2. Why don’t people listen to me? Feeling misunderstood. Gita 12.15, Adelaide, Australia

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

I will just do a quick recap of what we are discussing and then we will move forward. So the broad topic we are discussing is, why don't people listen to us? I am going to discuss on the topic of communication and this is going to be in three parts, broadly using the acronym ACT. So first was, yesterday I discussed about articulation, how we can ensure that our thoughts are converted into words appropriately, effectively.

So in this I talked about how our words need to be both sensible and sensitive, that they need to have both reason and emotion incorporated in them. Once that is done, now communication also involves, the second step is this comprehension. And I am speaking in a way that is balanced, that contains, that tries to address the head and the heart both.

But then does the other person understand your word? So that is the, everybody has their own conceptions and then they understand or don't understand. That is what we are discussing today. And tomorrow evening I will be discussing about transformation.

So do they act on what we are saying? Generally we communicate to persuade. We want others to understand and then act accordingly. So that will be the third session.

Let us today focus on the point of comprehension. Many times when we are interacting with others, we sometimes feel frustrated, you just don't need to, you don't understand. And there are different kinds of loneliness in the world.

One is physical loneliness, the other is emotional loneliness. Physical loneliness is when there is no one around us. Emotional loneliness is when there are many people around us but no one understands us.

No one gets us. And that can be actually much more discouraging, disorienting and devastating. So we may try our best to articulate our concerns, our desires and our fears.

But how much can we ensure that others understand us? That is comprehension does not necessarily mean agreement or alignment. Even if the other person does not agree with me, at least they understand me. So later on, when we talk about transformation, we will talk about how things move forward.

At the person, there is agreement, okay, you are right or when alignment is, I will do what you are saying. So agreement and alignment, they come later. But before that, there has to be understanding, there has to be comprehension.

Now when we speak and others do not seem to understand us, why does this happen? So Krishna, in the words that we discussed, is telling that do not disturb others and do not be disturbed by others. So generally, whenever others, if we consider this particular words, there are various ways in which this can happen. The nature of life is when we are in the relationship, whether it is husband-wife or parent-child or siblings or colleagues or any authority subordinate, what happens is I disturb you and you disturb me.

Together, we create a disturbed world, a disturbed family, a disturbed community and ultimately a disturbed world. So what Krishna is saying is avoid, do not disturb others and do not be disturbed by others. So how do we progress towards doing that? I am working on a book on Bhagavad Gita on relationships and this particular verse is at the heart of the book.

So we will focus on one part of it, that about understanding others. So generally, when one reason why we may be disturbed by others is that they do not understand. When others do not understand us, now there is a negative way of looking at it, there is a positive way of looking at it.

The negative way of looking at it is that we go to their head or go to their heart. That means what? That either you are foolish, you have no intelligence, that is why you do not understand me or you are wicked. Now, either you are a fool or you are a bad person and that is why you do not understand me.

Now, both of these create a further wall because both are disrespectful of the other person. Now, when we label someone negatively, then they are far less likely to give us a fair hearing and then the misunderstanding and the distrust will increase more and more. So, when people do not understand us, the more charitable way of looking at it, the Bhagavad Gita says one characteristic of the godly nature.

It is talked about in the 16th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. It says that there are two kinds of people in this world. Some people are wise and some are otherwise.

So, our tendency is to believe I am wise, you are otherwise. But, it is not that simple. So, Krishna says the characteristic of the ungodly nature is two things.

That So, it is interesting when we talk about demoniac people. We may think about somebody like Ravana with four heads or somebody with horns and teeth coming out. But, Krishna talks about not demoniac forms, but demoniac nature.

And he talks about it in terms of qualities. And what are the qualities that he talks about? He gives six qualities. So, the demoniac qualities, especially in terms of, if you want to analyze in terms of relationships.

The first three things he talks about are all in terms of dambha, darpa, abhimana. All of these are variants of the ego. I will explain, I will state the difference, but I will not go technically into that.

But, all of them center on I am right. So, dambha, darpa and abhimana. Dambha is where I don't know, but I pretend I know.

Darpa is I know and I want you to know that I know. Where I want to exhibit my knowledge. I don't necessarily want to use my knowledge to do some service or to benefit others.

I want you to know that I know and I want you to submit to me. And abhimana means I want public honor for what I know. Not just, there is a difference between say appreciation and glorification.

Appreciation is a need of the heart. So, everybody, whenever we do something good for someone, we would like that other person to appreciate us. And appreciation forms deeper bonds.

We feel that the other person values me. So, suppose I give a talk and after that somebody comes and says that, oh, I feel very benefited by the talk, this is very good. But that encourages me.

I am traveling across the world, I am trying to share spiritual wisdom with others. But when they come and say, okay, I appreciate your talk. Why are you saying it now? You should have taken the mic and told everyone how good my talk was.

So, that is glorification. So, glorification is a need of the ego. Appreciation is a need of the heart.

The two are very different things. But all of them are on the foundation of I am right. So, dambha is even when I don't know, I claim that I know.

Darbha is I know and you should know that I know. And abhimana is everyone should respect me for what I know. So, this is show off.

This person is a show off, although it is a, often it is hypocritical. I do not even know things. But darbha is, actually, darbha is more of a relational acknowledgement, relational respect and abhimana is public respect.

But all of it is I know I am right. Dambho darbho abhimanasya krodha parushyam eva ca. So, I am right and if you don't agree with me, then you are terrible.

You are not just wrong, you are terrible. Krodha. Now, krodha is internal, it is anger.

But then Krishna says krodha parushyam eva ca. Parushya means harshness. That I don't only just get angry with you, but I become, I am rude to you.

I am rude, I am crude in my language, I am rude in my behavior and I hurt you. And when I hurt you, I think that you deserve it because you are wrong and you are foolish. So, that is what I said.

