, when you cook with a bucket stove and you have a little bit of hard coal and then a little bit of soft coal and then a little bit of cow dung, it is a little hard to regulate. There is a certain temperature, and you cannot turn a switch to make it higher or lower. And then, depending on the thickness of the pot, you know what intensity you want. And then there is what you call a thawa, which is an iron griddle, concave, and to make a chapati you keep that on the stove and then you lift it off and you put the chapati on top of the flame. So, I made chapatis for Prabhupada’s lunch.

“Satsvarupa Maharaja wanted to bring in the lunch, thinking that I probably shouldn’t do it. He brought in the plate, came back into the kitchen, and said, ‘Prabhupada wants me to teach you how to make chapatis.’ And I said, ‘Oh, Maharaja, I would be so grateful if you could do that. I’d love to learn to make chapatis. Please.’

“Then I got up, and he began to wash his hands. By the time he sat down and rolled out a chapati, the thawa was really hot. He rolled out an octopus-like chapati. Now, when you roll out a chapati, the ball bearings for rolling it out is the dusting of flour, and if you roll the chapati in too much flour you actually roll flour into the surface of the flatbread and then even if you try to flap it off, you still have a crust of flour. So you use a minimal amount for the ball bearings and then flap off the little extra.

“His octopus was covered with flour on a hot thawa. When he put it on, I said, ‘Maharaja, what should I be looking for?’ He said, ‘You wait until there are pimples on the top.’ As soon as the chapati hit the griddle, very hot, the pimples came very fast. He turned the chapati over, and there were little burnt holes. So there was no question of it puffing up.

“So, he put it on, and the little bubbles appeared at different places, and he took it in to Prabhupada. Then he came back and told me, ‘Prabhupada said, “This is excellent.” ’

“So, that’s how Prabhupada taught me. It was never with a whip, but they were beatings nonetheless. They were beatings over my head.”

Another time, in 1974, one of the devotees based in Vrindavan approached Yamuna and said, “My wife is coming, and she is a very good cook. She wants to cook for Prabhupada.” Yamuna replied, “How wonderful. I will be glad to engage her in Prabhupada’s service.” The new cook arrived after the big Mayapur festival, and almost all the devotees were ill with dysentery and other maladies. There was really no proper arrangement for them, but Gurudas and Yamuna cared for them like parents. Yamuna was doing the cooking for the devotees there at Fogel Ashram. Under the circumstances, she really didn’t have time to cook for Srila Prabhupada, so she was very happy that the new cook was there. Meanwhile, she was trying to make arrangements for the devotees’ prasada. She had no facility, she was unable to speak Hindi and communicate with the locals, and the assistant cooks were ready to walk out at any time. She was working practically twenty-four hours. And she didn’t go to see Prabhupada the entire time.

She began to get messages: “Prabhupada wants you”—but she didn’t go. She just replied, “Tell him I am really busy.” She told me later, “Bad, very bad—really low consciousness.”

When finally she came to Prabhupada’s room, he was about to go out. So she came back the next morning.

Yamuna had given the new cook specific instructions. Still, the lady had taken Srila Prabhupada’s cooker and his unclean laundry and stuffed them in a bolster pillowcase meant for his seating area, now black all over the bottom. Yamuna arrived just as the lady was putting the cooker in with the clothes, in the pillowcase. Srila Prabhupada was also standing there, watching the cooker being shoved into the pillowcase. He didn’t say a word—not to the cook, not to Yamuna.

“Prabhupada knows everything,” Yamuna told me later. Thus he said to her, “Are you too busy to come? So I am delaying my departure for one day.” The men said, “But the cars are ready. We’re just loading them.” “No,” Srila Prabhupada stated unequivocally, “Yamuna will stay here and cook for me tomorrow. I am staying, and she is going to cook for me tomorrow morning, and then we will go.”

Cleanliness. More than thirty years later, Yamuna-devi told me, “I can honestly say that I joyously engage in cleaning, and so in our ashram [in Saranagati, Canada] we sing and clean, sometimes for hours and hours and hours. Our place is very primitive; we have a dirt floor and dirt walls, and a lot of earth outside. It is very simple, but we like to clean a lot. We enjoy cleaning, for Srila Prabhupada and the Deities.”

Kirtan. Yamuna-devi had a dream. I don’t remember the details, and it is a little delicate, because she was a very private person. Anyway, in this dream, or vision—whatever it was, she took it as very real—she was a sage in the forest and Srila Prabhupada was also in the same forest, and somehow he engaged her in doing kirtan. She felt that from her past life there was a connection with Srila Prabhupada in relation to kirtan.

About Srila Prabhupada’s kirtan she said, “Srila Prabhupada’s kirtan had no tinge of being a performance. It was purely for the pleasure of Krishna. It allowed the chanters access to the fact that the Lord’s holy name and the Lord are nondifferent. He said that the key to engaging in kirtan without anartha was hearing and studying our literature, and that gradually it would rise to the platform of pure devotional service.”

And in an e-mail to Bhakta Carl (now Kalachandji das), she wrote, “Leading and chanting in kirtan has little to do with how we sound to each other. It has much more to do with how we call out to Krishna and immerse ourselves in hearing the vibrations of the holy names. What a vehicle for experiencing love of Godhead.”

When she and the other devotees were recording with the Beatles, George Harrison was so impressed by her singing that he told her he could make her one of the most famous and celebrated vocalists in the world. But she wasn’t interested. Her singing was meant for another purpose—pure devotional service to please Srila Prabhupada and Sri Sri Radha-Govinda.

Yamuna-devi said that to the degree one follows Srila Prabhupada, to that degree things are revealed. And she gave the example of Bhakti Tirtha Swami. She felt that because of Maharaja’s deep connection with the holy name—his dedication to japa, his private time with japa—he was able to perceive Srila Prabhupada’s presence in separation. She said, “Prabhupada freely gave everything to all of us. But it is the individual’s hankering, which leads him to make certain decisions in his life to catch that mercy, that facilitates his or her perception of Srila Prabhupada, especially in separation.”

Yamuna recalled an incident that demonstrated to her unequivocally how Prabhupada knew his disciples. She came to the courtyard of the Radha-Damodara temple in the wee hours of one morning, remaining as silent as humanly possible, so as not to disturb Srila Prabhupada, and he came out of his room and called her name. “There was no way Prabhupada could have known that I was there at one thirty in the morning,” she said. “I didn’t make any noise.”

But then she balanced her statement: “On the other hand, there were many times when he would say, ‘I want your report. Otherwise how do I know?’ ” And she added, “There were times when I did it, but other times, because of low Krishna consciousness, I ceased reporting in an honest way, and it contributed to my fall, to my weaknesses in Krishna consciousness. When I was open and revealed everything honestly in my reporting to Prabhupada, as we are supposed to report to Krishna, I was stronger in Krishna consciousness. And when I closed that avenue off, my consciousness suffered.”

In her profound humility, Yamuna explained, “Srila Prabhupada’s presence in vani and vapuh, or our ability to perceive his presence in his vani and vapuh, depends on our consciousness—whether we are able to perceive a drop of who Prabhupada was. Some devotees who never had Srila Prabhupada’s company, with their laulyam and their greed for it had more of it than I sometimes did while I was in his company, depending on my consciousness. . . .

“I still have no idea of the greatness of Prabhupada’s presence, then or now, although I think about it a lot, meditate on it a lot. We discuss it almost every day. It comes up in some form or other in our morning Bhagavatam class. . . . Prabhupada’s presence then and now—vani and vapuh. And it is very important to hold onto his presence as the focal point in our maturation in spiritual life, because he is the center in our spiritual life. Nothing comes without his presence. Even if the mercy comes to us through other forms, from endless different places—still, he is the fountainhead. . . . If I am qualified, then certain mercies will come to me. Mercy is not something you bargain for or arrange for or even desire very deeply. You can have intense hankering, and then whatever comes—whatever form the mercy comes in—it is so Krishna conscious.”

After Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance anniversary in 2009, Yamuna-devi wrote me a letter that shows her deep absorption in Srila Prabhupada and in the holy names, and her intimate relationship with Srila Prabhupada. I think that she really did understand Srila Prabhupada and his mission. He gave her a lot of instruction.

“Dear Giriraj Swami, Pranama dandavats. Jaya Srila Prabhupada! I wanted to share a few thoughts and reflections on yesterday, Srila Prabhupada’s thirty-second disappearance day. We observed the day first at Radha-Banabehari Mandir with our morning program at Radha-Banabehari Mandir, then at a midday program at Govardhana Academy [the school at Saranagati], introducing the students to the traditional way Srila Prabhupada instructed us to honor this day, and then in the evening at a program with adults in the community, who for convenience regularly meet in the evening for any kind of Vaishnava holy day.

“Last night Yadubara showed his preliminary edited footage for DVD Eleven: ‘Srila Prabhupada’s Final Pastimes.’ Though I had seen much of the footage before, it had been without comment, and not arranged in sequence to tell a visual story of Srila Prabhupada’s final days and hours, the moment of his passing, and the aftermath—the Vrindavan parikrama and the samadhi entombment.

“One evening, sitting with my back to Srila Prabhupada’s front bucket seat, riding in a van from Tittenhurst [John Lennon’s estate] to a Conway Hall lecture in London, Srila Prabhupada said loud enough for me to hear, ‘When I die, see that my body is taken on a palanquin around Vrindavan on parikrama.’ Stunned, but immediately attentive to these words, I turned around, and on my knees, bent forward from the waist so that my head was even with his shoulder, I said, ‘Why have you told me to do this, Srila Prabhupada? Better that you tell Tamal Krishna. He has more access to seeing that this is done than I do.’ He replied, ‘No, you can tell him.’ He fell silent and said no more. I too fell silent and said no more.

“Yadubara’s footage last night of the thickest pastime of Srila Prabhupada’s life with us—his passing—was poignant and moving. Though I was not there physically with Srila Prabhupada, I could not have felt closer to him or experienced more of his presence had I been so. Every moment of every day has been a meditation on Srila Prabhupada, and we have been engaged in constant kirtan. Perhaps it would have been difficult for me even to have been there at that time, for except Pisima, it is clear that women were not allowed close proximity to Srila Prabhupada, and that might have been almost unbearable for me after the closeness I experienced in previous years with him.”

She said more, expressing appreciation for the devotional mood and service of some of Prabhupada’s disciples who were there—they had “a shared intent to follow Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, glorify his mood, honor his example, and share that with others.” But her letter also expressed her concern about how at a certain point the role of women in the movement had changed. In earlier days . . . of course, she was exceptional—she would lead kirtan before thousands of people, speak before thousands of people, and render personal service to Srila Prabhupada. As she told me, at Tittenhurst she was basically Srila Prabhupada’s personal servant—she and Malati and Janaki. Purusottama would do some of the correspondence, and some of the men would give massage, but basically these ladies were doing the personal service.

She said that one day Prabhupada came into his room—they had just made his bed and done whatever else had to be done—and said, “This is very unusual,” meaning for a sannyasi to have women do that service. He said, “This is very unusual, but it is appropriate.” He continued, “Sometimes I am like your father and you are like my daughters, and sometimes you are like my mothers and I am like your son.”

In Mother Yamuna’s last year there was tremendous concern about her health. At different stages she spoke to me about her condition and options, but then, near the end, perhaps in September, she came to a very critical point with regards to her heart. Because of her size and age, the doctors were afraid to perform an invasive procedure, but if they didn’t, there was every chance she would have heart failure, at any time. For a while she wasn’t sure what to do, but in the end she decided to just return to her home and depend on Krishna.

She said a few times that she was ready to go, that she felt she had done what she was meant to do in this life, or what she could do, and she was ready to go. She had no fear—and no regrets. Personally, I questioned her conclusion about her service, and I suggested, “Well, you may have something left to do in terms of service to Srila Prabhupada.” I was thinking of her writing, that she should write about her experiences with and realizations about Srila Prabhupada. But she said, “No, I have thought about it, and there’s nothing really that I have to stay to do. If there is anything—if I am given more time—it is to try to help the women in the movement.” And she added, “I don’t think that you, as a sannyasi, can understand what the women in the movement experience. But if Krishna does give me some more time, I would like to do something for the women, to support the women, to give a strong voice to the women.”

No matter how dire her physical condition was, Yamuna-devi was so Krishna conscious. My conversations with her were quite frequent after she went to Bhaktivedanta Hospital. Naturally, I was concerned about her medical condition, and so we would be talking about it, and somehow or other, without my knowing how she got there, she would be talking about Krishna and Srila Prabhupada and the holy name and how wonderful devotees are and how merciful Prabhupada and Krishna are and how grateful she was. Quite the opposite of what I often experience with myself: I begin talking about Krishna and then—I don’t know how it happens—somehow I’m talking about my body. With her, I would bring up her body—how she was doing and if I could help in any way—and without my knowing how, suddenly we were talking about Krishna and Prabhupada and the holy name and the prayers of the acharyas and the wonderful service of the other devotees and just how grateful she was for what she had been given.

At about 6:30 in the morning on December 20, Yamuna’s constant companion and spiritual confidante, Dinatarini dasi, found that Yamuna had left. Yamuna’s hand was in her bead bag, and a slight smile was on her face. She looked completely at peace—even blissful. She had been unafraid of death. She had been confident that she would again be with Srila Prabhupada, or somehow engaged in serving his mission. Such is the destination that awaits anyone who gives his or her life fully to serving Srila Prabhupada, his vani, his vapuh.

Yamuna-devi was a beautiful soul, a divine servant of Srila Prabhupada, his mission, and his Lords. She exemplified nama-ruci (taste for the holy name), jiva-daya (mercy for the living entities), and vaisnava-seva (service to the devotees). She was a mentor, guide, and friend to many, including me. We will miss her personal presence. Still, we shall try to serve her in separation by upholding the ideals she held dear.

In conclusion, I quote from a letter she wrote me some years ago, which has given me both solace and guidance:

“I remember when Dina and I visited you in your house in Vrindavan. We asked you one question, and you took three hours to answer it: ‘How has your relationship with Srila Prabhupada changed since his departure?’” Again, vani and vapuh. She continued, “The departure of loved ones helps us to change, to go deeper. Surely this will happen.”

 

 

Hare Krishna Wednesday, Dec 18th, 2025: ISKCON Kudupu katte, Mangalore was invited to represent Sanatan Dharma in INTERFAITH DIALOGUE organized by ST. ALOYSIUS(Deemed To Be University), Mangalore. The program was held as part of Christmas Celebrations and theme was kept as World Peace. Sriman Adi Keshav Prabhu(Dr. Ashok Shetty), from ISKCON GEV, and trustee, Bhaktivedanta
Read More...

A Vaishnava, a pure devotee of the Lord, is unhappy to see the suffering of others. Therefore, Lord Jesus Christ agreed to be crucified—to free others from their suffering. But his followers are often so unfaithful that they have decided, “Let Christ suffer for us, and we’ll go on committing sin.” They love Christ, but they think, “My dear Christ, we are very weak. We cannot give up our sinful activities. So you please suffer for us.”

Srimad-Bhagavatam states that any bona fide preacher of God consciousness must have the qualities of titiksa (tolerance) and karuna (compassion). We find both these qualities in the character of Lord Jesus Christ. He was so tolerant that even while he was being crucified, he didn’t condemn anyone. And he was so compassionate that he prayed to God to forgive the very persons who were trying to kill him. (Of course, they could not actually kill him. But they were thinking that he could be killed, so they were committing a great offense.) As Christ was being crucified, he prayed, “Father, forgive them. They know not what they are doing.”

A preacher of God consciousness is a friend to all living beings. Lord Jesus Christ exemplified this by teaching, “Thou shalt not kill.” But most Christians misinterpret this instruction. They think the animals have no soul, and therefore they think they can freely kill billions of innocent animals in the slaughterhouses. They decide, “Let us kill anyway” and open big scientific slaughterhouses. “If there is any sin,” they think, “Christ will suffer for us.” This is a most abominable conclusion. Christ can take the sufferings for the previous sins of his devotees. But first they have to be sane: “Why should I put Jesus Christ into suffering for my sins? Let me stop my sinful activities.”

So, although there are many persons who profess to be Christians, it is difficult to find one who actually follows the instructions of Lord Jesus Christ.

Suppose a man—the favorite son of his father—commits a murder and then thinks, “If there is any punishment coming, my father can suffer for me.” Will the law allow it? When the murderer is arrested and says, “No, no. You can release me and arrest my father; I am his pet son,” will the police officials comply with that fool’s request? He committed the murder, but he thinks his father should suffer the punishment! Is that a sane proposal? No. “You have committed the murder; you must be hanged.” Similarly, when you commit sinful activities, you—not Jesus Christ—must suffer. This is God’s law.

Jesus Christ was a great personality—the son of God, the representative of God. He had no fault. Still, he was crucified. He wanted to deliver God consciousness, but in return they crucified him. They were so thankless; they could not appreciate his preaching or who he was. But we appreciate him and give him all honor as the representative of God. Of course, the message that Christ preached was according to his particular time, place, and country, and suited especially for a particular group of people. But he is the representative of God. Therefore we adore Lord Jesus Christ and offer our obeisances to him.

Once, in Melbourne, a group of Christian ministers came to visit me and asked, “What is your idea of Jesus Christ?” I told them, “He is our guru. He is preaching God consciousness, so he is our spiritual master.” The ministers very much appreciated that.

Actually, anyone who is preaching God’s glories must be accepted as a guru. Jesus Christ is one such great personality. We should not think of him as an ordinary human being. The scriptures say that anyone who considers the spiritual master to be an ordinary man has a hellish mentality. If Jesus Christ were an ordinary man, he could not have delivered God consciousness.

—Srila Prabhupada

Christmas – A Varṇāśrama Perspective – 2024-12-23 | Śivarāma Swami
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 Gita key verses course 10 – Do I have inner demons? How can I slay them? – Gita 03.36 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

What is the mind, what is mindfulness, and how can we be more mindful?
These three questions we will address, and we will address them as the three parts of this talk.
So, let’s begin with verse 6.5, it’s on the next slide:
uddharedhātmanātmānam nātmānam avasādayet, ātmaiva yātmano vandhur ātmaiva ripurātmanahā.
So, uddharedhātmanātmānam, Krishna is saying here, elevate yourself. ātmanātmānam nātmānam avasādayet.
So, the word Krishna is using is ātma. That ātmaiva yātmano vandhur ātma, the self is the friend of the self. ātmaiva ripurātmanahā, the ātma is the enemy of the ātma. Therefore, elevate the ātma with the ātma and don’t degrade the ātma with the ātma.
Now, here the word ātma has many different meanings. Ātma can refer broadly to the essence. Sometimes ātma can refer to the soul, sometimes it can refer to God, sometimes ātma can refer to the body or the mind (as in dehātmaguddhi, where someone thinks of themselves as the body). So, the word ātma can mean different things: the body, the mind, or God, among others.
In this verse, ātma refers to the mind, so it is saying, the verse is saying, elevate yourself with the mind and don’t degrade yourself with the mind. The mind can be your friend, and the mind can be your enemy. This is quite an intriguing verse—what does it actually mean? Let’s discuss this. First, we will discuss: what is the mind? Yes, can we go ahead?

In this verse, there are two senses of the word “self.” One is the elevator, that you elevate yourself, don’t degrade yourself. That means there is a sense of the self or the observer, the chooser. You have to choose whether you will be elevated or degraded. That is the soul. There is another sense of the mind, which is the suggestor or the destructor. The mind might say, “Let’s do this, let’s try that, let’s do that.”

If we consider ourselves, for example, right now you are attending this talk. While you are attending this talk, a part of you may want to focus, but another part might say, “Oh, I was cooking food, did I turn off the gas?” Or, “What is that person doing over there? I need to check it out.” Or, “I got a message on my phone, what is the message? Let me check it.” So, there is a part within us that keeps distracting us: “Do this, do that, watch this.” So, what is that distracting part? That is the mind.

Krishna is telling us here that the distractor can be your enemy. But the mind can sometimes come up with good ideas too. It’s not always the case that all ideas are bad. When the mind comes up with good ideas, it’s offering suggestions, and these suggestions can be accepted. But before they are accepted, they need to be evaluated.

In fact, this capacity to abstract ourselves from ourselves—to distance ourselves from us and look at ourselves from another perspective—is a distinctive human capacity. This enables us to become self-aware. For example, we can become aware: “Hey, I am becoming angry now.” Sometimes we notice this by the reactions of others. If others are surprised and ask, “Why are you yelling?” we might respond, “Was I yelling? I didn’t mean to.” Or sometimes we notice it ourselves: “Now I am feeling angry, now I am feeling annoyed, now I am feeling disheartened.”

This capacity to be aware of ourselves—knowing that I am here, but I am also the experiencer of emotions, and I am also the observer of those emotions—is key. For instance, “I am feeling this, but is it worth being irritated about?” That is a question that needs to be asked. This way, we can understand that there are multiple levels of the self, within which the observer and the suggestor (or the chooser and the distractor) exist.

Now, how does the mind function? Let’s say we are driving a vehicle, a car, and someone else is sitting next to us in the car. If that person constantly distracts us, “Hey, did you see that billboard? Did you see the new shop over there? There’s a new movie in the theater, let’s go there! What’s that? I can’t identify that, let’s go check it out.”

If someone is constantly distracting us while we are driving, it could lead to trouble. So, the observer is the soul, and the distractor is the mind. The mind, however, is not the one driving the car. It is sitting next to the driver. The mind can propose, but it cannot impose. The mind can suggest, “Let’s do this, let’s watch this, let’s go there,” but it cannot force us to do it.

Depending on how much the soul listens, the mind’s suggestions either get implemented or not. The mind is not in the driver’s seat. It can propose, but it cannot impose. However, the mind can be so persuasive, so seductive, so shrewd, that we might not even realize it is the mind’s suggestion. We just accept it as our own idea and act on it. The mind distracts while we are trying to drive the car of our body in the journey of life.

To understand this in more metaphysical terms, we’ve discussed this example before: the soul is like the user, the mind is like the software, and the body is like the hardware. This is the standard metaphor.

So, our existence is at three levels: body, mind, and soul. Now, what does the mind do?
There is a way in which the mind functions to distract us, but that is not the only role of the mind. We may ask, “Why do I need the mind? It is constantly distracting me.” However, the mind is not just like a person sitting next to us and distracting us; it is also our link to the world. For example, if we have a computer but no hardware installed, we would not be able to use it at all; it wouldn’t function. We need hardware, but we also need software to interface with the hardware. Similarly, to link with the world and function in the world, we need the mind.

Next slide: So, what does the mind do? It integrates the inputs from the senses and presents them to the soul. Just like a house with five doors or a high-security building with five entrances, there might be security cameras at each of those entrances. These cameras are all integrated and brought to the control center, where a security officer sits and observes all of them. Similarly, the inputs from all the senses are brought together and presented to the soul by the mind.

This is what Krishna tells us later in the Bhagavad Gita. The first two lines describe the five senses. We have taken inputs from these five senses, which are known as the knowledge-acquiring senses (Gyanendriyas). These inputs are integrated through the mind, just as the five fingers on the hand are centered around the palm, with all fingers joined at the palm. Similarly, the five senses are integrated in the mind. Then, through this mechanism of the senses and mind, the soul tries to enjoy various worldly sense objects. Through the five senses, we perceive what is attractive and what we want to enjoy. We then move toward those objects and seek to enjoy them.

Next slide: To understand this in another way, the soul is the root, the source of consciousness, and the mind is the route of consciousness—the channel through which consciousness flows. The soul is here, the mind is here, and the body is here. The consciousness of the soul comes through the mind to the body and to the outer world. However, the mind is not just a route of consciousness.

Till now, I have talked about two roles of the mind: one as a distractor, and the other as a route. Now, at a functional level, the mind is meant to be simply a route, but it is not just that.

Let’s say we have a pipeline through which water is meant to flow. If chemicals are coated on the inside walls of the pipeline, the water will not pass through as it is. Instead, the water will be contaminated by those chemicals. So, while the water that enters the pipeline might be pure, the water that comes out will be contaminated. Similarly, our consciousness is meant to flow through the mind, but because the mind has its own impressions, the light of awareness passing through the mind becomes contaminated. It gets filtered and channeled in a particular way.

For example, if we enter a room, normally we would observe everything in the room. However, if someone is very attached to a particular sport, say cricket, the first thing they might look for is a TV to see if they can watch the cricket match. If someone is very attached to food, they might enter the room and immediately notice the food, ignoring everything else. In that case, the consciousness flows through the mind, but because of their strong attachment to food, their consciousness gets directed in that way.

So, the mind is both a transmitter of consciousness and a distorter. It directs consciousness in a particular way, often not necessarily in a healthy way. When Krishna says to elevate yourself with the mind and not degrade yourself, he means that you should recognize that the mind is a filter, a transmitter, and a distorter of consciousness. Observe how your consciousness is getting distorted by the mind and decide whether that distortion is healthy or unhealthy, desirable or undesirable. The transmission should happen in a way that is constructive, not destructive.

This brings us to the next point. Go ahead to the next slide. So far, we’ve discussed what the mind is. Often, the mind is referred to as the enemy. Krishna says in this particular verse, which we are discussing now, that the mind has four distinct attributes. This is a well-known verse, 6.34, where Arjuna speaks of the mind’s difficulty in being controlled.

Why is it difficult to control the mind? It is because of these four attributes. We are discussing now how the mind distorts the consciousness that flows through it. It distorts because it is, first of all, restless (chanchala). Chanchala is an adjective often used to describe children who can’t stay focused. For example, if a mother tells her child to sit and study, and she goes to the other room, when she comes back after 30 minutes to an hour, it is extremely unlikely that the child will be sitting peacefully and studying. Children often wander, their minds jump from one thing to another. So, chanchala means restless.

However, the mind is not just restless; it is also reasonless, meaning it is irrational.

Once the mind gets attached to something, it becomes uncontrollable. Once it wants something, it just wants it, and it wants it more and more. Sometimes a child may have one toy, which is actually a good toy, but the neighboring child has another toy that’s not as good. Despite that, the child may want that toy and insist on getting it right away. They won’t say, “I’ll wait until later” or “I’ll go to the shop and buy it.” No, they want it right now.

This is how the mind behaves when it becomes reasonless. It is difficult to reason with the mind; you can’t make an argument and convince it to see sense. It is reasonless—it is brahmati. At least a child is physically small, and parents can sometimes scold the child to control their behavior. But the mind is ruthless. It is pallavath—strong and unyielding. In this sense, the mind behaves like a bully.

Rather than us using force to control the mind, it often seems that the mind uses force to intimidate us. It demands, “Do this, do this, do this,” and creates such a strong inner pressure that it feels like we are living in psychological torment. This is what happens to someone who is addicted to something. Their mind continuously craves, and even if they don’t want it, the craving becomes unbearable. The mind becomes like a bully, ruthlessly tormenting us.

Earlier, I mentioned that the mind can only propose, not impose. This is true, but the mind can propose in such a demanding way that it feels like an imposition. The mind is not just brahmati, but relentless. It does not stop; it keeps asking and craving. It keeps saying, “I want it, I want it, I want it.” The craving doesn’t necessarily go away; it can persist. The Bhagavatam says that while the body grows old, attachments do not grow old. The term jara means old age, but ajara means something that does not grow old. The paasham (shackles) of attachment do not grow old, and so the mind’s cravings continue to distract us.

Traditionally, people would engage in worldly activities, and as they grew older, around the age of 50 or so, they would retire or reduce their material pursuits and focus on spiritual growth. But today, there is an entire industry focused on targeting older people with sensuality. Ads, events, and entertainment are marketed to older individuals to encourage them to fulfill their desires, such as attending parties, going sightseeing, or enjoying material pleasures. Even though the body may not be physically fit, the mind is still filled with cravings. Media and culture further fuel this desire.

Because of these four attributes, the mind can become a fearsome enemy, and going against it can seem extremely difficult. Arjuna tells Krishna that when the mind starts demanding something, it flows so fast that trying to stop it feels like trying to stop the wind. How can you stop the wind? It seems almost impossible.

So, understanding the mind is crucial. The mind is meant to function as a link, a transmitter of consciousness, but while transmitting, it often distorts our consciousness.

Go to the next slide.

So, what is mindfulness?

Next:
Mindfulness means being aware of our situations and our emotions. Going back to the earlier metaphor of driving, a driver needs to be aware of the road they are driving on and also of what the person next to them is doing. If a driver gives all their attention to the person next to them, they will not be able to drive properly. But if they ignore the person entirely, they might be caught off guard. Similarly, we need to be aware of the physical reality around us, and we also need to be aware of how we are reacting to that reality at an emotional level. What kind of feelings are coming up within us? What thoughts are popping up in our minds?

As I mentioned earlier, think of the mind as a control center with five entrances—five doors, from which closed-circuit cameras are routed to the control center. The security in charge should observe all the windows and then focus on the one that seems important. For instance, if a character looks suspicious, the security officer might zoom in on that window to get a clearer view. They may observe and decide, “Okay, this person might need a more thorough identity check,” and then instruct others accordingly, such as asking them to verify the person’s identity or to keep an eye on them.

In a similar way, while all five senses are giving us inputs, we consciously choose to focus on some of them. For example, you might be sitting and hearing things, but at the same time, you might feel that your back isn’t comfortable and you might want to stretch your legs. These physical sensations are coming in, but you may decide that it’s not a big issue. Perhaps you tell yourself, “This class isn’t too long, so I can stretch later,” or you might stretch briefly and continue without paying much attention to it.

That sensation coming through the sense of touch is like one window of input. You decide whether to maximize the focus on it or minimize it. At this moment, you may choose to focus on the windows of sound and sight to pay attention to what’s being spoken. However, the mind has its own programming, and sometimes it automatically maximizes or minimizes certain windows based on our attachments and desires.

For example, when someone is very attached to something, that particular window—such as the craving for a certain object—might pop up and automatically grab their full attention. This is where we need to be aware: which window is getting maximized? Which one is drawing our attention away?

For instance, the security officer might be assigned to observe various doors, but if something unrelated pops up on their computer, such as a Facebook notification, they might start paying attention to that instead. Meanwhile, a suspicious person could slip through unnoticed, creating a potential risk. Similarly, the mind is meant to help us focus and function in the physical reality, but it can also distract us. We need to be aware of both the external situation (the physical reality) and the internal situation (our mental state or emotions). In Hindi, we say paristhiti (external situation) and manasthiti (mental state). Being mindful means being aware of both.

Now, let’s talk about the term “mindful.” What does it literally mean? It doesn’t mean “full of the mind.” It doesn’t mean that we should focus only on the mind itself. Instead, it means that we should recognize that the mind can be distracting and we shouldn’t let ourselves get carried away by it. “Don’t fool with the mind”—this means not tampering with it unnecessarily or provoking it. Rather, we need to observe it, understand it, and process it without letting it take control.

In essence, if we are not mindful, our mind can make us act foolishly. Now, I’d like to take a slight detour and discuss how the word “mind” can have multiple meanings. In the philosophical context of the Bhagavad Gita, the mind refers to the link between the soul and the body, as I explained earlier. However, in common usage, the word “mind” can mean different things.

For instance, when we ask, “Have you lost your mind?” we’re referring to intelligence or sanity—meaning, “Why are you acting this way?” It implies that the person is not thinking rationally. Similarly, when we say, “Give this your full mind,” we are asking where your attention is or whether you’re focusing on something. The word “mind” can also refer to a person’s intellectual capability, as in, “Einstein was one of the greatest scientific minds of the last century.” In this case, “mind” refers to a highly intelligent person.

The word “mind” can have different meanings. One such meaning is found in the expression mind over matter, or in philosophy, the mind-matter duality. In this philosophical sense, the word “mind” refers to something beyond the physical world of matter, something non-material. In Western philosophy, the mind is often equated with everything that is non-physical, while the physical world, or reality, is considered the realm of matter. So, mind over matter refers to the idea of rising above material stimuli to control oneself by raising one’s consciousness. This duality—mind versus matter—reflects how we often need to transcend material distractions and control our own responses.

The word “mind” can have many different meanings, so when we say “be mindful,” we are asking someone to be thoughtful, to use their intelligence, and to be aware. Here, “mind” refers to attention and intelligence—be attentive, be aware, be mindful. If you find these different senses of the word “mind” confusing, you don’t need to worry too much about it. But it’s helpful to understand that the word “mind” can mean different things depending on the context.

In philosophy of language, it’s understood that the meaning of words is not only found in the dictionary. The meaning is also shaped by the context in which the word is used. A word is like a chess piece—just a piece by itself, but its meaning depends on the rules of the game. For example, a pawn may seem insignificant, but if it’s in a critical position on the board, its value can increase dramatically. Similarly, words must be understood based on the context they are used in. Generally, when we refer to the word “mind,” we are speaking about the link between the soul and the body. The mind can either link them or sometimes distract us.

Now, let’s talk about how we can be more mindful. We all have the capacity to be aware and attentive. For example, right now, you are aware that you need to focus on this class. However, we all have room to enhance our mindfulness—this is why we are discussing how we can be more mindful. By being more aware of what we are doing and feeling, we can stay focused.

Based on the sixth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, there are three key principles for becoming more mindful: persistence, intelligence, and transcendence.

1. Persistence refers to the need for repeated practice.
2. Intelligence means not only practicing but doing so thoughtfully, using your intelligence.
3. Transcendence refers to the object of focus, which should be transcendental in nature.

Now let’s explore each principle.

Persistence

In Bhagavad Gita 6.26, Krishna says:
“Wherever and whenever the mind wanders, bring it back under the control of the self.”

Krishna acknowledges that the mind will wander. Don’t expect to focus and have your mind stay focused right away. The mind will stray, but we need to persist and bring it back into focus. This persistence is key in developing mindfulness and meditation. If you’re practicing Bhakti chanting, for example, the mind will wander, but you must keep bringing it back, again and again.

Persistence is critical in training the mind. Think of the mind as a child—it won’t mature overnight, but with time and patience, it will. Similarly, our restless minds need time to mature, and we must be patient and persistent. Each time the mind strays and we refocus it, we are slowly training it. It may feel like we are starting over every day, like climbing a mountain and slipping back down, but each time we refocus, we are making progress. Even if the results aren’t immediately visible, we are improving through consistent practice.

Next, we come to intelligence. Intelligence means that the mother should not simply wait for the child to grow up on its own. The mother is feeding the child, and if the child is not studying, the mother focuses on the child. The child might not focus, but the mother must focus. Feeding the child means giving the child what nourishes it, and focusing means guiding the child. The child might not focus, but the mother has to focus, just like intelligence must guide the mind.

The mother also guards and guides the child. Guarding means preventing certain things, like “don’t do this” or “don’t let this happen,” while guiding means directing the child on what to do, like “do this.” Broadly speaking, these are prescriptions (what to do) and proscriptions (what to avoid). The mind, like a child, must be mentored—it needs to grow and develop, and simply having persistence isn’t enough. Intelligence must guide that persistence.

For example, if someone wants to become a top-notch archer, they need to practice by shooting many arrows. It’s not the first shot that will hit the bullseye; it’s through continuous practice. An Olympic archer may shoot thousands or even millions of arrows to perfect their aim. This represents persistence. However, persistence alone isn’t enough—intelligence is needed. The archer must analyze why they missed and adjust their technique. Maybe they need to adjust their arm position, or perhaps they need a different bow. Intelligence is needed to understand what works best and improve the aim.

Similarly, when we try to focus the mind, we need intelligence to help us understand what works and what doesn’t. Guarding and guiding means identifying things that help and things that distract. For example, if I want to study the Bhagavad Gita, I can guide myself by keeping a picture of Krishna nearby to inspire me. I can also listen to recitations of the verses to help me get into a more spiritual mindset. Guarding would mean avoiding distractions, like keeping my phone on silent or away from my study space, to avoid interruptions.

In this way, intelligence becomes a crucial tool in focusing the mind. In the Chaitanya Charitamrita, it is said:
“Siddhanta baliya chitte na kareya alas, Iha hai te Krishna lage sudruda manas.”
This means that when we study spiritual philosophy, we should not be lazy about it. If we understand the teachings with intelligence, we can focus our mind and deepen our conviction. The intelligence needed to understand philosophy and Krishna’s teachings will help us stay focused.

In Bhagavad Gita 6.25, Krishna says:
“Shanai shanai rupaname buddhya dhruti gruhitaya, atma samstham mana hurtva na kinchid api chintayet.”
With intelligence and sustained conviction, we can gradually control the mind. Intelligence will guide us to focus the mind properly.

Transcendence

Transcendence refers to the object of focus. When we meditate, we need an object of meditation. Some people may focus on the tip of the nose or a candle flame, and while this can help, it is better to focus on a divine object. Krishna, the all-attractive Supreme Being, is the ultimate object of focus. Once we focus on Krishna, our mind begins to find rest in Him.

The difference between focusing on other objects and focusing on Krishna is that Krishna is inherently all-attractive and all-purifying. As we get connected with Krishna and absorbed in Him, this focus will gradually purify our hearts and minds from distractions and impurities. This is the essence of meditating on Krishna—it leads to deep absorption.

The last verse of Chapter 6 (6.47) in Bhagavad Gita says:
“Among all the yogis, the topmost are those who focus their minds on Me.”

This highlights the ultimate goal of meditation: to focus on Krishna, who purifies and elevates the mind to the highest level.

