Romanticizing Reincarnation – The danger of divorcing knowledge from its purpose

[Sunday feast lecture at Detroit Indian Center, Farmington Hills, USA]

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna.
Thanks to all of you for coming today. And I’ll speak on a topic that was inspired by a question that I was asked. I answer questions on my website, thespiritualscientist.com. And there’s also a well-known question-answer forum called Quora, where people ask questions.
So, I’ve answered several hundred questions over there. So, I was asked a question… I’ve answered many questions on karma and reincarnation. So, there, one young man asked this question.
He said that, no, I want to marry a girl. I love her. But our parents are not agreeing.
So, what karma can I do by which I can marry her in my next life? So, to hear my answer, you’ll have to wait till the end of the class. But I’ll give some background to the question before we move on. Actually, the concept of reincarnation has been romanticised and sensationalised especially by Bollywood.
I recently wrote a book on deemstifying reincarnation. And while doing the research for that book, I found that there are many movies in Bollywood which feature this theme of reincarnation. And they don’t go about explaining reincarnation.
The whole idea is that usually that there are some two lovers who are not able to unite in one life. And then they again reincarnate and they unite in that life. And most of the times, it is that the hero and the heroine, they, when they reincarnate in these movies, they usually have the same body.
So, they have the same body. And the heroine looks… Basically, you have the hero and the heroine both in double roles. You know, in a previous life and next life.
So, this reflects a very deep-rooted bodily conception of life. Once a devotee in Russia was giving a class and he was telling, you are not your body. And one person asked a question.
He said, I have a question. He said, what? If I am not my body, then whose body am I? That means that the person assumes I am the body. So, if I am not my body, then I must be someone else’s body.
So, actually, now there is there is a material conception of life and there is a spiritual conception of life. And we might sometimes just take some concepts from a spiritual worldview and just add them into a materialistic worldview. So, the basic worldview is not changed.
What has happened is, you have simply taken a concept from the spiritual worldview and lodged it on top of a materialistic worldview. And when that happens, it can lead to a lot of misunderstanding. So, the idea of reincarnation, essentially, it implies two distinct things.
First is that death is not the end of life. Death is the end of this life. But in terms of our life journey, death is not a period.
It is like a comma. Death is not a termination. It is a transition.
We go from this place, from this level of existence to another level of existence somewhere else. That’s the first point. And second, more important point is that there is something to us which survives body death.
And since the body is destroyed, that means that whatever survives is different from the body. And that leads to, okay, the body is made of matter. Matter is destructible.
And therefore, if something survives bodily death, that means it must be indestructible. And that indestructible core is the soul. So, it is the soul which is non-material, which is the real, which is the locus of our identity.
Which is who we really are. Now, the idea that, oh, I would like to meet my beloved in my next lifetime and be with her or be with him, that might just seem entertaining. At the same time, the idea that if we take a materialistic worldview and lodge and put some conception of afterlife on top of it, then we end up with many irrationalities.
In Christianity, the world’s religions can be divided into two broad categories. There are the Abrahamic religions and there are the Dharmic religions. The Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
And these all, in their history, Abraham is considered to be one of their major prophets. Who is the most important prophet in that? Judaism, Christianity, and Islam vary. They all accept that Moses was one of the prophets, but Moses promised that a future prophet will come.
The Jews consider that that prophet has not yet come. The Christians consider that that prophet was Jesus. The Muslims consider that that prophet was Muhammad.
So, in a sense, Muslims are also Jews and Christians are also Jews. But they have a later revelation which they stress much more. But anyway, the Abrahamic religions, in their mainstream religions today, do not accept reincarnation.
So, actually, if you go back in their text, there are hints towards reincarnation also. But their mainstream religions do not accept reincarnation. At the same time, they accept afterlife.
They accept the idea that after this life, we have another life. And now this leads to a lot of irrationalities because basically their conception of heaven becomes simply like a perpetual family reunion. So now, that means all your uncles and aunts and grandparents and relatives who have passed away, you’ll meet all of them in heaven and you’ll reunite with them.
Now, at one level, it seems sentimental, really. It’s very sweet. Oh, we reunited with everyone whom we love.