You are wrong, either you are foolish or you are evil, you are wicked. So, either you have no intelligence or you have bad intentions. So, that is what he said.

When you attack the head of the person, you have no intelligence or you have bad intentions. Why don't you agree with me? Because you are envious of me. Why don't you agree with me? Because you want to overthrow me.

Why don't you agree with me? Because you don't like to see my success. So, basically what happens, then we see disagreement in this way. So, krodha parushyam.

And the result of this ultimately is what Krishna says, agyana. Agyana means ignorance, but in this context, it means we never learn. So, when there is disagreement, it is an opportunity for learning.

It is an opportunity for growing. Okay, you don't agree with me. Why do you think this way? See, for whatever people do or feel or think, everyone has a reason, even if their reason is not reasonable.

But everyone has a reason. So, often, I will explain this further. But when we understand their reason, that does not mean necessarily we agree with them or we appreciate them.

But at least, okay, why do you think like this? So, what happens when I am communicating something and the other person does not understand? The negative attitude, which is actually the ungodly, the demoniac attitude is to, I am right and you are foolish, you are evil. I never learn anything more about you. I don't think I need to learn anything.

I just condemn you. So, it is almost that I stay within my self-righteous ignorance. There is ignorance because I don't know and I don't care to know and I think I am such a great person.

So, this is terrible. This is not just agyana, but it is self-righteous ignorance. You are such a terrible person that I don't need to ever learn anything about you.

This is the pathway. This is the recipe for ruining relationships. In many ways, this is convenient, this is easy.

Just label people and then we do not have to do any homework, we do not have to grow, we do not have to try to understand, but then it makes for a very lonely and poor life. So, the other is when Krishna talks about the more charitable way of looking at it. He says that how the godly people behave.

This is 16.4 and 16.123, he talks about the godly people and one of the first things he says, especially in terms of relationship is, Prabhupada translates this as aversion to fault-finding. Aversion to fault-finding. What this means is that when somebody has some fault, at that time, we give benefit of the doubt.

We give, we try to look for the most charitable explanation for other's actions. So, in general, everything that happens in life is broadly a combination of choice and chance. Now, we may say there is nothing that happens by chance and everything is ultimately God's plan and that is true from an ultimate philosophical sense.

But from a practical sense, let us say if we are supposed to have a meeting with someone and that person comes late. Now, why do they come late? They just do not care for us, they do not respect us and that is why they came late. So, that is choice.

The choice to keep kick us, keep waiting and to thereby disrespect us. Now, sometimes in Indian culture, making others wait is a sign of showing one's importance. And that is why we have this whole concept of IST.

It is not Indian Standard Time, it is Indian Stretchable Time. So, now that is not a healthy thing. But sometimes it might be that there might be some unexpected traffic situation, it might be there was some emergency at their home, that is why because of they got late.

So, in general, what happens? Whenever there is a problem that happens, so if I am the cause of the problem, I say it is because of chance. And whenever the other person is the cause of the problem, I say it is choice. So, I blame it on chance means I blame it on circumstances.

Now, this happened and that happened, that is why I am not able to do it. And when other person creates some problems, you deliberate, you are irresponsible, you are insensitive, you are like this, you are like that. So, this is basically, again, this is the ungodly mentality, where I am right and you are wrong, I am good and you are bad.

Now, it is possible that I may be good in some areas and you may be bad in some areas. But it is also possible that I may be bad in some areas and you may be good in some areas. So, often when others do not understand us, the godly way of approaching it is to give others the benefit of the doubt, to assume the most, to start with the most charitable understanding of why they do not understand us.

So, what would be the most charitable understanding? As I said, the most uncharitable understanding is that either you have no intelligence or you have bad intentions. But instead of going in that direction, we can look at, when others do not understand, going back to that earlier point, you want to look at it more and more positively, we can look at two things primarily, that there might be a difference of perspectives and priorities. So, perspective and priority, that means, from where they are seeing and what they are seeking.

From where they are seeing is a matter of perspective. Like if you want to buy a new house, you want to see it from different perspectives, what is the inside view, what is the top view, what is the view from the back, what is the view from the front. So, perspective is from where we are seeing.

So, they may just have a different perspective of looking at the thing. And then not only they have a different perspective, they may also have a different priority. That means, not only they are seeing differently, they are seeking something different or that is what they are seeking first.

So, when this happens, the other person may not understand it. So, somebody may say that I was in London, not London, I was in UK and there was a place where, in one city, where they had one temple, one place where they had a temple and that was in a little inaccessible kind of locality. And they wanted to go to a new place for a temple.

In general, in the first generation of our movement, when we got our temples, our first generation was mostly western people who were often from the counterculture. So, they were, not everybody was hippie, but most of them were not part of the mainstream society. And often they would not live in the best localities and where people were, that is why we got the centers.

In the second generation, we have many Indians, we have people who are well established and we would like to have our centers in places which are safe and respectable and more as in the British word is gentrified. So, when they wanted to relocate from that place to another place. Now, there are two groups of devotees, one devotee, both of them proposed two different places.

So, one of them said that here we are getting a bigger land and we are getting a bigger land at a lesser price. And the other said that actually here we are getting a smaller land, but here there are a lot of potential people, lot of potential people and we should take the place over here. And if we take this place over here, although it is smaller, people will be able to come easily and we will have lot of members in our community, lot of people can become devotees.

But the first group said that, yes, that is true, but the place is so small that within a few years, that place will become occupied. And then after that, we will have to look for another place. So, let us go to this place.

And they were saying this place will also develop and that place is a little further away from most of the kind of people who would come to our place, but they said that place is also likely to develop. So, eventually they went into the second, the first place which was larger. But when they got that place, unfortunately, because of various political events, because of the Ukraine war and whatever, lot of immigrants came in that area.

