9 Gita course QA on living the Gita (GEV)

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

I haven't been convinced in my head, and I'm just wondering if you can, perhaps, I mean, you've given a beautiful summary of the heat of it, but if you were to, if you were to, not a debate, but if you were trying to convince somebody who genuinely wants to be convinced, I'm almost at that tipping point, could you walk through why Krishna consciousness is the right path, as far as you are concerned? Yeah, so first of all, personally, I feel that spirituality is not so much about proving, it is about improving. So every path will, every tradition, every religion, every organization, every path will claim that it is the best. And that kind of one-upsmanship is what can be quite alienating for thoughtful people.

So, personally, I feel that we don't have to, that we don't have to subject spirituality to unrealistic criteria that we don't apply to anything else in life. That means, if I'm sick, then I don't think that I have to find the best treatment possible in the world, isn't it? If I have fever, if I have some disease, if I have a fracture, if I have any back pain, even if I assume I have cancer, it's not that I'm going to explore all possible treatments in the world before I decide which treatment to take. We are, by nature, finite beings.

And as finite beings, there's only so much finite exploration that we can do. There's only so much finite intelligence that we have in which we can do our exploration. So, if we want the best path, where do we apply it? Do we apply it in treatment? Do we apply it in education? If I want to get a degree, can I absolutely say that among all the options possible, this particular quality is the best option possible for me? Even in relationships, which is probably something you want to have lifelong, do we do that? We can only explore among limited options that we have, that are accessible to us.

So, in general, I find that faith, it can be reasonable. So, I'm not going to give you criteria why Krishna Consciousness is the best. Because I'll tell you, I have myself thought about this.

And I've thought of some criteria which could be used to evaluate the spiritual path. And based on that evaluation, based on that evaluation, I find that Krishna Consciousness does make a lot of sense to me. And as I said, it's more about improving.

And I can definitely say that I am a better person than what I was 25 years ago before I started this journey. So, reasonable faith has two aspects to it. It's sensible and it's verifiable.

Sensible means when I go to a doctor, I evaluate if I have stomach pain and doctor says you have to amputate your leg. That doesn't make any sense. Doesn't it? Does the diagnosis make sense? And does the treatment work? So, I use this criteria, tests.

So, T-E-S-T-S. So, the first is that spirituality is something which the human beings are searching for since time immemorial. That's the spiritual.

Nowadays we differentiate between spiritual and religious very strongly. But that spiritual is still the very fundamental part of the human psyche. So, it's not that we today are going to find out something no one else has found before us.

So, whatever path, it has to be time-honored. That's one criteria. And certainly the Vedic path is one of the oldest living paths that we have.

If not, certainly the Vedic tradition is the oldest among living traditions. Then E is explanatory. Explanatory means that does it answer at least to some degree life's fundamental questions.

And ultimately there are no answers that will convince absolutely everyone. But the problem of suffering, the problem of the disparity in the world, the problem of reconciling the unfairness of the world with the idea of a merciful God. I think the philosophy of karma, reincarnation, all that makes a lot of sense.

At least a lot more sense than what I have seen any other tradition offer explanation for. So, does it answer, does it explain, give reasonable explanation for fundamental questions. Then S is, is it scriptural? Scriptural means any one person can be very charismatic and they can offer a lot of brilliant wisdom.

But then it's dependent on that person's charisma. So, is this based on something beyond an individual brilliance? Is it based on some time, based on some texts which have again stood the test of time. So, the first is more about the tradition.

The second is, is this based on scripture? Third one. Now, so these three are a part of the sensible aspect. So, does it make sense? Now, if you consider from Bhagavad Gita's perspective, you know, Krishna says this time, I give this knowledge to Sun God.

And since that time it is coming out. At least as far as modern history goes, Gita is at least several thousand years old. So, if it was an explanatory, at least the Gita's approach is of openness and inquiry.

The Gita is not calling for faith, belief. Gita is encouraging the asking questions. The Vedic tradition does not start with faith.

It starts with inquiry. थातो ब्रह्मजी कियां से. So, it is urging us to be inquirers, to be curious, to be seekers, not to be believers.

And even Krishna himself, when he is speaking in the Gita, so, he is quoting scripture. He is himself saying that the knowledge I am speaking is based on scripture. So, he is also quoting a tradition over there.

Now, these last two are a part of the experience, the verifiability of it. So, T is transformation. Does this change me? Does this transform me for the better? So, now the transformation can be from not so much internal criteria of a tradition, but even objective criteria, in the sense that we have some unhealthy habits.

Basically, the tradition says that if we develop, if we grow spiritually, if we develop love for God, then the cravings for worldly things will go down. So, whether our anger, our jealousy, our lust, whether our greed, are they decreasing? So, I found that these decrease definitely. Is it that they are completely gone? That takes a long time.

But the transformation is there. And the last is successful. By successful, I especially refer to the point of death.

Ultimately, the death is the litmus test for any spiritual path. Because how much does the path equip the person to face death with grace? And not just, I go to Srila Prabhupada's example of, Srila Prabhupada saying, Kuch itcha nahi hai, I have no desires. But even many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples and grand disciples, I have heard about and I have personally seen, that they are able to face death without fear, with gratitude, with even devotion.

That, now we cannot with our empirical eyes see where a person goes after death. But we can definitely see how, whatever conviction a person has, whatever experiences they have had, how have they prepared that person to face death. So, I think by these criteria, these tests, is something which we can apply to evaluate.

And ultimately, I don't see it as putting faith in one particular path. Yes, we are, but if there is some higher reality, and if that higher reality wants us to attain that higher reality, then we are more putting our faith in that higher reality by exploring a path to that higher reality that makes sense to us. I hope the difference is clear.

It's like, is there that, if there is some guiding higher reality above me, whatever be the name of it, whatever be its nature, if that higher reality is beneficial, is our well-wisher, that higher reality wants us to know it. So now, there might be a dozen paths around me. But, if to my intelligence, it makes sense that this particular path is a path to higher reality, then if I'm following that path, I'm not just putting faith in that path, I'm putting faith in that higher reality to guide me to the right path.

And if it is not the right path, then that higher reality, that God, that divinity will show me that eventually. So if we choose never to put faith, then we are never going to grow. So it's like doubt and faith.

Sometimes these two are seen as enemies, that as faith increases, doubt decreases. But that's only one way of looking at it. In the Srimad Bhagavatam, third canto, it's indication that doubt is a sign of intelligence.

It's only an intelligent person who can doubt. The advertisements may give us so many claims. It's an intelligent person who says, does this really, you know, does this buying this or eating this, does this really live up to its promise? So doubt is a sign of intelligence.

So another way of looking at it is that faith and doubt. If you are going on a journey, then faith, it's like if it's a car journey, faith is like our gas, the accelerator, and doubt is like the brakes. So in a car ride, we need a car with both.

But if somebody is not ready to put any faith, only doubts, it's like using the brakes to go on a journey. We are never going to get anywhere. Now, of course, if our car only has accelerator and has no brakes, that's also dangerous.

So we can talk about the dangers of unreasonable faith or blind faith. But we also need to be aware of the dangers of an unreasonable doubt. So a balance of both where we use our intelligence and then we take a step in faith and keep our eyes open.

I'd say that's the best way to move ahead. Any other questions? Yes, where's the mic? So of course, this is transformational. Krishna's answer is 9.2. And 8.5 to 7 talks about being able to remember him at the time of death and moving forward.

Yes, please. Initially, I was thinking that my question is very similar to what Kavuji was asking, but I think it's a bit different. So it's not about the conviction.

So conviction is where we have seen our parents, as you said, time-tested. So I think that conviction is there. My question is very specific to that section where you mentioned living in pain, then moving to living with pain, where with pain, unfortunately, it becomes very smaller and life is taken more meaning.

And how do we move from, are we here to seek pleasure or meaningful pleasure? Meaningful pleasure. So how do we find this meaning? I was just trying to relate it to the KCC framework that you gave earlier. How do we make it more, find more of that meaning, that real meaning? In the day-to-day life.