But if you look at it rationally, what does it imply? If, say, our grandparents passed away and we were children, then is it that how will… if they are going to be resurrected in their bodies, then what is going to be happening? Are they going to be eternally old people if they are going to fit into the role of our grandparents? They’ll have to be eternally old. Is that a heavenly prospect for them, to be eternally old? Or for that matter, if there is a marriage and then one of the spouse in the marriage passes away and then they remarry, then which partner is going to be in heaven with you? Or both partners? Then is bygamy going to be a heavenly prospect for those who have to share their partner? Or, for that matter, we further consider that, say, there is a small child. So I was once with a Christian pastor who… the Christians have the idea that Jesus is the only way.
And anyone who doesn’t follow Jesus, they’re going to go to hell. So that was what he was telling me. And they consider, especially those who are preaching other religions, there’s a special hell designed for them.
That is their idea. But not all Christians. Even among Christians, there are Sattvic, Rajasic, Tamasic.
People in goodness, passion and ignorance. But anyway, so he was saying that I took Srila Prabhupada’s standard argument. I was just speaking about Srila Prabhupada and he has manifested himself.
So Srila Prabhupada’s standard argument with Christians was in one of the commandments that thou shalt not kill. And why do you kill? So he evaded the argument. And he said that, he said, if you are concerned about killing, then what about all the women in the womb that have been killed by abortion? So you’re against abortion? Of course.
It’s murder. I said, okay. I have a question for you.
If you say that this life is the only life we have and we have to accept Jesus as our saviour. So what happens if a child is aborted? And that child did not accept Jesus as a saviour. So what happens to it? He says, no, no, the child is innocent.
Therefore, that child will be delivered. He said, okay. That child will be delivered by God and he or she will be taken to heaven.
Okay, what is the purpose of life? It is to go to heaven, to meet and live with God. He said, then okay, why not abort everyone? Everyone go to heaven. He said, no, how can you abort? He says, no, if they take birth, the chance that they may accept Jesus as their saviour and there’s a chance they may not accept Jesus as their saviour.
If they don’t accept, they’re going to go to hell forever. But if you abort them, then you save them from hell. You guarantee them heaven.
He said, abort everyone. He said, no, no, abortion is wrong. How can you abort? So the problem is that actually this whole idea of Jesus is the only way and one lifetime is all that we have.
These are later additions to Christianity. They are not intrinsic to the Bible. They are later additions to Christian theology to try to increase its hold on people.
But the essential point which I was making is that if we add on to, add on a conception of afterlife onto simply a materialistic conception of life, then it rationally doesn’t work. So further, not only does it not work, it can work in very dangerous ways. For example, now many of the jihadis who kill innocent people and who become suicide bombers, now what is it that is motivating them? It is a materialistic conception of life combined with the notion of afterlife.
So there are some extremist Islamic preachers who take certain verses from the Quran and they say that those who lay down their life in jihad, now they will go to Jannat and there they will enjoy with 73 virgins for all of eternity. Now, all these people who are giving up their lives, they are not doing it out of love for Allah. They are doing it out of love for these virgins.
They think I can’t get one virgin also in this lifetime. 73. Now why 73? No one knows.
But the point is that actually this whole concept, what I’m talking about essentially here is that we take a materialistic conception of life and lodge a spiritual idea on top of it. Materialistic conception of life is what? That bodily pleasures are what is the goal of life. And then add on to the idea that it’s another life.
So people’s basic conception of life has not changed. Generally, we talk about materialism and materialism means matter is all that matters. Material enjoyment is the goal of life.
Krishna says in 16.11 in the Bhagavad Gita, such people think that the enjoyment of worldly pleasures is the only goal of life. And with that conception, when people pursue a religious life, so normally we think of materialism in terms of people seeking cross-sensual pleasures in this world. Now in the case of these religions, especially as they are understood by some people, it is simply next-worldly materialism.
It is materialism still, but it is materialism that goes beyond this life to another life. So there can be impious materialism, which is cross-sensuality, which is what is pervading most of the world today. But there can be pious materialism.
But in the name of pious materialism, some people can even become vicious. So what is happening? The problem is not the idea. So there are some atheists who say, you know, there’s nothing that will make people blow themselves up and kill innocent people.
There’s nothing you can programme people to do like this other than religion. And therefore, religion is a very dangerous thing. Now religion is not a dangerous thing.
