Strengthen relationships by tolerating others’ indiscretions

[Bhagavatam class at Radha Gopinath Mandir, Chowpatty, Mumbai]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krA3FOcdLJE

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna.
Hare Krishna. So today morning, I’ll be discussing this pastime of how Krishna and Arjuna get back their sons of this Brahmana. I’ll focus on the tolerating transgressions within relationships.
I’ll come to this point gradually, but build it up in the context. So, here, this Brahmana’s sons, after, as soon as the Brahmana’s child has been born, just disappearing. It’s appearing as if he died or what has happened.
Just disappearing. And it’s as if he has died. And for all practical purposes, the Brahmana has lost his son.
And it’s interesting that there is the Brahmana acknowledging, in fact, not just acknowledging, proclaiming, a system of cause and effect which would seem very peculiar to us. Normally, if that happens in someone’s family, you may say, okay, what has the king got to do with it? Why are you blaming the king for it? Isn’t it? Okay, that happened in your family over there. And even today, you just say, okay, just bad things happen in life.
What can you do about it? Even if we consider the law of karma, you could have said that, okay, that is that Brahmana’s karma because of which his son is dying. But that Brahmana is here coming and laying the blame on the kings. And what is the blame he is saying? His basic point is that because the kings are not protecting, because the kings are doing something wrong, that is why my son is dying like this.
So the basic principle that is often not understood in today’s society, in today’s way of looking at the world, is that the whole universe is interconnected. And it is interconnected in levels that we cannot understand. In fact, any advancement of knowledge of any sort is basically an appreciation of the interconnectedness of things.
That’s what knowledge means. In fact, all knowledge progresses by seeing the connection of the unfamiliar with the familiar. All knowledge progresses by seeing the connection of the unfamiliar with the familiar.
If suddenly I come and start saying today, today I will speak about the demographic trends of the population of polar bears in Alaska. What is this? Why are you speaking about this? It’s unfamiliar, it makes no sense. But if I say, actually, we all are inconvenienced by the weather.
And if there is any major change in the climate, that’s going to affect us tremendously. And that there is a major change in the climate, that can be understood from the statistics about the population of polar bears in Alaska and how it is going. So, here what has happened? Start with the familiar, that is how the weather influences us, and then move to something unfamiliar.
That is the demographic trends of the population of polar bears. So, all knowledge progresses from the familiar to the unfamiliar. And this principle applies even in understanding of the interconnectedness of things.
That means, if you consider science, how does science advance? Just a couple of months ago, I was in Cambridge, at the same place where Newton is supposed to have seen that fruit falling. That is like a pilgrimage place for scientists. So, at that place, now, of course it is not the same tree, it is a descendant of the tree.
The whole story might also be, according to some sources, be apocryphal. Apocryphal means just made up. But whatever it is.
The point is that when Newton saw the fruit falling, thousands of people had before him seen fruits falling. Imagine if a monkey had seen a fruit falling at that place. The monkey would have just eaten the fruit and gone away.
Isn’t it? Newton asked the question, why did this fruit fall? And, what does this mean? What made this fruit fall? That means he is looking for some pattern of interconnectedness. Okay. The very question, now, we may say from the scientific perspective that, oh, he was such a brilliant scientist that he came up with the theory of gravity.
That is his brilliance, acknowledged. At the same time, he is very asking the question, what made this fruit fall? That implies an assumption. An assumption is that things don’t just happen by chance.
There is some pattern of cause-effects, which is what makes things happen and he is trying to uncover that pattern of cause and effects. So, when that causal chain is explored in the realm of matter, that means material causes and material effects, their correlation is explored. That is what leads to the development of science.
So, all of science, essentially, is a discovery and subsequent utilisation of that discovery. A discovery of the patterns of interconnectedness between various things. Now, when we apply this same spirit of enquiry, the connection between cause and effect, to the arena of consciousness and to the arena of the action of conscious beings, that leads to the understanding of the law of karma and that leads further, ultimately, to the understanding of the supreme consciousness.
Upadrashta Anumandaja. As the 13.23 Bhagavad Gita says that Krishna is the overseer and the permitter. So, here this Brahmana’s question that, okay, the Kshatriyas must be responsible.
Kshatriyas are doing something wrong because of which the sun is rising, indicates that even if we consider the law of karma point of view, he is acknowledging here that it is the responsibility of the kings to ensure that things are administered fairly, that life goes on in a fair way for people. So, the law of karma or the understanding of the law of karma is never meant to make anyone apathetic or uncaring or heartless. Here we don’t see, even Arjuna doesn’t say this, Arjuna says that it’s our responsibility.
Is there no Kshatriya who will protect your family? So, he’s not saying that it’s your karma, you suffer it. We don’t see that mood anywhere in scripture. In the fourth canto also that when the citizens are starving, Prithu Maharaj, what does he say? I will take responsibility for providing for your food.