So is it like in the day-to-day activities where we are able to spend 3-5 hours, 4-5 hours maybe, each day filled with Krishna consciousness, spirituality, chanting, book reading, associating with devotees. I think that by the grace of Guru and Guru Nanak, I think those activities are there now. So is it sufficient when gradually I find the meaning or for something more we have to do another act? Because I think that meaning, what do I need to do additionally to reach there and how far, how great it will be? It's a very good question.

See in the Vedic tradition, the word is Artha. Now Artha has many Artha. The word Artha, at one level, it simply means meaning.

What is the Artha of this? Artha also means wealth. Like India has an Artha Mantri, the finance minister. So Artha means wealth.

Now Artha also means purpose. As in the four Purusharthas, the four purposes of life. So we could go on, but let's focus on these three Vinis right now.

Now what the Vedic tradition says is that Artha is not necessarily one thing. It is an increasing hierarchy, progression rather. Say for example, there is at the very basic level survival.

That is the Artha at what is called the Prana Mayakosh. At a particular level of existence, if my life is threatened, then the very basic thing that will give me meaning is how can I survive? So survival is the basic meaning. And whatever we are, there is a biological side to us.

We are spiritual beings, but there is a biological side to us. And the biological side wants to survive. So the idea of Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest and all that, it's not wrong in its entirety.

Survival of the fittest applies to the biological side of us. But the point is we have a side beyond a biological. That's why at a basic level we have, because survival could be just I need food, I need oxygen.

And you could say that there is wealth. Now wealth also enables us to survive. Now wealth can enable us to enjoy also, but also to survive.

So wealth can be associated with survival, but wealth can also be associated with pleasure. So we humans and animals just look for things that have survival value. That is what animals look for.

Every now, here in the ecovillage, if you go out in the mornings, you'll hear these birds chirping. It's just a sweet sound for us. Now from the bird's perspective, it's either a mating call or a food search.

So it's their focus of survival value. But we humans also want to look for things that bring value to survival. First I want to live, but then what am I living for? So then artha goes towards higher things.

So for example, somebody taking care of the family. If you have a child, parents often put their own life at risk to take care of the child. So having children brings me.

For some people, it might be serving their country. There's one American patriot, he said that, My only regret in life is that I have only one lifetime to serve America. So now, that's serving the country.

In India, when India was struggling for independence, Washington said that, You give me your blood and I'll give you independence. There was not a source of artha for them. So in this zone, there could be many sources of artha.

It could be family, it could be nation, it could be community. Now above all of these is what is called as param artha. Param artha.

And that param artha is God, is the ultimate reality. It is Krishna. So dharma, artha, kama, moksha.

Each of these are called arthas. So now this is a broad progression. And for many people, having some meaning is far better than having no meaning at all.

It may not be the ultimate meaning, but having some source of meaning is way, way better. Nowadays, there is a big problem of drug addiction. Now, you know, some people say we should ban drugs.

Okay, that's one way of it. But there is gambling addiction. Do we say we should ban playing cards also? No.

Do the cards cause addiction? We don't say the cards cause addiction, but we say drugs cause addiction. So what is the issue over here? Actually, when people get addicted, it is mainly because there is no source of higher meaning in their lives. So, for example, in the Vietnam War, many, many, almost more than 50-60% of the M.A.U.S. forces who were there in Vietnam, they were taking heroin and cocaine.

When they came back from America, less than 5% continued with that. Because in those situations, that's what made the pain bearable for them. But when they came back, they had their families there, their lives, they found meaning, some other meaning, and then the addiction urge went away.

So the point I'm making is, some meaning is better than no meaning. So for somebody who has no meaning in their lives, they might seek meaning only in just escaping to some alternate reality through drugs. But if within this reality, some meaning is there, then that's definitely better than no meaning.

Now the question is, can there be ultimate meaning? And that ultimate meaning is what I talked about how the gifts that we have, we use them in the mood of service. So I talk about three things originally. First is observation.

O-R-E. We observe to see what are the gifts I have. Traditionally, when the Varanasi system was there, probably if a person was born in a Brahminical family, they would have Brahminical gifts.

And otherwise also, otherwise. Today it may not be true for various reasons. So we need to observe us and we need others to observe us and tell us.

But by observation, we look for our gifts. So we all have certain gifts, but quite often, we only consider certain things to be gifts. And if I don't have this, then we devalue what we have.

But we can look at anything that gives us some breathing air. We can look at our abilities, we can look at our interests, we can look at our resources and observe to find what we have, what are the gifts that we have. Then once there is observation, then there is resourcefulness.

Resourcefulness means, so this kind of self-observation, what I discussed yesterday in journaling, elevate yourself with yourself. So what is that I have to elevate myself? So resourcefulness means that we have to find out, okay, with the gifts that I have, how can I use those gifts in the particular situation that I am in? So we have to be resourceful. Sometimes we have to change the situation.

Sometimes we have to adapt ourselves to the situation. So Krishna on one side recommends tolerance to Arjuna. For example, 2.40. But other places he also recommends persistence.

That he says, nothing which tastes like poison in the beginning, but they will taste like nectar in the end. You have to push through them. Now sometimes you have to wait, maybe this is not the right time for me to do this.

I have other obligations, I have particular situations. So we need to be resourceful. When do I adjust to the situations? When do I want to change the situations? So Prabhupada when he was married, he accepted that now I can't focus full time on this.

So he did what he could, he did his business, he tried to donate through his business. And then afterwards, when he retired, he focused fully on his service. So that we have to observe.

And then last is, rather we have to be resourceful to see how important. Last is elevation. Even if we have gifts.

And even if we have found a way to use those gifts. Initially, we will seek recognition through those gifts. But that is not very fulfilling.

Eventually, we move towards making a contribution. That it doesn't matter how much recognition I get or not. Initially, I should be the one taking the torch across the finish line.

Okay, even if I am not the person taking the torch across. Okay, somebody else may take the torch across. But I can make a tangible contribution.

So it's an incremental process. When Krishna talks about, he mentions 425, he says how, not 525 rather, he says how those who are saintly people, they work for the welfare of others. So with the gifts I have, how can I use them in some service? That service could be directly the service of Krishna.

So we, as I said that we, we try to decrease our professional obligations and focus on Krishna. Or it can be sometimes through our profession itself. That we work.

Okay. Hare Krishna Babji. Babji, we spoke about doubt and faith.

And you mentioned doubt is like a brake. And faith is like an accelerator. So I do have this doubt.

Which is kind of a brake. I think a brake. So one of the lectures I was hearing from someone was about why would someone name their children Dushasan or Duryodhana.

And that Mahabharata was, you know, a story. Which was to prove some point. If you can clear that up.

Okay, so first of all, Dushasan or Duryodhana are themselves not intrinsically negative names. Dushasan. Now it can be mean, one meaning is that, you know, one whose root was terrible.

One who was atrocious. But another meaning is that one whose root is very difficult to overthrow. That means one who is powerful, one who is strong.

So Dushasan can have a positive meaning also. Duryodhana. That one who is fighting was very difficult to defeat.

So one who fought by evil means. That's also another meaning. This meaning Dhritarashtra.

It can mean one who was attached to the kingdom. But Dhrita also means to sustain. Like Dhri is the objective.

Dhri is the root. Dhritarashtra is one who sustains the kingdom. So, these names don't necessarily have to be negative.

Now, historically, those characters behaved in particular ways and that's how those names have become negatively associated. So, very few parents will name their children as Dushasan, Duryodhana, etc. But the names themselves are not intrinsically negative.

If you look at the etymological perspective, etymologically it goes both ways. Positive and negative. And as far as the stories, as far as the epics, these stories which are meant to teach us some moral values, of course it's true.

But that doesn't mean that that is all there is to it. That these are also the traditional considerations of the itihas. They are tales which are historical accounts of what happened.

But through history also, some ethical values are being taught. And if we want to go further into the tradition, we could also say that in those times, like today, or even more than nowadays, astrologers were consulted by giving names. And the astrologers foresaw that the characters would have certain characteristics.