And eventually, things became, not just immigrants, things became very disruptive. And the kind of people who would come to our temples, that locality became such that, the neighborhood became such that, we did not have that kind of people. And when this happened, the first, the second group, what they said is, the leader of that was saying, because this was my idea, and you did not want my idea to succeed.

That is why you insisted on this place. And therefore, because of your ego, you have caused a temple for Krishna. And in the garb of a devotee, you are actually a non-devotee.

You have worked against Krishna because of your ego. And now, when the second, first devotee heard this, he was also unhappy that it did not work out. But when his character was attacked like that, then it just led to a breakdown completely.

So, in general, whenever somebody makes a decision that turns out to be wrong, whenever somebody does not understand our perspective. Now, if you understand what we are saying, now, clearly, there is a misunderstanding, there is a decision that was made, and that turned out to be wrong. But was it because the person lacked intelligence, was the person had bad intentions? Now, that is a possibility.

But when we jump to that conclusion, then we break that relationship. So, it was a difference of perspective and priority. Then this first group was thinking that if our project grows, again, we will have to relocate to a new place.

Therefore, let us get a bigger place. So, they were thinking, it is like one person was thinking more in terms of the present, how we can grow in the immediate future. And the other was thinking of how we can grow in the, how we need to have a long term process.

Sometimes, the same difference can come in parenting also. Two parents, both parents are there, both care for the child. Generally, no parent has a bad intention towards the child.

But one parent might want to care for the child, protect the child, and make sure the child is not exposed to any danger. The other parent may say, the child has to learn to grow up, the child has to learn to take care of things on their own. Yes, the child may sometimes get hurt, the child may sometimes make mistakes, but let them learn and grow.

So, now which parent is right? Life does not come with a guarantee that this perspective is right and that perspective is wrong. So, both are well-intentioned, but both may have different perspectives and different priorities. That is why when others do not understand us, it is important that we start with the most charitable explanation, start with the least negative explanation.

That okay, maybe this person is thinking in a particular way. And what that person is thinking that if we try to understand that. So, when I have communicated my point of view, and I feel I have made a completely rational case, not only rational, I feel that what I am speaking is irrefutable.

And then the other person comes up with some argument that makes no sense. And rejects what I am saying. Now, what has happened in that particular time is, I am focused on how sound my reasoning is, and how unsound the other person's reasoning is.

And that may be true, but it is happening from my perspective. So, what can we do about this? So, when there are different perspectives, and different priorities. So, how do we deal with it? So, that means, how do we ensure that the other person is understanding what we are saying? So, in general, this, I talk about three main things over here.

This is a rather than thinking of understanding in terms of one or zero, it is either the other person gets me or the other person does not get me. We can see that understanding and being understood. We can see that not as digital logic, yes or no.

We can see it more in terms of scale. I am less understood, I am more understood. So, that means, at the top will be alignment.

That person not only agrees with me, but aligns with me and starts doing what I want to do. At the other extreme, thank you, is a breakdown. Now, I have tried to do mediation at various times during my various services, and I had some really revealing experiences.

One time, one, I was trying to mediate between two people, two devotees, and one person approached the other person and said that, I can see that you are very angry with me. Can you tell me why you are so angry with me? Otherwise, I am not angry with you. Anger is an expensive emotion and you are not worth it.

Now, if somebody becomes that dismissive of the other person, then there is no hope for reconciliation. So, I am not just questioning your judgment, I am questioning your worth itself. Isn't it? So, that is a breakdown.

So, quite often what happens is that we focus on whether the person gets me or doesn't get me. So, however, there are, there is a scale. As I said, when I say the scale, there is something which is, which seems to be unreasonable.

It doesn't make any sense to me. Or something which doesn't just seem unreasonable to me, it can seems, this is a complicated word, but I will explain, unconscionable. Unconscionable means outrageous.

This is shocking. This is reprehensible. How can anyone think like this? How can anyone propose like this? How can anyone even have such an idea? So, these are extremely negative extremes.

So, okay, we have a particular place where there is a temple and it is not going. Somebody says, let us sell the temple and get some balance. No, this is the place where there are deities.

How can you move the deities? What kind of person are you? How can you even think like this? If you think that we should sell the temple, that means you have no love for the deities. You are not a devotee at all. Suggestion is outrageous.

Now, something may seem unreasonable, but from there, it can become intelligible. Intelligible means that I understand why you think like this. I don't necessarily agree with you, but I understand why you think like this.

And that requires us to listen to that person. Okay, what? Okay, you don't agree with me. Why don't you agree with me? What are your concerns? So, sometimes when we say the other person is not understanding me, we might just be able to move the communication to some degree or the scale upward.

What they think is unreasonable, at least it becomes intelligible. This is what I am thinking. Now, from intelligible, it becomes acceptable.

Okay, I agree with you. Then from there, it goes and further becomes desirable. Yeah, this is a good thing.

Let us do it. And that is when they come towards alignment. So, now, if we consider when there are different issues, which are to be discussed.

So, at that time, how do we resolve the issues? So, when others don't understand me, if I try to understand their perspective and their priority, and I try to explain my perspective and my priority. So, what are they seeking? What are they seeing? And not everybody is good intentioned. There are people who are downright evil.

However, they are few. The people who, we all, as I said, we may disturb each other, we all may hurt each other. But the people who get joy in hurting others are actually very few.

Now, they may hurt us because we have hurt them back and they want to take revenge. That is true. But just get positive joy in somebody else's pain.

That is very rare. So, when somebody disagrees, instead of assuming that they are demoniac, that they just want to obstruct us for the sake of obstructing us, they just want to trouble us, we start with trying to understand their perspective and understand their priority. So, I will conclude with one last point.

