Overcoming obstacles 4 – Let intelligence be your minister not your master – part 2

[Seminar in Alachua Learning Center, Alachua, USA]

Talk ppt

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna. Welcome back. We will now go to the concluding part of this, dealing with the intelligence as an obstacle and the path of bhakti, what to do.
So, now this is with respect to intelligence and focus. When we study scripture, there are things which are central in scripture and there are things which are peripheral. And that is not just with respect to scripture, it is with respect to the broad bhakti tradition also.
And keeping the first things first, keeping the central point central, that is vital so that we don’t get lost in the details. And Srila Prabhupada, in fact, in his purports, specialises in this. Almost every purport, he focusses on the essential principles of Krishna bhakti and he highlights those.
So, scripture gives many details. Along with that, the purpose of the details is always clear. It is to help us to focus on loving Krishna.
So, I will talk about 2-3 different examples of this principle and then we will go into something which may relate with our practical life. Scripture gives, the primary purpose of Bhagavatam is to help Parichit Maharaj fix his mind on Krishna. The primary purpose of the Bhagavad Gita is to help Arjuna to make a decision about what should I do and what is Dharma.
Now, while describing this, it also talks about many other things. So now, everything that is in scripture may not be the teaching of scripture. Just because something is present in scripture does not necessarily mean that that is the recommendation of scripture or that is the teaching of scripture.
Say for example, Chaitanya Charitamruta is also scripture for Aasgaurya Vishnavas and there it is described that how Haridas Thakur was not allowed in Jagannath temple. That is simply a descriptive section of scripture. Means, ok, this is how things were 500 years ago.
So, there is in scripture something that is descriptive and there is something in scripture that is prescriptive. Prescriptive means this is what you have to do. So, what do we have to do? We have to chant Hare Krishna.
That is prescriptive. But, is it that what was the social condition in terms of the management of Jagannath temple that is what is to be perpetuated for all time? Not necessarily. That is simply descriptive.
This is describing, this is how things were at that time. So, there are many things in scripture which are descriptive and there are many things in scripture which are prescriptive. So, if we try to replicate the descriptive either in terms of repeating them in today’s world or replicating in today’s world or even trying to understand all of it.
Some of it may be very difficult to understand. Because things are done in a particular cultural context and they happen in particular ways in that time. When the cultural context changes, things change.
So, just to give a very dramatic example of the difference. Say Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says that a sanyasi should not associate with women. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said that a sanyasi should not associate with a king.
He went to great efforts to avoid associating with Pratapadra. And Shrila Prabhupada was preaching. He was in America and he got an opportunity to meet the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
She was a king and she was a woman. And what did Prabhupada do? Actually, Pratapadra was begging to meet Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu refused to meet him. Prabhupada was on a world tour.
Prabhupada cancelled his tour so that he could come and meet Indira Gandhi. So, when it is said that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu avoided meeting with the king. Now, is that a prescription for all sanyasis for all time to come? No, Prabhupada’s own life shows that it is not.
So, if we see the purpose, what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was considering was at that time, in that social situation, for a sanyasi to associate with a king would have been considered bad for the reputation of the king. For the reputation of the sanyasi. Oh, sanyasi, what is this sanyasi doing? He is supposed to renounce the world.
He is hobnobbing with kings now. So, that would have been bad for the reputation. But in today’s world, if a spiritual teacher can meet with the head of the state, that actually adds to the reputation of the spiritual teacher.
That makes the spiritual teacher more respectable and people will take that teacher more seriously. So, Prabhupada in a sense did the exact opposite of what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did. By going out of his way to meet Indira Gandhi.
But the purpose was the same. The purpose was to be able to in that particular society do what will be favourable for people to come towards Krishna. There Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in his social setting felt that his associating with the king would be unfavourable.
But Prabhupada, in his setting, social setting, his meeting with Indira Gandhi would be favourable. So, like this we can see that there can be many things in scripture which we need to understand from the perspective of the context. And they need not be replicated at all times.
So, that’s why we said the difference between central and peripheral. So, quite often that which is descriptive in scripture that is peripheral. That is not central.
Prescriptive means this is what you should do. So, for example, when the Bhagavad Gita says नां भी पार्थवि आपाशित ये पी सुपापयोन है स्थृयो वैशा सदाशुद्रास ते पी आनति परांगति That even those who are low born women, Vaishya, Shudras they practise bhakti, they can attain perfection. So, now in this verse some people find it very unpalatable today that women are considered low born.
But if you see Prabhupada himself in several of his conversations or in lectures, he categorises these four as four different categories. This is low born, women, Vaishyas and Shudras. These are four different categories.
So, low born can be an adjective which describes all three or low born can be a fourth category in itself. And there are several Acharyas who also take low born as a separate category. Vedanta Nishika says low born refers to the non-human species.
Even if birds hear the chanting of the holy names, they can also become liberated. But my point is not to go into whether low born is an adjective or a noun. My point is, in this verse, what is the stress? The stress of the verse is not that women are low born or Vaishyas are low born or Shudras are low born.
The stress of this verse is, even the low born by practising Bhakti can become liberated. So, the prescriptive part of this verse is what? Practise Bhakti. Practise Bhakti.
That is the emphasis. So, in scripture, we may find many things which are descriptive. And yes, we can try to understand that cultural context so that we understand what is this description.
But the important thing is, what am I to practise right now? The prescriptive part of scripture is what is primarily important. Because that is what is to be applied in our lives. So, Shri Prabhupada then is, let’s move forward.
So, in the first canto, I think 9th or 10th chapters, 9th chapter is Bhishma’s departure and then 10th chapter is Krishna leaves for Dwaraka. 11th chapter is Krishna arrives in Dwaraka. So, in the 10th chapter, one of the last purports.