So, when a person is oneself suffering, one can think, you know, this is because of my past karma. But, at a social level, at a relational level, at an administrative level, it is never that when people are suffering, they are to be told you are suffering because of their karma. When we are dealing with each other, we are not meant to deal with each other based on anyone’s past karma.
From this life’s perspective, if somebody is suffering, it’s wrong. It needs to be corrected. If a thief is robbed, and then the thief goes to the king and he tells the king, I have been robbed.
A thief has robbed a citizen. Sorry. If a thief has robbed a citizen, and the citizen goes to the king and tells the king, I have been robbed.
And the king says, it’s your own past karma. What will happen to justice at that point? Well, what that citizen’s karma is, is not important for the king. For the king, what is important is, what is his dharma? His dharma is to protect the citizens.
Till what point can we go? Attributing karma. If a baby is crying, should the mother say to the baby, baby is crying because of her past karma. And what will happen to maternal love? What will happen to any kind of love and responsibility in any relationship? So the point here is that it is this acknowledgement by the brahmana that if my son is dying, it’s prematurely.
See, death is a fact of life. But that does not mean that there is that misery is also a fact of life. But that does not mean that we have to normalise misery.
Whenever there is misery, there is an attempt to minimise it. There is an attempt to eliminate it. And that’s why there is a whole concept of Akala Mrityu.
Mrityu is inevitable, but Akala Mrityu means when somebody dies young, somebody dies in an untimely way. When we use the word Akala, just a few days ago somebody asked me a question on my website. Ultimately everything happens by the will of Krishna and Krishna is Kala.
So how can there be something called Akala Mrityu? He said everything is by the will of Krishna and Krishna says I am Kala. Yes, there is a philosophical perspective by which we understand that everything happens by it’s not Krishna’s will actually, it’s Krishna’s sanction. I’ll come to the reference a little bit later.
When we say Krishna’s will means Krishna wants it to happen. When we say Krishna’s sanction means Krishna allows it to happen. So Akala Mrityu means that there is a natural way of the things happening.
So yes, we live for a particular time, we go through youth, we go through middle age, we go through old age and then we die. So somebody dies before that, that’s Akala Mrityu. So Akala Mrityu indicates a disruption of the normal order of things and then that disruption needs to be corrected.
So here that disruption is what is being condemned by the Brahmana and that same point is being reiterated by Arjuna. Now Arjuna, he is in Dwaraka and the Dwaraka kings are, Dwaraka rulers are Krishna’s relatives. Krishna is unofficially the ruler of Dwaraka.
When Arjuna is criticising, he says isn’t there any Kshatriya who will protect? Is it that Arjuna is criticising Krishna himself? How can Arjuna do like this? The characters in the scriptures are often orchestrated by the lord to act in particular ways for fulfilling certain purposes. So ultimately this whole pastime is described here for the sake of showing the supremacy of Krishna. How Krishna is also so exalted that even Mahavishnu wants to see him.
And Arjuna is orchestrated to act in a way by which that pastime will manifest. So that’s the ultimate reason why Arjuna is behaving like this. And in the Bhagavad Gita also in 11.41-42 when Arjuna says sakheti matva prasabhamya duktam he krishnava he yadava he sakheti ajanata mahimanam tavedam maya pramadat pranayena vapi yacchavahasartham satkrtosi mihara shayasana bhojanesu ekothva aptachuttat samaksham tatksham itvamaham prameyam So he says that Chakravarthipada gives a very fascinating explanation over here.
Arjuna is saying that sakheti matva Arjuna has just now seen the Vishwaroopa How awesome that form is. And then first he sees that form as awesome. Then he sees that form as awful.
Awesome means it’s thrilling but awful means it’s scaring. So the Vishwaroopa is awesome but the Kaalaroopa within that that is awful. And Arjuna starts trembling over there.
He says leliyase ghrasamana samanta lokaan samagraan lokaan samagraan all the lokas are just entering into your mouth churnitai ruttamangai warriors are crashing against your tooth and their heads are getting shattered. It’s quite a ghastly vision and Arjuna gets bewildered over there. So at that time when he understands that this is actually a form of Krishna.
So that question there is also interesting. Aakhya hi meko bhavanugra roopo Who are you? When Arjuna is asking now it’s clear that Arjuna has asked Krishna please show the Vishwaroopa. And Krishna has showed that I am going to show you the Vishwaroopa.