And accordingly, those names were recommended. He'll finish. Hari Krishna Gandhi.

I want to know, like Dhritarashtra also listened to Gita. So after seeing the Mahatma of Sri Krishna, still he is blind. He doesn't get success.

Is it there is Yogmaya who is covering his… Because after you see the thought, still he wants his children to go and die. That's a good question. So the thing is that God has given us human's intelligence.

And the human intelligence is a remarkable thing. Sometimes we can let me put it this way that there are… How do we know what is reality? It's a complex philosophical question. But one way to understand whether our perception is real is that it's like there is a congruence between perception and experience.

If there is a congruence between… Say for example, if I am walking along and I see water over there. Is the water really there or not? I put my leg forward and then I see my leg has got wet. So with perception and experience… Perception is what we are having with ourselves.

Experience is the entire being. So with perception and experience match. Experience can be had in many different ways.

Like we say all that glitters is not gold. And how do we know whether it is gold? Well there are certain criteria. So what glitters can also be gold but what glitters can also not be gold.

Now what happens is that whenever we have some perception, the intelligence… Now the problem is it's very easy to say whether the perception is matching the experience or not. But it is not. Because there is a sabotaging factor that the sabotaging factor is our desire.

So sometimes what happens is we desire that something be true. It's very easy to make people believe something which they desire to be true. That means you know if I believe, I desire that this person be a good person.

That this person is a good person. Then if there is any evidence to support that this person is a good person, I will promote that evidence. And if any evidence suggests that this is a bad person, I just downplay it.

I deny it. So it is often our desire overpowers or overrides not only our experience because with our intelligence we are perceiving things. Experience comes in but our intelligence not processes things.

So you probably know that story once an alcoholic at an alcoholics meeting an anti-alcoholic campaigner he gave a talk on how dangerous alcohol is. He said now I'll demonstrate to you. So he had a beaker like this and a transparent beaker and he took out a small box where the insect was there.

He hurled that insect into the beaker. As everybody watched the insect fluttered and sank down dead within minutes. Within moments actually.

And then he looked around and felt all the alcoholics. What do you learn from this? All of them looked down embarrassed. And one of them was very cheerful, smiling.

He said what do you learn? He said when I drink alcohol all the germs and worms in my stomach will die. So basically both Duryodhana and Dhritarashtra when they saw the universal form they just dismissed it as some magic trick that Krishna had done. And in fact Duryodhana also sends a message through one of I think Shakuni's son to Pandavas to incite them before the Kurukshetra war and he says tell that Krishna that his tricks in showing magic forms is not going to help here.

He said even I can show many magic forms but this is war baby. This is war and no magic tricks will work over here. So basically they dismissed the evidence that was shown before.

So that is when the desire is very strong we try to reinterpret whatever evidence doesn't agree with our desires. So what did they say? Robert Frost was a philosopher of science. He said in science theories we like we call them facts, the facts we don't like we call them theories.

It's a cynical view of science but there is some reality to it and it applies everywhere. Yeah. Duryodhana saw it before that when Krishna had come as a peace messenger he tried to arrest Krishna at that time Duryodhana saw the universal form and that time Yudhishthira also saw it.

So I am talking about that universal form. Now in the battlefield it was shown only to Arjuna and Sanjay heard about it and Sanjay described it to Dhritharashtra. So Dhritharashtra didn't believe this? Maybe he didn't agree with Sanjay or something? Well there is no explanation given in the Bhagavad Gita itself or rather following the Bhagavad Gita in the Mahabharata there is no explanation given to what Dhritharashtra's reaction was to that.

But we can surmise that it was similar to what it was earlier. Just as earlier in fact he saw the form and he accepted it. It's like the Bhagavatam describes that when there is some wisdom wisdom given to the attached and I won't use the word detached but non-attached they may not be detached but they are just not that attached.

So for the non-attached wisdom is like light suddenly makes the path clear. This is the path down to a ditch. This is the path straight ahead.

For the attached, wisdom is like lightning. Lightning means what? It's illuminating but just for a few moments after that it becomes dark. So the attachment prevents that wisdom from registering within them for very long.

So I have two questions. Just another example to illustrate this point is in the Ramayan when initially Maricha tells Ram tells Ram don't mess with Ram he is extremely powerful and you have already seen his power that he has destroyed your entire army and Janasthan. I have seen his power twice.

Don't mess with him. And Ram to his credit goes back quietly. But then Shurpanakha comes and describes the beauty of Sita to Ram.

And then he goes back to Maricha and says now don't mess with me. If you don't listen to me, you don't help me then I am going to kill you. So basically all the facts that had deterred him earlier are that they were all still true.

He still didn't have protection from humans as per his boons. Ram was still the same person who had killed the entire army at Janasthan. Ram was the same person who had overpowered Maricha.

But now that the desire was triggered, all those facts became insignificant for him. I don't care about it. When desires are too strong then when desires are very strong quite often reality is the first casualty.

Yes. Sorry Krishna. So in the past it is said that something happened, bad thing happened to someone and bad thing done to someone.

So the hidden cause of these two is the same one. Same one. What is it? Past karma? Or what is it? Past karma means what? The hidden cause for these two is the karma.

See in general the principle of karma is an air to look forward not so much to look backward. What I mean by that is that the whole point of the philosophy of karma is that our actions have consequences and therefore we should choose wisely. But the point of karma is not so much to keep looking backwards.

That means you know this thing had happened was it because of past karma? What is the cause of it? Once you start going in that direction it becomes not only very complicated it can also become very heartless. What I mean by heartless is that if we are facing a particular situation I remember when this happened there was this terrible rape case in Delhi so time went by and social media was not there but still it had become a big issue. Somebody had asked a devotee a question you know what was you know so some devotee said why are you making such a big hue and cry about what happened to her? It was all her own karma.

That's a monstrous misapplication of the philosophy of karma. When Sita was abducted nobody tells her it's her own karma. When this Draupadi is disrobed nobody tells her it's her own karma.

The point is when something bad has happened our focus should be so when there is wrongdoing the focus should not be what is their karma the focus should be what is our dharma. What do I mean by this? Say some person has been robbed and they go to the police and the police says it's your own karma you got robbed. Well, maybe maybe not but you are taking a salary as a police person it is your responsibility to maintain law and order.

So what is your dharma is important. Now because once we start attributing present suffering to past karma alone then where do we stop? If a newborn baby is crying, should the mother think the baby is crying because of her own past karma? That would make us completely heartless. So in general we should look for whenever there is suffering the Mahabharata mentions this Mimamsa also mentions, start with the drishta explanations then later move towards the adrishta Drishta means first look at visible explanations and then go towards invisible explanations.

So the baby is crying, it's not because of past karma. Maybe the baby is hungry right now and it's my karma to feed the baby. So look for a visible explanation, don't go towards invisible explanations.

So now we could say ultimately everything that happens to anyone else is due to their karma only. That may be true but from this life's perspective if there is somebody who is persecuting someone then that has to be stopped. So if there is some bully who is terrorizing some kid in school then can we say, oh it's your own past karma, live with it.

No, the school has to have some administrative setup by which the bully can be stopped. Sometimes it may happen that despite best efforts, some kids might still be bullies and some kids might still become victimized. So in those cases, one can say that when the efforts done from this life's perspective to protect and prevent don't work, then you can say, okay it's probably my past karma.

But that should not be the explanation used by others to avoid doing their own karma. So that's why you can say adversity, there is no no personal agent in that particular case. So for example, if a flood occurs, if a dam breaks and a flood occurs, that we call as adversity.

Okay, those who were destroyed by the flood, well that's unfortunate, that was their karma. But if terrorists blow up a dam and that causes a flood, then we can't just tell the people who are suffering, it is your own karma. Our dharma is to prevent such things from happening and to punish the terrorists.

So in general, when suffering occurs, we have to start with looking at the drushta causes. We look at the visible causes and address those causes. In fact, this is one of the strongest criticisms of Christianity towards Hinduism and this is one of the reasons why Christians are successful in converting Hindus.

