​Spirituality – A higher-dimensional science

​Youth meeting at Central New Jersey, USA

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna. So, I thank all of you for coming today evening. normally this is a topic which I speak to new college students.
So, this might be a little rasabhas for all of you. But I will try to speak it in a way that is relevant to those of us who have been practising bhakti. So, if I understand right, most of you were born and brought up in devotee families or most of you are practising bhakti to some extent.
So, now, when you start practising bhakti, there are different ways in which we may get introduced to bhakti. People get introduced to some religious practises that may be from a cultural perspective, that may be from a traditional perspective, that may be from a social perspective, or it may be from a intellectual perspective. So, cultural perspective means that everyone does it.
That’s the culture. Traditional perspective means we have always done it. Social perspective means it’s cool to do it.
And intellectual perspective means it makes sense. It makes sense, that’s why I do it. So, for most of us, say, I was introduced to bhakti probably at the age of twenty.
So, for me, I was brought up in a pious culture, but not really like a serious sadhaka. So, the approach for me was largely intellectual. Because I heard the philosophy, understood the philosophy and that appealed to me.
And that has its advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. The advantage is that there is an intellectual foundation to what we practise. But the disadvantage is that the pre-devotional life, we have all acquired certain conditioning, certain impressions, which we have to undo.
So, those who are born and brought up in devotional families, their approach is largely cultural. You know, it is like the upbringing is such that you get devotional impressions right from the beginning and then you start practising bhakti. And, you know, if you look at a small child, a child is, Krishna uses the word chanchala to describe the mind.
So, when we are very small, at that time, you know, a child is like pure, largely mind and very little intelligence. Children, whatever they feel, they do. Then, that’s largely the mind and very little intelligence.
Then as we come to teenage, then at that time the intelligence starts developing. But, the intelligence develops, but at the same time, in teenage, we also have lot of youthful passion hitting us. The hormones start getting activated in the body.
And at that time, the intelligence is there, but the intelligence is propelled by the mind. The mind has its passions, has its desires, has its drives, and the intelligence is used to propel, the intelligence is used by the mind to propel its drives. So, quite often, we at that time may question some of what we have learned.
Especially because it appears as if some of the practises that we may have, they may seem to be restrictive. You can’t do this, you can’t do that. The Bible begins with, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.
So, there are atheists who, the atheists gag about Christianity. It’s a cheap joke. They say, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was no.
The idea is, you should not do this, you should not do this, you should not do this. So, people often have this perspective of religion as telling us not to do many activities that we feel are enjoyable. And that’s why there might be some, some sort of rebelliousness that comes in the teenage years.
So, at that time, it is important if we are to stabilise our practise, what we approach culturally, we need to now review intellectually. Because at this time, the intelligence has weakened, the intelligence is asking questions. And when the intelligence is asking questions, at that time, if we get an intellectual understanding, then we can resist the drives that are awakening in the body and the mind at that time.
So, I’ll present this spirituality from that perspective as a higher dimensional science. So, when we talk about science, broadly, science has two aspects to it. There is theory and there is experiment.
Now, firstly, when we talk about science, there is, actually it begins with observation. So, for example, Newton saw the fruit falling. Now, millions of people before him had seen fruits falling.
What they did? They just picked it, ate it and went their way. Newton asked the question, what made this fall? And interestingly enough, for answering this question, what did he do? He postulated the theory of gravity. Now, the fruit and its fall is visible.
Gravity is not visible. So, science, when it postulates theories, quite often, its theories require that for explaining observable phenomena, there are unobservable principles. Gravity itself is not observable.
So, sometimes some people say, seeing is believing. Can you show me the soul? Can you show me God? But actually, you can turn around and ask, can you show me gravity? Gravity can’t be shown. In fact, seeing is believing is actually a philosophy that would have choked the progress of science.
If people had told Newton, we don’t believe anything that we don’t see. You cannot postulate anything like gravity. Who can see gravity? We can see its effects, but we can’t see gravity.
So, science itself progresses by moving from visible specifics to invisible universals. Specific observations are there. Here are fruit falls.
There are stone falls. There are glass falls. These are specific events.
But there is a universal principle underlying it. And that is invisible. But most of science progresses by proposing theories that involve invisible entities, invisible concepts.
In fact, according to current physics, somewhere between 95-99% of the universe is considered to be invisible. Because they say it is made of dark matter and dark energy. And, of course, that’s a whole different theory.
But my simple point here is, in theory, quite often, invisible concepts or invisible entities are postulated. And when they are postulated, how does one know whether they are for real? That is through experiments. In an experiment, what is done is that the observation is replicated under controlled conditions.
Ok, I saw a fruit fall down. Let me look at a stone. Does it fall down? Let me take some other object.
Does it fall down here? Does it fall down in other places? Does it fall down in various places? And by such repeated experiments, then a conclusion is arrived at. So science has these two aspects. There is theory and there is experiment.
So, say when Galileo proposed that the earth, the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth. Rather the earth revolves around the sun. The universe is not geocentric.
It is heliocentric. So at that time, he said that, you know, I have my telescope. And you can observe through telescope.
You can see how, this is what makes sense. So there were some people who were so bigoted, who were so biassed. They said, no, what you are saying is false.
They refused to even conduct the experiment of observing through the telescope. So somebody who rejects just the theory without considering the experiment, that person is actually unscientific. So now, spirituality also has these two combinations.
There is, akin to the theory that is there in science, there is philosophy. So philosophy helps us to make sense of things in this world. And religion, it is not just a set of rituals.
Religion involves certain practises which help us to experientially verify what the philosophy has taught. So for example, the philosophy tells us that there is a non-material core to us. At our core, we are not material.
We are spiritual beings. Now this is a postulate. Now at this stage, there is no way to know whether this postulate is right or wrong.
But there is an experiment. Now what can be the experiment that can be done to verify this? That, suppose there is a core to us that is spiritual. And that spiritual core, that is the source of consciousness, that is the locus of emotions, and that is the object of happiness.
Whatever we experience, it is at this core, this spiritual core, which the Bhagavad Gita calls as the Atma, that is what is experiencing. So then, the experiment could be that, okay, if I am that soul, and by satisfying that soul, we will become truly happy. Then the experiment could be that let us do the activities which are supposed to nourish the soul.
Does that make us happy? Does that make us peaceful? Does that transform us? That would be the experiment. Now before we go to that point, first let us trace back and whether, before it is not that anybody can postulate any theory and we have to explore that. The theory also has to make some sense.
So, as far as the theory, the philosophical point, philosophical point of the Bhagavad Gita is that at our core, we are spiritual. Now, does it make sense? So I look at it from the, from a scientific perspective as well as from a practical perspective. From a scientific perspective, there was a, one of the pioneers of neurosurgery was a scientist, was a Nobel laureate named Dr. Wilder Penfield.
And he did lots of experiments in the brain. Because the common idea in materialistic circles is that our consciousness comes from our brain. People say you are your brain.
In the past, some of you may have heard that there were Egyptian pharaohs whose bodies were preserved as mummies. They are preserved. So, like that, there are scientists who have preserved Einstein’s brain.
Because they believe that the brain is the source of life. Brain is the source of intelligence. They say in future, maybe from this brain, if we can find out the way we can reactivate it, then we will recreate Einstein.
So that is the current dogma in science that the brain is the source of intelligence, the brain is the source of consciousness and the brain is essentially the person who is. There is one scientist who said, you are your neurones. Neurones are brain cells.
That was his idea. So Dr. Penfield wanted to experiment. To check this.
So, now researchers have found that there are different parts of the body which are controlled by different parts of the brain. Say for example, there is a particular part of the brain, say the parietal lobe, which controls the motor nervous system. So, if that particular part of the brain is activated, then the hand rises.
So, he conducted an experiment where he told a subject that raise your hand. He raised his hand and he found that that particular part of the brain had been activated. He asked him, what did you do? He said, I raised my hand.
Put your hand down. He put his hand down. He found that part of the brain had been deactivated.
