​Give people space to grow in their faith

​Bhagavatam class at Radha Vrindavanchandra Mandir, Pune

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna So I seek the blessings of the senior Vaishnavas especially of Sadashivoham Prabhu so that I can speak something today on the Bhagavatam Grateful to be here Almost once a year I have the fortune of coming here and try to share whatever little I have learnt about the Bhagavatam Here we are coming to the end of the Uddhava Gita The Uddhava Gita is the single biggest philosophical section from the Bhagavatam and Shri Bhakti Swami Raghuram considered it so important that he published it separately as a book with Vishwanath Ji Kavir Thakur’s commentary and his own sub-commentary on it and the particular verse which we are discussing today this verse is also quoted in the Chaitanya Chaitanya Amrit in the discussion between Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his devotees and here this chapter is called as Jnana Yoga and Krishna is giving the vision of a Jnani where the Jnani sees that in this world there is a bewildering amount of diversity that we see people with different looks, different forms different languages, different cultures and often this variety is dysorienting and in the path of Karma one focusses on trying to enjoy the good side of this variety so some people look good, some people don’t look so good some people speak very sweetly, others don’t speak so sweetly so within this variety whatever are the pleasing sensory manifestations those one tries to enjoy on the path of Karma on the path of Jnana one recognises that actually all this is simply a play of material nature Prakrutya Purusha Yena Cha so in Sankhya the material nature is basically divided into two parts there is Prakruti and Purusha and in this division which in modern times you would call as matter and consciousness there is the matter which is what is seen to us and underlying it, consciousness is not seen so Pashyam Ekatmakam Vishwam Ekatmakam Pashyam that is one sees that Ekatmakam there is only one kind of soul ultimately the soul is not diverse the soul is also not similar in their essential nature so when one sees that then how does one account for the variety that is there all around this Parasvabhava so the word Svabhava Bhava it is related sometimes with the word Bhavana which means emotion but Bhava also refers to nature so Svabhava means one’s own nature and Parasvabhava Karman so people have their different Svabhava and don’t naturally act according to their nature and therefore Na Prashamsena Na Garege different people behave differently don’t praise it, don’t criticise it this verse is from the point of view of a Gyani one who wants to focus on spiritual reality they need to see that the duality that is there in this world is not substantial now the Uddhavita progresses towards Bhakti and it ends with the call to Uddhava to surrender to Krishna that is clearly Bhakti but because the Uddhavita’s focus is on renunciation the whole Uddhavita if we contrast the Uddhavita and the Bhagavad Gita there is a significant difference in their context the Bhagavad Gita is spoken to a person whom Krishna wants to be engaged in war and that’s why he says that in the Bhagavad Gita the enduring message is act act in Karma Yoga or better still act in Bhakti Yoga whereas in Uddhavita the message is renounce renounce with Bhakti or if not, renounce with Gyani because Krishna is himself going to depart from the world and Uddhava has to renounce there is always a central essence to scripture and there is a context and the context is always going to vary and accordingly when the context varies the external things related to the scripture and their application have to change so here the topic I will take on this talk this verse is about actually I had just gone to Australia a few months ago and in Brisbane I had the same verse so I took a three part seminar on cultivating a non-judgemental attitude and after that seminar one Mataji locally from Bangalore she came and she was from a Shakta background Shakta Bengali background and she said that she had come from a very religious family and then she came to Australia with her husband and they saw there is a temple over there she came to the temple and she saw there was a Mataji making garlands she herself went to the religious impulse and started making garlands over there so some devotee came there and asked her do you eat meat? so she just nodded mutely and then that devotee just picked up the garland that she was threading hurled it on the ground and said you should not even touch the flowers that are going to be offered to the lord and she was completely shattered she went and ate deer and for many months she did not come back to the temple but later she met some other devotees who had little more understanding and now she is an initiated devotee so so she was telling the organisers of my programme afterwards that so I had spoken non-judgemental attitude she said your class actually spoke to my heart this is what I had felt that actually so many people who come to our movement get alienated because of a judgemental attitude now today the word non-judgemental has a particular connotation non-judgemental means the idea is that anybody can do anything and nobody should judge anyone about anything so now that is not the way the big problem this is nobody should judge anyone for example anything if I want to drink, I want to smoke, I want to have sex outside marriage before marriage, no you are no one to judge me I will do what I want, you do what you want they say no one should judge anyone but then they themselves people who claim to be non-judgemental they are extremely judgemental about those who are not non-judgemental that means they say there is no sin except the sin of being judgemental that means if everything is alright but as soon as you say something is not alright then you are not alright so it is just not possible to be absolutely non-judgemental we all live in the world and every morning when we wake up we have so many choices to make now should I do this or do that should I go here or go there should I act this way or should I act that way and for making these decisions we have some subconscious frame of reference which guides us say for example if I want to send an email to someone now normally I just open my email and I start typing it but actually before I type the message there are so many settings which are already made which font is going to be there what is the size of the font what is the kind of colour setting of the paper all these settings are already made now if each time I started typing a new email message I have to start what font, what font size, what background now so much of my time would go in deciding this itself that I would not be able to send the message itself so these are set by default and the reason why they are set by default is so that people can get on with other things like that we all have some world view and that world view is like our default setting all that we do and all that we perceive it is with that as the frame of reference in the background so just like in a message when we send, messages that are going messages that are coming, they are all in a particular font once that font has been sent so like that we all have a world view and within that world view we try to make sense of things and if things don’t make sense then we just push them in the background that’s what happens usually so we are not talking about non-judgemental in the sense of never making any judgments that is something which everyone has to do in terms of discernment, should I do this or should I not do this but the word non-judgemental also has another connotation of having a polier than thou attitude where I not only think that I am right and you are wrong but then I try to stamp it down in your face and push it down your throat and then that can be quite intimidating so here this verse states that so everybody has their so how and people are meant to people are going to act according to their nature in fact so Krishna says everybody acts according to nature and in fact he goes ahead and says even the wise act according to their nature and those who are free with knowledge they will also act according to nature so when people are going to act according to their nature now nature has many aspects to it one is in terms of our behaviours we all have certain habits different people have different habits which is what they act according to but nature also has another aspect to it which often we don’t think about that is our perceptions and opinions now it is our nature that determines how we perceive things and what opinions we have about things now usually we understand this point that if people have some conditionings then they may not be able to change their behaviour immediately they may not be able to give up their habit overnight but often that same applies even to people’s conceptions it is not that when we are sharing Krishna consciousness it is not that okay we give some logic and people understand and then it’s changed sometimes it may happen but quite often for people to change their opinions also takes a lot of time and so sometimes the brains don’t work when thoughts which are not familiar to their world view come to them and that’s why when people are people have to hold two contradictory ideas in their head they believed something throughout their lives and now they come to Krishna and they hear something else then when they are having two different things in their head that is in psychology it is called as cognitive dissonance now resonance means when two sounds come together and they produce a louder sound but dissonance means when two things produce opposite or contradictory sounds so cognitive dissonance means when people have just two contradictory ideas going on in their head and then so for example some people say this this this and scripture says this this how do I reconcile this so this goes through this is a simple example of cognitive dissonance and like that there can be many things which cause cognitive dissonance among people and during this phase the nature of human psychology is to minimise conflict so we want to even people who are quarrelsome they are externally aggressive so that they can quell the inner conflict internally there are two ideas they don’t want to have two ideas they speak one idea very loud and just try to hope to quell the inner noise which is opposing their ideas so at this stage it is like suppose we are here and we find there is a bridge to go across a river and we don’t know how good the bridge is so we may take one step forward and then watch does the bridge creak does there some dangerous sound which may indicate I am just going to fall down inside so then we say okay it doesn’t creak then we take one step forward so like that when our minds encounter something new at that time we can’t accept it immediately so we take one step forward and evaluate does this cause breakdown of things and gradually we take things forward so that accommodation of people as they are going through this dissonance that is important that is important for people to take their own decisions to choose Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita Arjuna concludes with so we see Bhagavad Gita earlier says that all our actions are done by material nature and yet it is Krishna who tells Arjuna as you desire so you do and then afterwards Krishna says I will do so Arjuna says I will do your will so although we say that our doership is determined by the modes the Bhagavad Gita says that but still the Bhagavad Gita concludes with a call for action a call for doership and Arjuna says I will do yes of course Arjuna