Prabhupada says that, basically Bhagavatam is telling the path that Krishna takes. When he leaves from Hastinapur, he says he goes to this city, he goes to this province, he goes by this river and the whole list is given and then he reaches Dwaraka. And there in the purport, Prabhupada says that there are geologists, there are scientists who try to trace the exact path that Krishna took.
But he says this is practically an impossible task. Because the surface of the earth keeps changing. As far as we are concerned, we are simply satisfied that Krishna has reached Dwaraka and is going to perform pastimes with his devotees in Dwaraka.
So, Prabhupada’s focus is, yes, if somebody has a specialist interest in history or geography and they want to trace out exact path which Krishna has taken, it’s good, they can do it. There is scope for research for doing it. But that is not what every devotee who is studying Bhagavatam has to do.
The focus of the Bhagavatam should be our focus. The focus of the Bhagavatam is to help us remember Krishna. So, Prabhupada says we are satisfied that Krishna has reached Vrindavan and is going to perform pastimes over there.
Similarly, there is a conversation of Prabhupada where some disciple asks, Prabhupada, when we tell scholars that Maharaja Ugrasen had such a large number of bodyguards, quadrillion, some huge figure of bodyguards, they start laughing. They say, how is it practical? Where did they live in Dwaraka? Where were their houses? Where were their toilets? Prabhupada’s disciples are taking the position of sceptical scholars and asking. Now, Prabhupada could have given a transcendental answer.
Krishna can do anything. Now, Krishna can fit millions of people on tip of one needle. Yes, Krishna can do it.
And Prabhupada has taken that approach at some places. But Prabhupada’s answer here is disarmingly pragmatic. He says, among all the thousands of verses of the Bhagavatam, was that the only thing you found to speak to the scholars? So, the point of scriptures, everything, when we are speaking about Krishna, it is a purpose.
The purpose is to help people to come closer to Krishna. So, if we speak some things or if we stress those things, which are going to create doubts in us or create doubts in others, then how are we going closer to Krishna? So, our focus has to be the focus of the Bhagavatam. That is, I am studying Bhagavatam to remember Krishna, to go closer to Krishna.
And from that perspective, that which helps me in the Bhagavatam to go closer towards Krishna, I am focused on that. Now, it’s not that we reject or minimise or in a way deride other sections of the Bhagavatam. But that we have to choose our focus.
So that we can keep moving towards Krishna. If we start obsessing over how is this possible, how is that possible, this doesn’t make any sense to me. We will get caught and we will get distracted.
So, as I said, there are many things in scripture which are descriptive. But the prescription is we have to develop our love for Krishna. And that should be our focus.
I take this theme further and a section of the Bhagavatam which many people find problematic is the fifth kind of cosmology, which can seem very difficult to understand or believe from the perspective of those of us who have come from the modern scientific background. Now, there are several points I could say about this. But let me start with one point that as far as the material world is concerned, there are different ways of looking at the material.
And it is not necessary that one way is right and other way is wrong. Just material world itself is very complicated. So, I will give you contemporary examples of this.
Then I will move towards the Bhagavatam. If you consider today’s physics, the modern physics has two distinct branches. One is quantum physics and the other is relativity physics.
Now, you don’t have to get into technicalities, you don’t understand this. I can just focus on the principles. Basically, these are two very different approaches of looking at the material world of matter.
So, quantum physics holds that actually there is nothing but waves. Everything is ultimately, there is no such thing as particles. Everything is simply waves.
Whereas, relativity physics holds that there are particles and there are laws by which the particles are governed. So, Einstein was the pioneer of relativity physics. And Max Planck and Neil Bohm and others, they were the pioneers of quantum physics.
So now, the quantum physics way is very counterintuitive. That means, say that this table actually doesn’t exist only. So, all that exists is simply waves.
And according to quantum physics, that only when I look at this table, the waves that are there, they collapse and they give the appearance of a table. And that’s how this table exists. So, Einstein just couldn’t accept this.
And there is a famous quote by which he tried to criticise the theory of quantum physics. And he said that, you know, I would like to believe that the moon continues to exist even when I am not looking at it. Now, the problem, so Einstein tried his very best to somehow make sense of things.
Because the problem with quantum physics is that it doesn’t make sense at all according to logic. But it works. It works means, in terms of mathematical calculations, it’s enormously accurate.
So, many of the technological advances that we have today in the world, they are all because of quantum physics. So, there is a famous pioneer of quantum physics. One of his students asked him, Sir, how do I make sense of this? I just can’t think how everything can be waves.
So, the scientist replied, stop thinking, start calculating. So, you just can’t, if you try to think, it doesn’t work. But use the mathematics, it works phenomenally.
So, now what has happened in today’s physics? Now, this is all a very complicated subject. I am giving a bare bones analysis of this. But the point is that with respect to the quantum world, the subatomic world and its manipulation, quantum physics works very well.
And with respect to cosmic bodies which move at very high speeds, relativity physics also works very well. But these two, how to bring them together? No one knows. And not only no one knows, the distance between them is going further and further apart.
Stephen Hawking is considered one of the greatest scientists now. So, he gave his life to try to come up with a grand unified theory. And then finally, he announced, I am happy to announce that humanity’s quest for knowledge will never end.
So, the Guardian published this. They could also see his cop out. He said, even Hawking gives up.
So, another Nobel laureate, another famous scientist, Steven Weinberg, he said, we have made fabulous progress in the last 30 years. But the more progress we have made, the further we have gone from the solution. Why? Because the more we study these two fields, the difference between them is becoming more and more apparent.
So, now what do scientists do? These two just don’t come together. So, scientists are entirely, whichever theory works, you use it. So, for the cosmic bodies, if relativity works, use it.