What is dangerous is mishmashing concepts from different worldviews and coming up with a self-congratulatory idea of religion. The God of the transcendentalists is different from the God of the terrorists. What it means is that Allah as God, Jihad as God, Yahweh as God, Krishna as God, they are ultimately the same one person.
But the conception of God that the terrorists have, that conception is very different from the conception of God that the transcendentalists have. There is a revelation that is given in the scriptural texts. That revelation is perfectly fine.
But there are different degrees of revelation in different texts. That is okay. We are not talking about the revelation.
We’re talking about there may be a revelation, but people by selective reading of texts, they come up with their own conceptions. And the conception of God of the terrorists is very different from the conception of God of the transcendentalists. The God of the transcendentalists is a God who embodies everything attractive.
The God who loves everyone. The God of the terrorists is basically just a super inflated version of their own ego. It’s a super inflated version of their own ego.
That means that is a God who hates whom they hate. And that is not the God. So that God is not the God of religious or scriptural revelation.
That God is simply a projection of one’s own ego. So now the point which I’m making is that the two conceptions, a materialistic worldview and an afterlife, when they are brought together, then people can become terribly indoctrinated and brainwashed. And of course, it is not that religion alone can indoctrinate and brainwash people.
There are many other ideologies that can also brainwash people. In fact, the first suicide bombers were not the jihadis. The first suicide bomber were the agents of the LTP.
You know, that was an organisation of insurgents in Sri Lanka. They used that. But then after that the terrorists, Islamic terrorists, right-wing Islamic terrorists took it up in a big way.
So then there is knowledge and there is purpose of knowledge. Gyanam Ganyam Gyanagamyam Hriday Sarvasya Hristitam. Krishna says in the 7th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita that there is knowledge.
Gyanam Ganyam, there is an object of knowledge. And Gyanagamyam, there is a purpose of knowledge. So when we have knowledge, but we divorce that knowledge from the purpose of knowledge, then we end up abusing that knowledge.
In the Bhagavatam, there is an example of Hiranyakashipu. When his brother Hiranyakashipu is killed by Varahadev, he becomes angry. Now he doesn’t think all the demonic activity that Varaha had done, all the disruption of universal order that Hiranyakashipu had done.
He only thinks, Varahadev has wished to kill my brother and therefore I am going to kill him. And he thinks, what is his idea at that time? The way to gain power for people at that time was to do austerity. And he does austerity.
And he says, I will do such austerity that I will become more powerful than Vishnu. And there he gives a very astonishing piece of reasoning. He says, I know that doing this kind of austerity is very, very difficult.
And I may even die while doing this kind of austerity. But it doesn’t matter because the soul is eternal. So, I will continue this austerity.
Next life, next life, next life. I will continue this austerity lifetime after lifetime after lifetime till I become powerful enough to destroy Vishnu. That is my determination.
So again, what has happened? A materialistic conception of life has been projected, has been used and reincarnation has just been added on to it. So, knowledge has to be coupled with the purpose of knowledge. If we don’t bring the two together, knowledge and the purpose of knowledge, if we don’t bring the two together, it can lead to disastrous misunderstandings.
In fact, in India, the discriminatory caste system which exists today, that is also a result of a misunderstanding of the principles of karma and reincarnation. What happened is that, so, the caste system is in all portrayals of India, outside India and in many mainstream portrayals of India, even in India, the caste system is thought of as depicted as a horrible social evil and has caused so many people to suffer so terribly. It is true.
The caste system as it exists today is extremely discriminatory. At the same time, the portrayal of it as the greatest social evil that humanity has ever invented, that’s how some people portray it, that is terribly wrong. Because even if we consider the people of the lower caste, yes, it’s horrible that they were discriminated against, but still they are living.
If we consider America itself, it was populated with Native Americans. And what has happened? They are not even living now. They number themselves tiny.
So, not only were they discriminated against, but they were eliminated. What about Africans who came along? They were put into slavery. Estimates say that only one-tenth of the Africans who were enslaved in Africa actually reached America.
Therefore, it’s an inhuman condition that most of them died on the ship itself. So, there is the human brutality, the human urge to exploit, that is always there. And that can make people do grievous things.
So, there have been far greater evils than the caste system also. But more importantly, here our point is not to defend ourselves by putting blame on others. Our point is simply to recognise how the caste system went wrong.