This is based on what Shrila Prabhupada talks about outreach, but it applies also for communication in general. This he talks about in the Srimad Bhagavatam, 1.4.1 purport, about what is effective outreach or outreach with realization. So, who would even like to read this from the starting point, from personal realization? Who would like to read this? Yes, please.

One, one sentence each we can read. Personal realization does not mean that one should, out of vanity, attempt to show one's own learning by trying to step past the previous Acharya. Yes, I am cleverer.

I will speak something which no Acharya has spoken. That is not the point. Anyone else would like to make a speech? They must have full confidence in the previous Acharya and at the same time, he must realize the subject matter so nicely that he can present the matter for the particular circumstances in a suitable manner.

Any other lady would like to read it? The original purpose of the text must be maintained. Yes. Obscure meaning should be spewed out of it, yet it should be presented in an interesting manner for the understanding of the audience.

Yes, last sentence. This is called realization. Yes, thank you.

So, what is Prabhupada trying to say over here? You could depict it in a diagrammatic way, that if you consider this is the message of scripture, that's one circle and these are the interests of the audience. So, audience interests and the message of scripture. So, now, if we are to speak in a way that is effective.

So, realization means, if I am a speaker, I may say I should know scripture, that is true, but I also need to know my audience and then I am meant to build a bridge between the two. And that's why, if we consider this is the, if we consider, this is called a Venn diagram. Venn diagram is where two circles overlap.

And so, I often use Venn diagrams in a class, my classes. So, one devotee, when I use this diagram, he started laughing. He said, what happened? He said, I was just wondering when we will use a Venn diagram.

So, the thing is, that I was just in New Zealand. So, I spoke at Auckland University. Now, if I go there and say that I will speak about the difference between Mayavada and Achaitya Bheda Veda.

If it is a class specifically of philosophy with a focus on Indian philosophy, then it might be relevant to them. But if these are general audience, general college students, then if I speak on that, it is an important subject, but it is of no interest to the audience. So, I spoke on overcoming overthinking.

And then I talked about the mind and Rajyoguna and Tamoguna and how we can bring in Sattvaguna through spiritual practices. So, now, we need to find out what are the interests of the audience and what are, what is the message of scripture and where the two intersect. And that is how, that is the realization.

So, what Prabhupada says realization means, not that I say that I know scripture and all these people are materialistic. And because they are materialistic, they have no interest in scripture. So, go to hell.

No, that is neophyte, that is unrealized. My realization means, yes, people may be materialistic, but they are still human beings. And everybody has some human concerns which are universal.

And scripture addresses those human concerns. So, it is my creativity or rather the speaker's creativity to find that interest. When Prabhupada went to America, the people who came to him initially were people who were into drugs.

And Prabhupada, if he had been judgmental, if he had been, as I said, self-righteous, you people are the darkest of the dark people. You are in such ignorance, state ignorance. Now, Prabhupada saw, Prabhupada saw that they were taking drugs, but he saw why they were taking drugs.

It was not just because they were drug addicts. It was because they had been led to believe that drugs was the way to spirituality. So, at that time, there was a popular drug called LSD.

Have you heard of this? So, LSD is basically the short form for a chemical. But at that time, many LSD users had re-christianed the drug. They said, when you take LSD, you join the league of spiritual discovery.

So, they thought that by taking this drug, we are going to become spiritual. So, Prabhupada did not simply look at their actions and condemn them for their actions. Their actions were unfortunate, were bad.

They were breaking the regular principles. But he saw beyond that their intention is they have some spark of spiritual interest. So, Prabhupada addressed that spiritual interest.

And therefore, when he was speaking to people in the counterculture who were into drugs, they wanted to go high. They want to experience something higher in life. So, and drugs would give them a high, but then bring them crashing down.

And Prabhupada said, stay high forever. So, yes, you have that urge to longing to go high, but Krishna consciousness can take you high forever. So, Prabhupada himself is demonstrating this principle.

So, if you consider Srila Prabhupada's teachings and the hippies' interests. Now, you can say Prabhupada has come from Vrindavan. Prabhupada is a person who has never taken tea or coffee.

He has lived an extremely pure life. These hippies, what can be common between them and him? There is nothing in common. And he could have seen that, he could have said that and he could have rejected them.

But Prabhupada found that intersection. He addressed that hidden, without a word. At a word level, they are just drug users.

But at a deeper level, they were seeking something higher in life. And that was Prabhupada's compassion. Prabhupada said, stay high forever.

So, Prabhupada was expert in that way. One time somebody came to him, Swamiji, what is the joy of the spiritual world like? Now, Prabhupada could have quoted from Brahma Samhita, Chintamani Prakara Sambhashu Kalpavaksha, beautiful shlokas. That would have been incomprehensible.

And what did Prabhupada reply? The spiritual world is like an ocean of LSD. An ocean of LSD. Wow, I want to be there.

Now, somebody who is a scriptural literalist, that person may, this is an abhraj for the spiritual world. LSD is a tamasic drug. And to compare the pure spiritual world to an ocean of a drug, that is offensive.

It was not offensive, it was creative. So, that is, why am I talking about this? This is a principle for outreach. But more importantly, it's a principle for communication.

That means, that when the other person does not get me, rather than condemning the other person, try to find out where their interests and my interests agree. Try to find out that overlap, that in the Venn diagram. So, quite often, if you put it this way, if this is my view, this is my opinion, this is my position, and this is the other's view.

Now, we may say that we have no agreement. And therefore, there is going to be a breakdown. Now, that may be true.

But yes, our views may be different. But we may both share. That see, our views, my view, and your view may be different.

But those views arise from some concerns. The concerns may be shared. The concerns may be common.

For example, when we talk about the temple, that temple in UK, both groups of devotees wanted Krishna Consciousness to spread. Their view was not only different, but opposite. But their concern was the same.

