18.20-28 Cultivating repentence and avoiding lamentation in Sadhana Bhakti Gita Study Pune 2013

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Yeah. So, a couple of questions from Kurmavatar Prabhu here. So, first question was about there seem to be some references in Purna Pragya Prabhu's Mahabharata that the Kshatriyas would eat meat.

So, see Vedic culture is not idealistic or impractical. It is realistic. So, Kshatriyas have to do physically laborious activities and physically laborious activities do not necessarily require meat.

Even from grains one can get that. But when Kshatriyas are in the forest, they may go, like the Pandavas went for exile or they may go to forest when they are on a war. So, at that time, it is not practical to carry grains.

You know, carrying food supplies when armies go for war is a huge endeavor. Even now, it is a major endeavor to plan it out. So, the Kshatriyas go, say they are chasing some criminals or they are in a forest in exile or whatever.

At that time, they still have to do physically laborious activities because they are fighting with the animals or whatever. They are killing the Rakshasas or protecting the Rishis. So, they keep doing physically laborious activities.

So, for physically laborious activities, just by green vegetables and fruits, you do not get adequate strength. See, Ekadashi food is sustainable. But if somebody wants to do heavy work, one cannot just have Ekadashi food lifelong.

Just grains and vegetables and fruits, they are not adequate nutrition for physically laborious work. So, that's why, in some situations, Kshatriyas are allowed to eat meat. That is, in a sense, like Aapadharma.

So, the Aapadharma, emergency religion. So, the primary point is that, even Srila Prabhupada, there are several instances where he said, for example, Harikesh Prabhu only said that, I cannot go to United Middle, to the USSR, because there is no vegetarian food available over there. Prabhupada said, eat meat, but preach.

And Prabhupada also said that, if people want to eat meat, you know, he said, we are not against eating meat, but don't slaughter the animals. Just stop your eating meat for some time. Then, when the animals die naturally, then you can eat their meat.

So, here, the principle is what, we should not cause inordinate violence to others. So, earlier also I mentioned that meat was never a major part of the human diet. Because humans don't have the capacity by themselves to hunt animals very easily.

So, meat was a part of a diet, but it was a small part of the diet. So, Kshatriyas, they may have eaten meat in exceptional situations, but it is not that they were maintaining organized slaughterhouses in their kingdom, where they were killing millions of animals. No, in Apadharma, in emergency times, they are allowed to eat meat.

So, some people try to interpret away all references to meat-eating as referring to something secondary. It's possible, most, see, the word maamsa, wherever it comes, in the scriptures, it doesn't necessarily have to refer to meat. We look at even the standard dictionary for Sanskrit is Mounir Vilayam's dictionary.

Mounir Vilayam was a famous etymologist. So, he also says maamsa can also refer to grains. So, maamsa doesn't necessarily have to always refer to meat.

So, many of the references to meat that are there in the Vedic literature, they are not referring to meat, actually speaking. And the meat, references to meat come largely in three situations. One is tamasic sacrifices.

Second is Kshatriyas in forests. And third is the sacrifices where animals are killed. So, these are not tamasic sacrifices.

Tamasic sacrifices are where animals are killed specifically for the purpose of eating. Like in Kali temples, they have done, goats are killed. But in yajnas, the primary purpose is to do the yajna and then the animals are killed, as Prabhupada would say, like animal testing, to see whether the yajna has been performed properly or not.

So, whatever references to meat are there, they are in these three contexts. Now, lower caste people, that means those who are outside Varanashram, they may eat meat. And they are accordingly having a status which is outside the Vedic fold or near the fringes of the Vedic fold.

So, there are clear references in the Mahabharata, at least two places. One is in the section where Subhadra is kidnapped by Arjuna. And second is in the, when the gambling takes place, when the Pandavas are dispossessed of everything.

So, there, Mahabharata clearly says that there are two levels of dharma. There is higher dharma and there is lower dharma. So, Vikarna, I will elaborate the second incident right now.

So, when Draupadi questions that, did Yudhisthira gamble me first or himself first? And the implication was that if he has gambled himself first, he has lost himself. So, how can he gamble me? So, then nobody answers that question. At that time, Vikarna gets up.

And Vikarna says that she has asked a question. It is the responsibility of the assembly to answer. Otherwise, we will all be defiled by sin.

So, please answer. Still nobody answers. Then Vikarna says, if none of you are ready to answer, then I will answer.

And then he says that there are four vices to which Kshatriyas are susceptible. And it is womanizing, animal killing, meat-eating, gambling and intoxication. And he says, when a person comes under the influence of these, a person loses all good sense.

And that's why what a person does under the influence of such things should not be taken seriously. Therefore, I say that the whole gambling match should not be taken seriously. And none of the things that the Pandavas have lost should be considered to be lost.

They should be given back everything. And certainly, Draupadi's gambling away should not be considered right because no Kshatriya in his right mind would ever gamble his wife. So, when Vikarna speaks like that, everyone cheers him and everyone appreciates.

And then Karna gets up and he says that I have seen many improper things in the assembly, but Vikarna's speech is the most improper. So, that is his distorted values. And he says, nobody forced Yudhishthira to gamble.

He gambled voluntarily and nobody forced him to stake anything. He voluntarily staked himself, he voluntarily staked his wife and now what he has lost, he has voluntarily lost. So, then the whole discussion goes back and forth.

But the point is, Vikarna clearly points out that these are activities which Kshatriyas are susceptible to. But they are not what they should do. So, there is a higher religious principle where these are avoided and lower religious principle where these may be indulged in.

But they are not recommended. They are definitely not recommended. They may be condoned in certain situations.

Condoned means forgiven or allowed in certain situations. But the higher principle is to avoid those things. So, Kshatriyas do on occasions eat meat.

But that is not the norm and that is not the justification for the kind of mass slaughter of animals that happens in today's society. The two are very different situations. So, can the brahmanas eat meat? So, brahmanas may be even some virtuous brahmanas who may sometimes do something wrong.

And the ideal doesn't change because people are not following the ideal. See, the ideal doesn't change. The ideal is aspiration which is always there.

People may not be able to follow it at certain times. So, and that doesn't mean that just because they are practical situation, that doesn't mean there is no karmic reaction. The karmic reaction means that even the Kshatriyas kill animals and eat them.

If it's not in the yajnik context, they will get the karmic reaction for that. But it's something which is allowed. What is allowed means? Allowed means that it's apadharma.

Apadharma means not that there is no reaction. Just like even karma also has reaction. Even when one does prescribed duties, that also brings some karma bandhan.

But that is not as damaging as the karmic karma bandhan. So, apadharma will also bring a karma bandhan in its own way. But it will not be as bad as adharma.

So, apadharma is not a standard dharma. Clear? So, now, yeah, about meat. So, when you say no meat eating, is it the emphasis on not killing the animal or not eating meat? See, the habit of eating meat will eventually lead to the habit of killing animals.

So, when Prabhupada says that you can eat the flesh of a dead animal, that is a concession. That's not a recommendation. Okay, if you cannot give up eating meat, then at least eat dead animals.

You don't get the karma of killing animals. But the recommended standard is that avoid meat eating itself. So, we have to always remember that what Prabhupada has given us is not just Vedic culture.

It is the best of Vedic culture. It is the best of Vedic culture. That's why it is the highest standard.

Yeah, continue. I'll repeat the question. Hare Krishna.

So, at that time he drinks and he is posted on the duty. So, does it also come under the Kshatriya dharma itself or is it like… Okay, so today in commando training, if the soldiers are posted in some remote area like Ladakh, where because of the sub-zero temperatures or whatever, they are forced to, they have to drink to survive, then will it come under Kshatriya dharma? Not exactly Kshatriya dharma, but somewhere related with that. Just like say, if today, we devotees take up job as say, teachers or professors in schools and colleges.

Is that a brahmanical duty? Well, the action of teaching is brahmanical. But the content that is being taught is not brahmanical. So, I won't say it is entirely non-brahmanical.

There is surely some brahmanical element in it. And certainly it is more sattvic than say, running a software or say, running a business in which the rajoguna is more. So, it is somewhere near the brahmanical activity.

Similarly, it is not exactly Kshatriya activity because Kshatriyas are not necessarily, these people are not necessarily following dharma. But it is somewhere near Kshatriya activity. So, the content of the activity may not, or rather the activity itself is fighting, that's a Kshatriya activity.

But then the inner motivation, the consciousness, the understanding, they may not necessarily be of adhering to dharma, protecting dharma. So, then it is not exactly entirely Kshatriya activity. But it is similar to that.

Like if Kshatriyas are allowed to have some concession during Apadharma, then in Kaliyuga also, won't that be there? Because Apadharma means when a person himself is not, what you call, desiring to do a particular thing. But out of circumstances, now the Kshatriya is in forest. If he has to survive, he has to eat something.

He is doing hard work, so therefore he is taking meat which is, you are saying like a concession, which is okay, allowed. But now considering Kaliyuga situation, let's say if someone or devotee is there in software company, he is called for, what you call, a team outing, where he has to eat onion girl, for example. Now there is nothing else available.