Krishna is the supreme transcendental reality, and focusing on Him is the best way to manage the mind. By making our mind full of Krishna, we take mindfulness to its fullness. This means surrounding ourselves with Krishna-related stimuli and filling our consciousness with the intention to serve Krishna. Through inner remembrance and outer service, when our mind is filled with Krishna, mindfulness reaches its full potential, and we can experience the joy of living by being absorbed in Krishna.

Summary

To summarize what I discussed today, the primary focus was on the mind. We started by looking at the two senses of the self: one as the observer and chooser, and the other as the distractor. The distractor can be identified as the mind, while the chooser is the soul.

The mind’s role is to be a conduit for consciousness, which comes from the soul, the root. The mind acts like software that integrates various stimuli and presents them to the soul. However, it also serves as a distractor—like a person sitting next to you while you’re driving, constantly causing distractions. This is why the mind is often considered an enemy due to its four attributes: it is restless (chanchala), reasonless (pramati), ruthless (ballavad), and relentless (drudham).

Being mindful means being aware of both our external situations and internal emotions. It involves being conscious of both physical reality and mental reality.

We also discussed various senses of the word “mind”: it can refer to attention, intelligence, and the non-material realm. It also acts as the link between the body and the soul. Lastly, we explored how we can be more mindful by practicing persistence, intelligence, and transcendence. Just as a child takes time to grow, we need to be patient with our minds, refocusing and using intelligence, just like an archer adjusts their technique to hit the target. Transcendence refers to focusing on Krishna, the all-attractive Supreme, who is not just an object of concentration but an active source of purification. As we focus on Krishna, the distracting influences within the mind will gradually be purged, bringing mindfulness to its fullness.

Questions

Now, let’s address some questions.

Why are the senses more attracted to sense objects, and why do even great sages fall into temptation after long practice? What is the hope for us?

This attraction is based on the impressions within the mind. Whatever impressions we have formed, whether in this life or previous ones, will continue to influence us. For example, if we have indulged in lust, anger, or greed in the past, we may be drawn to those tendencies again. However, through persistent practice of bhakti, these impressions will slowly shift. As we continue practicing, the impressions within us will begin to attract us towards Krishna instead of material desires.

Just like an alcoholic who, when passing a bar, is already tempted by thoughts before even entering, our past indulgences leave impressions in the mind. But as we persist in bhakti practice, gradually, these impressions will be replaced with those that attract us to Krishna.

Regarding the great sages who fall into temptation, it’s important to understand that managing the mind is one of the most challenging tasks. Success doesn’t come easily in any difficult area of life. For instance, thousands of athletes dream of winning an Olympic gold, but only one wins every four years. If they were to focus on all those who didn’t succeed, it would discourage them. Similarly, we must be patient and persistent, learning from both the successes and failures along the way.

Learning from Successes and Failures

In the scriptures, we are presented with stories of both successful and failed characters. We look to those who succeeded for inspiration and try to learn from their paths. Similarly, when we encounter characters who failed, we reflect on their mistakes and use those lessons to avoid repeating them. Life is a challenge, and we must be prepared for it. Even champion athletes may stumble during the final lap and not win. It’s possible for someone who has come a long way to falter and not finish, but in future sessions, we will discuss how spiritual life is different from material life. In material life, if we don’t succeed, we lose and may even lose everything. However, in spiritual life, any progress we make stays with us forever. So, even if we fall, it’s not a permanent loss. It’s just a temporary distraction, not degradation. Our spiritual assets are never lost. We’ll explore this idea more in future sessions. This is why we must always remain positive and hopeful, continuing our journey of spiritual growth.

Questions and Answers

What happens when someone experiences paranoia or bipolar disorder? What is the state of their mind?

This question relates to another complex area, but I will provide a brief answer. Paranoia and bipolar disorder are terms used to describe certain states of the mind, but these are often categorized based on symptoms rather than underlying causes. The mind is different from the brain, and understanding mental health is not always as straightforward as understanding physical health.

The brain is part of the physical body, while the mind is non-physical and subtle. The mind is like software that interacts with the brain (hardware), and it processes the impressions and stimuli that we encounter. When we refer to the “heart,” we can mean different things. It can refer to the physical organ, but more commonly, it represents the center of emotions or the seat of our feelings. In this sense, the heart can refer to either the mind or the soul, depending on where emotions are coming from. In a pure spiritual sense, the heart is the soul, but often emotions originate from the mind.

Do desires come from the mind or the soul?

Desires can arise from various sources. They can come from the physical body (e.g., seeing an object and desiring it) or from the mind (e.g., a person who has a habit of drinking may feel the desire for alcohol). Desires can also move in the opposite direction: from the mental level to the physical level, where they manifest in action.

The desire itself comes from the soul because the soul is the source of consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no capacity for desire. In a pure spiritual state, desires originate directly from the soul. However, at our current level, many of our desires are influenced by the mind and the body. Our desires for spiritual growth and connection with Krishna are often prompted by the mind, which is influenced by our associations and external stimuli. In a pure state, the soul will directly manifest spiritual desires without external influence.

What happens with bipolar disorder and paranoia?

Bipolar disorder and paranoia are labels given to certain states of the brain, but it’s important to note that mental health is not as clear-cut as physical health. Unlike physical illnesses caused by pathogens, there is no identifiable “pathogen” causing mental health disorders. The mind and brain are closely connected, but the mind itself is non-physical. The brain can be seen as part of the physical hardware that processes the thoughts and experiences we have. If the brain suffers physical damage (like a chemical imbalance), it can affect mental functioning. However, the soul remains distinct from the mind and body.

In mental health disorders, there is often a misalignment between the soul, mind, and body. The soul should be the guiding force, and the mind should channel consciousness appropriately. However, in cases like paranoia or bipolar disorder, there can be a misalignment, causing distorted perceptions and disconnection from reality. This misalignment can lead to hallucinations or false perceptions. Essentially, mental health issues arise when the mind becomes disconnected from the soul and body, leading to dysfunction. The greater the misalignment, the more pronounced the mental health problems can become.

Dealing with Mental Health and Mind’s Distractions

There are different ways to deal with mental health challenges. If there is structural or biochemical damage to the brain, psychiatric intervention is not only recommended but may also be necessary. However, sometimes psychotherapy, which involves talking and understanding, can also be beneficial. Spirituality, similarly, involves communication and the purification of the mind. The forces causing the misalignment of the mind can be reduced through spiritual practices.

Regarding medication, it can be helpful, particularly when there is damage to the brain. It aids in supporting the brain’s function. However, the question arises: why is the mind so easily distracted? The mind is not inherently designed to be distracting, but we have developed these tendencies over many past lives. These distractions are a result of past choices and experiences. The mind is like software—if we repeatedly visit certain websites, our browser will automatically direct us to those sites when we type a related keyword. Similarly, if we’ve been repeatedly distracted by certain things, our mind gravitates toward them. For example, if we’ve frequently visited bollywood.com, typing “b” might automatically bring up that site. This highlights the mind’s patterns of distraction, shaped by past habits.

Later, I will explain the three modes of material nature and their influence on our minds.

Emotions, Intelligence, and Control of the Mind

Emotions are connected to the mind, but not directly to the intelligence. The role of intelligence is to process these emotions and guide our actions accordingly. The mind itself is not inherently rational—it is often driven by irrational impulses. To manage the mind, persistence, intelligence, and transcendence are key, as we discussed earlier in the class.

As we delve deeper into the spiritual world, we will explore more ways to be attentive, focusing on persistence, intelligence, and transcendence. Keep practicing these principles, be patient, and find things that help you focus. For instance, keep a picture of Krishna, a quote about the holy name, or any spiritual stimulus that can help center your mind. If the mind struggles to focus on the point of meditation, try using a broader circle of concentration to guide your practice.

Challenges with Chanting and Creating Habits

One of the questions I’ll address is why chanting, despite efforts, doesn’t always create lasting impressions or habits. Chanting can be difficult—similar to meditation, the path to relaxation is through concentration. It’s like lifting weights: initially exhausting, but it builds strength over time. Similarly, chanting is a form of spiritual exercise that helps purify us. Though Krishna is supremely heavy, invoking Him into our consciousness and focusing on Him strengthens us.

If you find your interest in chanting waning, don’t reduce your connection with Krishna to chanting alone. Explore other ways of connecting, such as listening to classes, attending satsangs, or worshipping the deity. Stay connected with Krishna in whatever way works for you. Gradually, these connections will expand, and we will discuss more ways to improve meditation in future sessions.

Remember, chanting is a struggle, but it’s a struggle that purifies the mind. Just as a workout is challenging but beneficial, chanting has its benefits despite the challenge. Instead of focusing on when you’ll develop a taste for chanting, consider it as a spiritual exercise. The goal is the purification of the mind, not the immediate pleasure it may bring.

Thank you for your attention, and we will address the remaining questions in the next session or send answers in audio format.

Hare Krishna!

The post Gita key verses course 18 – What is mind & mindfulness? How can I become more mindful? – Gita 06.05 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Our topic is why religious people sometimes are sectarian and it is better to be spiritual, not religious. So, we will discuss based on 5.18 in the Bhagavad Gita. That is our next slide. That is: Samadarshinaha. Samadarshinaha is to see equally. And Panditaha. What happens over here is the wise people, the Panditas, they see everyone equally. And this equality applies not just to all human beings, but to all living beings. And this verse talks about a whole spectrum of humanity. Now, we will be discussing later the concept of the three modes when we come to the appropriate section, but broadly, the three modes convey the mentality or the disposition of people. Vidya Vinaya Sampannya, one who is learned and humble, that kind of a wise Brahmana, spiritual, intellectual. Gavi Hastini. Gavi Hastini is an elephant and cow. And a dog and a dog-eater.

Now, often people, especially in the Vedic context, are classified according to what they consider as consumable, edible. So, Swapaka is considered to be a person who doesn’t have much discrimination in what is to be eaten. As the word’s literal translation is a dog-eater. So, basically, all human beings, from those who would be considered the most evolved to those who are considered least evolved. A Brahmana and an indiscriminate consumer of animal flesh. Basically, the idea is that there is equal vision. Pandita Samadarshina.

Now, it’s interesting that while the statement about equal vision is made, there is also a factual, there is also an acceptance or acknowledgment of a functional vision. Functional vision means that yes, this particular living being is a dog, this particular living being is an elephant, this particular living being is a cow, this particular human being is from this kind of social categorization. So, there is a functional identification also that is there, but beyond that, there is a spiritual vision of Samadarshina.

Now, how are all living beings equal? Because everybody is a part of, everybody is essentially spiritual, everybody beyond their bodily coverings is a soul. So, in that sense, because everybody is a soul and all souls are essentially equal, just the level of consciousness of the soul varies from person to person. So, in that sense, there is difference, but otherwise, there is equality. So, this understanding is vital for gaining clarity.

So, let’s move on to the next slide. We will be discussing what causes the kind of sectarianism or discrimination that comes up. So, basically, for functioning in any aspect of life, there is a combination of hierarchy and equality. Suppose, say, a plane is to be flown from New York to LA. Now, we could say, okay, all passengers are equal. Well, not exactly. Right in the beginning, the announcement comes that everybody should follow the instructions of the crew. And the crew follows the instructions of the captain. So, if everybody in an airplane were said to be equal, then could any passenger go and sit in the captain’s seat or could anyone just take charge of the airplane, practically piloting it or overall directing it? No. There is a hierarchy required.

So, in every aspect of life, we see hierarchy. Say, for example, during mafia driving on a road, then the traffic cops, they are at a higher hierarchy. And if they tell that you have to stop or you’re speeding, you get a ticket, then people get a ticket. So now, at one level, nothing will function without hierarchy. So, even at home, if we say, everybody is equal, fine. But then if there is some food to be cooked, well, somebody might know cooking, another person might not know cooking at all. So, even if everybody is pitching in to cook, it might be better that the person who knows how to cook take the lead and direct everyone else.

For functioning effectively, hierarchy is required. Hierarchies are essential because different people have different degrees of competence. But at the same time, equality is also needed. Say, for example, if we are seated and staff serves everyone but doesn’t serve some people, and then why are they not served? Maybe it’s because of their race, maybe it’s because of something else. Then that will be discrimination, and that would be unfair. If some people are given more tickets than others, that would be considered discriminatory. If food is cooked but some people are not given food, that would be considered discriminatory. So, equality has to be there.

We could say that there has to be hierarchy in terms of authority for deciding, but at the same time, there has to be equality in terms of opportunity.

So, let’s move forward. Without hierarchy, what happens? See, if there is only emphasis on hierarchy, there is an over-emphasis that can lead to tyranny. In such cases, we have tyrannical governments, and we have tyrannical leaders where “I am the boss, and that’s why you have to obey me.” If there is only emphasis on hierarchy without consideration of competence, then that can become tyrannical. In the modern world, most of the societies have democratic governments, which basically hold that people elect who will be the leader.

Generally, if a person is a king who has inherited the kingdom, there is a certain amount of suspicion that this person might be tyrannical. So, there is over-emphasis on hierarchy that leads to tyranny. On the other hand, if there is over-emphasis on equality, that leads to anarchy. Why anarchy? Because, as we discussed, if it is said that anybody can drive a plane, that won’t work. Different people have different degrees of competence.

So then, what is the solution? There has to be a balance of hierarchy and equality.

Now, how does this apply in the spiritual context? The word religious has now acquired a certain negative connotation. That’s why many people want to be religious but not spiritual. So, in general, what happens is religious people emphasize hierarchy over equality. For example, if within a religious structure, say, if somebody goes to a temple or somebody goes to a church, and certain aarti is being performed, certain sacraments are being performed, then the performer of the sacrifice—who maybe showers or sprinkles sacred water on others—is considered at a purer level.

Now, at a functional level, maybe they follow higher standards of friendliness and hygiene. Maybe they take a bath and purify themselves physically. But the idea is that for performing any kind of specific ceremonies, practices, or rituals, especially those involving a mass of people, there is a hierarchy involved. And this hierarchy is what is emphasized by religious people. So, there could be people in positions of authority, such as those performing rituals or overseeing them. There could also be institutional authority, where some people hold power within the structure.

When hierarchy is emphasized over equality, that sort of attitude is common among religious people. On the other hand, among spiritual people, there is an emphasis on equality over hierarchy.

So, equality over hierarchy means everybody is equal. Everybody is essentially equal, and an egalitarian attitude is there. Naturally, we might gravitate toward the spiritual way of looking at things. Everybody should be considered equal. Yes, that is true. But spirituality is also a process for growth. In one of our earlier sessions, we had discussed how spiritual and material are levels of consciousness, and it’s like going up a mountain. The bottom of the mountain is material consciousness, and the top of the mountain is spiritual consciousness. We need to rise from material consciousness to spiritual consciousness.

To go up the mountain, there can be different paths. Now, somebody might be more experienced in climbing up the mountain. Somebody might already be situated higher, and they can see better and guide us, telling us, “Okay, go this way, don’t go that way.” So, from a functional perspective, there could be people who need to guide the mountain climbing expedition, and there has to be some amount of authority. Ideally speaking, the authority should be based on competence.

Now, religion, although the word has a negative connotation, essentially means the path by which someone can go from material consciousness to spiritual consciousness. Different people can have different religions in terms of what they follow specifically, but essentially, there is a path to be followed. And following the path, a certain structure of authority, a certain hierarchy, will be required. Ideally speaking, the hierarchy should be based on competence. This means those who are at the top of the mountain should be spiritually more evolved. They should be wiser and more realized, and then they can guide others in rising to spiritual consciousness.

So, when there is this understanding of a balanced sort of understanding—there is spiritual and there is religious—religious people just focus on, “Yeah, I am at a higher position, you are at a lower position, offer your respects to me.” Well, okay, some amount of respect has to be offered, but the idea is that everybody is equal in the sense that everyone has the potential to rise to the top. And everybody needs to be given the potential and opportunity to rise to the top.

Now, of course, we are not going so much into religious sectarianism here because we discussed earlier how there can be different paths of the mountain. Some people might claim that my path is the only path to the mountain, and we discussed exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism earlier. Exclusivism says “my path is the only path,” pluralism says “all paths are right,” and inclusivism says “there is one purpose, and many paths are included within that purpose.” The purpose is to go up the mountain, and different paths might take us to the top of the mountain.

We will now see how religious but spiritual misapplication can happen. Among various cultures across the world, India has probably the spiritual wisdom tradition that asserts universal equality. Whether it is the Advaithic or Dvaithic tradition, they say that essentially we are all Atma. Now, the relation of the Atma or the Paramatma might be a matter of difference, but the point is that universal equality is very strongly asserted as a philosophical truth.

Yet, India is also characterized by a social structure that imposes severe discrimination: the caste system. We see how this can lead to cognitive dissonance. Philosophically, it is said that everyone is equal, but practically, society was so stratified that certain people were considered untouchables. They could not even enter certain areas or touch certain things. If they came into contact with specific water, they could be punished. Some people were strongly discriminated against.

So, what happened here? Why did the philosophical truths not play out and were not demonstrated in real life? Returning to the hierarchy and equality principle, we can look at another pendulum. At one extreme is ritualism, where externals alone matter—this is the hierarchy and what is right, that is wrong. At the other extreme is sentimentalism, where externals don’t matter at all. What the Gita and many spiritual traditions across the world say is that externals are ways to the internals. There are certain spiritual practices; spirituality is not just a state of mind, but a level of consciousness attained by doing something at a practical level. And that practical doing is the essence of spiritual growth.

So, the externals matter, just like we can’t sentimentally say that the bottom and top of the mountain are equal, or that somebody at the bottom and somebody at the top of the mountain are equal. No, everybody has equal spiritual potential, and everyone can rise to the top, but they actually have to go through the journey to rise to the top.

Now, when ritualism is emphasized, as happened in the caste system, what was the cause of the irony? Without an emphasis on education about the purpose of the hierarchy—the purpose of the hierarchy and the purpose of the entire structure ultimately—the external is seen as essential. In the case of the caste system, the external thing was birth. Which particular dynasty or caste you were born into became seen as essential.

When you talk in terms of the bottom and the top of the mountain, it seems very simple. Yes, everybody has to go to the top, and a hierarchy might be needed to guide how to get there. But the spiritual journey often takes a long time. The bottom and the top are not always so clearly visible. What happens is that the ultimate purpose is sometimes overlooked, and hierarchies are seen not as functional but as foundational or central. Then, people say, “I am here, I need to be respected, and you are down there, you need to be revived.” This is what happened in the caste system.

The caste system was meant for cooperation but became a tool for discrimination. This kind of discrimination doesn’t only happen within the Indian tradition. Hierarchies are often created across the world, and that leads to discrimination. When the British came to India, for example, they thought that white people were superior. But it wasn’t just white people—it was specifically white men. Until the start of the 20th century, especially before the World Wars, men held central positions of authority.

It wasn’t that men were exploiting women—men and women were meant to cooperate, functioning as a family unit and a social unit, with the family being the fundamental social unit. However, wherever there is a hierarchy, there is a tendency to move toward tyranny. When this happens, the hierarchy needs to be challenged and curtailed.

In the caste system, Brahmanas began claiming superiority because they were born into higher castes. This also happened to some extent with the Kshatriyas. People’s essential and lifelong identity became tied to their birth, rather than being functional. The four varnas—Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra—are meant for social cooperation so that everyone can contribute according to their natural inclinations and endowments. Some people will play ministerial roles, some will play managerial roles, others will be mercantile, and some will play mechanical roles like artisans. All of these roles are important for the social system.

We’ll talk more about how the caste system contributes to spiritual growth when we discuss varnashram later. But for now, our point is different. The caste system serves as an example of how sectarianism, discrimination, and tyranny can arise within a spiritual context. These issues emerge when there is an overemphasis on externals rather than internals.

Now, we move on to a four-quadrant diagram. On the X-axis is “religious,” and on the Y-axis is “spiritual.” If people are neither religious nor spiritual, they will be materialistic. If people are religious but not spiritual, they are ritualistic—they just perform specific rituals and that’s all. If someone claims they are spiritual but not religious, this can be a good sentiment. They might say, “I don’t want any discrimination,” but it can lead to people becoming overly sentimental. Just like everyone can cook in the kitchen, everyone can cook, but that doesn’t mean everyone is equally good at it. If you want good food, not everyone will be equally able to produce it.

Yes, everybody is essentially spiritual, but we all need guidance on how to grow spiritually. And that guidance should be based on where someone is in terms of their spiritual growth. Sentimentalism refers to the rejection of hierarchy. Spiritual but not religious means someone is open-minded, and doesn’t believe their path is the only right path, which is fine.

Today, the word “spiritual” is used in a more positive sense, and “religious” is often used in a negative sense. However, this distinction is quite recent. Even 50-60 years ago, Albert Einstein said that the deepest appreciation of the universe, when we see the harmony and intricacy of nature, is a religious appreciation of the universe. When he used the term “religious,” he meant it in the same positive sense that we now use “spiritual.”

The idea here is that when there is an openness to some higher or deeper truths in life, an eagerness to explore what lies beyond what is just apparent, that is what is called “spiritual.” Originally, the term “religious” was meant to guide us toward that non-material reality, ultimately toward the ultimate non-material reality, which is God.

Now, if there is to be transformational growth, there has to be a combination of both religious and spiritual practices. We need to be religiously spiritual. Being religiously spiritual means that when we are trying to climb up a mountain, we must religiously, or diligently, follow the path that will take us up. But while following this path, we also need to recognize that there is a purpose to the path, and it’s not just adherence to the path that will take us up. There are different paths, and different people can ascend by following their specific paths. This combination of religious adherence and spiritual openness is what leads to transformational growth.

So, there must be both religious and spiritual elements together. We can call it “religiously spiritual” or “spiritually religious,” but the point is that both must combine for growth. This dynamic plays out in various ways in today’s world. Sectarianism arises when a hierarchy is emphasized. The hierarchy may serve a purpose at a particular level, but if the purpose of the hierarchy is forgotten, then the hierarchy should be relegated to a lower place, and not overly emphasized.

In fact, the Bhagavatam, which talks about Bhakti through various examples, is a remarkably subversive book. By “subversive,” I mean that the traditional structures of hierarchy are repeatedly subverted to emphasize the importance of Bhakti (devotion). I have a whole class on this, discussing how, time and time again, almost every significant past time in the Bhagavatam subverts religious structures. So, as we approach Narsimha Chaturdashi, which is soon, the defining character of this celebration is the exemplary devotion of Prahlad.

Normally, there is a cosmic hierarchy: there are godly beings and ungodly or demoniac beings, with the divine considered higher than the demoniac. Prahlad, however, was born in a demoniac family, but through his devotion, he surpasses even the greatest of divine beings. In this way, Prahlad’s devotion subverts the normal divine and demoniac hierarchy.

Similarly, the Bhagavatam is full of examples where hierarchy is inverted in favor of Bhakti. For instance, there is the story of Ambarish Maharaj and Durvasa. Durvasa, a Brahmana and a Sannyasi, is spiritually lacking—he is short-tempered and judgmental. When he visits Ambarish Maharaj and sees that Ambarish is eating before him, Durvasa becomes enraged and tries to punish him. However, when he attempts to attack Ambarish Maharaj, it is Durvasa who becomes the target of the Lord’s anger. The Sudarshan Chakra chases Durvasa, and eventually, he must seek forgiveness not from the Lord, but from Ambarish Maharaj, a Kshatriya householder.

This is an inversion of the typical social hierarchy, where a Brahmana and Sannyasi seeks forgiveness from a Kshatriya grahastha. The point is that hierarchies can be inverted.

Another vivid example of the inversion of hierarchy comes from the Krishna Leela in the 10th Canto of the Bhagavatam. In this story, a group of Brahmanas is performing a grand sacrifice. These Brahmanas are focused entirely on their rituals and are disdainful of any interruptions. Krishna’s cowherd friends come to them asking for food, but the Brahmanas refuse, even though Krishna himself has requested it. Later, Krishna instructs his friends to go to the Brahmanas’ wives, who immediately recognize Krishna’s request and bring the best food to him.

The purpose of the rituals, after all, was to please the Gods, and Krishna is the highest of the Gods. But the Brahmanas, so caught up in the rituals, missed the ultimate purpose of their actions. They were religious but not spiritual—they emphasized the external ritual without recognizing its deeper, spiritual meaning.

On the other hand, the Brahmana Patnis, the wives of the Brahmanas, were assisting their husbands in the performance of the rituals. They did not reject the rituals. In fact, they had cooked the elaborate feast and made various arrangements for the sacrifice. This was not an indiscriminate rejection of all rituals, as sometimes happens when spiritual life is rejected entirely. However, there are times when what is conventionally considered religious actually comes in the way of being spiritual.

In a normal, functional way, we follow the religious path to become spiritual. But sometimes, what is considered religious becomes so ritualistic and fossilized that it no longer raises one to a higher consciousness or leads to spiritual growth. In such cases, it may need to be set aside.

The example of the Yajna Brahmana Patnis shows that while they may not have been experts in religious rituals, they were deeply grounded in the spiritual purpose of the rituals. This demonstrates that hierarchy can sometimes be misleading, and that the purpose must always be kept in mind.

To avoid the negative consequences of hierarchy, we need to avoid tyranny and sectarianism. We must function according to hierarchy but with equality in mind. This means remembering that everyone is essentially equal in terms of spiritual potential. We should not let hierarchy become the sole defining factor, as doing so can lead to discrimination and sectarianism.

To harmonize hierarchy and equality, we must focus on spiritual growth. The key question should always be: what will lead us and others to higher consciousness? If we keep this focus, we can all grow harmoniously and steadily, and ultimately, we can all realize our spiritual potential and reach the top of the mountain.

To summarize, I spoke about why religious people can become sectarian and whether it is better to be spiritual but not religious. I explained that sectarianism arises when those in authority consider themselves elite and special and push others down. People who belong to a particular path may think they are special just because of their affiliation, without considering their actual position. The key idea is that for effective functioning, there has to be a hierarchy. But this hierarchy must be based on competence, as we see in fields like driving, cooking, or flying an airplane—without a hierarchy, there can be anarchy. However, if hierarchy is emphasized too much, with no recognition of equality, it can lead to tyranny.

We also discussed the “pendulum” of extremes. One extreme is focusing only on externals in the spiritual path, which can become ritualism. The other extreme is to disregard the importance of rituals or philosophical understanding entirely, which can lead to sentimentalism. The balanced approach is to use externals as a means to grow spiritually.

We also talked about the four quadrants: without being spiritual or religious, a person is materialistic, with no concept or possibility for spiritual growth. Focusing only on being spiritual but not religious can lead to sentimentalism, as it denies the importance of hierarchy and the tangible path of progress. Emphasizing religion without spirituality leads to ritualism. The ideal state is transformational, where both spiritual and religious elements are harmonized. We harmonize hierarchy and equality by acknowledging equality in principle and adopting the hierarchy that helps us grow spiritually. By focusing on the purpose of spiritual growth, we can all advance steadily.

Now, let’s move on to the questions. The first question is: What is the effect of sentimentality, and what are its effects? Pure sentimentality is discouraged in the case of the Brahmana wives.

Sentiment is healthy, and we all want to have spiritual sentiments, such as love for Krishna. However, sentimentality refers to allowing emotions to be the sole deciding factor in our actions, without considering other important aspects. When the Brahmana Patnis went to Krishna, they were driven by deep devotion for him. But they were also open to philosophical instructions from Krishna. They accepted his teachings about how they should continue their social duties while worshiping him inside their hearts.

Sentimentality, on the other hand, means allowing sentiment alone to be the driving force in one’s life. For example, someone might say, “Last night I had a dream about Krishna, and because Krishna came to me in my dream, my life is now perfected. Who needs to do all this sadhana business?” Such thinking overlooks the fact that true spiritual growth is not defined by dreams but by our ongoing practice and relationship with Krishna.

Spirituality is based on how we serve Krishna in our wakeful state because we exercise our free will to move toward him. Sentimentality, however, arises when we claim that we alone are the highest, based on certain parameters we consider absolutely important. For example, we might discuss the principle of the Guru. Every devotee should be inspired by their spiritual master. But if someone starts thinking, “My spiritual master is the greatest, and if you don’t follow my spiritual master, you will not grow spiritually,” this becomes sectarian.

Yes, we should have deep devotion and respect for our spiritual masters, but we must also understand that Krishna can manifest through different spiritual masters for different people. Sectarianism can arise when we say, “Only my spiritual master is a pure devotee, yours is not.” But how can we truly know this? Sentimentality means making our sentiments the sole deciders of our actions, rather than giving them their due place. When sentimentality takes over, it can lead us astray.

Explanation of the Four Quadrants

The first quadrant is self-explanatory. For example, Carl Sagan, in his famous TV series Cosmos, claimed that the cosmos is all that ever existed, all that exists, and all that will ever exist. This is an ideological claim, not a scientific fact. It’s a presumption, which is part of the framework of methodological naturalism in science, assuming that nature is all that exists. However, when such a presumption is presented as a conclusion, it becomes misleading.

A person who claims that there is nothing beyond the material and dismisses all religious rituals as “hocus pocus” would fall into this quadrant. Such a person neither accepts any higher reality nor believes in spirituality.

The second quadrant is someone who is religious but not spiritual. This person emphasizes rituals and practices to the exclusion of everything else. For example, fasting on Ekadashi may be seen as essential to spiritual practice. But if someone criticizes others for not fasting on the same day or from the same foods, this becomes an example of religious practice without true spiritual depth. Such behavior can lead to sectarianism, blinding people to the real essence of spirituality.

An anecdote illustrates the dangers of sectarianism: A Catholic nun, while talking to a teenage girl in an orphanage, was shocked when the girl said, “I want to become a prostitute.” But then the nun relaxed when the girl corrected herself: “Oh, I thought you said I want to become a Protestant!” In this case, the fanaticism for Catholicism led to an absurd perspective, equating the sin of prostitution with the perceived heresy of being Protestant. This shows how sectarianism can distort our understanding of others and blind us to the bigger picture.

The third quadrant represents someone who is spiritual but not religious. This person does not follow any particular spiritual path and may feel spiritual by merely thinking deeply about life. While such a person may have good feelings, spirituality requires a more structured process for growth. There must be both intellectual understanding (doxy) and practical practice (praxy) for true spiritual development.

Spirituality has two key aspects: doxy (orthodoxy) and praxy (orthopraxy). Doxy refers to the intellectual or philosophical aspect of spirituality, while praxy is the practical aspect, involving rituals and practices. Both aspects are meant to help us gain a deeper understanding of spiritual realities and lead us to a higher consciousness. If neither aspect is acknowledged, and there is no effort in practice or philosophical analysis, a person is being spiritual but not religious.

The ideal state is when one is both spiritual and religious. This means acknowledging a particular path and following it diligently while recognizing that others may follow different paths and still grow spiritually. This balance of doxy and praxy is what leads to real spiritual progress.

Difference Between Spirituality and Religion

I have already touched upon the difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality involves experiencing transcendence, and the more we grow spiritually, the more we detach from material desires and become attracted to spiritual experiences. This attachment to the spiritual reduces our craving for sensual experiences, which is a key indicator of spiritual growth.

When we practice sadhana bhakti, if our attraction to Krishna increases and our capacity to resist sensual pleasures grows, we are progressing spiritually. These signs of growth indicate that we are moving towards higher consciousness.

Final Note on Questions

Regarding questions about Parikshit Maharaj, the stories of Parikshit Maharaj differ in the Mahabharata and the Bhagavatam because they occur in different cosmic cycles, and thus, the details may vary slightly.

Each book has a particular purpose, and the narrative is told accordingly. For example, the primary purpose of the Mahabharata is to demonstrate the gradual spiritual growth where someone follows dharma and then attains swarga (heaven). The Mahabharata can be seen as an activist book that focuses on this world. So, naturally, when Parikshit Maharaj is threatened by a curse that is unfair, he tries to resist it. His courtiers and soldiers make arrangements for him to stay on top of a mountain in an enclosed structure to protect himself. Then, a Brahmana comes to see him and offers a fruit. Toward the end of the seventh day, Parikshit Maharaj accepts the fruit, and from it, a snake-like being emerges and bites him, leading to his death.

In contrast, the Bhagavatam tells the story differently: Parikshit Maharaj renounces the world, goes to the forest, sits down for seven days, and listens to the Bhagavatam. A snake-bird comes and bites him, and he dies. This difference in narrative reflects that depending on one’s role in society, one may approach difficulties in different ways.

For example, if a devotee gets cancer, they may think, “This is God’s will; I will accept this and focus on spiritual growth.” This is one approach, and it can be fine if the devotee is older or the chance of recovery is low. However, if someone is young and feels they still have much service to do, they may try vigorously to find a cure through treatments and travels. Both approaches are valid, depending on the person’s consciousness and intent. Parikshit Maharaj, even when striving to protect himself, was focused on the protection of dharma. As long as the king is safe, he can protect dharma; if the king is destroyed, dharma can be destroyed. The key is the consciousness behind the action—whether one sees the body as a tool given by Krishna to grow spiritually or whether one feels that the body is deteriorating and thus focuses entirely on spiritual growth.

These two different approaches to spiritual growth are symbolized by the narratives in the Mahabharata and the Srimad Bhagavatam. In the Mahabharata, the focus is on resisting the inevitable, trying to maintain one’s material position, while the Bhagavatam emphasizes renunciation and complete focus on the spiritual path.

On the Caste System and Equality:

Regarding questions on the caste system, I will discuss it more in a future session, but I will provide a quick answer here about the discrimination against Karana and Ekalavya. Karana’s story is complicated, but Ekalavya’s case is clearer. He was a talented individual but belonged to the Nishadha group, which was disruptive to the Kuru administration. Ekalavya’s refusal by Drona was not only based on caste but also because of his affiliation with a group that opposed the Kauravas. Later, Ekalavya joined forces with Jarasandha, who was an enemy of Krishna. In this context, Ekalavya’s actions and associations reflected his character and tendencies, not just his caste.

In the case of Karana, there were mistakes he made, which will be discussed later. But essentially, there was discrimination, though this was not solely based on caste but also on Karana’s behavior and actions. Krishna, in the Bhagavad Gita, talks about the decline of dharma over time. The society depicted in the Mahabharata was not ideal but had deviated from its ideal principles. In Krishna’s time, society was rigid and stratified, which led to unhealthy discrimination. Krishna came to correct these imbalances.

Regarding the flexibility in the varna system, it depends on the wisdom of the leaders. If the leaders are spiritually aware, they will look beyond external characteristics and focus on a person’s qualities and behavior. The Upanishads, for example, tell the story of Satyakama Jabali, who, despite being born in a lower caste, was acknowledged as a Brahmana because of his truthfulness. Similarly, Narada Muni, born to a maidservant, became such a great sage that even the greatest gods respected him profoundly. These exceptions show that people born in lower hierarchies could rise above their caste through their qualities and spiritual progress.

On Parikshit Maharaj’s Birth:

The Bhagavatam describes that Parikshit Maharaj was revived by Krishna after being struck by Ashwathama’s Brahmastra, which killed him in Uttara’s womb. The Bhagavatam doesn’t explicitly say he was stillborn or revived after death, but it mentions Krishna’s protection. According to Vishwanath Chakravarti’s commentary, Parikshit’s survival and devotion to Krishna were significant. He saw Krishna’s intervention and was deeply devoted to Him, which is why he was so attracted to Krishna.

Thank you for your attention, Hare Krishna!

The post Gita key verses course 17 – Why are religious people so sectarian? – Gita 5.18 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

So, today we discuss 4.34 in the Bhagavad Gita. The topic will be about the spiritual master, the Guru. And here we will be focusing on 4.34 in the Gita.
Tadviddhi pranipaten pariprasnena sevaya upadekshanti te jnaninastatvadarshinaha
So, Tadviddhi pranipaten. Krishna is telling us to know that truth, pranipaten. Go and approach the spiritual master. Tadviddhi pranipaten pariprasnena.
So, Krishna is describing Tadviddhi, to know that. Pranipata, offer your respects, humble submission; praniprasnena, ask questions; and sevaya, render service.
Then by this upadekshanti te jnanam, you will be able to gain knowledge.
Jnaninastatvadarshinah, those great souls, jnaninas, are seers of the truth and they can help you to also understand the truth.
So, till now, the Bhagavad Gita’s flow, the way it is going, is in the fourth chapter, Krishna has been talking about the knowledge that enables us to overcome sensuality and come to spirituality.
So, the first chapter talks about Arjuna’s confusion.
The second chapter talks about Krishna teaching Arjuna his identity and then acting in accordance with that identity.
Then in the third chapter, we discussed how Arjuna understood various levels for functioning.
As we had the third chapter conclude with, the selfish desires for sensuality can sabotage our spirituality.
And then the knowledge in the fourth chapter is called transcendental knowledge by Srila Prabhupada. It is also traditionally called Jnana Karma Sanyasa Yoga.
So, Jnana, that is, the knowledge that enables us to work with renunciation.
So, what is that knowledge that prevents entanglements? We have discussed various aspects of that knowledge till now.
We discussed the principle of revelation in 4.1 and 4.2.
Then we discussed the principle of the divine descent for giving this knowledge.
Then we talked about how there is one purpose, although there can be many different paths toward that purpose in 4.11.
Then in the previous session, we discussed the principle of Karma, more in terms of responsibly choosing our actions.
And then, now in this session, we are going to discuss about if we are going to choose wisely, if we are going to act responsibly.
That was the word we discussed last time.
So, to understand what our Karma is, how do we come to know that? That is with the guidance of the spiritual master.
So, can you go ahead? Next slide.
We will discuss four questions:

1. Do we need a Guru?
2. Why can’t we have a direct relationship with God? Does the Guru come between us and God?
3. How do we know which Guru is right for us?
4. How do we approach this Guru?
   So, let’s begin with the first question: Do I need a Guru?
   Firstly, the word Guru has become very generalized in today’s world.
   Can you go to the next slide?
   So, the Guru refers, in today’s world, to any kind of teacher.
   So, we can have a computer Guru, I can have a music Guru, somebody can say that I have an athletics Guru. The word Guru is used not just for a teacher; the Guru is also used in general for an expert.
   So, Guru, as it is used in the Bhagavad Gita, is somewhat different. In fact, the Gita uses different words to refer to spiritually realized people. It is not limited to the word Guru alone.
   In this context, it uses the word Tattva Darshanaha. Because words can have different meanings. And what is being specifically said can be understood by using different words, which point to that concept.
   So, the concept is a person who is going to guide us in life. And that is the word Guru. It is not just a teacher, but an exemplar—one who lives the truth, not just who teaches the truth. One who demonstrates through their living what is the truth.
   So, another word is Acharya.
   So, here the focus is on the seer. Arjuna’s confusion was caused by seeing. He saw the two armies assembled and he felt that he could not fight.