For whatever other devices we want to make quantum physics works, use it. So, most scientists, in science there is what is called the functional view and there is ontological or ontic view. Ontic means, what is the nature of reality? So, most scientists have said that reality is so complicated, we don’t know what it is.
So, they just say that, just stop about whatever is reality. Science is about making models which help us to control and do things. So, what is the reality? Even scientists don’t bother about it.
We focus on functional happening of what we build. So, scientists are often very sceptical about the illogical or what they feel is illogical or irrational in scripture. But even in their own field, there is irrational.
And what do they do? Just suspend it. They keep it in a state of suspended judgement. What is the nature of reality? I don’t know.
And they keep moving forwards. So, this model works at this level, I use it. This model works at this level, I use it.
How those two models come together, I don’t know. I don’t bother about it. So, this is the way, because the material world itself is extremely complicated.
Similarly, if we apply the same point of different models, consider Ayurveda and Allopathy. Now, Allopathy uses a particular model of analysing the body and treating it. Now, Ayurveda has the whole concept of Kapha, Vata, Pitta.
The central element in Ayurveda is digestive fire, the Jatharagni. Most diseases come because the digestive fire is not very strong. That’s the understanding in Ayurveda.
And if we consider from the point of Allopathy, there is no such thing as a fire in the body. There is temperature in the body, but that is not fire. So, if we consider the two, they are very different ways of looking at it.
The same body is there, but it is being analysed in substantially different ways. And again, both work. There are people who are cured by Allopathy, there are people who are cured by Ayurveda.
And there are, of course, people who are cured by neither. There are some diseases for which nothing works. But the point is that if I am sick, and I have to take a treatment, it is not that I am going to go into Allopathy college and understand Allopathy exhaustively, and then take Allopathic treatment.
No, I get a basic understanding, it makes sense, I work, I use it, and I try to treat myself. So, in many areas of life, whether it is scientists working in their profession, or whether it is we with respect to our health, we don’t even have the time or the energy to get into the technicalities of things. So, most of us approach these things functionally.
Functionally means, whatever helps me to function, I use it. I get cured by Allopathy, I get cured by Ayurveda, I get cured by Naturopathy, whatever it is. I take the treatment, get myself cured, and move on.
Actually, Prabhupada himself, although he preferred Ayurveda, Prabhupada was not a fanatic about Ayurveda. Now, whenever he earns at least 2-3 occasions, he took Allopathic treatment, and he was pragmatic, for his followers, whatever works, you take that. So, the point is that the same approach, that what is the nature of reality, that if you try to analyse, it is a whole big universe in itself.
What is the actual model of the body? Is Allopathic model right, or Ayurvedic model right? There are two models, they both work in their own ways. So, like that, when we come to the cosmology of the Bhagavatam, there is Bhagavatam’s cosmology, and there is modern cosmology. Now, the two seem to be very, very different.
And how do I make sense of them? So, if you just literally go, this is so different, I just can’t make sense of the two. But you have to understand that these are two different models, the two different ways of looking at the world. At the universe.
And it is not necessary that one has to be right, and the other has to be wrong. They are two different models, and they serve two different purposes. The modern scientific model has evolved from Newtonian physics, and the idea is that we try to analyse the world in a way, in which we can see it to be governed by laws, which are mathematical, and which are manipulable.
So, if I can make it mathematical, then I can repeat it. And then I can manipulate the world, I can control the world, I can do things over it. That’s one way of looking at the world.
The Bhagavatam offers us another way of looking at the world. If you look at the Bhagavatam itself in the 5th Canto, there are from, I think, from the 16th chapter to the 25th chapter, which talks about the cosmology, out of all the verses that are there, maybe, I don’t remember the exact figure, there are something like 500 to 600 verses in that section. Out of that, around 80 to 100 verses talk about the cosmic distances.
And the remaining verses are all talking about the prayers of the residents over there. Jambudvi residents pray this, these people pray over here like this, these people pray over here like that. So, the point of the Bhagavatam is not to give a description of cosmology.
The point of the Bhagavatam is to describe how all over the cosmos people are practising Dharma and people are practising Bhakti. And therefore, this is what everyone is doing all over the universe, you should also do this. At the start and the end of the section, it is said that by meditating on this vision of the cosmos, we all can become more devoted, the mind can be turned towards Krishna.
That is the purpose of the Bhagavatam. So, now moving forward. So, to position scripture as a competitor of science is to devalue scripture.
Scripture is giving us much higher knowledge. Scripture is giving us knowledge about how to love Krishna, how to attain Krishna’s abode. And science is giving us knowledge about how to function this way.
Scripture can also give us knowledge. Okay, how do I build a plane by which I can go from America to India? Maybe there is Viman Shastra which can give me that knowledge. But that is not the primary purpose of scripture.
Yes, scripture can give us material knowledge, but the primary purpose of scripture is to give us spiritual knowledge. So, when we look at scripture, the purpose is to know Krishna and to love Krishna. Now, why I am saying that? If we see scripture and science as two competitive sources of knowledge, then we evaluate, does science work, does scripture work? Well, what, by working, what do we mean? If we think in terms of manipulating matter, science works to some extent.
But if we think in terms of loving Krishna, scripture works. So, the two are talking about very different, they have two very different purposes. And even in our tradition itself, the scriptural knowledge or the Bhagavatam cosmology was not ever positioned as a competitor to to astrological cosmology.
By astrological cosmology, what I mean is that, I am going into a little technicality of this, but I will come to the principles once again. See, in our tradition itself, there is a whole body of knowledge called as Jyotish Shastra. Jyotish is basically astrology.
And Bhakti Jain Swethakur here did a commentary on Surya Siddhanta. So, Siddhanta Shastra is related with the Jyotish books. Now, Jyotish, they are texts of astrology.