What did you do? He said, I kept my hand down. Now, using external probes, external rods with some electrodes, he activated that part of the brain. When he activated that part of the brain, he asked, what happened? He said, my hand went up.
Did you raise your hand? He said, no, I didn’t. You raised my hand. So, he deactivated that part of the brain.
What happened? He said, my hand fell down. Did you put your hand down? He said, no, I didn’t. You put my hand down.
So now, Dr. Penfield kept that probe there, activating, deactivating it. And then he activated other parts of the brain to check whether any part of the brain would make the person feel that I have raised my hand. But no matter whichever part of the brain he activated, at no point did the person say, I raised my hand.
He said, you raised my hand. The hand went up, basically. So now, to understand the implication of this experiment, let’s consider, say, a computer set up with a printer next to it.
Now, a printer has a printing hand. So if I press the print button on the computer, then the printing hand starts moving. Now, this is my computer.
I press the print button. And then somebody asks, what happened? Say, oh, the printer has started moving. Why? Because I pressed the print button.
Now, you may come there, and you may press the print button. When you press the print button also, the printing hand will start moving. So now, similarly, the particular part of the brain which controls the nervous system, that is like the print button.
So when that part of the brain is activated, the hand moves up and down. Now, in the second case, it was Dr. Penfield who activated that part of the brain. In the first case, who activated it? But who is that person? Yeah, that, that we understand from the Bhagavad Gita.
But from the scientific perspective, who is that person? That’s a mystery. Because there is no part of the brain which gives the sensation that I activated. So Dr. Penfield’s conclusion after 40 years of study of the brain was that the source of consciousness is extra cerebral.
Extra cerebral. Cerebral is the adjective to refer to the brain. So extra cerebral means consciousness does not exist in the brain.
It exists outside the brain. So this is a part of the theory. That yes, the core of our being is not material.
There is something beyond matter which is the source of our consciousness. Now another perspective is that this is actually, normally people think that if you practise some religion, you have so many rules and regulations that restrict you. You can’t do this, you can’t do that.
But if you take the, and people think materialism is the philosophy of enjoyment. I can eat whatever I want, I can have a relationship with whoever I want, I can drink whatever I want. There is so much freedom.
So this is the idea that religion is restrictive and materialism is freedom producing. But if we go down to the philosophical implication of materialism, the philosophical implication of materialism is that we are nothing but matter. And if we are nothing but matter, then matter functions according to certain laws.
Now for example, say if I let this go, it will fall. Now it does not have any freedom whether to fall or not. When I let it go, gravity will act and gravity will force it to fall.
So if there is only matter, then matter has no free will. Matter is simply forced to act according to its own, according to the laws of nature. And if we are simply creatures made of matter, then that would mean we too have no freedom.
We are meant to act simply according to the functions of the body. So in the case of the body, there are urges that are created from the biology. So there are patterns that are there in our brain.
They call it neuronal programming. So we are simply the products of our neuronal programming. And we are simply meant to act according to the way our biochemicals make us act.
Now this is a profoundly disempowering world view. That means I have no freedom at all. That whatever my chemicals tell me to do, I do that.
Suppose I come to one of you and I slap you. He says, why did you slap me? He says, my chemicals told me. And probably you will slap me back.
He says, my chemicals told me to slap you. Now if you see, even in our day to day behaviour, if I go and slap someone, you will ask, why did you do that? Now the question, why did you do that? That implies that we have the freedom to choose whether to do it or not to do it. And then they are asking, you should not have done that.
Why did you do that? So actually if materialism is true, then we have no free will. Because we are simply the products of our biochemicals. And whatever our biochemicals tell us to do, we will be forced to do that.
Hare Krishna. Nice to see you. So now, the implications of this idea that we are simply the products of our chemicals, our behaviour is simply determined by our chemicals, it’s profoundly disturbing.
Einstein was one of the greatest brains, scientific brains of the last century. And he recognised, now Einstein was a Jew, and when the Nazis started persecuting Jews in Germany, he fled from there and he sought asylum in America. So now he recognised that if there is science and there is scientism.
Science is a body of knowledge which observes nature and tries to come up with explanations. Whereas scientism is a totalitarian thought system which claims to be able to explain everything about everything. So now he said that if we take scientism to its logical conclusion, then the Nazis who killed millions, no, they killed about 12 million people, 6 million Jews and 6 million others.
He said all of them, you cannot blame any of them. Because they were simply programmed by their chemicals to kill. This is a very disturbing conclusion.
Now how can we have any accountability, any law, any responsibility if we start saying that all of us are just functions of our chemicals. So our chemicals do push us to act in a particular way. Now by chemicals, the word chemical might seem a little abstract.
But say, I feel hungry. And then I see some food somewhere in a shop. Now I might feel hungry and I might be impelled to go and eat it.
But if I don’t have the money, I can’t just go in the shop and eat it. Now a donkey might just put his head into a shop and try to eat it and somebody will beat it. Now we human beings, we have the capacity.
The urge to grab it and eat it will come. But even when the urge to grab it and eat it comes, we have the capacity to say no. So from our very experience, we do know that we have the capacity to choose.
And that capacity to choose means that we are not products of our chemicals. We may be pushed by our chemicals, we may be pushed by our bodily drives to act in particular ways. But we have the capacity to counter-push.
We have the capacity to resist. So that means, even from an experiential perspective, we can understand that there must be something to me that is beyond, that is beyond matter. Because matter will simply function according to laws.
But I don’t function according to just the pushings of matter. There are pushings, but I can’t resist them. And in fact, we are expected to resist them.
To not resist them. So if a man says that I am attracted to a woman and therefore he tries to forcibly violate her, then that is culpable. Grievously culpable.
That means what? Man, although he may be attracted, he is expected to have enough self-restraint to not forcibly do anything. That means, in our normal dealings, our whole conception of law would collapse if materialism is taken to its logical conclusion. Because materialism would imply that we are all simply products of our allergies.
And we have no freedom. So actually materialism, it may seem to promise freedom at a practical level. You can eat whatever you want, you can enjoy whatever you want.
But if you take it at a philosophical implication, it means that we have no freedom at all. And actually, even the most diehard materialists don’t believe it at their core. So for example, there are atheists who say that actually there is nothing non-material to our core.
There is nothing non-material. You are simply products of matter. But then, one of the world’s most famous atheists, he writes in his book, actually there is nothing.
The ideas of a soul, it’s all outdated pre-scientific mythology. He writes that. There is nothing to us except our body.
We are simply the products of our chemicals. And then he writes this book and he starts the book by saying that if you read this book, if you are a believer, by the end of this book you will become an atheist. And I have written this book specifically to convert theists into atheists.
Now what does this mean? Forget the arrogance of that argument that I will convert theists to atheists. But what does he mean? He means that actually by reading this book, by understanding this book, you will reject your religion and you will become an atheist. That means he is assuming that we have free will to choose.
Isn’t it? I have free will to choose whether I want to be a believer, I want to be a non-believer. So, he is expecting us to adopt a philosophy which says that we have no free will. And after adopting the philosophy that we have no free will, he wants us to use our free will to accept his philosophy.
So, this is self-contradictory. To say that, believe that you have no free will, accept that you have no free will, that means I have a choice whether to accept or not. And it’s self-contradictory.
Self-contradictory statements are like if somebody says, I don’t exist. Well, you have to exist to say you don’t exist. Or if I say, I don’t know even one word of English.
Well, I have already spoken seven words. So, these are self-contradictory statements. So, the idea that we have no free will is self-contradictory.
So, that’s why there must be some part to our being which is not governed by matter, which gives us freedom. And that is the soul. So, philosophically, what we learn from the Bhagavad Gita is that the soul is the essence of who we are.
Our identity extends beyond our biology. Our identity, we are not just products of our biology. We have bodies, male, female, young, middle age, whatever it is.
But our identity extends beyond our biology. So, this is the philosophy. And then there are experiments.
I’ll come to the experiments which will help us to realise this a little later. But moving on, Narsila Prabhupada talked very interestingly about the interrelationship between philosophy and religion. He said that philosophy without religion is just mental speculation.