So, Tattva Darshanaha. Arjuna was not seeing the truth; he was seeing only the material level of reality. Krishna is telling us that the Gurus are those who are seers of the truth. Once there is right seeing, then there can be right doing also. The word Tattva Darshanaha is used here in this verse. The idea is that the Guru sees and then the Guru acts accordingly and helps us to act accordingly. Now, what does the exemplar mean? The next slide illustrates this. There is knowing, doing, and being. Knowing is more informational.

Okay, I know how to drive a car. I know how smoking ruins your lungs. I know what the ingredients are in cooking this. Now, all this information is important. Without knowing, we can’t move forward. But knowing alone is not enough. Knowing is more about taking in information from the outer world. Doing is how we implement it. So, that is the skill to do it well. Knowing is important, but beyond that, doing is also important. And beyond doing, there is also being. Being means that we focus primarily on embodying that way of living.

So, the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita is how we can live without being entangled in this world. How can we live responsibly without getting entangled? And for that purpose, the Gita teaches various things. Its most important teaching is that we work with spiritual consciousness, not with material consciousness. So, the Guru knows the material and spiritual levels of reality. The Guru acts spiritually and doesn’t just act spiritually occasionally, but embodies that. That is what the Bhagavad Gita talks about as Tatvadarshinaha. Once somebody has seen the truth in truth, Tatva means truth, then they will mold themselves accordingly.

The same word Tatva was used earlier in 4.9 in the Bhagavad Gita when Krishna talks about knowing Him in truth. If somebody knows the Lord in truth, then what happens? They become so attracted to Him. They become attracted to Him and they attain Him. They don’t return to this world. That is devotion to the transcendental; devotion to the Lord becomes the defining, integrating, driving feature, virtue, and core of the spiritual master. They can teach us to do the same thing.

Now let’s move forward. In today’s world, there is a lot of suspicion about authority figures. In fact, the postmodern worldview is that we need to reject all authorities because all authorities are exploitative. They are manipulative, they are power-hungry, and that’s why rejecting all authority is talked about. Does the Guru come between us and God? The idea here is that some people feel that in the spiritual domain, what is the need for any authority? I can have a relationship with God, I can approach God, and why should there be any kind of middleman? While there are many people who are atheistic and explicitly reject God, there are many others who are not atheistic but are suspicious about religious people or religious authorities. And there is, of course, reason for such suspicion.

We have, like in any area of life, ultimately human nature that is prone to vice. There are religious authorities who sometimes behave in less than exemplary ways, sometimes in regrettably wrong ways. So then, because of that, suspicion is understandable. Some people feel, why have this middleman? Just let me remove it, I’ll just approach God directly. Or if somebody is not directly theistic, they say, I want to be spiritual, I’ll be spiritual myself. Why do I need someone? That person comes between me and God. Actually, the Guru doesn’t come between us and God. Rather, there is already a lot that is there between us and God. Between us and God, there is a big wall. That wall is two things: bodily impurities and misconceptions. Within our mind, there are many impure desires. Within our intelligence, there are many wrong conceptions or less-than-right conceptions. These act as a block and prevent us from perceiving or connecting with the divine.

What the spiritual master does is help us to remove what comes between us and God. The spiritual master doesn’t come between us and God. Rather, what is already there between us and God, the spiritual master helps us to remove that. Ultimately, yes, we all have a personal relationship with the divine. That personal relationship with Krishna is something we all can relish. The spiritual master doesn’t block, monopolize, restrict, or remove access to God. Rather, the very things that restrict and remove access to God for us, those things are removed by the guidance of the spiritual master.

So why do we need a spiritual master? At one level, we need a teacher in any walk of life. Even for something, even those who say they don’t accept any authority, what are they doing? They may say, “Don’t accept any authority,” but then they are asking us to accept their authority when they are telling such a thing. So we have to accept on their authority that all authority should be rejected. This postmodern rejection of all authority collapses as a self-contradictory assertion. We do follow some authority or the other always.

Now, if we understand clearly what we are doing when we are following the spiritual master: The spiritual master is meant to help us perceive life’s deeper realities, perceive Krishna, and ultimately realize Krishna in our own hearts, relish Krishna’s presence in our hearts. So then we see the guidance of the spiritual master in those terms: how that guidance helps us to remove our various impurities and misconceptions within us. The Tattva Darshinaha, if you see, the spiritual master is seeing the truth and enabling us to see the truth. It is not that the spiritual master says, “I am the truth.” It is not that in that way they come in the way; rather, they help us to remove what is in the way.

And those who reject all authority, what happens to them? One who thinks that they will be their own guru soon has fools as their disciples. He who thinks that he will be his own guru has a fool as his disciple. Why? Because if we think, “I will be my own guru,” then I end up staying in illusion, staying under the control of the impurities and misconceptions that I have. Both the guru and the disciple end up staying as fools.

So now that brings us to the next question: How do we know? How can we find a guru? Here, it is a very important principle to understand that ultimately it is the Lord who is the spiritual master for all of us. It is He who manifests through various mediums. God is present in our hearts. When He rules the hearts of others, then through them, He can guide us. Even if they are not completely devoted, the Lord can use various instruments to guide us toward Him.

So if we understand that whenever we are putting faith in the spiritual master, we are not just putting faith in that person. We are putting faith in Krishna, and Krishna is recommending that we follow a guru. So we follow the spiritual master as an expression of our faith in Krishna. Gradually, the spiritual master deepens our faith in Krishna, and our faith in the spiritual master deepens by that practice of bhakti. Thus, it goes forward. So God is high up in the spiritual world. We are here in the material world. Now it’s very difficult for us to access God directly. When we can’t access God directly, then what happens? We need to access God indirectly. Indirectly means through His spiritual master. So, when we access God through His representative, the spiritual master, the spiritual master is the way we could say God is extending His grace downward to reach out to us, and to help us rise.

So, that is the underlying principle of the spiritual master. Now moving on, the guru is both one and many. “One and many” means that Krishna uses the word jnaninas tattvadarshinah. The word jnaninas is plural. It is not singular. Often, the word gurun is used in many prayers. Gurun is plural. So, the guru is not one; the guru is multiple. There is one in principle and many in manifestation. The idea is that whoever is connected with Krishna and helps us connect with Krishna, that is our guru, that is our spiritual master.

When we approach the spiritual master in this integrated sense, then we understand that the person is important, but ultimately Krishna is also most important. We are connecting with Krishna through the spiritual master. Now, what is the reason for these tattvadarshinah, multiple spiritual masters? The idea is that Krishna is the one who is guiding us through various channels. Of course, we need to have one channel as the primary channel. At the same time, the primary channel is not the exclusive channel. We talked earlier about parampara or tradition. Let’s see this in that light. Can we go to the next slide?

Here, the idea is that when we are working, there is the guru, sadhu, and shastra. Just like a stool can have three feet on which it stands balanced, similarly, the structure of the system for sharing spiritual knowledge is like a tripod. There is a spiritual master, the saintly teachers (sadhus), and shastra, the scripture that gives us knowledge of ultimate reality. Guru, sadhu, and shastra, these three work together, and the guru is the one who teaches shastra primarily to us.

There are different kinds of gurus. Within the Gaudiya tradition, we talk about Diksha guru, Shiksha guru, and Patha Pradarsha guru. The Patha Pradarsha guru is the one who gives us the mantra and the rite of initiation. The Shiksha gurus are those who give us instructions, and the Patha Pradarsha gurus are those who show us the way. Now, beyond the specific technicalities of the nomenclature, the important thing is to understand the principle. The principle is that there is God who is guiding us.

Earlier, I talked about how people today are suspicious about following any authority, or if not suspicious, then at least hesitant about submitting to any authority. It is important to be cautious, and within the tradition itself, there is an awareness. There is a self-critical awareness that wherever there is a role of guidance, there is also the possibility for misguidance. And there is the check-and-balance system through guru, sadhu, and shastra. If we focus only on the guru, then it becomes a personality cult.

Now, there can be some teachers who may themselves be very charismatic and spiritually advanced. But when everything is centered on one personality, the problem with that is it is not sustainable. What if that personality, that person, whoever it is, is mortal in the sense that they live for a finite number of years? What happens after them? Often, any group started by a charismatic founder, unless there is some system to transmit that charisma or authority to subsequent generations, collapses after that. When a guru is made into almost a God for all practical purposes, it can very easily become a personality cult.

The guru represents God, the sadhus represent God, and the shastra represents God. That is how we all can move toward Krishna through these channels. To understand this, let’s consider an example of a university. In a university, if someone decides to do their PhD in particle physics, they need to get admission to the university. There is the principal, head of the department, or dean of the university, who sanctions, stamps, authorizes, and grants entry. This is important.

After that, the PhD candidate might sometimes work directly with the admitting authority, or the PhD guide might be someone different. The student might work a lot more with that particular PhD guide. If a student wants to get a PhD, the Patha Pradarsha guru is the one who tells them, “This is a good university, you can go and learn there.” That is showing the path, Patha Pradarsha. The Diksha guru is like the admitting authority, the one through whom entry is granted. Then, there are the Shiksha gurus who actually teach the student.

What is taught? There are textbooks. Now, the guru, sadhu, and shastra—all of these must work together. There must be harmony among these three, and all three teach together harmoniously. That is how this system of knowledge moves forward. While we often use the term guru in the singular to refer to the one spiritual master, if we look at the scripture itself, there is a far greater emphasis on the process of learning by going to various spiritual teachers and learning from them. We see when Ram was in exile or when the Pandavas were in exile, they were learning from many teachers. The idea is that they would meet saintly people, sit, and discuss.

And we have Yudhishthira often asking questions, sometimes difficult questions he asks. And the saintly people give answers. And it’s not that everybody is parroting the same answer. If we look at the Mahabharata itself, what Markandeya Rishi says or what Vyasa says, it is similar in essence, but there is a different emphasis, a different mood. And the idea is that we all need all the inspiration that we can get to move forward in the spiritual journey. We need wisdom, we need inspiration. So, from wherever we get it, we take it. And if it is helping us move closer to Krishna, we understand that this is the spiritual knowledge.

Just like a student is in a university, the purpose of the university is to learn knowledge. Now, in bhakti, it’s not just intellectual learning, it is transformational learning. It is not just knowing or doing; it is being. So, the personal connection with the spiritual master is also extremely important.

When I give the example of a university, it is, at one level, to contextualize the connection with the spiritual master in terms of the purpose of that connection. The purpose is to help us grow in spiritual knowledge. At the same time, we can go to another example. No example exhaustively covers any spiritual truth. Spiritual truths are themselves, sometimes, transcendental. And every metaphor that we use is meant to help us develop an understanding of that which is beyond all metaphors.

So, the standard metaphor for illustrating the role of metaphors is what is called a shakha chandranyaya. Shakha is branches, chandra is the moon. So, a child who is often habituated to looking around, the mother wants to show that child the moon. Suddenly, it’s not very habitual for the child to look up. So, the mother says, “Do you see the tree?” “Yeah.” “Now, do you see the trunk going up? Do you see that branch going left? Almost horizontal, yes.” “Now, do you see another branch going slightly vertically up?” “Yeah.” “Now, what do you see in between those two branches?” “Oh, okay. I see a shining object.” “Yeah, that’s the moon.” “Oh, okay.”

So, what happens is that the moon is not between the branches, but by pointing to the two branches, the moon can be indicated. Similarly, various metaphors help us to understand the spiritual truths which actually exist often beyond all metaphors.

One metaphor where the focus is on education is the university metaphor. Now, we could go to another metaphor, and that is the understanding that when we are trying to connect with the Lord, that connection is not like a mechanical connection. It is not that we take a screw and put it into a particular socket. It is more of a personal connection. It is an investment of our emotions. It is a redirection of our heart. It is ultimately a matter of love. And we learn to love Krishna by associating with those who love Krishna.

We have not talked elaborately about bhakti till now and the principle of loving the Lord in this course, and we’ll come to that, especially in the ninth chapter. From the sixth chapter, we’ll start discussing that subject elaborately. But at this stage, we need to develop an attraction for the spiritual, develop a connection with the spiritual where there is pure spiritual emotion invested in that connection. And for that connection to be developed, it is important for each one of us to have a means by which that redirection of emotions happens. And we love Krishna by loving those who love Krishna.

So, quite often, it is a gradual step-by-step process. It’s not very easy to suddenly love the Lord. It is that we love those who love the Lord, and gradually by that, we develop love for Him. Our spiritual journey is not like a sudden helicopter zoom, we just rise up. It’s more like an airplane that gradually takes off. So, we need to learn to love those who are devoted to God, who are accessible to us in the world around us. And that gives momentum, momentum, momentum. And then, as the momentum builds, then the plane takes off.

Similarly, loving Krishna is something that happens gradually as we move forward in our spiritual journey by loving those who love Him. And among those who love Krishna, the spiritual master is the one who inspires us to love Krishna the most and who loves Krishna deeply also.

In the Bhagavatam, it is said that we are all bound in this world, prasangam. We are bound by attachments. Ajara is that this is an attachment that never gets old. Jara is age. So, our bodies grow old, but our attachments don’t grow old. We still have the same strength and vigor, the same irresistible grip on us as they had when we were younger. They are very difficult to give up—that’s what wise people know. But if we can direct that affection, if we direct that same attachment towards the divine, towards those who are devoted to the Lord, to sadhu, the saintly people, to the spiritual master and the saintly people, then that very attachment which binds us can also help us move toward liberation, toward spiritual understanding, and towards spiritual liberation ultimately.

So, one is that we develop a very personal one-to-one connection with the spiritual master and that connection kindles and inspires us to love the Lord. So, in this knowing, we talked about knowing, doing, and being earlier. The spiritual master gives us knowledge, and by that knowledge, we start practicing bhakti. And by practicing bhakti, we become permeated with love for Krishna. So, this is what knowing, being, and doing are all about.

The spiritual master is the primary engine who initiates the various processes: the process of gaining knowledge, the process of living according to that knowledge, and the process of becoming permeated with love for God. All of that is initiated by the spiritual master. This is the idea that we all need a spiritual master, but we don’t just need a spiritual master. We need a proper understanding of what the spiritual master is and what the spiritual master does.

So, can we go ahead?

Now, if we consider, what is the proper understanding for approaching the spiritual master? The proper understanding is that when we are choosing, how do I know who is the right guru? Well, don’t worry so much about whether the guru is genuine; work on making yourself genuine.

What do we mean by making ourselves genuine? It means that we focus on trying to make sure that we ourselves are seriously and sincerely seeking spiritual knowledge. Ultimately, Krishna is in our heart, and He will guide us. So, if we focus too much on, “Oh, is my spiritual master, should I follow this authority or that authority, that authority?” then we might stay perpetually in doubt, and doubt can paralyze us.

Earlier, we discussed how on any journey, if you are driving, say, the driving requires an accelerator and a brake. So, in the journey of life, in the journey of developing a relationship, faith is the accelerator and doubt is the brake. And both of them are required; accelerator and brake, gas and brake—both are required. Similarly, faith and doubt both are required. But what is most important is that we should want to drive, we should want to get to the destination. Once we want to get to the destination, we will know, “Okay, now I should press the brake; now I should press the accelerator.”

So, working on making yourself genuine means, “Do I really want to know the ultimate reality? Do I want to love God?” Once we focus on that, often this whole religion business is very confusing. This whole spirituality business, there are so many different people with so many different opinions. How do I know who is right? It is a genuine concern, but it is not that that concern should paralyze us forever.

Just like when we are sick, now something as common as the common cold, there can be very, within allopathy itself, there can be many different treatments for it. And beyond allopathy, there is naturopathy, there is ayurveda, there is homeopathy, and they all have their own treatments also. So, now which treatment should I follow? It is not that when we want to take a treatment, we let ourselves wait till we have done an exhaustive study of all the various treatment options available. We do a working study: “This is the treatment that is required. How much commitment does it require? Can I do it? Let me try it out.”

So, if we really want to be cured, we do not wait till we have studied all the possible medications before we adopt a cure. No, we just start off and gradually we learn how best to move forward. Similarly, for us, when we are striving to grow spiritually, it is important that we do not wait forever to go on the spiritual path. It is important that we move forward gradually, but not that we wait forever. Just like we do take due caution before taking a treatment, but it is not that we wait forever.

So, working on making yourself genuine means, “Am I really serious about growing spiritually?” If I am, then it is Krishna who will guide me. Can you go ahead?

So, quite a bit that comes over here is, one is that we do not seek a Guru at all, because how will I know who is the right Guru? Another way we can have a shortcut is that I just look for a Guru who tells me, “Oh, you are doing the right thing; you are a good person.” We just want to do something, and the Guru ratifies what we are doing. Then the Guru almost becomes like a fashion choice in certain spiritual circles. It might be trendy to have a Guru. So, people often treat the Guru in that sense that if somebody comes to my house, I show them, “This is my sofa, this is my television, this is my dog, and this is my Guru.”

So, the Guru is expected to just sit in a sweet serene pose and smile and speak soothing words and make me feel good about myself. Well, that is not what a Guru is meant to do. We need a Guru to show us the way, not to sanction our way.

So, to work on ourselves becoming sincere means we avoid both these extremes: one extreme that, because I cannot know who is the genuine Guru, so I will not explore this at all; or I will just follow whoever makes me feel good about myself and my life. Not that feeling good is bad, but feeling good is not the sole parameter. We have to not just feel good but become good. We have to purify ourselves. We discussed earlier how spirituality is not just a state of mind; it is a level of reality. And we need to attain that level of reality by transforming ourselves.

So, to find a Guru, we ourselves need to be genuine. And then after that, see basically we start from where we are. In our lives, there are certain things which we know we should do, there are certain things which we know we should not do, and there are maybe many things which we are not sure whether we should do or not do. So, if we start doing well what we know we should be doing and we try to stop doing those things which we know we should not be doing, then by that action itself, we are showing that we want to be guided.

There is a manifestation of God within us—that is our conscience. And we will talk about conscience elaborately in a future session. But broadly, with the knowledge that we have of what is right and what is wrong, we start moving forward, doing as much right as we can, avoiding as much wrong as we can. And if we do that, we show that we want to be guided. If we show that we want to be guided, then we will be guided externally and internally.

So externally means that we will be guided to a place where we can find a spiritual master. Internally means when we are approaching someone, when we are connecting with someone, at that time we will get the guidance to understand, “Is this the right thing for me? Should I move forward in this direction?” And that way, we can move ahead in our lives. And this is again the theme of, don’t worry about whether my spiritual master is genuine; work on making yourself genuine.

And one way to make ourselves genuine is to start doing what we know we should be doing and start avoiding what we know we should be avoiding. So, to the extent we take guidance, to that extent, we will be given more guidance. And then, how do we approach a spiritual master? Can we go ahead?

So, this is the concluding part of this class. So, Krishna says that, as I said, the spiritual master is up here; the spiritual master is here. And Krishna’s grace comes to us through the spiritual master. So, how do we access His grace? There are three principles Krishna talks about over here.

So, paripaata is humility, with humble submissiveness. Not that we think that we know everything and we are here to test this person’s knowledge. Certainly, we have to use our intelligence to understand how much they know. And that brings us to the next part—that is inquisitiveness. Inquisitiveness means we are eager to learn and we also use our intelligence to ask questions. And then there is service. Service-mindedness is that actually, service-mindedness is basically the idea that each of us, we have to, as I talked about, knowing, doing, and being.

So, spirituality is not just a means or mode of knowing. We have to do some seva, some contribution. And that enables the knowledge to become realization. So, when we approach the spiritual master with humility, with the desire to know, and with a service attitude, then we will be propelled forward in our spiritual journey by that divine guidance.

So, I will summarize. I spoke today on the topic of the spiritual master. We started by discussing five broad things. We discussed five broad things. One was, do we need a Guru? Guru is not just a specialist in a particular field or a teacher. Guru is an exemplar. Not just knowing, but not just doing also, but knowing, doing, and being. So, Guru lives spiritually and enables all of us to live spiritually.

Then, I discussed how the spiritual master… how do we approach a spiritual master in the sense of that is the whole class. We, first of all, understand what a spiritual master is. The spiritual master is both one and many. It is Krishna who is our ultimate guide. And He manifests in various ways to give us guidance. And the guru is one and many. One means there is one person with whom we connect, but at the same time, there are many people through whom we connect also. And both of these go together, one and many.

And then, after that, I discussed how best we can move forward in our spiritual journey by understanding that when we go to a spiritual master, we avoid the two extremes of doubt: cynicism and sentimentalism. Cynicism is that I don’t accept any authority. Why do I need someone between me and God? The guru doesn’t come between us and God. The guru removes the impurity and misconceptions that are between us and God. And sentimentalism is that anyone who makes me feel good about myself, that is my guru.

The purpose is we want to gain spiritual knowledge and grow spiritually. And sometimes that makes us feel good. Sometimes it may not make us feel that good, but we persevere. And for such perseverance, there is the system of guru-sadhu-shastra, which is an internal check-and-balance system.

1. Approaching the Spiritual Master: We approach the spiritual master with three core principles: humility, inquisitiveness, and service-mindedness. The focus should not be on questioning the guru’s genuineness but on our own sincerity. When we are genuine in our spiritual journey, Krishna will guide us.
2. Guru in Different Traditions: While some traditions emphasize the role of a guru more than others, guidance is essential in any spiritual journey. The specific form of guidance may vary, but the principle remains the same: we need guidance to progress on our spiritual path.
3. Bhakti (Love for God): Bhakti is independent and doesn’t rely on rituals or a guru. However, associating with others who are genuinely seeking to develop love for God (bhaktas) is important. This guidance can come from formal or informal sources, such as teachers or other practitioners.
4. Love for the Guru and Surrender: The question of whether love for the guru comes first or surrender comes first is less important than the idea of starting from where we are. We begin with whatever connection or devotion we have, and over time, Krishna will guide us.
5. The Role of the Spiritual Master: The guru brings something beyond books and teachers, as spiritual knowledge is experiential. The process of initiation formalizes one’s entry into the spiritual path. A formal initiation is like being admitted into a university—it provides access to a community and an organized structure that supports spiritual growth.
6. Guru, Sadhu, and Shastra: These three elements—guru, sadhu (holy people), and shastra (scripture)—form a tripod. All three are required for a balanced spiritual practice. Focusing on only one aspect can lead to imbalances, such as personality cults.
7. Initiation: The process of initiation may vary, but it generally serves as the formal start of one’s spiritual journey. It can be through a mendicant, a traveling teacher, or a local priest. The initiation formalizes the commitment and provides the disciple with spiritual tools and community.

In essence, while the specifics of the spiritual master’s role can vary, guidance from a genuine source is crucial to our spiritual development.

The important thing is that there was a whole community, and within that community, depending on individual nature and inspiration, people would take initiation either from a local priest or from a traveling teacher.

When Srila Prabhupada started the Krishna Consciousness Movement in America, the culture was very different from what was traditionally there in India. Prabhupada’s first disciples were culturally, linguistically, intellectually, educationally, and theologically very different from the traditional situation. In that sense, Prabhupada was practically the sole guide, although he emphasized Shastra and connected people with it. He also wanted his godbrothers to be involved. He invited them, but somehow they didn’t come. The point is, Prabhupada became the guiding authority in a significant way because that was contextually what was required.

As a result, the position of the spiritual master is sometimes emphasized a lot in our tradition. However, this does not mean that the spiritual master’s position is not important at all; it just means we need to consider the context. Depending on one’s individual spiritual master, one’s nature, the master’s nature, and whether the teacher is locally based or a traveling teacher, how much difference the spiritual master makes will vary in lived experience. But the need for initiation remains the same. Beyond that, things can vary.

So, how can we develop a spiritual connection with the spiritual master when the spiritual master is not easily available? There are four ways:

1. Personal association of the spiritual master.
2. The instruction of the spiritual master, which means hearing the classes.
3. The association created by the spiritual master, such as the God family.
4. The mission of the spiritual master.

Every spiritual teacher has a particular mood for serving, and we need to engage with all four aspects—personal association, instruction, created association, and mission. Whichever aspect works best for us, we should align with that, and through it, the connection will happen. The connection doesn’t have to happen solely through personal association. If we are aligned with the mission and feel inspired by it, we will move forward in our lives.

Now, how do we find a bona fide guru? The principle here is that if we want to love Krishna, we should seek guidance from someone who loves Krishna. The primary characteristic of a genuine guru, as I mentioned earlier, is that the top of the mountain represents spiritual consciousness, and the bottom represents material consciousness. A genuine guru is one who is focused on spiritual attachment and detached from material concerns. These qualities define a true spiritual master.

If we keep the metaphor of climbing a mountain in mind, it can help us find a spiritual master. The guru needs to be well-versed in scripture and know the path of the mountain, as scripture shows us the way. Not only should they know the path, but they should also have walked it themselves so they can guide us.

Now, I’ll answer two more questions before we conclude:

• Are books by Srila Prabhupada, such as the Gita and Delhi articles, considered teachings from the guru? Yes, there are different kinds of gurus. Prabhupada is the founder acharya and the prominent representative of Krishna for us. Krishna can have many other representatives based on Prabhupada’s teachings. To the extent that any message helps us move closer to Krishna, we can see that as coming from the guru.
• Do we need to choose a bona fide sampradaya before selecting a guru? I discussed sampradaya in the previous session, so I won’t repeat everything here. However, the principle is that we want to go up the mountain and develop love for God. We must use our intelligence to evaluate if a spiritual message makes sense. Once we understand it, we should live it and observe if it transforms us. Intelligence and experience are key in making a choice. When we want to climb the mountain, we may follow paths that have been tread by many in the past. These paths, like the four sampradayas, provide guidance and make the journey easier. The focus should be on the principle: we should be growing spiritually, with increasing attachment to Krishna and decreasing material attachment. If this is happening, we are progressing in our spiritual journey.

Thank you very much. Hare Krishna. Any further questions can be discussed in a future session. Hare Krishna.

The post Gita key verses course 16 – If God is good why does he allow evil to exist? – Gita 5.15 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

So, today we discuss 4.34 in the Bhagavad Gita. The topic will be about the spiritual master, the Guru. And here we will be focusing on 4.34 in the Gita.
Tadviddhi pranipaten pariprasnena sevaya upadekshanti te jnaninastatvadarshinaha
So, Tadviddhi pranipaten. Krishna is telling us to know that truth, pranipaten. Go and approach the spiritual master. Tadviddhi pranipaten pariprasnena.
So, Krishna is describing Tadviddhi, to know that. Pranipata, offer your respects, humble submission; praniprasnena, ask questions; and sevaya, render service.
Then by this upadekshanti te jnanam, you will be able to gain knowledge.
Jnaninastatvadarshinah, those great souls, jnaninas, are seers of the truth and they can help you to also understand the truth.
So, till now, the Bhagavad Gita’s flow, the way it is going, is in the fourth chapter, Krishna has been talking about the knowledge that enables us to overcome sensuality and come to spirituality.
So, the first chapter talks about Arjuna’s confusion.
The second chapter talks about Krishna teaching Arjuna his identity and then acting in accordance with that identity.
Then in the third chapter, we discussed how Arjuna understood various levels for functioning.
As we had the third chapter conclude with, the selfish desires for sensuality can sabotage our spirituality.
And then the knowledge in the fourth chapter is called transcendental knowledge by Srila Prabhupada. It is also traditionally called Jnana Karma Sanyasa Yoga.
So, Jnana, that is, the knowledge that enables us to work with renunciation.
So, what is that knowledge that prevents entanglements? We have discussed various aspects of that knowledge till now.
We discussed the principle of revelation in 4.1 and 4.2.
Then we discussed the principle of the divine descent for giving this knowledge.
Then we talked about how there is one purpose, although there can be many different paths toward that purpose in 4.11.
Then in the previous session, we discussed the principle of Karma, more in terms of responsibly choosing our actions.
And then, now in this session, we are going to discuss about if we are going to choose wisely, if we are going to act responsibly.
That was the word we discussed last time.
So, to understand what our Karma is, how do we come to know that? That is with the guidance of the spiritual master.
So, can you go ahead? Next slide.
We will discuss four questions:

1. Do we need a Guru?
2. Why can’t we have a direct relationship with God? Does the Guru come between us and God?
3. How do we know which Guru is right for us?
4. How do we approach this Guru?
   So, let’s begin with the first question: Do I need a Guru?
   Firstly, the word Guru has become very generalized in today’s world.
   Can you go to the next slide?
   So, the Guru refers, in today’s world, to any kind of teacher.
   So, we can have a computer Guru, I can have a music Guru, somebody can say that I have an athletics Guru. The word Guru is used not just for a teacher; the Guru is also used in general for an expert.
   So, Guru, as it is used in the Bhagavad Gita, is somewhat different. In fact, the Gita uses different words to refer to spiritually realized people. It is not limited to the word Guru alone.
   In this context, it uses the word Tattva Darshanaha. Because words can have different meanings. And what is being specifically said can be understood by using different words, which point to that concept.
   So, the concept is a person who is going to guide us in life. And that is the word Guru. It is not just a teacher, but an exemplar—one who lives the truth, not just who teaches the truth. One who demonstrates through their living what is the truth.
   So, another word is Acharya.
   So, here the focus is on the seer. Arjuna’s confusion was caused by seeing. He saw the two armies assembled and he felt that he could not fight.

So, Tattva Darshanaha. Arjuna was not seeing the truth; he was seeing only the material level of reality. Krishna is telling us that the Gurus are those who are seers of the truth. Once there is right seeing, then there can be right doing also. The word Tattva Darshanaha is used here in this verse. The idea is that the Guru sees and then the Guru acts accordingly and helps us to act accordingly. Now, what does the exemplar mean? The next slide illustrates this. There is knowing, doing, and being. Knowing is more informational.

Okay, I know how to drive a car. I know how smoking ruins your lungs. I know what the ingredients are in cooking this. Now, all this information is important. Without knowing, we can’t move forward. But knowing alone is not enough. Knowing is more about taking in information from the outer world. Doing is how we implement it. So, that is the skill to do it well. Knowing is important, but beyond that, doing is also important. And beyond doing, there is also being. Being means that we focus primarily on embodying that way of living.

So, the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita is how we can live without being entangled in this world. How can we live responsibly without getting entangled? And for that purpose, the Gita teaches various things. Its most important teaching is that we work with spiritual consciousness, not with material consciousness. So, the Guru knows the material and spiritual levels of reality. The Guru acts spiritually and doesn’t just act spiritually occasionally, but embodies that. That is what the Bhagavad Gita talks about as Tatvadarshinaha. Once somebody has seen the truth in truth, Tatva means truth, then they will mold themselves accordingly.

The same word Tatva was used earlier in 4.9 in the Bhagavad Gita when Krishna talks about knowing Him in truth. If somebody knows the Lord in truth, then what happens? They become so attracted to Him. They become attracted to Him and they attain Him. They don’t return to this world. That is devotion to the transcendental; devotion to the Lord becomes the defining, integrating, driving feature, virtue, and core of the spiritual master. They can teach us to do the same thing.

Now let’s move forward. In today’s world, there is a lot of suspicion about authority figures. In fact, the postmodern worldview is that we need to reject all authorities because all authorities are exploitative. They are manipulative, they are power-hungry, and that’s why rejecting all authority is talked about. Does the Guru come between us and God? The idea here is that some people feel that in the spiritual domain, what is the need for any authority? I can have a relationship with God, I can approach God, and why should there be any kind of middleman? While there are many people who are atheistic and explicitly reject God, there are many others who are not atheistic but are suspicious about religious people or religious authorities. And there is, of course, reason for such suspicion.

We have, like in any area of life, ultimately human nature that is prone to vice. There are religious authorities who sometimes behave in less than exemplary ways, sometimes in regrettably wrong ways. So then, because of that, suspicion is understandable. Some people feel, why have this middleman? Just let me remove it, I’ll just approach God directly. Or if somebody is not directly theistic, they say, I want to be spiritual, I’ll be spiritual myself. Why do I need someone? That person comes between me and God. Actually, the Guru doesn’t come between us and God. Rather, there is already a lot that is there between us and God. Between us and God, there is a big wall. That wall is two things: bodily impurities and misconceptions. Within our mind, there are many impure desires. Within our intelligence, there are many wrong conceptions or less-than-right conceptions. These act as a block and prevent us from perceiving or connecting with the divine.

What the spiritual master does is help us to remove what comes between us and God. The spiritual master doesn’t come between us and God. Rather, what is already there between us and God, the spiritual master helps us to remove that. Ultimately, yes, we all have a personal relationship with the divine. That personal relationship with Krishna is something we all can relish. The spiritual master doesn’t block, monopolize, restrict, or remove access to God. Rather, the very things that restrict and remove access to God for us, those things are removed by the guidance of the spiritual master.

So why do we need a spiritual master? At one level, we need a teacher in any walk of life. Even for something, even those who say they don’t accept any authority, what are they doing? They may say, “Don’t accept any authority,” but then they are asking us to accept their authority when they are telling such a thing. So we have to accept on their authority that all authority should be rejected. This postmodern rejection of all authority collapses as a self-contradictory assertion. We do follow some authority or the other always.

Now, if we understand clearly what we are doing when we are following the spiritual master: The spiritual master is meant to help us perceive life’s deeper realities, perceive Krishna, and ultimately realize Krishna in our own hearts, relish Krishna’s presence in our hearts. So then we see the guidance of the spiritual master in those terms: how that guidance helps us to remove our various impurities and misconceptions within us. The Tattva Darshinaha, if you see, the spiritual master is seeing the truth and enabling us to see the truth. It is not that the spiritual master says, “I am the truth.” It is not that in that way they come in the way; rather, they help us to remove what is in the way.

And those who reject all authority, what happens to them? One who thinks that they will be their own guru soon has fools as their disciples. He who thinks that he will be his own guru has a fool as his disciple. Why? Because if we think, “I will be my own guru,” then I end up staying in illusion, staying under the control of the impurities and misconceptions that I have. Both the guru and the disciple end up staying as fools.

So now that brings us to the next question: How do we know? How can we find a guru? Here, it is a very important principle to understand that ultimately it is the Lord who is the spiritual master for all of us. It is He who manifests through various mediums. God is present in our hearts. When He rules the hearts of others, then through them, He can guide us. Even if they are not completely devoted, the Lord can use various instruments to guide us toward Him.

So if we understand that whenever we are putting faith in the spiritual master, we are not just putting faith in that person. We are putting faith in Krishna, and Krishna is recommending that we follow a guru. So we follow the spiritual master as an expression of our faith in Krishna. Gradually, the spiritual master deepens our faith in Krishna, and our faith in the spiritual master deepens by that practice of bhakti. Thus, it goes forward. So God is high up in the spiritual world. We are here in the material world. Now it’s very difficult for us to access God directly. When we can’t access God directly, then what happens? We need to access God indirectly. Indirectly means through His spiritual master. So, when we access God through His representative, the spiritual master, the spiritual master is the way we could say God is extending His grace downward to reach out to us, and to help us rise.

So, that is the underlying principle of the spiritual master. Now moving on, the guru is both one and many. “One and many” means that Krishna uses the word jnaninas tattvadarshinah. The word jnaninas is plural. It is not singular. Often, the word gurun is used in many prayers. Gurun is plural. So, the guru is not one; the guru is multiple. There is one in principle and many in manifestation. The idea is that whoever is connected with Krishna and helps us connect with Krishna, that is our guru, that is our spiritual master.

When we approach the spiritual master in this integrated sense, then we understand that the person is important, but ultimately Krishna is also most important. We are connecting with Krishna through the spiritual master. Now, what is the reason for these tattvadarshinah, multiple spiritual masters? The idea is that Krishna is the one who is guiding us through various channels. Of course, we need to have one channel as the primary channel. At the same time, the primary channel is not the exclusive channel. We talked earlier about parampara or tradition. Let’s see this in that light. Can we go to the next slide?

Here, the idea is that when we are working, there is the guru, sadhu, and shastra. Just like a stool can have three feet on which it stands balanced, similarly, the structure of the system for sharing spiritual knowledge is like a tripod. There is a spiritual master, the saintly teachers (sadhus), and shastra, the scripture that gives us knowledge of ultimate reality. Guru, sadhu, and shastra, these three work together, and the guru is the one who teaches shastra primarily to us.