Krishna has said I am going to show you the Vishwaroopa. And Krishna Arjuna himself identifies pashyami tvam vishveshvara vishwaroopa that I am seeing you Vishwaroopa what I am seeing is the Vishwaroopa then after he has himself identified this is the Vishwaroopa then why is he asking aakhya hi meko bhavanugra roopa who are you? So that question is it’s like say we meet a friend after many years and say that friend was a very gentle sweet very sensitive kind of person and suddenly we find that friend very angry shouting at others who are you? who are you? that is not a question of identity here because we know this is my friend but we see something unfamiliar within a familiar so who are you? when we form a relationship we know a person at a particular level but as the years pass that person changes we change and then we see some other feature of that person. Is this the person I formed a relationship with? Who is this person? so Arjuna is asking who are you? so his question is he knows the Vishwaroopa he has heard about the Vishwaroopa but in the previous times whenever Krishna has shown the Vishwaroopa at that time he never showed the Kaalaroopa so he is asking who are you? he is asking what is this ghastly form which you are seeing and that’s why when Krishna answers, Krishna doesn’t say I am the Vishwaroopa Krishna says I am the kaalosmi loka kshetra because that was the specific question what is this unfamiliar form that I am seeing kaalosmi so anyway the point here is what Chakravarti path says, here after seeing the formidable form of Krishna after that the fearsome form of Krishna after he sees it, Arjuna starts feeling that I took Krishna so cheaply and he says I thought of you as my I thought of you as my and I spoke impertinently to you Hey Krishna, Hey Yadava Hey Saketi Ajanata Mahimanam Tavedam Ajanata, I did not know your Mahima I did not know your greatness and as I call you as Krishna Hey Krishna, Hey Yadava Hey Saketi so here what Chakravarti path says this, Krishna is saying that, Arjuna is saying that I thought that actually I am a member of the ruling dynasty not just a member of the ruling dynasty I am a member of the ruling generation Arjuna was not directly the king but his brother was the king that was the generation that was ruling but Krishna was simply a member of the ruling family but the ruler was his grandfather, Ugrasya and Krishna was himself never the king so therefore you are you are just a Yadava, you are not the Yadava Naresh, you are not the king of and therefore Arjuna said I thought sometimes that actually I am doing a favour to you by accepting you as my friend so that’s why Saketi Hey Krishna, Hey Yadava, Hey Saketi I thought like some very big person forms a relationship with some very small person, it’s a favour the big person is doing on the small person I thought like this Ajanata Mahimanam Tavedam Maya Pramadat Pranayena Vapi now whether I did this out of affection or out of madness I don’t know whatever it is please forgive me that’s what he asks over there so here also the point is Arjuna says that in the intimacy of the relationship I forgot your position and therefore when I forgot your position please forgive me and here also from the transcendental perspective Krishna is orchestrating Arjuna so that Arjuna acts in a particular way from the circumstantial perspective if you see the way Arjuna speaks is not proper for him to say that the Yadava kings are not doing their duty the Yadava rulers are not doing their duty and they are not doing it so I will do their duty that is actually disrespectful to say the very least it is one thing to say that okay you are doing your duty but it’s difficult so I’ll assist you that is a mood which comes off as positive, yes it’s a difficult task and I want to help you but where you are not doing it so I will do it that means actually you are incompetent or you are irresponsible or whatever that comes off as a negative mood over there but when Arjuna speaks like this this is something which Krishna does not hold against him eventually when Arjuna is not able to protect the protect the brahmana’s next son also and then he is above here as per the vow that he has taken he says I will enter fire so the this particular story in the Mahabharata and in the Bhagavatam there are certain similarities and there are certain dissimilarities the basic narrative, the basic set of characters the basic storyline is the same but each book has its thrust, has its focus and those aspects which are central to that book’s purpose that is what is highlighted so the way Parikshit is featured in the Bhagavatam and Parikshit is featured in the Mahabharata are different because both of them are two different books and both of them have two different purposes so whichever aspect is being highlighted within that book’s narrative that will be focused on but there are certain continuity of themes so this continuity is that Arjuna he has this tendency to take fierce vows vow that if I don’t do this then I will enter into fire most famously where does he take this vow? Yes, Jaidrath after Abhimanyu is killed then at that time he says at the 13th night that happens he says by tomorrow evening if I don’t die, if I don’t kill Jaidrath then I will enter into fire now at one level this sort of vows may seem very impulsive why does one want to play with one’s life like this and Krishna has to come and actually help in order to honour that vow that is at one level you can call it impulsive at another level it also indicates a very great seriousness of one’s world now there is so actually when one makes a commitment how seriously one takes that commitment that is also very important so sometimes we speak something to others and when others don’t take it seriously we feel irritated I am telling you this why are you not doing this? so you know often when we tell something to others and others don’t take it seriously we get irritated but then before we can expect others to take our word seriously we have to see how much seriously we take our own words if I say I am going to do this how often do we take that seriously now whether others take our word seriously or not that will determine we can say that determines how much people respect but how seriously we take our own word that determines how much we respect ourselves how much we have confidence in ourselves how much we consider ourselves trustworthy so if I am saying this but I will not be able to do it it is possible many times that we will not be able to do it because many places there are situations where