That means, if somebody just analyses, maybe a person sits and put a bottle of beer in front of him on a Sunday afternoon, thinking, maybe God exists. There is so much order, so much design in this world. He looks at the newspaper.
Oh, there was a storm which killed 100 people. You know, if God existed, he should have arranged the world in such a way that people would not die like this. So, maybe God doesn’t exist.
Anyway, does God exist? Does God not exist? His eyes fall on the beer. The pleasure in the beer exists. Let me drink and forget.
So, what happens, if there is no practise, really, then philosophy without religion is just mental speculation. I may think like this, I may think like that, but there is no way for me to know for sure. There is no way for me to actually realise what is it.
So, it’s all just at the abstract, theoretical, conceptual level. So, just like in science, there are experiments required. Without the experiments, we cannot prove or disprove the theory.
Similarly, without some practise, we cannot either confirm or disprove whatever is talked about, the existence of God or the existence of soul. So, it’s just mental speculation. On the other hand, we have, if there is religion without philosophy, religion without philosophy is at best sentimentalism or it is at worst fanaticism.
If there is religion, then some people say, it’s not even by sentimentalism. Nowadays, it’s fashionable to say that, oh, you know, all paths are right. Your path is right, my path is right, his path is right, her path is right, all paths are right.
And this may seem very tolerant, you know, be broad minded. Everybody has their way. Everybody can follow their way.
Now, yes, we can be broad minded and everybody has the freedom to choose what they want to believe. But that does not mean everybody’s belief is right. So, there are some religions in the world, some of the world’s most prominent religions, they are exclusivist.
Exclusivist means, my way is the only way. And that leads to fanaticism. I will come to that later.
So, there is exclusivism which leads to fanaticism. My way is the only way. And some people go to the other extreme.
If you consider pendulum, my way is the only way. And the other extreme of the pendulum is, all ways are right. All paths are right.
Now, if you think about it seriously, if all paths are right, then one path is the path of atheism. And if atheism is right, then all religious paths will become wrong. Isn’t it? Atheism says there is no God.
And religion is based on the idea that there is God. So, logically, all paths can’t be right. So, these two extremes are there.
There is exclusivism, there is pluralism. Both two are not correct. There is balance which is inclusivism.
Inclusivism means there is one path with multiple levels on that path. So, it’s like, to give a simple example, say, somebody is doing a master’s degree or a bachelor degree, say, in engineering. And which is the famous college here, close by? Rutgers.
Rutgers. So, if somebody from Rutgers University says that, you know, only if you get a degree from Rutgers, then you are a valid graduate. Otherwise, you are bogus.
Otherwise, you are fake. You may say, why? Who said that? There can be many universities in the world. But, if somebody goes to the other extreme and says, you know, every building everywhere is a university.
That is absurd. So, there is some criteria. You cannot say that my university is the only true university.
Nor can we say everything is a university. Some criteria. Ok, what is the knowledge that is taught over there? What is the calibre of the teachers? What is the kind of skills that are acquired after a student goes there? And what are the kind of job prospects? Based on that, the calibre of the university is decided.
So, there is to be some balanced understanding. So, sentimentalism is the idea that all paths are right. You know, your path is right, my path is right, every path is right.
That’s sentimental. Because there is no critical philosophical evaluation over there. On the other hand, religion without philosophy means there is no logical analysis.
Religion without philosophy is sentimentalism. But, religion without philosophy can also become fanaticism. There is exclusivism.
My way is the only way. So, there are now, there are some religions that have this idea. My way is the only way.
Now, actually speaking, all religious traditions have some statements which are exclusive. But they have a purpose. The purpose is, suppose there is a patient, you know, who has gone to a dozen doctors and finally that patient comes to a doctor and the doctor tells him, ok, this is the diagnosis and this is the treatment.
And this patient starts saying, you know, I went to that doctor and the doctor said like this. And then I went to that doctor and the doctor suggested like this. And I went to that doctor and the doctor told me to do this.
Now, the patient is just going through so many doctors and so many treatments. Now, the doctor may tell such a patient, forget all that you heard from anyone else. Just follow what I am telling you.
You will get cured. Now, when the doctor says like this, the purpose is to create a focus. Stop bothering about all that you heard.
Just take this treatment. You will get cured. The purpose is not to say all other doctors are false.
Isn’t it? There is a purpose for it. Similarly, when there are some statements in some religions that this is the only way, the purpose is not to make an absolute truth claim. The purpose is to create a focus among the followers.
But suppose based on this one statement of the patient, that patient goes back and tells all the other doctors, you know, your doctors are false. And tells all the patients who are going to those doctors, you know, you are going to a fake doctor. Give up that doctor.
That would be foolish. That would be fanatical. So like that there are some religions which have this idea that our way is the only way.
And if you are not following our way, you are going to go to hell. And that’s very narrow minded. And there are some religions which are even more extremist.
And they say, not only are you going to go to hell, we will help you on the way there. We will help you on the way there. So, this is fanaticism.
And fanaticism comes when there is no philosophy. There is only some belief which is not sustained by rationality. Which is not guided by serious thinking.
And today, unfortunately, there is a lot of fanaticism in the world. Now, there are terrorists who are, who have committed vicious attacks. And who have caused brutal amount of violence.
And that is all because of having no philosophy. They just say, oh, our religion is the best religion. And those who are following this true religion, they are only true.
Everyone else is false. So, this is a very narrow idea. Now, actually speaking, this kind of narrow mindedness, this kind of fanaticism can come not just because of religion.
It actually comes because of misuse of religion. Misapplication of religion. But similar fanaticism can come even from atheism.
Now, you see, the world tried its biggest social experiment in atheism in Russia and China. Now, after the Second World War, Russia and China both became communists. And communism was not just atheistic, it was aggressively atheistic.
And actually speaking, what was the result? During the communist regime, 11 times more people were killed than in First World War and Second World War combined together. 11 times more. Who were those people? Those were people who were killed by the Soviet and the Chinese state government.
They were their own citizens. So, actually brutality can come for any reason. Today in this world, religious violence or violence in the name of religion is very much highlighted.
But atheistic violence has been much much worse. So, atheism ultimately gives no reason to be good. Because you know, if I am meant to enjoy life and this life is all that I have to enjoy.
If anything comes in the way, anyone comes in the way, just finish them off. So, fanaticism can be not only religious fanaticism, there can be atheistic fanaticism also. And the toll of atheistic fanaticism has been far far more than that of religious fanaticism.
Now, this is not in any way to justify religious fanaticism. That is also wrong. Terribly wrong.
But the point is, if there are these two aspects which are not brought together. You have a question? Can I just complete and we can talk after that. So, there is religion and there is philosophy.
I mean both of them are not together. Then they can cause disruption. So, now if both of them are brought together, then there is not disruption, but there is transformation.
So, now this is a, I thought the topic of this is spirituality, a higher dimensional science. So, there is a different methodology required here. To understand Krishna, stand under Krishna.
What that means is, what does it mean stand under Krishna? See, science operates by a particular methodology. That is the methodology of controlled experiments. So, for example, Newton saw a fruit falling and then the controlled experiment was, okay, let me hold some other object and let it go.
Does it fall? So, under controlled conditions, they try to replicate whether what is predicted by the theory, does that happen or not. Now, science can control matter because matter is below us. Now, we are conscious, matter is not conscious.
So, we can control matter. But when we want to understand higher spiritual reality, when we want to understand God and when we understand the soul which is a part of God, at that time God is above us. So, we can’t control God and understand him.
So, there is a spiritual science, that the experiment is actually not on something outside us. When I said earlier that if there is a score within me that is non-material, how do I understand it? I started by saying that science progresses by moving from visible things, visible phenomena, to invisible principles for explaining that phenomena. So, similarly spirituality says that there is a soul and there is God.
So, how do we know about these realities? That we come to know not by doing controlled experiments outside, but by actually experiences. Spiritual science is not experimental, it is experiential. Because we have to conduct the experiment on ourselves.