Because they argue and to some extent there is truth to the argument that Hindus have no sense of compassion because they believe that everybody is suffering because of their own karma. And so that's why if people are poor, let them stay poor, let them suffer it is their own karma. But they say our religion doesn't teach us this.

Our religion teaches that whatever reason people are suffering, we should help them. And by helping the poor, we are actually helping God. We are serving God by serving the poor.

And for many people that seems to make much greater sense. It seems to be much more compassionate religion and a compassionate God. If you see in our tradition, also, when Pruthu Maharaj's citizens come to him and tell him that we are starving.

There is a famous we are starving. He doesn't tell them it's your own karma you are starving. Or to speak of that, Ramati Dev and Shibi, those examples are there.

They don't say that when the animals come to them and they are ready to sacrifice their own flesh for the sake of the animals. So this is a terrible misrepresentation of the understanding of karma, which is philosophically wrong and socially disastrous. So my next question is in the summary of the 18th chapter, last question, so it is transcend this situation by observing absorption in Krishna.

Meditation on Krishna. So dissatisfaction comes from that that I am supposed to do the respect and the wrong things. So if I do not do that things, I could be better in spiritual life also or could be a service to the spiritual master.

So how can I get out of that thinking or that frustration that I could not do that thing. When you say forced to commit a mistake, means forced by whom? Kama Vaishya Pradesh Rajaguna Samantara. Well, okay.

Have any of you heard this statement? You have heard this? No. We say it very often. But we say it in such a way that the fallen becomes so big that the soul is forgotten.

That I am fallen. So now we have to remember Sarvopadhi Vinirmuktam. Bhakti means we have to go beyond temporary designations.

And even the idea that I am fallen is a temporary designation. So, we should not identify so much with the fallen state that we forget that we are souls. We may be fallen but we are souls.

And souls are always loved by God. So, it's important. Just like to say that I am a male, I am a female, I am Indian, I am South Indian, I am North Indian, I am young, I am middle aged.

These are all designations. We need to go beyond those designations. So, I am a fallen soul.

That's a temporary designation. Now that temporary might have been for several years, several decades, several lifetimes. But still it's temporary.

So, we shouldn't over identify with our conditioning. Conditioning is there. But in spite of that, we always have an opportunity to survive.

And yes, we all have some deficiencies. In Prahlad Maharaj's prayer, he says, And in the word to word translation of that, Prahlad says that, therefore, giving up all considerations of being unfit. That, whether I am fit or unfit doesn't matter.

Still, I can serve Krishna. So, we may be unqualified, but we are never disqualified. We may be unqualified, but in the sense that, we may not be pure enough to serve Krishna.

But we are never disqualified in the service of Krishna. Krishna always accepts our service, wherever we may be. So, wondering too much, oh, I have this conditioning, I have that conditioning, I have that conditioning, that is also another form of self-consciousness.

Self-consciousness can be, oh, I am so talented, I am so good, I am so great. But self-consciousness can be, I am so bad, I am so fallen, I am so worthless. Okay, I am what I am, and I will serve Krishna how I am right now.

In future, I will become better. So, yes, right now, I may not be able to do all the services that I would like to do. So, let me do what I can.

As I grow in the future, I may be able to do more services. Okay, yeah. Professor, why it is named as Bhagavad Gita? It comes from Bhagwan Maharaj in a small town, that is why it is named as Bhagavad Gita.

Someone was like, why it is named Bhagavad Gita? Why is it called Bhagavad Gita? Because of Lord's song. Yeah, Gita is a song. And Bhagavad refers to Bhagwan.

So, Krishna is Bhagwan, and he is sharing wisdom. So, in that sense, because it is the philosophical wisdom spoken in the form of a song, coming from the Supreme Lord Bhagwan, so it is called Bhagavad Gita. I have two questions.

First one is, can you clarify the point, bring Lord Krishna into our consciousness and bring what is in our consciousness to Lord Krishna? So, bring Krishna into our consciousness is very clear. We hear about Krishna, we come to know about Krishna's pastimes. And that's how we bring Krishna into our consciousness.

And that's important. But then, what is in our consciousness we bring to Krishna? That means, say, for example, for me, before I was introduced to bhakti, I was fascinated by science. And one of the things that attracted me to bhakti was to come to know how many of the scientists, prominent scientists, who were the founders of various fields of science, were actually believers.

Their belief in God was an integral part of their scientific research. So, Newton, for example, said that, O Father, I think thy thoughts are many. That means he saw his scientific discoveries as spiritual insights into how God had fashioned the universe.

So, basically, now, this is some appreciation for these scientists was already there in my consciousness. But I saw in this, this is connectable with Krishna. So, it's like getting something new into our consciousness, which is rightly Krishna-centered.

The second is, what is already there in our consciousness, we see some Krishna dimension to that, spiritual dimension of that, which we didn't know. The second one is, why karma is given preference to Gyana in different places of Mahabharata? Karma yoga is given preference to its context. In the context of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna has a plan for the world and his plan involves establishing Dharma for which Arjuna is needed to fight.

So, in that context, Krishna recommends Karma Yoga, much more than Gyana Yoga, or even Dhyana Yoga. But if we consider, when Krishna speaks Uddhava Gita to Uddhava, after he himself is about, after the whole Dwaraka has disappeared, and he is himself about to disappear, at that time, Krishna says, Bhakti is the best, but you cannot practice Bhakti, Gyan is a better way. Gyan is better than Karma, because there the focus is on renouncing the world.

So, it depends on context. It says, there is some young devotee, who has been trying to do some services, and they are not worked out, and that devotee gets frustrated, and that devotee says, OK, you know, I'll just go to Vrindavan, I'll live under some tree, I'll chant 128 rounds every day, and that's how I'll spend my life. And they say, OK, maybe not, that's not required.

Try some other service, and maybe don't aim for too big success, even if you get a small success, which I respect that. But stay engaged, this is, you are young right now. Engage yourself in service.

Now, say somebody who is a book distributor, or somebody who is a preacher, and they get cancer, they try various treatments, and the cancer is terminal, they have only a few months to live. And they say, OK, you know, I'll continue traveling and giving classes, I'll continue traveling distributing books, I'll call them in my name. You may appreciate the spirit of service, but you see, you know, maybe it's better right now for you to go to Vrindavan, surround yourself with devotees, stay in a spiritual atmosphere, rest your life long.

Now focus on giving your consciousness as many spiritual supports around you as possible. So depending on context, different devotees may be given different advices. So, in the context, Bhagavad Gita is much more a world affirming book.

It's a spirituality can be both world transcending and world transforming. Depending on context, transcending means, the world is going to be as it is, Dukkhalaya is not going to change. So don't bother about changing the world, just focus on transcending the world.

World transforming means, you know, Krishna is concerned about the world. Krishna wants to establish Dharma in the world. Lord Chaitanya wants his whole world to be spread.

So we have to play a part in that. World transforming. So, the Gita is much more of a world transforming book.

The Uddhav Gita especially and Bhagavatam in general. Bhagavatam is spoken to Parasharath Maharaj, who has already accepted that I am going to die. He has accepted that I am cursed and I am going to die.

And he decided not to fight against the curse. And he has given wisdom accordingly. Four questions.

First thing, Krishna consciousness means, bringing Krishna into our consciousness. And second, what is your consciousness? Krishna. So, it is also related to we have seen in Sadhana Bhakti, there is a caveat in that between bringing Krishna into our consciousness.

Sadhana Bhakti. And chanting and all that. And when you do Gita, Bhakti Seva, in this world, that is like bringing what is in our consciousness.

Seva is Okay. Yes. It is like say, somebody has architectural knowledge.

And they decide, okay, now I want to make a model, a plan, what do you call it, blueprint? What does the architect make before? Blueprint. What does the architect's model call it that they make before? Blueprint. Okay, whatever it is.

Whatever, some word I forget. Whatever, the architect makes a model. This is how we will construct a temple.

So, the knowledge of architecture is already there in their mind. Now they are bringing it to Krishna. Somebody knows AI.