There are different kinds of gurus. Within the Gaudiya tradition, we talk about Diksha guru, Shiksha guru, and Patha Pradarsha guru. The Patha Pradarsha guru is the one who gives us the mantra and the rite of initiation. The Shiksha gurus are those who give us instructions, and the Patha Pradarsha gurus are those who show us the way. Now, beyond the specific technicalities of the nomenclature, the important thing is to understand the principle. The principle is that there is God who is guiding us.

Earlier, I talked about how people today are suspicious about following any authority, or if not suspicious, then at least hesitant about submitting to any authority. It is important to be cautious, and within the tradition itself, there is an awareness. There is a self-critical awareness that wherever there is a role of guidance, there is also the possibility for misguidance. And there is the check-and-balance system through guru, sadhu, and shastra. If we focus only on the guru, then it becomes a personality cult.

Now, there can be some teachers who may themselves be very charismatic and spiritually advanced. But when everything is centered on one personality, the problem with that is it is not sustainable. What if that personality, that person, whoever it is, is mortal in the sense that they live for a finite number of years? What happens after them? Often, any group started by a charismatic founder, unless there is some system to transmit that charisma or authority to subsequent generations, collapses after that. When a guru is made into almost a God for all practical purposes, it can very easily become a personality cult.

The guru represents God, the sadhus represent God, and the shastra represents God. That is how we all can move toward Krishna through these channels. To understand this, let’s consider an example of a university. In a university, if someone decides to do their PhD in particle physics, they need to get admission to the university. There is the principal, head of the department, or dean of the university, who sanctions, stamps, authorizes, and grants entry. This is important.

After that, the PhD candidate might sometimes work directly with the admitting authority, or the PhD guide might be someone different. The student might work a lot more with that particular PhD guide. If a student wants to get a PhD, the Patha Pradarsha guru is the one who tells them, “This is a good university, you can go and learn there.” That is showing the path, Patha Pradarsha. The Diksha guru is like the admitting authority, the one through whom entry is granted. Then, there are the Shiksha gurus who actually teach the student.

What is taught? There are textbooks. Now, the guru, sadhu, and shastra—all of these must work together. There must be harmony among these three, and all three teach together harmoniously. That is how this system of knowledge moves forward. While we often use the term guru in the singular to refer to the one spiritual master, if we look at the scripture itself, there is a far greater emphasis on the process of learning by going to various spiritual teachers and learning from them. We see when Ram was in exile or when the Pandavas were in exile, they were learning from many teachers. The idea is that they would meet saintly people, sit, and discuss.

And we have Yudhishthira often asking questions, sometimes difficult questions he asks. And the saintly people give answers. And it’s not that everybody is parroting the same answer. If we look at the Mahabharata itself, what Markandeya Rishi says or what Vyasa says, it is similar in essence, but there is a different emphasis, a different mood. And the idea is that we all need all the inspiration that we can get to move forward in the spiritual journey. We need wisdom, we need inspiration. So, from wherever we get it, we take it. And if it is helping us move closer to Krishna, we understand that this is the spiritual knowledge.

Just like a student is in a university, the purpose of the university is to learn knowledge. Now, in bhakti, it’s not just intellectual learning, it is transformational learning. It is not just knowing or doing; it is being. So, the personal connection with the spiritual master is also extremely important.

When I give the example of a university, it is, at one level, to contextualize the connection with the spiritual master in terms of the purpose of that connection. The purpose is to help us grow in spiritual knowledge. At the same time, we can go to another example. No example exhaustively covers any spiritual truth. Spiritual truths are themselves, sometimes, transcendental. And every metaphor that we use is meant to help us develop an understanding of that which is beyond all metaphors.

So, the standard metaphor for illustrating the role of metaphors is what is called a shakha chandranyaya. Shakha is branches, chandra is the moon. So, a child who is often habituated to looking around, the mother wants to show that child the moon. Suddenly, it’s not very habitual for the child to look up. So, the mother says, “Do you see the tree?” “Yeah.” “Now, do you see the trunk going up? Do you see that branch going left? Almost horizontal, yes.” “Now, do you see another branch going slightly vertically up?” “Yeah.” “Now, what do you see in between those two branches?” “Oh, okay. I see a shining object.” “Yeah, that’s the moon.” “Oh, okay.”

So, what happens is that the moon is not between the branches, but by pointing to the two branches, the moon can be indicated. Similarly, various metaphors help us to understand the spiritual truths which actually exist often beyond all metaphors.

One metaphor where the focus is on education is the university metaphor. Now, we could go to another metaphor, and that is the understanding that when we are trying to connect with the Lord, that connection is not like a mechanical connection. It is not that we take a screw and put it into a particular socket. It is more of a personal connection. It is an investment of our emotions. It is a redirection of our heart. It is ultimately a matter of love. And we learn to love Krishna by associating with those who love Krishna.

We have not talked elaborately about bhakti till now and the principle of loving the Lord in this course, and we’ll come to that, especially in the ninth chapter. From the sixth chapter, we’ll start discussing that subject elaborately. But at this stage, we need to develop an attraction for the spiritual, develop a connection with the spiritual where there is pure spiritual emotion invested in that connection. And for that connection to be developed, it is important for each one of us to have a means by which that redirection of emotions happens. And we love Krishna by loving those who love Krishna.

So, quite often, it is a gradual step-by-step process. It’s not very easy to suddenly love the Lord. It is that we love those who love the Lord, and gradually by that, we develop love for Him. Our spiritual journey is not like a sudden helicopter zoom, we just rise up. It’s more like an airplane that gradually takes off. So, we need to learn to love those who are devoted to God, who are accessible to us in the world around us. And that gives momentum, momentum, momentum. And then, as the momentum builds, then the plane takes off.

Similarly, loving Krishna is something that happens gradually as we move forward in our spiritual journey by loving those who love Him. And among those who love Krishna, the spiritual master is the one who inspires us to love Krishna the most and who loves Krishna deeply also.

In the Bhagavatam, it is said that we are all bound in this world, prasangam. We are bound by attachments. Ajara is that this is an attachment that never gets old. Jara is age. So, our bodies grow old, but our attachments don’t grow old. We still have the same strength and vigor, the same irresistible grip on us as they had when we were younger. They are very difficult to give up—that’s what wise people know. But if we can direct that affection, if we direct that same attachment towards the divine, towards those who are devoted to the Lord, to sadhu, the saintly people, to the spiritual master and the saintly people, then that very attachment which binds us can also help us move toward liberation, toward spiritual understanding, and towards spiritual liberation ultimately.

So, one is that we develop a very personal one-to-one connection with the spiritual master and that connection kindles and inspires us to love the Lord. So, in this knowing, we talked about knowing, doing, and being earlier. The spiritual master gives us knowledge, and by that knowledge, we start practicing bhakti. And by practicing bhakti, we become permeated with love for Krishna. So, this is what knowing, being, and doing are all about.

The spiritual master is the primary engine who initiates the various processes: the process of gaining knowledge, the process of living according to that knowledge, and the process of becoming permeated with love for God. All of that is initiated by the spiritual master. This is the idea that we all need a spiritual master, but we don’t just need a spiritual master. We need a proper understanding of what the spiritual master is and what the spiritual master does.

So, can we go ahead?

Now, if we consider, what is the proper understanding for approaching the spiritual master? The proper understanding is that when we are choosing, how do I know who is the right guru? Well, don’t worry so much about whether the guru is genuine; work on making yourself genuine.

What do we mean by making ourselves genuine? It means that we focus on trying to make sure that we ourselves are seriously and sincerely seeking spiritual knowledge. Ultimately, Krishna is in our heart, and He will guide us. So, if we focus too much on, “Oh, is my spiritual master, should I follow this authority or that authority, that authority?” then we might stay perpetually in doubt, and doubt can paralyze us.

Earlier, we discussed how on any journey, if you are driving, say, the driving requires an accelerator and a brake. So, in the journey of life, in the journey of developing a relationship, faith is the accelerator and doubt is the brake. And both of them are required; accelerator and brake, gas and brake—both are required. Similarly, faith and doubt both are required. But what is most important is that we should want to drive, we should want to get to the destination. Once we want to get to the destination, we will know, “Okay, now I should press the brake; now I should press the accelerator.”

So, working on making yourself genuine means, “Do I really want to know the ultimate reality? Do I want to love God?” Once we focus on that, often this whole religion business is very confusing. This whole spirituality business, there are so many different people with so many different opinions. How do I know who is right? It is a genuine concern, but it is not that that concern should paralyze us forever.

Just like when we are sick, now something as common as the common cold, there can be very, within allopathy itself, there can be many different treatments for it. And beyond allopathy, there is naturopathy, there is ayurveda, there is homeopathy, and they all have their own treatments also. So, now which treatment should I follow? It is not that when we want to take a treatment, we let ourselves wait till we have done an exhaustive study of all the various treatment options available. We do a working study: “This is the treatment that is required. How much commitment does it require? Can I do it? Let me try it out.”

So, if we really want to be cured, we do not wait till we have studied all the possible medications before we adopt a cure. No, we just start off and gradually we learn how best to move forward. Similarly, for us, when we are striving to grow spiritually, it is important that we do not wait forever to go on the spiritual path. It is important that we move forward gradually, but not that we wait forever. Just like we do take due caution before taking a treatment, but it is not that we wait forever.

So, working on making yourself genuine means, “Am I really serious about growing spiritually?” If I am, then it is Krishna who will guide me. Can you go ahead?

So, quite a bit that comes over here is, one is that we do not seek a Guru at all, because how will I know who is the right Guru? Another way we can have a shortcut is that I just look for a Guru who tells me, “Oh, you are doing the right thing; you are a good person.” We just want to do something, and the Guru ratifies what we are doing. Then the Guru almost becomes like a fashion choice in certain spiritual circles. It might be trendy to have a Guru. So, people often treat the Guru in that sense that if somebody comes to my house, I show them, “This is my sofa, this is my television, this is my dog, and this is my Guru.”

So, the Guru is expected to just sit in a sweet serene pose and smile and speak soothing words and make me feel good about myself. Well, that is not what a Guru is meant to do. We need a Guru to show us the way, not to sanction our way.

So, to work on ourselves becoming sincere means we avoid both these extremes: one extreme that, because I cannot know who is the genuine Guru, so I will not explore this at all; or I will just follow whoever makes me feel good about myself and my life. Not that feeling good is bad, but feeling good is not the sole parameter. We have to not just feel good but become good. We have to purify ourselves. We discussed earlier how spirituality is not just a state of mind; it is a level of reality. And we need to attain that level of reality by transforming ourselves.

So, to find a Guru, we ourselves need to be genuine. And then after that, see basically we start from where we are. In our lives, there are certain things which we know we should do, there are certain things which we know we should not do, and there are maybe many things which we are not sure whether we should do or not do. So, if we start doing well what we know we should be doing and we try to stop doing those things which we know we should not be doing, then by that action itself, we are showing that we want to be guided.

There is a manifestation of God within us—that is our conscience. And we will talk about conscience elaborately in a future session. But broadly, with the knowledge that we have of what is right and what is wrong, we start moving forward, doing as much right as we can, avoiding as much wrong as we can. And if we do that, we show that we want to be guided. If we show that we want to be guided, then we will be guided externally and internally.

So externally means that we will be guided to a place where we can find a spiritual master. Internally means when we are approaching someone, when we are connecting with someone, at that time we will get the guidance to understand, “Is this the right thing for me? Should I move forward in this direction?” And that way, we can move ahead in our lives. And this is again the theme of, don’t worry about whether my spiritual master is genuine; work on making yourself genuine.

And one way to make ourselves genuine is to start doing what we know we should be doing and start avoiding what we know we should be avoiding. So, to the extent we take guidance, to that extent, we will be given more guidance. And then, how do we approach a spiritual master? Can we go ahead?

So, this is the concluding part of this class. So, Krishna says that, as I said, the spiritual master is up here; the spiritual master is here. And Krishna’s grace comes to us through the spiritual master. So, how do we access His grace? There are three principles Krishna talks about over here.

So, paripaata is humility, with humble submissiveness. Not that we think that we know everything and we are here to test this person’s knowledge. Certainly, we have to use our intelligence to understand how much they know. And that brings us to the next part—that is inquisitiveness. Inquisitiveness means we are eager to learn and we also use our intelligence to ask questions. And then there is service. Service-mindedness is that actually, service-mindedness is basically the idea that each of us, we have to, as I talked about, knowing, doing, and being.

So, spirituality is not just a means or mode of knowing. We have to do some seva, some contribution. And that enables the knowledge to become realization. So, when we approach the spiritual master with humility, with the desire to know, and with a service attitude, then we will be propelled forward in our spiritual journey by that divine guidance.

So, I will summarize. I spoke today on the topic of the spiritual master. We started by discussing five broad things. We discussed five broad things. One was, do we need a Guru? Guru is not just a specialist in a particular field or a teacher. Guru is an exemplar. Not just knowing, but not just doing also, but knowing, doing, and being. So, Guru lives spiritually and enables all of us to live spiritually.

Then, I discussed how the spiritual master… how do we approach a spiritual master in the sense of that is the whole class. We, first of all, understand what a spiritual master is. The spiritual master is both one and many. It is Krishna who is our ultimate guide. And He manifests in various ways to give us guidance. And the guru is one and many. One means there is one person with whom we connect, but at the same time, there are many people through whom we connect also. And both of these go together, one and many.

And then, after that, I discussed how best we can move forward in our spiritual journey by understanding that when we go to a spiritual master, we avoid the two extremes of doubt: cynicism and sentimentalism. Cynicism is that I don’t accept any authority. Why do I need someone between me and God? The guru doesn’t come between us and God. The guru removes the impurity and misconceptions that are between us and God. And sentimentalism is that anyone who makes me feel good about myself, that is my guru.

The purpose is we want to gain spiritual knowledge and grow spiritually. And sometimes that makes us feel good. Sometimes it may not make us feel that good, but we persevere. And for such perseverance, there is the system of guru-sadhu-shastra, which is an internal check-and-balance system.

1. Approaching the Spiritual Master: We approach the spiritual master with three core principles: humility, inquisitiveness, and service-mindedness. The focus should not be on questioning the guru’s genuineness but on our own sincerity. When we are genuine in our spiritual journey, Krishna will guide us.
2. Guru in Different Traditions: While some traditions emphasize the role of a guru more than others, guidance is essential in any spiritual journey. The specific form of guidance may vary, but the principle remains the same: we need guidance to progress on our spiritual path.
3. Bhakti (Love for God): Bhakti is independent and doesn’t rely on rituals or a guru. However, associating with others who are genuinely seeking to develop love for God (bhaktas) is important. This guidance can come from formal or informal sources, such as teachers or other practitioners.
4. Love for the Guru and Surrender: The question of whether love for the guru comes first or surrender comes first is less important than the idea of starting from where we are. We begin with whatever connection or devotion we have, and over time, Krishna will guide us.
5. The Role of the Spiritual Master: The guru brings something beyond books and teachers, as spiritual knowledge is experiential. The process of initiation formalizes one’s entry into the spiritual path. A formal initiation is like being admitted into a university—it provides access to a community and an organized structure that supports spiritual growth.
6. Guru, Sadhu, and Shastra: These three elements—guru, sadhu (holy people), and shastra (scripture)—form a tripod. All three are required for a balanced spiritual practice. Focusing on only one aspect can lead to imbalances, such as personality cults.
7. Initiation: The process of initiation may vary, but it generally serves as the formal start of one’s spiritual journey. It can be through a mendicant, a traveling teacher, or a local priest. The initiation formalizes the commitment and provides the disciple with spiritual tools and community.

In essence, while the specifics of the spiritual master’s role can vary, guidance from a genuine source is crucial to our spiritual development.

The important thing is that there was a whole community, and within that community, depending on individual nature and inspiration, people would take initiation either from a local priest or from a traveling teacher.

When Srila Prabhupada started the Krishna Consciousness Movement in America, the culture was very different from what was traditionally there in India. Prabhupada’s first disciples were culturally, linguistically, intellectually, educationally, and theologically very different from the traditional situation. In that sense, Prabhupada was practically the sole guide, although he emphasized Shastra and connected people with it. He also wanted his godbrothers to be involved. He invited them, but somehow they didn’t come. The point is, Prabhupada became the guiding authority in a significant way because that was contextually what was required.

As a result, the position of the spiritual master is sometimes emphasized a lot in our tradition. However, this does not mean that the spiritual master’s position is not important at all; it just means we need to consider the context. Depending on one’s individual spiritual master, one’s nature, the master’s nature, and whether the teacher is locally based or a traveling teacher, how much difference the spiritual master makes will vary in lived experience. But the need for initiation remains the same. Beyond that, things can vary.

So, how can we develop a spiritual connection with the spiritual master when the spiritual master is not easily available? There are four ways:

1. Personal association of the spiritual master.
2. The instruction of the spiritual master, which means hearing the classes.
3. The association created by the spiritual master, such as the God family.
4. The mission of the spiritual master.

Every spiritual teacher has a particular mood for serving, and we need to engage with all four aspects—personal association, instruction, created association, and mission. Whichever aspect works best for us, we should align with that, and through it, the connection will happen. The connection doesn’t have to happen solely through personal association. If we are aligned with the mission and feel inspired by it, we will move forward in our lives.

Now, how do we find a bona fide guru? The principle here is that if we want to love Krishna, we should seek guidance from someone who loves Krishna. The primary characteristic of a genuine guru, as I mentioned earlier, is that the top of the mountain represents spiritual consciousness, and the bottom represents material consciousness. A genuine guru is one who is focused on spiritual attachment and detached from material concerns. These qualities define a true spiritual master.

If we keep the metaphor of climbing a mountain in mind, it can help us find a spiritual master. The guru needs to be well-versed in scripture and know the path of the mountain, as scripture shows us the way. Not only should they know the path, but they should also have walked it themselves so they can guide us.

Now, I’ll answer two more questions before we conclude:

• Are books by Srila Prabhupada, such as the Gita and Delhi articles, considered teachings from the guru? Yes, there are different kinds of gurus. Prabhupada is the founder acharya and the prominent representative of Krishna for us. Krishna can have many other representatives based on Prabhupada’s teachings. To the extent that any message helps us move closer to Krishna, we can see that as coming from the guru.
• Do we need to choose a bona fide sampradaya before selecting a guru? I discussed sampradaya in the previous session, so I won’t repeat everything here. However, the principle is that we want to go up the mountain and develop love for God. We must use our intelligence to evaluate if a spiritual message makes sense. Once we understand it, we should live it and observe if it transforms us. Intelligence and experience are key in making a choice. When we want to climb the mountain, we may follow paths that have been tread by many in the past. These paths, like the four sampradayas, provide guidance and make the journey easier. The focus should be on the principle: we should be growing spiritually, with increasing attachment to Krishna and decreasing material attachment. If this is happening, we are progressing in our spiritual journey.

Thank you very much. Hare Krishna. Any further questions can be discussed in a future session. Hare Krishna.

The post Gita key verses course 15 – Do I need a guru? How can I find my guru? Gita 4.34 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Hare Krishna!
So,
Karmano yapi bodhavyam
Bodhavyam cha vi karmanaha
Akarmanas cha bodhavyam
Gahana karmano gati hi

So Krishna is speaking here about the concept of Karma, and Gahana karmano gati hi—the moments of Karma are very difficult to understand. Therefore, Arjuna, try to understand what is Karma, what is Akarma, and what is Vkarma.

So today, we will discuss two things: What is Karma, and why do bad things happen to good people? “Why do bad things happen to good people?” is something we have briefly discussed earlier in 2:47 about destiny, and we will go a little deeper into that. But the main focus will be on the concept of Karma.

Now, in the PowerPoint that you have with you, we will first look at what the meaning of the word Karma is. The word Karma can have four distinct meanings. This is slide 4. Slide 4 is that. So we will be discussing verses 4, 16, and 17. These three verses we will be discussing, and we will focus on the idea that understanding Karma, as Krishna says, “What is Karma?”—that is very difficult to understand.

So, the word Karma can have four distinct meanings. One is:

• The first meaning refers to the action that we do.
• The second refers to the reaction that we get for our actions.
• The third refers to the system of action and reaction.
• The fourth refers to a particular kind of action.

Let me explain these four meanings. At a basic level, Karma refers to what we are going to do—our actions that we have to do. Everyone, when Krishna says, “You have a right to do your work,” it means Karma literally means work. “Karma Yoga” or “Karma Yogi” refers to those who identify themselves as people who do work. So, Karma means work, or Karma means action.

Interestingly, Karma also means reaction. We all have to suffer our own Karma. Sometimes we may use the word “the reactions of our Karma,” but sometimes we shorthand it and say, “It is my own Karma coming back to me.” It means our Karma coming back to us as reactions, or sometimes people say, “It must be in my Karma.”

Now, if Karma only refers to the actions that we do, then what does it mean when people say, “It must be in my Karma?” Karma is not just the actions that we do; it is also the reactions that we get. So, Karma can refer to the reactions we get, and then Karma can also refer to the system of action and reaction.

Each one of us is under the law of Karma. We may say the law, the principle of Karma, is infallible and inexorable. No matter what we do, we may be clever or sneaky enough to escape the law of the land, but nobody can escape the law of Karma. That is the system of Karma, based on the Karma that we have created, and under the divine vision, we all get the results.

Now, moving on, the fourth sense is that there are three different kinds of Karma:

1. Karma
2. Vikarma
3. Akarma

Within that, Karma is one kind of Karma. Another word for Karma is Sukarma. Sukarma means good work—prescribed work or work that is virtuous, work that will give us good results. So that is Sukarma.

Vikarma is the opposite of what we are meant to do. We could say immoral, harmful, destructive, or anti-scriptural work. And then, Akarma, in this context, refers to a work that will not produce any reaction. I will come to that a little later.

Let us focus on these two points right now. The word Karma has multiple definitions. When we understand these multiple definitions, we can understand that actually, when we refer to Karma, we instinctively gravitate toward a particular meaning. What that meaning is may not always be the accurate meaning.

In language in general, words often have multiple meanings. Sometimes, some words can have even opposite meanings—they are called “contronyms.” Contronyms are words with opposite meanings. For example, consider the word “discrimination” in English. Discrimination at one level has a very negative connotation (e.g., there should not be any gender or racial discrimination). But in another sense, discrimination can also be a positive word where the capacity to make necessary and valid distinctions is valued. For example, someone is a “discriminating art critic,” meaning the person can distinguish between good and poor art.

Just as words can have different or even opposite meanings, the word Karma can have multiple meanings. When we use the word Karma, we need to carefully understand the context in which it is being used.

Now, in English, the word “run” is known to have the largest number of meanings. For example:

• “The car is not running.”
• “The water pump is not running.”
• “He is going to run for elections.”
• “He does not run fast enough to ever participate in athletic competitions.”

Here, we see the word “run” being used in different ways, but we immediately understand which meaning is being used.

When we come to scripture, we are often dealing with a language we do not normally converse in, so we may not always get the sense of the context.

When the Bhagavad Gita uses the word Karma, we need to look at the context to understand its meaning.

When Krishna is telling Arjuna, let us look at the 4th slide now (actually, the 5th slide): “The Gita on Karma,” we need to understand what sense the word Karma is being used. It is primarily used in the first sense, but sometimes in the fourth sense as well.

Karmanneva adhikarasthe: This means, “You have a right to do your work.” Here, Krishna is using the word Karma in the sense of the right course of action, the responsible right thing to do.

Now, if you look at this context, and consider the word kim karma kim akarmeti kavayo apyatra mohitaha, the meaning is: “What is action, and what is inaction? Even the wise are bewildered about this.” Krishna says, Tatte karma pravakshami adgyantva moksha se asubhad—”Now I will explain to you the concept of Karma, and knowing this, you will be freed from inauspiciousness and know which course of action to follow so that you can avoid getting trapped or bound.”

So now,
what is Krishna actually saying here? When he says, if we take the literal meaning of the words karma and akarma, here karma refers to the right course of action (action), and akarma refers to inaction.

Now, even a child can tell whether someone is doing an activity or being inactive. If a child wants to do some mischief, the child might look at their father or mother, sitting on a chair with their eyes closed, thinking they will not notice. The child then might proceed to do the mischief. So, even a child can understand whether someone is active or inactive.

If a child can understand this, then why would the wise be bewildered? The literal meaning does not make sense here. The literal meaning, or the first meaning of karma, is action, and akarma is inaction. If you take this meaning, the whole idea becomes meaningless—why would the wise be bewildered?

But what it actually means here in kim karma kim akarmeti (what is the right course of action, and what is inaction?) is: what is the action that will lead to a reaction, and what is the action that will not lead to a reaction? Akarma here refers to an action that does not lead to any reaction.

Let’s look at the next meaning of the word akarma.

So akarma is the opposite of karma. It can refer to action and no action, but akarma can also refer to action that does not produce any reaction—action that does not produce any reaction.

Now, why is this a major concern for Arjuna at this stage in the war? Because in the first chapter, Arjuna says, “How can I attack or kill my own relatives? If I do that, I will be ruined by it, so I cannot do this.”

Therefore, what is he saying? He wants to know what is the right course of action—what is it that he should do? He does not want to get entangled by doing wrong actions because then he will face wrong reactions, which will keep him bound.

So, a major concern of the Bhagavad Gita is to act in a way that does not entangle. When Krishna is telling Arjuna which actions will entangle and which actions will not, karma here refers to entangling actions, and akarma refers to actions that won’t entangle.

So, akarma is action that is non-reactive or non-entangling. Arjuna wants to know, “What is akarma? What should I do so that I will not be bound?” Krishna is telling him that it is not so simple.

At first, Arjuna thinks that if he fights, he will kill, and if he kills, obviously, he is doing terrible karma, and there will be a reaction for that. If he does not fight, he thinks there will be no reaction, and that way he will not be bound. Arjuna is thinking in terms of the literal meaning of the words. He believes that fighting will be entangling, while not fighting will be non-entangling. But Krishna is telling him, “This is not that simple.”

What is the right thing to do? What is not the right thing to do? Even wise people are bewildered about this. Why are they bewildered?

What determines whether we get a reaction to an action is not the action itself, but the intention behind that action. The intention behind that action. Let’s look at the next two verses, 4:18, which is one of the most confusing verses in the Gita, especially if you look at it from a literal perspective.

He says here: In the performance of action, one who sees that there is actually no action being performed—meaning, in the performance of action, when one sees that there is no action that will produce a reaction, and in the non-performance of action, there is actually a reaction that will come—sometimes, we may not get reactions even by doing something, and sometimes, by not doing something, we may still get reactions.

One who can perceive this is a wise person. Such a person is well-situated, well-engaged. This person is a variant of the word yoga, which means “the process that connects”—one who is connected. That person is well-connected or engaged, and they can do all kinds of work while remaining spiritually connected.

So Krishna is telling Arjuna that one result of knowledge is that such a person is buddhiman—knowledgeable, wise, and intelligent.

One characteristic of intelligence, expertise, and knowledge is the ability to see beyond appearances. For example, consider the current threat of the coronavirus all over the world. A person who doesn’t know about the threat of the virus might see someone sneezing or coughing and just think it’s an ordinary cough. But someone with knowledge may consider, “Is this due to that infection? Do I need to keep a safe distance from this person? Does this person need to be checked?”

The more knowledge we have, the more we can see things clearly.

Now, we can understand this very easily. It’s like in the stock market. Suppose a person from a remote tribe, who has no idea of how modern finances work, comes to the stock market. He sees hundreds of people sitting in front of giant screens, watching a line on the screen crash down. Everyone reacts with alarm, saying, “Oh no!” The person from the tribe wonders, “What happened? It’s just one line going down on a screen. Why are you so worked up?”

To an uninformed eye, it is just one line going down. But to the knowledgeable, informed eye, there is much more happening. People may have lost millions of dollars because of that movement. So, we don’t just see with our eyes; we see with the knowledge that helps us make sense of what our eyes see.

This is one understanding of knowledge—a knowledgeable vision. Krishna will later talk about this as having the “eyes of knowledge.” So, one result of seeing with knowledge is that we can see deeper than what ordinary people can see. But with the eyes of knowledge, Krishna is saying, you will not only see deeper than most, but you will also see the opposite of what is perceived by the simple eye, the unaided eye.

For example, some people may appear very confident, but beneath that confidence, they might actually be bluffing. They could be very insecure with extremely low self-esteem. They may walk with swagger, but internally, they are very insecure. If we know the person well or understand human psychology, we can recognize that this outward confidence is actually a cover-up for a lack of confidence.

Similarly, people who have the least respect for themselves are often the most agitated when others don’t respect them. So, if we know the person or are good at reading people, we can understand that their swagger doesn’t indicate real confidence. It is, in fact, a facade for insecurity.

On the other hand, some people may seem humble and unassuming, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are unqualified or shy. They might be small in stature, have a soft voice, or a gentle expression. When they speak, they might speak eloquently and strongly. We then realize, “Wow, this person has a lot of inner power.”

What happens here is that appearances can be completely deceptive. Krishna is saying that similarly, what seems to be entangling may actually not be entangling, and what seems to be non-entangling may be entangling. You need to see properly, understand what the actual entangling actions are, and what actions do not entangle. Based on that, you can act properly.

Now, why is this concept of karma being discussed in the Bhagavad Gita at this point? Because Arjuna is at a crucial point where he must decide what the right course of action is for him. Should he fight the war, or should he not fight the war?

In this section, we previously discussed how Krishna has descended into this world, how he has given spiritual knowledge, and how he has created various paths to access him. Verses 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 talk about how he descended and created a system of parampara (the tradition of spiritual knowledge). Verses 7.8 discuss how he descends to establish dharma, and verse 4.11 talks about the different paths by which people can come to him.

What does this mean? Krishna has provided us with paths to rise toward him. This is true, as the scriptures describe. But it is still up to us to take the scriptures as a guidebook and make our own decisions about how to act.

Krishna is telling Arjuna that he must learn to act responsibly. Now, let’s revisit verse 4.18 to understand it better. The verse says, “Karmanya akarmaiha pashed,” which means that even when you perform an action, you should see that there is no reaction to that action.

To explain this, let’s look at an example. Suppose a soldier is fighting a war on behalf of the country. The soldier may kill many enemy soldiers. Normally, killing a human being is considered heinous, but in a war, if the soldier kills an enemy, he might receive a bravery award from the state. The same soldier, however, comes back home and gets angry with his neighbor, shooting him. In this case, the soldier will be punished because there is no just cause behind this action.

In the first case, when the soldier is fighting for the nation, there is no immediate selfish intention, so there is no negative reaction. However, in the second case, where there is an act of personal aggression, there is a serious reaction. This illustrates how karma works differently depending on the intention and the context.

Now, Krishna also says, “Karmanya akarmaiha pashed akarmani chikarmaiha.” If there are riots and the police remain silent, they are equally responsible for the consequences, even though they did not take any action. Their inaction in such a situation makes them culpable. The police are meant to protect the innocent, and if they fail to act during a riot, they will be held accountable.

Similarly, if a doctor knows that a patient is ill and fails to give the necessary treatment, it is considered a criminal neglect. This example emphasizes that inaction can also lead to serious consequences.

In Arjuna’s case, Krishna is telling him that, as a Kshatriya (warrior), he has a duty to fight. If Arjuna does not fight, he will be held accountable for his inaction. Therefore, Krishna advises Arjuna to take responsibility and fight in the war.

Now, let’s shift to the next part of the discussion, which focuses on the broader concept of karma. While we discussed how to choose the right course of action, another philosophical question arises: Why do bad things happen to good people? Krishna himself acknowledges the difficulty of understanding karma. He says, “Gahana karmano gati,” meaning that the workings of karma are difficult to comprehend.

Karma suggests that we have had many lives in the past, and every action we take is like sowing a seed. The fruit of that seed will eventually come, and we must experience it. In simpler terms, the “kitchen version” of karma is: whatever we cook, we must eat. If we cook badly, we will have to eat the bad food. We can’t throw it away. This metaphor highlights that the consequences of our actions, whether good or bad, are inevitable.

Moreover, our actions, thoughts, and intentions shape our consciousness. If we constantly engage in negative actions—such as resentment, envy, or irritation—that shapes our mind in a negative way. If we continually indulge in sensual pleasures without control, our desires grow stronger, and we become tormented by those cravings. We are left dissatisfied and constantly agitated.

Karma has two consequences: the external results, which are the fruits of our actions, and the internal impact on our consciousness. The external results may come at different times, which is why karma cannot be understood as a simple cause-and-effect system. Sometimes, a good action might have negative consequences due to past actions, or someone might be experiencing the effects of bad actions done in the past while doing good now.

This is why we should not simply say that someone who is suffering is suffering because of their karma. Krishna himself acknowledges that the workings of karma are complex and difficult to grasp. He says, “Gahana karmano gati,” indicating the complexity of understanding karma.

For example, if someone is suffering due to an illness, it’s not always clear that their suffering is the result of their karma. In the case of the coronavirus pandemic, for instance, we cannot claim that everyone who is suffering from the disease is paying for their past karma. The focus should instead be on the dharma of the relief giver—the responsibility to provide help and alleviate suffering.

In the Srimad Bhagavatam, there is a story about King Pruthu, who faces a natural catastrophe in which all the supplies on earth dry up. The citizens come to King Pruthu and beg for help, explaining that their stomachs are burning due to hunger. At that moment, King Pruthu does not say, “This is your karma, you are suffering because of it.” Instead, he takes responsibility and acts to relieve their suffering.

In the story of King Pruthu, he takes action because it is his dharma to provide for his citizens. He acknowledges his responsibility as a king and works to ensure that his people are no longer suffering. He goes to the earth and urges her to change her ways and provide the necessary resources. There is a detailed account of how the earth responds, supplying what is needed for all living beings, but the key point here is that when someone is in distress, the principle of karma is primarily used not for judging others’ past actions, but for deciding what we should do in the present.

Karma is meant to guide our own actions, not to judge the actions of others. Why is this important? Because the past is complex and often beyond our understanding. We should see people from the perspective of the present moment, based on their actions and circumstances in this life. If we start thinking that someone’s suffering is purely the result of their past karma, we may become cold-hearted. For example, if a small baby is crying, should the mother think, “The baby is crying because of past karma?” No, the mother’s responsibility is to take care of the baby. Her dharma is to provide love and comfort. Even with the best care from both parents and medical professionals, sometimes a baby may experience pain or illness that is difficult to cure. In such cases, we accept the situation as destiny, but the focus should remain on what we can do to help in the present moment.

Moving on to the next point, we must understand that suffering and evil can have multiple causes. There are immediate, remote, and ultimate causes. Let’s look at this in more detail.

Consider a situation where someone becomes infected with a virus. The immediate cause of their sickness is the virus itself, but that’s not the only cause. For example, two people in the same family might both get infected, but one becomes very sick while the other does not. This could be due to different immune responses, but sometimes the outcome doesn’t match what we would expect. A person with a stronger immune system might still get sicker than someone with weaker immunity. For instance, I know of a friend who had heart disease and was told he would not live for more than 2-3 years. But this friend is still alive after 20 years, while the doctor who treated him passed away from heart failure 15 years ago. This shows that the immediate cause—whether it’s an infection, illness, or condition—is not always the full explanation.

Beyond the immediate cause, we also have remote causes, which refer to our past karma. For example, if someone contracts malaria, it’s usually because they’ve been bitten by a mosquito. In a household, several people might be bitten by mosquitoes, but only one person might get malaria. While immunity could be a factor, it’s not always the determining factor. Sometimes a person with weaker immunity doesn’t get sick, and someone with stronger immunity does.

Medical science has made remarkable advancements over the years. We know much more now than we did a few hundred years ago. However, even within the field of medicine, there are still mysteries or what some might call medical miracles. For example, why does the same medicine work for some people but not for others? Why do some healthy people die suddenly, while others who are expected to die live on for many years? These are exceptions that don’t always fit into our established understanding.

This is not to undermine mainstream scientific knowledge or medical practices. We accept the solid foundation of medical science, but it is important to also recognize the extremities, where knowledge doesn’t seem to work as well. Scientific knowledge advances by exploring these boundary conditions—the points where existing knowledge doesn’t fully explain or solve a situation. We use what we know works, but where it doesn’t work, that’s where we can push forward and expand our understanding.

Take the history of physics as an example. Newtonian physics worked well for objects at the human scale, with the tools available at the time. It became the foundation of classical physics. However, as our instruments advanced, we began exploring the microscopic and macroscopic levels. At these extremes, Newtonian physics didn’t hold up. This led to the development of quantum physics for the microscopic level and Einstein’s theory of relativity for the macroscopic level. The idea is that while the immediate cause is important, it’s not always the complete cause. When things don’t add up, we look deeper.

Similarly, in the case of suffering, the immediate cause might seem clear, but there are also remote causes, such as one’s past karma, that we must consider. And at the deepest level, there’s the ultimate cause: disconnection from Krishna, or spiritual forgetfulness. This disconnection is the root of all suffering, as it leads to a lack of understanding of who we are and what we are meant to do.

In any given situation, we address problems at different levels. For example, when we ask why bad things happen to good people, it could be because, while they may appear good right now, their past karma is still affecting them. The immediate cause of their suffering might be small, but the remote cause, which is their past karma, could be significant.