is doing on behalf of Krishna but still there is a doership which is there so here the point is that the material nature determines the scope of our choices the modes that are influencing us they don’t determine our specific choice they determine the scope of our choices so for example yesterday I came to Pune so if I have come half the way to Pune now suddenly I cannot take one turn and find myself in Mumbai it will take me some time to go there if I have come to a particular place then I may have option I can go left I can go right I can go straight whatever so at a particular time I have a scope of choices but I am not forced to go in a particular direction so like that the modes they don’t determine our specific choice but they do determine the scope of our choices so when we have a particular swabhava when we have a particular nature that means the ambit of choices that are there for us they will be limited and we may not be able to choose something even if we want we are not able to intellectually process it we may not be able to practically apply it and we see that Prabhupada when he came to India at that time he had come from America where his western disciples had they had already rejected practically all of society and Prabhupada inspired them to take up Krishnamurthy so Prabhupada’s early followers all of his early followers were not hippies but many of them were so he said that they were already practising Saradharman Paritej so they did it to Prabhupada to tell him how to practise Mahamukam Shravanapraja so the hippies were said to be like rebels without a cause and rebels without a cause whatever they presented rebel against that rebel against that that was their whole mood at that time and when that happened Shyamavishya Prabhupada came and inspired and trusted their hearts and they surrendered to him now when Prabhupada’s disciples came back to India and started assisting him in his outreach now he found that so if you consider at that time most of the international society for Krishna Consciousness was devotees were given up everything else and they were living in the temples whether they were brahmacharis or brahstas whatever everybody was in the temple and then that was the model of Krishna Bhakti that they had in mind and when Prabhupada came to India the devotees started going and preaching and they found nobody was people were fascinated to see these western disciples but they were not ready to become committed so what did Prabhupada do? Prabhupada told Prabhupada created the life membership programme now what is this life membership programme? if we consider Krishna to be like the centre the standards of sadhana bhakti that we take in bhagavad gita they are like one circle and if you consider life membership it is like another very very big circle people don’t have to do anything they just have to simply give some mission and come to the temple whenever possible and Prabhupada created a collection created a collection with people I was in Adelaide and there one person came and he said he had his visiting card and a large number of certificates that was his own life membership that was the certificate he had on his visiting card so at that time when he was in India then he had immigrated to Australia so that was a custodious thing so what happens people want to have some sense of spiritual connectedness and if they are not ready to connect at a high level what did Sri Prabhupada do? Prabhupada’s businessmen were pious and they were ready to contribute through their Lakshmi and Prabhupada created a facility for them so we have one circle of dedicated devotees another circle of people who were not really dedicated in terms of wanting to immediately practise Bhakti very seriously but they had sentiments of Bhakti for Krishna because of which they wanted to contribute and Prabhupada facilitated their contribution now this with respect to financial terms because in living in this world requires this if we are going to run a spiritual organisation there are material resources that are required and this is something which we also do but the same latitude with respect to financial contribution that we have that similar latitude with respect to other things can also be required at times so that means if somebody has come from a linguistic background somebody has studied Sanskrit and then they come and now if they study our book they say okay this Sanskrit book why is this word translated like this why is this like this now they have come from a particular background and for them to understand and accept things will require time and a similar latitude needs to be given for people in that direction also so parasvava karma according to their own nature according to their own background people will come in different ways and when they come in different ways we don’t know what backgrounds they have what nature they have, what conditions they have what battles they have to overcome in order to come closer to Krishna so sometimes some idea is such an absurd thing who will believe such a thing but for somebody coming from another background that idea may be very difficult to believe this is what I always believed how can this be wrong so it is that what is a difficult thing for me may not be a difficult thing for anyone else and what is a difficult thing for someone else may seem very easy for me for example if a person is PhD Mathematics and then that person says you know the students have got exam Mathematics 1st standard 5 plus 7 is how much? this is child’s play but for the child it is not play so like that it is very easy for a person who is PhD Mathematics for a child it is quite difficult so based on because it is linear and we understand PhD Mathematics is higher and 1st standard is lower we can very easily accept this but for people who may be from a particularly different background to accept certain things from scripture may be very difficult and when those things are difficult we don’t have to make things even more difficult for them by demanding immediate faith or immediate adherence if you don’t accept this you are a doubter you are lost that a person is a doubter no happens in this life nor in the next life you are lost no so for example if you look at the 5th Kendo Cosmology this is something which causes many people to have a lot of hesitation and everything Bhagavatam does not have to be taken literally what do I mean by not literally? Bhagavatam is a work of poetry and if I consider it as a work of poetry then we have to see that different places, different poetic devices may be used or consider for that matter the Bhagavad Gita itself in the Bhagavad Gita we have in 2.69 Krishna says यानिशासर भूताना तस्यान जागते से यही यस्यान जागते भूतानी सानिशावपर्शितों ले so now if you say that what is night for all living beings is day for the self-realised what is day for all living beings is night for the self-realised now what does this mean? now if you say this has to be literal, you know actually day and night are same for everybody yeah so one creative interpretation, if you want to stick to literal, yes you know, when it is day in India it is night in America so all self-controlled people are in India, all self-gratified are in America so what is night for all self-gratified is day for all self-controlled people no, it is not like that if you look at the context Krishna is not talking about geographical time zones over there Krishna is talking about psychological patterns of thinking and basically, so day represents the sphere of activity or sphere of interest and activity and night represents the sphere of lack, disinterest and inactivity so what the self-gratified are interested in the self-realised people are not interested in that and what self-realised people are interested in the self-gratified are not interested in that so the Bhagavad Gita has many places where things need not and in fact cannot be taken literally so there are at least two places where Krishna uses the word Atmanash he says in 16.25 he says lust, anger, greed they destroy the soul and prior to that in 16.9 he says he says the atheistic world views destroy the soul now a fundamental teaching of the Gita is 2.710 the soul is never to be destroyed the soul is never to be destroyed so then why is Krishna saying that is because he is using that in a non-literal sense he is using it in a metaphorical sense metaphorical sense means that he is saying that the soul’s spiritual information soul’s capacity for spiritual understanding that is obscured that is lost so if you start taking everything literally we cannot want to speak of scripture even day-to-day conversations we don’t take everything literally in English there is a saying put your mouth where your money is what that means is don’t just talk big big things make financial commitment to doing the things but if somebody takes it put your mouth where your money is take the money and put it in the mouth that’s ridiculous so if there is the non-literal usage which is quite often there in scripture and so for example somebody has come from a very rational logical, scientific background and then they will approach scripture it is not that those people necessarily reject scripture even people who are very scientific they do recognise that the scientific world view itself does not provide any values science can tell us if you do this, this will happen so science can tell a young student if you put arsenic in your grandmother’s breakfast, you can get to her estate within one day but whether you should do it or not science cannot tell us that Albert Einstein Albert Einstein himself said that actually he was a Jew and he lived in Germany and he had to flee from Germany because of the Nazi persecution and the Nazis killed literally millions of people around 6 million Jews and 6 million Gipsies and others 12 million people in the Holocaust and he said that if I stick only to the scientific world view then I would have to believe that the Nazis acted the way they acted because of the genetic programming and I would not be able to hold them responsible at all so the that’s why Einstein said that we can have the scientific we can have the ethical we can talk about the ethical foundations of science we cannot talk about the scientific foundation of ethics we can talk about the ethical foundations of science is science being used ethically or is it being unethical but we cannot talk about the ethical foundations of science So, why I am talking about this right now is that many people who come from a scientific background, they come to scriptures because they understand, they come to spirituality in general, because they understand that the scientific world view is bankrupt of any values. It is not that scientists themselves may not have values, often scientists are also principled people. But their principles, what they have come, it is not that they have come from their scientific world view.
It is come from their upbringing, from their past, whatever it is. So, people when they want some values to their life, they come towards scripture. And if we consider scripture, scripture’s primary purpose is not to give us factual material knowledge of things in terms of what is what.
The primary purpose of scripture is to help us to attain Krishna. Yes, scripture will give us material knowledge also, no doubt. But that is not the primary purpose of scripture.
And so, when people come to scripture looking for values, looking for understanding life’s purpose, and then if they hear certain things which just seem too bizarre for them to believe. I will take two examples of this and then I will talk about a couple of examples about how Prabhupada dealt with that. So, consider for example, Chitra Ketu it is said he had 10 million wives.