He says, okay, can we use AI to share the wisdom of the Bhagavad Gita. So, you already have knowledge of AI. What is in our consciousness, we try to bring it to Krishna.

Both ways. The second is, like you said, in our journaling, two things are there, competitors and pointers. So, we have to convert our competitors to pointers.

We have to convert competitors to pointers. Competitors and pointers. So, can all competitors be converted to pointers? It depends on a particular person's adhikar.

Not all competitors can be. So, some, we just have to keep a distance based on time, place, circumstance. So, when when a courtesan, a prostitute came to Haridas Thakur, he was able to convert her.

For most people, that level of temptation will be very difficult for them. So, it's better to keep a distance from that. So, we have to see our adhikar, not all competitors can be converted.

The third is, you said the journaling is not for instructing. It is not only for instructing. Instruction can be given, but that should come as a natural evolution.

First, it is a place for us to express ourselves. See, there is, you know, there is, when we talk about a self or other, we often talk about healthy relationships, you know. So, we have a relationship with ourselves.

Now, that relationship can, if there is only self-acceptance. I saw, I was in America in one college, I saw one boy in a t-shirt, he says, I am perfect as I am. Well, you can say that you know, I am valued as I am, I am valuable as I am.

If I say I am perfect, then you have already attained a plateau. There is nothing to improve your life. So, if there is only self-acceptance, that will lead to stagnation.

You will not move, you will not improve at all. But, if there is only self-improvement, that means, you know, this area I need to improve, this area I need to improve, this area I need to improve. If you are always thinking only of improving, then there will be suffocation.

It's like, you know, if say, wife's birthday is there and husband says today, on your birthday, I will give you a gift, that will change your life forever. Really? We are married for 20 years, in the last 20 years, all the faults that I have observed in you, I will tell that to you. So that you can improve on all those faults and you can become a better person.

You know, that may be the last birthday wishes that the husband offers to his wife. If there is only focus of self-improvement, it just becomes suffocating. So basically, there has to be both.

That, you know, we accept ourselves and then we improve ourselves. So now, some aspects we accept. This is where I am, this is good, this is valuable.

And we need to feel, we need to feel positive about ourselves as we are right now. Too much negativity about ourselves is not healthy. But too much positivity is also complacency.

So my point is that, each one of us, generally, is a place where we can get self-acceptance. Because, there are many feelings we have which we should not be having. Maybe we feel jealous of somebody's success and we don't get that kind of success.

Maybe, we feel some desires which we know we should not be feeling. Those are there within us. Now, maybe we don't have close friends and we cannot tell that to others because we will be embarrassed, we will be judged, we will be condemned.

So there are many things within us which are not things which we are proud of. But then, we have to, first of all, accept that this is there. We have to understand, why do I feel like this? And then we can address it.

The first thing somebody says, how can you think like that? The only thing that will come is, why did I ever think I should have asked this question to you? You will never ask the question. So, generally, there has to be a place which is like a safe space for us to be able to express who we are and to accept ourselves for who we are. And then, after that, we can talk about improving ourselves.

Like, you know, my talk yesterday was strongly about the gratitude journal. It should not be a list of what we should feel grateful for. It is what I do feel grateful for.

Because what happens is, sometimes, the gratitude journal, as I said, the purpose is that we should have a source of positivity with us when life gives us a lot of negativity. But, sometimes, the gratitude journal itself can become a source of negativity. Why? Because it can become just a record of all the things that I should be feeling grateful for but I don't feel grateful for.

And then, anyway, I am feeling bad in life and then I further feel bad that I have done a grateful person. So, gratitude cannot be fostered by making ourselves feel dreadful for not feeling grateful. You are getting the psychological complexity over here? I don't feel grateful.

So, I am such a dreadful person that I don't feel grateful. And then, after that, what happens is, there is no grateful, there is only dreadful remaining. So, that's why, we cannot be too caught in just legislating our emotions.

When we see a complete death to Krishna, when we are actually converting into God, what is the way actually? After identifying, we are actually instructing ourselves how we should connect. Identifying and accepting. Understanding.

No, no. Identify and understand. Okay, why do I do like this? Like I said, what does this need? Which need is this fulfilling for me? Okay, why am I doing this? Maybe it's because I feel bored.

Maybe it's because I feel this. What are the healthier ways to address that boredom? What are the healthier ways to address that loneliness? And then, am I making those means easily available for myself? And if those means are available, then why am I not choosing it? So, just telling ourselves what we should do, if information alone were enough for transformation, all of us would be transformed, isn't it? Isn't it? So, the fact is, information alone is not enough. Information or instruction.

So, there has to be some understanding. And journaling is a process for getting that self-understanding. And then after that, we can remind ourselves of the things that we need to do.

So, maybe what we could do is, we'll finish a few questions and then we'll have a little break. And I'll talk a little bit about teaching and then we can have a journaling exercise and then we'll conclude this. Okay? So, how many questions do we have? Three, I think.

Hi, Krishna. Hi, Krishna. Actually, I asked you about this but somehow couldn't convince anybody.

You couldn't convince anybody or nobody could convince you? They gave a nice answer but somehow it is not fitting. So, Krishna, why, like, since there are 18 chapters, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and then Karma Yoga, so why Bhakti Yoga comes in the center? Either it should have been ascending or just like a yoga ladder it was. So, why Bhakti Yoga, Krishna has already described Bhakti Yoga and then it comes, again it falls to Jnana Yoga.

So, somehow I'm not able to understand this very well. Well, I think I mentioned yesterday that the Gita is not like a structured class. It's a natural discussion.

It's like a podcast. Different questions come up and we have different discussions at that time. So, within the flow of the Gita, Arjuna raises questions associated with the path of Jnana at a particular point.

And then Krishna answers those questions. So, in one sense, Krishna's message ends by the Chatur Shloka Gita. And then after Chatur Shloka Gita 10.11, after that Arjuna also says that Param Brahma Param Dharma, I accept everything that you say.

You are the ultimate reality. After that, it's all supplementary questions. So, the whole Jnana section starts from 13th chapter because Arjuna asks questions about the terms.

Purusha, Prakrti, you are there in the morning, I presume. Purusha, Prakrti, Jnana, he asks those questions. And that's how Krishna elaborates.

So, it's an organic or natural discussion going on. And it's not that Krishna, when he's planning the discussion, he's saying, okay, this is the Karma section, this is Jnana section. Krishna is only addressing Arjuna's question.

What is the right thing to do? What is Dharma? And the whole discussion builds up as the topic goes forward. Krishna is speaking something, Arjuna has some questions. Krishna, when you are speaking, Arjuna has some supplementary questions.

So, in the subsequent book that has come up, then our Acharyas have seen these sections. Now, maybe that is Krishna's plan. We don't know that.

But that's how the book is right now. So, it is that Krishna talks of Bhakti. After Krishna has given the Bhakti overview, Arjuna has some further questions.

And because Krishna has already spoken about Karma, so Arjuna does not have much questions about Karma. Because Krishna has not spoken about Jnana, so Arjuna has questions about Jnana. And because Jnana is also an important part of the worldview that Arjuna is aware of at that time, so Krishna seeing that, gives an elaborate answer to the questions on Jnana.

And then he brings it back to the conclusion that Bhakti is the most important thing. So, it's not that it's a progression. It is a progression.

It is like, if you want to consider 18 chapters, 1, 2, 6, 12, and then 18. So, basically it is like Karma Yoga through Dhyana Yoga to Bhakti Yoga. Now, in the middle 6 chapters, it is largely Bhakti Yoga.

Now, of course, you can go into sequence of how Bhakti Yoga, 7 chapters talks about how somebody can go from a seeker to a perfectionist, perfectionist Bhakti Yoga. Now, in the middle 6 chapters, it actually starts from Dhyana Yoga and ends in Bhakti Yoga. So, in that sense, the Gita is centered on Bhakti.

But Krishna brings the message of Bhakti from different perspectives into the highlight. Yes. So, we are studying about what is the right thing to do.

The pointer is to harmonize ourselves to Krishna as well, to serve Krishna. And while we are doing that, very often we don't know what Krishna wants. I think Arjuna was fortunate Krishna.