Think of it this way: in some cases, the immediate cause might account for only 0.1% of the situation, while the remote cause could account for 99.9%. For instance, a person may be very cautious, following all the necessary precautions to avoid infection. However, in a tired moment, they touch something in a public space and unknowingly bring the virus into contact with their face. This small mistake could lead to an infection, even though the person is generally careful and good. On the other hand, someone who acts recklessly might avoid any consequence, which demonstrates that the effects of our actions are not always proportional to the immediate cause.

This percentage, representing the weight of immediate versus remote causes, can vary in different situations. Some situations might be heavily influenced by past karma, while in others, the present actions might have a stronger impact.

As we move forward, it’s important to understand that there are two extremes when it comes to identifying the cause of suffering. One extreme is to focus only on the immediate cause, and the other is to focus only on the remote cause. While it’s tempting to simplify by attributing everything to one cause or the other, this approach misses the complexity of life. The immediate cause alone is not the full story, and focusing only on the remote cause overlooks the role of present actions.

If we focus only on the immediate cause of suffering, we become short-sighted, failing to see the bigger picture. On the other hand, if we focus solely on the remote cause—such as past karma—we may become hard-hearted. This means we might fail to acknowledge the suffering of others, seeing it only from the perspective of past actions and forgetting that people could be victims of present circumstances. From this life’s perspective, suffering can seem deeply unfair, and we must respond with compassion, understanding that people deserve to be cared for.

We need to avoid both extremes: being short-sighted and ignoring the deeper causes, or being hard-hearted and detaching from the reality of people’s present struggles. Instead, we must strive for a balanced perspective, where we take appropriate action based on a holistic understanding of the situation.

This balanced perspective involves addressing both the immediate and remote causes of suffering. Sometimes, the immediate cause requires direct intervention, while in other cases, we might not be able to change the remote cause. In these situations, we learn to accept and live with what we cannot control.

The next concept, which I will explore in more detail in a future session, involves three potential approaches when facing difficulties: tolerate, mitigate, and immigrate.

1. Tolerate: If the primary cause of suffering is beyond our control—like living in an area with unbearable weather—we must learn to tolerate the situation. There is little we can do to change it, so we accept it as part of life.
2. Mitigate: When the immediate cause can be addressed, we work to mitigate the suffering. For example, during an epidemic like the coronavirus, we may need to adjust our activities to limit exposure. If the cause of the suffering is due to external negligence or malice, such as government mismanagement or reckless behavior, those in authority should act to correct the situation.
3. Immigrate: In cases where the situation is not conducive to our growth, we may need to “immigrate,” meaning to move out of harmful conditions—whether that’s physically moving or, more spiritually, transitioning from material consciousness to spiritual consciousness. Ultimately, we seek to leave the material world and attain a higher state of being, reconnecting with our spiritual purpose.

By understanding these three responses, we can approach life’s challenges in a more constructive way. The principle of karma helps guide us in determining which approach is best suited to each situation.

At the core of Krishna’s teachings, particularly in the Bhagavad Gita, is the idea that understanding karma will help free us from inauspiciousness. Inauspiciousness refers to those actions or mindsets that unnecessarily complicate our lives. By gaining a deeper understanding of karma, we stop exacerbating our problems and start moving toward liberation.

Regardless of whether we tolerate, mitigate, or immigrate, we must remember that every situation is an opportunity for spiritual growth. Each challenge is an opportunity to understand ourselves better and come closer to Krishna. This perspective helps maintain a positive mindset, even when life seems full of negativity or confusion.

The Bhagavad Gita doesn’t aim to prove the law of karma. It simply accepts it as a fundamental truth. Rather than focusing on why bad things happen to good people, the Gita focuses on what good people should do when they face adversity. Krishna advises Arjuna to act responsibly, as many wise individuals have done before him, and through their actions, they attained liberation. This is emphasized in verses 4.10 and 4.15.

To summarize the discussion:

• Karma can be understood in four ways: as the action we take, the reaction we receive, the system of cause and effect, and as actions leading to positive outcomes.
• It can also refer to inaction or actions that yield no reaction, as discussed in the Bhagavad Gita.
• The Gita’s focus is not so much on what reactions we will get from our actions but on what the right actions are for us in a given situation, like Arjuna’s dilemma of whether or not to fight. Krishna teaches that determining right action is difficult even for the wise, underscoring the importance of understanding the nature of both action and inaction.

Through this understanding, we can approach the challenges of life more thoughtfully and with greater spiritual awareness.

In this discussion, we explored how knowledge can expand and deepen our vision, allowing us to see beyond the immediate. Sometimes, a knowledgeable person can perceive more than what is visible, while at other times, they may recognize that reality is the opposite of what appears. For instance, someone who seems confident may actually lack self-assurance, while a seemingly unassuming person may possess great inner strength.

Krishna teaches that even if you act responsibly, like a warrior fighting for a cause, you should do so with a mood of dutiful detachment. In this way, you will not become entangled in the consequences of your actions. A soldier fighting for their country, for example, is detached from personal gain or loss. Conversely, not acting when action is required—like a law enforcement officer who stands by while crimes are committed—leads to entanglement. Thus, it’s crucial to understand the difference between action and inaction, and to act in a way that avoids entanglement.

We also delved into the question of why bad things happen to good people. The principle of karma helps explain this. Karma represents the cause-and-effect relationship, and it extends beyond this life, with each action being like a seed that ripens at different times. When dealing with others, our focus should not be on judging their past actions, but on understanding what is right for us to do in the present moment, in line with our dharma.

We then discussed how to approach difficulties by considering the immediate, remote, and ultimate causes of suffering. For example, in the case of a pandemic like COVID-19, the immediate cause might be exposure to someone infected, the remote cause could be one’s own karma, and the ultimate cause is the disconnection from Krishna.

When facing challenges, we address them according to their level. If the issue is primarily due to the immediate cause, we mitigate it. If it stems from the remote cause, we tolerate it. And if it’s tied to the ultimate cause, we “immigrate” by raising our consciousness to a spiritual level. In all situations, rather than resenting suffering, we view it as an opportunity for spiritual growth.

The Bhagavad Gita does not seek to explain the law of karma, but rather to guide us on how to act when facing suffering. Instead of focusing on why bad things happen to good people, the Gita emphasizes how good people should respond when faced with adversity.

To summarize, we explored the concept of karma as it relates to action and reaction. Karma can be understood as the action we take, the reaction we receive, the system of action and reaction, and actions that lead to positive results. The Gita’s focus is on right action in the face of dilemmas, such as Arjuna’s struggle between fighting and abstaining from battle.

Question and Answer Segment:

A common question is why some people who smoke or drink for a long time don’t face immediate consequences. The explanation is that karma operates over time and may not show immediate reactions. Some people may have strong past karma, resulting in a healthy body despite harmful habits. It’s like having a large bank balance: they might spend recklessly but still remain financially stable for a while. However, over time, their actions will catch up with them, just as spending too much money will eventually lead to bankruptcy.

On the other hand, someone with little good karma may face immediate consequences for even small mistakes. If they take risks, like smoking or using drugs, they may experience harsh reactions right away.

Ultimately, the combination of immediate and remote causes creates unpredictable experiences for each individual. Therefore, we cannot judge the results of our actions based solely on what happens immediately. Karma ensures that all actions, whether seen or unseen, will eventually yield their reactions.

In this discussion, we addressed the claim from atheists that theists use karma as an excuse for not performing their tasks. This claim is interesting, but when we examine history, some of the greatest accomplishments have been achieved by devoted individuals. Many of the finest architectural works, such as temples and churches, were created by people of deep faith. Some of the most profound literary compositions were also written by those who were devoted.

If atheism were to make people lazy, how could such monumental works be accomplished? The Mahabharata, for example, contains 110,000 verses—seven times longer than the Iliad and Odyssey combined. If Yudhishthira or other figures in the Mahabharata had used karma as an excuse to avoid their duty, how could they have created such a monumental text? This reveals a misunderstanding of karma as an excuse for laziness.

However, we must also acknowledge that some theists might misuse the concept of karma. Sometimes, people may fail to address the immediate causes of their suffering, thinking that everything is governed by karma. This is a misapplication of the philosophy. In the Dharmic tradition, for example, Ayurveda doesn’t rely solely on divine intervention for healing. While it prays to God and acknowledges the divine, Ayurveda also involves practical science to address the immediate causes of illness. So, using karma as an excuse to neglect immediate causes is incorrect.

The capacity to see the past and understand the remote cause of a situation is a strength, not a weakness. Sometimes, some things cannot be changed, and in those cases, we need to tolerate them rather than worsen the situation by trying to change what is beyond our control. This understanding is a strength, provided we apply it correctly.

Do the three causes of suffering act simultaneously? The ultimate cause of suffering—the disconnection from Krishna—is always present, like being in an ocean. Sometimes, the waters are calm, and other times, stormy waves of difficulty hit us. The ultimate cause of our suffering is the ocean itself. The remote and immediate causes, however, may be more prominent at different times. For example, in a particular situation, the immediate cause might be 99% responsible, while the remote cause is only 1%. All three causes work together, but they may not be equally influential at all times. Different causes may demand different responses, depending on which one is most prominent in the situation.

Is our free will completely free? No, our free will is not completely unrestricted. Our past actions influence our current choices. For example, someone who has repeatedly drunk alcohol may develop a strong craving, making it harder to resist in the future. While the person still has free will, their past actions can strongly influence their desires and decisions. However, free will is not taken away entirely. Even in the case of an alcoholic, there are moments when they can exercise their free will, especially when the craving is not at its peak. What they choose to do in those moments can shape their future, positively or negatively.

Why does our deeper knowledge not always lead to right action? This happens because of conditioning. Even when we know what the right action is, the momentum of past habits and choices can push us toward the wrong ones. It’s like a car that’s been driven fast for a long time; pressing the brake doesn’t stop the car immediately. Similarly, our past actions create a momentum that can lead us to make unhealthy choices, even when we know better.

What we can do is not to press the “accelerator” of our bad habits any further. Even if we can’t immediately resist the urge to make the wrong choice, we can work on not reinforcing those choices. Additionally, in the moments between temptations, we can make better decisions and stay connected with spiritual practices.

How to overcome the influence of past conditioning? The key is persistence and patience with ourselves. We should connect with Krishna and engage in practices that uplift us. For example, if we enjoy chanting, hearing classes, or meditating on the deities, we should make these activities easily accessible. By focusing on uplifting activities, we crowd out unwanted desires rather than trying to fight them directly. Instead of saying “no” to a bad habit, we say “yes” to Krishna and to something positive. Over time, this will help weaken the influence of past conditioning and allow us to make better choices.

Through bhakti practices, we can counteract the negative effects of our past conditioning, gradually purify ourselves, and move toward a more spiritually connected and fulfilling life.

Thank you very much

Hare Krishna

The post Gita key verses course 14 – What is karma? Why do bad things happen to good people? – Gita 4.16-18 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

So, today we are discussing the 4th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, text 11. This is 4.11: “ye thamam prapadyante tam satayiva bhajamyaham mamavartaman uvartante anushyaparth sarvashyama.”

Ye thamam prapadyante, Krishna says, as all people surrender unto me, I reward them accordingly. And importantly, mamavartaman uvartante anushyaparth sarvashyama, mamavartaman uvartante, all people are on my path. Sometimes this is translated as “mamavartaman uvartante,” meaning that all paths lead to me. So, here we will be discussing what this means, especially in terms of why there are different paths and how we can look at the PowerPoint. You will see various points over there, discussing why there are different paths, how we can evaluate different paths, and how we can commit to one path while also appreciating other paths.

So, in this case, broadly speaking, one metaphor we will be using is the metaphor of climbing up a mountain. Now, when we climb up a mountain, at that time, there are two things: there is the bottom of the mountain, and there is the top of the mountain. So, the bottom of the mountain is material consciousness, the top of the mountain is spiritual consciousness, and each one of us needs to move on that journey from the bottom to the top. Now, for this journey to take place, what all is required? Firstly, we need a path to go up the mountain. This is a journey which every human heart ultimately longs for, even if that heart doesn’t know that it’s longing for it. How is that? Because we are all longing for lasting life and lasting love, and lasting life and lasting love are not to be had at the material level of reality. They can be had only at the spiritual level. So, our efforts might be directed in various directions. When we watch, say, romantic movies, when we read novels, when we try to form romantic relationships, whenever we are actually looking for something lasting, some lasting connection, we are expressing, often in a misdirected way, that aspiration to climb up the top of the mountain because it is the spiritual level of reality that is eternal. At the material level, things are temporary. So, that was one of the fundamental teachings of the Gita.

In 2.16, Krishna says that of the temporary, there is no endurance; the material keeps changing constantly, and of the eternal, there is no cessation.

So, this is the journey that we all want to take. Now, on this journey, or for this journey, the path that is there, different people have different visions of that path. So, broadly, this vision can be talked about in three ways: exclusivism, pluralism, and inclusivism. So, if you look at the diagram, you’ll see that exclusivism refers to the idea that there is only one path. This path is the only way to the mountain. So, we could say that when we are trying to climb up a mountain, there is a path and there is a purpose. The path refers to which particular road we are taking, and the purpose refers to where we want to go, that is, the top of the mountain. So, in exclusivism, people are more attached to the path than to the purpose, and they think this is the only path.

Now, exclusivism strikes us as unreasonable and narrow-minded. Why? Because in exclusivism, the basic point comes up that if God is infinite, then why should the ways to Him be finite, and not only finite, why only one? If God’s love is unlimited, then why would He limit access to Him and the expression of His love to only one path?

So, there are religions in the world, there are traditions in the world, which are exclusivist.

So, the word exclusivism refers to something like, say, if a particular channel, say ESPN, has exclusive coverage of a sports event, like the Cricket World Cup, then that means it’s only available here, nowhere else. So, like that, some people say that God is accessible only through their path and no other path. So, exclusivism seems narrow-minded to us. Now, if we go to the other extreme, we can have pluralism. Pluralism holds that all paths are right. Now, when this happens, when we say that all paths are right, there is a problem with that—a serious problem, in fact, and that is that we can look at it in two ways.

First of all, if you are at the bottom of a mountain, logically speaking, there could be paths which go around and around the mountain, there could be paths which go down into a valley, there are paths which go away from the mountain, and there could be paths which go up the mountain. So, logically speaking, all paths don’t go up the mountain. So, pluralism seems very broad-minded, but actually, it’s empty-minded. So, empty-minded means it makes open-mindedness into a fetish. It raises open-mindedness to such an absolute value that we want to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out and there’s nothing left inside.

So, logically speaking, another way of looking at pluralism is that if we consider that, say, if all paths are right—that is the statement—then one path is that among all paths, one path is that only my path is right. So, if all paths are right, then one of those paths, which says that only my path is right, should also be right. So, if A is that all paths are right, then B, only my path is right, should also be right. So, if A is right, then B should be right. But if B is right, then A can’t be right. If only my path is right, then all paths can’t be right.

So, pluralism leads us to a logical quicksand in which we get stuck. And there is no easy way ahead. So, exclusivism and pluralism, we could say, are both problematic. People who are exclusivist often, instead of trying to go up the mountain, keep going around and around the mountain and pulling down people from other paths, saying that their path is wrong. Whereas pluralists go all over the place and think that they are going up the mountain, but they are actually not going up the mountain.

So beyond this, there is inclusivism. Inclusivism means there is one purpose which includes many paths. And that one purpose that includes many paths means that what is the one purpose? That one purpose is to get to the top of the mountain—to get to the top of the mountain. And now, there can be many paths up the mountain. Somebody can go from the left, the right, the front, the back. Somebody can go from a side which is very vertically steep, where it gets you up faster, but it’s dangerous. Somebody can go from a slowly inclining, slowly rising side where the ascent is slower, but it is smoother. So, like that, there can be different paths up the mountain. But the key is that we should be rising up the mountain. If you’re not rising up the mountain, then it’s not a valid path.

So for each one of us, how do these three paths relate to this Gita verse, and how does it relate to what is being taught in the Gita till now? This is the first conceptual understanding of what the Gita is teaching, and then let’s look at this concept.

So, basically, the Gita begins with Arjuna’s question about what should I do? And Krishna answers, to understand what you should do, you should know who you are. And He talks about the difference between the body and the soul. And then He talks about how that spiritual identity needs to be expressed through our practical activity in this world. So, we talk about various aspects in that direction. In the previous session, we talked about how Krishna and God Himself descend to this world to give revelation and to maintain social order in the world.

So now, we maintain social order in the world. Even when God comes and descends, not everybody surrenders to Him, not everybody harmonizes with Him. So, different people have different ideas and they follow different things. So Krishna says the principle here is reciprocity. As people surrender to me, I reward them accordingly. So that principle of reciprocity. Now, what does it mean actually? God is not just a principle, He’s a person. And as a person, what it means is that He seeks love and He offers love. And loving relationships are based on reciprocation.

So Krishna, to the extent we approach Him, to the extent He reveals Himself, and thus if somebody starts climbing up the mountain, the vision of the peak becomes clearer and clearer. So Krishna reveals Himself more and more as we take efforts to go closer and closer to Him. And now, what does this mean in the second half? The first half is the principle of reciprocity. It’s like when we want to relate with someone, we share our hearts with them, and they share their hearts with us. We commit to them, and they commit to us. It’s a reciprocity.

Now Krishna is always committed to us in the sense that He’s always present in our hearts. He is always our well-being share. At the same time, He doesn’t impose Himself on us. So He doesn’t reveal Himself to us more than what we want to see. So that’s the first principle of reciprocity. Now this reciprocity depends on the heart’s desire. It depends on what we want in the heart. It doesn’t depend on one specific religious affiliation. It depends on one’s devotional intention. So in that sense, the Bhagavad Gita is universal in saying that access to God depends on the intention of the heart, not the affiliation of the body or of the affiliation based on race or religion or whatever else.

Now, what does the second half mean? As I said, some Gita commentators say all paths lead to me. Now, while this, if it’s taken literally, has several logical problems.

Prabhupada asked a simple question when he was presented with this translation. He says that if all paths lead to God, then why does God have to speak anything? If whatever Arjuna will do, he will ultimately attain Krishna, then why does Krishna have to speak the Gita? There are many places in the Gita where Krishna says that there are very divergent, even opposite trajectories that our life will take depending on the choices we make. Conclusively, if you don’t become conscious of me, you will be lost.

So when Krishna says this, what does it mean? It means He’s giving clear choices, and choices have consequences. He’s not giving a “feel-good” kind of spirituality that says whatever you do, you will attain me. So what does this mean? “All paths lead to me” is not Krishna’s message, actually.

Now, there are definitely parts of the Bhagavad Gita that talk about different paths, and these different paths ultimately lead to Him. So, through Karma Yoga, through Jnana Yoga, through Bhakti Yoga, through all of these, ultimately people can attain Krishna. But saying that various paths can take us to God is very different from saying that all paths lead to God. Therefore, saying that this verse means “all paths lead to me” is an oversimplification to the point of distortion.

But then what does this verse mean? The adjective sarvashaha is closer to manushyaha (people) than vartma (path). So rather than saying “all paths lead to me,” it is more accurate to say “all people are on my path.” Mamavartma is closer to manushyaha than vartma. So, we could say that all people are on my path. Now, what does this mean?

This leads to a deeper principle that we will explore later. But for now, to understand simply: when I talked about material consciousness and spiritual consciousness, I said this is the bottom of the mountain, and this is the top of the mountain. The top of the mountain is spiritual consciousness. That’s true. At the same time, God is not limited to the top of the mountain. God exists everywhere. By Him, all of existence is pervaded. In fact, everything comes from Him and everything is pervaded by Him.

So, what this means is if somebody goes to the top of the mountain, that’s good. If somebody goes around and around the mountain, someone goes away from the mountain into the valley, or someone just keeps going halfway up the mountain, wherever a person is going, they are attracted to something. They are going in that direction because of that attraction. Later on, Krishna will tell in the Bhagavad Gita that everything attractive manifests as a spark of Krishna’s splendor.

So, what this means is if everything attractive manifests as a spark of Krishna’s splendor, that means that whatever anyone is attracted to, they are attracted to Krishna. For instance, if a person is alcoholic and they can’t give up alcohol, if while craving alcohol, while drinking alcohol, they think that this is the taste of Krishna, then by remembering Krishna in this way, one day they will become devotees of Krishna. Now, He’s not saying that by drinking alcohol, they become devotees of Krishna, but by seeing the connection between the attractive power of alcohol and the supreme attractiveness of Krishna, by remembering Krishna thus, that will begin their spiritual journey, and eventually, they will attain Krishna.

So, when Krishna says all people are on my path, what it means is that whatever anyone is attracted to, they are attracted to Krishna. However, they are not conscious that they are attracted to Krishna, and that’s why when they go on that path, they don’t go to Krishna. So, everything attractive comes from Krishna, but everything attractive doesn’t take us to Krishna. I’ll repeat this: everything attractive comes from Krishna, but everything attractive doesn’t take us to Krishna.

What this means is, now let’s change the metaphor a little bit. Instead of the top of a mountain, the example of the bottom and top of a mountain gives us a sense of the trajectory that needs to be followed, and certainly it is our consciousness that needs to be transformed. At a particular level now, we are at a material level, and that consciousness has to rise to the spiritual level. But it is not that God is present only at the spiritual level. As I said, God is present everywhere in His various manifestations.

So, let’s change the metaphor to that of the ocean. Suppose somebody is lost in a desert, and there is an ocean at some distance from them, not yet visible to them. Now, from that ocean, some drops of water might have been blown by the wind or whatever, and they have fallen. Some drops might have fallen along the way that goes toward the ocean. Some drops might be just on the left side or right side where they don’t, where the person doesn’t go. Those drops are also at the same distance from the ocean, and some drops may be on the opposite side of the ocean.

So, now all these drops have come from the ocean, but going toward those drops won’t necessarily take the person toward the ocean. Similarly, if we consider Krishna to be the ocean and the various attractive things in this world to be the drops, then everything attractive comes from Krishna, but everything attractive doesn’t take us to Krishna.

So, in that sense, when Krishna says all people are on my path, it means they are ultimately pursuing me, no matter whatever they are pursuing. That doesn’t necessarily mean that just by pursuing those things, an alcoholic by drinking alcohol or a manic sports fan by binging on sports matches is going to attain Krishna. But if they contemplate philosophically, “What is it about this that captivates me so much? Oh, there is this player who bats so well. Where does this player’s ability come from?” That ability comes from Krishna. Where does the thrill that comes in a sports match, when there’s a tense final, a tense concluding phase of the match and some exciting finish happens? All that excitement is actually a draw of the excitement that is experienced in the spiritual level of reality when a soul has a relationship with Krishna. The soul is about to meet Krishna and doesn’t know whether they’ll meet or not.

So, that is all. The idea is that we all surrender to Krishna and that Krishna is everywhere, but going everywhere won’t take us to Krishna because it is our consciousness that has to rise toward Krishna. Everything attractive comes from Krishna, but everything attractive doesn’t take us to Krishna. Now, having understood this, this point that we have, I have now talked about exclusivism, pluralism, and inclusivism.

Now, there is a beautiful example of inclusivism in a quote from Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Bhaktivinoda Thakur states that if we go to the place of worship of another tradition where God is worshiped in a way different from ours, then what should we do? He says we should be there in a respectful, worshipful mood and appreciate that God has extended Himself out of His loving compassion for these people and manifested in a way that they can appreciate, that they can connect with, and that they can devote themselves to. Our appreciation for God’s compassion can increase: How compassionate is my Lord that He manifests in this way?

At the same time, this deepens our devotion to the Lord in the form that we are attracted to, that we can connect with. So, we talk about being committed to our path while also appreciating other paths. How does this work? It’s like if we are trying to go up a mountain, and we have come to a particular height, and somebody else has gone up the mountain and come to a particular height, and now they share notes. They might be at different places—they’re not exactly next to each other—but maybe they are both at the same level in their respective journeys. And if they share their notes, there are some things that are similar and some things that are different. If there is a sincere desire to learn and share, both can enrich their understanding of their path and their purpose.

Prabhupada would often say, when he came to the Western world, “I have not come here to make Christians into Hindus.” There is a horizontal conversion where people are pulled from going up the mountain by this path to come over here and go up by this path. So, Prabhupada was not interested in horizontal conversion. Horizontal conversion is essentially changing people’s location from one place at the bottom of the mountain to another place. Vertical conversion, if at all we want to use the terminology “conversion” (which nowadays has a negative connotation), we could say vertical transformation. What that essentially means is a change of people’s location—not horizontally from one place to another, but vertically in terms of their consciousness. The consciousness rises from the material level to the spiritual level.

Prabhupada’s interest was in vertical transformation, not in horizontal conversion. And what does this vertical transformation mean? It means that somebody becomes devoted to the Lord and starts rising towards the Lord. So, if somebody was already a committed Christian, Prabhupada would encourage them to follow Christianity with greater commitment, with greater depth. He would encourage them to follow the commandments more clearly. Prabhupada felt that “Thou shall not kill” is a commandment that Christians are not following properly and that could be used to encourage them to become vegetarian, which would help them rise to higher consciousness.

Now, some people who are nominally Christians (meaning they are born into a particular family but have no interest in spiritual growth or see their religious affiliation as a path to spiritual growth), Prabhupada wouldn’t bother too much about. He would say that you can practice the path given by Krishna and Lord Caitanya. He would inspire them to take up that path.

So, Prabhupada was both, we could say, an inclusivist. There is a universal aspect to spirituality, and there is a confidential aspect to spirituality. The universal aspect is that we all want to go up the mountain, and everybody should be encouraged to go up the mountain. At the same time, the confidential aspect means that there are certain things revealed only in certain traditions. It’s like if we are at the bottom of a mountain, sometimes when we look to the top, some paths might be shrouded with trees or cliffs, and we might not be able to see the peak very clearly. Some paths might be so clear that even from the bottom, we can see the peak much more clearly.

Similarly, in the Bhakti Yoga tradition, our understanding is that we have a very clear glimpse, a clear vision of God. That vision is what we are sharing. So, Prabhupada would say that there is a description of Krishna’s pastimes and of that one absolute truth (ekam satvipra bahudha vadanti). Though we should say that there is one truth, the wise people know that truth by different names. So, Prabhupada would say Krishna, Christ, Buddha, Allah, Yahweh—these are all names of that one absolute truth. One absolute truth can have different names.

In our tradition, there is a distinctive revelation of God that is not there in other traditions. This is not just a sectarian claim for one-upmanship that my tradition is better than yours. God is not the monopoly of any tradition. In fact, all traditions are devoted to God. God is not limited to any tradition. God is bigger than any of the paths and religions and processes that people may use to devote themselves to Him.

God transcends every conceptual framework that we might use to approach Him or to understand Him. But, having said that, this is not a sectarian claim to one-upmanship. This is just an objective statement based on the study of the texts. If you look at the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Quran, there is not much positive description of God. The Old Testament is basically a description of the adventures of God’s chosen people—the adventures and the misadventures, we could say. How they were slaves in Egypt and how Moses helped them come to the promised land and subsequently what all happened. That’s what is described in those books. God comes mostly as a supernatural presence who intervenes sometimes to protect those who are devoted to Him and sometimes to punish those who go against Him, or even punish His own people when they choose to go away from Him. But God per se is not directly revealed.

Even in the New Testament, the Christian Bible, the Old Testament is sometimes called the Hebrew Bible. Now, in the New Testament, most of it is actually Paul’s epistles—Paul’s letters that he wrote. Paul was one of the followers of Jesus who actually never met Jesus. In fact, while Jesus was alive, Paul actively persecuted Christians on behalf of the Roman Emperor. But then he went blind on the road to Damascus and had a transformative experience. Jesus restored his eyes, and then he became devoted to Jesus. So, most of what we call the Bible is actually Paul’s instructions about how to live morally and how to follow Jesus. So, that’s more moral instruction than any spiritual revelations. Even Jesus, the most important part of the Bible we could say, is the Gospels. The four Gospels are written by four different Apostles, and they are basically descriptions of Jesus’ activities while He was there, from different perspectives. And Jesus, during His life, mostly taught through parables—stories with moral import to them.

And none of those stories have any deep personal revelations about God, God’s nature, or God’s personality. If we consider the Quran, it was revealed gradually over time. Till the age of 40, Mohammed had a fairly normal life. Although he was known to have times of solitary contemplation, at one particular point, after a hard life when he had settled down and become relatively influential after marrying the widow who had been his employer, he went into a cave. He heard a voice saying, “Write.” He responded, “I can’t write.” The voice said, “No, write.” Mohammed then understood that it was the Archangel Gabriel speaking to him. He heard those words and later spoke them to others. Sometimes, while talking with people, he would suddenly feel that the divine was speaking through him and would ask others to write it down. He spoke these revelations at different times, and several decades after his death, his followers compiled them into the Quran. The Quran is mostly a unidirectional revelation, where there is no serious philosophical discussion or very deep personal revelation of God’s nature.

Again, none of this is to minimize the potency of these traditions or to say that those who have followed them have not risen to high spiritual levels. What I am saying is that if we look from the bottom of the mountain, from some sides, we can see the peak more clearly. From other sides, the path might still be taking us to the peak, but we can’t see it as clearly because of various reasons—the path might be winding around, there might be wild terrain, trees, or cliffs. As we grow spiritually, there have been exalted saints in many traditions across the world, saints who were completely devoted to God. So, in that sense, there is a universal aspect of revelation: ultimately, God wants the soul to reach Him, and thus, there are different paths for reaching Him.

At the same time, we can appreciate the path we are following and its specific attributes. One attribute I am referring to here is that the revelation of God’s personal identity is much clearer in the Bhakti tradition. This is how we can appreciate our path and commit to it while also appreciating others and their commitment to their paths. Bhaktivinoda Thakur says that by seeing others’ devotion to their paths, our devotion to our path will increase. For example, when you see Muslims doing their namaz regularly, you may be inspired to do your prayers regularly.

There’s a story about Prabhupada in Iran. He was talking with some devotees after they had invited some guests and those guests had left. Suddenly, the namaz prayer started in the background. Prabhupada folded his hands, closed his eyes, and remained silent and prayerful for the entire prayer. Afterward, Prabhupada opened his eyes, which were bright, and said, “Wasn’t that beautiful?” Some devotees were a little taken aback and said, “Prabhupada, wouldn’t it be better if they were chanting Hare Krishna?” Prabhupada looked almost pained and said, “Why are you making me sectarian? They are worshiping God in their way; we are worshiping God in our way.” Prabhupada demonstrated an openness to the idea that God can be accessed through different paths, and he showed respect for other traditions while remaining committed to the Bhakti path.

Now, if we are going to follow a particular path, how do we know that a path is taking us up the mountain? We talked about inclusivism and understanding one purpose with many paths, but we also differentiate inclusivism from pluralism. So, how do we know that one path is taking us up? Is it taking us up or round and round, or is it taking us away from the mountain to a valley? Essentially, there are two things to look for.

First, if the path is taking us up the mountain, the peak should come closer, and the ground should seem further away from us. This means that as we go toward the spiritual level of reality, if we are following a path that leads to the spiritual realm, the attractiveness of the spiritual will be revealed more and more to us. We should start feeling more serenity, more purity, and more ecstasy in our connection with the divine. As we rise up the mountain, our attachment to worldly things should start decreasing.

So, in broad terms, attachment to the divine and detachment from worldly infatuations are characteristics of a path that is actually taking us on a spiritual journey. The specifics of spiritual attachment and detachment from material things may vary in different paths, and individual practitioners may show different degrees of detachment. But the principle is that if these two things are happening, then the path is taking us up the mountain.

By considering attachment to the divine and detachment from material things, we can evaluate a path—not in a judgmental sense, but to understand our purpose and see if the path is taking us toward that purpose.

In this way, we can have an inclusive vision of reality, where we both appreciate our path and commit to it while also appreciating other paths and the devotion people have to those paths.

To summarize: I began by discussing how we understand the principle of reciprocity and why there are different paths. I explained the basic metaphors of the top and bottom of the mountain: the top represents the spiritual level of consciousness, while the bottom is the material level. Spiritual paths can be categorized into three broad levels: exclusivism, pluralism, and inclusivism. Exclusivism claims that one path has exclusive rights to God, which can be narrow-minded and fanatical, making an unlimited God seem parochial. On the other side of the spectrum is pluralism, where all paths are considered equally valid, but inclusivism offers a balanced perspective, acknowledging multiple paths while emphasizing one’s own path for spiritual growth.

That is not right because all paths don’t take us to the top of the mountain. Secondly, we need to talk about the logical issue: if all paths are right, then one path claiming to be the only correct path creates a logical contradiction.

Then, I talk about Bhakti Vinoda Thakur’s appreciation of how our devotion to God increases when we see Him manifested differently from how we experience Him. Our devotion to our path grows by seeing the devotion of others to their paths. We also discuss the universal dimension of spirituality and the confidential dimension specific to each tradition.

The confidential dimension means that each tradition may view the truth differently. I talked about how the specific revelation of God’s personality and beauty may be absent in some traditions but is much more prominent in others.

Now, we also discussed the meaning of “all paths lead to Me” in the Bhagavad Gita. If that were the case, it would make Krishna’s teachings redundant, as Krishna instructs us to do certain things and avoid others. The phrase “all paths lead to Me” could be understood as Krishna being like the ocean from which droplets have dispersed in various directions. Some droplets move toward the ocean, while others move away. Everything attractive comes from Krishna, but not everything leads us to Him. Whatever a person pursues, they are ultimately pursuing Krishna. To the extent they realize this, they will redirect their quest toward Him and ultimately attain Him.

Now, let’s address a few questions one by one.

Is belonging to a parampara a sign of affiliation? What does it mean? Well, not exactly. You have to understand that God is not limited by any material designation.

Is affiliation with a parampara a prerequisite to distinguishing a valid path from a fake one? Not necessarily. The four paramparas are what we know from a particular text, but are these the only four paramparas? In our tradition, we’ve had saints who have been accepted as saints without belonging to a parampara. Mirabai is an example, and there are many others. The idea of a parampara should not be used to turn an inclusive tradition into an exclusive one.

The parampara system essentially indicates that the soul is on a multi-life journey. Some people may have already been on a spiritual path in a previous life, had a spiritual master, and evolved spiritually. In this life, they may not be connected to a spiritual master or tradition. Of course, we shouldn’t presume that we fall into this category, but we must respect devotion wherever it manifests. One characteristic of devotion described in our tradition is that it is not dependent on anything else.

Devotion is not dependent on affiliation with a parampara. When we die, Krishna will not check our attendance at a particular ritual and grant or deny entry to the spiritual world based on that. It is ultimately about the affiliation of the heart. There are people who took initiation from Prabhupada but never truly practiced. Prabhupada once said, “I never initiated them because initiation is an act of the heart.”

We understand that traditions can be many. The important thing is being connected to God and progressing on the path toward Him. Generally, Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that knowledge is transmitted in this way, which is a description, not a prescription. Krishna is not saying that this is the only way He will reveal Himself for eternity.

Being in a parampara is a safe way of gaining knowledge, much like going to an authorized doctor increases the likelihood of receiving good treatment. However, for some ailments, a grandmother’s home remedies may work. The grandmother will not replace a doctor, and she won’t start a medical academy, but the principle is that wherever the cure is happening, it is good.

Thus, we accept that if someone is attached to the Lord and exhibits detachment from material things, we appreciate their devotion. We don’t need to exclude them just because they are not part of our parampara.

Prabhupada was asked about this on a TV show. He was with a Christian priest, and the host asked the priest whether someone who follows the Bible would go back to God. The priest said, “The path to God is narrow and difficult.” When the host turned to Prabhupada and asked whether someone who follows the Bhagavad Gita would go back to God, Prabhupada said, “If anyone follows the message of God, they will attain God.” Prabhupada was clear on that.

Now, regarding how we can know if we are on the right path: Essentially, it’s about increased attachment to the spirit. This means we are growing spiritually, becoming more attached to the spirit and less attached to matter. That’s the essence of the process. As for the question about different degrees of surrender, I’ll address that when we talk about surrender in a future class.

I don’t want to go into the whole concept of devatas right now; I will discuss that in a future class as well.

Now, chanting is often said to be the only way. How does this relate to inclusivism? Well, what is chanting? It is the repetition of the Hare Nama mantra. Prabhupada said that chanting any name of God can elevate people. There is both a universal and a confidential aspect to this.

Some names of God refer to His relationship with the world, while others refer to His self-existential glory. For example, there are names that describe God as the provider, protector, and maintainer—these are names that speak about what God does for us, rather than who God is in His own right. Bhaktivinoda Thakur explains that the names of God that directly refer to His self-existential glory highlight His personality more and, therefore, awaken a deeper spiritual attraction to Him. These names remind us of God’s true nature.

That said, chanting any name of God can elevate us. We should not limit our understanding of chanting to just one particular mantra. Chanting, in its essence, is an expression of love and devotion. When we love someone, we take great joy in remembering them and calling out their names. By chanting the name of God, we invoke the same love, and our devotion for Him increases. This is the principle of devotion and inclusivism as it relates to chanting.

Now, how can we be efficient in fulfilling our worldly duties while striving to reach the top of the mountain, or while we are in between? It’s not that we should abandon our duties, but rather, we should begin to see those duties through a more spiritual lens. Instead of working solely for personal gain—whether it’s wealth or fame—we recognize that the abilities we have are gifts from God. We use those abilities to make a contribution on His behalf.

Earlier, in a previous session, I talked about how happiness comes not from collecting and consuming but from connecting and contributing. We see our abilities as gifts from God, and when we use them to serve others, we do so with a sense of gratitude, knowing we are contributing to His work in the world. This helps others on their spiritual journey.