Now, somebody takes this literally, he had 10 million wives. You know, anything is possible for Krishna. Yes, for Krishna anything is possible, but Chitra Ketu is not Krishna.
And at this particular time point in the story, Chitra Ketu is not even a yogi, not even a devotee, with all due respect to Chitra Ketu, he is not even able to beget one child. So at this point, so to ascribe to him mystical powers by which he can simultaneously expand into powers and be with 10 million wives, no, is that really necessary? See, every in the Chetan Charita Amrita, there is a verse in Chetan Mahaprabhu says, in Krishnacharya Upanishad, he says the great poets glorify Krishna using various figures of speech, such as Atishvayakti. Now, Atishvayakti is sometimes translated as exaggeration.
Now, actually exaggeration is not the appropriate translation. Exaggeration means, it is something, Hindi me bahut bada chala ke bolna. So, it is something is factors this much and we exaggerate it to a big thing.
So, the word exaggeration has a negative connotation to it. Whereas, Atishvayakti in Sanskrit has a positive connotation. So, to give an example of what I mean by positive and negative connotation.
See, if we say in English, to describe people, they are fat, we may call them stocky. Then we may call somebody thin and slim. Now, if you translate it many times, when I try to give a class in English, I have cognitive dissonance.
Sorry, when I give a class in Hindi, because I just cannot find the precise Hindi word. So, if you consider thin and slim, for Hindi, in Hindi, both of them will be dubla. But the word dubla has a negative connotation, which applies to thin, but it does not apply to slim.
Slim means attractively thin. So, Atishvayakti is an attractive exaggeration. It is not an exaggeration, which is meant to conceal the reality.
It is not an exaggeration, which is meant to be given just because somebody wants to attract attention. But it is an exaggeration, which is a poetic ornament. And that poetic ornament actually drives home the point forcefully.
So, for example, when the Bhagavatam says, So, the Lord is telling Arbhuni, that I do not reside in the Vaikuntha. I do not reside in the heart of the yogis. I reside where my devotees chant my glories.
Now, if we see, is it that Lord Narayan does not reside in Vaikuntha? He does reside in Vaikuntha. Is it that Lord Narayan does not reside in the heart of the yogis? He resides in everyone’s hearts, certainly in the yogis’ hearts also. So, the point of this verse is to stress that actually in these places, the Lord is not accessible to us.
But He becomes accessible to us when His glories are chanted. When devotees come together and glorify Him, then even people in Yantra can feel the presence of something special is happening. Some vibrancy people feel over there.
So, the point of this verse is not to exaggerate and say, Vishnu is not in Vaikuntha. It is a poetic ornament to drive home a particular point. So, similarly, when we are going back to the point of Chitra Ketu, see, every passage, Jiva Goswami writes in the Sandhya verse, that if you want to study the Bhagavatam, he says, or any scriptural passage, to understand its message, there is something called Tattparya Linga.
Tattparya Linga means the characteristics of meaning. How do we determine the meaning of a particular thing? So, he says, He says, what comes in the beginning of a passage? What comes in the beginning of a book? Or what comes in the beginning of a task? What comes in the beginning? What comes in the end? What is especially distinct? What is not spoken anywhere else? Abhyasa. What is repeated again and again? And what is given as pancha? Five things.
Look at these five things. What is spoken in the beginning? What is spoken at the end? What is repeated again and again? What is uniquely spoken? And what is the fruit that is promised? So, he says, if you look at these five things, we can understand the essence of any book. And this is a simple methodology.
If you want to talk about a class. If in the class, you want to know what is the topic, maybe at the right at the beginning of the class, the speaker speaks something. At the end, the speaker speaks something.
And what is repeated throughout? So, like that, we can, these five factors, we can apply them to a class to understand it. So, if you look at the Chitra Ketu pastime, there is no meaning. The point of that pastime is simply that material things cannot make one happy.
So, Chitra Ketu, after having so many wives, he could not get any son. And that is why he was not happy. And somehow, after that, he got a child, he got a son.
And then he lost the son. And even then, he was in greater misery. So, now we consider the starting and ending, the whole narrative.
The narrative’s purpose is to tell us that material things cannot make us happy. Now, for this, from this conclusion point of view, does it really matter whether Chitra Ketu had 10 million wives, specifically by number count? Or 10 million is taken as a poetic expression of a very large number of wives. Prabhupada himself, he in his purport, later on, he says Chitra Ketu had 100 million wives.
Hundreds and thousands of wives. So, Prabhupada is making general, hundreds and thousands. He does not say hundreds of thousands of wives.
It is not hundred into a thousand, hundreds of thousands. Hundreds and thousands of wives. So, Prabhupada does not take.
So, from the point of view of the conclusion of the story, the literal number is not very important. Another point from within the storyline itself, if we discuss, that it is said after he got a child from one wife, he started neglecting other wives. Now, that means that he was paying attention to all of them before.
So, now, if we calculate, if he had 10 million wives, what does paying attention to each wife mean? Even though it is a full-time, round-the-clock scheduled activity. So, now, of course, when I am saying that, this 10 million does not have to be taken literally. Yes, somebody made, somebody said, no, it is 10 million in scripture, I want to take it literally.
It is fine. Those who want to take it literally, they can take it literally. But for those who have difficulty in accepting it literally, there is no need to insist this.
There is no need to insist this, because that is not the central point of the story. And there are other parameters, as I said, from the context of the story, where this figure does not matter. So, this is with respect to the figure that 10 million.
So, especially when we are teaching our scripture, there is no need to highlight these phenomenal figures. These figures which are extremely difficult for people to understand and accept, there is no need to highlight these figures. Because the point of scripture is not to give us these figures.
The point of scripture is to teach us the essential lesson. And they say, no, but people do not have faith in scripture, and they should have absolute faith in scripture. Therefore, I will tell this.
Yes, that is fine. But we all have to choose our battles. Choose our battles means that, what is it that I am going to focus on? Say, if I am going to give a class to new people, and then do I want to have the whole class being an argument whether 10 million figure is literal or omnipotent? No, we have a message which is much more practically important, practically empowering.
And that is what people need to hear. So, we see this principle of choosing one’s battle throughout our tradition. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, when Haridas Thakur was not allowed into the Jagannath temple, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu decided not to choose that one, not to fight that battle.
He wanted Jagannath Puri to be his headquarters. And the caste Brahmins, they had a very powerful stronghold in Puri. But they accepted Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, they respected Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was accepting Haridas Thakur, embracing him and almost like venerating him, they did not interrupt him in that. But they did not allow him to come into the temple. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not bother about that.
He did not choose to fight that battle at that time. Bhaktivinod Thakur, when he was in the British government, if you see his writings are wide ranging on various topics. But he chose not to criticise the British government.
And the British government had given him a respectable position and using that position, he was able to bring in respectability for Gauriya Vaishnavas. And he focused on that purpose. So, at different situations, certain battles may be chosen, certain battles may be neglected.
And we cannot fight all battles. If we start fighting all battles, often we get caught in some battle which is not very important for us. So, Prabhupada adopts this in the first canto, I think the 10th chapter towards the end, when Krishna leaves Dwaraka.
Krishna leaves Hastinapura and goes to Indraprastha and goes to Dwaraka. At that time, there is a path described. Krishna went to this city, that city, that city, that city.
And while that is described, so Prabhupada says geologists may try to trace the exact path by which Krishna went. But he says the surface of the earth keeps changing. And that is why that is practically a very difficult, almost impossible task.
As far as we are concerned, we are happy that Krishna has reached Dwaraka and will now continue his pastimes in Dwaraka. So, there is no need. So, Prabhupada doesn’t make that into a big issue.
And even for us, when we have certain doubts, there are things which we cannot, we also come from a particular background, we may not be able to accept certain things. Then rather than letting our whole practise of bhakti depend on whether I can accept this or whether I can’t accept it, we just put them in a box of suspended judgement. Now, I won’t judge you.
I won’t say this is wrong, just because my scientific logical mind can’t make sense of it. But that is a part of me. I can’t just wish it away.
So, if I can’t accept it, let me put it aside. In future, understanding may emerge. So, with respect to Kanto cosmology, I will give you an example and I will conclude.