It’s our consciousness that is currently caught in matter and it has to rise to the spiritual level. So, for that, it is our consciousness that is the laboratory. And in this experiment, we are both the subject and the object.
Now, we are the subject means we are the performer of the experiment. And we are performing the experiment on ourselves. And rather than controlling some objects outside, we have to control ourselves.
Just like to understand how controlling ourselves can help us, can open us to some other experiences which we would normally not experience. Say, if a child is small and the child just simply wants to play. Maybe has some ball, has some toys and the child is playing.
And then there are some letters. There are games like Scrabble. And children can just say, oh, all the letters are so colourful.
And they can just play around with that. And they will just have some fun tossing here, moving this here, moving that there. But if the child applies oneself and learns.
Initially, when the child doesn’t know language, the letters are just some colourful objects. And the child may just get some fun in playing with them. But if the child applies oneself and learns, okay, this is A, this is B, this is C, learns the alphabet.
Learns what the alphabet means. And then after that when the child assembles the letters, a whole new world opens up. Oh, when I assemble these letters, this is my name over here.
Oh, I assemble this letter. Oh, this is my school’s name. This is my city’s name.
You know, language, when we learn language, like a whole new world opens. A book will seem to be simply a pattern of black ink on paper. But when we learn language, then a whole new world of experience opens to us.
And when is that possible? When the child has some discipline. When the parents discipline the child and force the child to learn. Just as in a simple sense over here, you know, the child who is not educated, who is not literate, sees, but does not see.
Sees the symbols, sees the ink patterns, but doesn’t understand anything. But when the child learns language, then the child understands. Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, 15.10, that how the soul resides in the body, how the soul is functioning within the body, and how the soul leaves the body, all this cannot be seen by those who are materially deluded.
But one can see them with the eyes of knowledge. So just as the discipline of learning language can help the child see the ink patterns in a new way, similarly, the disciplines of bhakti, when we chant the holy names, when we do kirtans, when we follow the regulative principles, these disciplines open our consciousness to a higher spiritual reality. We experience higher spiritual happiness.
And that experience of happiness becomes for us the confirmation. There is some stratum of reality which is beyond what I experience. So, when a baby is newborn, when the baby is newborn, the baby doesn’t even understand that there is anyone out there.
The baby is simply crying. And then even when the mother picks up the baby and the mother starts breastfeeding the baby, at that time also the baby doesn’t understand, okay, there is a person over here, she loves me, and she is giving me her milk. For the baby, it’s just some delicious looking, some source of, some delicious liquid is there, and the baby just suckles that.
But as the baby starts growing, then the baby becomes aware. Oh, this is my mother. And then she loves me.
And say, at one night, the baby is sleeping. And it’s cold. And the mother sees that the baby is trembling.
And the mother comes and puts a blanket on the baby. Now the baby is trembling and the trembling stops. Now the baby’s eyes are closed.
And for her, she may not even understand what happened. I was trembling earlier, I’m not trembling. But as she starts growing, now she may not open her eyes, but when she starts feeling the tremble, and then she feels the warmth of the blanket, then she will understand, oh, this is my mother’s love.
My mother has put this blanket on me. And that’s how I’m feeling comfortable. This is how I’m feeling warm, I’m feeling cosy.
So although the eyes are not opened, although the baby has not seen the mother putting the blanket, just the baby has developed enough to understand that the warmth of the blanket represents my mother’s love for me. Although she has not seen with the eyes, but it is understood with the intelligence, with whatever intelligence has developed. Similarly, when you start practising bhakti, and when we start, say, doing kirtans, anybody, even a person who is a non-believer, they can come and participate in kirtan and they experience something.
They experience something. So, now what is this experience? We experience some peace, we experience some joy, we experience something higher. Now that, actually we may all experience that, we may be agitated, we may be stressed out, and just come and start participating in a vibrant kirtan.
And the stress, the tension, the agitation falls away. So actually what is happening? Just like the mother puts a blanket on the baby, like that Krishna is putting the blanket of his love on us. And that is how we are experiencing relief.
So for us, we may not right now see Krishna with our eyes, but the experience of relief and joy that we have when we sing His holy names, that is for us, at our level, the evidence of God’s love for us. That Krishna exists, Krishna loves me, and His love is what I am experiencing in the form of the relief I get over here. So now, actually speaking, somebody may feel, oh, but this is simply music.
You know, any music, music gives me relief. It’s true, music can give us relief. But the quality of the relief that we may get from any ordinary music and the quality of relief that we get from devotional music, that is very different.
So I’ll conclude with a real life story, then we can have some questions. When I was in, I come from Mumbai, Pune. When I was in Pune, I was leading a group which was largely comprised of devotee children.
And these devotee children often, especially when they come to the teenage, as I said, they go through rebellion, explore. And oh, I was deprived of so many things. I want to explore the world.
There was this one boy, he was born in a very devoted family. Mother, father were senior devotees, counsellors. Sister was also a devotee.
But he went through this phase. He said, I want to explore. And he got into some bad company and started doing all sorts of undesirable things.
And one day, his friends told him, let us go to a rock concert. Now, this was almost 10 to 15 years ago. At that time, India rock concerts were not so common.
He said, ah yes, this is what I want to enjoy. And then he went to that rock concert and he was excited. It was the first rock concert he was going to.
And everybody was, some people were drinking, some people were smoking. It was all a very materialistic environment. And then as the rock concert started, his friends who had brought him there, they were just cheering.
Suddenly, he felt, this is just noise. This is just noise. He said, I paid so much money, I got so excited, I came here.
He felt as if, he was sitting there, but he had a sort of experience where he thought, I am looking at myself from above. He said, what am I doing? Even the simple kirtans in the temple were much sweeter than this. The simple kirtans were so much more joyful, so much more peaceful, so much more enjoyable.
This is just noise. Yes, there was music over there, but he realised that he had got the higher taste of bhakti. And because of that, this lower taste did not appeal to him.
So, he got that moment of epiphany. The world may promise us lots of enjoyments, but however, those enjoyments are very temporary. And the joy of bhakti is much higher.
And now, some people may just come to temple, they may just participate in kirtans, they may feel good and they go away. I had a nice experience. I went to the Hare Krishna’s.
I had a nice time. And they may go on with their lives. But if we are truly scientific, if we are truly rational, then we should explore, hey, why did I have such a nice time? What was it about this chanting that gave me such a nice time? And if we explore like that, then we will learn, yes, there is something higher.
And the whole experience will actually make sense when we see it in the context of the philosophy. Otherwise, the experience will be something, it’s good, but there are other good things also in life. I want to do other good things.
I have done this for long enough now. But if you understand the philosophy, then we will put the experience in context. Yes, whatever peace, whatever joy we experience in bhakti right now, that is there.
But we will experience much more joy as we become pure, as we become spiritually advanced. So, what we are experiencing is just a little precursor. The sun is rising.
Initially, there is a little light that is coming. But as the sun rises, the full daylight will be there. So, like that, right now, we are experiencing a little spiritual happiness.
But as we become purer, we will experience much, much more spiritual happiness. And the more we experience spiritual happiness, the more the reality of spirituality will become apparent to us. Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita 9.2, He says, This is practically experienced.
It is verified by practical experience. And what is the experience culminating in? It is joyful. It gives us joy.
And that joy is the confirmation for us of the reality of spirituality. So, I will summarise. I started by talking about how spirituality is a higher dimensional science.
And before that, to approach it like that, I had discussed that we may approach bhakti culturally, socially, traditionally. We may start approach, start practising bhakti because of culture, because of tradition, because of society or because of our intellectual understanding. So, if we have been brought up in a bhakti culture, we practise it because of our culture, then especially in teenage, when the intelligence starts awakening, at that time, we may get some questions.
Why should I be practising this? And especially, the religious practises may appear restrictive. So, at that time, if we revisit our practises through the intellectual perspective, then we can see how they make sense and we can resist the pulls and pushes of the body and the mind, which are awakening. And that connection we discussed how spirituality is a higher dimensional science.