So, either he has a choice of fasting, which Kshatriya should also be thinking about, that he can fast. Or he has a choice of eating something. So, he eats something which is onion, garlic.

For example, I am just putting an example. There can be many, many situations like that. So, what we would call them as? We would call them as Apadharma.

Okay. So, if today there is a situation where a person is in a outing, say, person in software company is outing, where he doesn't get proper prasad or even non-onion garlic food. So, will eating that be Apadharma? See, every difficulty is not an emergency.

That means, Kshatriyas, it is not that eating meat is the first resort. So, normally speaking, as much as possible it should be avoided. And they try to avoid it.

But when it can't be done, they take the meat. So, as much as possible one should avoid it. If it is not a matter of life or death, then getting some other foods is a good solution, is a recommended solution.

But in the extreme situations, it is not that it should be made into a matter of life or death. So, Apadharma is, as Baldev Devji talks about in Govinda Bhashya, that actually what makes a situation Apadharma is that a severe devastation like death or something similar is going to befall if that is not done. And only then it is called Apadharma.

So, in that situation, if situation is like that, then it is allowed. But otherwise it is not recommended. And there are couple of more points in this.

See, among what you mentioned about commander, that reminded me, among all the species, humans are the only species who cannot identify what is edible or what is not edible. Now, a dog or a cat or a bird, they can understand whether I should eat this or not eat this. But if we go into a forest, just by looking at a tree or looking at a fruit or a berry, I can't make out whether it is edible or not.

And it's not just that we don't know because we are in cities, but we don't have that innate sense. Even the tribals, when they are living in forests, they get training from their elders or whatever. But if they just see a new tree, they cannot make out whether this is edible or not.

So, humans are not exactly identical to animals. So, even in the jungle, there is food. It's not easy to, even vegetarian food is there, vegetables are there.

It's not always easy to know whether it's edible or not. That's the first point. And second point is that in Kalyuga, the overall trend of the situation is such that people can live quite well without meat.

See, meat is not something which is absolutely essential for strength. If strength can be got in other ways, then it should be got in other ways. So, especially as society is, as we know, one of the advantages of the new age movement that is coming in the West and now, it is that vegetarianism is being highly recognized and recommended.

So, there are some flip sides to that. These people are not vegetarians, they are vegans. And as vegans, they don't take cow products like milk also.

So, that's not necessarily wrong because much of the milk that is produced nowadays is produced by extremely cruel ways, extremely cruel ways. Just like this PETA has made a movie called Meat Your Meat, they also made a movie called Meat Your Milk. And the PETA is an organization which, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals.

So, they talk about how there is so much violence goes on. So, much of the milk that is produced is produced by causing brutal violence to the cows. So, often their udders are squeezed, not lovingly by a loving cowherd, but they are squeezed using machines and they are squeezed to the point that blood comes out.

And if that is a daily ordeal, it can be extremely painful. So, that's why generally it's recommended that devotees, when they take milk, they take milk that comes from a goshala, not the milk that comes from a milk packet. So, basically, as devotees, in principle we are not vegans.

Milk is a very integral part of the Vaishnav diet. But in practice, we sympathize with the concerns of the vegans. And we don't agree with the solution.

The solution is avoid meat eating. No, we say that avoid milk drinking, that's the solution. But our understanding is milk is very nutritious.

And there are substantial number of findings by researchers that milk is quite nutritious. Now, nowadays, there are some findings say that milk contributes to cholesterol and adds to fat. But most of these findings are based on buffalo milk.

They are not based on cow milk. So, cow milk has a very nutritious value. Buffalo milk has some cholesterol increasing characteristics.

His question was that sometimes Kshatriya women seem to dress and act in provocative ways. I was talking earlier about how women should not be provocative. See, Kshatriya values are not the ideal that we are looking for as Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

Our ideal is not Bhima or Arjuna. Our ideal is six Goswamis. So, now if you see, the Kshatriya culture is, Kshatriyas are in the mode of passion.

Their passion is regulated by goodness but they are in the mode of passion. So, Kshatriya princesses or queens, the whole concept of swayamvar, if you think about it from our Gaudiya Vaishnava culture, you are not the body, you are the soul point of view. It seems so absurd.

You are not the body of the soul. The kings who are coming there are not body of the soul. The woman who is being there in swayamvar, she is not the body of the soul.

Why should kings from all over the world come together just for one marriage of one woman? Isn't it? And sometimes they fight and kill for that, which may seem like a travesty of justice over there. But the whole point is, Kshatriya values are not necessarily directly Vaishnava values. Kshatriyas are living in the world and when they live in the world, they interact with the world.

So, Kshatriyas live in tremendous opulence also. So, living in opulence is not necessarily a Vaishnava characteristic. So, that means the Vedic culture is such that everybody is encouraged to practice dharma, whatever be the psychophysical nature.

So, Kshatriya men, they are kings and kings and queens, they have certain nature. So, now it's very clear that actually Kshatriya queens would not just be going around parading their beauty to the common people. They would often be in palanquins, things like that.

But when it comes to potential suitors, that means somebody who may marry them, then they may display their beauty. The whole concept of swayamvar is what? So many people are coming and they are coming for a woman. So, the Kshatriya values are not transcendental values.

And in the Kshatriya values, the male-female relationship is considered quite important. Not just because of the sexual attraction, but also there are so many other factors that there is two kings become aligned together through marriage. Two warring kingdoms become friends by that.

And it's also a matter of who wins the swayamvar. It's not just a matter of winning the woman, but it's also proving one Kshatriya heroism. So, the Kshatriya queens, they have also the values which are similar to the values of Kshatriya men.

So, the difference between that and today's society is substantial. Today when women flaunt, it is just for the sake of garnering attention from others, from anyone and everyone. Now they do it in Bollywood, Hollywood or wherever.

Then it's often just to earn money, which is almost Kshatriya women are nowhere like society girls. They are very respected in society. So, whereas today when the same thing happens, it's just the general intention of provoking everyone else.

And they are paid for that, which just becomes like prostitution in many ways. So, there it is in a different context. The Kshatriya women, they are attracting potential suitors.

And it is largely meant for Kshatriyas. They are not going around agitating everyone else. So, actually, within the Vedic culture, we have to understand that the Kshatriya values, I gave the example earlier also, that when Dhruva Maharaj becomes so angry and goes to the forest, and what does Narada Muni say? Ahok Kshatriya Tejasam, Maan Bhangam Amrushyatam.

You just see how great is the splendor of the Kshatriyas, that they cannot tolerate insult, that they cannot tolerate dishonor. Now, what we say is that, Tranādhāpeśu nija tarorapiśaya, māni nā māna dena. But he is saying, māna bhangam amrushyatam.

So, for the Kshatriyas, their values are different. And Kshatriyas are going to represent, Kshatriyas are eventually going to be Naradev, they are going to represent God on the earth. And the honor of the Kshatriyas, if they are Dharmic, it becomes intimately connected with the honor of God.

Because they are acting as representatives of God. So, the honor of the Kshatriyas is used to inspire them to act honorably. Like in the Bhagavad Gita also, we will see, there is so much reference to Kurunandana and Bharatanandana.

We can say all this is bodily consciousness. Why are we highlighting the bodily relationships? But the point is, if those relationships can inspire a person to practice Dharma, then why not? See, if you see what happens with the women also, the women may, in Kshatriya women sometimes act seductively, but overall the tenor of Kshatriya life is Brahminical, not Brahminical, it is Dharmic. It is Dharmic.

And generally, the women as well as the men, they act according to Dharma. So, all this, which is there, this is a part of the Kshatriya life and the Kshatriya life is done within the broad precincts of Dharma. So, you know, if a man can fight heroically, fearlessly in a battle, not turn the back, rudhe chaapya apalayanam, we will see in the Bhagavad Gita, 16th, 18th chapter that, never runs away from the forest, never turns his back to the war.

So, when there are those kind of qualities, which are not seen in today's people. So, we can't take just one aspect and try to critique it without considering the broad culture. Kshatriyas have heroic qualities, their passion is expressed through their chivalrous deeds in the battlefield, their chivalrous interactions with women and their chivalrous service in Dharma.

Let's move forward now. sarva-bhuteshu yenaikam bhavam avyayam ikshate Are you turning the song? Ok, let's turn it on. avibhaktam vibhakteshu tad jnanam viddhi-sattvikam So, if you see, when Krishna described earlier the tyaga, he started with tamo guna and then he came to sattva guna.

Here, when Krishna is going to talk about the various jnana, his talk starts with sattva guna and then he goes down. For all the jnana, karta, karma and then buddhi, druti and sukha. He starts with sattva and then he goes down to tamo.

So, there he was building his answer up and a conclusion comes over there, later on, in that first part of the bhavita, 7-8-9 verses. So, this is how you will stay free from bondage. That's the flow over here, that's the direction.