So, I wrote an article about this topic of what exactly is the Kanto cosmology, about how to understand this. After that, one devotee from Chennai, he is a PhD professor, he wrote that, he said, for last three years, I was just going through a big conflict. He said, I used to love come to a temple, chant and dance and sing and associate with devotees and speak about Krishna.
But as soon as I would hear about cosmology, you know, I would say, I would feel tortured. He said, after I read this article, I am feeling so renewed now. So, basically, I will make three points about cosmology.
That is a whole big subject. But again, the first point is that the Bhagavatam is not giving, is not a book on cosmology. The Bhagavatam is not primarily a book on cosmology.
There is a quote that Prabhupada also says, Shukadeva Goswami is not an astronomer. So, now the point is, if you look at Upakramo and Appasamahara, what is the beginning of the fifth Kanto, what is the end of the fifth Kanto? Now, the beginning of the fifth Kanto cosmology section has 15 chapters and the end has 25 chapters. The point of it all is, by contemplating this, one will be able to worship Lord Hari, with greater devotion.
So, the point of the Bhagavatam is to give a picture of cosmology, which is theistic, which is conducive for devotion. And the Bhagavatam does that with respect to various things. Cosmology is one thing.
In the third Kanto, it has done that with respect to Sankhya. And before that, in the second Kanto, it has done that with respect to Virat Rupa. So, basically, the Bhagavatam helps us to think about Krishna with respect to the cosmology.
So, those who have some knowledge of cosmology, the kind of cosmology that was there in the at that time when Bhagavatam was being spoken. How to see that spiritually, that is what the Bhagavatam is doing. The second point is that even in our tradition, our Acharyas have not taken the Bhagavatam’s cosmology literally or practically.
By what do I mean literally or practically? It means that, say, if Vishwanath Chakrathakur in the 10th Kanto talks about Krishna’s horoscope or say somebody talks about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s horoscope. At that time, for calculating the horoscope and its positions and its movements, cosmology is required. And even our Gaudiya Acharyas who are commenting on the Bhagavatam while doing astrological calculations do not use the Bhagavatam’s cosmology.
They use the Jyotishya cosmology. See, even within the Indian tradition, there have been, there is the Bhagavatam cosmology or the Puranic cosmology in general, which has been there. And Jyotishya Shastra, those who are astrologers, there is a whole different set of books called Jyotishya Shastra.
So, they use the Jyotishya Shastra for calculating the positions, the eclipses, calculating the various holy tithis. And this and this, the Puranic cosmology, or I could say Bhagavatam cosmology, the Bhagavatam cosmology and Jyotishya cosmology, these two do not match. And there is, nobody has, there have been thousands of years this has been going on and nobody has any idea how to match them.
Aryabhatta is one of the most prominent Indian mathematicians. And Aryabhatta has written almost 1300 years ago, several hundred years ago. In the Puranic cosmology, I do not know how to make sense of it.
So, for practical purposes, our Acharyas also use Jyotishya cosmology. Now, they accept the Bhagavatam cosmology, but they do not try to use the Bhagavatam cosmology for practical purposes. So, that means they are also aware of this contradiction.
And what do they do? They live with the contradiction. That means, when they are commenting on the Bhagavatam, every Acharya, if you look at Sridhar Swami, or you look at Panchidhar, you look at Vishwanath Gadapur, they all try to explain the cosmology in whatever way is practical, in whatever way is intelligible, as far as possible. But they do not bring this cosmology, that is the Bhagavatam cosmology, in confrontation with the Jyotishya cosmology.
For practical purposes, they use the Jyotishya cosmology. And for commenting on the Bhagavatam, they use the Bhagavatam cosmology. So, that means, see, one of the fundamental features, this is the last part of my class, which I conclude, one of the fundamental features of Gaurav Vaishnavism is this whole doctrine of Achitya Veda Veda.
Achitya Veda Veda has many aspects to it. But one of the aspects of Achitya Veda Veda is to learn to live with contradiction. So, is the absolute truth one with or different from the soul? It is both one and different.
Now, you may say one in quality and different in quantity, that is one aspect to it. But still, there is, if you go deeper into the Upanishads, if you look especially at the third and fourth of the Bhagavat Sandarbha, by Jiva Goswami, we see this goes so deep. And when he says Achitya Veda Veda, what is Jiva Goswami’s basic point in talking about Achitya Veda Veda? He says, scripture says, there are sections in scripture which says that the Atma and Bhagavan are one.
And there are sections in scripture which say Atma and Bhagavan are different. And he says, we accept both statements as true. Now, how they are true? He gives explanations to some extent.
Subsequent Acharyas have also given some explanations. But every explanation may not apply to every statement in the Upanishads. So, then we learn to accept that this is Achitya.
We learn to live with contradictions. Contradictions means, we talk about humility in different words. You know, say bowing down to someone, offering respect, that is humility.
Humility in the intellectual realm means the willingness to acknowledge that I don’t know and I can’t know. Not just I don’t know, but also that I can’t know. There are certain things which are just beyond the human capacity to know.
And this is not just some religious dogmatic demand, you know, you can’t know. Actually, every field of science requires this. If you go into quantum physics, there is a famous anecdote of a prominent quantum physicist.
Quantum physics gives a whole idea of the universe which people just can’t conceptualise. It’s all just waves and the waves coagulate into particles. So, one student asked a famous quantum physicist, Sir, how do I think about this? How do I envision this? So, the quantum physicist, stop thinking, start calculating.
Stop thinking. He said, you can’t think about this. Just use the mathematics.
Use the mathematics. So, in any field of knowledge, if we go very deep, we find that there are things which we don’t understand. But, of course, there are things which we understand and things which matter for us, things which work for us, things which transform us.
So, those are what we need to focus on. And by focussing on the self-transformational aspects of bhakti, once we start seeing how bhakti transforms me when I practise it, how it helps me to give up my bad habits, it helps me to become purer, happier, calmer, steadier, then that will be the ultimate confirmatory test for us. This works and this is what I want to do in my life.
So, what the cosmology is, that is something which scholars can keep on debating. We can practise bhakti and we can go beyond such cosmological debates and attain Krishna and that is what is the primary purpose of bhakti. So, I’ll summarise.
I started by speaking about how there are different people with different natures and people cannot just change their conceptions immediately. So, in jnana, we recognise that prakriti and purusha are underlying and making people act in particular ways. So, in bhakti, we can accommodate people and enable them to come slowly towards Krishna at their pace.
So, our conditioning somehow determines not just our actions and our habits, it also determines our perceptions. And we discussed how Prabhupada had devotees who were practising very strictly, but he also accommodated life members who were not at all practising much, but they allowed them because they were ready to contribute financially. Prabhupada said you can practise at whatever level you can and you come to the temple, gradually you come to a higher level.
So, then the remaining half of the class was, this is Prabhupada gave the example of their giving financial latitude, giving latitude to those who are ready to contribute financially, but are not ready to commit otherwise. Similarly, people coming from intellectual background, they have intellectual reservations. So, we discussed how people in science offers, does not offer any values, any basis for values and purpose.
And that is how many people come to add to scripture to add values and purpose to their life. And then they see supernatural figures or unbelievable figures that may cause them to hesitate. So, we may be, yes, so 10 million, that means we may just now gloss over it.
But for others, it will not be a gloss over, it will be like a complete permanent break for them, I cannot go ahead. So, we discussed how everything in scripture is not to be taken literally. And every 10 million can be, it can be literal in some way, but it can also be a poetic device meant to stress the point of that pastime that material arrangements cannot make one happy.
So, we have to make sure that we choose to fight the right battles, that is ultimately to get people to practise bhakti, inspiring them to practise bhakti, that is the main battle that we need to fight. And with respect to cosmology, I discussed about how the 5th canto’s purpose is not to give an exhaustive derivation of cosmology, it is to explain, to give us a vision of the divine within cosmology. And it is, even our Acharyas have not tried to put Jyotisha cosmology and Puranic cosmology at war with each other, but they have lived with it.
And then I conclude where Achaitya Bheda means that we recognise that we may have to live with some conflicts that are not resolvable. And that is the willingness to acknowledge that I do not know and I cannot know, that is humility in the intellectual heart. So, thank you very much.
Kantharaj Srimad Bhagavatam ki Jai. Thank you. Hi Ashwini.