So, that is why when others do not understand us, it is important for us to find out some point of commonality. And start with that point of commonality. Now, there may be 99% difference between us.

But if there is 1% of commonality, start with that 1% of commonality. Sarvabhuteshu yenaikam bhavam avyamikshate avibhaktam vibhakteshu tad jnanam viddhi sattvikam Krishna says perception in Sattva Muna means that we don't just see the dissimilarities among people. Oh, this person is from this country, this person is from this religion, this person has this behavior, this person uses this kind of language.

What we see is underlying all those differences. Everyone is a soul. Everyone is a part of God.

We all share in our humanity and our spirituality. And we start from there. That even 1% of commonality can be the foundation from where we can learn to communicate better.

So, that's why when others don't understand us, at that time, we try to understand their perspective, their priorities. And if we show them how we share concerns, that even if they are, they don't agree with us, but at least from unacceptable, our ideas may move towards intelligible. Okay, I don't agree with it, but at least this makes sense.

And that can also be a good thing. In the Mahabharata, when the Pandavas eventually decided that they have to fight, the Kauravas were just not ready. The first, they dishonored Draupadi, public.

There will always be predatory men in the world who will want to exploit women. But most people who do something like this will do it in private somewhere, in some dark alley or in some closed room or somewhere. They have some fear of the law.

If somebody does it in public, that means they have no fear of the law. If somebody does something like this in a police station or in a court, that means not only do they have no fear of the law, the law has fear of them. So, Duryodhana was that reason that he tried to violate and humiliate Draupadi, not just in public, but in the royal as well.

And then, after the Pandavas were in exile for 12 plus 1, 13 years, still they tried to seek peace and they sent Krishna. Krishna himself chose to come. And then Duryodhana tried to arrest Krishna in that same assembly.

So, first, the Kauravas dishonored the Pandavas wife, then they dishonored the Pandavas lord. And in one sense, they did not succeed either. He could not disrobe Draupadi.

He could not arrest Krishna. But even the attempt was an insult. Isn't it? One devotee once came to me after class.

He said, I have a very serious philosophical question. Okay. He said, if I try to, if I insult someone and that person does not get the insult, then do I get the karma? So, I told him, you know about the principle of karma, why take the risk? But the point is that karma is based on three factors.

It is called, you can do it by acronym ICE. ICE is the intent, the content and the effect. So, what is right and what is wrong is based on what we did, why we did it and what was the effect.

So, yes, other person did not get the insult. That means the effect was not there. But still the intent to insult was there.

And we also spoke words that were insulting. So, we will get the karma for the intent and the content. So, it is like somebody goes to rob a bank.

They do not succeed in robbing the bank. Now, does that mean it is not a crime? Well, they did not rob, so it may not be that big a crime, but still it is a crime. So, why I am saying this is that what Duryodhana did was terrible.

And the Pandavas, that was the time they decided. When they tried to arrest Duryodhana, that is when they decided that there is no way to reconcile with him. We have to fight for him.

So, till that point, the Pandavas were repeatedly giving the benefit of the doubt that maybe he is just insecure, maybe he wants a kingdom and let us give him the kingdom. The Pandavas tried to bend backward and the Pandavas said just give us five villages. But Duryodhana did not accept even that.

So, yes, there is a possibility when communication can completely break down. But the Pandavas show how much they tried to avoid the downright confrontation. And even when there was a war, the war was brutal, but the Pandavas were not disproportionate in their violence.

After it all happened, they did not take it out on Dhritarashtra. You know, they understood that Dhritarashtra, he, there is a difference between, this is the last point I wanted to say, that broadly there are three kinds of people. There are people with goodness, that means they will normally, they have good intentions and good actions.

There are people with weakness. They sometimes make misjudgments, they are influenced by other people, they do bad things. And there are people with wickedness.

So, with wickedness, those who are wicked, they will, they have bad intentions. And when they have bad intentions, they will do bad things and every time we give them another chance, they will do further bad things. So, now, I think I mentioned this in my Narasimha Yudhishthira class also.

Forgiveness for people with weakness is kindness. Forgiveness for people with wickedness is blindness. So, now, Apaishunam.

Apaishunam was the virtue that I talked about. Aversion to fault finding. That when we are dealing with others, always start with the idea that people are good.

Good means they have a good heart and they are trying to do good things. Now, if the explanation that they are good does not work, then assume that they are weak. Weak means what? They are influenced by some bad association.

Maybe they are misled by someone. They, not that they are ill-intentioned, but they have been misled. And finally, the last resort is, assume that they are wicked.

So, the Pandavas, in one sense, if you consider from the Pandavas' perspective, they were godly. So, they concluded after great, great efforts for reconciliation that Duryodhana fell in this category. And that's why they finally had to fight with him.

But they decided that Dhrashtra was in this category. He was not wicked, but he was weak. And his weakness was that he was irrationally attached to Duryodhana.

And that's why for the sake of Duryodhana, he gave up his own moral compass, his sense of decency, and he allowed terrible things to happen. But once Dhrashtra was out of his life, then, not that he suddenly became a good person, but he was not a bad person. So, the Pandavas, sometimes strong actions have to be taken.

So, sometimes when our communication doesn't work, confrontation is required. But don't assume that confrontation is the only solution. We try as much as possible to find some shared interests.

The Pandavas tried to show the shared interests. Duryodhana, Krishna said, Pandavas and Kauravas, you are in the same vamsha, you are in the same dynasty. Work together.

But Duryodhana said, I will not give you enough land to put the tip of an eel. So, that just shows that I have no interest in reconciling at all. But, when after he was finished, then, Dhrashtra didn't have that level of antagonism.