But when we are faced with dilemmas in life, how do we know what does Krishna want at that moment? And very often we think of following the right principles. Like we discussed about four regulative principles. But then we also learn that in different context and intent, you have flexibility there.

So, if you are serving Krishna, then in that cause, you may have to choose violence at certain points. You may have to choose lies. And that could be the reason why people misuse religion for doing a lot of bad things.

And we could also deceive ourselves. And we may not even know it. I mean, I could say I am running a business and I am going to devote my, you know, the native profits to this movement or charity.

And I could be going about and harming the environment or lying and saying that, hey, all the profits are still going to charity or to this movement. Is that the right thing to do? And if not, at that moment… I'll give you a simple example. My sales and marketing team would say that, hey, we can exaggerate a little bit about the benefits that customers will get from our product.

Our competitors are doing that. So we need to stand out about them. So let us do that.

And I always feel uncomfortable about it, but let's say if I say, okay, I'm going to be donating the benefits to spirituality or charity, then that's okay, I can lie. Is that acceptable? Just like there's a big controversy about Yudhishthira Dany in the name of the larger cause of establishing order. But was there a better way than… I mean, was there absolutely no other way for them to win the award other than him lying? Because that creates confusion.

Because we don't have direct access to God's voice. Yeah, right. Important point.

First is that, did Arjuna have access to Krishna? Well, yes, he definitely had access to Krishna. But the whole Gita was spoken so that there is a process of reasoning available where the direct access of Krishna on Krishna, of Krishna, direct access to Krishna, even when it is not available, we have a process of reasoning that we can follow. Like I mentioned, if Krishna had wanted to just, you have to do my will, he could have just said, I am God, obey me, fight, the Gita is over.

He could have done that. He doesn't do that. And we also talked, that poetry which I said in the evening, in the previous session, that Arjuna didn't have access to Krishna.

And Krishna had departed from the world. At that time, what did he do? He remembered the message of the Gita and he felt the presence of Krishna. So, you know, the Gita's message, it is not that, it is not saying Krishna's personal presence is the way to know Krishna's will.

That is not the message of the Gita. It is more that we use our intelligence according to principles to determine the best course of action. And even without Krishna telling Arjuna, specifically at the end, even before that, Krishna had, through a process of philosophical reasoning, pointed out how the path of bhakti and harmonizing with his will is the best.

So we have to use a, I think I addressed this question yesterday, how God's will is not necessarily one narrow path. It is a broad direction. So that principle is there about determining God's will that it doesn't have to be one thing to do.

It can be one broad direction. Now, with respect to the idea that for God's, because we are doing something for God's sake, can we bend some of the rules? So there are two distinct things over here. One is the philosophy of the idea that ends justify the means.

And the ends, because these are the ends that we are pursuing, so it justifies the means. So this is, for example, the excuse used by religious extremists, Islamic terrorists, for example, they say that the cause of establishing Allah's kingdom is so glorious that if some innocent people are killed for that sake, that cost is okay. So, now, any religious tradition can use this and it has unfortunately been used.

Is this a blanket truth? Certainly not. It's not that the ends justify the means as a blanket reality. If that had been the point, like I said in the 12th chapter, Krishna says, which kind of devotee is dear to him? A devotee with virtues.

Remember yesterday I discussed in the 12th chapter that Krishna is talking about that devotee who is dear to him who sees the behavioral qualities of that devotee, not the devotional qualities. This is, one who is kind, one who is cultured, one who is regulated. So this was the diagram I discussed about how there is devotion and then there is virtue.

And how Krishna recommends this quadrant where a devotee also has. Now Krishna may accept even a devotee who does not have virtue. Krishna accepts even these devotees.

But Krishna celebrates. Krishna delights in devotees who have virtues. Krishna cherishes several cherishes these devotees.

So ethics is a very important part of the teaching of dharma and of bhakti. And ethics is not generally to be flouted. So having said this, now I also said that there is this whole process of reasoning, what is the right thing to do? There is the content of the action, there is the intent, and then there is the consequence.

Now all three factors need to be considered and this particular form of reasoning applies universally. It is not just for devotional purposes. That means it is not just that the consequences that I am serving Krishna, so therefore I can do whatever I want.

In general, in every field, we apply this. That life is always about making trade-offs. Many times in life there are no perfect solutions.

There are only tolerable trade-offs. If I take this job, then that means that maybe I have to spend more time on the job. But then I have less time with my family, I have less time.

But maybe I tolerate that because maybe I need more money, I have debts, I have this, this, that. So it's a trade-off. Very few times in life we actually get solutions.

That in general, when we say that life is a place of distress, life situations, whatever we may face, actually solutions, they are rare. But solutions especially, perfect solutions, they are very, very rare. What we do have is tolerable trade-offs.

This is what is much more common. So if I do one thing, then this is a plus-minus of that. If I do the second thing, there's a plus-minus of that.

It's very rare in life that one option has all pluses and the other option has all minuses. So we have to see, okay, this plus comes with these minuses, this plus comes with these minuses. Which is better over there? So in that sense, considering that holistic picture is what is required in every area of life.

And so coming to your specific point, there's a tension between idealism and realism. Now this tension is intrinsic to education. Say for example, if we have children, then we'll train our children to speak the truth, not speak lies.

That's important value to teach to our children. But at the same time, we also have to teach our children that sometimes people tell lies. Isn't it? So idealism is, never tell lies.

Realism is, people do tell lies. If we don't, if we give only an idealistic education to our children, never tell lies. And then those children don't realize that, okay, I don't tell lies, but that is not going to stop the world from telling lies.

And they will be cheated, they will be manipulated. So whether education should be about how the world should be, or whether education should be about how the world is. Within the philosophy of education itself, there is this tension.

The world as it should be versus the world as it is. Now, if all of education is only about the world as it is, then our children will never learn any values. But if all education is only about how the world as it should be, then the children may have values, but the children may not have what we call as street smarts to actually face life in the world.

So there is that tension. So the Gita acknowledges that we don't live in an ideal world. And sarvarambha hi doshi na dhume nathini bhavata.

It says that every endeavour is covered by fault, just as fire is covered by smoke. So, now Arjuna as a volunteer doesn't want to fight. He certainly doesn't want to fight against his relatives.

But he has to. It's a painful duty. He has to do it.

So, basically you know whenever any analysis is to be done, anybody can do a single factor analysis. And that can easily be a biased analysis. Now there is a multi-factor analysis.

Reality is always complicated. For example, when I was in America, there was a question that came three, four, five times to me that is India becoming a Hindu intolerant country, that not only did we build a temple by destroying a mosque, but the whole country celebrated the building of a temple after the destruction of a mosque. And that was the teller of articles in New York Times, in Washington Post, in Guardian, all those places.

Now you could just take that one particular say, and yes, now what kind of religion celebrates? The country, the Prime Minister himself goes and celebrates the building of a temple where a mosque has been destroyed. And looking only at that picture, in Ayodhya itself, in that same area, there are eight other mosques in that broad area. And not one of them was ever threatened or destroyed.

So, the point is that you could just look at a single factor, and it's a very narrow analysis. So, we need to look at multiple factors. Okay, this mosque was destroyed, why was it destroyed? It was because at that place already there was a temple and the mosque was destroyed.

So, single factor analysis is often done by people, either they are intentionally blinded, they are intentionally blinded themselves, or unintentionally they are blinded themselves. So, reality involves multi-factor analysis, always. So, similarly, the content of the action, we cannot decide what is right and wrong, simply based on that one factor analysis.

I am speaking the truth, and that's all there is to it. So, this is the way we function in the world. And, say, with respect to your specific question about, say, exaggerating the benefits of the products.

Well, there are certain ways in which the world functions, at particular times and particular places. That may not be ideal things, but that's the way the world is. So, if we don't go that way, say, for example, now, we, as spiritualists, we learn to be humble.

Now, but if someone wants to apply for a job, in their CV, they can't be very humble. Isn't it? They have to promote themselves. They have to, in one sense, not only state their qualifications, but they have to load their qualifications.