Thank you so much. Just to see for the nice explanation on the poetic, how Bhagavad Gita also is Jnani Shastra What makes you take it literally and what is the poetic extent of Jnani Shastra? I have a small question. When His Eminence Pandu Maharaj came to India, somebody was asking questions about Jnani Shastra.
So, he was telling that the men have logical intelligence and women have artistic intelligence. And he was saying, for example, you see the feeling of this village, women are likely to appreciate the artistry more, you know, the beautiful play of paint and colour and Krishna Radha. I am not going to talk about details, but the men may say that at least I could read one bit of Amitabh Bachchan and at least I could read one bit of Amitabh Bachchan and recite the Jnani Shastra.
So, he said they are saying the same thing, but they are decoding it differently. So, in the same manner, he was telling that the yogis at a certain state of consciousness, Angushita Mata Mahalam, Bhagavan says, in the same manner, like this is a super source, in the same manner they have seen the cosmic creation as a goddess starting from the navel of Gauraksha Yudhishthira. So, in that stage of realisation, they see like that.
And in that particular stage, he said, they will exactly see the cosmic situation as described in the books of Gauraksha Mata Mahalam. He said, he was telling that he will become a yogi like that, and he will come to that particular vantage point. From that, he will see this is true.
So, then when somebody asks a question to him, that means, he said to him that his cognition, his vision, all this is literally true. So, he said that is literally true from yogi’s observation. And for you, literally it is not true, because with the current set of apparatus that you have, you will never be able to perceive that.
You will perceive, like you gave the example, one can have the perception of the black powder and white powder, you will see a grey powder. So, on one level of perception, this must be grey. When you see it in the electron microscope, you will see black and white.
So, which is literally true, the source is what you want to see in the electron microscope, that is black powder, white powder. When you see that is grey, but at that particular perception level, that is what you can perceive. So, he was telling that what we perceive now of the cosmic creation is not literally true.
He said that Suri is not there and all these different things. This is helpful for operation purpose in this world. But what is literally true is even in Bhagavatam, which is perceived by the yogi as a certain sort of realisation.
Because there what we see is actually, it is like the three aspects. The three aspects which are, that is literal and, but although that is literal, because it is inaccessible to us, we keep it aside and we use what comes handy. So, is it that the Bhagavatam cosmology is described from the perspective of a realised yogi, who can see things perfectly and from our perspective, it is not visible? Yes.
In fact, I met Bhanu Maharaj in Melbourne when I was there. We had a long talk on this topic. He is actively trying to incorporate this point even in the exhibits around the Vedic planetarium that modern science is more right brain, whereas the Bhagavatam is more left brain, you could say, roughly speaking.
So, with respect to science, there is an inherent debate. Does science offer as reality or does it offer as a model of reality? And in the past, till the last 20th century started science, they have that idea that we are giving you a reality, that there is an atom, that atom is made of electrons and the electrons are going round and round the nucleus. So, that was till the 20th century.
But after that, as quantum physics developed and then relativity developed, now both of them are so contradictory that there is just no way to reconcile it. And that is why today, most scientists, they say that science does not talk about reality. We can only talk in terms of models of reality.
So, whichever model works, they use that. So, quantum physics is a model which works in certain things and relativity is a model which works in certain things. And using different models that way is not all that far fetched.
If we consider even our own body, allopathy offers a particular model of the body. Ayurveda offers a different model of the body. Ayurveda talks about the whole concept of heat in the body.
Now, allopathy, there is no concept like heat. Now, there are certain things which are in agreement in both the models. But beyond that, the two are different ways of looking.
And then, whichever, so how do most people, whichever treatment works for them, they take that. No, if I have to take a medicine, I am not going to do a PhD level analysis of which is correct. Is allopathy correct or Ayurveda correct? Even doctors do not do that.
I know many doctors, they are themselves allopaths, but sometimes they get Ayurvedic medicines. And there are Ayurvedic doctors also sometimes use allopathic diagnostic methods. So, we basically live and work based on what works.
So, like that, with respect to cosmology, the Bhagavad Gita’s cosmology, certainly, it is not just imagination. It is conceptualisation of a reality at a particular level. And there is a description of Maitreya Muni.
It is a major part of our planetarium, of the planetarium background knowledge that Maitreya Muni, he in a trance, it is described in one of the Puranas that he rises up and he goes to a particular place in the universe, like on atop the Meru mountain. And from there, he sees the Bhagavatam as it is, he sees the universe as it is described in the Bhagavatam. So, the point is that vision is also possible.
And that vision Shukdev Goswami had and he shared that with everyone. But Shukdev Goswami himself did not bother. He was also at that time, practically, everybody knew some amount of astronomy, astrology, sorry, astrology.
So, he did not bother to try to reconcile that with this or to even say that this is wrong and this is right. He just left it as it is. So, same way, the Bhagavatam’s cosmology is true at a particular level of perception or rather it can be understood to be true at a particular level of perception.
Now, at our level of perception, when we are unable to perceive how it is, we understand that the Bhagavatam is describing from a different scale and that is why we do not say that it is wrong because the materialistic tendency, this is also imagination, this is also mythology. And Prabhupada strongly rebuts that saying that great sages had no need to write mythological imaginations. They had serious work to do.
So, we reject that idea that the Bhagavatam is mythology, fifth kind of cosmology and that we definitely reject that. But that does not necessarily mean that we have to put that cosmology at war with the present cosmology. No, it is a different model of reference and this is a different model.
And in today’s world, actually Jiva Swami while establishing the authority of Bhagavatam, he states that the Vedas are so vast and much of the Vedic knowledge is today lost. So, if we consider the Vedas, there was a lot of Aparavidya in the Vedas which is lost and that is why without all that to understand the Bhagavatam’s cosmology today is difficult. So, what we should focus on is we have to live in the world and if science offers the particular worldview, when it becomes a problem is that we accept science authority for everything.
And when science says there is no God, yes. No, science has its authority in its own field and if we accept that authority in that field and we do not have more confidence in science, we think that because science does not agree with scripture, so scripture is wrong, then it becomes a problem. But we understand that scripture is giving us ultimate knowledge about life’s purpose, that is something science cannot provide.
Then more of it is science offers us knowledge in a particular field which we use as operational. It is operational knowledge and there is what is called ontological knowledge. Ontological knowledge is nature of reality.
That science does not offer and that is not something we say, even scientists acknowledge that. So, by recognising that science offers a model of reality and Bhagavatam offers us a reality that is perceivable at a different scale of perception, we can maintain our faith in the Bhagavatam and at the same time focus on pursuing the essential purpose of the Bhagavatam. Does that address the question? So, any other, we have time? Yes, Krishnakshepu.
Hi Krishna. Swamiji, you were mentioning how that science is mainly concerned with facts or information, perhaps from our world view, but a model of information and not values, whereas scriptures are generally more concerned with values rather than precise information in terms of the way we understand information. You gave several examples for that.
So, my question is that generally in our preaching, in all of us from the preaching model that is there, when we introduce Vedas to people, we always initially introduce the Vedas by speaking about various material facts of life, which science discovered much later, but which are spoken in the Vedas since a very long time. So, of course, we use all, by that separate sources of Vedic literature for that. We may even use Surya Siddhanta to talk about Earth-Moon distance as to like 50,000 miles compared to modern distances.
So, we use all that to initially kind of attack people, give them faith in Vedic literature that here is a literature that is talking about various information where science has discovered centuries later. So, my question was that once we do that, in a certain way, we are also encouraging people to continue to look at the Vedas from that scientific scrutiny or from that particular perspective of, you know, wanting to look. So, I think that is perhaps one reason why, like you mentioned, PhD devotees and all, perhaps because we have all come here and things are very scientific over here or whatever.
And then we understand that, you know, what is the actual science and then we understand the values and sensibilities. So, I had a question here as to whether, at the beginning itself, when we introduce Vedas to people in general, should we over-emphasise on the, you know, the correctness of information that way or we kind of make certain things very clear? Yeah. So, should we focus about material information in the Vedas to get people to have faith in them? Because literally said the Vedas do not give material information, they give us what life purpose and values.
There are different strategies which we can use for getting people to come closer to Krishna. So, we see Prabhupada, when he was talking to people who were into drugs, he used their terminology, stay high forever. So, he was using drug language, basically.