Here the direction is different. Krishna is giving the highest first and then he is giving the lower ones. sarva-bhuteshu yenaikam bhavam avyayam ikshate One who sees the imperishable bhava, imperishable nature in all living beings.

And what is that imperishable nature? avibhaktam vibhakteshu, that which is indivisible but which seems to be divided. tad jnanam viddhi-satvikam So now, this is impersonal jnana. Sattva guna does not give devotional jnana.

Sattva guna does not give us jnana of bhakti. So, avibhaktam vibhakteshu is impersonal jnana. Or at least what is being referred to over here.

bhavam avyayam ikshate That means in sattva guna, one sees beyond matter to spirit. One understands that beyond this temporary material world, there is some higher reality that is there. And that higher reality is eternal.

So beyond the ever-changing variety and activity of this world, there is some unchanging higher reality. That perception is characteristic of the mode of goodness. Now this avibhaktam vibhakteshu, this particular phrase has come earlier when Krishna is referring to the Paramatma, I think 13.17. avibhaktam chibhuteshu vibhaktam ivachasthitam So it's not exactly the same phrase but the same point.

avibhaktam chibhuteshu vibhaktam ivachasthitam So the same word avibhaktam and vibhaktam are there. But there they are referring to the super-soul who is situated in all bodies and so he appears separate but he is one. Here Krishna is not talking about super-soul, he is just talking about bhava, a nature.

So that nature is a higher nature. So after describing knowledge and goodness, then he will describe knowledge and passion. So just the capacity to perceive spirit, the capacity to perceive something beyond matter, something that is eternal, that itself is indicative of goodness.

In contrast with passion, one doesn't see beyond matter to spirit. So therefore, once one sees material variety, one sees that to be the ultimate reality itself. prathak tvena tu yaj jnanam nana bhavan prathak vidhan vetti sarveshu bhuteshu tad jnanam viddhi rajasam So prathak tvena tu yaj jnanam, prathak means separate.

nana bhavan prathak vidhan So here what Krishna is saying, he is using the word prathak twice. And then he is saying sarveshu bhuteshu. So what one sees is, when one sees different bodies, one sees that there are different natures.

So this kind of mentality is in the mode of passion. tad jnanam viddhi rajasam So here there is no clear differentiation between the body and the soul. So this is one of the characteristics of… So here what Krishna is talking about is knowledge in the mode of passion.

Now one of the characteristics of the Abrahamic religions is that although there is talk about God, there is no clear understanding of the soul. So now no doubt the word soul is used very often in the Bible as well as the Quran. But when the word soul is used, it is used, the way we use it and the way these religions use it is different.

I mentioned it once, I'll just write it down here. Soul in Vedic context is, we refer to the soul as a concrete entity. There is a thing called a soul and it has its own characteristics.

The second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita is like a description of the physics and the chemistry of the soul. The soul is transcendental, but its characteristics are described in the chapter. So it's a concrete entity.

Whereas the soul in Abrahamic religions is basically a metaphorical reference to our non-material essence. That means, yes, there is something, you know, we are not just materialistic creatures. There is something beyond materialism which is there in us.

What that is, that is not clear. Whatever that is, we refer to it metaphorically as a soul. So we don't have a very clear understanding of the difference between the body and the soul.

And that's why one of the prominent Christian theologians, Thomas Aquinas, you know, he equated the body with the soul. And that's why in the Christian theology, as it is understood today in most Christian traditions, they say that there are three kinds of souls. And interestingly, only one of these is eternal.

So they say that human beings have… No. Humans have rational souls. Animals have sensual souls.

And trees have vegetative souls. So what this means is, and he says that the capacity for rational inquiry, so he's using the word rational in the sense of Athato Brahma Jijnasa. We can have metaphysical inquiry.

Only humans can have metaphysical inquiry. Therefore, his idea is humans have a special kind of soul which enables humans to do metaphysical inquiry. On the other hand, animals, they have emotions.

Nobody can deny that. So the emotions are related with sentience. They have consciousness to some extent.

They have emotions, they have feelings. So they are sentient souls. And plants, they grow.

So there is some consciousness over there. So he says they are vegetative souls. And according to him, only human souls are potentially eternal.

That means that the human souls, they are eternal not in the sense that they always exist. Actually, his idea, this is the mainstream Christian idea is that when a man and a woman unite, a new soul is created. And after it is created, it will exist forever.

So their idea is not that the soul has a pre-existence. But that souls are created at a particular moment. And therefore, because the souls are created, only the male-female are interacting.

And both the male-female, their interaction, their interaction is physical, material. So because both of them are material, so what happens is, whatever is created will also be material. That's why they don't have a conception of spiritual as radically different from material and soul as radically different from the body.

And that is why they have the idea that we should not burn the bodies, we should not cremate the bodies, we should bury the bodies. Because they have the idea that there will be a second coming of Jesus in future. Jesus will come back again.

At that time, everybody will be judged. And those who have shown faith in Jesus, they will be taken to heaven forever. And those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior, they will go to hell forever.

And their idea is that when we bury people, the way the people are buried, they will get that body. So whatever is the body right now, that is the body that they will have in heaven. So it is… C.S. Lewis is a famous Christian theologian.

So he wrote a book and he said that, you know, it's a book work of fiction which talks about people going to heaven. And the main character, when he goes to heaven and he says, when I entered heaven, heaven was just like London. So, just like London.

So their idea is, the spiritual world or the kingdom of God is just a continuation of this world. Only thing is, it's an eternal continuation and it's a happy continuation. But it's a continuation of this world itself.

So, of course, this idea that people will be restored in the bodies that they have here, in the body that they are buried here, it creates a lot of problems. For example, if a person dies when he is a small baby, is that the body that the person will have forever? If a person dies when he is 85 years old, will that 85 year old body be there always? No, no, he'll have a young body. But what about a person who died before he became young? What body will he have? What about a person who was aborted? What body will he have? What about a person who had a body in this life which was handicapped, which was deaf, dumb, blind? Is that the body that the person will have? So this whole differentiation between body and the soul is not at all clear.

So, pruthak tenad yadmavan nana bhavan pruthak vidhan. So, as are their physical natures, they think that the physical nature is the essential nature. That's what you see over here.

What is the point here? The physical nature is the essential nature of the creature. That's why humans have rational souls. Now, the Vedic understanding is that, yes, there are difference of consciousness.

There is difference of consciousness. But that difference of consciousness is not due to the difference of the souls, but it is due to the difference of the bodily covering that are there on the souls. The soul, that is, even the plant's body is of the same spiritual potentiality as the soul in a saint's body.

But that covering is greater. So when the covering is removed, then that soul can also become equally spiritually potential. So, it is because they have this whole idea that animals don't have souls like we have.

That's why they feel that killing animals is, there is nothing wrong in it. Their whole idea is that the whole creation is just a backdrop for the central drama of deliverance by Jesus. The whole purpose of creation is that Jesus will come and he will deliver everyone.

And everything in creation is just a backdrop for that. So even the plants, the animals, they are just a backdrop for that. So that's why, as far as philosophy is concerned, the philosophy is very poor over there, as far as the understanding of the soul is concerned.

So, you know, that is actually the unique strength of the Vedic paradigm. That reincarnation and karma, when they are brought together, they can explain the problem of evil in a very powerful way, which nothing else can. And the concept of soul, which is a really very clear concept, given in the Vedic literature, that makes the concept of reincarnation very tangible.

Buddhists accept reincarnation, so it's like… This is a very interesting contrast. So, Christians, they accept soul without reincarnation. And Buddhists, they accept reincarnation without soul.

Now, how can… What reincarnates if there is no soul? So their idea is that there is just the ever-changing residue of karmic reactions that goes from one body to another. But actually, there are memories which go through, there are desires which go through, so there has to be some template on which these are transferred. So, how reincarnation happens without soul, that is one of the biggest problems in Buddhist philosophy, which nobody has been able to solve.

And actually, Buddha did not exactly tease that there is no soul. But subsequently, his followers, they wanted to assert their ideological autonomy from Hinduism. Actually, we are different from Hinduism, and that's why they came up with the idea that anattavad, they call it, that there is no atma.

So anyway, Buddhists, what we see is that the physical… prathak bhavan, nanabhavan prathak vidhan, that they essentially see physical nature to be the essential nature. And that's the characteristic of the mode of passion, because in the mode of passion, one just sees material things, one sees bodily things, and one doesn't go beyond that. And after that is the mode of ignorance.

So, That means Krishnavad means everything. So, ekasmin, So, to think of one thing to be everything, to think of a fraction of reality to be the totality of reality, that is knowledge in the mode of ignorance. To think of a part to be the whole, to think of a one thing to be everything, tamasic knowledge.

I'll explain what this means. Karyesaktam ahaitukam. This ahaitukam is not ahaituki bhakti.

Ahaitukam is without any proper understanding of hetu. Without any proper analysis or understanding. Atattvarthavadalpam cha.

So, there is no tattva, there is no truth in it. So, like I was telling earlier, that we have modern materialism, which is largely deriving from science. So, that is known by a technical word called as scientism.