So, in science we discussed, science progresses by moving from visible specifics to invisible principles. Like from observing the fruit falling to the principle of gravity. And if science had stuck to seeing is believing, no scientific progress would have been possible.
So, there is a theory which proposes often invisible concepts or entities and there is an experiment which verifies them. So, spirituality also has these two components. There is philosophy and there is religion.
Philosophy proposes that our core is non-material. And religion is not just a set of rituals. It is a set of practises meant to help us realise our spiritual core.
Now, before anybody can be asked to do an experiment, a theory has to make at least some sense. So, does the philosophy that we are at our core spiritual, does it make sense? We discussed two ways of analysing this. Dr. Penfield’s experiment, which concluded that the source of consciousness is extra cerebral.
And then the implication of materialism. That materialism, it may seem to offer a lot of freedom, but actually from the philosophical perspective, if there is nothing to us except matter, then we are simply the products of our biochemicals. Then we have no freedom.
But we all know that we have freedom. If we say we have no freedom, then there can be no law, there can be no accountability, there can be no responsibility. And nobody can be blamed when they do wrong.
And we never function like that. Even atheists, they write books saying that we are simply material creatures and we are simply functions of matter. But then their philosophy says we have no free will.
But then they expect us to read their book and use our free will to accept their philosophy. So actually the idea that we have no free will is a self-contradiction. This is the philosophy that there is a non-material core to us.
Our free will comes from a non-material core. It does make sense. And what about the experiment? The experiment is the religious practises that we do.
They raise our consciousness to the spiritual world. They open our consciousness to a higher reality. And in that case we discuss that there is religion without philosophy.
Philosophy without religion is just mental speculation. I may propose this, I may propose that but there is no way I can come to know for sure. On contrast, if there is religion without philosophy, it is sentimentalism.
All ways are right. All ways cannot be right logically. It’s like saying all buildings are universities.
And the other extreme is it can lead to fanaticism where my way is the only way. Now the purpose of those statements is to create focus. Like a doctor saying, just forget all other treatments, take my treatment.
Take my prescription. So fanaticism is very dangerous but fanaticism can come from various sources. There can be religious fanaticism which is dangerous but there is also atheistic fanaticism.
And its toll has been much greater because atheism actually devalues life. Because what is there? There are just lumps of matter. If a lump of matter comes in my way, let me destroy it.
And so spirituality is a combination of philosophy and religion and it is a way of transformation. So the philosophy tells us who we are and the religion uses practises to realise that. But this is a different methodology because matter is something which we can’t control but God is something whom we can’t control.
So to understand Krishna, stand under Krishna. That means we have to subject our own consciousness to the experiment of bhakti. And if we subject ourselves to the experiment of bhakti, a new world will open to us.
Just like a child, maybe playing with letters without understanding what they are. When a child disciplines oneself to educate what the letters mean, then the language and the text that come from that, a whole new world opens. So like that, when we start practising bhakti, what is the whole new world opens? We start experiencing spiritual happiness.
And just as the baby as she grows up, when she feels the warmth of the blanket, she understands, this is my mother’s love for me. Similarly, the peace and the joy that we experience in the remembrance of Krishna, with the philosophy, when we analyse it, we understand that this represents Krishna’s love for us. And by practising bhakti, we get a higher taste.
So even if the world allures us, we may go and explore the worldly pleasures, but they will be pale and stale, like this devotee boy who found that rock and said, just noise. Even simple kirtans were so much sweeter. So like that, we experience some happiness right now and it is just the rising of the sun, the dawn.
If we keep practising bhakti more and more, much much higher happiness awaiting us. And that happiness is the evidence for us, that’s the evidence of the reality of spirituality. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions, comments? Yes, you had a question? Hey Krishna. I had a question about what you were saying about atheism. So you were saying how atheism sometimes can be, like the implications of what it has done in history is so, it’s very hurtful for millions of people.
But at the same time, I’ve talked to a lot, especially as college students, I’ve talked to a lot of quote unquote atheists, and what they say is, the way they perceive the world is, I am matter, but the way I am matter is matter that is connected to nature. So I want to be a good person because I’m a person of this world, and after I die, I become a part of this earth that regrows into another, you know, that will regrow and be used for plants and animals. And it’s like a very naturalistic way of looking at the world.
So how do you talk to those people? Because they’re not like atheists in the sense that, you know, I don’t want to be a good person becoming an atheist. It’s like in this mother nature kind of aspect. So how do we talk to them about bhakti or philosophy? Yeah, what about atheists who are very nature conscious and they are, relatively speaking, good people? So yeah, see, there is in the Bhagavad Gita analysis in terms of the three modes, sattva guna, rajo guna and tamo guna, that is mode of goodness, mode of passion and mode of ignorance.
And these three are psychological types. And just as religionists can be in all three types, there can be religionists who are passionate, who are violent, who are destructive or ignorant. Similarly, atheists can also be in three types.
So when I said that atheism has led to violence, atheism has led to destruction of so many people, this does not mean that all atheists will become like that. Just as we say religion has led to fanaticism. That does not mean that all religionists lead to fanaticism.
All religionists become fanatics. So there can be atheists also of different types. And sometimes some people become atheists primarily because of their bad experiences with religion.
Now maybe they found that some believers are very fanatical or they found that some religious practises are very oppressive or irrational. And actually, in one sense, religion is the greatest cause of atheism. That means, not religion in itself, but misapplied, mispresented, mispracticed religion, that is the cause of atheism.
So when thoughtful people, at some time or the other, they want to make sense of life and they look around them for some explanatory framework. Now if the religion that is presented to them is just some set of dogmas, do this, don’t do this, then that alienates them. If the religion itself doesn’t make sense, then they feel that maybe atheism makes more sense.
So that’s how they adopt atheism. So they can be thoughtful people and they may feel, okay, I’m a part of this world and the body I’m made up of, that will dissolve into nature, it will return to other parts. That’s fine as far as their conception of themselves based on their experience is concerned.
But what we can talk about with such atheists is two main things. First is that we all try to make sense of life, isn’t it? In fact, science is also basically an attempt to make sense of life. Not necessarily in the big picture, but at least in terms of when Newton saw the fruit falling.
What does it mean? He’s assuming, when he saw the fruit falling, he asked, what made this fruit fall? That question itself assumes that things don’t happen just by itself. There is some pattern, some order to things. So, what is the source of that order? In fact, all science is based on this faith that there is an order in nature.
Now, why should there be an order in nature at all? Suppose now, I’m giving a class and somebody sends me a note. And if I see, note is just a set of scribble, I just can’t understand this. Now, I might just put it away.
But if I know that the person who has sent is intelligent and the person wanted to convey something to me, then I’ll look at it carefully. Maybe they have written it in a language that I don’t understand. And then I’ll try to find out.
So, the point which I’m making here is, if I see something, the very fact that I’m trying to understand its meaning means that I’m at least in a preliminary way accepting that there might be some meaning over it. Otherwise, why would I explore? So, science itself, it begins by assuming that there is an order in nature. Otherwise, there would be no scientific exploration at all.
Then the question comes up, where does this order come from? Now, this is not, literally speaking, the design argument. This is the argument. We’re not talking about whether this is designed or not.
We’re simply asking the question, what is the basis for assuming that there is order in nature? And more importantly, science progresses by, okay, we make sense of this phenomenon. Okay, you know, the visible motion of objects we can understand through Newton’s laws of gravity. Then we have laws of thermodynamics.
We have Einsteinian relativity. We have quantum physics. So, basically, science helps us to make sense of things.
But then, if we have just a materialistic worldview, if there are so many things which make sense, okay, why does this apple fall down? Why does this bulb turn on? There are so many things which make sense, but life makes no sense. Ultimately, what is the point of life? I live, I am born, I grow up, I live for some time, flap around, and then I die. What is the point of it all? So, the materialistic worldview, it helps us to find islets of meaning while sinking in an ocean of meaninglessness.
You understand the illogicality in this? We are so, scientists are so excited, oh, we understood this theory, we understood this phenomenon. So, we are looking for islets of meaning. But the philosophy, the materialistic philosophy, what is the end conclusion? Yeah, this makes sense, this makes sense, this makes sense, but ultimately, everything is meaningless.