things are not in human control but at least what is in human control we need to do so this can be seen in both ways it is impulsive at other level it is also indicator of very strong level of purposefulness and so the point which I was making is Krishna does not hold it against Arjuna that Arjuna has spoken disrespectfully about my family Krishna says okay Arjuna is in trouble I need to help him and Krishna actually literally takes Arjuna on a tour of the universe going across the universe across the outside the material world practically in order to reach the Mahavishnu’s abode where his mission can be fulfilled and Arjuna’s life can be saved so in so Krishna overlooks the transgression of Arjuna here in terms of whatever he has spoken or done and relationships require this any relationship what happens is when two people are there there are always going to be disagreements and so we often talk in bhakti about humility now humility is very important and humility has many different aspects to it one of course at a basic level is devotional humility is we come and bow in front of the lord and we devote ourselves to him humility in relationships means acknowledging the possibility that I may be wrong whenever we are having any argument whenever we are having any discussion we have a particular way of looking at things and from our perspective whatever the other person has done is outrageous how could he have done that how could she have spoken like that how could they have done like this now humility means to acknowledge that I may be wrong I am seeing things like this but this may not be the complete picture there may be an entirely different way of looking at things which I am just not aware of so most often when there are when there are arguments and arguments often come because two people are seen from two different perspectives the same thing when we see from one perspective somebody else sees from a different perspective then the same thing appears quite different and when that happens when things are seen from a different perspective when both people think I am right yes you may be right from your perspective but that does not necessarily mean you are right from all perspectives so the problem is that that you know we can never see entirely from another person’s perspective because our perspective is to some extent a matter of choice but in many ways our perspective is a function of our conditioning now if I have come from a particular background then I will see things in a particular way so there are some people you know who like to be unhappy now we may say who would want to be unhappy everybody wants to be happy yes but some people get their happiness in being unhappy now what does that mean that means if somebody grew up with neglectful parents and the only time as children they got any attention was when they cried so consciously or subconsciously that tendency gets formed in the mind that only when I am unhappy I will get some attention from others and they get their needs fulfilled by being unhappy and that’s how they have grown up and many such people may eventually become hypochondriacs now hypochondriacs are people who pretend to be sick they are perfectly healthy but they pretend to be sick in order to gain sympathy, in order to gain attention and when we hear about a hypochondriac we laugh at it but for them it is no laughing matter for them that is the way they have got their needs met and somebody says you are healthy why are you lying here like this no I am sick they are sick but in a different way they were thinking they are physically sick but emotional lack of growth that has happened or improper growth that has happened over there so when people see things from a particular perspective then it’s very difficult for them to achieve that perspective it’s very difficult and sometimes we actually at one level when we start practising bhakti we understand that I am not the body at another level as we advance we also understand I am not the mind now to understand that I am not the mind what does it mean one thing it means is that I don’t be so attached to my mind and that means I don’t stay so attached to my perspective I am seeing things in a particular way and if I keep seeing things in that way this is the only thing that is right everything else is wrong then actually I will be chanting very attentively I will be doing my sadhana very nicely but actually I am becoming more and more attached to my mind not detached from my mind so if my bhakti practises are making me more and more rigid more and more un-understanding not understanding of others then what is happening the very thing that is meant to make me detached from my mind is actually making me attached to my mind and thus we will become very self-righteous we will become very condescending towards others this is wrong that is wrong I was in America there is a especially central America there is a part which is called the bible belt bible belt is the place where there are a lot of evangelical Christians who are quite aggressive in their proselytising so there on in a car when I was there last year so last year now so when I was there I saw on a car somebody had written a sticker Oh God, please save me from your preachers laughing laughing laughing actually God saves us through his preachers but if the preachers come up as very self-righteous very arrogant, very holier than thou you are all going to go to hell, if they come off like that then what happens people feel I don’t want to have anything to do with such preachers so actually if we become more and more attached to our way of looking at things and I think this is the only right way.
This is not my way of looking at things. This is the Shastric way of looking at things. Shastra itself is multivalent.
Shastra itself gives us different ways of looking at things. And what is right and what is wrong, dharmasya tattvam nidam gohayam. It’s not so easy to understand.
So, often in real life situations, because we come from a particular perspective, within Shastra also we highlight that perspective. Even when we say we are following Prabhupada, we will take some aspect of Prabhupada which our nature is attracted to. So, this is the real Prabhupada.
And the real Prabhupada is much bigger than what I can understand or you can understand or anyone else can understand. So, what happens is, we are attracted to a particular aspect of Prabhupada, we are attracted to a particular aspect of Krishna and that is wonderful. But when we make that as the absolute, then that becomes a problem.