So, scientism is different from science. You know, when Prabhupada criticizes scientists and science, if you look at the content of his criticism, it is directed not towards science, it is directed towards scientism. So, what is scientism? Scientism is the school of thought which says that science is the only source of knowledge.

Whatever is not proven by science doesn't exist only. So, basically scientism puts a halo of omniscience around science. That science knows everything.

That is scientism. Now, most people are not necessarily adherents. Most people who believe in science, they do not adhere to scientism.

But what is the result of scientism? As I said, scientism has a lot of difficulty in explaining emotions and consciousness. Why? Because from the fundamental particles… It's a little complex quote, but it illustrates the point quite well. This is the article I had written about the God particle.

So, this is a prominent opponent of atheism, David Berlinski. So, he talks about the scientific world view. Scientific world view is what? Quantum physics is there.

And in quantum physics, there are no things. So, over there, that means the quantum worlds, fields are pregnant with later energy, particles flicker into existence and disappear, time and space contract in some sort of agitated quantum form, nothing is continuous, nothing stays the same for long, except the electrons and they are all identical, like proselyte Chinese soldiers. A pointless frenzy prevails throughout.

So, that is what the scientific world view is. If you go at its basic. Over here, in the world that we see, space and time are stable and continuous.

Matter is what it is and energy is what it does. Simple definition. Matter is what it is and energy is what it does.

There are solid and enduring shapes and forms. Changes appear slowly, but even when they are rapid, they appear in stable patterns. There is dazzling variety throughout.

So, the scientific world view and the world that we experience in our day-to-day lives, that has got nothing to do in common. Because electrons essentially are identical. But we see so much variety in this world.

The subatomic, if you go below the electronic level, and there is just waves. So, he says, there is no idea whatsoever how the ordered physical, moral, mental, aesthetic and social world could have ever arisen from the seething anarchy of the elementary particles. It is like imagining sea foam resolving itself into the Parthenon.

Parthenon is a very famous Greek monument. So, if you have sea foam, we have foam in the bathing, so foam is just like shapeless, colourless. Suddenly from the foam, the NVCC comes up.

Now, we are not just talking about a design argument requirement over here. We are just talking about absurdity. How can foam without any further, we are not talking about a transcendental designer required.

We are just talking about the material substrate itself. How can it lead to that? So, now, if the scientific world view does not explain the world as we experience it, then, we have no obligation to believe in the scientific world view. To understand the world as we experience it, we are completely free to look elsewhere.

And we find far greater meaning in the world as we see it, as it is explained through the scriptures. So, here, the simple point, I'll put this in simple words. Through science, you cannot, as the scientists say, इत्तु कृष्णवद एकस्मिन् Just look at one part and consider it to be total.

So, it cannot explain consciousness. It cannot explain emotions. And, it cannot explain, it cannot explain even sensual experiences.

Not sensual, sensual is a negative word to use. Sensory experiences. And their sources and sense objects.

That means, see, leave alone explaining आत्म, or source of consciousness, leave alone explaining feelings, it cannot even explain why there are colors and fragrances and tastes in this world. Because, as I told earlier, the atoms don't have any of these. So, from there, how do we come here? From a colorless, tasteless, fragranceless starting point, how do we come to the world which is filled with color and fragrance and taste? There is no explanation for that.

So, that means, the scientific world view, as far as mathematical analysis and manipulation is concerned, may be helpful. But as far as explaining the totality of reality is concerned, it is very inadequate, very inadequate. I saw Steven Weinberg said that, he also admitted that the more we study, the more we find out about the world, the more the world seems meaningless.

There is no meaning to the whole thing. So, the scientific world view, what it is doing is, it is just taking one aspect of reality and making that into the totality of reality. That is the error.

So, the example for this, this may seem a little complex, I'll just give one example, then we'll move ahead. See, the map is not the territory. When I draw a map of a particular place, say, I draw a map of Pune and a map of Mumbai.

Now, what do I do when I draw a map in Pune and Mumbai, there are so many parameters that can be observed. I can look at the dresses people are wearing, I can look at the faces that people are having, I can look at the emotions on their faces, I can look at their lifestyles. But when I want to draw a map, out of the variety of inputs that I could have taken from Pune or Mumbai, I shortlist.

I shortlist and choose only geographical patterns, geographically significant landmarks. And then, those geographically significant landmarks, I put them on a map. So now, a map is in some way connected with the territory.

But the map is not the territory. If I'm traveling from here to Mumbai, the map will be very helpful for me. But if I'm going there to Mumbai to meet up my friend, and as I'm going from Pune to Mumbai, everything that the map tells me is correct.

Go left, you'll come to a bridge. I come to a bridge. Go across the bridge and keep going straight, then you'll come to a mountain range.

I come to a mountain range. Then it says, when you cross the mountain range, you'll come to a river. I come to a river.

So as I follow the map, and I find that it works, my faith in the map increases more and more. So whatever the map says is correct. But eventually, I come to Mumbai, and I come to the house of my friend.

I knock on the door, and my friend opens the door. And I look at my map. You are not there on this map.

Therefore, you don't exist. If I say that, your brain doesn't exist. Isn't it? So, what is happening over here is there is unwarranted extrapolation and warranted observations.

OK. The warranted observations, yes. Whenever I took a journey on a map, it was correct.

But then the idea that all that exists has to exist on the map, and whatever doesn't exist on the map doesn't exist. That is unwarranted extrapolation. That is where the error happens.

So, similarly, when science studies the world, there are so many phenomena in the world, science shortlists phenomena, shortlists the impression. And what are the impressions that science shortlists? Science shortlists those impressions that are physically quantifiable. Aristotle did not Galileo is supposed to have done a famous experiment.

See, this whole thing may seem a little technical, but it's important for many of you doing scientific preaching. And we don't want to just blanket criticize science. Scientists are all rascals.

But there are some serious critiques and limitations of science, if you understand. So, what happened is there was an idea within the Western tradition that gold is more precious than iron. That's natural, that's understandable.

So, now the idea was also that this gold being more precious than iron will be refracted in its physical properties. So, Galileo is supposed to have conducted an experiment in which from the top of a tower he dropped two balls, one of gold and one of iron, both of equal weight. And then when both these balls fell down, it was expected that because gold is more precious, the gold ball will fall down first.

And what happened was both balls fell down at the same time. So, at that time or from that time onwards, the scientific world view was that actually this whole concept of gold being more precious than iron, the preciousness, the attractiveness of gold, this is not measurable. So, from that time onwards, science basically divided the study of matter into what they called as physical primary properties and secondary properties.

The primary properties are what? Those which are measurable. So, length, mass, velocity, secondary properties are taste, smell, beauty. So, now, if I want to say that okay, today I said there was gulab jamun in the feast.

And I want to say how was the gulab jamun? It was delicious. Tell me how delicious? Can you quantify the deliciousness of a gulab jamun? We can't. We may quantify how much sugar was put in the gulab jamun.

But that is not exactly equivalent to the sweetness or the deliciousness of the gulab jamun. So, what has happened is just like, now here, it's a very important parallel which I am making over here, that Hare Krishna, it is not that the map is evil. It is not that science is evil.

The map is by design, by intention limited. At the start of the map itself, certain parameters are left out. For example, say, the face of people, the emotions of people, the personalities of people, this is left out of a map.

Although it is very much there in the territory, it is left out. Then what will eventually come out of the map will not have these characteristics. Similarly, science as it has grown in today's, in the modern history, it begins by leaving out that which is not measurable.

So, consciousness is not measurable, emotions are not measurable and even sensory stimuli are not measurable. So, in the scientific world, all these are left out. And what remains is just gross matter.

And that knowledge in terms of mathematical equations for analyzing and processing matter, that is very powerful as far as equations is concerned. We can develop atomic bombs by that. We may be able to send geostationary satellites into space.

We may be able to do a lot of things. But it is only a fragment of reality. It is not the totality of reality.

And this is not just what we are saying. Because we are spiritualists, we are saying this. This is something which is acknowledged even by mainstream scientists.

So, I'll conclude this with one quote to illustrate this point. So, what we are talking about over here is how the Bhagavad Gita in many ways predicts much of what is talked about, what is happening in today's society. Many of you may have seen this seminar on science and spirituality.

And yeah, here is a quote. This is what I wanted to do. So, this is Arvind Schrodinger.

He is a Nobel laureate. And what is he saying over here? Would somebody like to read this? It was gone? Okay. About all and sundry that is really near to our heart.

That really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight. It knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity.

Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. The only difference between Schrodinger and common people is that common people are ready to take the answers seriously. So, when apparently some atheistic scientists say that all your families are just coming from some neurochemical firings of the brain cells, people are ready to believe that.

That is the mistake. So, here tamasic knowledge. So, science is not tamasic knowledge.

Scientism where science is thought to have a monopoly on knowledge. All knowledge has to be scientific. That which is not scientific is not knowledge at all.