You know, the idea of staying high forever, you know, even the usage of the word consciousness in the name of our moment itself, that was, consciousness is a very, very new age kind of term. So, Prabhupada used that. So, what will attract people to Krishna initially, that will vary according to time, place, circumstance.
Many of Bhakti Teertha Maharaj’s books were written for attracting people who were from a mystical kind of background. So, mystical means they believed in maybe there is a lost continent Atlantis or there is this and that. And from that background, you drop something, then you get them closer to Krishna.
So, quite often, different people in the initial stages may require different kinds of presentations. And if a particular strategy works, that is fine. At the same time, if we consider the scriptural knowledge to be like a big circle, then in fact, this is, I have this whole presentation, Utkarsh camp, where this diagram is what is the centre of it.
You have a big circle in which there is one sector, scriptural knowledge is like a big circle. One sector within that is that scriptural knowledge which agrees with modern science. Another sector within that is that which disagrees with modern science.
And a major section is that which transcends modern science. So, now that Krishna is God, that God is a bluish black complexion cowherd boy, you know, this is science can neither prove this nor disprove it. It is beyond the scope of scientific knowledge.
So, if we consider this to be in alignment with agreement with science, another is like one sector which disagrees with science and a major section that transcends science. So, our primary purpose is to get people here to focus on those things which transcend science. And then, but you know that there is something which transcends science and that those things matter to us, that people may not be able to immediately appreciate.
So, initially, we may use this small section where people do find, where we talk about some facts which are given in scripture, which agree with science and that we use to get their initial faith and then eventually get them to come here to the area where it transcends science. And there is some section which there is contradiction. And how to deal with that contradiction that will vary from person to person.
For example, the Big Bang Theory. Now, someone, somebody says Big Bang is all, it is useless. It is all speculation.
Now, others may say actually, if you look at the history of science, the Big Bang theory’s acceptance was a major defeat to atheism. Because prior to that, atheists were saying that the universe has always existed as it is, that is the steady state theory of the universe. But the idea of the Big Bang theory implies that the universe has a beginning.
And if it has a beginning, it requires a beginner. So, the Big Bang theory was considered something which can very easily reconcile with at least philosophically, the point that everything has a beginning and that beginning is God. So, then sometimes we may say that Big Bang theory is speculation.
But others are, Bhaktivedanta Maharaj says that, yes, there is a Big Bang, but there is the big vision. You know, the absolute truth glances and that is how things happen. So, basically, to deal with this area where things are contradictory, different devotees may use different strategies.
And some people may just say that this theory is provisional. Some people may say this theory is false. And some people may try to prove how that theory is reconcilable if we add some additional features to that particular theory from the scriptural perspective.
So, either way, that which agrees with science and that which contradicts science, we have to get off that very soon. If we start talking about say, the scripture say earth is Bhugod. And then people say, okay, this is in this book, you know, I do not want to attend discuss yourself first, I want to go and read that book, which says the earth is Bhugod.
Well, then that is not the purpose for which we are here. So, the starting point can be anything, but then starting point has to be left soon and we get people come closer to Krishna. Okay.
So, if in certain cases, if people are very critical about things, then we may have to be very careful whether to use these facts or not. You know, if people are going to go and okay, you say this in what context you said, where is it said? What does it say? What do all commentators say? Now, I answer questions on my website. So, there is a student, a young man now he is passed out.
So, he says, whenever I am hearing your answers, I am searching on Google to find out what is wrong with your answers. So, there are people nowadays with information, they feel information is available anywhere and everywhere. And then if we focus too much on this factual information, then they may say no, this is not right, this is not right, this is not right, and the whole purpose may get lost.
So, what works with different audiences will vary. So, for people who just mostly, you know, after I travelled abroad and came back to India, I feel that preaching in India is very different from preaching in America, or Australia also. You know, in preaching in Australia and America means we have to give faith to people, you have to create faith in people’s hearts.
Whereas, preaching in India means we have to remove obstacles so that people can act on their natural faith. So, most people have some religious inclination, they have some faith, but because of the education, because of what they see on TV, some doubts have been created. So, once those doubts are removed, people don’t obsess over those things.
Just leave it and start happily practising bhakti. So, it’s more of, we don’t have to make this battle bigger than what it needs to be. So, initially, just help people remove their obstacles and then start practising bhakti.
Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. In case of choosing battles, some battles you may put it in suspended forms, but in that context, does it mean that we are affirming that nothing is like in Kuru Ashram where Drona or Vishwadev never revolted against what is happening.
So, it was taken as it was with their permission and everything. Although it was not like that, they decided not to get into the battle. But then it had a different consequence for them.
Okay, yeah. So, is it choosing not to fight after some battles, does that mean we become like Drona and Bhishma who sanction the wrongs such as the properties disrobing or something like that? No. When we say we should choose our battles, that means that we choose what we focus on.
But that doesn’t mean by choosing to focus on something, we deliberately allow untruth to be spoken. So, I will give three different examples for this. Say, if I am giving a class on 5th Kanto Cosmology, so I may choose not to go too into the contradictions between the two, I focus on the purpose, what is there.
So, now, this is where I am choosing the thrust of my focus. But if after the class, somebody rises and says, 5th Kanto Cosmology is all mythology. Now, I will say, I will choose my battle and I will stay silent.
That is wrong. Because that person has come to our forum and most people who have come here, they are hearing from us. So, we won’t stress the conflicting or the contradictory aspects within scripture and current worldview or whatever.
But if somebody flouts scriptural truth, counters scriptural truth in our forum, then we may, we will have to counter it. No, it is not mythology. This is how we can understand it.
And this is why people think it is mythology, but that is not correct. So, basically, we choose what truth to focus on, what aspect of truth, what aspect of our message to focus on. But if some untruth is directly being spoken, we cannot just passively hear it.
We do counter it. But we ourselves may not bring up that subject necessarily. But suppose there is some other forum.
Say, if I go for a science, spirituality conference. And there, somebody says, oh, this Puranic cosmology, it is the mythological imagining of the prehistoric Indians or whatever. We talk about that.
Now, I may have a particular message to give over here about, now, if, because that person has spoken that, say, in an interfaith conference, we all have 10 minutes to speak or 15 minutes to speak. Now, I may have decided I want to speak 15 minutes and I may just neglect what that person is saying. Now, that is not our forum.
People who are there, people already have different beliefs and they are already quite sceptical. It is not that just by taking that person’s idea, I am going to counter, I will be able to counter that in 10 minutes, 15 minutes and everybody is going to accept it. Better, let me focus on something which people will find intelligible, which I am well prepared for.
So, at that, if it is somebody else’s forum, then they may speak what they want to speak. And we do not have to counter it all the time. We may focus on giving what is the message important for this.
So, just because it is spoken when I was present, but it is not my, it is not our function. It is not that, that is the place where Vaishno Siddhant is being taught. Even in scripture, we see this, that everything that is taught in script, everything that is in scripture is not the teaching of scripture.
So, for example, we have even Krishna himself in the 10th canto, in chapter 23, in chapter 24, he is 24, 25, he speaks about Karma Mimamsa. And so, even the absolute truth does not always speak absolute truth. Krishna speaks Karma Mimamsa and Acharya accepts that in this context, he is speaking this just to provoke Indra.
And he leaves it at that. So, we have to recognise the context. At particular points, we must leave that.
So, this is a completely, the one is if in our own forum, we should contradict if that comes up in somebody else’s forum, we may just leave it aside. Third is if you are just informally meeting with some friends, sitting and talking, maybe some colleagues in office, or some relatives at home. Now, at that particular time, if they may have certain conceptions, we may have to decide at that time, whether by getting into the debate over there, there is a realistic chance that they will be changed or otherwise, they may just have that opinion and we leave it at that.
And we focus on trying to have a proper cordial relationship with them. And later on, as their relationship with us improves, their appreciation for us improves, later on, they may become more open to understanding this. So, we see, when we say that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu heard from Sarvam Bhattacharya for seven days, seven days, actually, he was giving impersonalist commentary.
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu heard, not at first sound of impersonalism, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu exploded and contradicted that. No, he heard for seven days. I am not saying we should hear Mahabharata for seven days.