So, in Bhakti, there are matters of preference and there are matters of principle. There are matters of preference. Preference means, okay, we should all study Shastra, that is a matter of principle.
But how I study Shastra? You know, whether I study by underlining in the book or I make separate notes or whether I study using a hard copy or a soft copy, how I study, that is a matter of preference. Now, when we make matters of preference into matter of principle, then that becomes fanatical. There are matters of preference and there are matters of principle.
So, what is the matter of principle? Krishna is God. If somebody starts saying Krishna is not God, then we can’t accept that. But, okay, Krishna is God, but how should he be dressed? Okay, should he be dressed like this or should he be dressed like that? There are many details within that which are matters of preference.
Even matters of preference can’t be arbitrarily changed, but the point is that all of us are persons and as per our individual personality, individual nature, we will be attracted to certain things. So, and naturally we will be inspired by those things and we will highlight those things. In our practise, in our preaching, we will be highlighting those things.
So, when we make this matter of preference into a matter of principle, we try to codify everything, this has to be like this, like this, like this, everything about everything we try to codify, then people who don’t have the same set of preferences, they feel stifled, they feel choked and then they are not able to move onwards in life. They are not able to move forward in their spiritual life. So, one aspect of humility is to acknowledge that I may be wrong or I may not be correct.
The two are not necessarily the same thing. I may not have the complete picture of things. I may be correct and somebody else may also be correct.
So, what is correct may depend on a matter of perspective. Most of us know about that picture that is often shown in, there is a sketch which looks from one angle like a young woman and from another angle it looks like an old woman. So, who is it? Is it a young woman or is it an old woman? No, it’s a young woman I can see.
No, I can see an old woman over here. Well, actually it’s not logical, it’s psychological. You cannot logically reconcile because based on the psychology, based on where one is perceiving, one will see things differently.
So, another aspect of humility, one is acknowledging that I may not be right, I may not be fully right, I may not have the complete picture. Another aspect of humility is that I don’t need to win every argument in order to be right. Sometimes I may be right, but I don’t need to win every argument.
Actually, if we love someone, our love should free us from the need to be right in every argument. The need to be right in every argument is a demand of the ego. But love means, yes, I may be right and you may be wrong, but still if that’s what you feel is important, you do it.
Because it’s important for you. So, this is what we see in the story of Prithu Maharaj and Brahma and Vishnu. In Prithu Maharaj and Indra, if we see, Prithu is trying to perform 100 yajnas.
And Indra is actually mischief maker over there. He is disrupting the yajnas. And normally, if we consider the principles of justice, we would say that Indra is wrong and Indra should be punished.
But what happens? Brahma comes and Brahma tells Prithu, No, just forget it. Don’t do this yajna. You say, what is this? I am right, he is wrong.
Why are you telling me to stop? I say, why are you doing like this? 99! 99! There is a whole fascination with the century. Just a few days ago, there was a test match in which an Indian cricketer got out at 199. And he was so devastated.
So, then somebody came and told him sarcastically, Welcome to the 199 club. So, then there was a report about how in India, there is a famous batsman, who was, most celebrated batsman, he was something on the score of 195-196 something. And at that time, the captain declared the innings.
And this batsman got so angry. It created almost like a lifelong rift between the captain and the batsman. He said, wait, I have just 5 minutes, why couldn’t you give me 5 minutes? He said, no, we had to get the other team out.
I had to stop over here. So, you know, if somebody is just on the verge of making a record and you stop him at that time, that can alienate the person a lot. And this is just, you could say he was justified.
Okay, just that, you know, we have to get the other team out. We need enough time, overs. But in this case, in the case of Pruthu and Indira, Indira was actually creating trouble directly.
And still what happens, Brahma tells, Brahma tells Pruthu, just give it up. No need to do the hundred sacrifice. And what is significant is, that normally, if the sacrifice is done properly, then one, there are multiple levels of success of the sacrifice.
There is the material level is that, you know, if they want some desire to be fulfilled, that is fulfilled. Sometimes the devatas themselves come and they give their darshan. That is considered a higher level of success of the sacrifice.
If Vishnu himself comes and gives darshan, that is considered the highest level of success of the sacrifice. So, Vishnu rarely comes. Devatas come and most of the devatas also don’t come.
Maybe one of their representative comes and gives some payasam, something like that. And that’s how the desire is fulfilled. But in this case, when Pruthu said that, Pruthu gave up the prospect of doing hundred sacrifices, Vishnu comes after that.
So, here we can contrast this pastime of Pruthu, giving up his yajna with the yajnik brahmanas. They did their yajna. They did their yajna, but they were so caught into the yajna, that Krishna came and they could not notice.