And within them, there is astronomy. Because astrology is about prediction and that is based on the position of the celestial bodies, which is astronomy. So, now there is knowledge about the cosmos, which is given, there is knowledge about the cosmos, that is given in the Jyotish Shastras.
And that vision of the cosmos is actually different from the vision of cosmos that is given in the Bhagavatam. They are two very different worlds. And even our Vaishnavacharyas, when they have, say, calculated the horoscopes, say the horoscope of Krishna, the horoscope of Ram, horoscope of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the horoscope of our Acharyas or whoever else, even our Acharyas, even our Vaishnavacharyas have not used the Bhagavatam cosmology to calculate horoscopes.
They have used the Jyotisha cosmology only. So, the point which I am making over here is, now these are Acharyas, Vishwacharya Kirthakur has written a commentary on the Bhagavatam. If we read his commentary, we will see that he is completely in love with the Bhagavatam.
There is so much depth of insight and devotion for the Bhagavatam. But still, he does not think that when he is talking about the horoscope of Krishna or Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, he does not think that if I refer to Jyotish Shastra, I am being unfaithful to Bhagavatam. No.
For astrological purposes, there is a different vision of the cosmos and that is the vision that is given in the Jyotish Shastras. So, the Bhagavatam cosmology was never used for astrological purposes. The Bhagavatam cosmology is for a devotional purpose.
It is for enhancing one’s absorption in Krishna. So, if from our perspective when we study the cosmology, it does not make sense to us. I just can’t figure out what is this going on.
Now, there are devotees who have written books on how we can make sense of the cosmology also. But we have to again keep the purpose in mind. Parikshit Maharaj lived at a particular time, in a particular culture, where many of the features of the cosmos that the Bhagavatam talks about were already known to him.
And understanding that vision of the cosmos more helped him to remember Krishna. Now, if today we study the fifth kind of cosmology and getting caught up with that, if it is not helping us to remember Krishna, then we need not focus on that so much. It is not that we are saying that that is wrong.
It is just that, okay, that comes, that is a whole different branch of study. And do I really have the time, the interest, the energy, the ability to get into all that right now? If I don’t have that, then let me focus on studying that which helps you to remember Krishna. And if I have some pressing doubts, I can ask some devotees, I can ask some people who are experts in this field and get some understanding.
But the point is that, I am using Bhagavatam cosmology as an example to illustrate this point that even when we are studying scripture or things related to scripture, we have to keep the purpose. The purpose is to remember Krishna, to love Krishna. You have to keep that purpose in mind and then adjust things accordingly.
So, going back to the starting point about the prescriptive and the descriptive section in the scripture. The 5th Canto is clearly descriptive. This is giving a description of how the cosmos is.
Is it telling us that, you know, this is how we have to change the physics textbooks and have all this in the textbooks of cosmology today? There is no prescription like that. Bhagavatam is telling us we have to remember Krishna. That is the prescription.
And at that time, that vision of the cosmos helped Parishad Maharaj to remember Krishna. Now, we may come from a particular scientific background and actually there are even theistic scientists now in today’s world. And even in the vision of the cosmos that is there now, there are theistic scientists who reveal how through this vision of the cosmos also we can see the glory of God.
So, the point is that whatever understanding, whatever culture, whatever worldview we have, we are meant to spiritualise that. We are meant to connect with Krishna. Now, the Bhagavatam is spoken at a time when there is a particular worldview and Bhagavatam reveals how Parishukdev Goswami spiritualises that for Parishad Maharaj.
And in today’s world, that if some of us find that we can connect very nicely with that and we can become absorbed in that vision of the Bhagavatam, that vision of the universe, that’s wonderful. If that doesn’t happen, our focus is to remember Krishna and move forward towards remembering Krishna. Now, there are devotees who are working hard.
We are trying to build a planetarium and we are trying to explain how this vision of the cosmos centres on, it reveals a, whereas today’s cosmos is often seen as atheistic, this is a theistic vision of the cosmos. And that’s a very important project that Srila Prabhupada wanted. Again, what is the purpose? The purpose was to help people to become attracted to Krishna.
So, now some devotees may have the specialised field where they challenge some specific scientific theories or scientific conceptions and counter that. But that is a specialist field for some people. Every devotee doesn’t necessarily have to go that way.
Our primary focus is that whatever situation we are in, we try to spiritualise that situation and move closer to Krishna. So, there are definitely sections within scripture and sections in science which may be contradictory. It’s not that everything that science says is right.
There are things that science says may be wrong also, which are wrong also. But the point is, we don’t have to see that science and scripture are inherently contradictory. They are just having two different purposes.
Science purpose is to manipulate matter, to try to control matter, and to try to control and manipulate the material world. Scripture’s purpose is to transcend the material world. And depending on what purpose we have, we will see the world in different ways.
So, this principle, we can apply in many aspects. So, I talked about the cosmological aspect. I’ll conclude with one point.
Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote an essay on the Bhagavat. It was basically a talk which he gave. And then he, that talk was published in the book.
And there he says that when you study the Bhagavatam, there are three aspects in the Bhagavatam which may be difficult for people to understand. He says, one is the cosmological-chronological, the second is the ethical, and the third is the philosophical. So, what does he mean by cosmological-chronological? He talks about the fifth kind of cosmology, and he also talks about the timescales which are talked about over there.
This king lived for so many years, that king lived for so many years. And then the ethical, some of Krishna’s pastimes can seem more. See, Krishna is dancing with the gopis.
At that time, especially the Christian missionaries who had come to India, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, to a time when Christianity had started asserting itself. Before 1857, when the East India Company was ruling India, at that time, they had kept religion and business separate. They said that, we have come here for making money, and these Indians are very religious.