That is tamasic knowledge. That is तु कृष्णवदे कस्मिन कार्ये सक्तम आहे तुकम। So, actually it is अतत्वार्थवद. अतत्वार्थवद means the atma tattva is not there.

Bhagwat tattva is not there. And even much of the tattva of the material world, in terms of sweet and bitter, beautiful and ugly, all these things are also not there. This is tamasic knowledge.

Now Krishna will talk about. Okay, questions. Yes.

There is one substance within the universe like that and like even about Socrates, it is sometimes I have heard, I don't know whether it is authentic. It was said that he was like Brahman realized. So, without help of the scriptures, you know, having such understandings of monism or like that, can these people reach to that sattvic gyan which is first talked in the first verse like the impersonal.

Yes. Can one come to sattvic gyan of say monism or impersonalism by, without scriptural analysis, through guidance, yes. Prabhupada says that clearly at several places that by one's own contemplation, one can understand how I am not the body and the soul.

So, it's a matter of inference. It's like we do inference that where does consciousness come from? It doesn't come from the body. It has to come from the soul.

So, it's a matter of inference. So, by inference, we can understand the existence of something eternal. Just as by inference, we can understand the existence of God, by inference, we can understand the existence of soul also.

But positive knowledge of the soul is difficult to get. And positive knowledge of God is even more difficult to get. But by inference, one can come to the Brahman level.

And that's why many of the spiritually minded thinkers, if they are not guided by scripture, they generally come to impersonal level itself. Okay. Can they achieve Brahmajyoti? See, there is a difference between having a spiritual insight and attaining a spiritual platform.

That means if one is living spiritually, by analysis, I may understand I am not the body, I am the soul. But still, I may be living materialistically. So, they may have sattvic gyan, but that doesn't mean that their whole life is sattvic.

They also have to look at their lifestyle. Many of these Greek philosophers, in Greek civilization, homosexuality was very common. Some people say, even the Socrates and all of them, they may not have been, but in that civilization, homosexuality was very common.

So, as far as their lifestyle was concerned, whether that was sattvic or transcendental or near-transcendental, that is questionable. So, if it was, then they will move forwards. I am not saying about Socrates specifically, but many of these thinkers who were in the speculations quite evolved, in their lifestyle, they were often found wanting in many ways.

Yes. Gandhiwadi, they say Ahimsa is everything. Ahimsa, Paramodharma.

So, can this example fit here to be in darkness? So, Ahimsa, Paramodharma, can they also be said to be in darkness? Yes, in some ways. Buddhistic lifestyle, in many ways, is in goodness. They have the right thought, right action, right words.

They call it the middle way. So, in many ways, Buddhistic lifestyle is in goodness. But the Buddhistic conceptions, they are quite lacking.

So, the idea of making one into everything, that is, so, if you make Ahimsa into everything, then that is also a characteristic of Tamasic knowledge, correct. Will Gandhiwadi also come in that category? Well, Gandhi did not necessarily reject violence in all situations. He also said that there are certain situations when violence is acceptable.

But his point was that it is not only violence that requires courage, non-violence also requires courage, which is a valid point. So, the idea of making violence as an absolute doctrine, that is incorrect. So, Gandhi's life in many ways was sattvic.

This particular doctrine was not really sattvic. But, whether you can call it Tamasic entirely, yes, it may be, but that is only one aspect of his life. There are many other aspects which are quite sattvic.

So, this aspect may be Tamasic, yes. So, what is not clear about knowledge and passion? How knowledge and passion can be, it seems to be appropriate knowledge. What is wrong in that, to call it as knowledge and passion? So, okay, good point.

So, what is the difference between these three kinds of knowledge? So, sattvic knowledge is see spirit beyond matter. Types of knowledge. So, now sattvic means sarva bhuteshu enekam bhavam avyamikshate.

Now, Rajasekha, see matter as everything. Now, there is variety at the material level, therefore there is variety at the essential level. So that's, and Tamasic is, see a part of matter as everything.

One is not even seeing the material reality completely. Yettu krushnavad ekasmin, krushnavad is everything, ekasmin is one part. That's how it is a downward scale.

First one is able to see spirit beyond matter, one sees only matter, and in Tamoguna one is able to see only one part of matter as everything. Rajasic knowledge also, the person is seeing the living entity sitting inside the body. See, he is saying that the living entity is sitting inside the body.

The word living entity can be used in different ways. Basically one understands there is life, like Professor Kotowski, he said that when the body dies, the soul dies, that's their understanding. So they have some concept of soul, but the soul is made identical with the body.

So then what exactly is the soul, that's not very clear. That's why they have the idea, the body also goes back, Christians have the idea. So there may be some conception of the living entity inside the body, but for all practical purpose they are considered to be the same.

Like even Hindus sometimes say, you know that, if you are not the body, yes, we know that. That yes, we know that, but their idea is what, you know I am the body and I have a soul which will go to heaven. You know soul is only some small part of me which will go to heaven.

But that's not, it's not that I am the body and I have a soul, it is I am the soul and I have a body. Purnachandran Maharaj told once that, I mentioned this in Arya Shukriya classes also, he was once giving a class, he says, you are not your body. Then somebody raised their ass, he says, sir, if I am not my body, then whose body am I? So the idea is, I am my body, so if I am not my body, then I must be somebody else's body.

Whose body am I? So, the bodily concept, this is so deep-rooted. One more thing, this sattvic knowledge, it seems to be more transcendental than in the mode of, three modes, like sattvic. Is sattvic knowledge more transcendental than the three modes? Not necessarily.

In sattva-guna there is jnana and jnana means seeing beyond matter to spirit, that is one aspect of jnana. That's how, see, one of the characteristics of sattva-guna is detachment. So that detachment will come when one sees something beyond matter also.

So it is not exactly transcendental because one is not seeing the spiritual reality in its self-situated glory. One is just seeing there is something beyond matter to spirit. One is not seeing the spiritual reality in its full glory.

Good question. I was going to make that point. Nice question.

Is sattvic knowledge at the same level as pandita samdarshana? No. If you look at what comes before 5.17, 5.18, 5.17 and 5.19, 5.17 is clearly talking about tadbuddhayastadātmānastaniṣṭhāstadparāyanaḥ gacchanti apunarāvṛttin jnānanirdhūta kalmaśaḥ So it's talking about two things. Tad, it is thinking about some that on which you have to fix the mind.

And secondly, it is saying that that will lead to liberation. gacchanti apunarāvṛttin jnānanirdhūta kalmaśaḥ So in that sense, in that context, it is referring to the perception of the super-soul. Not just imperishable spirit.

That vidyā-vinaya-sampanne, person sees the soul and person sees the super-soul. So it's not just an imperishable spirit. Now, after describing this, we'll discuss the karta.

Sorry, it's the karma. nīyataṁ saṅgarahitaṁ arāgadveṣitaḥ kṛtaṁ apalaprepsu nākarma yathu sātvika-mucchate So, now this is, Krishna has repeatedly described it. nīyataṁ, scripturally described, saṅgarahitaṁ, freed from attachment, freed from aversion and attachment.

Then, apalaprepsu nākarma So, scripturally ordained and free from attachment, that is, in goodness. Then, yathukāmepsu nākarma sāhaṅkāreṇa-vāpuna kṛyate bahulāyāsaṁ tadrāja-samudhāritaṁ So, yathukāmepsu nākarma The work is done with a desire for fruitive achievement. sāhaṅkāreṇa-vāpuna So, that is, there is external attachment in terms of that I want to get all these things and there is internal attachment in terms of that I want to prove how great I am.

sāhaṅkāreṇa-vāpuna And then, kṛyate bahulāyāsaṁ Bahulāyāsaṁ means one endeavors excessively for that. So, because one doesn't have a sense of balance, because one gets infatuated by something, then one just goes mad after that thing and bahulāyāsaṁ, one works excessively hard. See, in today's society, when people become too… This Bhagavatam talks about how a man should not be attached to his wife or family.

Now, today people are so attached to their work that they don't even have time for their family. You know, people don't want to… People want to just work 12 hours, 15 hours, 16 hours and they want to earn more and more and more and just become famous and powerful and get prestige in society. And what is happening here is, even from a material perspective, there is no balance.

So, kṛyate bahulāyāsaṁ One works so hard that one loses all sense of balance, not just the balance with respect to material-spiritual balance, but even in material life also there is some balance that is required. One loses that entirely. So, kṛyate bahulāyāsaṁ So, what we would talk about as prāyās, an excessive endeavor in bhakti, that is bahulāyāsaṁ over here.

tu kāme psunā karmā So, because of attachment to results and because of the desire to prove that I am so great that I can achieve this, one endeavors disproportionately, putting aside all other things in one's life. That is work in the mode of passion. So, work in the mode of passion, as Rajaśruta Phalaṁ duḥkhaṁ Krishna describes earlier also, such people, they may achieve a lot of fame, lot of prestige, lot of power, but they are actually never satisfied.