So, the bottom duties should not be rejected. The “bottom” refers to a level of consciousness, not a stage to abandon. If we cultivate a deeper level of consciousness, we can perform those duties with greater understanding and commitment. For example, a teacher might teach simply because they need to earn a living, or they might teach because they want to shape the future of humanity by training the next generation of leaders. The second approach is much more inspiring.

When we see our work as worship, we understand that it can be an act of devotion. When we discuss work and worship in more detail, especially in the 18th chapter, we will see that our abilities and resources are meant to help us connect with the Lord inside and make a contribution on His behalf outside. By doing so, we fulfill our duties responsibly while maintaining our devotional practices.

So that we can connect with Him better, among the three divisions of knowledge—Shruti, Smriti, and Nyaya Prasthana—the first Shruti is plural, Nyaya is exclusive, and Smriti is inclusive. This is an interesting way of looking at things. Let me break this down into three key points.

First, I’ll explain what Shruti, Smriti, and Nyaya are. Shruti primarily refers to the Vedas and the Upanishads, which are considered revelations heard directly from the Lord by the sages. Smriti, on the other hand, refers to recollections or what some might call tradition—essentially, what the sages heard and transmitted to others. As these teachings were passed down over generations, they became revered as revelation.

In Shruti, the letters themselves are significant because they are considered the direct revelation from the divine. For instance, the Bhagavatam, which started as a brief work, eventually expanded into thousands of verses. That’s Shruti.

Then we have Nyaya, which refers primarily to the Vedanta Sutra. Nyaya involves logic and reasoning, providing inferences that help clarify the meaning of certain sections of the Upanishads that may be difficult to understand. It explains how these texts point toward the ultimate reality. In Nyaya literature, particularly the Vedanta Sutra, these discussions take place. These three—Shruti, Smriti, and Nyaya—are the core texts in the tradition.

Traditionally, any Acharya or any new tradition that sought to establish its authenticity had to comment on these three fundamental books: Shruti, Smriti, and Nyaya.

Now, in our context, we can say that Shruti, especially in its widely known form, discusses various forms of worship of the Devatas (deities), which can be considered pluralistic. You can worship this god or that god. This, at first glance, may seem pluralistic. However, the Vedic conception of divinity is much more subtle and nuanced. It goes beyond simple monotheism or polytheism. It’s a sophisticated form of theology known as polymorphic monotheism, which I will explain later.

In the first glance, yes, Shruti may appear to embrace pluralism, especially in the Karma Kanda (ritual section) of the Vedas. As for Nyaya, it focuses more on the oneness of reality, although the nature of this oneness is still a subject of discussion. Nyaya emphasizes monism, which can be seen as inclusive in some ways, but also pluralistic because it acknowledges multiple gods, with the ultimate reality being one.

Specifically, the Bhagavatam (a Shruti text) integrates different conceptions of divinity and offers an inclusive understanding. It presents God as both personal and impersonal, and while there are devatas (lesser gods), there is a Supreme Being who stands above them, yet they are all interconnected. So, the Shrutis can definitely be viewed as inclusivist.

Now, for the last question I will address: Does following the rules and regulations of sadhana strictly, and instructing others to follow the same, mean forcing them to follow a specific path? How is this different from spreading a particular path?

There’s nothing wrong with inviting people to rise up the mountain by following the path we are walking. When we find a particular path transformational, we naturally feel inspired to share that transformational process with others. Is this conversion? Are people being forced to follow this path? No, everyone has free will, and no one is being coerced. There is no threat or force being applied.

However, when people are new to the path, there is often the “zeal of the new convert,” where someone may feel that they have found the truth and believe others are wrong. They may attempt to prove their point and can present Krishna consciousness in a forceful manner. But I have shown how Prabhupada and Bhaktivinoda Thakur presented things—gently and inclusively.

Yes, there is a particular path, and if someone commits to that path, they can rise to higher consciousness by following it. Every path will encourage people to ascend in some way because they believe it is beneficial. But does this mean we condemn or reject other paths? No, every path offers a way to heal, and everyone can rise to higher consciousness through whatever path inspires them.

Thank you very much.

The post Gita key verses course 13 – Why are there so many religious paths? – Gita 4.11 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Thank you very much for joining today.
We will be continuing our discussion on the Bhagavad Gita.

We are discussing the fourth chapter, and I have shared the PowerPoint. We will be discussing verse 4.8 in the Bhagavad Gita.
The topic is: Who is God? Does He care? Why should we care?

Verse 4.8 in the Bhagavad Gita is a well-known verse. Here, Krishna says that He descends to this world repeatedly to bring order to it and to establish dharma.

Dharma can be described as the moral and spiritual order at both an individual and a social level. Krishna comes to establish this order. When He comes in this way, He also empowers the devoted and disempowers the demoniac.

Now, I have the slide, and all of you have the PowerPoint. I will mention which slide I am speaking on, and then you can go to that slide. That way, we will have a correlation between our discussions and the visuals. I am not sharing the screen.

Review of What We Have Covered So Far

The Bhagavad Gita begins with the question: What is it that I am meant to do? What is dharma?

To understand what we are meant to do, we need to understand who we are. And then, as we understand that we are spiritual beings, the question arises: How do I live in a way that helps me realize my identity?

We talked about destiny, work, the search for pleasure, and duty. Various aspects of these topics were discussed.

Then, we moved to the question of knowledge: How do we gain that knowledge?

In the previous session, we talked about revelation. Revelation is given by God. However, God doesn’t just give revelation—He also descends to ensure that reality and the world are aligned with revelation.

This alignment means living in a way that is harmonious with the ultimate reality. For this purpose, He descends.

Slide Reference

Slide 3 outlines the three key questions we are addressing:
Who is God? Does He care? Why should I care?

Revelation teaches us not just who we are but also whose we are. It helps us understand that we are not just isolated, fragmented beings existing in an uncaring cosmos. Rather, we are parts of a whole—something much bigger than ourselves.

This is shown on Slide 5, where it states that we are parts of a whole. The identity of that whole is also revealed.

The Bhagavad Gita focuses more on the divine from Chapter 7 onward. Here, the focus on the divine is like a detour. Krishna mentions that He gave this knowledge at the dawn of creation. Arjuna asks in 4.4:
“How could you have given this knowledge? You are contemporary to me. Were you existing at the dawn of creation?”

In response, Krishna reveals His divinity.

Krishna’s primary emphasis, however, is not on His divinity but on how to function in the world based on spiritual identity. Verses 4.5 to 4.14 touch upon Krishna’s divinity, but this is like a brief aside. This theme is elaborated on further from Chapter 7 onward.

Krishna’s Response

Krishna says:
“Both of us have had many lives before. I remember all of them, but you don’t.”

Revelation teaches us about the identity of the divine.

Who is God?

At this stage, we focus on a preliminary understanding. A deeper understanding will come in Chapter 7, where specifics about God are discussed.

To know about God, there are two approaches:

1. Forward Reasoning
2. Backward Reasoning

Let me explain these approaches.

Forward Reasoning

Forward reasoning means we propose God as an axiom. If we accept that God exists and establish a basic definition of God, we then move forward to examine:
If God were the founding basis of existence, does the world align with this principle?

In other words, we start by accepting God as an axiom and then evaluate whether the world makes sense as a creation of God.

Backward Reasoning

Backward reasoning starts with observing the world as it exists and tracing backward to infer whether God exists.

For example, when we use the design argument, we observe the complexity and order in the world and ask:
Could this have come into existence by itself or by chance?

If the evidence suggests that such complexity cannot arise by chance, it points to the existence of a designer—God.

Thus, backward reasoning involves starting with the world and tracing back to the idea of God.

Comparing the Two Approaches

Both forward and backward reasoning have their utility.

Here, we are trying to address the question: Who is God? Krishna reveals His identity in the Gita, but we are attempting to approach this understanding logically before examining the scriptural perspective.

While both approaches are useful, backward reasoning can sometimes lead to problems.

Let us look at what could be the problem. When I talked about what revelation is telling us and what reason is telling us, reason is our rational faculty, our logical analysis. So, what is the relationship between reason and revelation? If reason is directed properly, then reason and revelation can work in harmony. Let us go to slide nine now, where you see the image of a candle and the image of the sun. Revelation is like sunlight—it can reveal and show everything, but reason is like moonlight.

Revelation requires faith to be understood. Faith has to dawn in the heart, just like the sun rises in the sky. When the sun is not there, we need a candle or the moon. Let us compare it to a candle here. With candlelight, we can see, but what we see with the candle and what we see with the sun will eventually be the same. However, sunlight provides much greater clarity. Similarly, revelation gives us much more clarity in understanding reality. But revelation requires faith, purification, and, of course, it requires revelation itself. Scripture was revealed at one time—the Gita was revealed by Krishna. But how the Gita makes sense depends on the revelation that has to dawn in our own hearts. So, in that sense, revelation is not just a historical incident; it is an ongoing process. Until that revelation happens in our heart, we can and should use reason.

Reason is like candlelight, which can show us one step ahead as we move on. We are trying to look at reason as a means to understand God. So, what can we understand from reason? To slide 10: Reason can tell us about God’s existence, whereas revelation can tell us about God’s nature. The difference is that God exists, and we can make a reasonable inference about that from reason. Like I said earlier, there are various arguments that are used, such as the design argument, the moral argument, the ontological argument, and the cosmological argument. We won’t go into all these arguments, but these have been debated by philosophers for quite some time. Reasonable inference can be made about God’s existence, but what about God as a person? Not just God as the creator of the world, but God’s self-existence. That we can’t understand except through revelation.

So we have the existence and the self-existence, the self-existential nature of God, which we understand through revelation. In that way, both reason and revelation can illumine the same reality with greater clarity. Now, what is the Gita’s revelation about God? It says God is Krishna. Who Krishna is, we’ll discuss further, but at this stage, He says He is Krishna. He is the transcendental ultimate reality. This is slide 11 now, which shows that He exists beyond this world and descends periodically to this world. As Krishna says, “ajopisan avyatma bhutani mishwaropisan,” meaning He exists beyond this world as the divine being and periodically descends to this world, “sambhavami yuge yuge.” So, who is God? God is a transcendental person.

Now, let’s look at how reason and revelation can apply to a further step forward. At one level, we may ask, “Okay, if there is a God, a big question comes up: Does He care?” One of the strongest arguments used against the existence of God is the so-called problem of evil. The problem of evil is this: If God exists and if God is good, then why is there so much misery in the world? Why is there so much evil? Does this indicate that God does not exist? Or, if we say that God does exist, then does He really care? How do we reconcile the enormous suffering we see in the world with the idea of a good, benevolent God?

For this purpose, let’s look at something here. We can look at slide 13 and see the basic problem with respect to revelation. What do evidence and reason say? At one level, we can say God cares. How does He care? Because there is so much right in this world—so many things are right in the world. We discussed in an earlier session about how heat, light, air, and water are all provided for, and when these are provided, it indicates that there is some benevolent arrangement. We realize the value of these things when they are not there. We may not think of water much, but when we are desperately thirsty, we realize how invaluable it is.

So, so many things are right in the world, and they surely need some arrangement to have come through. That is one indication that God cares. But then, we can also give contrary evidence that God does not care because there are so many things wrong in the world. What are those things? Now, we could say, okay, if you say that God arranges for rains, then there are torrential rains that lead to floods and devastation. There are also rains that don’t come at all, leading to droughts and death. So, all the things we can call provisions also lead to tribulations. There is food, but there are also so many times throughout human history when food is not available, leading to enormous suffering.

Now, those who are theists can point to all the things that suggest that God cares, and atheists can point to the things that suggest that God doesn’t care. In that way, both can substantiate their own beliefs. The fundamental problem here is the problem with backward reasoning. I talked about two types of reasoning—backward and forward. Backward reasoning presumes that the world as it is, is the reality. Based on the reality of this world, we can infer whether God exists or not. From a philosophical perspective, we will discuss the concept of free will in more detail later, but at this stage, God has given each of us free will. Free will means He gives us the ability to either accept Him or reject Him.

It is not just an act of personal independence but also a matter of cosmic dispensation. God has arranged the world in such a way that those who want to turn toward Him will see evidence that supports their decision, and those who want to turn away from Him can also find evidence to support their rejection. Thus, God provides for the use of free will in both directions. This is why both theists and atheists can find evidence to support their beliefs. Therefore, backward reasoning can sometimes be inconclusive. The sheer amount of suffering in the world can be seen as a refutation of God’s existence.

That’s why the design argument can be used, no doubt, and it can convince people to some extent; it is useful to that degree. But both in the Indian tradition and in the Western tradition, the inadequacies of the design argument have been pointed out. Ramanujacharya, in his commentary on the Vedanta Sutra, in the third sutra, Shastrayonitvat, discusses a similar argument. He says that, given the suffering in the world, three prominent arguments are often presented. One of them is that maybe the being who created this world is an evil being—a demon or Satan—not a good God but an evil Satan. So, given the suffering in the world, that could also be an inference.

He concludes that arguments like the design argument are not conclusive. This is not to say that they are not useful, but they are not conclusive. If we want conclusive knowledge, he says, Shastrayonitvat, we need to turn to revelation. Revelation is like forward reasoning, not backward reasoning. First, we understand God from revelation as an axiomatic principle, and then, based on this understanding of God’s nature, we look at the world around us and see if it aligns with what we would expect.

In this way, when we start with forward reasoning—not backward reasoning (not from the world to God), but by understanding God as the axiom and moving forward to the world—we gain clarity. The Gita, the revelation, tells us two important things: first, that this world is not the ultimate reality; reality is two-level. The spiritual level of reality is our home, while the material level of reality is like a hospital. Now, why specifically a hospital? In a hospital, we see these two things simultaneously.

Let’s move on to slide 16 first, and then we’ll go to slide 15. If you see, atheists point to all the design in the world, while atheists also point to all the distress in the world. Is there a place where we have both design and distress? Yes, one example is a hospital. In a hospital, things are very well designed. Each department serves a specific purpose, the supplies are arranged in an orderly fashion, and all the arrangements for particular procedures are systematically made.

So, there is no doubt about the presence of design in the hospital. But at the same time, there is no doubt about the presence of distress in a hospital. The hospital has both design and distress, so just the presence of distress does not disprove design, and the presence of design does not necessitate the absence of distress. I repeat this: Atheists argue that because there is distress, there cannot be a good God. But does the presence of distress disprove design? Not necessarily.

We always have to consider design in the light of the purpose. We have to consider design in the light of its purpose. If I use a small phone to type a book and then say, “This keyboard is so small, so messy, I can’t type on it,” well, a phone is not meant for typing a book. Any design can be faulted if we divorce it from its purpose. The design has to be seen in the light of what its purpose is.

So, when we think of this material world as our home and look at how good a home God has made for us, we will always find that things are not good enough—that there are many things that are bad. But if we see this world as a hospital, then there is design and distress, both. Now, of course, an important point is that the hospital doesn’t cause distress. Distress exists in the hospital because people are diseased. Similarly, the world’s purpose is not to cause us distress. Distress is a feature of the world, not the purpose of the world. Just as distress is a feature of the hospital, it is just there.

Now, what does all this have to do with our driving question? Our question is: Does God care? To understand how God cares, we need to understand the purpose of the world. God cares for us. If this world is a hospital, He cares for us so that we get treated and move from the hospital to the home.

So, you can go to slide 15 now. There is a spiritual level of reality and a material level of reality. The material level is like a hospital, and the spiritual level is the home. God’s care is seen in what way? He cares so much that He descends from the spiritual level to the material level to help us get treated and then we move on to the spiritual level.

God’s descent from the spiritual level to the material level is called the avatar. This is what is discussed in this verse when Krishna says “avatar” is descent. The word “avatar” literally means “avatariti”—one who descends from a higher level of reality to this level is called an avatar. Of course, in today’s world, the word “avatar” is also used in another context, such as online gaming or video games, where people have their representation in the digital world, which is called an avatar. There is also a movie called Avatar, which had a similar idea. But basically, the idea of avatar is something that is transported from the physical world to the digital world. In the original context, however, the word “avatar” refers to God descending from the spiritual to the physical.

So, God descends from the spiritual world to the material world, and that is called an avatar. His purpose is twofold. One purpose is that if everything in the hospital is chaotic, the order of the hospital needs to be restored. But even when a hospital is orderly, it does not mean the hospital will ever be as comfortable as a home. The order in the hospital is there so that patients can be treated and then discharged, so they can go back home. Similarly, God’s purpose is to establish dharma in this world—to establish order in the world. However, that order will not make this world a forever happy place. That order will enable us to raise our consciousness to the spiritual level and to attain the spiritual level of reality, which is our eternal home.

This is the next verse (4.9) where Krishna says in the Gita, “I descend to this world, and if you understand my appearance and activities, you will become attracted to me. Once you become attracted to me, you will become devoted to me, and you will attain me—attain me in my abode at the spiritual level of reality.”

So, God’s purpose is twofold. If you want to understand whether God cares, we can’t just look at the world and think that one day this world will become as comfortable as a cozy home and that will show God cares. No, we can look for God’s care in His provision of resources to live in this world in a way that allows us to heal ourselves.

Now, what is the disease we are having? The disease is essentially misdirected desires. We are eternal beings, but our desires are directed toward temporary things, and we are looking for eternal happiness in things that are temporary. That is the disease, and it causes our distress. So, God comes to redirect our desires from the temporary to the eternal.

Now, how does God care? He descends, and this is coming to slide 17 now. He descends to guide and guard us from making things worse in this world and to raise us beyond this world. His purpose in descending to the world is that when we live according to dharma, at the very least, we don’t make things worse. Life will bring distress in its own way—say, a storm comes, which is stressful—but during the storm, if people, instead of helping each other, start plundering each other, that will make things worse.

So, when dharma is established, at the very least, we don’t make things worse. The hospital works in an orderly way, and by that, we gradually become purified and spiritualized, ultimately raising ourselves beyond this world.

So, now that brings us to the third part: Why should I care? Why should I care? Well, does God exist? Does He care? Who is God? Why should I care about all this? Many people—an increasing number of people in the first world, in Europe, America, Australia—when they are asked about their religious orientation, they say they are “none.” “None” means they don’t belong to any religion. This is sometimes called apotheism. There is theism (God exists), atheism (God doesn’t exist), agnosticism (we can’t know if God exists), and apotheism (I just don’t care whether God exists or not).

More and more people are gravitating toward this view, and there are reasons for it. One reason is religious sectarianism, extremism, and violence, which makes people feel that they don’t want to have anything to do with religion. We will talk about religious extremism in our next session, about various religions and revelations in 4.11. But at this point, the question is: Why should I bother with all this?

So, why should I care? That will be the last part of our talk. Traditionally, people felt the need for God because they believed they couldn’t fulfill their needs and desires on their own. For example, there is a famous biblical prayer: “Oh Father, thou art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, give us our daily bread.” This prayer indicates that God is a cosmic provider. In the past, when people lived with greater uncertainty, they felt that maybe they needed God to provide their daily bread. Today, there are still many hungry people in various parts of the world. But many people who feel their needs are provided for say, “I don’t need God.” They rely on the government to provide for them, or on their own talents and abilities to fulfill their needs. With technology also facilitating many comforts and luxuries, people feel they can get their desires fulfilled without God.

If we have the vision of God as the fulfiller of our needs and desires, one problem could be that we see there are so many things that are not provided for in the world. The other problem could be that if I can provide for those things without God, then why should I care whether God exists or not? So, we are addressing this different point here, that first, there is so much distress in the world.

How can there be a God? Now, the other point I am making is that, yes, I can enjoy life without God. Why do I need to care for God at all? This brings us to a very important point, which is foundational for spiritual growth: fulfilling our needs and desires doesn’t bring fulfillment. Fulfilling our needs and desires doesn’t bring fulfillment.

Let’s first look at our needs. We have a need for food, water, and shelter, and these are vital. Not having these needs fulfilled causes great misery. That’s why we use the word “needs” for them—we must have them fulfilled. But just having those needs fulfilled doesn’t bring fulfillment. Once we have food, water, and shelter, what next? We want something to bring meaning, adventure, and fulfillment in our life. Fulfilling our basic needs doesn’t bring fulfillment.

In a sense, we could say that our needs are like the fuel for a car. They are essential if you want to drive the car, but just having fuel doesn’t mean that’s all we need. We want something more—what do we do with it? So, fulfilling our needs doesn’t bring fulfillment. Not having those needs fulfilled definitely brings frustration. We are all longing for fulfillment in our life, but does fulfilling our desires bring that fulfillment?

Strangely, what we are increasingly finding in modern and postmodern times is that fulfilling our desires doesn’t bring fulfillment. Of course, this is an eternal truth, but even in the increasingly aggressive materialistic world, many people are realizing that after fulfilling their desires, something is still missing in their lives. For example, people may want a big car, a big house, an attractive partner, or a prestigious position in society. But even after they get all these things, they find that something is still lacking in their life. These desires, even when fulfilled, leave us craving for more, and we remain dissatisfied.

Why is this? Today, even the average middle-class person has comforts that were unimaginable for royalty a few centuries ago. We have air conditioning, air travel, telecommunications, and abundant entertainment. Yet, people are far more mentally troubled, and in fact, more people are suicidal today than ever before in recorded history. So, why is that? There is something missing.

If we think that we don’t need to care for God because we can fulfill our needs and desires by our own means, that approach doesn’t work and it won’t bring fulfillment. What do we really need? We need to realize that our longing for lasting happiness cannot be fulfilled in this world because everything in the world is temporary. Even the best pleasures are temporary. So, our desires can only be fulfilled by understanding that God is not only the fulfiller of our desires but also the ultimate fulfillment of them. God is an all-attractive Supreme Person, and He is meant to be the object of our love. When we learn to direct our love toward Him and become devoted to Him, we experience supreme satisfaction.

It is this loving connection that is the Bhagavad Gita’s ultimate direction. We need to care for God, not because He will provide us with the things we care for, nor because He is not providing us with what we want, but because He is the Supreme Being. Connecting with Him brings us supreme fulfillment.

It’s not just fulfillment beyond this world, but even in this world, when we become connected with Him, when we become absorbed in Him, we can experience fulfillment. We discussed earlier how connection and contribution bring real satisfaction: connection with the Divine internally and contribution in the mode of service to the Divine externally. That is what brings us satisfaction.

This is what the Bhagavad Gita leads us toward.

And I’ll summarize now, as I am keeping a lot of time for questions today. I’ll summarize what I’ve spoken about.

I discussed the theme of Who is God? Does He care? Why should I care? We talked about the Bhagavad Gita, and it says that God descends to this world periodically. If you want to know who God is, there are two ways of knowing: forward reasoning and backward reasoning.

Backward reasoning means starting from the world and inferring the nature of reality. We try to answer, “Is there a God?” Forward reasoning means starting with God as an axiomatic principle, with the basic understanding of God as given through revelation, and then examining the world to see if it makes sense.

Reason, in some ways, is backward reasoning, where we start from the world, while the path of revelation is forward reasoning, where we start from God. Both approaches can point us in the same direction, and both provide us with light. The light from reason is like candlelight or moonlight, while the light from revelation is like sunlight. As long as we don’t have the “sunlight” of revelation in our lives and hearts, we still need the “moonlight” or “candlelight” of reason. However, what is revealed through reason dimly can be understood through revelation clearly.

Through reason, what can we know about God, about God’s person? We can look at the many things provided for us in life and infer God’s existence. This is seen in various arguments, such as the design argument. But just as candlelight doesn’t reveal the full reality, reason alone can be limited. While it shows us many things that are provided, it also shows us many things that are not provided. For this reason, the design argument in mainstream philosophy is often considered inconclusive, though useful.

Ramanacharya, in his commentary to Shastra Yonitvaad, says that if we only infer from the world, we could observe both design and distress, and from that, we could conclude that there is an evil being who created the world. This is a possible inference, as suggested by Immanuel Kant in Western philosophy.

So, what is the way of forward reasoning? We start with revelation, and revelation tells us that this world is not the ground of reality. There are two levels of reality: the physical, material, and the spiritual. The spiritual level is our true home, and the material world is like a hospital. We are here because our desires are diseased. Although we are eternal beings, we look for pleasure in temporary things.

Does God care? To find out, we need to look not just at whether God has made provisions in this world to make it a wonderful home for us, but whether the provisions here are sufficient for a hospital. The world provides enough for us to treat ourselves and grow spiritually. If we want to be simply materially happy, the world will never offer enough. Just as a hospital menu is not designed for indulgence, the world provides enough for us to stay healthy and heal spiritually, but not to indulge endlessly.

The world provides for our needs and desires in moderation. It’s not a place for enjoyment but a place for treatment. In a hospital, order must be maintained. If it becomes disorderly, God Himself descends to establish order. But the order is not to make the world a home; the order ensures the world functions as an orderly hospital. Through this, we can practice dharma, heal, and elevate ourselves. This is why 4.8, which talks about God descending to establish order, is followed by 4.9, which explains that God’s order enables us to become attracted to Him and attain His world.

So, God’s care must be seen in the facilities He provides for us to treat ourselves and elevate ourselves.

Now, why should we care? Even if we can fulfill our needs and desires on our own, it will not bring us fulfillment. Our hearts will not find fulfillment in temporary things. We need to redirect our hearts toward the spiritual. This redirection happens when we understand the truth of the Gita’s revelation: God is an all-attractive person, not just the fulfiller of our desires, but also the fulfillment of our desires.

And when we make Him our object of love, we can find contentment in this life and progress towards liberation beyond this life, beyond this world. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

So, are there any questions?

There is a question by Vishakha Agarwal: Why is there suffering in the world? Is it there to bring us to our knees, to force us into surrender, so that if we don’t surrender, we suffer?

Well, that is one way of looking at it, but it’s an oversimplified way of seeing things. Is the world designed to force us to surrender? Well, yes and no.

The basic point is that there is an existential incompatibility: the world is temporary, and we are eternal beings. The world provides us with temporary pleasure, whereas we seek lasting happiness. This existential incompatibility itself is the root cause of suffering.

Now, beyond this existential incompatibility, there are other specific causes of suffering that we often take very seriously. During the course of our lives, somebody might steal something from us, insult us, or we might lose our job when the stock market crashes. These are real sufferings. And when a relationship goes downhill, that’s also a form of suffering. No doubt, these are difficult.

However, there is a difference between these types of suffering. In many Abrahamic religions, particularly in the Christian tradition, the problem of evil is often framed as, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” Why do children suffer from terrible diseases, for example? These are certainly serious sufferings.

But when the Bhagavad Gita talks about the distresses of the world, and when Vedanta Sutra addresses them, it doesn’t focus on circumstantial distresses. It talks about existential distresses. Circumstantial distresses are those caused by external circumstances—like losing a job, facing a financial crisis, or going through a breakup. These may vary from person to person. Some people may face terrible circumstances, while others face more manageable ones.

But existential distresses are different. These are universal. Old age, disease, death, and rebirth are existential distresses that everyone experiences. No matter what the circumstances of our lives, these existential problems remain.

Why are these existential distresses there? They exist because we are eternal beings, but we seek pleasure in temporary things. That existential incompatibility is the cause of all existential suffering.

Additionally, there is the principle of karma, which we will discuss later. We ourselves often act in ways that make our suffering worse. It’s not that God is malicious or that He created a world of misery. Rather, it’s our misdirected desires that have set up a situation where suffering is inevitable. It’s woven into the very fabric of existence because of the incompatibility between our longings and our situations.

Our aspirations are for lasting happiness, but our situations are temporary.

Through this, the ultimate purpose is our spiritual evolution. It is not just suffering that is meant to help us evolve; even pleasure serves that purpose. Everything in this world is meant to help us direct our attention toward God.

If we experience suffering in this world, it can remind us that this world is not a place of lasting happiness, which may prompt us to turn towards God. But even pleasure can point us toward God. In the 10th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, it is explained that everything attractive in this world manifests a spark of Krishna’s splendor. When we see something attractive, that attractiveness is not illusory. It’s just like when a person is in the hospital and they are sick. The desire to become healthy motivates them to seek the cure. Similarly, the attractions in this world are meant to remind us to seek the ultimate source of all beauty and fulfillment—God.

But when they experience some good health, they feel some relief, some pleasure, and think, “I want to move in this direction.” So even the pleasures in this world can point us toward God if we can see them as connected with God, as the attractive objects of this world are manifestations of the divine.

So yes, everything in this world is meant to take us toward God. It’s both the pleasures and the pains—everything.

Now, Mayank Kumar has a second question. In 5.5, it is said that analytical study is the same as devotional service. Does this shed some light on forward and backward reasoning? Can analytical study lead to backward reasoning?

Well, analytical study is the same as backward reasoning. Backward reasoning means starting from the world, analyzing the world, and moving toward the nature of ultimate reality. It’s inferential logic. So, backward reasoning is valid, and that particular verse, 5.5, where Prabhupada uses it in a slightly different sense, talks about Krishna addressing the paths of Sankhya and Karma, Sankhya and Yoga. We will come to these verses later, but the path of analysis and the path of service both ultimately lead to the same reality.

When Sankhya is discussed in the Bhagavad Gita, it is also based on Shastra (scripture), so it’s not exactly backward reasoning, although there is an element of backward reasoning in it. Let’s reserve this for a future session.

Now, why do we come to the hospital? We have free will, and the very existence of free will implies that there has to be an arena for the exercise of free will. So, if a boy proposes to a girl by bowing down on his knees, offering a ring, and asking her to marry him, and she says no, and the boy takes out a gun and threatens to shoot her unless she says yes, that is not love. Love means there has to be free will.

God has given us free will because He wants us to love Him. Love requires free will. So, free will means there must also be the possibility of misusing it. The world is an arena for us to exercise our free will, where we can do two things: experimentation and redirection. We experiment with our various desires using our free will in various ways, and then there is rectification. We learn the best use of our free will and redirect our desires accordingly.

There is another question: If taking God as an axiom, can it be dismissed as blind belief? How do we counter this argument?

Yes, this is a big subject, and we will cover it in more detail later, but I’ll explain briefly. Every school of thought has to begin with some axioms—something that is axiomatic. So, is there an ultimate reality we begin with? If we consider the atheistic worldview, atheists must begin somewhere as well, and they begin with a singularity. A singularity is essentially a point of infinite density, infinite mass, and infinitesimal volume from which the universe exploded.

But what is the basis for the existence of that singularity? Was it complete in itself? If it was complete, then why did it have to get activated and explode? If it was not complete, then what was the external agent that activated it? And more importantly, where did that agent come from?

Furthermore, the universe as we know it is filled with incredible precision. How did that precision come about? To explain this, some atheists propose the idea of cyclic universes—multiple universes that undergo a “big bang” followed by a “big crunch,” and then repeat this cycle eternally across multiple trajectories.

If the probability of the universe emerging from the singularity is 10 raised to the power of -63, atheists argue that as many universes as needed must exist to make the probability work. In such a case, the improbability of our universe existing becomes manageable because there are countless universes. This argument, however, faces challenges. For example, the probability of the universe coming into existence is so small that it is statistically less likely than shooting an arrow and hitting a single atom at the other end of the universe. So, even with an infinite number of universes, the argument for the universe’s existence based on this probability remains problematic.

So, this idea of infinitely cycling universes or an infinite number of universes fits more into the realm of science fiction than science. These concepts are proposed primarily to avoid the implication of a transcendental source or a transcendental overseer.

So, if we don’t accept God as the axiomatic truth, we are left with the idea of millions of universes existing and recycling over millions of cycles as the axiomatic truth. The important point here is that none of these ideas—eternally cycling universes or multiple universes—have any empirical evidence. They may have some speculative inferences from particular theories, but these can also be interpreted in many different ways.

What atheistic science or atheism asks us to believe is infinitely more complicated than accepting one transcendental being. It’s not that the axiomatic approach to God calls for blind belief—it’s that every approach, especially when dealing with ultimate realities, requires belief. The atheistic approach requires far greater belief, much more complicated and irrational belief, than the theistic approach.

Now, when we make the wrong choice and return to square one, regretting it later, how can we avoid this cycle?

Well, it’s not necessary to go back to square one. Externally, it might seem like that, but every exercise of choice, even small ones, can take us forward. I discussed this in a previous session about how the floor may be inclined in a particular way, creating restriction, redirection, and reconstruction. You can refer to that class (3.36, 3.37).

It’s a gradual, incremental process. Even if our free will is misused sometimes, instead of obsessing over those times, we should focus on the remaining moments and try to use our free will as wisely as possible. Over time, a positive habit will develop, and that will help us counter the negative habits.

Bad habits are like a formidable weapon, like an enemy attacking us with great power. No matter how determined we are, if we are unarmed, we will be defeated. So, rather than trying to fight these bad habits with bare hands, we focus on acquiring a new weapon. That weapon is the development of good habits, particularly devotional habits—habits that help us connect with and absorb ourselves in Krishna.

As we develop these good habits, they empower us. And once we have a good habit, we can focus on those things easily. If we make it a habit to connect with Krishna, then when bad habits attack, we can direct our thoughts toward Krishna. This becomes both our defense and counterattack.

So, focus on developing good habits, and gradually the negative ones will lose their power.

One last question from Subha: Are there different kinds of avatars?

This is a technical subject, and I wouldn’t want to dive into it at this stage. The Bhagavad Gita talks about avatars in a particular sense. In fact, the Bhagavad Gita does not use the word “avatar” explicitly, but the concept is prominent. The essence of avatars involves crossing over from one level of reality to another. The divine manifests at various levels.

Purusha avatars, as described in Sankhya philosophy, refer to manifestations of the divine who are co-eternal with existence and ensure the maintenance of the universe. They are avatars in the sense that they are divine manifestations, moving from the spiritual to the material realms, but just as Prakriti (nature) is eternal, Purusha (consciousness) is also eternal. They coexist.

Examples of these Purusha avatars are Mahavishnu, Karavodaksha Vishnu, and Suryodaksha Vishnu. These avatars maintain the material order invisibly and immanently within the world.

Then there are Leela avatars, Guna avatars, and more. There are three modes of material nature, and the avatars who oversee these modes are called Guna avatars.

So, once again, there is a connection between the spiritual and the material, but with a specific purpose: overseeing the maintenance and functioning of the modes of material nature. That is the role of Guna avatars.

Leela avatars refer to the divine avatars who come to this world primarily to perform pastimes, or Leela, and through these pastimes, they exhibit attractive qualities that can draw us towards the Lord’s abode beyond this world.

Shaktyavishavatars are human beings who are endowed with divine energy. Though they are human, they manifest something that transcends humanity. In this sense, they are avatars.

Manvantar avatars are those who appear within each Manvantar. A Manvantar is a cosmic cycle, and during each cycle, there is cosmic disorder followed by reordering of the universe. This happens not only in every Manvantar but also in every Yuga.

Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

The post Gita key verses course 12 – Who is God? Does he care? Why should I care? – Gita 4.8 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 Gita key verses course 9 – What is sacrifice? Is it a ritual? Are rituals needed? – Gita 3.9 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 Gita key verses course 8 – What is happiness? Why is it so elusive? – Gita 2.55 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 Gita key verses course 7 – What is destiny? Is everything destined? – Gita 2.47 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 Gita key verses course 6 – Do animals have souls? Are humans just evolved animals? – Gita 2.30 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 Gita key verses course 5 – What is Spirituality? Is it a state of mind? – Gita 02.29 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 Gita key verses course 4 – Dealing with grief on losing a loved one – Gita 02.25 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Today is our third session, and after the session, I’ll be sending you a broad outline of what we will be covering in the 51 sessions. Each session will be based on one question that addresses both the philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita as well as some contemporary need or concern that we all have in our lives. And so, in today’s session, we’ll be discussing what is death, what is reincarnation, and do we have soul mates. And basically, these are the three topics we will cover. And here, this is the slideshow. These three topics I’m going to cover today. And each topic—so we will be discussing based on a verse from the Bhagavad Gita. Each topic. So today, I’m discussing from 2.22 in the Bhagavad Gita. So 2.22 is…

So the body is like a cloth, and the soul is like the wearer of that cloth. The body is like a cloth, and the soul is like the wearer of that cloth. And when the cloth becomes old and worn out, at that time, a person leaves and discards that cloth and wears another set of clothes. So similarly, it is said that the soul leaves one body and goes to another body. So death is the most undeniable of the realities of life. Sometimes you may have this question, especially in today’s world where everything has been relativized: what is real? What is? Is the world real? When people behave properly with us, are they really good people? Is their good behavior real, or does it conceal a bad heart? The government media gives us some messages, some newspaper reports. Are they for real? There’s a whole lot of fake news. So we get the question: what is real? And we might gravitate to the idea that nothing is real. But even if we deny everything else, we can’t deny the reality of death. So there’s some founding realities with which we can rationally build a worldview. And that is what we’ll be doing over the course of our sessions. So what can be rationally understood? What can be scripturally understood through revelation? And how can that be integrated with our experience? So let’s begin with death.

So death is the most undeniable reality, and yet it is the most denied reality. And if somebody doesn’t accept some reality, it means that they are in denial. So similarly, when we don’t accept the reality of death, then we are in denial. Now, what does it mean to not accept the reality of death? If anybody is asked, “Are you going to die?” Unless the person is insane, most people will never say, “I will not die, that I am immortal.” So in what sense is anyone denying death? We accept that we are going to die, but we think of death as something so remote and distant, so abstract, as if it is happening to someone else. And as if it were going to happen to someone else in the distant future.