So, if we try to convert them, they will rebel against us and our business interest will get interrupted. So, actually, when the East India Company was ruling India, it was in 1857, they had banned Christian missionaries from coming to India. So, Christian missionaries would live in a, especially at that time Bengal was the centre, so they would live outside India, in a place called, say, Rampur, which was in Burma, and from there they would come in and try to convert Indians.
But after 1857, the Christian missionaries started, the British crown took up the rule of India from the East India Company. In 1857, there was a mutiny, and the East India Company couldn’t deal with it. They asked the British government to help them.
And the British government took over the control. So, after that, in Britain, there was a polarising election here in America. There was also a progressive party and a religious party.
The religious party won the elections in England. And they said that the purpose for which God has allowed Britain to colonise the world is to Christianise the world. And from that time onwards, the missionaries started flooding over India.
So, one of the things they found to criticise Hinduism was Krishna’s immorality. Krishna’s immorality in his dealing with the Gopis, and Krishna’s immorality apparently in the dealing with the Pandavas, in the Kauravas, in the Kurukshetra war. But either way, so Bhaktivedanta Thakur actually says some of the moral aspects may be difficult to understand.
And then he says the philosophical aspects. Bhagavatam’s philosophy is quite complex. And then he very expertly deals with all three.
He says that’s where the cosmological, chronological aspect is concerned. I am paraphrasing entirely over here. So, he says, the important thing is, Bhagavatam’s purpose is to help us focus on Krishna.
And the universe can be seen in different ways. So, we don’t have to get obsessed over it. So, as far as the philosophical aspect is concerned, he says Bhagavatam is written by the great sage Vyasa.
Obviously, we should expect that such a great sage will write a great work of philosophy. And we should be patient enough to study him diligently. And, very expertly he says, just as many of us, he is addressing his Indian friend, he says, many of us when we study western philosophers, we don’t understand their philosophy immediately.
But we spend hours and hours studying to understand their philosophy. Similarly, we should be patient and study the Bhagavatam philosophy. And then he says, as far as the morality of Krishna is concerned, he says, just consider there are so many great sages, there are so many great saints, and he talks about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also, who was so morally impeccable, and still they have worshipped Krishna.
So, therefore, we should not be simplistic in labelling Krishna as immoral. Actually, Krishna is not immoral, he is transmoral. So, there is superior morality that is there over it.
So, the point I am using this example is for that, Bhaktivedanta Thakur very gracefully anticipates the obstacles that people will have in studying the Bhagavatam. And he prepares, helps them to overcome those obstacles. Similarly, when we are studying scripture, we may all with our intelligence get some doubts, get some questions.
So, we have to see what is my purpose in studying scripture. And if we keep that purpose in mind, then we will be able to move forward without getting too distracted by things. So, again the same point, 15.15, Vedaisya sarvai aham eva vidyo.
By all the Vedas, I am to be known. So, if by all the Vedas it is Krishna to be known, then certainly by the Bhagavatam it is Krishna to be known. Also.
So, all the more so, not just also. So, then we focus in the study of the Bhagavatam on Krishna, on knowing Krishna and on loving Krishna. And once upon a time, in the same purport when Prabhupada says that actually we are satisfied that Krishna has reached Jharkhand and he is going to perform pastime with his devotees.
So, in this way, when we have that yavasayatmika viddhi eke horu nandana, my purpose in studying scripture is to learn to know Krishna, to love Krishna. Then many of the peripheral doubts that will come, we will be able to put them aside and we will be able to move onwards in our bhakti. And over a period of time, as we start experiencing the transformational potency of bhakti, transformational potency of bhakti is that actually we start feeling our heart getting purified, we start experiencing higher fulfilment, higher love, higher joy in remembering Krishna.
Then the other things will become irrelevant. They will not really matter for us so much. Because we will have experienced pratakshavagamam dharmyam su-sukham kartumabhyam.
We will have experienced Krishna. So, Bhaktivinoda Thakur is again very expert in helping people to overcome these pitfalls. I will conclude with that now.
Another example, when he is little worried about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and in the introduction he says, we leave the question of the identity of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu for our esteemed readers to decide. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is God. How can you leave readers to decide this? Bhaktivinoda Thakur says, as far as the Vaishnavas are concerned, they have accepted Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as God.
As God himself was incarnated in this world. And for him, the many miracles that he has performed, they are proof of his divinity. But, actually even demons like Ravana perform miracles like changing his form.
So, miracles alone are not the proof of divinity. He says, the important thing is that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has come to give the gift of love to God. So, we request our readers to follow the process of Bhakti, which Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has given.
And they can experience the flood of love of God in their own hearts by this practise of Bhakti. So, whether they accept him as God, whether they accept him as a great devotee of God, whether they accept him as a great saint, the important thing is to follow this process. Actually, if we follow the process, we experience the transformation, we will also get the conviction, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is Krishna.
So, rather than, rather than demanding faith, now if you don’t accept this, you are a faithless person, a doubter, rather than doing that, focus on giving people the experience of Krishna. And the faith will gradually merge to that. So, I’ll summarise.
I spoke about the aspects of scripture, which may cause us some questions or doubts. And that connection, I discussed about Srila Prabhupada, he was pragmatic with both the example of not getting to surface, the surface of the universe and which city is where and which city at that time refers to which city now, in the first canto, as well as among all thousands of verses, was that the, was that the figure about how many bodyguards in Ugrasen had? Was that the only thing you found to speak to scholars? So, Prabhupada did not get into these technicalities. So, his focus was on Krishna and on learning to love Krishna.
And that connection I talked about in scriptures has a prescriptive section and a descriptive section. So, the descriptive is not necessary to be replicated. It is not that because 500 years ago the the Jagannath temple management did not allow Haridas Thakur to come in.