They could not pay attention to him. Krishna came through representatives and then neglected him. And here Pruthu gave up the yajna, and that’s how Krishna became pleased and Vishnu himself came over there.
So, what happens over here is, Pruthu did not see that as just an issue between him and Indra. If he had seen that simply as an issue between him and Indra, he would have said, Indra is wrong and I am right, and you must accept that he is wrong and I am right. But he saw it as ultimately meant to please Krishna.
Okay, this representative Brahma is coming. Let me do what will please him. And eventually he was vindicated.
He was proven to be right. I am speaking all this. I am also struggling in this.
And it is actually when the test comes, to be humble, to acknowledge that the other person will be right, to not want to be right at that time, it is extremely difficult. But just by contemplating this, by speaking about this, at least we have a map of how we need to move forward. And Krishna himself demonstrates over here that rather than holding it against Arjuna, why did you do this? You spoke like this, now you reap the consequences.
You deal with your problems. When Arjuna faces a problem, Krishna is by his side. Krishna helps Arjuna to deal with that problem.
So when we can learn from Krishna at multiple levels, some of Krishna’s pastimes are meant primarily for inspiration. They are for demonstrating how he is God. But others are for emulation.
He acts in ways in which we can also learn how we need to act in our lives. And in this pastime, Krishna is taking Arjuna out of the universe, all the way to Mahavishnu. That is something which is just for admiration.
But Krishna is overlooking Arjuna’s disrespectful words. That is something which is for emulation. We can emulate it in our lives and try to make our relationships little more sturdy, little more capable of resisting provocations, resisting the upheavals that inevitably come whenever we are living in the material world.
We have our mind, we have our senses, others have their mind, their senses. And surely some friction will happen, some rupture will happen. But the sturdiness to persevere can come when we see some examples of tolerance and transcendence which is manifested in such pastimes.
I’ll summarise. So I spoke about how this particular pastime demonstrates tolerating transgressions within the relationships. And in that context, I build it up to how all knowledge essentially means appreciation of interconnectedness of things.
That knowledge progresses from the familiar to the unfamiliar about climate and then the demographic trends of polar bears or say Newton saw the fruit falling. There is a pattern of interconnectedness between things that happen and the causes that make them happen. And same principle we apply to karma, apply to the realm of consciousness.
Then we come to understanding the law of karma and understanding the Supreme Lord’s overseeing of things. When it comes to practical application, the law of karma is not meant to rationalise insensitivity or irresponsibility. While dealing with people, we don’t deal with them based on what their past karma is.
We deal with them based on what our dharma is. And the Kshatriyas here see it as their dharma to protect their citizens. And that’s why the Brahmana is saying that something wrong with the kings because of which my son is dying like this.
And Arjuna also says, yes, I will protect. Arjuna’s conduct is a little disrespectful in the sense that he is saying that no kings are doing this, so I will do it. But we see this is ultimately orchestrated by Krishna for helping to demonstrate how Krishna’s position is above that of Mahavishnu also.
And I talked about how Arjuna, when he asked who are you to the Vishwaroopa, he was asking about the Kaalaroopa. And Arjuna also, when he took Krishna a little cheaply, when he said I bring a favour to you by making you my friend. But when Arjuna realised Krishna’s supreme position, then he offered his apologies and offered his respects.
And Arjuna’s taking vows can be at one level seen as impulsive and another level it is indicative of the seriousness of one’s word that Arjuna is taking. So when others respect us, that may increase our reputation, our prestige. But when we respect our own words, that actually increases our self-respect, that increases our confidence, that enables us to do things in a committed way.
And the major part of the last second half of the class I had focused on how humility means firstly that acknowledging the possibility that I may be wrong or I may not be fully right because we see things from our perspective. And there may be other perspectives also from which things may be seen differently. And changing our perspective or expanding our perspective or distancing ourselves from our perspective.
That is basically detaching ourselves from our mind. And if our spiritual practises are making us more and more attached, this is the only right way. Then actually we are becoming more attached to our mind, not becoming distanced from our perspective but becoming more and more restricted to our perspective of things.
So when we come off as self-righteous, this is the only right way. So what has happened, there are matters of principle which cannot be compromised but there are many matters of preference which can be adjusted. And what is our background that will determine within the realm of Krishna Bhakti what are the things that attract us.
And when others come from different backgrounds, they will be attracted to different things. And Krishna is so accommodating that people with different preferences, they all can be attracted to Krishna Bhakti and they all can advance. And second aspect of humility is that even if I am right, I don’t need to prove myself right in every argument.
If I love someone, that means I can let that person be right. So because the relationship is more important than the rightness of a particular point in a particular interaction. For that I talked about how Pruthu, although he was right and Indra was wrong, but still Pruthu did not see that conflict as just between the two of them.