So it’s just like, if we knew that we are working on a job and we are going to be fired from that job—there is going to be retrenchment and we’re going to lose that job—then knowledge has no meaning without action. Knowledge is not real unless we apply it. If we knew we were going to lose a job, then we would immediately start looking for another job. If we knew that we are going to lose our house, maybe we are renting and the rent period is getting over, then we would start looking for a new house. So if we similarly knew—knew in the sense that we accept it as real—that we are going to die, then we would start asking, at least ask the question: what is death? Is there anything after death? What really counts in life?

So the fact that most of us don’t seriously ask this question, and certainly we don’t ask this question as seriously as, say, “Okay, what will I do if I lose my job?” or “What will I do if I lose my house?”—the seriousness of the question is seen by how seriously we look for some alternative arrangement. Somebody might say, “Okay, what happens after death is unknowable. So why bother about it?” Well, if we are going to think of it that way, even the future itself is unknowable. If we lose our house, what kind of house we are going to get, what kind of economic condition the country is going to be in, what kind of neighbors we are going to have—we can’t predict any of that. So just because we can’t predict a thing accurately, it doesn’t mean that we don’t think about it or plan for it. So yes, that’s the way. Why do we deny death like this? Because it is so scary. At one level, it is so scary, and it seems so unknowable what is going to come after death. And that’s why it’s important that we see through the eyes of knowledge. That is spiritual knowledge, scriptural knowledge, what is given in the Bhagavad Gita. In a later session, we will be discussing more in detail about the principle of revelation and how knowledge can come to us from a higher source. But let’s look at this from a rational perspective.

So in the last session, I discussed how there are empirical pointers towards the existence of the soul, towards something that exists and goes from this body to another body. That’s how people have past life memories. So there is something spiritual within us which is indestructible. And that brings us to the question: okay, then what is death? So if the spiritual is indestructible, then that’s not going to die. So then what will death mean? Let’s look at this. So death is the departure of the soul from the body. Basically, our existence has three levels: the body, the mind, and the soul. I’ll talk about the mind more in detail in a later session. But suffice it to say at a simple level that the body is like the hardware, the mind is like the software, and the soul is the user. Now, say we are working on one particular computer.

We have a desktop at our workplace, and then we go somewhere else, get traveling, and then we reach there, and then we log into the computer over there. Now, as soon as we log into the computer, many of our details get linked with that computer. Say we buy a new computer. Once we log in, our bookmarks and our preferences all get linked with that computer. So similarly, what happens at death is that we leave one computer. The physical structure of the computer is the hardware, and that is like the body. And we, the user, are like the soul. So the soul leaves the body. The hardware is left behind.

Now, when we go to a new place, basically what happens with your computer is that we have certain memory—that is, we know our password—and suddenly we log in, then the remaining details get linked with that computer. So similarly, when the soul goes from one body to another body, along with the soul, the mind also goes, and the impressions that we have—the desires, the inclinations, the overall inspiration, and the overall kinds of actions that we have—are all impressed in the mind. And then the mind is what helps us interface with that next body. So basically, when the soul departs from one body and goes to the next body, that is death.

Now, if we look at reincarnation—now, what is reincarnation? Death is basically a departure of the soul from one body, and reincarnation is the entry of that soul into another body. And when the soul enters into the next body, what essentially is happening again? Essentially, for the soul, the body is like a tool.

So till now, I’ve talked about two distinct examples for reincarnation. One is like a dress. The second is like a computer. So if we consider it to be like a dress, one dress gets worn out, and we wear another dress. So for the soul, the body is like a dress. But the interface between the soul and the body is quite complicated. It is not as simple as simply raising our arms and slipping them through some sleeves and putting on a dress, putting on some clothes. The interface between the soul and the body is complicated. And that complicated interface is mediated through what the Bhagavad Gita calls the mind. So through the mind, the soul gets linked to the next body.

And reincarnation—the word reincarnation—literally means: karna is flesh, re is again, and ashen is to come again. So what reincarnation essentially is, is the soul comes back into the next body. So it comes into a new world, to come again in flesh. Now, reincarnation is something which is universal and unavoidable. That means the soul needs some physical interface for functioning in the world. So the soul needs some physical interface for functioning in the world. The soul is very different from the body. And just as, say, human beings, if we go to some environment which is unnatural for us—say if we go underwater—then we need a whole set of diving gear. We need some way to respire, to get oxygen. So without that gear, we cannot function in the environment which is alien to us. So if humans go into space, similarly, we need spacesuits.

So for the soul, the material environment is actually not natural. It is unnatural. And that’s why the soul basically needs some physical tool for interfacing with the material world. And that tool is the body, that tool is the material body that we have.

So reincarnation is mentioned here. Krishna talks about it again later in the 15th chapter, from 15.7 to 15.11, and there he says in 15.8, 9, 10 especially, so in 15.9, he says that the soul gets a new body. Basically, it gets a set of senses. That means the sense of hearing, the sense of seeing, the sense of touching. And these are the ways in which we interact with the outer world, basically gain knowledge from the outer world, and then we function in the outer world.

So reincarnation is something that happens to every single soul. Now, what kind of body the soul gets—that depends. That depends on what? Broadly two factors. So just as if we are having a particular dress, a particular set of clothes, and they get torn, and then we want to buy new clothes, how do we decide which clothes to buy? Basically two things: our budget and our likings. What we desire and how much we can pay. So similarly, for the soul, what body it will get in the next life depends on its desires. But not just on its desires. It also depends on the kind of karma that the soul has done.

See, our karma—if we do good actions, we get good results. If we do bad actions, we get bad results. We’ll talk more about the principle of karma in the future. But at this stage, this is going to be a simple understanding: that when we do good, we get good. When we do bad, we get bad. And some of the results of our actions come immediately, and some come gradually. So the actions that we do, they get accumulated, and they comprise our—we could say our karmic bank account, our karmic assets in the karma bank account. And depending on what kind of assets we have accumulated, what kind of actions we have done during the course of our life, we decide we get a particular body.

So that is reincarnation. Now, the concept of reincarnation is—now we are moving to the third question. So to summarize, say the body and the soul are here. This is a previous life. So this is death, meaning the soul leaves the body. And then after that, there’s another situation somewhere else, in a different place, at a different time. And then the soul enters into the body. And when the soul acquires a body, that is reincarnation. The departure from here is death. The entry over here is reincarnation. And the concept of reincarnation has been used quite a few times in today’s entertainment industry, and it has become romanticized and sensationalized.

There have been some researches on the concept of reincarnation conducted through hypnotic regression into past lives. Brian Weiss is a prominent researcher in this field, and he found that people often suffer from certain traumas, phobias, or behavioral deficiencies because these issues are carried over from a previous life.

For example, suppose someone is irrationally afraid of water—they have hydrophobia. Through hypnotic regression to a previous life, they might come to know the root cause of this fear. The therapist may guide the person backward in time by saying, “Remember when you were taking a bath… Remember when you were 10 years old… Remember when you were 5 years old… Remember when you were 1… Remember when you were 6 months… Remember when you were in your mother’s womb. What do you remember before that?” Gradually, as they are led backward, they might suddenly say, “Oh, I’m at this place,” and begin describing a very different environment. They may express vivid emotions and talk in detail about things that can often be correlated with actual historical facts.

Through such hypnotic regression, it might be discovered that the person who has hydrophobia in this life was drowned in a previous life. This realization can sometimes free them from the fear of water in the current life. Recollecting the hurts of a previous life, in this way, can help one heal from ongoing emotional or psychological pain in the present. If that happens, such a process is undoubtedly helpful.

This idea—that we may have had previous lives—is further substantiated by such findings. However, in the context of relationships, unresolved issues from past lives are often linked with the idea of reincarnation. To some extent, this notion has also been utilized by the entertainment industry. Many movies and stories portray a couple whose love was thwarted in a previous life. They die, reincarnate, long for each other, and eventually reunite in their new lives. Such people, when they meet each other, are often referred to as “soulmates.”

The concept of reincarnation has, therefore, been highly romanticized and sensationalized. Many people dream about finding their soulmate, thinking, “I wish I could find mine.” We all long for relationships and love, and this idea resonates deeply because relationships can feel like a gamble. Sometimes, we get involved with someone who turns out to be very different from what they initially seemed. Instead of joy, such relationships can bring pain. The idea of a soulmate aligns perfectly with our inherent longing for love.

In a spiritual sense, when people hear about reincarnation, they often wonder, “Do I have a soulmate? Can I find a soulmate?” However, the first thing to understand is that in discussions about the soul, spirituality, and reincarnation, the focus should be on the soul, not on the mate. This means that the priority is to understand oneself—who I am as a soul—and only then think about who to relate with.

If the focus shifts entirely to finding a mate or a partner, we risk missing the essence of spiritual knowledge. Are we truly gaining spiritual understanding, or are we simply indulging in the same desires as those who know nothing about the soul? While the longing for love and companionship is natural, it can sometimes overshadow or even sabotage our spiritual search and growth.

So, the first step is to focus on our true identity: “I am a soul.” What does this mean? The soul is connected to the body and related to it. Understanding this foundational spiritual truth is essential before thinking about relationships or external connections.

When we relate to people, say I am a soul residing in this body, and someone else is a soul residing in their body, quite often our attraction to others is based on their physical appearance. Of course, we may also be drawn to personality traits, which is perfectly fine. However, when we focus too much on the external aspects, we may mistake physical attraction for a deeper connection, believing someone to be our “soulmate.” This kind of infatuation can blind us—not only to our own spirituality but also to the spirituality of the other person—because we reduce them to their physical form rather than recognizing their essence as a soul.

This is the first point: the concept of soulmates, when misunderstood, can distract us from our spiritual growth if we allow infatuation to dominate our perspective.

Now, the question arises: are we, in our journey across multiple lives, destined to have some soulmates? The foundational idea in spiritual teachings is that the soul’s ultimate relationship is with the divine. The Bhagavad Gita (15.7) states that every living being is a part of God, and thus our eternal relationship is with Him.

In this eternal relationship with the divine (a vertical connection), we also form relationships with other souls (horizontal connections). However, these horizontal relationships are temporary because they are based on the material body. When we or those we love leave this world, those material relationships come to an end. In contrast, our relationship with the divine is eternal.

That said, it is possible for souls to meet again across different lifetimes. Some souls may journey through life, death, and rebirth, and encounter each other again. However, this is not very likely, as there are countless souls, each with its own unique karma, history, and trajectory. The destination of each soul after death is shaped by its individual karma, which may lead it to a very different path from others.

This is not to trivialize the relationships we form in this life. They are meaningful and valuable in their own ways. But we must balance this understanding with a reality check: our material relationships should not be unnecessarily sensationalized or eternalized. From a spiritual perspective, our ultimate soulmate is the Supreme Soul—God.

The purpose of transmigration (the soul’s journey through various lifetimes) is spiritual evolution. In biological evolution, living beings adapt to their environment and develop traits that help them survive. Similarly, spiritual evolution refers to the gradual improvement of our consciousness, enabling it to become more spiritual. As our consciousness evolves, we grow closer to the ultimate spiritual reality, which is Krishna (or God).

To the extent that we remain attached to the material world—its possessions, positions, and pleasures—our consciousness remains entangled and does not evolve. But when our consciousness rises above material attachments and connects with the eternal divine, we progress spiritually.

One significant barrier to spiritual evolution is the denial of death. When we deny death, we stagnate, as we fail to reflect on life’s deeper purpose or seek higher truths. Spiritual evolution requires us to expand our capacity to learn and love. This means learning what truly matters, what lasts, and directing our love toward that which is eternal.

For the soul, this eternal connection is with the divine. God resides in our hearts and accompanies us from one life to the next. While it is unpredictable whether we will meet the same souls across different lives, what is certain is that the divine always remains with us. In this sense, the divine is our ultimate soulmate, the one constant companion through all lifetimes.

Therefore, our focus should be on understanding the soul before seeking the mate. Once we understand the soul, we realize that our eternal relationship is not with another soul but with the divine. This is the connection we should strive to nurture above all else.

Developing relationships and building a connection with the ultimate reality is the essence of yoga. Specifically, bhakti-yoga is the path that helps us connect with the ultimate spiritual reality through devotion. While we’ll explore these concepts in more detail later, for now, it’s important to understand that when we begin by recognizing ourselves as souls and then reflect on the nature of relationships, the idea of a “soulmate” can inspire us to focus on spiritual evolution.

But what about our relationships in this world? It’s true that some people are more compatible with each other, and occasionally, two individuals may “click” so well that they believe they are soulmates. That’s perfectly fine. The key is to prioritize spiritual evolution. Even in the best relationships, there will be differences. Maturity lies in learning to live with and transcend those differences.

If we fixate on the horizontal level—constantly searching for the “perfect partner” or “soulmate”—our consciousness gets entangled in worldly desires, hindering our spiritual growth. On the other hand, when we focus on understanding ourselves and evolving spiritually, we become calmer, purer, and more self-aware. This clarity enables us to understand and relate to others more effectively. Consequently, our relationships can become more stable and harmonious, possibly even sweeter, as we cultivate spiritual maturity within ourselves.

We will explore relationships further in future discussions, but it is essential to address the idea of soulmates here. One last point before we move on to questions: the concept of reincarnation has often been sensationalized and romanticized. Much of what exists in popular imagination about reincarnation is shaped by movies, novels, or overly dramatized presentations of spirituality. These portrayals need careful evaluation.

For instance, some books on reincarnation sensationalize the idea by claiming, “This famous actor was this person in their past life,” or “This individual in this life resembles someone from centuries ago.” Such claims often use superficial methods, like comparing facial structures, to suggest connections between two lives. However, many people’s facial features could overlap significantly, especially when stripped down to skeletal structures. Such comparisons are not sufficient to establish evidence for reincarnation. When this kind of shallow “evidence” is debunked, people may dismiss the entire concept of reincarnation as baseless, which is unfortunate.

Serious research on reincarnation, however, has been conducted by credible scientists, yielding significant evidence. Ian Stevenson, one of the most prominent researchers in this field, has documented cases that go beyond superficial claims. However, even he does not place much credence in hypnotically induced past-life memories. For instance, in cases of hypnotic regression—where a person recalls a past life under hypnosis—it might appear that someone’s hydrophobia (fear of water) stems from drowning in a previous life. If revisiting that memory alleviates their phobia, it may seem like strong evidence for reincarnation.

While the therapeutic benefits of past-life regression are well-documented, they don’t necessarily prove the reality of past lives. It’s possible that such memories are fabricated by the mind, particularly under hypnosis, where individuals are highly suggestible. Just as the placebo effect can cause physical healing when someone believes they are receiving medication, a psychological placebo can also occur. For example, if someone imagines a past-life memory under hypnosis and that imagination leads to emotional or psychological relief, it doesn’t confirm the memory’s factual accuracy.

Serious researchers in this field take great care to avoid leading individuals under hypnosis with suggestive questions. However, even subtle or subliminal suggestions can influence a person’s recollections, making it challenging to determine the authenticity of such memories.

In conclusion, while the health benefits of practices like past-life regression can be appreciated, they should be evaluated critically. Rigorous research—like that conducted by Ian Stevenson—provides more credible insights into reincarnation, moving beyond the sensationalism and superficial claims often seen in popular media. By approaching these topics with care and discernment, we can better understand the profound spiritual truths they represent.

When we recall something during hypnotic regression, is it accurate? This question has both intriguing possibilities and significant limitations. While hypnotic regression can sometimes bring forth memories that seem to verify past lives, caution is necessary.

For example, cases of xenoglossy (speaking in a foreign language) and xenography (writing in a foreign script) during regression provide compelling evidence when verifiable facts emerge. There are documented instances where individuals, under hypnosis, recalled languages or scripts that had been extinct for centuries—languages they had no conscious knowledge of in their current life. Such tangible evidence can support the reality of past-life memories. However, not all regression cases hold up under scrutiny.

Memories accessed during regression can be influenced by the suggestibility of the individual, particularly when hypnotized. The mind, prone to imagination, can fabricate memories that feel real but are not factually accurate. Just as a placebo can produce physical or psychological benefits without actual treatment, regression can lead to emotional or psychological healing without confirming the reality of the memory itself.

Similarly, the notion of using regression to find a “soulmate” from a past life can be counterproductive. Romanticized depictions of soulmates in media often amplify our longing for idealized relationships but fail to align with spiritual truths. While such narratives might temporarily satisfy emotional cravings, they don’t guarantee actual connections to past lives.

Spiritual evolution is about understanding what is eternal and real. It focuses on connecting with the supreme spiritual reality, which offers lasting satisfaction, rather than romanticizing transient relationships. Ultimately, the culmination of reincarnation is to grow spiritually and reconnect with the divine.

Summary:

1. Death and Reincarnation: At death, the soul leaves the body and carries impressions from the mind (akin to software) into the next body (hardware). The soul is the user, transitioning from one life to the next. Denial of death often hinders preparation for it, but inquiry into the afterlife is the first step to readiness.
2. Horizontal and Vertical Relationships: Relationships in the material world are horizontal and temporary, while the soul’s ultimate vertical relationship with the divine is eternal. The divine, as the indwelling Supersoul, accompanies us through every life, making it our true “soulmate.” Connecting with the divine is the ultimate purpose of reincarnation.
3. Soulmates and Reincarnation: While it’s possible for two souls to reconnect in future lives, it’s not probable due to individual karmas. Focusing on spiritual growth fosters inner stability and clarity, allowing us to form relationships based not on infatuation or neediness but on maturity and compatibility.

To evolve spiritually, we must prioritize our relationship with the divine, rather than becoming overly attached to idealized notions of past-life relationships. In doing so, we can cultivate deeper, more meaningful connections in this life and beyond.

And with whoever we are already relating, we can relate more maturely with them. Sometimes concluded by, we need to have, whenever any past life memories are touted, we need to have a little critical attitude; we can’t be completely naive about it. So, just facial matches do not point to the soul from a previous level in the next life. And even if, through hypnotic respiration, sometimes a soul, somebody’s healed of some fear—say, somebody’s healed of hydrophobia—that could be a placebo effect at a psychological level, which need not indicate the reality of the memory.

Similarly, just because we feel that we can relate strongly with someone, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are our soulmates. So, we focus on using our intelligence. And with respect to past life memories, when there are objective, evidential things, like, say, zero-glossier or zero-mammography, then the memories can be real. Similarly, we use our intelligence to make decisions about our relationships and about our life. As we evolve spiritually, we learn to raise our consciousness from the material towards the spiritual. We learn about the spiritual, and we learn to love the spiritual. That’s how our reincarnation will ultimately attain its culmination in a connection—in a reconnection with the divine.

Thank you very much. Now, we have some questions over here. So, mind is a subtle body; doesn’t the subtle body elements like mind—it is a false ego—die? No, the subtle body is not so easily destructible. It’s not physical. It’s not gross physical. See that we differentiate between the physical and the material. Physical usually refers to that which is perceivable by the physical senses. So, form, shape, and smell—all these are physical sense objects. The physical things are destroyed, but the mind, intelligence, and false ego—they are subtle. So, they are not destroyed. They go with the soul.

The soul is here; around the soul is the mind, and the soul along with the mind goes to the next body. These will be not exactly destroyed but dissolved at the time of ultimate liberation. The soul goes out of the material world to the spiritual world at the time of liberation. Then the mind, intelligence, and ego—they dissolve while the soul is going through its journey of transmigration and ultimate journey toward liberation. At that time, they dissolve, but they are not destroyed.

So, how long is the time between death and reincarnation? The time is variable. Generally, each soul has some of its own karma to process. The soul is in this body and goes to the next body. In between, the soul has to stay, and how long it has to stay depends on various factors. Just like, say, if we are at one place and we go to another place, sometimes we might do the journey, take a flight, and reach in a few hours. Sometimes we might take a car, and it might take more time. Sometimes we might go by foot, wanting to enjoy a trek. It might take a longer time.

That’s why the time a soul takes to go from one body to another body varies. Just as our karma and how much we can pay for determines whether we take a flight or hitchhike, the kind of karma the soul has done also plays a role in determining how long the soul takes to go from one body to another.

Where does the soul go in between? Broadly speaking, if the soul is in a human body, it can go to another human body, to a lower body (an animal body), or to a lower or higher level of existence. There are higher heavenly levels of existence and lower hellish levels of existence. The soul can go there. If it goes to the lower species or the lower lokas, that transition may take much more time. Where exactly the soul goes depends on karma.

In between states, the soul stays in a disembodied state. There are two different cases here. One is during the journey when the soul leaves this body and gets another body. As explained in the Garuda Purana, in between, the soul gets a temporary covering. It’s not exactly a body but a temporary covering grosser than the subtle body and subtler than the gross body. This becomes the transition body, sometimes called Preta.

Bhuta or ghost is different. A ghost exists when the soul leaves the physical body but does not get a gross body at all. For instance, when someone commits suicide, the soul may not get another body for the remaining time they were supposed to live in the original body. If they were meant to live for 70 years but commit suicide at 40, their next 30 years might be spent in a disembodied state.

In this disembodied state, the soul is there, and the mind is there, but the physical body is absent. This is called a ghostly body. Living in such a state is distressing because the soul has desires that cannot be fulfilled. For instance, the soul might desire to eat but lacks the physical tongue to do so. Sometimes, such souls, to fulfill their desires or resolve unfinished issues, try to possess someone, which is known as possession—the ghost entering into someone.

Yeah. Now, normally, when somebody dies, we say conventionally “Swargavasi” or “Narakavasi” or something similar. But that is more of a conventional saying. Where exactly the person goes will vary from person to person. I answered this earlier. Regarding this Bhoga Yoni, I discussed scientific proof for reincarnation in my previous session. Please refer to the previous session for that.

Why do other religions not talk about reincarnation? It’s not exactly true that they don’t. In my book on mysticism and reincarnation, I have discussed other religious traditions as well. I can’t go into all of them now, but Buddhism does accept reincarnation. However, since it was a heterodox tradition that emerged as a rebel tradition from Hinduism, it tried to assert its philosophical autonomy by rejecting the idea of a soul. According to the Bhagavad Gita, the soul reincarnates, but Buddhism refuses the idea of the soul while still accepting reincarnation. This raises the question: if there is no soul, what exactly reincarnates? This is something Buddhist thinkers find difficult to explain.

If we consider the original writings of Buddha, he was remarkably non-philosophical. He did not address such questions much. It can be reasonably said that he did not deny the soul, but later Buddhist thinkers rejected the idea of the soul. Nonetheless, reincarnation is still accepted in Buddhism. If reincarnation exists, something must reincarnate, and the soul is the most logical explanation.

Christianity, on the other hand, accepts the soul but rejects reincarnation. However, this rejection is not explicitly stated by Jesus. For instance, there is a famous incident where Jesus was asked about a person born blind. The disciples asked whether the person was blind due to their own deeds or their parents’ deeds. Interestingly, this was not about an adult but a newborn child born blind. If reincarnation is dismissed, what could the child have done to deserve blindness? Could they have committed some act in the womb? That makes no sense.

Jesus answered the question differently, stating that the person was born blind so that the power of grace could be demonstrated. He then performed a miracle and restored the child’s eyesight. But not everyone who is blind receives such a miracle. If Jesus had wanted to categorically deny reincarnation, this would have been the perfect opportunity to do so. The very fact that his disciples asked if the blindness was due to the person’s own deeds suggests they believed in the possibility of pre-existence, which aligns with the idea of reincarnation. Pre-existence refers to what happens before this life, while reincarnation refers to what happens after. So, accepting pre-existence implicitly means accepting reincarnation.

In the history of Christianity, the rejection of reincarnation became prominent later. Early Christian thinkers like Origen openly discussed reincarnation. St. Augustine, considered one of Christianity’s foundational theologians, also entertained questions about it. However, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, political purposes began to dominate. Roman emperors like Constantine and Justinian wanted Christianity to ensure moral conduct among people, as morality made people more governable. To enforce morality, they promoted the idea of “one life” followed by eternal reward or punishment. This historical shift sidelined the discussion of reincarnation, even though it was never categorically denied.

For more on this topic, you can read my book Demystify Reincarnation. Devotee scholar Steven Rosen has also written a book on reincarnation in world traditions.

Now, regarding horizontal relationships, I will talk about them in my next session. Horizontal relationships are important, and I will discuss them along with other topics like dealing with bad habits in a future session. If something is unexplainable, don’t worry too much about it. Focus on learning to deal with it as best as you can. More important than where something comes from is where it is taking us. Instead of questioning why you have a particular impression, focus on how to deal with it now. Bhakti involves a process of purification, which helps us handle such issues. In the third chapter of my discussion, I will talk about past bad habits and how to overcome them.

We’ll come to it eventually.
Now, as far as performing religious rites for deceased relatives, that’s fine. If that is part of our family tradition, we can do it. It’s part of a religious obligation that we may want to follow. But the essence—see, every culture will have its own traditions. And there are spiritual principles which are cultural, and there are spiritual principles which are transcultural. So we need to primarily focus on the spiritual principles that are transcultural, that is, connecting with the divine. And certain spiritual principles that are cultural, if it’s our culture, we follow them. If it’s not our culture, we don’t follow them. That is a matter, and that is something which can be decided based on individual discretion. We’ll talk more about relationships in the future.
Okay, so I’ll keep questions about that.

So why are life’s punishments so acute?
Let’s discuss this more in a future session because we cannot—let’s stick to the philosophy here, what we discussed in the session.

Is our soulmate already determined by destiny, or is it based on our conscious soul that we pull toward us?
See, destiny should never be used as a reason for irresponsibility. That means we have been given intelligence in this life, and we have to use that intelligence to choose wisely, to choose responsibly. And we use our God-given intelligence whenever we are forming any relationship.
Now, what exactly is destined and what is not destined, that is quite difficult to say. Broadly, you could say destiny is like a weather forecast. A weather forecast means that if we are going on a drive, it’s good to know that it’s going to be rainy, stormy, dark, or misty. Similarly, destiny gives us some kind of weather forecast about what kind of situation we’re going to get in our life. And now, how well we drive—that’s up to us. That is not determined by destiny.
Similarly, for us, what we do and how we relate to people is not determined by destiny. So we need to be as responsible as possible in our relationships, in forming relationships, and growing those relationships.

So is it that our life partners are already determined?
Well, much of the romantic literature depicts that. And sometimes some people might quote something from scripture also to support that. But the broad idea is that it’s not necessary that everything is predestined. And that’s why it’s very difficult to say this.
So we, rather than thinking that there is some perfect partner out there who I need to find, we need to use our intelligence to find the best that we can in our situation.
Is it that if our consciousness is not good, then we attract someone who leaves us, or who doesn’t stay with us?
Well, it’s not that simple. It’s not that simple that our consciousness does affect our decisions, and sometimes we may take bad decisions because of that. But is it that simply bad consciousness will naturally mean that we will attract a bad person? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on context. Sometimes people may not have any spiritual consciousness, but still, they may have very good relationships at a practical, functional level, at a familial level. So relationships are complex.
The past life karma is complex, and we can’t reduce them to oversimplified statements of what is to be done and what is not to be done.
Chakras I’ll talk about in a later session.
Where is the soul living while in the transition body?
The transition body basically is around the soul, just like our physical body is around the soul. That’s how the soul is around the— that’s how the transition body is around the soul.
What is the guarantee that we will not reincarnate if we practice devotional service?
Ultimately, we have to understand what is the purpose of why we are existing in this world. God loves us, and He doesn’t want us to be in the world. If, by the time of our death, our love for God has become greater than our love for the things of this world, then there is no reason for God to keep us in this world. He will go with us to the next world. That’s how, if we consider simply from a logical perspective, we stay in this world because we desire to enjoy the world. If the desire is no longer there, then we will leave this world.
Does our love for God go with us? Yes, definitely.
Or to speak of love for God, even broad spiritual inclination also we carry from this life to the next life. Well, liberation, as a subtle body, dissolves by liberation or going back to Godhead. Both are essentially the same. The ultimate liberation is to go back to Godhead. And the subtle body dissolves when we go out of this material world and enter into the spiritual sky.
So thank you very much for your questions. And we’ll continue in our next session. I’ll be sending the topic for the next session shortly. Basically, we’re talking about how do we deal with the loss of a loved one, and does spirituality mean suppressing our emotions or sublimating our emotions? We’ll discuss this in our next session.
Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

The post Gita key verses course 3 – What is death & reincarnation? Do we all have soulmates? – Gita 2.22 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Today, we will be discussing the second session on key verses from the Bhagavad Gita. In the first session, I started with verse 1.1, where I focused primarily on the context of the Gita and its relevance today. It addresses questions like: What is my purpose? What are we meant to do in life? The fundamental teaching of the Gita will be discussed in verse 2.13. I have prepared a list of 51 topics that we will cover, which I will share shortly after the class in the group.

Each session will focus on a particular question, whose answer we will seek. I will also be sharing my screen and sending a PowerPoint on WhatsApp, which you can use for reference. Today, we will focus on Bhagavad Gita 2.13, which states: “Dehino ‘smin yatha dehe kaumaram yauvanam jara, tatha dehantara praptir dhiras tatra na muhyati.” This verse talks about the identity of the soul. It says that just as the body goes through stages like childhood, youth, and old age, the embodied soul undergoes the transition from one body to another. A wise person, who understands this, is not bewildered by such changes.

We will discuss this in three parts: the need for spirituality, the rationale for spirituality, and the result of spirituality. When I speak of spirituality, I don’t just mean a vague feeling; I refer to the non-material side of us—our true identity, which is spiritual in nature. The Gita teaches that there is a non-material side to us, which is the actual person, and understanding this is crucial. The first step is exploring whether this non-material aspect exists, and if it does, we need to understand how rational people can accept it. Once accepted, we can explore the results of this understanding.

Just as our bodies need physical nutrition, we also need metaphysical orientation. By metaphysical orientation, I mean that we need a sense of place and purpose, which is intrinsically tied to our identity. For example, right now, I am in Mumbai with a particular purpose. My identity is tied to this place and purpose. Some of you may be software engineers, and you may be in different parts of the world. Our identity shapes what we are meant to do. Arjuna, in the Gita, faced confusion because he could not understand his purpose and what he was supposed to do.

This sense of place and purpose can be abstract. For instance, you might identify as a software engineer, but beyond that, you may identify as a young professional seeking career growth or as someone working to achieve the American dream. Our identities can also include roles like being a mother, father, son, or daughter, and our sense of purpose often comes from fulfilling these roles. Without a clear sense of place and purpose, life can become disorienting. When we join a new organization, orientation programs are designed to help us understand our place and purpose within the organization, which is essential for growth.

Metaphysical orientation is important because it gives us a deeper sense of identity. If, for example, someone loses their job or a catastrophe happens, their sense of purpose can be shaken. This is a common challenge for athletes who identify themselves with their sport, and when they can no longer perform, they face emotional distress. Similarly, Arjuna was disoriented when his purpose in life was questioned. The Bhagavad Gita, through its spiritual teachings, provided him with a lasting orientation—one that cannot be easily taken away.

Spirituality offers this orientation, which remains constant even in times of crisis. Our sense of identity is what gives us a lasting sense of place and purpose, and it is this understanding that we will explore throughout the Gita.

So, what is the place that transcends the ordinary? You are a soul inside a body, and the purpose will be mentioned in the next verses. Ultimately, spiritual evolution is about spiritual growth and, ultimately, liberation. This place and purpose can never be lost because we, as souls, will always be souls. We might not have the same professional designations or national affiliations tomorrow. We might not have the same family situations either. There are various identities we have, such as functional identities, like our family, nationality, or gender. With today’s advancements, even gender identity might change, but these are superficial identities. Beneath these, there is a fundamental identity: we are souls. The soul is on a journey, which will be discussed later—the journey of spiritual evolution.

The first points Krishna speaks about in the Bhagavad Gita concern the philosophical concept of the soul, primarily to serve Arjuna’s need for reorientation. Krishna reminds him of his fundamental identity, and the idea here is that without being properly oriented, we will not be able to function at all. Arjuna is unable to function at the start of the Gita. He is paralyzed by confusion, saying, “I can’t fight” and expressing uncertainty about whether winning or letting his relatives live is the right choice. Krishna provides Arjuna with the reorientation he needs. This is the first point.

The second point is the rationale for spirituality, which we will explore through three things: consciousness, past-life memories, and near-death experiences. These provide scientific evidence supporting the idea of the soul.

From a biological perspective, we are often identified with our bodies. We experience pain when the body suffers, and we identify ourselves through our physical appearance. However, there are certain characteristics that cannot be explained if we are simply biological machines. These defining characteristics of the soul are sat (existence), chit (consciousness), and ananda (joy). These qualities characterize our overall behavior. We desire to live forever, we seek knowledge, and we ultimately seek joy. From a biological perspective, survival and reproduction are the primary drivers of life. Biology suggests we are essentially survival and reproduction machines, focused on eating, sleeping, mating, and defending.

But there’s more to us than this. Why do we want to live forever? Nothing in nature survives forever, not even the Himalayas. Everything is subject to decay, yet we long for eternal existence. Could this longing come from something non-physical, from the spiritual core of who we are? It’s similar to how a child in a remote African village, who has never heard of Pisa, could suddenly express a desire to see the Leaning Tower of Pisa. This curiosity suggests there is something beyond physical experience at play, pointing to our spiritual nature.

Consciousness is another defining trait. We are curious by nature, not just for survival, but for the sake of knowing. Consider the curiosity behind scientific discoveries, such as how Isaac Newton developed the theory of gravity after observing an apple fall. This curiosity transcends basic survival needs. Humans also engage with art, music, literature, and philosophy, pursuits that often have abstract beginnings but lead to concrete results.

Then there’s joy. While pleasure is a natural part of life, it can also become a hindrance. If we were just biological creatures, our search for pleasure would not get in the way of survival. But in many cases, the pursuit of pleasure, such as addiction to substances like cigarettes or alcohol, harms our survival. Why do we long for joy so desperately, even at the cost of our lives? This search for joy is something animals don’t experience in the same way, pointing again to the non-physical nature of our existence.

Finally, the scientific evidence for the soul includes near-death experiences (NDEs) and past-life memories. There are cases where people, after being clinically dead, report having experiences outside their bodies. For instance, one case involved a woman who, during a surgery where her body was completely without circulation, described events that occurred while she was clinically dead. These kinds of experiences suggest that consciousness may exist separately from the body and can continue beyond physical death.

So, she saw herself lying on the operating table and noticed that she was observing herself from above. The first thing she wondered was, “What happened to my hair? Why is it cut like this?” Then she realized it was supposed to be brain surgery, but the doctors were working on her thigh area. They were preparing for a bypass, aiming to induce a heart attack to stop the heart from functioning. She recalled the conversation between the patients and the medical staff. Biologically, it’s impossible, and yet the experiences she had weren’t as uncommon as some might think; they are quite well documented. The question arises: how can we be conscious when we are unconscious? This refers to when our brain is unconscious. The most reasonable explanation for this is that when the body is here, the source of consciousness, as described in the Bhagavad Gita, is the soul. Normally, the soul’s consciousness is routed through the body, but during traumatic or disorienting events, the soul and body may temporarily separate. Some people presume that the brain generates consciousness, but it might be the transmitter, not the generator. The brain could even reduce consciousness. This means that the soul has broader consciousness, but when it’s connected to the body, it can only perceive what the body’s senses allow. The soul’s senses are like windows, and there are cases documented in the book Mind Sight that describe people with out-of-body experiences during near-death situations. For example, there are cases of people who were blind, yet during near-death or out-of-body experiences, they could see for the first time.

The most reasonable explanation is that when the body is damaged in some way, the consciousness may not function normally, but if the soul exits the body, that sensory damage no longer impacts the soul’s perception. In cases of out-of-body experiences, there are also recollections of past lives. Children sometimes mention things about their previous families, such as, “Where is my other mom?” They may give specific details about their past life, such as places, people, and even behaviors. This is documented in cases where children have memories of their past life that include recognizable details, behaviors, and even birthmarks corresponding to injuries from their previous life.

One example involves a young boy in Turkey named Kieran, who described his previous life in a town called Merson. His parents were confused because he had never been there, but he guided them to the exact house, where they met a widow who confirmed the details he had mentioned. The boy recognized her as his wife from a previous life, even describing details of a violent incident in which his past self was attacked with a knife. Remarkably, a birthmark on the boy’s body matched the location of the injury from his previous life. This has been documented in the research of Dr. Ian Stevenson, who studied past life memories and birthmarks linked to fatal wounds.

Such cases suggest that the soul may remember certain details or experiences from past lives, and this recollection is not just about recognition but also about behavior. For instance, the boy reacted angrily when he saw his former wife with another man. His behavior was more akin to that of an adult, not a six-year-old child. This phenomenon, along with birthmarks matching past-life injuries, points to the existence of a non-material aspect of consciousness—the soul—that may carry memories and experiences across different physical bodies.

If we consider the Bhagavad Gita’s explanation of the soul, Krishna says that the soul changes bodies, and these past-life memories are part of that process. This idea is supported by the findings of researchers who observe correlations between birthmarks and past-life events. In a study, the probability of a precise correlation between birthmarks and fatal wounds from a past life was found to be incredibly low, suggesting that there is something beyond coincidence at play. This aligns with the concept of the soul inhabiting different bodies across lifetimes.

Now, if spirituality is real, what is the result of practicing it? According to Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, we will become more tolerant and less disturbed by life’s ups and downs. Spirituality helps orient us in life, giving us a higher purpose beyond material pleasures. By orienting ourselves spiritually, we become less distracted by external challenges. Spiritual practices help us navigate life more peacefully, understanding that life’s struggles are temporary and that transcendence is possible.