So, if there is an ocean of meaninglessness, why are there islets of meaning? Or if there are islets of meaning, might there be the ocean also is meaningful? So, we can’t have it both ways. If there is meaning in some parts of the cosmos, in the sense that there is some order, why is that order there? If that order is there, then why not let the order be everywhere? Or, if there is not order everywhere, why is this order there at all? So, either there will be complete meaninglessness or there should be meaningfulness. So, how science progresses is that even when some observations don’t make sense, science doesn’t assume that there is no meaning.
They look for some deeper theory. For example, Einsteinian, Newtonian physics, it worked from the 17th century till the 20th century. But as scientists started exploring the very big objects at the cosmic level and they started going into the atom at a deeper level and fundamental particles, they found that Newtonian physics doesn’t work.
Now, objects which move very fast, they don’t seem to work according to Newton’s laws. Their motion can’t be described by Newton’s laws. And similarly, fundamental particles, their motion can’t be described by Newtonian physics.
Now, at this point, they did not assume. Oh, it doesn’t make sense. Maybe there is some other theory to explain this.
And then they came up with relativity physics to explain the motion of cosmic bodies. And they came up with quantum physics to explain the behaviour of fundamental particles. The point is that even when we can’t find any meaning, science doesn’t give up the search for meaning.
It explores deeper. It assumes that there might be some deeper principles involved which we don’t know right now. So, similarly, when we accept a materialistic worldview, we are basically accepting defeat in the search for meaning.
In the search for meaning. Yeah, ok, this phenomenon makes sense, that phenomenon makes sense, that phenomenon makes sense, but life, it doesn’t make any sense. I was born, I live, and I die.
So, it just doesn’t add up. But, if we are open-minded, we can say, ok, there are so many things which make sense, then maybe there is some deeper philosophy, some deeper principle, some deeper theory, which can make sense of the whole picture also. And then, if we accept the point that our core is spiritual, that there is a supreme intelligence who is in charge, then life starts falling in place, like a jigsaw puzzle.
Things start falling in place and things make much more sense. So, we may have to approach such atheists who are thoughtful people from a thoughtful perspective, where we appreciate the thoughtfulness, but point out the incoherence of the big picture. So, the idea that there are islets of meaning and an ocean of meaninglessness, that is incoherent.
So, let’s find out what is the meaning of the ocean. And that is the exploration that is spirituality. Now, Bhagavad Gita says that, it concludes by telling Arjuna, Krishna doesn’t tell Arjuna, you have to believe in me.
Krishna tells Arjuna, deliberate deeply on what I have said and then decide what you want to do. So, the Bhagavad Gita calls us to use our intelligence to understand, to explore. It doesn’t demand faith, rather it invites exploration.
And that way we can invite even, we could say, thoughtful atheists to explore life’s spiritual paradigm. Does that answer your question? Thank you. Yes.
Yes. We’ll come to you if you don’t mind. You were mentioning about the different paths, like you gave an example of universities and how you have to select, there’s one path but different levels.
So, in the same way, there are different religions, but for different classes of men, there are different kinds of modes of religion. So, many times, historically, certain religions have persecuted other religions, and many different religions. So, sometimes, internally, within our Vaishnav community, I notice that many people say, OK, this religion is ignorant, or they’re in the mode of ignorance and they’re very sinful.
But then, if someone else is asking us, obviously, that’s not the response we would give. We understand how it is in the grand scheme of things, that it’s some of them who are devout, and peaceful in that religion. They don’t act in the same way as maybe the extremists.
So, how do we explain and put into perspective in a way that’s respectful for the true followers, and also understanding and explaining those extremists and understanding them for what they are within their contract. So, some religions have been much more violent or intolerant than others. And because of that, some people may label the whole religion itself as bad.
Now, we know that’s not true because there are devout followers there also. But then, how do we balance between respecting the followers of that religion, at the same time, acknowledging the reality of what they have done. Yeah.
See, we all have certain biases based on where we have been brought up, what we have experienced. So, it is possible that even some people, even some devotees, if they have witnessed some communal violence, if they have been victims or their relatives have been victims of some religious riots or whatever, or some terrorist attacks or whatever, then they may feel, oh, this religion is bad. Usually, see, one of the characteristics of prejudice, prejudice or bias, the characteristic of prejudice is that there is an unwarranted extrapolation from a real experience.
There is a real experience of some bad things, but from that there is an unwarranted extrapolation. I have experienced some people are irrational, some people are fanatical, and I say everyone among them is fanatical. So, that is unwarranted.
That sort of extrapolation is unwarranted. Now, the Bhagavad Gita teaches us to see in terms of the three modes. Satvaguna, Rajoguna, Tamoguna.
Goodness, Passion and Ignorance. And people all over the world have these three modes. In every country, in every race, in every religion, there will be some people in goodness, some people in passion, some people in ignorance.
So, to call a particular religion itself as ignorant is to be ignorant of this reality that in every religion, there will be people in goodness, passion, ignorance. Now, I am a part of an online forum of different religions. So, one of my Muslim friends, he told me something striking.
He said, actually, it is easier for me to communicate with moderates of other traditions than extremists of my own tradition. So, if there are people in goodness in Islam and there are people in goodness in Christianity or in Hinduism or in Buddhism, people in goodness can sit and talk. But people in goodness in Islam, they can’t communicate with people in ignorance in Islam.
And same with other religions also. So, the fact is that there are people in goodness, passion and ignorance in all religions. Now, if you look at it historically, having said this, so, we can acknowledge that you cannot call one religion entirely as bad.
Because there is a diversity of goodness, passion, ignorance in all religions. Having acknowledged that, we also have to consider the historical context through which different religions originated. See, traditionally in the Vedic culture, there has always been the separation of, the division of power, of spiritual power and martial power.
So, there were the Brahmanas who had spiritual power and the Kshatriyas had political power, martial power. And even in Christianity to some extent, Jesus was the spiritual teacher and it was one of his later apostles, Paul, who actually did a lot of vigorous preaching and converted people and expanded Christianity. So, Buddha was like a spiritual teacher and Ashoka was a Kshatriya who had the martial power, who spread Buddhism later.
In Islam, the spiritual power and the political power were invested in one person, Muhammad. And subsequent generations of Muslim leaders, most of them have focused more on Muhammad’s political actions or his martial activities rather than his spiritual example or his spiritual activities. And this is because the leaders have done this more and more.
So, they have led to, at an individual level, there are many Muslims who can practise Islam, who do practise Islam diligently as a spiritual search for the truth, as a spiritual search for God. But at a social level, because many of the leaders focus on the martial aspect, the political aspect of political activities of Muhammad, so, at a social level, Islam often acts as less a spiritual search for truth and more a political search for power. And then that may happen by hook or by crook.
There is religious rationalisation that can also come up. So, historically, this has happened, but that is because of the conflation of spiritual and martial power. But this is not to be seen as an inherent fault.
There are people who have raised their consciousness even by practising Islam and Shri Prabhupada himself appreciated Islam actually. When he was in Iran, at that time, some devotees had been sent there for sharing Krishna Bhakti and at that time, Prabhupada was talking with them and suddenly, in the background, some Muslims, there was the namaz that was being chanted. A loud chant was going on.
Prabhupada just folded his hands and closed his eyes. And throughout the namaz, Prabhupada closed his eyes, absorbed. And then when the prayers got over, Prabhupada opened his eyes.
His eyes were bright. Prabhupada said, wasn’t that beautiful? The devotees were a little taken aback. And one of the devotees said, Prabhupada, wouldn’t it be better if they chanted Hare Krishna? So, Prabhupada looked hurt and said, Why are you making me sectarian? No, they are worshipping God in their way and we are worshipping God in our way.
Don’t make me sectarian. So, we should focus on the principle whether people are approaching God or not. If they are approaching God, then we appreciate that.