So, the Pandavas worked with him. So, the Pandavas respected Dhrashtra, but they didn't obey Dhrashtra. They didn't let Dhrashtra decide the policies for their state.

They did it based on their judgment. So, if you look at the Mahabharata, it is a very grounded and realistic book. And there can be, there can be, there can be disagreement without disrespect.

And there can be respect without agreement. So, because Dhrashtra was elder, the Pandavas respected him. But they did what they understood was moral and spiritual.

So, in this way, when we are communicating with others, by trying to find shared interests, we can try to come to agreement or if we cannot come to agreement, we can at least minimize the disagreement. So, I will summarize what we discussed today. When people, when others don't get us, when others don't understand what to do at that time, that was the topic we are discussing today.

And within that, I discussed three main points. That when others don't understand, the negative response is to go towards assuming that their head, they have no intelligence or they have, either they are foolish or they are ill-intentioned. So, no head or bad heart.

Now, both of these will lead to a complete breakdown in communication. So, this is thinking like this, jumping to this conclusion is actually demonic on our part. Where, we talked about it, the definition of demonic is, I am right.

tam bho dharpo abhimanasya, that absolute certainty that I am a good person and you are a bad person. And I am right and then that, because I am right, what happens is, you not only deserve my anger, you deserve my rudeness. I am right to be angry with you.

I am right to be harsh with you. And then we end up with, I am right to be rude. And then what happens is, I stay in self-righteous ignorance.

I think I am right and I never learn. So, this is the ungodly response that others don't understand. The godly response is, that we say that give others the benefit of the doubt.

So, be averse to fault-finding. And fault-finding in this context means that we go to the worst explanation for their refusal to understand us. So, we try to go towards the best explanation.

And the best explanation is that we see that it's a difference of perspective and priorities. That means from where they are seeing and what they are seeking. So, when we understand this point that they are just prioritizing different things or they are seeing from a different perspective, then we don't see that fundamental difference in value that causes breakdown.

When we see from that perspective, then we try to find some intersection. So, what happens is, our opinions or our calls for actions, our views, our views are different. But still we can go to the concerns.

If we focus on the concerns, the concerns are still underlying the same. So, two devotees may decide how to expand a project differently. Two parents may have different parenting styles.

Two partners may have different visions of how to build a family. One may say, let's save more. Another, let's invest, let's get other things, whatever.

There are many differences, but the concerns. So, we try to look for the shared concerns. And then, when we have it this way, then the last part I'll talk about, from here, we move towards that, that communicate in this context doesn't necessarily mean that we'll agree.

So, instead of seeing it digitally, that yes or no, you agree with me or you don't agree with me, we see it as a scale. So, on that scale, rather than that what I, what you speak is unintelligible, it is unreasonable, it is unacceptable, from unreasonable, even if we move it to intelligible. Okay, I understand why you are thinking like this.

Then that itself is a good thing. So, this is actually a build of this principle only, that we discussed about Shila Prabhupada, how he communicated with the hippies. He found, he saw that their actions were bad, actions were completely anti-spiritual, taking drugs.

But he saw their intention was spiritual. They thought drugs are the way to spirituality. So, from that way, we can find some shared interest.

And it is possible that when we communicate, let's start with assuming people are good. If not, then we can say that they may have some weakness, because of which they are, good means their perspective, just have a different perspective, different priority, but their heart is not in the right place. Maybe their judgment is wrong or that they are misled by someone.

And then if that doesn't work, then finally go to the level where they are wicked people. So, we see in the Pandavas' approach, what they did was, they had to conclude after great effort that Duryodhana fell in this category. But they didn't assume that everybody there was in that category.

They had to deal strongly with Duryodhana, but still with Dhritarashtra, that he is a part of our dynasty, he is an elder. So, there was respect without necessarily agreement. So, in this way, we all can, if not move towards better understanding, we can at least move towards lesser misunderstanding.

And that way, there can be less disturbance in our interaction with each other. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

Are there any questions or comments? So, in this category, where does Bhishma Pitamah fall in? Weakness or weakness? So, where does Bhishma Pitamah fall in? It's a complex question. I'll explain it from two different perspectives. One is that the whole Mahabharata is basically driven by the question of what is Dharma.

Dharma is at one level the right thing to do. And different people, everybody in one sense is trying to do Dharma. But everybody has different understandings of what is Dharma.

I talked about those three things. Intent, content and effect. So, now Bhishma operates from the, so what is the right thing? Right and wrong are categories.

So, content means what? That this is one category of right, this is one category of wrong. So, for example, the category may be decided by speaking truth is right, speaking false is wrong. So, based on this content, that's the basis for deciding what is right and what is wrong.

This is called as categorical ethics. That means right and wrong are categories. So, Bhishma operates, he is a very dharmic person, but he operates in the Mahabharata from the perspective of categorical ethics.

What is the category? I have given my word that I will protect the ruler of the Kuru kingdom. And that word is non-negotiable. That word is inviolable.

Now, it's good to honour our word. But if honouring our word leads us to dishonourable actions, should we do that? So, when Bhishma took that vow, it was actually a great sacrifice. That I will not only not seek the kingdom, I will not only not have children who will seek the kingdom, I will actually serve whoever is on the throne.

And Bhishma had a very difficult life. You see, generally, if somebody is in a position of authority, it's difficult to obey that person. Nobody likes to be subordinate to someone.

But at least if that person is more qualified than us, more competent than us, then we accept it. You not like it, but we accept it. Actually, you can do the job better than me.

But if we know that that person is less competent than us, and still we have to serve that person, it is extremely difficult. Like we are a very good cook, and somebody is a terrible cook, or a poor cook, and they tell us, you make it like this, you make it like that, we know it's not going to work. But still we obey them.

So, Bhishma lived his life that way. Pandu was virtuous, Dhritarashtra was not. Duryodhana was not.