In conclusion, the Bhagavad Gita teaches us that we are spiritual beings undergoing a journey of spiritual evolution. We must be patient with ourselves, recognizing that spiritual growth is gradual. Just as a firefighter learns to handle a fire with experience, we learn to manage the ups and downs of life through spiritual training. The soul’s consciousness is separate from the physical body, and when we experience pain or pleasure, we sometimes realize that our true identity is beyond the body. Through spiritual practices, we become aware of our non-material nature, and with time, we begin to understand our eternal existence.

This journey of understanding is not immediate; it requires patience and practice. While many distractions make life’s purpose seem unclear, if we maintain a genuine desire to understand, the answers will come. As the Bhagavad Gita states, we are not the body but the eternal soul, and our purpose is to reconnect with the divine and transcend the limitations of material existence.

In a future session, we can delve deeper into topics like the fate of the soul after death and the concept of ghosts. Thank you for your attention.

The post Gita key verses course 2 – Who am I? Is there any scientific evidence for the soul? – Gita 2.13 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

In the West, this is the holiday season, with both Christmas and Hanukkah. As Srila Prabhupada explained, the Lord comes to this world to enlighten people with transcendental knowledge. Sometimes He comes personally, and sometimes He sends His son or His prophet or His representative, but they all come with the same message. They may speak in different languages according to the circumstances and the audience, but the essence of the message is the same: God is great; we are but small parts and parcels of God, meant to serve Him with love, and we have come from God and are meant to return to Him.

One of Srila Prabhupada’s purports in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is contains a statement that relates to the holidays people in the West are about to celebrate:

“‘The avatara, or incarnation of Godhead, descends from the kingdom of God for material manifestation. And the particular form of the Personality of Godhead who so descends is called an incarnation, or avatara. Such incarnations are situated in the spiritual world, the kingdom of God. When they descend to the material creation, they assume the name avatara.’ [Cc Madhya 20.263­–264] There are various kinds of avataras, such as purusavataras, gunavataras, lilavataras, sakty-avesa avataras, manvantara-avataras, and yugavataras—all appearing on schedule all over the universe. But Lord Krsna is the primeval Lord, the fountainhead of all avataras. Lord Sri Krsna descends for the specific purpose of mitigating the anxieties of the pure devotees, who are very anxious to see Him in His original Vrndavana pastimes.” (Gita 4.8 purport)

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, Srila Prabhupada’s spiritual master, said that Jesus Christ was a saktyavesa-avatara; he accepted that Jesus Christ descended to the earth from above. That is avatara. And saktyavesa means one who carries the power of the Lord. Thus, he accepted that Jesus Christ descended to earth with the power of the Lord to preach the message of Godhead. And Jesus Christ preached more or less the same message as Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita. Sometimes people would ask Srila Prabhupada about Jesus, and Srila Prabhupada would reply, “In the Bible Jesus said that he was the son of God, and in the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krishna says that He is the father of all living entities, so there is no contradiction.”

Jesus Christ filled the role of a spiritual master, or guru. The spiritual master teaches the science of Godhead, and when a disciple surrenders to a spiritual master, the spiritual master accepts the disciple’s sinful reactions. Jesus Christ performed the same functions in relation to his followers, or disciples: he taught them about God and he accepted their sinful reactions. Sometimes Christians quote Jesus as having said, “There is no way to the Father except through me.” This statement is a little controversial in learned circles—there is some question as to whether the attribution is authentic or not. But in any case, Srila Prabhupada took the truth in these words to be that one cannot approach the Lord directly; one can approach the Lord only through the Lord’s representative, the spiritual master.

As far as the idea that Jesus Christ accepted the sins, or sinful reactions, of his followers, Srila Prabhupada expressed one concern: The followers should refrain from sin. They should consider, “Oh, if I sin, my spiritual master will have to suffer!” Christians in particular may consider, “Because I have sinned, my spiritual master had to suffer, so I should not commit sin any longer.” That should be the basic sense. They should not think, “Oh, poor Jesus suffered for me, but now I can go on sinning.”

So, we accept Jesus Christ as a saktyavesa-avatara, as an incarnation of Krishna. Christmas should be a time when we remember his teachings, his mercy, the sacrifice he made for us. And we should resolve to be better followers, better servants of God and God’s representatives, and of all humankind and all living beings.

Hanukkah, in the Jewish tradition, is also an important festival celebrated at this time of year. It is a winter festival, and winter is a dark season, when the sun sets early and rises late. Hanukkah is the festival of light. Historically, the ancient temple in Jerusalem was seized and desecrated, but eventually, with great courage and sacrifice, the Jewish heroes, the Maccabees, won it back. They wanted to clean and purify the temple to make it fit for worship of the Lord, and their worship included a flame that was sustained by sanctified oil, to be maintained at all times. But when the Maccabees regained the temple, they found only one flask of the priestly oil, enough to burn for only one day. Still, they lit the great temple lamp, the menorah, and, according to the story, the oil burned for eight days, until they could get more. So, the miracle of Hanukkah is that the purified oil, which was sufficient to last only one day, by the grace of the Lord burned for eight days, time enough to obtain more.

Figuratively, the temple is the heart. Cleaning the temple means cleaning one’s heart of the many dirty things that accumulate there by material association. That dirt includes false identification with the body and material desires for the gratification of the body’s senses and mind independent of God’s sanction and God’s service. And figuratively, the light is transcendental knowledge, or consciousness of God, which illuminates the heart and dispels the darkness of ignorance.

Just as the year has its cycles, we also pass through phases. We wish we could always be fully God conscious, but practically we may find cycles in our spiritual life, periods of increased devotion to God interspersed with periods of increased preoccupation with other matters. And the Hanukkah festival, the lighting of the candle or burning of the lamp, means brightening our hearts with God consciousness, with Krishna consciousness—cleaning the temple of the heart and rekindling the light of God consciousness, devotion to God, within the heart.

But we require help with such devotional activities, because alone, in the face of the material world, in the face of maya, each of us is quite weak. We too depend on the grace of the Lord, and we need the support and help of other devotees. If one person alone had to clean the temple, he or she would have a very hard job. But when all the devotees clean the temple together, the job becomes much easier.

The most complete science of God consciousness is presented in Srimad-Bhagavatam, which nicely explains the process of cleansing the heart:

srnvatam sva-kathah krsnah
   punya-sravana-kirtanah
hrdy antah stho hy abhadrani
   vidhunoti suhrt satam

“Sri Krsna, the Personality of Godhead, who is the Paramatma [Supersoul] in everyone’s heart and the benefactor of the truthful devotee, cleanses desire for material enjoyment from the heart of the devotee who has developed the urge to hear His messages, which are in themselves virtuous when properly heard and chanted.” (SB 1.2.17)

The Bhagavatam says that hearing topics of Krishna, of God—just as we are sitting here and listening to Krishna’s message—is itself a pious activity, a form of devotional service. We have only to open our ears to the message of Godhead and we become pious (srnvatam sva-kathah krsnah punya-sravana kirtanah). Then, hrdy antah stho hy abhadrani: the inauspicious things in the heart—we could say, the dirty things in the heart, our evil thoughts and selfish desires—become cleansed. How? Vidhunoti suhrt satam: The Lord Himself helps the truthful devotee to clean the dirt, because He is already there in the heart. He is already there, but because the heart is covered by material contamination, we cannot perceive His presence; we cannot hear His voice. However, when we show our eagerness to hear the Lord’s message through our ears, the Lord within reciprocates. He helps cleanse the dirty things from the heart so that we can hear Him there, guiding us. And when we surrender to the Lord and make sacrifices for Him, He supplies unlimited fuel for maintaining our heart’s flame of devotion.

Satam means “truthful devotee.” The truthful devotee is honest in his endeavors in Krishna consciousness. One who is dishonest will make a show of piety or religiousness but behind the show will have other interests, harbor other ambitions. But the truthful devotee actually wants to understand the science of God and to serve the Lord and all living beings. Though he may be weak, if he is honest in his endeavors to listen to the messages of Godhead and apply the principles in life, even if he is incapable of executing the orders perfectly, still he is considered satam, a truthful devotee. And the Lord within the heart, who acts as the well-wishing friend of the truthful devotee, will cleanse the heart of the dirty things that have accumulated there.

Again we see the importance of association, because the process for cleansing the heart is hearing the messages of Godhead, and only in the association of devotees can we receive the messages properly. Through our hearing and then chanting and repeating what we have heard, the heart becomes cleansed by the grace of the Lord. Ceto-darpana-marjanam: When we chant the holy names of God and hear the transcendental glories of God, the heart becomes cleansed and the light of Krishna consciousness there burns more brightly. It spreads throughout the entire body and then emerges—through the skin, through the eyes, through all the different sense organs. Especially, it comes out through the mouth in the form of transcendental sound, which comes from the heart. The messages that one has received through the ears and that have entered the heart come out again through the mouth and spread light, enlightenment, throughout the world.

So, tonight we greatly appreciate the efforts of Mother Urvasi, for she works so hard to create a situation where we all can come together and speak about God, hear about God, and remember God. Holy days are special occasions when we can get together and remember the Lord’s appearance, or the appearance or disappearance of great devotees, or great events that have taken place in the service of the Lord. And when we get together and hear about the Lord and the great devotees of the Lord and the great service and miracles that have taken place in relation to the Lord, we become purified. And we become enlightened and engladdened.

Peace on earth and goodwill toward humanity actually can be achieved through God consciousness. The Bhagavad-gita explains how we can achieve peace: we must first make peace with God. If we reestablish our relationship with God and experience God’s peace and friendship, then we can have real peace and friendship amongst ourselves and help each other in our relationships with Him.

Srila Prabhupada said, “God consciousness is there. You have begun these Christmas holidays in your country. Throughout the whole month of December, you’ll observe nice festivities. Why? It began with God consciousness. Jesus Christ came to give you God consciousness, and in relation to him these festivities are going on. It may have degraded into another form, but the beginning was God consciousness. Now we may have lost it, but people cannot be happy without reviving God consciousness. It may be named differently—‘Krishna consciousness’—but that means God consciousness. That is the necessity. We want to love somebody. Our love will be perfected when we love Krishna, or God. We are teaching that. Try to love God, and if you love God, if you love Krishna, then automatically you love everybody. That is the perfection of love.”

Hare Krishna.

[Adapted from a talk by Giriraj Swami, December 17, 2000, Ojai, California]

“Jesus Christ was such a great personality—the son of God, the representative of God. He had no fault. Still, he was crucified. He wanted to deliver God consciousness, but in return they crucified him—they were so thankless. They could not appreciate his preaching. But we appreciate him and give him all honor as the representative of God.

Of course, the message that Christ preached was just according to his particular time, place, and country, and just suited for a particular group of people. But certainly he is the representative of God. Therefore we adore Lord Jesus Christ and offer our obeisances to him.”

(Science of Self-Realization, Chapter 4)

“Who will not respect Jesus Christ? He sacrificed everything for God, even his life. So who is that rascal that he’ll not respect to Jesus Christ? What did he do wrong to the human society? He did everything for the good of the human society. Oh, I have got very, very great respect for Lord Jesus Christ. Not only… Every, I mean to say, God conscious man, he must have respect for Jesus Christ. There is no doubt about it. My Guru Mahārāja had very great respect for Muhammad, Jesus Christ…”

(Srila Prabhupada Conversation, Melbourne, June 28, 1974)

The post Gita for the CEO book: Chaitanya Charan interviewed by a leading Chartered Accountant in Dubai appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

The post Supersoul speaks part 3 appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

On a recent pilgrimage to India, I was often asked to speak about Yamuna devi. Those who associated with her even briefly appreciated her warmth, compassion and devotion to Srila Prabhupada. Yamuna had an uncanny ability to make whoever she met feel as though they were valued and understood. She deeply felt it both a
Read More...

Living in Kuliya during Sri Chaitanya’s pastimes, Sri Devananda Pandit gave professional readings of Srimad Bhagavatam tainted with Mayavada philosophy. One day Shrivasa Pandit heard his Bhagavata-katha, began crying, and fell to the ground. 

Becoming disturbed by this display, the foolish disciples of Devananda threw Shrivasa out of the assembly. By silently observing this misbehaviour of his disciples Devananda committed the hati-mata aparadha, the mad elephant offence of blaspheming a pure devotee of Lord Chaitanya.

Later, by the mercy of Vakreshvara Pandit, an intimate devotee of Sri Gaura Raya, Devananda understood the divinity of Sri Krishna Chaitanya and surrendered to Him in the place known today as the aparadha-bhanjanam, or the place of amnesty. 

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu granted forgiveness to all who gathered there and instructed them in the science of devotion. The Lord pardoned his offence and blessed him with bhakti. He serves in Krishna lila as Bhaguri Muni. 

The post Role of sex desire in life and in spiritual life appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

With HH Mukunda Goswami, HG Guru Das, HG Shyamasundara Das, HG Malati Devi Dasi, HG Jyotirmayi Devi Dasi, HG Mandakini Devi Dasi and man other disciples of Srila Prabhupada (Rebatinandana Prabhu, Ranchor Prabhu etc) # Reunion at Bhaktivedanta Manor 1993 – Part 1 A warm welcome to all visiting devotees and guests attending the PR
Read More...

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, Srila Prabhupada’s spiritual master, is my grand spiritual master, but I feel that I never really knew him very well until I read his biography Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Vaibhava, by my godbrother Bhakti Vikasa Swami. Many of the quotes and references below come from that work.

We are all here by the mercy of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and the Supreme Lord, Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. There’s a line through which the mercy descends upon us, beginning with Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and passing, one teacher after the other, through parampara, disciplic succession. Five thousand years ago, Krishna came in His original form and instructed in the Bhagavad-gita (9.34, 18.65), man-mana bhava mad-bhakto: “Always think of Me and become My devotee.” Five hundred years ago, Lord Krishna came again, in the devotional form of Sri Krishna Chaitanya, to explain and personally show how to be a devotee and always think of Krishna. Lord Chaitanya quoted a verse from the Brhan-naradiya Purana (38.126):

harer nama harer nama
  harer namaiva kevalam
kalau nasty eva nasty eva
  nasty eva gatir anyatha

“One should chant the holy name, chant the holy name, chant the holy name of Hari, Krishna. There is no other way, no other way, no other way for success in the present age of Kali.” He also desired and predicted:

prthivite ache yata nagaradi grama
sarvatra pracara haibe mora nama

“In as many towns and villages as there are on the surface of the earth, My holy name will be propagated.” (Cb 3.4.126) This desire and prediction were expressed at a time when it was almost impossible to imagine or believe that it could happen.

In the 1800s, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura began the effort to spread the holy name of Krishna to countries outside India. He wrote a small book in English called Chaitanya Mahaprabhu: His Life and Precepts and dispatched copies to libraries around the world. In recent years, Srila Prabhupada’s disciples have discovered copies in libraries from Canada (McGill University) to Australia. Bhaktivinoda Thakura yearned for the day when devotees from all over the world would unite in harinama-sankirtana and wrote, “Very soon the unparalleled path of harinama-sankirtana will be propagated all over the planet. . . . Oh, for that day when the fortunate English, French, Russian, German, and American people will take up banners, mridangas, and kartals and perform kirtan through their streets and towns. When will that day come? Oh, for the day when the fair-skinned men from their side will raise up the chanting of ‘Jaya Sacinandana, jaya Sacinandana ki jaya!’ and join with the Bengali devotees. When will that day be?” (Sajjana-tosani)

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was a powerful spiritual master, an acharya. After the disappearance of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and His associates, many unscrupulous people claiming to be Mahaprabhu’s followers introduced concocted philosophies and practices—even illicit activities—to the point that if an educated Bengali heard the word Vaishnava, he would immediately think the worst. In educated circles Vaishnava had come to mean a sentimental, ignorant person of loose character who, in the guise of religion, engaged in all sorts of questionable activities. In this precarious situation, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura came forward and presented the true understanding of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, speaking strongly against the deviant groups that had distorted and perverted His pure teachings and practices.

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura held a high position in the British rule of India—the highest an Indian could hold, and then only very rarely. He had important responsibilities in the government and had a large family, but his main interest was Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the sankirtana movement. He would sleep little and rise early. He did so much—wrote books, traveled, preached, established centers—and had a tremendous effect, especially on the people of Bengal and Orissa, including the intellectual elite, who were just then coming in touch with modern ideas from the West. He revived the true mission of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, inspiring hosts of people to join him, and pushed back the deviant groups, who lost much of their influence.

Having undertaken such a tremendous task and executed it so successfully but still being surrounded by so many parties with vested interests in covering the true intention of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was at a loss as to who would carry on his mission. He prayed to Krishna to send someone—one of His own associates from the spiritual realm—to continue the work. It is understood that the appearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was the answer to Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s prayers.

There are many incidents from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s early life that indicate that he was that person sent by Krishna. When Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was five months old, the Ratha-yatra cart halted in front of Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s home in Puri, and the Thakura directed his wife, Bhagavati Devi, to carry the baby to the chariot. When the infant was placed at the lotus feet of Lord Jagannatha, he extended his tiny arms to touch the Deity’s feet, and Lord Jagannatha dropped one of His garlands around him—a blessing and a confirmation of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s divine descent.

Sri Siddhanta Sarasvati understood his father’s mission and worked with him to fulfill it. His father initiated him into the chanting of the holy name (hari-nama), the Hare Krishna maha-mantra, but according to etiquette, a father does not give actual diksa to his son. So Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura instructed him to approach Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, a great maha-bhagavata—a fully self-realized, liberated soul—for diksa. But Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji was a renounced bhajananandi and was not inclined to accept disciples; he preferred simply to immerse himself in chanting the holy names and hearing scripture.

When Sri Siddhanta Sarasvati approached Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji Maharaja, Babaji Maharaja told him directly that he would not accept him or anyone else as a disciple. Still, Siddhanta Sarasvati persisted, so Babaji Maharaja told him, “I will ask Mahaprabhu.” A few days later, when Siddhanta Sarasvati returned and inquired, “What was Mahaprabhu’s order?” Babaji Maharaja replied, “I forgot to ask.” And when Siddhanta Sarasvati came for the third time, Babaji Maharaja directly refused him: “Mahaprabhu has not given permission.” Sri Siddhanta Sarasvati was devastated. He stood up and quoted a line by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, addressed to the guru—karuna na hoile, kandiya kandiya, prana na rakhibo ara: “If you are not merciful to me, I will simply weep and weep and will not be able to maintain my life.” Finally, when Gaurakisora dasa Babaji Maharaja understood how sincere and serious Sri Siddhanta Sarasvati was, he accepted him as his disciple and initiated him.

Five years later, in 1905, Sri Siddhanta Sarasvati undertook a vow to chant at least three lakh holy names daily—ten million monthly—until he had chanted one billion holy names. For his disciples, Srila Prabhupada fixed the minimum number of sixteen rounds per day, which takes most devotees about two hours. Four times sixteen is sixty-four rounds, or one lakh names. And three times sixty-four rounds equal three hundred thousand names, which would take us, even at a good rate, at least sixteen hours a day. In Mayapur, Sri Siddhanta Sarasvati constructed a grass hut, where he lived very simply and chanted day and night. If rain came and leaked through the thatched roof, he would just hold up an umbrella and continue chanting: “Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare / Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare.”

To complete his vow took more than nine years, but even then, Sri Siddhanta Sarasvati would write, preach, and serve the dhama. One program he attended was especially significant. In Bengal the caste brahmans held a stranglehold on people’s religious practices. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura had spoken openly against them and their false claim, based on their supposed high birth, that they possessed exclusive rights to be gurus and perform brahminical functions. Naturally, when Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Sri Siddhanta Sarasvati challenged them, the brahmans reacted. An assembly of smarta-brahmanas and jata-gosanis (caste Gosvamis) came together to try to refute the arguments of the pure Vaishnavas and published a tract against them. In response, the Vaishnavas called a three-day public meeting to discuss the relative positions of brahmans and Vaishnavas. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was expected to be the main speaker, but severe rheumatism rendered him bedridden.

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura himself was not born in a brahman family, and obviously, neither was his son. Now, the question may be raised that since Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was a ray of Vishnu, an eternal associate of Krishna’s sent from the spiritual realm to the material world to preach, Krishna could have arranged for him to take birth in the highest class of brahman family, with all the brahminical qualifications. But He didn’t. Why not? Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati explains that the Lord does not arrange for pure devotees to take birth only in high-class families, with all the advantages of good health, education, culture, wealth, strength, and so on, because ordinary people would feel discouraged. They would think, “Oh, I didn’t take birth in a high-class family; I didn’t have this or that advantage. What is the hope for me?” So, great souls take birth in various kinds of families to show us the example that anyone in any condition—even if not born in a brahman family—can become Krishna conscious, and to give us hope that we too can be Krishna conscious.

So, after the publication of the caste brahmans’ tract, on the eve of the public meeting to be convened by the Vaishnavas, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was incapacitated, and he cried out in desperation, “Is there no one in the Vaishnava world who can reply to these people and, by presenting scriptural evidence and logic, put a stop to their base activities?” Sri Siddhanta Sarasvati took up the challenge, wrote an essay called “Conclusion Regarding the Comparison of Brahmans and Vaishnavas,” and went to attend the meeting.

Many caste brahmans, although not invited, also went to the meeting. Understanding that Bhaktivinoda Thakura was indisposed and unable to attend, they swaggered about, confident that they would easily triumph over the Vaishnavas.

Sri Siddhanta Sarasvati was the first speaker. He began by quoting various statements from scripture about the exalted position of brahmans, and the caste brahmans in the audience were delighted. He was so brilliant that he could speak better about the high position of brahmans than the brahmans themselves. But then he began quoting verses from scripture about the position of Vaishnavas, establishing that Vaishnavas were higher than even brahmans and that irrespective of one’s birth, if one accepted the Vaishnava principles, he would attain a position more exalted than that of a brahman. The brahmans in the audience were completely overwhelmed. Seeing no way to counter Sri Siddhanta Sarasvati’s arguments, the smarta-brahmanas and jata-gosanis slinked away.

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura felt assured that his mission was in capable hands, that Sri Siddhanta Sarasvati was a worthy successor to carry on his cause. And Sri Siddhanta Sarasvati began to preach far and wide. He was fearless and open in his criticism of anything false. And his example and instructions remain relevant to us today.

Srila Sarasvati Thakura was a prodigious writer and speaker on various topics, including how to present the message of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. He noted that there were people who thought that you should say only positive—not negative—things. I experienced that when I was in Madras. I was preaching as I had heard Srila Prabhupada preach, and people reacted. Even friends, people who were hosting me and supporting me, advised me, “Don’t criticize others. Just say what you want about your philosophy and activities.” Srila Sarasvati Thakura averred that it was imperative not only to elucidate the truth but also to criticize anything false, because in Kali-yuga there is so much false propaganda that we have to be very clear; there cannot be any ambiguity in our message:

“The positive method by itself is not the most effective method of propaganda in a controversial age like the present. The negative method, which seeks to differentiate the truth from non-truth in all its forms, is even better calculated to convey the directly inconceivable significance of the Absolute. It is a necessity which cannot be conscientiously avoided by the dedicated preacher of the truth if he wants to be a loyal servant of Godhead. The method is sure to create an atmosphere of controversy in which it is quite easy to lose one’s balance of judgment. But the ways of the deluding energy are so intricate that unless their mischievous nature is fully exposed, it is not possible for the soul in the conditioned state to avoid the snares spread by the enchantress [Maya] for encompassing the ruin of her only too willing victims. It is a duty which shall be sacred to all who have been enabled to attain even a distant glimpse of the Absolute.”

Srila Prabhupada also demonstrated this approach. He had a friend named Dr. Patel, who would accompany him on his morning walks on Juhu Beach. Dr. Patel was highly literate, he knew Sanskrit, and he was quite sharp. So, one morning, Dr. Patel started praising a revered popular religious figure of India, and Srila Prabhupada, in turn, began to criticize the figure. Dr. Patel protested, “You cannot criticize like this.” But Srila Prabhupada replied, “I am not saying; Krishna is saying—na mam duskrtino mudhah prapadyante naradhamah, mayayapahrta-jnana asuram bhavam asritah: If you are not surrendered to Krishna, you are a miscreant in one of these categories—fool, rascal, demon.”

Dr. Patel became agitated and raised his voice, and Srila Prabhupada raised his. The whole situation became both tense and intense. Finally, Dr. Patel’s friends dragged him away. It was like in a boxing ring when the bell rings to signal the end of the fight and the two opponents just keep going at each other and the referee has to tear them apart.

For the first time, Dr. Patel stopped coming for the morning walks, and Srila Prabhupada also said, “Now no more discussion; we will only read Krsna book.” But after a couple of days, Dr. Patel was walking in one direction on the beach and Prabhupada was walking in the other, and, as Dr. Patel described it, something in his heart just drew him to Srila Prabhupada’s lotus feet. He offered obeisance and said, “Prabhupada, I am sorry, but we are trained to respect all the accredited saints of India.” And Srila Prabhupada replied, “Yes, and our business is to point out who is not a saint.” He had learned from his guru maharaja, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, that we not only tell who is a saint; we also explain who is not a saint. And that is the mercy of the Vaishnava, so people know clearly what is what. Otherwise, they can be misled and, as a result, suffer.

Srila Sarasvati Thakura was a tremendously powerful and successful preacher who fearlessly spoke the truth. And his pure preaching inspired hundreds of thousands of people to follow. But he also had enemies. He was the enemy of falsehood, and consequently, people who were thriving on falsehood sometimes became his enemies. Once, when he and his party were performing navadvipa-parikrama, the caste brahmans hired goondas, thugs, who let loose with a volley of stones and boulders on the party, aiming to take Srila Sarasvati Thakura’s life. (There were attempts on other occasions as well.) But one of his disciples cleverly exchanged his white dress for Sarasvati Thakura’s saffron robes, so Sarasvati Thakura emerged disguised and escaped. But it was a terrible scene. It looked like a massacre, with the streets of Navadvipa stained with the blood of the Vaishnavas. Some devotees suffered gashes and fractures, but by Krishna’s grace none were killed.

It was a dark moment, but when it came to light that the attack had been perpetrated by the caste Gosvamis, the public sided with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and the Gaudiya Matha, and the caste Gosvamis’ opposition to him lost whatever credibility it had. As news of the event spread, those in learned circles protested in newspapers and magazines. The chief police inspector in Navadvipa was sacked, and the parikrama continued under full police protection. Later, when urged to press charges against the culprits, Srila Sarasvati Thakura declined, saying that the goondas had done a yeoman’s service—otherwise how could the Gaudiya Matha have been featured on the front pages of all the newspapers? Srila Sarasvati Thakura was the enemy of falsehood, but he was the well-wisher of everyone, even of people who were inimical to him.

Although Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was so austere and rigid, so strict with himself, when it came to preaching he was ready to spend any amount of money and do anything. When I was first serving in India, in 1970, only affluent people could afford cars, mainly the locally manufactured Fiats and Ambassadors. But Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura had a limousine—back in the 1930s. And he dressed nicely. He would typically wear a dhoti, but on occasion, as required, he would don a double-breasted coat, stockings, and shoes. He had fine furniture for receiving special guests. Thus, referring to the elite, he said, “We are preaching by approaching the people of the world dressed even somewhat better than they, showing knowledge even somewhat greater than theirs, being even somewhat more stylish than they—without which they would think us worthless and not listen to our hari-katha. . . . I have to go to various places for propagating hari-katha, so I must present myself as a learned and decent gentleman; otherwise nondevotees will not give me their time.”

He used all means to broadcast the message of Krishna. Employing the latest technologies, he directed the construction of dioramas and other exhibits and staged huge theistic exhibitions. He built a grand marble temple on the bank of the Ganges at Bag-bazar in Calcutta. The procession that brought the Deities on a beautiful ratha, chariot, from the matha at Ultadangi to the new temple was enormous. Millions of people lined the streets along the two-mile route, which took four hours to traverse, and twenty-five thousand men, divided into forty-three groups, accompanied the Deities with loud harinama-sankirtana. For its work, the Gaudiya Matha owned four cars, a horse and buggy, an elephant, and a camel. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati would treat prominent guests to excursions on the Ganges in one of the Matha’s launches and expound hari-katha to them.

In January of 1935 the governor of Bengal, Sir John Anderson, visited Mayapur. This was a major event, because the Britishers were the rulers, and Srila Sarasvati Thakura was one of their subjects, their vassals. But the governor, accompanied by many other dignitaries, came all the way to Mayapur to meet Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and see his work.

Despite Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s tremendous purity and potency and success as a preacher, however, within his own institution there were disconcerting signs that some of his leading disciples were becoming materially infected. With so much opulence, fame, and respect, some of them had become distracted. Instead of realizing that all the facility was meant for the service of the Lord, to bring people to the Lord’s unalloyed service, they were enjoying it, and all the adulation. In an effort to reform his followers, Srila Sarasvati Thakura spoke strongly, and he restricted the use of certain facilities—only for service, only for preaching—to curb the devotees’ materialistic tendencies. (Of course, he also had many sincere disciples, who did not become materially affected.) At the same time, Srila Sarasvati Thakura continued his propaganda activities—writing, publishing, traveling, and preaching—and was successful wherever he went. Still, he was disturbed that some of his disciples had become so mundane.

When he reached the age of sixty-two, Srila Sarasvati Thakura experienced a decline in health, and he made statements indicating that he would soon be leaving. In late October 1936 he traveled to Puri, a holy place that was also warmer than Calcutta, but in December, though he was in a weakened condition, he wanted to return to Calcutta, and the disciples arranged for his travel by train.

In Calcutta Srila Sarasvati Thakura’s disciples called in some of the city’s most renowned physicians. When one advised him, “You have to rest more. You can’t speak so much,” Sarasvati Thakura proceeded to preach for hours about the purpose of human life—that the physical body was temporary and that the soul’s absolute necessity was to serve the Lord. He felt that if he couldn’t speak about Krishna, what would be the use of living?

On December 23 he instructed the devotees gathered at his bedside: “I have upset many persons’ minds. Many might have considered me their enemy, because I was obliged to speak the plain truth of service and devotion towards the Absolute Godhead. I have given them all those troubles only so they might turn their face toward the Personality of Godhead without any desire for gain and with unalloyed devotion. Surely some day they will be able to understand that.

“I advise all to preach the teachings of Rupa-Raghunatha [two of the Six Gosvamis, direct disciples of Lord Chaitanya] with all energy and resources. Our ultimate goal shall be to become the dust of the lotus feet of Sri Sri Rupa and Raghunatha Gosvamis. You should all work conjointly under the guidance of your spiritual master with a view to serve the Absolute Knowledge, the Personality of Godhead. You should live somehow or other without any quarrel in this mortal world only for the service of Godhead. Do not, please, give up the service of Godhead, in spite of all dangers, all criticisms, and all discomforts. Do not be disappointed, for most people in the world do not serve the Personality of Godhead; do not give up your own service, which is your everything and all, neither reject the process of chanting and hearing of the transcendental holy name of Godhead. You should always chant the transcendental name of Godhead with patience and forbearance like a tree and humbleness like a straw . . . There are many amongst you who are well qualified and able workers. We have no other desire whatsoever.”

After midnight on December 31, Srila Sarasvati Thakura left this world. His disciples took his body to Mayapur and established his samadhi there.

News of his departure was broadcast on All-India Radio, and an official day of mourning was observed in Bengal. The Corporation of Calcutta held a special meeting in tribute to his memory and issued a resolution expressing its members’ deep sorrow. The mayor addressed the assembly:

“I rise to condole the passing away of His Divine Grace Paramahamsa Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja, the president-acharya of the Gaudiya Matha of Calcutta and the great leader of the Gaudiya movement throughout the world. This melancholy event happened on the first day of this New Year.

“Born in 1874, he dedicated his whole life to religious pursuits and dissemination of the cultural wealth of this great and ancient land of ours. An intellectual giant, he elicited the admiration of all for his unique scholarship, high and varied attainments, original thinking, and wonderful exposition of many difficult branches of knowledge.

“With invaluable contributions, he enriched many journals. He was the author of some devotional literature of repute. He was one of the most powerful and brightest exponents of the cult of Vaishnavism, his utterances and writings displaying a deep study of comparative philosophy and theology. Catholicity of his views, soundness of his teachings, and, above all, his dynamic personality and the irresistible force of the pure and simple life, had attracted thousands of followers of his message of love and service to the Absolute as propagated by Sri Krishna Chaitanya.

“He was the founder and guiding spirit of the Sri Chaitanya Matha at Sri Mayapur (Nadia) and the Gaudiya Matha of Calcutta. The Gaudiya movement, to which his contribution is no small one, has received a setback at the passing away of such a great soul. His departure has created a void in the spiritual horizon of India, which is difficult to be filled up.”

That void was a big one—Srila Sarasvati Thakura was a monumental personality, and there was no one else like him. Practically, there had never been anyone like him before, and nobody could imagine anyone like him coming afterwards.

But in 1965, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s humble servant, a grihastha disciple named Abhay Caranaravinda dasa, who after his guru maharaja’s disappearance had been awarded sannyasa and the name “A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami” by Sripada Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja, boarded a steamer from Calcutta, traveled to New York, and began the Krishna consciousness movement, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, in the West. Bhaktivedanta Swami—Srila Prabhupada, as he became known—embodied the spirit and teachings and potency of his guru maharaja and fulfilled the desire and prediction of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and Srila Sarasvati Thakura that the holy names of Sri Krishna, of Sri Krishna Chaitanya, would be propagated in every town and village of the world.

Srila Prabhupada made adjustments, because he had his own audience and particular circumstances. Like his guru maharaja, he was ready to use anything and everything in the service of the mission. He engaged modern technology—tape recorders, Dictaphones, electric typewriters, printing presses, computers, airplanes—in the service of the Lord. He sent disciples to Bengal to learn the traditional art of doll making and also used modern technology to create diorama exhibits illustrating the principles of Krishna consciousness and the pastimes of the Lord. Adopting Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s idea of theistic exhibitions, he created the FATE (First American Theistic Exhibition) museum in Los Angeles.

So, the line of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura is continuing, by his divine grace.

But it is not easy to preach in Kali-yuga. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati had many enemies, and Srila Prabhupada did too. As Srila Prabhupada said, “Big preaching means big enemies.” If we just stay at home, or tell people, “I’m okay, you’re okay—everything is okay,” we’re not going to make many enemies, but neither are we going to have much effect. In fact, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati sarcastically remarked, mein bhi chup, tum bhi chup: “I’ll be quiet, you be quiet,” meaning, “I won’t disturb you, you don’t disturb me.” But that was not his mood, and that was not Srila Prabhupada’s mood, and that should not be our mood either.

And of course, the holy name: the essence of everything is the chanting of the holy name. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati advised, “Krishna and krsna-nama are not two entities. Krishna is His holy name, and the holy name is Krishna. Krsna-nama is the son of Nanda, Shyamasundara. Our only devotional service and duty is sri-krsna-nama-sankirtana. This understanding is auspicious.”

And to one disciple, he wrote, “I am overjoyed to hear that your enthusiasm for chanting is increasing. As our contaminations are removed by chanting, the Lord’s form, qualities, and pastimes will be revealed to us in the holy name. There is no point in making a separate effort to artificially remember the Lord’s form, qualities, and pastimes. The Lord and His name are one and the same. This will be understood clearly when the coverings in your heart are removed. By chanting without offenses you will personally realize that all perfections come from the holy name. Through chanting, the distinction that exists between the self, and the gross and subtle bodies, is gradually effaced and one realizes one’s own spiritual form. Once aware of the spiritual body, as one continues to chant, one sees the transcendental nature of the Lord’s form. Only the holy name reveals the spiritual form of the living being and then causes him to be attracted to Krishna’s form. Only the holy name reveals the spiritual qualities of the living being and then causes him to be attracted to Krishna’s qualities. Only the holy name reveals the spiritual activities of the living being and then causes him to be attracted to Krishna’s pastimes. By service to the holy name we do not mean only the chanting of the holy name; it also includes the other duties of the chanter. If we serve the holy name with the body, mind, and soul, then the direction of that service spontaneously manifests like the sun in the clear sky of the chanter’s heart. What is the nature of the holy name? Eventually all these understandings spontaneously appear in the heart of one who chants the holy name. The true nature of hari-nama is revealed by listening to, reading, and studying the scriptures. It is unnecessary to write anything further on this subject. All these things will be revealed to you through chanting.”

So, let us all chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare / Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare.

Thank you very much.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura ki jaya!
Srila Prabhupada ki jaya!

[A talk by Giriraj Swami on Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura’s disappearance day, December 24, 2010, Ventura, California]

DECEMBER 18: THE APPEARANCE DAY OF HH KRISHNA KSHETRA SWAMI His Holiness Krishna Kshetra Swami was born on December 18, 1950, in New York as Kenneth Russell Valpey. In 1969, he became a student at the Architecture Department of the University of California, Berkeley. This was during the Vietnam War, a time when numerous anti-war
Read More...

GITA JAYANTI DISTRIBUTION IN FRANCE By Jayananda Swami “The main thing is to distribute books more and more. Letter to: Balavanta — Vrindaban 4 October, 1976 “The more you distribute books, the more you are blessed. There is no “more” or “less.” Everyone is blessed. [laughter] There is no such discrimination. But still, there is
Read More...