Now, if they don't do that, they may not even be considered. Now, does that mean that's wrong? Well, if things are done in a particular way in the world and there is no other way to do those things. It's not that there is absolutely no other way.

You could still do it. Well, maybe you could, but does one want to become a champion or a martyr for that cause? Somebody may want to, but somebody may not want to. So, my understanding of realism, the way Gita explains it, is that every endeavor is covered by fault.

So, now, that does not mean we deliberately increase the fault. That doesn't mean we make it our mission to eradicate the fault. So, we have to make our, we have to choose our patterns.

So, some devotees, say, if somebody, a devotee is working in a government office, where there is some corruption going on. Now, the devotee may stick out and say, I am not going to do corruption. Okay, that's good.

But then, there is a whole racket of corruption going on and this one person stands out, that person becomes a threat for everyone else. And the whole system may come together and frame that person. And then that person will become persecuted by that.

Maybe that person is transferred to some god-forsaken place or whatever. Now, maybe if they have that strong zeal to be a crusader against corruption, that's fine. Can a devotee do that? Definitely can do that.

But does a devotee have to do that? A devotee may decide that actually, okay, I am in this position. It's not that a devotee, certainly a devotee should not go out of the way and aggravate the corruption. But if that's the way the things work and one may decide that, you know, I don't have the resources right now to fight against the system.

But within the system, I try to be as clean as I can be. And we could fight greed at that level because corruption is caused by greed. We could fight by greed at the institutional level by preventing corruption in the system.

But a devotee may also say that, actually by my own practice of bhakti, in this particular position in the government, if I talk about bhakti to others, if I inspire others to practice bhakti, that is addressing greed at its roots. And maybe that's a more effective way of addressing. Is it necessarily a more effective way? Maybe it is, maybe it is not.

But I am saying that these are considerations that a devotee will have. So we all have to choose our battles. So there has to be a balance between idealism and realism.

So we all have certain principles about which we would like to be idealists. And there are certain situations about which we ourselves may agree to be realists. Nobody can be idealist in every single principle.

Like in science, when we make measurements, we all have certain area of tolerance. It's that, okay, this measurement is accurate up to centimetres. At certain elemental level, it might be slightly wrong.

So that is, there is a tolerable range over there. So we all have certain values where we do understand our compromise. But certain values will be non-negotiable.

So which will be negotiable, which will be non-negotiable, that person may vary from person to person. So I think we all have to choose our battles. I've been looking for a certain rule of thumb, but not that I get realism.

Other than for serving Krishna, but Yes, I would say serving Krishna, but it is, what does serving Krishna mean? It means that my consciousness should be elevated and others' consciousness should be elevated as well. Serving Krishna can just be like a it's like a top, it's like a, what do you call it, like icing on the top of the cake or just a top filling that you do. It's not an afterthought.

Okay, whatever I do, I just serve Krishna as an afterthought. It's not like that. It's that serving Krishna means I understand that I'm doing this for a higher purpose and my entire consciousness is being uplifted.

So for some people, fighting some battles is what elevates their consciousness. And for some people, getting into some battles is what degrades their consciousness. And then it has to decide, say for example, in the Bhagavad Gita itself, in 1841 to 45 roughly, Krishna talks about the different varanas and he says when he's talking about brahmanas, he says the quality is kshama, forgiveness.

But when he talks about kshatriyas, he says the quality is yudhe chaapya apalaya. That means if there is a confrontation, don't flee from the confrontation. These are opposite virtues.

If there is a confrontation, just forgive. If there is a confrontation, don't flee from the confrontation. Now a simplistic meaning of this could be never run away from a fight.

That's a physical fight. But there are so many other confrontations that we face. So there are different people with different values.

So a person who is of a more brahminical orientation, that person gets into a dogfight and says, you know, why did I get involved in this? I would much rather study scripture and teach scripture. I don't want to get into this. And somebody who is a kshatriya who has that particular disposition, if they back out from a fight, that's okay.

How could I have been a coward like that? Why didn't I have the guts to fight? I should have stood up for it. So each person has to find out which fight, actually fighting which battle gives them energy and fighting which battle saps their energy. And based on that, we choose our battles.

I got the answer. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. So if somebody has done bad to us, yeah, so then it is that we have to sometimes forgiveness itself takes time.

See forgiveness has three different aspects to it. There is the intention to forgive, there is the emotion of forgiveness and there is the action of forgiveness. Now to some extent the intention is in our control.

Maybe the action is in our control also. So intention basically means I don't want to hold grudges, I don't want to keep replaying what this person did to me all the time in my mind. Now the action may be some type that okay you know we may write a letter of forgiveness to that person or whatever.

I remember one devotee at one place, one senior devotee had spoken very hurtfully to him and he attended a seminar on forgiveness and then he wrote a letter saying that you know I basically said I forgive you and he went and gave that letter to that senior devotee and that devotee read that letter and he said I forgive you for having the audacity to think that I need your forgiveness. So basically that person didn't even have that awareness that I had done something which had hurt this person. So sometimes the action may backfire.

So what action would be appropriate that's up to us. Sometimes we may write a letter of forgiveness but we never send that to that person because that person may not even think that they have done something wrong. But then the emotion, this is not in our control.

It takes time. See basically when you talk about the emotion of forgiveness, it's like there's a wound in our subtle body, in our mind. Now if there's a wound in our body, physical body, now we can't put a rule, okay oh wound, heal it yourself now.

It will heal in its own time and it has to be given time. If somebody has a fracture, the fracture may take three weeks, six weeks, two weeks and you have to give that time. So similarly emotional wounds take their time to heal and then we have to give that time to ourselves and maybe during that time we have to keep a distance from the other person.

Maybe we have to ensure that whatever rekindles that wound that we are not exposed to that. So if we can't forgive, that means that emotion is not coming, then there have to be some boundaries that protect us at least from rekindling the wound, okay. Thank you for your wonderful sessions.

I want to make a compliment that in today's class I am feeling that I am already explaining desire. So you have seen in the last class that who is desiring but next point you make that this is so. And when you were explaining upside down trees, I was thinking that shadow is not reality but what is it.

So but you explained that this is upside down. In this way I am finding that you are making dialogue to my mind. You are making dialogue to my mind.

You are speaking to his mind. Oh, okay. Okay.

So is the desire coming from the soul? Well, not necessarily all the time. Krishna uses the very interesting compound word in 270 Dalai Veda. What does this mean? It literally means don't be a desirer of desire.

Now what does being a desirer of desire mean? So there what Krishna is using the word desire in two senses. One is what comes inside us. That is a proposition.

Now the proposition it comes inside us that can come from the world or that can also come from the mind. That means from outside we are passing by somewhere and we see some food. I want to eat this.

It's a proposition coming from the world. Or the proposition can also come, you know, we do not have much to think about it. Suddenly we remember something.

Oh, that time I ate this food and it was so nice. Can I get this food somewhere nearby? Then we go somewhere to buy that food. So that's a desire coming from inside also.

So these desires, when they come as a proposition, this is from outside. Outside can mean from the soul's perspective, even the mind is outside. I hope this is clear.

If this is the soul, then for the soul, the mind is outside the soul. Although the mind is inside us from our body's perspective. And then there is the body.

And then beyond that there is the world. So the desire can come from here or the desire can come from the body itself. The desire can come from the mind also.

So the body means that, you know, we have all biological drives. The desire comes from there. So basically, the desires can come from outside in.

But then, say when the desire comes from outside in, Krishna says nakama kami. So the first kami is a proposition. And the second is intention.

That means proposition is outside in, intention is inside out. So the example is, in a ocean, the river comes in. But then the water doesn't flow out because the ocean is so big.

But if the ocean is not that big, if it's a small pond, water comes in, then water will flow out in various directions. So not all desires that we have necessarily come from the soul. Some desires may just come from the body-mind machine or they come from outside and just accept it.

Now generally, if say, if say you ask me, would you like to have some sweet rice? Now, OK, there I clearly know that you are from outside giving me the desire and then I will let you do I want it or I don't want it. That's outside in. But when my mind says we want to eat some sweet rice, then it's coming from inside only.