And there are people who are approaching God sincerely through the world’s different religious traditions. And we acknowledge that philosophically and practically, we also have to acknowledge that there may be abuse of power, there may be abuse of religion for political purposes that may happen. And we can’t be blind to that reality.
So, we may have to take necessary measures to protect ourselves or those who want to take those measures, we cannot stop them. That has to be done. But we shouldn’t let prejudice rule our perception.
Does this answer your question? Thank you. Hare Krishna. Yes, Krishna.
Does anyone else have any questions? One more question. Please. When you were talking about the devotee kid who grew up in a devotee family and experimented during his teenage years, I think that resonates for a lot of people here, especially with friends that might be going through similar processes or going through similar things right now.
So, I guess my question is, this devotee, he came to a realisation that when he was at that rock concert, he came to a realisation that this is just noise. And I know Kirtan is sweeter. So, the thing is, what I’ve noticed with some devotee kids is they have this realisation, but they’re still continuing to do whatever they’re doing because of the association they’re in or just the mentality they’re in right now.
So, how do you talk to those devotee kids and make them, not make them, but be there for them and make them realise that because they’ve captured that sweeter, higher taste, they should follow through with that? How can that be? Because you also don’t want to feel like you’re imposing on them so then they feel like they can’t even discuss what they’re going through as well. So, how can we encourage or help devotee kids to not look for other pleasures in the world, but to cherish the higher taste that they have and persevere in pursuing that? Generally speaking, we can do only three things for others. If we want to influence someone else’s behaviour, we can share knowledge, we can provide facilities, and we can set an example.
There are only three things we can do for anyone else to influence their behaviour. Now, share knowledge means tell them, okay, if you do this, this is the consequence, if you do this, this is the consequence. If somebody wants to say, drink or explore, or get into drugs or something, then we can at least make them alert.
These are the consequences of this. And see, this is what happens. So, one thing is we can give knowledge.
And so sharing knowledge is important. I talked about intellectually approaching the practises that we have learned from childhood. So, sharing knowledge itself makes a lot of difference.
But secondly, we also need to provide facilities. Facility means specifically, say, if there are kids, if they are told to come to a temple and participate in a temple satsang programme. Occasionally they can do that, but they just can’t connect.
It’s a different generation. So, we need to provide some forums where they have groups of people of their age. So, facility means association shapes all of us, whether we like it or not.
So, you know, our desires are not just linear. They are triangular. What that means is that, it’s not that I may look at something, I may see some food item and I may want to eat it.
It’s a linear desire. I am here, the object is here. And I desire the object.
But that is not the only way we develop desires. Our desires are also triangular. Say, for example, now there is this Pokemon Go.
It’s a big fad, this video game. Pokemon Go. It’s called Pokemon Go.
How is it pronounced? Pokemon Go. Okay. Sorry? Pokemon Go.
Okay. So, now, suppose for the first time, you know, you saw this video game. Okay, it’s a new video game.
What’s so great about it? You may not feel much interest in it. But then, if you see your friend completely lost in it. You’re spending so much time, so excited.
You wonder, what is that? You want to explore. So, in this case, our desire came not just by seeing the game, but our desire came by seeing someone who was lost in the game. So, our desire is not just linear, it is triangular.
By seeing others doing something, we feel inspired to do those things also. And this applies especially throughout our life, but especially in teenage years. A lot of peer pressure is there.
Because we are all trying to discover our identity, who I am. And at that time, we want to get a sense of self-worth, self-esteem, and who we associate with, that determines what our identity will be. So, that’s why we need, if possible, to provide devotee association.
Where, say, if some kids see, oh, these are just of my age, but they are doing this kirtan, they are doing these activities, then, oh, they are doing drama, they are doing some festival, they are doing all the devotional activities, then they feel inspired to do it. So, it’s not just association, but also enjoyable activities in association. Our devotees can have, maybe devotees together can go for a picnic, devotees can go for outings, or whatever it is.
We can have retreats or whatever. So, if we can create facility, that is very important. If there is just knowledge, but there is no facility, then it becomes very difficult to practise it.
And third is set an example. That means, if we tell others, don’t do this, and then we are doing the same thing behind the back, then that, especially, you know, in the teenage years, you know, at that time, people watch actions a lot. In childhood, you know, whatever the parents say, I’ll accept.
Once we come to teenage years, we start watching. And bhakti is actually more caught than taught. Taught means, do this, don’t do this.
Caught means, we see others doing it. You know, we see others, oh, this is how it is done. So, bhakti is more caught than taught.
So, if we are a, whoever are the people around the child, the parents, or elder brothers, elder sisters, or whatever, if they set an example, bhakti, then they will also see that. So, sharing knowledge, providing facilities, and setting an example. These are three things which we can do.
And when, sometimes, despite this, sometimes some people start some, they start exploring. And at that time, we can express our disapproval, but we shouldn’t do it in such a way that they feel rejected. Say, yes, I don’t like what you are doing, but whatever you do, I still love you.
I still care for you. And I’ll be there for you. So, then, if we make it a very strong, judgemental thing, you are wrong, and you should not do this, and I am right, and why are you doing this? Then, eventually, eventually they will realise that they are wrong.
But if they have rebelled, and fought, and gone, then returning to Krishna will become an ego issue. No, I rejected what you are doing, and I went. Now, when I come back, you know, you will laugh at me and say, see, I was right, you were wrong.
And because of that, they may not want to come back. So, you know, whatever happens, we do want to help others not make wrong choices. But sometimes, some people may have to learn their own lessons.
So, if somebody is very insistent to do something, trying to artificially force them, and not do that, then they will just reject us. And then it will be difficult for them to come back. So, that’s why, always maintaining cordial relationships, even if people want to explore, we tell them that we are there.
And don’t, in trying to get people to conform to something, we shouldn’t spoil our relationship with them. Because that relationship is the rope on which they will come back to Krishna. Does that answer your question? Yeah.
Thank you. Yes. So, Hari Krishna, thank you for the question.
So, I’m not sure if this is a question or not, but it’s just something that I started discussing, and it’s about people wanting to have a level of knowledge over certain areas of life, but then when it comes to the most profound, biggest area, it’s like, you know, I’m not going to try to… I’m not going to? But when it comes to the most profound aspect, it’s like, no, I can’t delve into that, right? Okay. So, I’m wondering, and I’d like to see what’s your insight on this, but I’m wondering if it’s due to the fear of no longer being the person that’s in control of… Because it feels better to be in control of an island rather than floating in an ocean, right? Okay. That’s kind of my thought on this.
So, I’m wondering if… I mean, people are going to come to… People are going to search for truth at their own, at least absolute truth, at their own pace, right? Everybody has their own time in life. For some people, it’s like they don’t see it. Maybe they’re practising Buddhism.
That’s the only way. I don’t see myself doing anything else. For other people, it’s like they realise it later on in life.
For some people, they don’t realise it at all in this life, right? But I’m wondering if the hesitation, for those who hesitate, I’m wondering if that hesitation might be a result of… The fear of losing control? Yeah. Is that it? Yeah, like having to accept the fact that we’re just this small, you know, and that there’s something way bigger than us, you know, in other cultures. Yeah, I understand.
So, some people are inquisitive about certain things, but they’re not inquisitive about the big picture. So, is that lack of inquisitiveness because of the fear that if we understand the big picture, then we will understand I’m so small in the larger scheme of things, and I’ll lose control? Could it be because of that? Yes, in the Bhagavad Gita, in the 10th verse of the 4th chapter, So, Krishna says, in order to take shelter of him, there are three things which you have to give up. Raga, Bhaya and Krodha.
Raga is attachment to this world. Oh, this world is so enjoyable. Why do I need to explore anything beyond this? Bhaya is fear of what is out there.
And Krodha is frustration or anger because of not understanding what is out there, not being able to make sense of things. So, yeah, Raga, Bhaya and Krodha. See, Raga means, oh, this world itself is so enjoyable, why do I need to bother about anything beyond this world? Bhaya is, I don’t know what is out there, I don’t want to explore because I don’t know what exists out there.