So, now also that should be mandated. So, we have to see what is the stress of scripture. So, now, for example, 9.33, the stress is not that these people are low born.
The stress is that even they can be elevated and liberated. So, by knowing what is the prescriptive section of scripture, we can focus on that. And as far as the descriptive is concerned, it comes from a particular cultural or intellectual context.
And we can try to understand that if that is our interest, if that is our service. But otherwise we do not have to get consumed by that. And this functional approach is something which everyone approaches, everyone uses actually.
As I have talked about scientists, they cannot figure out what is the nature of matter, whether it is the model of quantum physics is right or relativity is right. So, what do they do? Whichever model works, they use it and they move on. Allopathy and Ayurveda are two different models.
Whichever works, we use that, we take our treatment, we get healed and we move on with our life. Even our own Acharyas, there is a fifth kind of cosmology which is given, which as a part of the Bhagavatam, they rever it. But when they had to do astrological calculations, they used the model which is given in Jyotish Shastras.
They did not see the Jyotish Shastra model and the Bhagavatam model as competitors that adhering to this is unfaithful to this or something like that. This is used for functional purposes, let me use that. So, similarly, in today’s world, most of us have been educated in scientific worldview.
So, we may use a scientific model, scientific model of the cosmos for practical purposes in this world and we focus on the Bhagavatam for learning to love Krishna. And within that, I discussed towards the conclusion of how when people have difficulties in understanding something, Bhaktivinoda Thakur gives various examples of how to help people overcome those difficulties. The cosmological, chronological section of the Bhagavatam, the philosophical section of the Bhagavatam or the ethical section.
He helps them to move through that. And same way by helping people to experience Krishna through the practise of Bhakti, many of the peripheral issues which otherwise seem very important for them, they will become irrelevant because they will experience Krishna. And the same principle applies to us also.
The more we experience Krishna, the more other doubts will go down in their importance. And we will be able to move closer and closer to Krishna. Thank you very much.
Yes. Thank you very much. My question is, the purpose of the Bhagavatam is to help us love Krishna.
If we focus on that, and the other aspects, whether it’s cosmological or ethical or whatever, my question is about doubts. How is it that if one has some doubts about those, how can they suspend the doubts? Because it seems like the doubts are preventing one from loving Krishna. Okay.
So if someone has some doubts which prevent us from loving Krishna, in doubts about some sections of the Bhagavatam, what do we do? Yes, if there are specific doubts, then we can consult devotees who are specialists in those fields. And from that we can get the doubts clarified. So Sadaput Prabhu has written a book on Vedic cosmography, which is quite helpful in reconciling at least to some extent, the Bhagavatam’s cosmology and the modern cosmology.
See there is the Bhagavatam’s cosmology, we can talk about something is intelligible, something is acceptable. Intelligible means understand where this is coming from. Acceptable means accepted.
So for many people in today’s world, I am not talking about devotees, first let’s talk about new people. Now at least the Bhagavatam cosmology can become intelligible, where it is coming from. And then as we get our doubts clarified by asking specific questions from specific devotees, then we will say, okay from this perspective it makes sense like this.
So I would say if specific doubts are there, we have to find out devotees who are experts in those doubts, in those areas and get the doubts addressed. And again another thing is, it is also, it will vary according to individual to individual. It’s, when we are studying Bhagavatam, sometimes it happens that, that okay this section doesn’t make sense to me.
But what do I do? I just move on and I go to next session. It’s not necessary that even when we study any subject in school, in college, is it that we don’t study anything next step unless I understand this. So sometimes there are so many sections we just skip, study something else and move on.
So we may have to go through many readings before we understand it. But if, as I said, if there are some doubts are preventing one from loving Krishna, then one has to associate with some devotee and get the doubts clarified. But the point is that the doubts also grow depending on how much attention we give to it.
The more I think about a doubt, it will grow. As I said that we should, we should doubt our doubts and believe our beliefs. But sometimes what happens, we believe our doubts and we doubt our beliefs.
So the more we think about something, sometimes our mind just goes there again and again in spite of our not wanting to. Then we may have to get it addressed. But to whatever level we got it addressed after that, now we focus on that which uses belief and helps us move towards Krishna.
Yes ma’am. In regards to that mentality of like, just whatever works for me, whichever scripture works for me, then go with it, like allopathy versus Ayurveda. If I’m taking one and it works, just go with it.
I don’t have to understand how the fire works in the body or whatever. I think this is kind of a continuation of the section before we took the break of surrendering with the intelligence or surrendering to the intelligence. So just that mentality like, okay, I’m going to do this because it works for me.
How can I avoid that becoming a sacred slope? For some people they may take a guru, and it’s kind of because the guru allows kind of similar things that they like doing, but it may not be actually the best thing for them. They’re kind of like tricking themselves into getting cheated. So kind of like, what’s the checkpoint to when I’m surrendering the intelligence? What’s a way to be safe about that? So when we surrender the intelligence, saying that this works for me, so what it is actually I don’t understand, but because it works, I’ll do it.
But by this way, some people may surrender to some teachers who are frauds or who cheat them. So how do we check this? There is, if you look at the broad philosophy of Krishna Consciousness, there are huge parts of it which make very wonderful sense. And not only does the philosophy make sense, the philosophy helps us to make sense of life.
The philosophy helps us to make sense of the world around us. So in many ways, a large portion, it shines through with profound reason and wisdom. But there are some aspects of it which may not seem to be so reasonable, which seem to be difficult for us to understand.
But most of it, as far as the fundamental questions are concerned, about our identity, our activity, our destiny. Now for us, from our practical perspective, I give seminars on science and spirituality. So usually the way I differentiate is, science can help us to make things better.
Spirituality helps us to make ourselves better. If I am short-tempered, there is no pill provided by the scientist. As you pop the pill, your temper goes away.