We know one thing that birthright made it wrong. The idea that by birth, I have a right that I automatically become a higher caste person. I automatically become a Brahmin.
I automatically become a Kshatriya by birth. That is what made it wrong. See, birth gives a person a right, but it doesn’t give a person full right.
Prabhupada would give the example of a person born in a doctor’s family. The person will have medical discussions, medical terminology, medical culture at home from childhood. So, the child can more easily become a doctor than some other children.
Of course, the child has to study, get the training, and only then the child will become a doctor. So, similarly, those who are born in a Brahmin family, their likelihood of becoming Brahmin is more. So, birth is not entirely irrelevant.
But birth is not decisive. Birth is relevant, but it is not decisive. So, what was the problem was birth was made into a decisive factor.
Just because somebody is born in a Brahmin family, that person is a Brahmin. Somebody is born in a Shudra family, that person is a Shudra. Somebody is born in an untouchable family, that person is untouchable.
This was what was the mistake. And this mistake was perpetuated by a misunderstanding of, misapplication of the idea of reincarnation. What is the misapplication? If you are born in a lower caste family, that means you have done bad karma in the past.
And therefore, you deserve the poor living conditions that are due to you. If I am born in a Brahmin family, that means I have done good karma in the past, because of which I am born in a Brahmin family. And therefore, I am entitled to privileges that are according to Brahmanas.
Now, this is a misunderstanding because nowhere in the philosophy of reincarnation and karma, as this is, as is applied in the Vedic texts, are people judged according to their previous lives. When we deal with people, it is simply based on this life. When Draupadi is dishonoured, nobody tells Draupadi, no, it is because of your own past karma that you are dishonoured.
Nobody does that. If a king, if a person is robbed by a thief, and that person goes to a king, and will the king tell that person, no, it is your own karma because of which you are robbed. Now, okay, whatever might that person’s karma might be, the important thing is, what is the king’s dharma? The king’s dharma is to protect the citizens.
So, we are not meant to judge people according to what they have done in their previous life. According to their previous life, certain things will happen to them in this life. They may be born in a poor family, they may be born in a wealthy family, they may be born with a lot of talents.
Maybe some people have an outstanding memory. And some people have an outstandingly poor memory. Then this difference is there.
That is by past karma. But we, in this lifetime, are not meant to judge people by their past karma. We are meant to say, okay, from this life’s perspective, this thing is wrong.
And this needs to be corrected. So, you have been robbed. No, yes, I will find the thief.
I will catch the robbers. You have probably been dishonoured. I will catch you.
I will. We will arrange the dishonour. We will rectify it.
So, the whole point of Vedic culture is not about past life’s karma. It is about this life’s dharma. What is one’s duty in this life? And to focus on that duty.
So, when, so the Brahmanas, yes, it is by their past life karma that they are born in a high family. But that doesn’t mean that they are entitled to comfort, to respect. They have their this life dharma.
This life dharma is that they have to develop Brahmanical qualities, develop Brahmanical conduct, and do the Brahmanical duties of sharing spiritual knowledge with others. It is only when they do that, then they actually become Brahmanas. Otherwise, they are called as Brahmabandhus.
They are relatives of Brahmanas. They are born in Brahmin families, but they are not Brahmanas. So, again, what happened in this case? Now, the idea of karma and reincarnation was tagged on to a materialistic worldview.
The materialistic worldview is that, you know, that some people want power and pleasure, power, privilege and pleasure. And they used it. You have to, you are lower caste.
I am higher caste. You have to give this to me. You have to do this for me.
You have to honour me. Well, that is a misapplication. The whole idea that I deserve to be honoured, I deserve the best of life, that itself is a materialistic conception.
The whole idea of Brahmanas, Brahma jana diti brahmana, those who understand Brahman, those who understand spiritual reality, they will actually focus on spiritual reality. They will not be attached to material things. They won’t pursue material power and pleasure.
If they are pursuing it, that itself means that they are not really Brahmanas. So, the point again is that this is a universal principle that if we diverge knowledge from its purpose, that means we get, we have a particular worldview which we have. And then we take some piece of information or some idea, some concept from other worldview and tag it on to our own worldview.
It can lead to distortions. So, that’s why we need to, sampradaya, sampradaya means samya grupe na pradaya teli sampradaya. In sampradaya we get knowledge in full form, completely.