Because even at a material level, at a human level, they are not satisfied. They are practically functioning only at the ego level. anubandham kṣayaṁ hiṁsāṁ anapekśa ca pauruṣaṁ mohādārabhyate karmā yat tat tāmasam ucchate So, anubandham, that which causes bondage, kṣayaṁ hiṁsāṁ.

So, kṣaya is destruction, hiṁsāṁ is violence. So, what is the difference? Actually, hiṁsā is towards people, kṣaya is towards things. So, anubandham kṣayaṁ hiṁsāṁ anapekśa ca pauruṣaṁ So, anapekśa means, see the word sometimes, anapekśaḥ śucīrdakṣa There was, one is not attached to the results.

But here it is anapekśa, not anapekśaḥ, it is anapekśa. That means, one just doesn't consider the consequences. One anapekśa is, one is not attached to the results.

But here anapekśa is, one is thoughtless. This acts impulsively. anapekśa ca pauruṣaṁ One is harsh in one's behavior.

mohādārabhyate karmā Sort of illusion one starts new, new things. Try this out, try that out, do this, do that. So, anapekśa ca pauruṣaṁ tat tāmā samuccate So, that is action in the mode of ignorance.

So, actually, all of us, we have to consider the consequences of our actions. Anapekśa means, if one doesn't consider the consequences, one is responsible. When the Germans killed, Germans killed so many lakhs and lakhs of Jews, eventually, when the Nuremberg trials were held, where Hitler of course committed suicide, but many of the people who were assisting him, they were brought for trial.

And when they were asked, how could you have been so ghastly that you killed cold blood, so many thousands and millions, lakhs of people. So, their answer was, we were just following orders. We were just following orders.

So, now, is that a justifiable reason? Following orders is fine, but whose orders? We also have been in a moral sense, and we have to look at the consequences of what we are doing. So, you know, now we also say we should just follow instructions, but what are the instructions? The instructions are based on Guru Sādhu Shāstra. And they resonate with our, what we are told is never immoral or violent towards anyone.

So, anapekśa means, one does something without thinking at all. So, one does it because one is whimsical about doing it, or one does it because someone else tells him to do it. But all of us, we are expected to consider the consequences of our actions and then act.

So, otherwise, that action will be tamasic. Anapekśa ca paruṣyam, without considering consequences. So, as we discussed earlier about sarcasm, you know, paruṣyam is harshness.

Paruṣyam Prabhupāda translates here as self-sanction. Another meaning of paruṣyam also is, as the Priest Acharya says, it is harshness. So, it is characterized by paruṣya, that is by harshness.

So, self-sanction means, mujhe jo mann mein aaya, mein bolunga, mujhe jo mann mein aaya, wo karunga. That is the idea. One doesn't think that one requires any sanction.

So, that is, yatta tāmasam ucchate. Then, after describing now, Krishna will talk about the karta. Now, karma and karta are relatively similar, but there is some difference in emphasis.

mukta-saṅgo anhaṁ vādi dhrityo utsaha sa manvitah siddhya siddhor nirvikāraha karta sātvika ucchate So, mukta-saṅgo anhaṁ vādi. So, if you see, what was in the, earlier it was described with passion, that, sāhaṅkāreṇa vāpuna. There is ahaṅkāra was there and attachment was there.

So, it is contrast over here. dhrityo utsaha sa manvitah There is determination and there is enthusiasm. siddhya siddhor nirvikāraha One is equi-poised in happiness and distress.

karta sātvika ucchate Such a person is acting in goodness. rāgī-karma-phala-prepsur lubbo himsātma-kośuchih harṣa-śokānvitah karta rājasah parikīrtitah So, there it was dhrityo utsaha sa manvitah. Here it is harṣa-śokānvitah.

So, there is determination and there is enthusiasm. You see, to the extent, we are dependent on the circumstances. To that extent, we cannot be steady.

If I am dependent on myself, okay, this goes wrong, that goes wrong, that goes wrong. We cannot be steady. That's why, the person is, when a person is passionate, the person is very much dependent on external situations.

So, it's harṣa-śokānvitah. On the other hand, when a person is goodness, one sees beyond the external circumstances to the higher reality. Therefore, one is motivated by a purpose, dhrityo utsaha sa manvitah, is enthusiastic.

Okay, I have to do this. This is my purpose. So, there is enthusiasm and there is determination.

You see, the difference between the two is, in the first case, there is an internal purpose, where there is a lot of external dependence on external results, external circumstances. And that leads to jubilation and dejection. Harṣa-śokānvitah.

So, lukdo himsa ātma-kośu cihi. The person is greedy for more and more. And he may even lead to, he may even end up in himsa because of that.

Unclean. ayuktaḥ prākṛtaḥ sthabdhaḥ chatho naiṣkṛtiko olasaḥ viśādhi dhīrga-sūtrī ca kartatāmasa ucyate So, ayuktaḥ is not yukta, is not connected with scripture. Prākṛtaḥ, so we have prākṛtsahajiyas, they are materialistic.

Very, very materialistic. Sthabdha, sthabdha is obstinate or impudent. One doesn't care for anyone else.

Chatho, chatho is cunning, deceitful. Naiṣkṛtiko olasaḥ, olasaḥ is lazy. Naiṣkṛtiko is, Prabhupāda translated, expert in insulting others.

Naiṣkṛtiko. So, sarcasm, if it is used in, say, cartoons or caricatures, to educate, that is different. But if sarcasm is used as a tool to hurt others, then that is, that is not, that is bad.

So, naiṣkṛtiko olasaḥ, Prabhupāda, viśādhi, viśādhi is lamenting dhīrga-sūtrī ca. So dhīrga-sūtrī is, one just prolongs everything. Prabhupāda writes in the purport that what can be done in a, they are lazy, they procrastinate.

Anything which can be done in an hour, they drag on for years. They drag on for years. So, dhīrga-sūtrī ca.

So now, in general, what is the difference between these three kartas? It's what? 26 to 28, na? Sattvic, we see that there is balanced interaction with matter. Balanced, regulated interaction with matter. There is frantic interaction with matter.

You know, if somebody is frantic, agitated, uncontrolled. So, in sattvic, sattvic karta, sattvic karta eventually will go beyond matter to spirit. Rajasic karta is frantically attached to spirit, matter only.

It doesn't go beyond that. And a person in tamasic karta, he cannot even interact with matter properly. He cannot even do material things properly.

What to speak of doing spiritual things. So, ayuktaḥ prākṛtaḥ sthapdaḥ śato na iṣkṛti kovalasa viśādi dhīrga-sūtrī ca. Viśāda is, our first chapter was called as Arjuna Viśāda Yoga.

Lamentation. So, in the Mahabharata, when Abhimanyu dies, then Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja is very heartbroken. And after that, he becomes frenzied.

And he thinks that I cannot face Arjuna. I will myself go and take revenge for the death of Abhimanyu or I will lay down my life. And just charges into the enemy army.

And Bheema and Nakula and Sati, they are alarmed. They try to go behind him. Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja says, stop, stop.

But Yudhiṣṭhira is frenzied with remorse and anger. And at that time, suddenly Vyāsadeva comes over there. And then Vyāsadeva appears over there.

And Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja immediately gets off his chariot and offers obeisances to him. And then he says, you know, the beloved son of Arjuna has died. And I am feeling culpable for this.

So, at that time, Yudhiṣṭhira, Vyāsadeva tells Yudhiṣṭhira that, he says that, not lament. Lamentation does not become a learned king like you. Because, he says, Vishādhi, what you are talking, what is it? Grief achieves, grief does nothing except sap the energy of those who are grieving.

So, he says that, it just serves no purpose at all. So, what has been done, has been done. One needs to move ahead in life.

So, grief achieves no purpose except sapping. Sapping means draining away the energy of the grieving. So, that means, he says that, what has happened, accept it.

And then he goes on to say that, the inscrutable will of the Lord is perfect. If you follow his will, then you will understand how it is perfect. So, grief basically means Vishādhi.

It's generally about that went wrong, that went wrong, that went wrong, that went wrong, oh, all things went wrong, what can I do? So, it leads to constant lamentation, Vishādhi. So, as devotees, even we may have some failings and even failures in our practice of spiritual life. But, we should not lament too much about it.

See, there is a difference, did we discuss in our Vishopanishad class, the difference between repentance and lamentation? So, what is the difference? As devotees, we say that we should repent. If we have done something wrong. So, what is the difference between the two? So, there are several differences.

I can't go into all of them here. But, primarily, lamentation is self-centered. Whereas, repentance is Krishna-centered.

How is that? Lamentation is self-centered means, I couldn't do it, I couldn't do it, I, I, I, I. It's all I-centered only. So, you know, temptation can come in many ways. So, when temptation comes as lust, it's easy to recognize as temptation.

If temptation comes as greed, it's also easy to recognize. But, ultimately, how do you define temptation? Temptation is anything that takes us away from Krishna. So, as self-pity takes our thoughts away from Krishna, it also should be recognized as a temptation and rejected.