Nobody can do like that. But by chanting Hare Krishna, by practising bhakti, our anarthas of anger, of greed, of lust, they go down. So when we talk about the utilitarian way of approaching things, yes, science works in some fields, but as far as answering the fundamental questions of life, the scientist doesn’t address the fundamental questions.
You know, where did I come from? What is right? What is wrong? What is the ultimate purpose of life? So these are, who am I or what is my identity? What am I meant to do? What is the ultimate purpose of my life? These questions, these are very wonderfully answered by the Krishna conscious philosophy. And many other spiritual or semi-spiritual or pseudo-spiritual ideas that may be there, they don’t really address these questions very well. There I, see most people’s version of spiritual practise which I’ll tell you today is that they see spirituality as a shock absorber for their material life.
I am facing problems in my material life, and I do some meditation, I do something by which I cool down, and then I pursue my material life again and again. So it really doesn’t offer them a higher vision or ultimate purpose of life. So as far as fundamental questions of identity, activity, destiny, Krishna conscious philosophy is profoundly coherent.
With respect to some details, there may be something which we don’t understand. So if the fundamental issues of life are well addressed, then we are not being utilitarian. Actually, we are very much concerned about the nature of reality when it comes to central questions of life.
But with respect to some specific aspects, we adopt a functional approach. Okay, this is what I need to do. I will understand it as much as I can so that I move on in my life.
Am I addressing your question? Or was your question something else? Yeah, I guess I am thinking more concise. Somebody might be like, they are respecting scripture and they are seeing how it answers the basic, most fundamental, important questions of life, but then in regards to amongst scriptures, like, okay, well, this meditation really works for me. I feel like my life has improved from it.
The four rags, I will take two out of three. And, oh, I actually like this scripture because it’s like, oh, this is working for me. Just that, like, picking and choosing mentality.
So in regards to a broader sense, like, scientific literature is good for material things and scriptures are for thought. I mean, in that really broad sense, I am on the same page. Okay, so the question is that, if we start using this works for me, based on that, we can pick and choose within scriptures, we can pick and choose within regular principles, we start picking and choosing selectively.
Yeah. Actually, there are two aspects to this. One is, every individual is a free individual.
And even Krishna doesn’t control people’s freedom. So who are we to control? So if people are going to pick and choose, they are going to do that. And we can’t stop them from doing it.
That’s from the individual’s perspective. If that is what they want to do, that is what they will do. Okay, so we are not following four regular principles, they are following one regular principle also.
At least they are giving up some level of undesirable activities. They are chanting at least something, they are moving forwards. That is good at that level.
But, if somebody really wants to develop love for Krishna, there is a process that is given in this scripture. It’s a process that is given by Raja Yajna. And that needs to be followed.
So, what we are talking about picking and choosing, it’s not a licence for picking and choosing anything and everything. There is a basic framework of faithfulness. We want to follow the Bhagwat, we want to follow Shilpa Prabhupada.
We want to be faithful to those who have given us Krishna. At the same time, we also have an intelligence. And with our intelligence, some things don’t make sense.
Now, how can we be both devotionally faithful and be intellectually honest? Okay, I have come from a scientific background. I have got a particular conception of physics, a particular conception of the universe. I have to be intellectually honest, this doesn’t make sense to me.
So, we are trying to talk here about how we can balance being intellectually honest and being devotionally faithful. And every one of us will have challenges in that. But if somebody is not devotionally faithful itself, thinking that within the devotional principles only I will pick and choose, then the amount of spiritual advancement they make will be very limited.
They will make some advancement because they are doing something. But we are talking here that there is a basic platform of faithfulness. But does faithfulness require that we just have to reject our intelligence? Or is there a way even with our intelligence we can make sense of this works here, this works here and we move forwards.
So, see whenever we try to use our intelligence to understand things, there is always the danger that we go down a slippery slope. And then we start relativising even core principles. But the security, there is the danger of relativising that which is absolute.
But as a fearful reaction to that is that we absolutise even the relative. Are you getting this? We say if I change, if I try to adjust this, if I try to understand this, I will relativise even the core principles. That’s my fear.
But that’s a valid fear. But an extreme, if we consider a pendulum, one extreme of the pendulum is to relativise the absolute. But the other extreme of the pendulum is to absolutise the relative.
So absolutise the relative means, see as I said, even in our tradition itself, the Bhagavatam cosmology was never seen as a competitor to the Jyotisha cosmology. That’s coming from our tradition itself, from our Acharyas itself. So, when our Acharyas have not made this into an absolutist issue or a faith issue.
Yeah, for the Bhagavatam, they have commented on the Bhagavatam cosmology. But for astrology, they are using Jyotisha cosmology. They have not made this an absolutist issue.
So, we don’t have to absolutise that which may not be absolute. So that’s why again, we have to consult with senior devotees, use our intelligence, and there is of course the sincerity of one’s own heart which is important. So, there is a danger of relativising the absolute, but the security against that is not absolutising the relative.
Absolutising the relative means everything just as it is. Prabhupada himself, he did not do the same thing as it is in America and India. He did many things different in America and many things different in India.
So, if I say everything as it is, which as it is? In America as it is or India as it is? Everything as it is is Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s Bengali Gaudiya Vaishnavism as it is or Vraja Gaudiya Vaishnavism as it is or Odiya Vaishnavism as it is. So, there are different aspects over there. So, the important thing is that we use our Gaudiya intelligence with the guidance of senior devotees to understand that which is central and that which is not central and then make sure that the central doesn’t change.
Does that address your question? Yes. There is a question there. Hare Krishna.