Definitely not. I am simply making the point that it is not that every place has to be made into a battleground for establishing the truth. There are places where it is just some casual conversation, somebody says, no, everything is one.
Okay, now, even that person is just making it as an intellectual argument, they do not take it very seriously, other relatives do not take it very seriously. Do not bother about it. So, we have to, especially in places where we are representatives of the Vaishnava Sampradaya, and we are meant to establish Siddhanta, at that time, if some opposite Siddhanta comes, we do have to contradict it.
But we do not have to necessarily bring about the opposite Siddhanta and contradict it. It is because there are so many misconceptions in the world. And sometimes it happens that for Ramayana, Mahabharata, so many people write so many things.
So, many people who come to our movement, they are mostly faithful people. So, many times we learn more about the misconceptions about the Ramayana and Mahabharata from devotees than from outsiders. You know, this author has said like this, this serial source like that, this serial source like that.
That may not be required. It is like, you know, people have come to watch a boxing match, and we drag a spectator in and start beating the spectator. We do not have to do that.
But if somebody deliberately brings about opposite Siddhanta, which is widespread, we have to contradict that. So, choosing the battle does not mean that we just sanction the speaking of untruth. But on our forum, we make sure that the focus is on truth and untruth needs to be contradicted.
In the case of Draupadi, Draupadi is being disrobed. Actually, Drona and especially Bhishma, they may not have had the political power, Bhishma was not the king, but still they had the power of seniority, Drona had the power of brahminical position, and they could and should have intervened over there. But there may be certain forums where we may not have that power.
So, it is both a matter of recognition of the circumstance and the recognition of what is best for getting people to come closer to Krishna. Does that answer the question? Thank you very much. I have one more question.
Okay, come to me. No, after you. To not be like this, we have a substantial judgement on this.
So, primarily the lecture was on, whether the examples were beginning with the Siddhantic kind of philosophical, then we may have a poetic understanding versus a factual thing or like science. Now, like you were mentioning, science has some things matching the scripture, some things not matching, then I find we have to move to the larger part of the scripture. But the larger part of the scripture still talks about the values.
That is the focus of the scripture, that we actually come to the right values. In that, when we land in the variety, in that variety, it becomes very tough to be suspended. So, at that time, how does he resolve that? Is it like at that time, I can’t resolve, I can’t find any exists in the variety? But he has to act.
Because he has to act, he has to take to the values. And he has to come to each end of the world, there is a variety of values. So, if we find contradictions within the spiritual teachings of scripture, something which we cannot really resolve, so what do we do in that situation? Yes, even if there is a contradiction there, the important point is, what can I do right now? How can I serve? We see in the Brihad-Bhagavata Amrit, when the Kumar goes upwards to the spiritual sky, it is described that when he goes to Vaikuntha, it is indicated at least that all the Vaikunthavasis think of Vishnu as not just their worship of the Lord, they think of Vishnu as the absolute truth.
They think Krishna is the incarnation of Vishnu. When he goes to Ayodhya, the Ayodhya Vasis think that Ram is the source of all incarnations. And they say Ram is the source of everyone.
Now here, in the Brihad-Bhagavata Amrit, Vishnu doesn’t add the prefaces, but they are wrong. He doesn’t do anything like that. There is material subjectivity, there is material objectivity, there is transcendental objectivity, and there is transcendental subjectivity.
So what I mean by this is, material subjectivity. Subjectivity means, some people may say, I like aloo-sabji. Somebody says, I don’t like aloo-sabji.
So this is material subjectivity. But somebody says, aloo is not a sabji. There is an objective reality.
That aloo is a sabji. It is in the category of vegetables. So, there are some objective truths, but there are some subjective things also in it.
So like that, there is a transcendental objectivity. That there is absolute truth, which is sarva-karana-karana. But beyond that transcendental objectivity, there is transcendental subjectivity.
Wherein, that absolute truth, yad-yad-dhiyat-urugayan-bhavyanti tat-tat-vapuh-praniyase sad-anuk-rahaya Brahmaji in his prayers, he says, yad-yad-dhiyat. As according to consciousness, urugayan-bhavyanti. People worship.
And accordingly, tat-tat-vapuh-praniyase. Accordingly, in a particular form, that absolute truth manifests. Why? Sad-anuk-rahaya.
For having mercy on the simple people. Sad-anuk-rahaya. So that means, that one absolute truth can manifest as Krishna to some, it can manifest as Ram to some, it can manifest as Vishnu to some.
And as long as they are attracted to the absolute truth, that is perfect. So there is no need for somebody who is devoted to Vishnu, for those who are devoted to Krishna, Vishnu is not the source of everything. Wrong.
No, Sanatana Goswami accepts that transcendental subjectivity over there. And that is how their rasa is being facilitated. And we see this, transcendental subjectivity being considered more important than transcendental objectivity.
We see this also in Gaur-lila. When we see Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, he sees any forest, and he thinks it is Vrindavan. Now was that forest Vrindavan actually? Now if it is not, then is Chaitanya Mahaprabhu committing a mistake? If he is committing a mistake, then how is he God? Now of course, we see Chaitanya Mahaprabhu saw every forest as Vrindavan.
But then, still, he went to Vrindavan. He didn’t stop in that forest. So, here the point is not going into, there is an English phrase called hair-splitting debate.
Is the hair like this or is this like this? Is this hair black or white? So you cut it into microscopic pieces to try to find out what the hair is. There is no need to get a hair-splitting debate. So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the focus is not on whether that forest is Vrindavan or not.
The focus is on how deeply absorbed in Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is. That even an ordinary forest, he saw as Vrindavan. So like that, when we see contradictions in scripture, we have to focus on Anukulyasa Sankalpa Tikundasya Vachana.
That which is favourable for our rasa, we accept that. For our growth of our bhakti, we accept that. And that which is not favourable, we do not accept that.
So Jiva Goswami, for example, he offers his respects to the Vaishnava Acharyas, the four Sampradayas, the four Sampradayik Acharyas. But then he very respectfully says, for example, Madhacharya may say something which is not in agreement with our philosophy. He says, in this we disagree.
He doesn’t go into a big argument to try to prove how Madhacharya is wrong. He says, we disagree on this. So we recognise that it is the great Acharyas, they have come at different times.
And there is a core that is unchanging. But there is a periphery that can be changing. So Acharyas may also do certain mistakes on time-based circumstances, which may vary.
So, if we focus on this principle that we are here to grow in our bhakti, and whatever enables us to grow in our bhakti, we choose that. And sometimes even if there seems to be indecision about that itself, then we use our intelligence, we consult senior devotees, and do what makes sense at that time. And if that doesn’t work, then we always change direction.
Bhaktanur Thakur says that, if we are going from here, and we want to go here, if I start moving forward and I realise I have come here, then it’s not that I have to go back here and then start off from here. From where I am, I can just change course and keep moving in the direction where I need to go. So it’s not that life, even as a devotee, doesn’t come with always with a guarantee of a clear-cut path at all times.
We see in that Markhane Babu Dharma song, आचे किच्चु कार्जतमे एई अनुमाने Prabhupada is saying, Krishna, I do anumana. I do anumana, that there must be some purpose why you have brought me here. Prabhupada is a pure devotee.
Prabhupada is empowered by his spiritual master and by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Still it is not that when he comes to America, every single thing is clear for him. I will go here and this will happen and that will happen.
Anumana. I am in for inquisition. You must have some purpose.
So, if overall our life is being led in in the mood of service to Guruvayur Krishna, then sometimes we make certain steps and certain steps may turn out to be wrong. Then you might just change the steps. So, we can’t expect absolute guarantee of certainty in everything.
So, some things we understand that there is a transcendental subjectivity. That is, I talk about the conceptions about Vishnu. Some things, it may be different Acharyas speak according to different time, place and circumstance.
And some things are practically they are not known to us. We just keep taking step forward and as the path becomes clearer, we reorient ourselves. Does it answer the question? Thank you.
Yes, one last question. Where is the mic? Thank you. I would like to, this is with reference to the past and the development of the disciple who had said that man went to the moon.
And what happened in that case was, first there was the issue, we had an issue or conflict that Prabhakar was saying that man did not go to the moon and Sai was saying man did go to the moon. And in a few days he left Prabhakar’s association. And the issue was, and then the whole issue turned and it became that he has not followed his spiritual path and that’s why he has fallen away from Prabhakar.