So Brahma told him, just stop, don’t do the hundred sacrifices. And he accepted that. And the result was that that darshan of Vishnu, which he may or may not have got after doing the hundred sacrifices, he got that by stopping at the ninety million sacrifices.
Similarly, when we avoid, we can resist this temptation of the ego to want to be right in every situation. We can actually prevent the conflicts from escalating. We can please Krishna and we can grow in our Bhakti thereby.
Thank you very much. Do we have time? My question is in context to the discussion made regarding how we look at situations like the example of judging something as dharma. Now there are these two physical laws which are always applicable to the situation.
One is a cosmic law like dharma and two is a dharmic law of say Kshatriya has to perform his duty. Now what should our communication be as sadhus when we are dealing with situations? Because judging something on a dharmic level looks at the world in terms of right and wrong and that automatically capitalises people around us as righteous and not righteous or as criminals. And usually communication on that level leads to a call for social change and setting things in order.
And judging things on a cosmic level usually does not capitalise situations or people as right and wrong but rather it calls for personal internal change. So as sadhus at what level should our communication be? So should as devotees, as sadhus should we be focussing on this internal change or should we be focussing on social change also? If we see our tradition, our tradition is primarily focused on internal change. Vishwanath Chakraborty Thakur lived at a time when the Mughals had especially devastated Vrindavan and that is when I used to live in Vrindavan and at some time he wrote his Bhagavata commentary, his Gita commentary that doesn’t mention even one word about the Muslim devastation anywhere in his commentaries.
So scripture was primarily seen as a tool for philosophical exposition. That is how it traditionally was. Now books on social issues were first written in our tradition by Bhaktivinoda Thakur.
He also did not mix scriptural commentary with social analysis. If you look at his Chaitanya Charita Amrit, Amrit Prabha Bhashya and other books, it is simply scriptural commentary. But he has addressed social issues in Arth Tattva Vivek and other books.
He has addressed social issues. Jaya Vidharma also addresses social issues. Prabhupada went one step forward and Prabhupada used scripture as a means for social commentary.
This is unprecedented in our tradition. Even Bhaktivinoda Thakur did not do this. So Sri Prabhupada, the way he presented Krishna Consciousness was quite of a social activism kind of programme.
He wanted to bring about change in society. Now Bhaktivinoda Thakur also wanted that. Now when we talk about change in society, what are we talking about? One level is preaching.
Preaching is inspiring people at an individual level to take up Krishna Bhakti. That is something which has always been done in the tradition. So traditionally there were the brahmanas and there were the kshatriyas.
So the brahmanas would teach scripture and they would inspire the kshatriyas to do the practical changes. So when I said Vishwanath Sri Kriya Thakur, was he unconcerned about what happened in Vrindavan? No, not unconcerned. But he did not see writing on scripture as a means of bringing about social change directly.
Indirectly, definitely it will happen. As it is said in the Bhagavatam also, that these words will bring about a transformation in society. But that is ultimately, that is not immediately.
The Bhagavatam is not calling upon, no the adharmic rule was overthrown. Bhagavatam is talking about removing the adharma in one’s own heart. Becoming devoted to Krishna.
So now Prabhupada, in his commentaries, he does talk a lot about purifying oneself, practising strict sadhana and becoming liberated, going back to Godhead. Going back to Godhead is the primary theme of Prabhupada’s purpose. At the same time, Prabhupada talks a lot about changing society.
One is, in the later part of his life especially, he talks a lot about establishing Varanasi. But that is just one aspect. The important thing is, he did strongly talk about changing society.
Now, while talking about changing society, Prabhupada emphasised certain things. And he de-emphasised certain things. So, for example, humanitarian work.
Prabhupada did not appreciate it so much. Although sometimes he is portrayed as completely against it, which is not true. Because if we consider the food for life programme, the way it started was when the child was starving.
And Prabhupada said, people should not starve near our temples. So, that starvation was a bodily, starvation was a bodily phenomenon. Prabhupada was concerned about that.
So, now, the issue for us as follows, Ashila Prabhupada, in the Gaudiya Vaishya Sampradaya, is that, are we a purely brahminical body? Or are we a body who is considered brahmanas, kshatriyas and other members of society also? So, if we consider our standards of sadhana, following four regulative principles, these are brahminical standards. These are clearly brahminical standards. And in fact, not just brahminical standards, these are very high level of brahminical standards actually.
So, the society is actually, and Prabhupada also said that I have come for creating brahmanas. So, if we are a brahminical society, then we focus primarily on brahminical activities. That is, studying shastra, teaching shastra.
And letting other people bring about social changes. But then, although we have a certain level of brahminical thrust, but brahmanas alone don’t change society. Brahmanas actually influence those who change society.