What does self-pity mean? Self-pity means, you know, it's actually, I have come from such a bad conditioning, I have such uncontrolled senses, I have got such terrible samskaras, I am so weak. Ultimately, what is that? That is self-centeredness. I am not thinking of Krishna, I am thinking of myself.

So, temptation can come in various ways. Self-pity is also temptation. Because, we are thinking of ourselves and not about Krishna.

When, essentially, when I am lusty, what do I do? I am thinking of myself, not about Krishna. So, I am doing the same thing when I am in self-pity. So, therefore, what do we do? Yes, we have committed mistakes.

We may even have to undergo the consequences for those mistakes. But now, the present is available for us to make a change. And the future is also available for us, where we can bring a brighter future upon ourselves.

So, let the dead past bury its dead. So, vishada, lamentation, can, as Yagya says, can sap away our devotional energy. It can make us completely unenthused and disheartened in our spiritual life.

So, repentance is, actually, repentance, lamentation is tamasic. What does it mean? The mind is in control at that time. Repentance is Krishna-centered.

It is sattvic. Means, we are in control of our mind. What does it mean when I am repenting? I consciously think, okay, that was what I did.

And these were circumstances when I did that. And it was such a terrible thing that I did. And I should never do, why did I do such things? I analyze.

And I am based on analysis, whatever I can learn. Okay, these were the mistakes I made. I will not make those mistakes again.

And then I move forward. So, if our mind just drags us to the past mistakes and the past sufferings that we got, and we are not in control, then that mind dragging us here and there is rajasic and tamasic. Whereas in sattva guna, we consciously think, I want, okay, what happened over there? Why did I act in such a way? Let me analyze.

Let me learn. So, we ourselves take our mind back, analyze that situation, learn from that situation, and then come back and apply that learning and then don't let the mind go there again and again. So, that's the difference between.

Repentance is based on, it is based on, we are being in control of our mind, Krishna-centered. With Krishna's guidance, we look back and learn. Whereas, in lamentation, we just keep looking back and never learn.

So, that's the difference. So, vishadi is in the ignorance. So, it's look back to learn.

Not to lament. So, any questions about this? So, we will see that Ajamil's expressions, when he realized how the Yamadutas had saved him, that was repentance. Because we see that he learns and after that he reforms.

He solidly reforms himself and then he situates himself very strongly. And he never succumbs again to that. So, it may not be sure for us that we will never succumb again to temptation.

But we can at least learn what lessons we can so that we can fight better. And eventually we will be able to succeed. Yes? The worker who is attached to the works and fruits of work, desiring to enjoy the fruits.

It is happened in practicing sadhaka's life. Whether he is doing distributing books or preaching or collecting some fund for lots. So, in all things he is attached to the fruits of results and all.

And in the previous shloka, 26th shloka is mentioned, one who performs his duty without association with the modes of material nature, without false ego, with great determination and enthusiasm. So, how practicing sadhaka he can shift from passion to goodness. Theoretically, we read here, but how practically we can apply in our life.

Yes. So, when we are doing devotional service, we are attached to the results of devotional service in many ways. So, how can we go beyond this? Yes, we are attached in the sense that, say, if we go for a program, if only 3 people come, we will be disheartened.

30, 50, 100 people come, we will be more enthusiastic. So, in a sense, we are concerned with the external results. That is not necessarily bad, because we want the results for Krishna.

But, often for us, our desire for the results of Krishna is also contaminated, even dominated, by the desire of the results for ourselves. Now, we want to prove ourselves also to be great in some ways. So, we have to understand that we have got the process of bhakti which is transcendental, but we are not a transcendental.

So, we may even be in the mode, we are trying to cultivate a lifestyle in the mode of goodness, but we will often be in the mode of passion. So, over a period of time, as we keep rendering devotional service, while also doing sadhana nicely, while trying to chant, while trying to understand the philosophy, gradually, our focus will shift. Our focus will shift means, over a period of time, we will start seeing that, that, actually, we get more satisfaction by rendering the service to Krishna than by actually getting the appreciation, glorification, something like that for the service.

So, that we have to ourselves learn by experience. So, it may not happen over immediately, and anyway, however it is, we just keep rendering service to Krishna. But over a period of time, we get that experience.

And then, one time it happened, in the first time I gave Sunday feast in Chowpatty, that was like the biggest audience I ever had. So, of course, I have given bigger classes after that. So, that time I was very, it was three years ago or something.

So, when I gave the class, I was very excited. I was trying to prepare very systematically. I spoke on Easter, Krishna consciousness is the best.

And then, when I was preparing, I was completely absorbed in the class. And when I was giving the class, you know, I was quoting shlokas, and I was very happy. And after the class, you know, I suddenly realized that I was so miserable.

Then, it went on for a lot of time. I was wondering, why it was. Then I realized that after the class, I was expecting everyone to come and appreciate me.

And then I realized that actually I am more dependent. I was much more happy when I was thinking of Krishna and speaking about Krishna. And now, when I am expecting from others, appreciation actually becomes dissatisfied.

So, it's not that I don't have a craving for appreciation now. But that was a memorable experience for me when I realized that actually that absorption in Krishna was far better than, you know, being like a beggar waiting others to appreciate. So, it just makes us so dependent.

If others appreciate, that is good. But that is not, that actually doesn't lead to any happiness. At least, as compared to the happiness of absorption in Krishna.

So, we will all get experiences like this over a period of time. That we will get material results and when we get the results, our results in devotional service at a material level, when we get those results also, we can accept then that Krishna is accepting our service, Vaishnavas are accepting our service. But, we'll find that just the dependence on that will simply agitate us.

So, if we just, if we base our service on the material results for that service, then we will never become very steady in our devotional life. Because the material results will come and they will not come sometimes. So, only when we are fixed in service to Krishna, irrespective of the material results, then we can go on enthusiastically.

Now, this doesn't mean that we have to become entirely heartless. There are certain services which we like, certain ways in which we like to glorify Krishna, we can surely do those more. But, overall, you know, we should be able to come to a level where we are satisfied.

So, it's like, see, there are three phases. First is, I do service to Krishna because I'm attached to the results of the service. Second phase is, I do the service to Krishna because I like the service.

Third phase is, I do the service to Krishna because I like Krishna. So, in a sense, it's similar to progressing from Karma Kanda to Nishkama Karma Yoga. In Karma Kanda, I'm attached to the activity as well as the fruits of the activity.

So, in Karma Yoga, I'm attached to activity but not to the fruits. And then, I go beyond and I'm attached neither to the activity nor the fruits. So, we will also go through those stages in our practice of bhakti.

So, initially, we will want the fruits, but over a period of time, once we get engagement according to our nature, then we'll become satisfied in the service itself. And then, overall, over a period of time, our focus will shift from the service to the object of the service, to the person for whom we are doing the service. And, this is a gradual progression that will happen.

So, at our stage, what can we do? We should certainly try our best to get the results of our service because they are for Krishna's sake. See, if we don't do our service well, thinking that if I do the service nicely, I'll get the results and I'll become attached to the results, that's not going to solve the problem because if we do the service and get the results, we may become proud. But if we don't do the service and don't get the results, somebody else will do the service and we'll become envious.

So, you know, at the material level of consciousness, there is no way out. The only way is to rise to the spiritual level. And the way to rise to the spiritual level is by doing service.

So, we have to render devotional service to Krishna and try as much as possible to keep our consciousness protected. In Varkar in goodness, what is the meaning of Mukta Sangha? Yes, the person is not attached to material association or material contamination. Yes, it is not transcendental, but the person is not attached.

See, there is a difference between liberated from attachment and liberated person. What is the difference? See, when I am liberated from attachment, that means I am not under control of that attachment. But that doesn't mean that I am completely transcendental to everything.

I am still in the material realm, but I am not controlled and dominated by anything. Just like, those who are Dharmic Grahastas, you know, they are not necessarily attached to unregulated enjoyment. But at the same time, they may not be ready for Sannyas also.

So, what does it mean? That they are not attached in an unregulated way. But at the same time, they are not completely detached. And that applies to so many things in our life.

You know, we may not, we may not want that thing in an unregulated way, but still we want that thing a little bit. So, Mukta Sangha means that the attachment, one is not bound by the attachment. We say attachment itself is binding.

But actually bound by the attachment means that one is completely under the control of the attachment. See, addict. There is attachment and there is addiction.

Addiction means one has no freedom only. One just cannot live without an object. But attachment means it's not that it is going to haunt our thoughts throughout, but we need that a little bit.

So, there are degrees of attachment and Mukta Sangha basically refers that the person is not completely dominated by the attachment. So, a person is substantially free from that attachment. Okay.

So, any last question? So, the next section, it starts with Gyanagya, sorry, with Buddhi, Sukha and Dhruti. So, that will start tomorrow. You have a question? Yes.

For repentance, many times it happens that we commit mistake and repent for some time. Again, then we make determination that we will not do again. Again, temptation comes, we fall prey.

This happens many times. So, how Krishna will see that devotee in such a condition? Yes, sometimes we commit a mistake, repent, give it up. But after some time, we commit it again.