So I wanted to shed some light because I find this very difficult to understand that what really was the issue. Was it, you know, and also this is another thing that happens with devotees when they hear past times like these. That’s when we start having conflict with the government.
We don’t want to fall away from Prabhakar. And when you hear something so black, take a hand out. If you don’t follow and then you’ll fall away.
So then we have this conflict because we want to somehow understand so that we don’t leave him. Or something horrible like this does not happen to us. So how do we understand this? Okay.
So there’s an alarm with past time that there’s Prabhupada’s servant who could not accept that man had not gone to the moon. And then afterwards he left. And then sometimes it is said that because he did not have faith, because he did not accept the principle of acceptance of a man, that’s why he left.
This causes conflict. Actually, the Leela Amrit is a biography of Prabhupada and no biography by its very nature can be exhaustive. So I was in New York.
I had gone to meet Satsvarupa Maharaj. So Satsvarupa Maharaj himself is now working on editing a few things. He’s quite old.
So he’s delegated it to some other people. So there were things which were, there’s the background of particular devotee. There are many things which may not be known.
So Satsvarupa Maharaj had Prabhupada departed and immediately after that he had to write that book. So one thing that came to be known later is that it is another incident that happened that this particular, Prabhupada’s servant, he was observing Prabhupada very carefully. And actually he was around sometimes critically.
So he saw once there was this young girl Saraswati. So Prabhupada was playing with her. He was just increasing grandfatherly affection for her in his heart, for him in her heart.
So then, so Prabhupada had been given a garland. And there was a flower coming out of it. Prabhupada took that garland and gave it to her.
And she did not know. She just opened her mouth. Prabhupada put the flower in her mouth.
And she just smiled and she was very happy. So he observed this and he said, what is this? Sanyasi is playing with a girl like this. It was just a grandfather and a daughter thing.
So from that point of time, he started developing doubts. And his issue about the moon, that was a surface. And that was, so this whole background, later on, he told other devotees.
But at that time, he did not know about that. So because he could not accept it, that’s why he left. But that was only the surface.
So there were other issues. And that’s why he left. So now we don’t have to make that issue of the moon landing into a big issue of conflict.
Because Prabhupada himself writes in the Ishopanishad that there are three ways that one can go to the moon. One is by, after we, if we have done kunya, in the next life we go to the moon in a higher body. Another is that people by yogic powers, they can travel through mystic means.
And third is, he said, by spacecrafts. So within the Vedic context, we see that there are people who have gone through the higher levels of reality also. And Prabhupada’s point is completely different.
Prabhupada’s point is that the Chandra Loka is a higher planetary system. And there people cannot trespass without the requisite karmic qualifications. So now, Sadaputra Prabhu has explained in Vedic Cosmography.
It’s one of his important books. Sadaputra was a prominent devotee scientist, Dr. J. L. Thomson. And he says that, if we consider the point of Chandra Loka being a higher planetary system.
So, Chandra Loka is, if it’s higher, it’s not made of the kind of matter that we have. It’s a higher planetary system. In the Devatas, whenever it is said that they come to the earth, quite often even in the Yajnik sacrifices are performed, and after the sacrifices are performed, the Devatas come here.
Often they accept the fruit of the sacrifice without being visible to people. So, if their body, if the Devata’s body is made of subtle matter, then even their planet may be made of subtle matter. It’s not that you have a subtle body and you need a gross chair for sitting in a subtle body.
No, everything will be of subtle matter over there. So, Chandra Loka is, it’s a heavenly system. Because it’s heavenly, it’s very different.
So, even when we talk about the various kinds of oceans that are there in the 5th Kanto cosmology, ocean of this, ocean of that, that is not like the gross physical ocean that we talk about. So, if Chandra Loka itself is a subtle thing, then, how is it that then how is the moon visible to us? So, that is explained by one of the Sri Vaishnava Acharyas. He says that many of the planetary objects that are described in the 5th Kanto cosmology, they require a certain qualification to see.
And that’s why we may not be able to see them. But, the Chandra Loka is something which we need for astrological calculations to calculate proper tithis, to do proper activities. And that’s why although we do not have the qualification to see, we are granted that vision.
So, what we see is not the moon that we see in the sky, that is not the complete Chandra Loka. That is simply some kind of projection of Chandra Loka that we are allowed to see for our purposes. Our purposes means for astrological calculations.
That means there is Chandra Loka which is a subtle planet, made of subtler elements. And there is a gross projection of that which is what is visible to us. And that gross projection does not have everything that Chandra Loka has.
It’s simply a projection for our perception, for our decision making. So, this projection which is there that is accessible by human vision and that may be accessible by human locomotion. So, that may be accessible by human locomotion means that we may go using a we may travel in three dimensional space using a machine and go to what we call as Moon.
And the Moon is a projection of Chandra Loka. Moon is not the same as Chandra Loka. It’s a projection of Chandra Loka which is within three dimensional space which is perceivable for us.
So, Chandra Loka itself as a complete heavenly planet that is something which is not perceivable for us. It’s made of a different matter, a different kind of matter which is not visible to us. So, we don’t have to make the Moon landing into an issue.
Prabhupada’s point is simply that we cannot trespass into higher planetary systems without the requisite karmic qualifications. That is valid. We cannot go to Chandra Loka.
We cannot go to Chandra Loka without the adequate qualifications. But Moon which is simply a three dimensional projection of Chandra Loka that is something which we can access. We may have access to it.
We may access it in future using greater technology. That does not make any difference because we, wherever we go, even if we are able to go to Water Super Chandra, even if somehow human beings manage to go to Swarga, it is not that with our eyes we’ll be able to see anything in Swarga. Because everything in Swarga is made of subtle matter.
So, this is the point that Prabhupada is making is simply that we shouldn’t get… There are other passages also. One thing that happens within our moment is sometimes we take one position of Prabhupada and make that the absolute position. This is what Prabhupada said.
But if we analyse all the statements of Prabhupada on the Moon landing, their statements fall in three broad categories. One is they never went to the Moon. Second is they went out of space but they went somewhere not to the Moon.
Third is they went to the Moon but they did not access the Moon. For that Prabhupada’s example, if some extraterrestrial lands in the middle of the Sahara Desert and they look all around, probe all around and say there is no human being here. And they go back and say the Earth is uninhabited.
So, they have not accessed the Earth at all. So, basically Prabhupada has made all the three kinds of statements. And there is no need to lock Prabhupada to one position.
Prabhupada said man did not go to the Moon. Prabhupada did not say that. Now, for Prabhupada that was not a very consequential thing.
You see, right in the introduction of Bhagavad Gita, Prabhupada writes so, man has laboured a lot to raise himself to the Moon but he has not laboured to raise his consciousness. And if he raises his consciousness there is so much more benefit. So, here Prabhupada is taking a completely non-confrontational attitude towards the Moon landing.
He is not saying man did not go to the Moon. You see, he laboured very hard to go there. But laboured for this purpose also.
So, again we have all these three positions. Whether man did not go out of the Earth itself or man went out of the Earth but not to the Moon. Third, man went to the Moon but did not access Chandra Loka.
These are all three statements made by Prabhupada. And using our intelligence in our particular situation we can present whichever position is best. So, there is no need to make it into a conflict issue.
So, some devotees may love to make it into a conflict. But that’s not necessary. There are… I met Bhakta Sivudhana only once and he said that book Life comes from Life which was basically a conversation of Prabhupada with him and some other devotees.
So, he says that that is a private conversation of Prabhupada with him. And this is trusted disciple. He says, I never like to distribute that book to scientists.
Because Prabhupada is not speaking to scientists over there. So, the point is that we don’t have to we don’t have to reduce Prabhupada to his most confrontational position and think this is what Prabhupada is. Many times devotees when they want to quote something about Prabhupada they want to find the most sensational thing.
And that catches attention in classes. And that catches attention in classes that’s what gets circulated and that’s what we think is Prabhupada’s position. But Prabhupada was a very profound individual and he took different positions at different times.
So, the confrontational sound bites may have sensational appeal and they may attract a certain kind of people. But Prabhupada did not only speak like that. There are many other things that also Prabhupada spoke.
And we have to have a balanced understanding so that we can represent our founder Acharya properly and represent properly the tradition that he brought to us. Does this answer the question? Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.