Not just knowledge, knowledge along with the purpose of knowledge. So, with this background, let me come back to the starting question now. The starting question was, for those of you who came late, I will ask this question that, a boy asked this question, I love a girl, but our parents are not allowing us to marry.
So, what karma can I do by which I can marry her in my next life? So, now, here we need to understand that the soul has an innate longing to love and be loved. And where does this longing actually come from? Not only do we long to love and be loved, we want to love forever. Isn’t it? Not love forever.
Most of the movies and most of the novels, they are about romance. And romance, a central theme, the most romantic stories, they conclude with H-E-A, happily ever after. Now, you see, the Bhagavad Gita tells exactly the opposite.
Happily ever after. So, ever after or Ashashvatam. And the reality is that this world is Ashashvatam.
So, now, now if you look at the world around us, nothing here is permanent. And the biggest building that might be there, they are also temporary. Huge mountains might be there.
They are also not going to last. So, if nothing around us is permanent, nothing around us lasts, then where does our desire to live forever and to love forever come from? Where does it originate from? Suppose, say, we have had a child who is born in a very protected culture. And then suddenly, let’s say, in a small village in India somewhere, and one day the child says, Mummy, I want pizza.
The mother-in-law says, Where did you hear about pizza? Say, in a small village, there’s no way, nobody in the village knows about pizza. Nobody has cooked pizza. Where did you get the desire for pizza from? So, if there is nothing in the circumstance that stimulates a particular desire, naturally, the question will come, where did this desire come from? Similarly, there is nothing in the world around us that is eternal.
And everything around us is material. So, nothing material lasts forever. So, where nothing material lasts forever, and yet we have a very strong desire to live forever and to love forever, where does this desire come from? This desire does not come from anything material.
Yes, it comes from our non-material core. It comes from the soul. And this desire is meant to be directed towards an eternal object.
The eternal object is, the Bhagavad Gita reveals that to be Krishna. Krishna, the name means sarva-ankara-siddhiti-Krishna, one who is all-attractive. Now, what does all-attractive mean? It means that that person manifests everything that is attractive.
So, whatever is attractive in anyone, that attractive feature is present in its fullness in Krishna. That is the meaning of all-attractive. And the Bhagavad Gita adopts this principle in the other way, when it says in 10.41, yaj-yaj-vibhuti-matsatvam śrīma-dūrgita-vevamā tattva-devāva-gañcatvam mamatejañca-sambhavā It says, whatever is attractive, beautiful, opulent in this world, it manifests a spark of Krishna’s splendour.
Manifests a spark, a spark of Krishna’s splendour. That means, Krishna is saying that there are attractive things in this world and it is not that that attraction is false. Something tastes good, it tastes good.
Something looks good, it looks good. Something smells good, it smells good. That attractiveness is real.
At the same time, it is a spark. A spark means, if there is darkness, the spark will give little light. But a spark cannot provide the illumination that the sun can provide.
So, if we find a particular person attractive in this world, that attractiveness, we understand, whatever is attractive in that person, maybe their looks, it may be their features, whatever it is, it may be their qualities, whatever it is, that manifests a spark of Krishna’s splendour. And the intelligent person recognises, if the spark is so attractive, how much more will the whole be attractive. So, rather than being attracted to the spark alone, we redirect our attraction towards the whole.
So, we have a vertical relationship with Krishna and we have horizontal relationships. Have some water. We have some horizontal relationship with others in this world.
So, the ideal situation is, that the horizontal and the vertical relationships are symbiotic. That means, that whatever it is, that we are attracted to. So, we are attracted to our own.
We are attracted to our own. A child is attracted to parents. The parents are spiritually minded.
Sorry. So, the parents are spiritually minded. And a child, by seeing the parents coming to a temple, going down before the ladies, children also go down.
They also get some spiritual impressions. If someone whom we love is spiritually minded, because of that, we also become a little spiritually interested. And our connection with Krishna also develops.
The horizontal relationship strengthens the vertical relationship. We are the example of Dhruva Maharaj’s mother. She told him that, whatever love I can offer you, Krishna can offer you more love than a million mothers like me.
Take child to Krishna. That’s what he did. So, the horizontal relationship strengthens the vertical relationship.