And Krodha is not being able to make sense of things. You know, I try to explore the spiritual, I try to, there is this philosophy, this philosophy, this philosophy, I can’t figure out what is right. So, I just give up.
So, Krodha is basically scepticism. I just give sceptical and I don’t turn towards anything. So, now, what you are saying Rajni, it is in the part of Bhaya, where fear, what is out there I don’t know, so better let me not explore about it.
That can be there and some people may say, okay, I have my good life here and I am enjoying life, why do I need to explore something out there beyond this life? There are two ways of looking at this. One is that Prabhupada would say, okay, you may have a good life right now, but how long is this life going to last? We are all going to grow old, get deceased and die. And sometimes we may die even before that.
Prabhupada would talk about John F. Kennedy, he was young, powerful and suddenly he was killed. So, the fear of the unknown is actually based on a pseudo-security about the known. Even in the known there is no real security.
Because what I know that can be destroyed at any one moment, at any moment at all. This is pseudo-security. Sometimes some people just need some jolts about their existing way of living.
What is it? What is all this about? What is life all about? To explore that. So, that’s why sometimes when people go through some traumatic experiences, they at that time start exploring. Is there some higher meaning? If they are fortunate, then they connect with some devotees who explain things to them.
Or they connect with any people who are spiritually minded, philosophically minded and they get some higher knowledge. So, it is also possible that some people may be internally averse to spirituality. And all of us, we all want to have a sense of control.
It’s not wrong because Krishna is the supreme controller and we are His parts. Just as He has a controlling tendency, being His parts we also have a controlling tendency. So, to lose control is actually fearful.
If I am driving a car and suddenly I feel I am moving the wheels but the car is moving in some other direction. It’s fearful. If I am giving a class and suddenly somebody asks a question whose answer I don’t know.
It’s fearful. So, to want to have control is not wrong. What is important is what is the purpose of the control.
Just like, I think a couple of months ago in Paris, a truck driver who drew a truck into a crowd and killed lots of people. He had control over the truck but the purpose of the control was destructive. So, to want to have control is not wrong.
In fact, philosophy also, when we study the philosophy, we are able to better make sense of things. And making sense of things is also some level of control. It’s at intellectual level, we are getting control of things.
So, if some people are of certain dispositions where they are just not curious about spirituality right now. There is no need to presume an ulterior motive to their lack of interest. It might just be that different people are at different stages in their spiritual growth and some people may not be ready right now.
So, what we can do to help them is try to find out if they are interested in something connected with spirituality. So, they might be interested in music. They are not interested in spiritual music but they are just interested in music.
And because they are interested in music, they may explore spiritual music also. Or generally, we have one thing which everyone is interested in. That is prasad.
So, we can give prasad and that actually creates spiritual stimuli. Now, the first sutra of Vedanta Sutra is Athato Brahma Jijnasa. Now, explore spirituality.
Now, enquire about spirituality. And Brahmacharya, in his commentary to this first sutra, his commentary practically runs to 100 pages for this one sutra. And he is basically analysing what is it that causes Brahma Jijnasa in some people.
And what is it that doesn’t cause Brahma Jijnasa. Some people just have no spiritual enquiry at all. So, dull spiritually, dead end spiritually.
So, he says there are multiple factors. First is purvajanma samskara. What are the impressions from the previous life? If somebody has practised a little spirituality, then there is natural attraction.
And there is also the upbringing of this life. Somebody has had some pious impression, that also helps. And he says, most important, now the past life impressions or this life upbringing is not changeable.
But the most important thing that stimulates spiritual enquiry is association. So, if we have association of spiritualists, then we move onwards. And that will kindle the spiritual enquiry within us also.
So, what we can do is that we need not just association, we actually need like minded association. If somebody is very interested in music and they come to a class which is very intellectual. They are just waiting.
When will the class get over? Isn’t it? Somebody is very intellectual and they come to a programme which is only music. Okay, this is nice. But what else? So, you know, we all need like minded association.
And similarly, if you would like to share spirituality with someone, then you can find out what their interests are and try to find out. So, this is the circle of their interest and this is the circle of bhakti. You can find out what is the intersecting area and try to provide them access to bhakti through that intersecting area.
Then gradually the spiritual enquiry will awaken and then they will move towards Krishna. Does this answer your question? Yes, thank you. Just a minute.
I mean, just one minute. Do we have time or it depends on, I don’t know how everyone else’s schedule is. Or maybe while having prasad, we can talk also.
Whatever you feel. Yeah, it’s open, whatever. We can talk later.
We know each other quite well. So, I guess this just came up because we were talking about non-believers or non followers. And I know people, even people close to me, who because they have a grasp, some level of grasp on the bhakti philosophy, then because bhakti is for intellect, they feel like it’s powerful, like they know everything, you know.
And then they believe that everybody else should also believe the same thing, you know. Like this makes so much sense. So, how can we approach such a person when actually that could turn somebody off to bhakti? Yeah, good question.
So, some people are very intellectual and bhakti makes sense to them and they just want everyone else to practise bhakti. And when their attitude is a little intellectually aggressive, that can turn off some people. So, how can we deal with such devotees? Is that what you are saying? Yes.
Yeah, so actually they themselves are like this. Yes. See, understanding spirituality is not just a matter of intellectual comprehension.
Intellectual comprehension is important, but there is also a certain level of spiritual evolution required. Without that, even though things are there, they just don’t make sense. It’s like, you know, if a child doesn’t know language, then the sentences make so much sense to me.
Somebody doesn’t know that language, it doesn’t make any sense. So, now that language has to be learned, only then they’ll make sense. Let’s take another example of say, there are two languages.
I am reading a book in one language and I find this book is so brilliant, there’s so much insight in it. But say, someone else doesn’t know that language. And I am telling this to him, this is so wonderful.
He says, what? It doesn’t make sense to me. So, basically, you know, when it’s language, we can easily understand the difference. But people’s psychology is also like their language.
The way people think, different people have different ways of thinking. Krishna also acknowledges that in Bhagavad Gita in 2.69, when He says, यानिशा सर्वभूतानां तस्यां जागरति सहीने यस्यां जागरति भूतानी सानिशा पश्चतोमने He says, that which is night for the self-control, it is the day for the materialistic people. And that is night for the materialistic, that is day for the self-control.
What He means by that is, actually night and day are same for everyone. But night means like the area of darkness, of incomprehension. And day means the area of illumination.
So what is the area of illumination for spiritualists? That is like the area of darkness for materialists. And that which is the area of illumination for the materialists, that is the area of darkness for spiritualists. Just like a simple example.
Now we may tell, actually youth is temporary. Why waste your time in enjoying? Seek the eternal. That is the spiritual way of looking at it.
Youth is temporary. Why waste it and enjoy? Now materialists may take the same point. Youth is temporary.
Enjoy before you lose it. So the same fact is there, but the perception is different. So that’s why if we have a tendency to be intellectually aggressive, then we need to recognise that spirituality, spiritual understanding is not just a matter of intellectual comprehension.
There is also some spiritual evolution required. And that’s why we can look for, if we want to share spirituality, rather than trying to make people interested, we can look for interested people. Say, if we are in a group of 100 people, if we have some friend whom we want them to come to Krishna and talk and talk and talk, you know, they are just not interested.
Then trying to make somebody who is not interested, interested, it is a very difficult task. But instead we explore. There may be other people who may be interested.
We may not have to talk with them only. We talk with them. They will be interested and they can come closer.
And those whom we are already connected, they already know we are practising. Sometime when the time becomes right for them, when their spiritual evolution reaches a flashpoint, then they will also come. So rather than trying to force others intellectually to practise, we can actually try to find out people who are already open, who are already inquisitive.
And there are not many, but there are. And by that way we can bring people to Krishna. Otherwise, there is a saying that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
So he is of the same opinion still. Sometimes we may intellectually defeat someone. You are not the body, you are the soul.
Okay. I am not the body, I am the soul. But then I don’t care about the soul.
And they will go on doing what they want. That’s why we shouldn’t try to force people intellectually. Does that answer your question? Thank you very much.