And to serve somebody who is both morally and martially, in terms of fighting as well as in terms of character, morally and martially inferior was extremely difficult. But for him, Dharma was categorical. I have given my word, I am going to stick to that.

That is all. And now, in one sense, Bhishma and Karna are very similar. Karna also said, I have given my word that I will always be by the side of Duryodhana.

He said, you will always have my friendship till my moment of death. But the difference between the two of them was that Bhishma had affection for the Pandavas, Bhishma had devotion for Krishna. So, from a dharmic perspective, from an ethical perspective, the Mahabharata is quite brutal in depicting reality.

It says, what it depicts is, even somebody with pure devotion does not necessarily mean that they will have right judgment. Pure devotion is a state of the heart. One simply wants to love the Lord.

But moral judgment is a matter of ethical intelligence and deliberation. So, because his heart was in the right place, so that's why, his focus, he fought on the side of Duryodhana, but he never gave up hope on Duryodhana. His hope was, Duryodhana will reform.

Now, that's why, the tenth day when he fell on the bed of arrows, at that time, Duryodhana also broke down. And Duryodhana started crying. His grandfather was in such mortal pain and had fallen.

So, Bhishma, despite being in pain, saw that as an opportunity. The first words he spoke, O son, you have seen that I, who was never defeated in war, that I, who could not be defeated even by Parashurama, have today been defeated. Let my fall be the lesson for you that this war can't be won.

Let the hostilities end with my war. I will speak to Yudhishthira. Let there be an equal division of the kingdom and live peacefully.

Now, Duryodhana, he had tears that Bhishma had fallen, but the tears were not so much out of affection for Bhishma as dependence of Bhishma as a tool for fulfilling his desire to gain the kingdom. That's why his heart did not change. So, now, Krishna, privately, publicly, Krishna was actually angry with Bhishma.

That's why, when Arjuna was not ready to fight, Krishna took a chakra and started charging towards Bhishma. And he said, he was yelling at Bhishma saying that you are the root of this whole war. When the king does not have good judgment, it is the responsibility of the minister to advise and correct the king.

Because you did not advise Dhritarashtra properly, that's why the war is happening now. Bhishma, he saw Krishna charging towards him, he put down his bow and he said, O Krishna, O Keshava, your words are definitely not true. I tried my best to persuade Dhritarashtra, but he just did not listen to me.

Still, if you consider me wrong, death at your hands will be my fortune. So, he lowered his bow. So, Krishna publicly expressed anger towards Bhishma.

And he told Arjuna, you have to fight, you have to kill him. Because he has chosen the side of Adharma. So, however, Krishna did not overlook the devotion of Bhishma.

And that's why privately, after the war was over, Krishna himself went and heard from Bhishma. Krishna took the Pandavas to hear from Bhishma. He took advice from him.

So, the idea is that Krishna did not neglect Bhishma's devotion because of his Adharma. At the same time, Krishna did not overlook his Adharma because of his devotion. So, that's why it's very nuanced.

So, Bhishma, we could say, he was in goodness in the overall character of his life. But because of his ek, in Nyaya it is called ekamulik nyaya. Ekamulik nyaya means single factor analysis.

That a person decides everything based on one factor. The whole basis of their decision making is one factor. So, for him, honoring my word, that was the sole basis of Dharma.

And because of that, it was from goodness, at least in that level, he came to weakness. Where his ethical judgment turned out to be questionable. And that's why Krishna had to take action against him.

Krishna told Arjuna, you have to fight against him, you have to kill him. But Krishna did not condemn him. After ensuring that he was no longer an obstacle to the establishment of Dharma, Krishna rewarded his devotee.

Was the decision egocentric? It's difficult to say that. Because in many ways, if ego had been his concern, there are many times when he was disrespected by Duryodhana. And Duryodhana was not even his equal.

He was more like his grandson. And if he had been ego driven, he would have just rejected Duryodhana. But he didn't do that.

So, I think it is adherence to his word was his conception of Dharma. There could be a sense of ego in that I am going to restrict my words. But I think it was not primarily ego.

It is primarily his compass of what is right and wrong. See, everybody has, life is very complicated. And everybody arrives at some basis for deciding how I am going to navigate my life.

Somebody might decide that, okay, my family is the most important thing in my life. And if they decide that, now tomorrow, if our family member has done something terribly wrong, will we lie for that? Will we speak and commit perjury in a court for that purpose? That's a bad thing. But okay, my family is the most important thing.

Then, for that, I may do anything. Somebody may decide that my country is the most important thing. Now, yeah, okay, you can love your country.

But then, if the country is the most important thing, if the leaders of my country tell, go and kill all the civilians of the Andhra Pradesh. Kill small babies. Should I be doing that? So, what is the problem with ekamulik nyaya? That it's not as, people may act, people with single-pointed, single-factor analysis.

What happens with them is that when they don't have a sufficiently nuanced moral compass, then the moral complexity of life just can't be navigated with. One of my friends has done his PhD in radicalism, terrorism you could say. You know, when the Islamic states had become very prominent at one time.

So, he is in UK. So, many Europeans, actually, people who were white, who were born in the West, they joined the Islamic states. And they left their homes and their families and went there.

So, why did they do that? So, many reasons, but one of the reasons for their radicalism was that they felt life is so morally complex. Radical Islam gave them radical simplicity. This is what is right and that is wrong.

This is what Quran says, this is right, this is wrong. And then the idea is that all these people who do not accept the Quran are bad. And they are, as they call them, kafirs.

And therefore, if they don't accept it, they can be killed. Killing them is a good thing. So, basically, often when some, now yes, following some sacred texts is good, but sacred texts are also nuanced.