And we may not even discern the difference. So that's where attachment is coming. When we are very attached to something, it's like a proposition comes in and immediately we say yes.

I give the example of Bollywood, that comes as autocomplete. B type, it becomes autocomplete. For some people, Bollywood.com may not even be autocomplete.

That will be their homepage only. So that means as soon as the desire comes, yeah, why not? Of course, no question also about it. So it is some desire may be very uncritically, unthinkingly accepted by us.

They are not our desires. They are the mind's propositions, but they are almost immediately accepted as our intentions. But some propositions, our mind will come up with crazy propositions also.

You know, this person talks too much. This class has been going on for so long. Maybe we should go and turn off the mic only.

This person will shut up. Okay. Maybe that proposition comes up.

But maybe we say that is not a very reasonable proposition. I should not do this. So when something is outlandish, then outlandish is quite outrageous or strange, then we think about it, we may or may not do it.

But the point is, many of our desires do come from the mind. But there are higher desires, which do not come from the mind. So even if they come from the mind, it is the soul that accepts it.

So at our level, if I get the desire, you know, okay, tomorrow I want to fast. Now, is that desire coming from the soul? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it is coming from my intelligence.

You know, okay, it is a good, I also need to do some tapasya, it is a good opportunity for tapasya, purifying. So I do it. So rather than worry too much, if the desire is coming from the soul or not, we should focus on whether the desire is good for the soul or not.

Because if you start getting into analysis, which desire is coming from the soul, it is very difficult to figure that out. But based on our understanding of Shastra, we can understand which desires are good for my soul. This will be uplifting for my conscience, this is purifying for me, this will be awakening for the soul.

So let me accept it. Now, suppose we get the desire to chant extra hours, suppose we get the desire to do some more kirtan, read some more Shastra, is that desire coming from the soul? Possibly. It is, suppose we have natural attraction, it could be coming from the soul, it could be coming from our intelligence.

Sometimes it may be even coming from our mind. Because even in bhakti, maybe our mind likes certain things. But doesn't matter.

So when it comes to desires, when we have to evaluate desires, don't focus so much on their source. Focus more on their destination. That means, where will these desires take me? If this desire is taking me closer to the self-realization, this desire is taking me closer to Krishna, then accept that desire.

If that desire is going to take us away, then don't accept it. So I have another question that you are explaining renunciation and frustration. So I find myself in frustration, so how to, can it be just normal? Okay, so I said renunciation and frustration are different.

And renunciation is like fasting, frustration is like starving. So now for many people, frustration is the beginning of spiritual exploration. If you had, Prabhupada gives one lecture and it's mostly hippies are there in the audience.

And he says, I know all of you hippies are not very much appreciated in American society. People say all of you are frustrated. And he says, I appreciate you.

He says, human life is meant to be frustrated. And then Prabhupada says, he says, when will you do spiritual inquiry? When you are frustrated is material inquiry. Isn't it? Material inquiry is, you know, when will I get better food? When will I get a better dress? When will I find a more attractive sexual partner? Now, there are material inquiries.

When we realize, hey, this is just exhausting. This is not very fulfilling. Then we may look to some spiritual inquiry.

So frustration may very often be the beginning of spiritual inquiry. But over a period of time, it is sustained. There needs to be some positive attraction towards the spiritual.

If we are exploring the spiritual, only because we are fed up with the material. Then what will happen is over a period of time, we may even become fed up with the spiritual. Because problems are there everywhere.

Even when we go on the spiritual path, there can be misunderstandings among devotees. There can be some challenges and obstacles in the service that we want to do. So frustration will be there also.

Then, okay, then we will give the spiritual also and maybe go somewhere else. So eventually, we need to have some sufficient attraction, develop the spiritual. That will help us keep moving forward in spite of the frustration.

So basically, from frustration with the material, I can lead to exploration of the spiritual. And this is good. But if you want to keep exploring the spiritual, then there has to be some attraction to the spiritual.

Otherwise, there are two possibilities. One is that there is frustration in the spiritual. That could be an obstacle.

And the second could also be that there is no more frustration with the material. Then we think, hey, material things are also good. Maybe the economy is bad and I am getting a job, so I become a brahmachari.

And then after that, the economy changes. So we cannot be frustrated. Frustration can be a starter for the spiritual journey.

But frustration cannot be the sustainer. So to have the sustaining, we have to find something positive in the spiritual domain, which will keep us attracted. Okay, this is the last question.

My question is like there are some school of thoughts who accuse ISKCON that this world's free will is something which ISKCON has reduced. It's no more mentioned in the world data. And it is under the influence of agnostic religions.

So how to answer that? Because we see that the Lord asks us to surrender so that there is no free will. But nowhere is there a word of free will mentioned in the world data. Well, if you start going into specific terms, in the entire Bhagavad Gita, nowhere the word avatar is used.

You can say it's used in other scriptures, that is true. But nowhere in the Bhagavad Gita is the word avatar used. But it is a very central part of our tradition.

Yatha Ichchasi Tatha Kuntam, 1863, the last word that Krishna speaks in that particular section before. Ichchitha Ichchasi, as is your desire. That is a very clear pointer to free will.

Now, is the term free will not used in the Bhagavad Gita? Well, there are so many terms in the Bhagavad Gita that are, so many terms which are in the broader Vedic tradition that are not used in the Bhagavad Gita. Avatar is one of them. There are many other terms like that for that exam.

So the entire, the whole path, the whole Bhagavad Gita is about Bhakti Yoga in many ways. But the word Bhakti Yoga comes only, the compound word Bhakti Yoga comes only once. Maam Chaiyor vichare na bhakti yogi nasevati.

Apart from that bhakti comes, bhaktiya mamayati, bhakta comes. But I don't think we can make a case for what is the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita simply based on which words are used, how many times and which words are not used, how many times. But going beyond that, to say that, you know, there are many, many thinkers nowadays who are trying to differentiate the Vedic teachings from Abrahamic, the teaching of Abrahamic religions.

And yeah, that's a, it's worth doing. But I think sometimes it just creates an artificial separation. Because ultimately, whether it's Abrahamic religion or this religion or that religion, humans across existence have tried to seek meaning in life.

You know, when I'm living, there are some fundamental questions that everybody has had. So are we saying that in the thousands and thousands of years that the Vedic tradition has existed, no thinker ever thought about freedom? That no thinker ever considered, do we humans really have freedom? All the thinkers throughout history in the Indian tradition, they were all so unanimous about this concept that they didn't even consider worth discussing it. And if that was a unanimous opinion, what is that unanimous opinion? I think that's a very superficial kind of differentiation to do.

It doesn't, it's not very constructive. Instead, what is much better is that, okay, the term may or may not be there, but underlying concept that do we have free will? Well, yes, we have free will. Is this conditioned? Of course, it is conditioned.

And depending on the mood that is influencing a person. Satvapona, there is much more free will. Vachapona, there is lesser free will.

Tamapona, there is even lesser free will. So, the whole framework of the moods is basically talking about the conditioning of the free will. So, the term conditioned.

Now, what is the exact Sanskrit equivalent of conditioning? Which is samskara? Maybe it's impressions. I don't think we can get too caught in terms. But the concept of free will is very much integral to the tradition.

So, thank you very much. So, I think it's already six o'clock. So, we had a journaling exercise yesterday and you already have the tools for journaling.

So, I think you can use those tools and see how you would like to move forward. And is Kriyachaitanya Prabhu here from outside? He is not here. So, can you call him? Whether he wants to make some announcements or something? You have his number? He called me up.

He is not here. He is not here. Okay, fine.

Okay. So, thank you very much for your enthusiastic participation throughout this journey as we explore the song of God. And I pray that Krishna bless all of you, bless all of us in fact, with a greater connection with him through his words and that the Gita become a part of our head and heart and guide us in our life journey through all the ups and downs of life.

So, Kriyachaitanya Prabhu is not here, so I'm sure all of us feel the same.