Thank you so much for coming and speaking. I have a question about the original, the first point about the scripture and the difference between prescriptive and descriptive and the example that you used about the sanyasi association with Buddhism. It was a little bit of an issue for me because just yesterday actually I was listening to a lecture by a very senior Vaishnav, advanced Vaishnav and he said kind of the opposite and it was more that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said that the sanyasi should not associate with Buddhism.
And it just seems like what he was saying was the opposite because he said that that’s how it should be, that we should not. And I guess when I heard you say that, it kind of caused a little bit of a confusion in my head because in general, because we have a history, there are many devotees in our movement who have had their hearts broken and so I just wonder sometimes if it’s not something that we need to be more careful about. Is it really prescriptive or is it really descriptive? So sanyasi is associating, not associating with women.
Can we say that it is descriptive or is it actually prescriptive? And I think there are two very different issues over here. Sanyasi is associating with women in terms of say intimate association. That is definitely prescriptive.
The whole meaning of sanyas is renunciation. That’s not an issue of debate. When I was talking about the example was Prabhupada, he just came to meet Indira Gandhi.
So Pratap Rudra, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu avoided even meeting with him. So the word association can have various meanings. When it comes to intimate association, absolutely no.
A person cannot be a sanyasi if there is intimate association. But is it that a sanyasi has to not even look at a woman, not even talk with a woman? That’s not necessary. Prabhupada himself gave an example.
There is a form of respectful dealings and it has to be courteous. Prabhupada was also courteous with everyone, whether the man or woman. So I am not talking about compromising the regulative principle of sanyasa ashram.
Yes, definitely there has to be healthy distance for those in the renounced order from the opposite sex. But I am talking simply about the consideration that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was not even ready to meet Pratap Rudra. So whereas Prabhupada went out of his way to meet the head of state at that time.
So the point I was making is that not the association between the genders or for the renounced order. The point was the association with the head of the state. In this case, for Prabhupada, the head of the state happened to be a woman only.
My point was not sanyasi associating with the opposite sex. My point was sanyasi associating with the head of the state. Is it clear now? So, thank you.
So, one last question. I have a question for you. Relating to doubt your doubt and belief you have to believe.
Sometimes the mind is wired to make the negative things feel big. For example, if you go to a champion of your life, you will see them do one wrong thing and you tend to magnify it. Whereas the good things will be minimised.
So how do you change the mind from seeing and magnifying the negative to training the mind to look at it positive? So the mind tends to see the negative and magnify that. How can you train it to see the positive and magnify that instead? Yes, again I say it all comes down to the purpose. Why am I here? I am here to practise Krishna Bhakti.
So if you consider, I say the Krishna consciousness movement to be like a hospital. There are different people who have come with different diseases. Now I have not come here to do a study of who has got which disease.
I have come here to get cured myself. So if I am clear about my purpose, then I will associate with those who help me to become cured. Sometimes some people go to a hospital and they have a small infection, but they associate with somebody who has a big infection and their disease becomes worse over there.
So it can happen sometimes. We may come in the association of devotees and if we are associating with people who have another different set of conditionings and their conditioning may come upon us. So one conditioning which can very easily come is this critical mentality, the qualifying mentality.
Sometimes we feel I know the truth, this is the standard and this is a deviation, this is a deviation, this is a deviation. So we come in the association of devotees not to go closer to Krishna but to just find out who is going how away from Krishna. That is a very unfortunate flight.
If you are coming there, then what is our inspiration for going closer towards Krishna? If we are always looking for negative in the association of devotees. In the 16th chapter it is said that the characteristic of the God is avaishvana, aversion to fault finding, aversion to fault finding. Yes, everybody has faults, but ultimately seeing others’ faults, it is not going to help us grow in our spiritual life.
If we are in a position of authority where we are meant to guide others and we have the authority to correct them, then as a service we may do it. But that is not what we always have to be thinking about. So if at all we have a very strong fault finding tendency, we can use the fault finding tendency to find the faults of fault finding.
And that way we can counter that mentality. अन्जु निल्दाधि शुन्यर्दमिप्सित संगलव्ध्या It is said that, the Bhakti Upadesha Amitabha says that, the pure devotees, the uttama adhikari, what is the characteristic? They have no inclination to find faults with others. So if we see faults, again I am going to talk about this more in the fourth session.
So I will keep it very brief here. That if there are some faults which are just intolerable, then we may have to talk with some senior devotees. Either they can help that devotee correct the fault or at least we can get a proper perspective.
Why is this happening like this? But otherwise if we see an incidental fault, we just look away from that and focus on our service towards Krishna. See most of the times, it is people whose minds are not filled with service of Krishna, that their minds are empty enough to see faults in others. Those who are busy in their own service to Krishna, they don’t have the time to find faults with others.
So if you are finding too much faults with others, we can think, what service can I take up for Krishna? And the more our heart becomes filled with desire to serve Krishna, then we will become busy in our service to Krishna. And then we will move onwards towards Krishna. So it is very difficult to tell the mind not to do something.
We say the mind, don’t find fault, it doesn’t work like that. The mind will always try to find faults. So we have to find out something more constructive which we are doing in our service to Krishna.
And then as we start filling our mind with constructive activity, constructive things to do, then the fault-finding mentality will go down. And we will also sympathise with others. Because once we start doing something difficult, we start understanding, you know, it’s not so easy.
I also make some mistakes. I also blunder sometimes. I also do things.
So then we, when we ourselves do something difficult and err in that, we understand. Standards are very nice to talk about. But when it comes to practise, there is a struggle.
I am struggling in my way, others are struggling in their ways. So we will also become a little more understanding towards others when we see their faults. But primarily, if we keep our focus of serving Krishna, then that negative mentality of finding faults can be curtailed.
Thank you very much. Krishna Prabhupada ji! Jai Bhaktivinoda ji! Jai Prema! Just a reminder, we are starting tomorrow at 9.30 pm.