Which section to prioritize, which statement to prioritize, which statement to deprioritize. Every religious tradition has both faith and reason within it. Faith is you have to follow the authority, but reason is, okay, what is the authority actually? Which statement is more authoritative? All that has to be nuanced.

All that has to be considered. That's why the inability or rather the inability to process complexity or, I mean, I always call it the temptation to reduce life's complexity to a dangerous simplicity. That can be a big problem.

So, that's what happens in the Mahabharata. So, Karna is also not a bad person, but he reduces his entire life's decision making to, I have to be faithful to Duryodhana. But to his credit, twice he expresses a regret.

Once to Krishna and once to Bhishma. He says that in the gambling match, in trying to please Duryodhana, I went too far. What I spoke to Draupadi, that was terrible.

Although he acknowledges that he went too far, he doesn't give up Duryodhana. So, his moral compass is still a little active, but that is overwhelmed by his single factor analysis, single factor basis that I have to be faithful to Duryodhana. Yes.

Gopis and Pandavas, they are both devotees of the Lord. When we see Gopis have cherished beautiful pastimes with the Lord and Pandavas, though Krishna was with them, they still had to go through all this, the goodness, sweetness and wickedness. Why is that? Is it because they have different bhakti with Krishna or they are placed in the wrong place? So the Gopis have sweet pastimes with Krishna, whereas the Pandavas go through huge difficulties.

Why the difference? Actually it's not that simple. Actually the Gopis go through even greater difficulties. What do I mean by that? See, at least for the Pandavas, their pain comes from wicked people.

Or pain comes from good people who are influenced by wicked people. But for the Gopis, their pain comes directly from Krishna. Isn't it? They give up everything for Krishna and Krishna leaves them.

Isn't it? That when they come to the forest at night to perform the Rasleela, and Krishna without any explanation disappears. Like say, I come to give a class and all of you are sitting here. I close my eyes and offer prayers and I open my eyes, nobody is there.

Where did you go? What happened? No explanation also. But the Gopis, for them at night to come like that, it was in a conservative society, it was social suicide for them. So now it is one thing to be hurt by bad people.

It is another thing to be abandoned by God, to feel that I am in trouble and God is not helping me. But it is far worse to be rejected by God. That we are there, we come to the presence of God and God leaves and goes away.

And temporarily Krishna does it in the Rasleela and then he does it permanently when he leaves for Mathura. So at that time, when Krishna disappears from the Gopis, the Gopis search and search and they can't find him. He is in the Gopi teeth and pray to Krishna.

And then finally when Krishna comes back, at that time Krishna says that your faithfulness is such that I conquer by it. Your love is so much that I cannot repay it. Therefore, there is nothing I can offer you in return.

Now that is Krishna expressing his love for them. But still the point is that they did suffer great agony. That in the moment when Krishna has gone away, is Krishna angry with us? Has Krishna rejected us? Is Krishna going to come back? Is he never going to come back? So Bhishma Pitamah or rather in the Narayana Bhakti Sutra, in one of the places, Bhishma also says in the Mahabharata, that one characteristic of real love is that when there is every reason to break a relationship and still the relationship doesn't break.

That is the sign of real or pure love. So the Gopis have every reason to reject Krishna. We gave up everything for you and you just abandoned us.

You just rejected us. I should be with you. But the Gopis don't do that.

That shows the complete selflessness of their love. That's what makes them such exalted devotees. So everybody goes through difficulties in life.

And as different devotees, we go through different kinds of difficulties. And Krishna often teaches different lessons to different devotees. So the lessons he is teaching through the Pandavas is that when we are playing a big role in the world, at that time there will be big problems that will be visible to the world.

Our cause might be good, but that does not mean bad people will stop targeting us. Like I may be a vegetarian, but if I enter into a, what do you call, there is a bullfighting ring is there, you know that? People fight in there. I don't know if it's Australia, it is there.

In Europe and Texas it is there. It is a bullfighting ring. And the bull is charging towards me.

I say, hey, I am a vegetarian. Now being a vegetarian is a good thing, but that's not going to stop the bull from charging towards me, from goring me. So just because we are a good person in this world does not mean that we won't be targeted.

Our good actions will eventually lead to good results. But in this world there will be trouble. So often when we tell people this world is a place of distress, it seems very pessimistic, it seems very negative, this world is a place of distress.

So the way I phrase it is that not the world is a place of distress. The world is a university of adversity. That it is the place, university means there is something to learn.

And it is through adversity that we learn what really matters in my life. And what really matters is that all the adversity is a test of Krishna. And the degree that we want to get, so the exam, the degree that we want to get, the graduation, the way to pass the test is not that the test will go away or Krishna will protect us from the test.

Sometimes Krishna protects, sometimes Krishna doesn't protect. But ultimately it is you want to get taste for Krishna. Not protection from the problems of the world, but taste for Krishna.

When Parikshit Maharaj is cursed to die, Krishna protected him in this womb. His mother's womb when he was still an infant. Then that same Krishna, why didn't he protect him later? Why did Krishna let him die? Well, Krishna protected him in a different way.

By giving him the opportunity to hear the Bhagavatam, to become absorbed in the Bhagavatam. And thereby transcend the fear and the pain of death. Eventually, a Takshat bird came and bit him.

Parikshit Maharaj was so absorbed in Krishna that his soul had already left his body. And he didn't even feel the pain of the bird biting him and burning his body. So, adversity will come upon everyone.

And the way to face the adversity, the glory of the Gopis is not that they were never tested. They were actually tested extremely severely. But when Krishna abandoned them, when Krishna rejected them, actually their taste for Krishna increased.

Jiva Swami explains in Gopal Champu that Krishna departed from Vrindavan, but entered deeper into the hearts of the Gopis. And their remembrance of Krishna became even more and more. Their taste for Krishna became greater.

And that was their glory, that was their success. Thank you very much.