And if this happens again and again, then how will Krishna see it? See, Krishna is responsive, but we are responsible. What does that mean? That Krishna reciprocates. Now, whenever we repent and seek to go closer to Him, He will reciprocate.

He is responsive. According to our heart's desires, He responds. So, if we want to go closer to Him, He will respond to that.

And if we let ourselves go away from Him, He will allow that also. That's it. But it is we who are responsible.

That means, it is not that Krishna is going to intentionally or vengefully find faults with us and punish us for that. But it is that if we keep going towards Krishna and away from Krishna, then we are responsible for that fine wave status in our spiritual life. We will not become steady.

So, it is true that it happens sometimes that we get caught by some spells of insanity, sort of. Spells of insanity means, normally we are doing our spiritual life nicely, but suddenly something happens, something comes and we just act in ways which are, which just don't make sense to us afterwards. What happened to me? So, sometimes when those spells of insanity come, we may be helpless.

So, what is important is what we do in between those spells. Sometimes our conditionings may just overwhelm us. Of course, for a brahmachari, there are certain limits.

So, one cannot fall prey to breaking the four greater principles in a gross way. If that is happening, then one has to change one's ashram. But as long as the mistakes are not of that degree of severity, then those mistakes will wound us.

But what do we do in between? If we are sincerely practicing devotional service and trying to wholeheartedly serve Krishna during that period, then Krishna sees that. And over a period of time, the frequency of those mistakes will decrease. And it will go away.

So, we just have to be patient. And one thing is being patient, but another thing is also being diligent in the practice of devotional service in between. So, that means that it's not that our mind is always wild.

So, sometimes the mind may grow wild. But when the mind is not wild, what do we do? That is very important. Because if at that time we are engaging in devotional service, even if we are not seeing it immediately, we are becoming purified.

Even if that doesn't seem to happen because again we fall prey to the same mistake. You know, we discussed about those four levels in our struggle with temptation. Does anyone remember? Yes.

Four levels in struggle with temptation. So, there is the lowest level is… No, no, no, no. Okay.

It's hopeless defeat. If somebody comes new to Krishna Consciousness, they follow the four regular principles. No mint-eating, no intoxication, no vomiting.

There is no Krishna Consciousness only. I can't do it only. So, at the first level is hopeless defeat.

Then there is struggle and defeat. I resolve, I will not do this. But still I fall prey to it again.

Then after that there is struggle and success. And then lastly there is effortless success. So, now for example, if I want to give an example of say, here, effortless success we could say mint-eating.

Some of us might have been eating meat earlier. But now, when meat is presented to us, what happens? What Yamunacharya says, spit at the thought. He spits at sex desire, but at least we can spit at the desire for eating meat.

So, we may not be at that level for sex desire. But it has happened. It has happened even for those who eat meat.

What has happened is there is effortless success. There is no struggle also, no temptation also. That means the higher taste of Krishna Consciousness, the purifying potency of Krishna Consciousness is real.

And it has brought about real transformations within us. But different Anarthas may take different times to overcome. So, essentially what takes us from hopeless defeat to effortless success is the increase of our strength and the decrease of the strength of the Anartha.

Isn't it? It's like two boxers are fighting. So, one boxer just pounds down the other person. Now, in the future, if this person was beaten up, how is that going to happen? He has to become stronger and his opponent has to become weaker.

So, what we need to see is how can we strengthen ourselves and how can we weaken the Anartha? So, weakening the Anartha means not giving it any food or giving it as less food as possible. So, when we contemplate on the sense objects, when we sort of dally with them, then what happens is we are feeding the Anarthas and they will grow. And then it will be difficult to defeat them.

But if we strengthen ourselves, we find out by chanting, by studying scripture, by whatever ways I strengthen myself, then even if it seems that we are being repeatedly defeated, what is happening is by the regular practice of Krishna Consciousness, we are becoming stronger. And over a period of time, we will be strong enough to defeat completely. So, actually in Krishna Consciousness, it is said that we never lose till we lose hope.

We never lose till we lose hope. And the whole process of Maya centers on making us lose hope. You know, in the Ramayan, when when Ravana saw that he could not make Sita give up her determination to wait for Ram, so he decided to use trickery.

And the trickery was that he got a sorcerer, a magician among the Rakshasas, Vidyut Jwala, and he asked him to make a head that was exactly like the head of Ram and make a bow that was exactly like the bow of Ram. And then he took that, both of those, and Ravana just marked to smash to Sita Dashoka Vatika. And he said, you are so proud of your Ram, but just see, he is dead over here.

He threw the head in front of him and threw the bow in front of him. So at that time, Sita Dashoka Vatika she almost fell unconscious and started crying. She says, I was lamenting at my marriage, the astrologer had said that I would always be what is the English word for it? I will always live with my husband throughout.

And then she started lamenting over there. And then she was completely heartbroken. And then she said, Ravana was expecting, Ravana was expecting, he will surrender.

Then she picked up the bow and she gave the bow to Ravana. I said, you know, wife's position is always with the husband. So with the same sword that you have killed me, with the same bow that you have killed Ram, kill me also.

And then, Ravana was furious, he was expecting he will surrender to him. But she was thinking of dying at that time. So he was, he didn't know what to do at that time.

So what he had done was, this was all a trickery. But at that time his minister came and he said, you are urgently needed at assembly. Because the enemy is preparing to attack.

Then he just went off. And he went off, then Sharama, Vibhishana's wife, she came and she told him, this is not true. This is not true.

And actually what had happened was, he just sent So Ravana told the story that all the Vanaras and Ram, after crossing the bridge, they were exhausted, they were sleeping. At night, I sent my soldiers and killed all of them. Sent my commander.

So then she told him, no, it's not at all true. Actually Ram is still alive and can't you hear the cries of the soldiers on the opposite side of the wall? And Ravana has gone to prepare for war. And that's how Sita became consoled.

So just as Sita had Sharama, we also need someone who can encourage and hearten us when we become hopeless. So what happens is, it's very easy when we are repeatedly struggling and failing to lose hope. So when we lose hope, then we lose the fighting spirit.

We lose the fighting spirit, then we stop fighting. And then we, then actually we become slaughtered. But we never lose till we lose hope.

So we need someone who will give us hope again. So that can be a counselor, that can be a senior devotee. That will vary according to person to person.

We can't just seek help from anyone and everyone. We have to carefully choose. And of course sometimes Krishna, through the scriptures or through the lecture of the spiritual master, through the classes, can also give us hope.

But the point is, we should know that when it appears as if the Anarthas are so big that we are hopelessly defeated, there is no chance for us, then that is basically a trick. It's a sorcery. It's meant to dishearten us and make us give up the practice of devotional service.

So we should not become disheartened. We can find out which ways we can continue on in devotional service. Kunti Maharani says that, So this example that is there of a river flowing towards the ocean, that has two implications.

So what are those two implications? No, a river, no matter what the obstacle, it somehow or other finds a way to go to the ocean. And second, Chakravarti Pada explains in his commentary, he says that second is, when a river flows towards the ocean, a river does not hold back any water for itself. All the water goes towards the ocean.

So he says like that, a devotee, whatever obstacle the devotee keeps finding a way towards Krishna, and while serving Krishna, a devotee does not hold anything back. A devotee offers himself wholeheartedly to Krishna. So when we become hopeless, there may be external obstacle, we keep finding a way, but the external obstacle may simply stop us, but sooner or later we find a way ahead.

But when we start holding ourselves back, when we start holding ourselves back, then it becomes very difficult to move ahead. So when we become hopeless, then we ourselves start holding ourselves back. That should not happen.

So, you know that, in animal training, there is that example of sometimes an elephant, when it's a baby, it's tied by a shackle to a pole, and the elephant pulls, pulls, baby elephant pulls, pulls, pulls, but nothing happens. The baby elephant can't come out. And then, whenever it tries to pull, the shackle that is there at the leg, it bleeds.

It hurts. And after some time, the elephant stops pulling. And over a period of time, the elephant grows up so much, and when the elephant goes to jungle, it can even uproot huge trees.

But when it comes back, and as soon as the master puts the shackle on the leg, the elephant just becomes calm. Now, actually, the shackle is tied to a small pole. And the elephant can just, elephant may not be able to break the shackle, but it can just break the full pole and go away from there.

But what has happened is, in his childhood, when he was small, at that time, he stopped fighting. Similarly, actually, sometimes, when we are in the early stages of our spiritual life, and fighting with maya, every time we fight, it just hurts us. You know, we get beaten up, we get frustrated, we get disheartened.

So, if we stop fighting, then we just lose to maya. But we know that every day we are practicing Krishna Consciousness, we are growing spiritually. And as we keep growing spiritually, over a period of time, we will become strong enough to defeat maya.

So, therefore, these stages are there. And we may be at the stage of struggle and defeat, but if we keep fighting, we will come to the stage of struggle and success. And eventually, we will come to the stage of effortless success.

Thank you very much.