And similarly, the vertical relationship strengthens the horizontal relationship. That means, that when we, when we practise bhakti and get some shelter and strength through our relationship with Krishna, then we don’t remain so emotionally dependent on our horizontal relationships. And that’s why, when somebody speaks hurtingly to us, somebody neglects us, somebody disrespects us, somebody neglects us, somebody rejects us, these things don’t shake us so much.
Because our sense of self-worth, our sense of self-identity doesn’t depend only on the other person. We are getting that sense of self-worth and self-identity from our connection with Krishna. Basically, when somebody neglects us or rejects us, what happens is that we think, maybe there’s something wrong with him.
Maybe I am unloveable. Maybe I am unworthy. But when we practise bhakti, we understand that no matter how we are, Krishna always loves us.
Krishna’s love for us is not based on who we are. Krishna’s love for us is based on who He is. Therefore, He loves everyone.
Now, Krishna’s love for us is not based on who we are. But our experience of His love is based on who we are. What that means is the sun gives light to everyone.
But if my eyes are closed, I can’t see the sun. Krishna loves us always. But if we are too much in love with materialistic things, then our eyes become spiritually closed and we can’t perceive Krishna’s love.
But that doesn’t mean Krishna doesn’t love us. Just like a child sometimes becomes very attached, infatuated with a toy. Child says, I want that toy.
Mother says, No, I want that toy. Child says, No, I want this toy. No, you don’t love me.
You don’t love me. Now the mother and the father have done so many things for the children. The child doesn’t see any of those things.
The child sees the parent’s love only through the prism of that particular toy. Similarly, when we are materially attached, Krishna has done so many things for us, but we can’t see any of them. You say, this is not working out in my life.
What does Krishna do? Does Krishna care for me? Does Krishna love me? Does Krishna even exist? Start doubting like that. So essentially, when we are sheltered in our vertical relationship with Krishna, then we are not so dependent on horizontal relationship. And that’s how we can have more stability in those horizontal relationships.
So even if there are ups and downs, our connection with Krishna will shelter us. And the process of bhakti yoga tells us that whatever is attractive in anyone, that attractiveness is present ultimately in Krishna. And not just ultimately, it’s present fully in Krishna.
So sometimes in this world, some horizontal relationships will work out. Sometimes some horizontal relationships will not work out. And sometimes we want that relationship to work out very desperately also.
But it may not work out. And every one of us is a soul on our own journey of spiritual evolution. So where we will go, where they will go, we can’t control that.
That is, we are all having our own karma to work out. And that’s why whether there’s a particular soul with whom we are related right now, to whom we are attracted right now, whether we will meet them again in a future life or not, we can’t know that. We can’t control that.
Because there are far more factors than just our desire that are involved in the souls going from one place to another place. But what we can do is that we can develop our relationship with our eternal Lord, with Krishna. When we do that, then, although that specific relationship may or may not be fulfilled either in this life or in a future life, but that fulfilment that we were looking for, that fulfilment will be completely ours when we connect with Krishna.
Because whatever is attracted to anyone, that is present in Krishna and His fullness. Therefore, if we learn to love Krishna, whatever fulfilment we could have got from a particular relationship, which we did not get, that fulfilment we will get in our relationship with Krishna. Now, all of us, if we look at our life, some relationships are wonderful, some relationships are not so wonderful.
You know, we may have a very good relationship with our mother, but we may have a strained relationship with our father. Or vice versa. Or sometimes we may have a very good relationship with one sibling, a very bad relationship with another sibling.
Sometimes we have a very good relationship with our spouse, sometimes we don’t have such a good relationship with our spouse. So basically, there are some relationships which are satisfying, some relationships are not satisfying. And sometimes people go through life scarred because of the disappointment in a particular relationship.
But if you understand that whatever fulfilment I have got, I may have got from any relationship, I will get all that and more from my relationship with Krishna, then we can wholeheartedly practise bhakti. And by that wholehearted practise of bhakti, we can get such fulfilment even in this lifetime that the disappointments in various relationships won’t matter so much. More importantly, when we are fulfilled in our relationship with Krishna, when we are stabilised in our relationship with Krishna, we will ourselves be able to act more intelligently, more sensitively, more maturely, and we will be able to do better our part in the relationships.
And who knows, the relationships may become much better that way. So in this way, our longing for love, we can fulfil it best when we put Krishna first. We don’t have to reject other things.