And those who are going to act in the world, they are going to act in ways based on what is the pragmatic need of that time. So, the whole challenge is that rather than seeing Krishna conscious outreach as just one kind of outreach. Now, we do this, this, this, and if people do this, this, this, then our outreach is successful, people have become devotees.
We can see that Krishna conscious outreach can happen at multiple levels. And some people take up the cause of that in a general sense. And they say, okay, I want to focus on this, this, this.
And that is their inspiration. That cannot become and that should not become the institution’s focus. But if certain individuals are inspired to act in particular ways, we cannot legislate or restrict that.
Because I said that different people will be inspired by different things. And when somebody is inspired by a particular thing to try to stop them, this doesn’t work. So rather than trying to legislate inspiration, what we need to do is to recognise that there are multiple levels.
At which the outreach of dharma can take place. I met one of the prominent Sri Vaishnav leaders. He told me that he thinks about outreach in three ways.
I talked this with Anantama Prabhu also. He liked it very much last year when I met him in America. So he said that I see outreach as intra-religious, inter-religious, and exo-religious.
What that is, intra-religious means that within our religion, within our particular group, we inspire people to rise higher and higher and higher. So that means we become committed practitioners of Gaudiya Vaishnavism as Prabhupada has taught. That’s one level of outreach.
Another is inter-religious. That means we work with other people who are also of similar interests, similar religious values. Now obviously Prabhupada wrote a letter to the Pope and said we should work together to counter atheism.
Now the specific way in which Prabhupada wanted things to happen, that can change according to time, place and circumstance. It is what you would say inter-religious. Inter-religious need not be just Hindus and Christians or Hindus and Muslims.
It can be just within the Hindu community also we may work with different groups at different times. So that is also one level of outreach. And another level could be exo-religious.
Exo-religious means we work with people who are not religious also. But there can be some common ground. For example, if you are working on green issues, environmental concerns.
So then it may well be that there may be some groups who are, who may not be religious at all. But they may be interested in some kind of green, making the world more green, more eco-friendly. And that may be also good for us.
So we basically have to see outreach as taking people from where they are to one step higher. Now if they can take the full step to come to Krishna Bhakti, that’s wonderful. But if they can’t, let’s take them one step higher.
It’s like traditionally within our movement what happened is, either you come with us or if you’re not coming with us, not only we will push you away, you are demons because you are not practising Krishna Bhakti. It’s not that simple. There are people in different modes.
So if people can’t come to the level of practising Krishna Bhakti, from where they are, encourage them to come one step upwards. Now some people may be inspired that only those who want to practise Krishna Bhakti, I will focus on them. Others may say no, from there if they come one step upwards, that’s also a big change.
Now if today in society more people rise from passion to goodness, that can also bring about a substantial positive change in society. So different devotees may be inspired at different levels. So dharma is not, what should we say, it is not so much like a set of law codes.
Every time whenever a particular situation comes, we should have some dharma Google. Okay, what should I do? This, this, this, this. It’s not like that.
Dharma is more of understanding the purpose and then finding out how to actualise that purpose in the situation. So we will have to see and as we see senior devotees, we ask them to practise bhakti, we get some inspiration and then we try to evaluate people according to what they need at that point. So it’s sometimes necessary that every interaction need not be seen as a forum for preaching Krishna consciousness.
We may just teach some basic values by which people may get appreciation for Krishna conscious people, for devotees. And that is the level of outreach that we can do at that level. So I think this is a lot will depend on deshikala patra.
So rather than absolutising, this is the only way we can do outreach. What we can focus on is, we do in this initial years of our spiritual life, we do as we are instructed. And as we grow, we ourselves will feel inspired to do certain things.
And as long as they are within the purview of raising people’s consciousness, that’s good enough. They need not be necessarily in exactly the same way. What should not happen is that the institutional resources should not be used for furthering a particular individual’s inspiration.
If a person is inspired, then they can find like-minded people and then they can form a group and they can do what they want to do to raise people’s consciousness. But the institution has a particular purpose. And the institution’s primary resources are to be used for that purpose.
But the institution is more of an inspirational institution than a legislating institution. So we cannot legislate, you should do this, you should not do this. Rather, we provide the inspiration and people will take the inspiration at their level.
So we are not so much of a, I’ll conclude with this point, we are not so much a, our goal is not so much to like preserve some artefacts. The bhakti tradition is not a museum, it is a garden. A museum means everything was done like this and this is how it is.
A museum, everything is kept as it is. But then what is the practical use of what is there in a museum? A garden means where trees are grown, where fruits are coming, where flowers are coming. So the bhakti tradition is actually a garden.
And that means there are hearts which need to be nourished, which need to blossom and which need to give fruits and flowers. And whatever is required for the nourishing of the heart, that has to be done. Thank you very much.
So I’ll speak briefly about how we develop faith in the Lord.