We have to put Krishna first. When we put Krishna first, then everything else falls in place. Some things will work out well, better than what they were earlier.
Some things will work out very well. Some things may not work out so well. Some things may not work out.
That’s just the way life is. But still, if we put Krishna first, we will get an internal stability and security that will enable us to go through life no matter whatever life sends our way. So sometimes, as I said, some relationships work out, some don’t.
That’s just the result of karma. But the principle of bhakti, you know, I write an article on the Bhagavad Gita every day at gitadesi.com. So I take a verse from the Gita and try to explain the contemporary terms. So a practical way in which you can understand, sarva-dharmāndhra ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣeṣaṁ Krishna says, I will protect you from all sinful reactions.
What that means is, whatever karma may get us through, Krishna will get us through. Whatever karma may get us through, we don’t know what the future is going to hold. We may face different kinds of problems.
But Krishna will get us through. We take shelter of Krishna, absorb ourselves in Him, connect deeply with Him. We will get the inner strength, the inner security, and whatever life sends our way, we will be able to lead.
yam labdhvā chāparam lāvaṁ manyate nādhikaṁ tattvā yasmin sato tukhena kundurāpīt vijāyate When we are connected with Krishna, absorbed in Krishna, then there is such fulfilment, sukham ātyantikam yathak buddhi grāyavate indriyam which ultimate happiness is there, and there is nothing more to be gained. And even if there is a great loss, one is not disturbed by that. So that state of supreme fulfilment is what we all can attain by practising bhakti in this life.
And that’s why the Bhagavad Gita’s ultimate message is that It says, arjuna sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ focus on surrendering unto Me. We have many duties, many roles, many relationships. Some of them may work out, some of them may not work out.
If we focus on Krishna, put Krishna first, you know, our heart will stay in the right place. Our heart will be sheltered and fulfilled in our relationship with Krishna. So I’ll summarise.
I spoke today on the topic of of romanticising reincarnation, of how some people do that. The question was, how can I marry someone whom I love, I’m not married to be able to marry this lifetime, I would like to marry them in the next lifetime. What karma can I do? So I address this issue that we may take a concept from a particular worldview and just add it onto our own worldview.
And if we don’t change our basic life conception from material to spiritual, then without changing our conception of world life, of worldview, then we actually can misunderstand and misapply even knowledge. Knowledge, when divorced from the purpose of knowledge, can defeat the purpose of knowledge also. So I gave the example of, say, Abrahamic religions.
In which the idea of an afterlife is there, but that afterlife is simply propped on to a materialistic worldview. And that’s why some people have the idea that, okay, I’ll go in next life, and all my relatives will be there. But then that means all my grandparents, if they are eternally of old age, that is not at all a heavenly prospect for them.
If a person had married to someone and they passed away and they married again, if both the spouses are going to be in heaven, bygamy is definitely not going to be a heavenly prospect. So if we consider that this life is all that we have, and say Jesus is the only way, and children who are aborted, because they are sinless, they go back to God. God takes them back.
Then we could say that let everyone be aborted. Because they will go back to God. If they take birth, they may not surrender to God.
And then they will not go back to God. So we come to all kinds of irrational conclusions when we divorce a piece of information from the worldview from which it is coming. More disastrous, we talk about jihadis, who think that by dying in a holy war, they will go to heaven, and then they will go to Jannah, and they will enjoy 73 virgins over there.
So their idea is they’re not loving Allah, they’re loving simply sense gratification. So the whole idea of afterlife is tagged on to a materialistic worldview. But important thing is to change the worldview itself from material to spiritual.
Similarly, our purpose is not to criticise other religions. Something similar has happened in our religion also. Then the broad Indian tradition in Hinduism, there is a caste system, where the principles of karma and reincarnation were misused to rationalise discrimination against the lower caste, and to rationalise the mentality of entitlement among the higher castes.
And so somebody who is born in a higher caste, yes, they have done a good karma by which they are born in a higher caste. But they need to acquire the necessary qualifications. Nobody, people are not meant to be judged according to what they’ve done in their previous life.
That will determine the starting point and determine certain conditions in their life. That is the, that is nature’s verdict on them. But as far as we are concerned, we are meant to interact with people based on the this life.
So if a thief has robbed a person, the king has to punish the thief. King can’t say you’re robbed by your past karma. So this life, brahmins, born brahmins, brahmin couple, they have to acquire brahminical qualities.
Otherwise, the entitlement mentality was what ruined the varnashram and made it into the ugly caste system present here. So we discussed from Bhagavatam, how Hiranyakashipu took the idea that I am the soul to rationalise his own bid for revenge against Vishnu. So I will continue to perform austerity lifetime after lifetime till I become powerful enough to kill Vishnu.
So there is a spiritual idea, but still a materialistic goal. And to get proper knowledge along with the purpose of knowledge, we need to get knowledge in Sampradaya and proper philosophical understanding will get. And then we discussed about this longing for love.
Can we get a, when we feel attracted to someone, we need to understand is that attractive feature is real, it is present in that person. But it is a spark of the attractiveness of Krishna. And sometimes according to karma, our relationships horizontally will work out.
Sometimes they may not work out. If we obsess only over the horizontal relationships, we may just live disappointed or frustrated lives. The relationship doesn’t work out.
Even if the relationship works out, still the relationship is temporary. And again we will be frustrated when that relationship ends. So we need to put Krishna first.
Give top, the first priority to our vertical relationship with Krishna. And this won’t deprive us because whatever attractive things are present in any person, they are all present in their fullest from Krishna. So the very longing for lasting love which is universal in human culture.
All the most romantic movies and novels, they talk about happy ever after. Although there is a thing that lasts ever after in the world around us that indicate that this longing for ever after, it doesn’t come from anything material. It comes from something non-material.
That is our non-material core, Krishna. And it’s the soul. Comes from the non-material core of the soul and is meant to be directed towards Krishna.
So to the extent we learn to direct our love towards Krishna, to that extent we can weather whatever storms come in our horizontal relationships. The ideal situation is that the horizontal relationships tend to the vertical relationships. Those who we love, they are spiritual and they inspire us also to become spiritual and devoted to Krishna.
And but irrespective of whether that works or not, if our vertical relationship is strong, then whatever disappointments we may face in our horizontal relationships, we’ll be able to weather them. And the ups and downs we face in our relationships, they are because of our karma. But whatever karma may get us through, Krishna will get us through.
By becoming absorbed in Krishna, by being sheltered in Krishna, we’ll get such fulfilment and strength that we will be able to face through life’s storms, being fulfilled within, and ultimately attaining Krishna as a goal where there is supreme fulfilment. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.
Yes, are there any questions? Yes, Bhuvan. That’s a very good point of relationship. Horizontal and vertical.
I need one tip from what you were saying. Keeping Krishna in the centre or first. And how do we implement and why do we have to implement and have a good relationship among the community? What are the things that, yes, we understand spiritually, but actually what is stopping us not to put Krishna in the centre first and then keeping ourselves be the first and our own desires? Okay, so we understand that we have to put Krishna first, but still even in devotee community, sometimes we are not able to do that and relationships are not so smooth because of that.
There are, I would say, three different things. See, putting Krishna first doesn’t mean neglecting others. It simply means seeing others in connection with Krishna.
So there are times when there may be an urgent need, there may be an emergency. So in a practical sense, we may have to do certain things first, although Krishna is first in our life’s goal. Just like if you’re travelling somewhere and we want to get to that destination, but if there’s a traffic over there, we’ll go slowly.
If the traffic is not, the road is clear, we’ll go faster. So like that, we are going towards Krishna, but sometimes somebody else, some of our relatives, some of our acquaintances, they may be going through some difficulties, some emergency and at that time, our material life, our practical needs, they may take a lot of time and energy and when it is a genuine need, an emergency, we need to help. Just like in the name of putting Krishna first, if we start neglecting others, the point is not that we neglect others when we say put Krishna first, it means that Krishna is the most important person in our life and even when we are helping others, we see that in the light of our relationship with Krishna.
Sometimes in the name of putting Krishna first, we neglect everyone else and actually we are not putting Krishna first. We are only putting our own conception of Krishna first. See Krishna, we are Krishna’s parts and others are also Krishna’s parts.
So we serve Krishna not just by how nicely I am chanting, how nicely I am studying scripture, we serve Krishna also by how we are interacting with other people. That is the difference between a Kanishta Adhikari and a Madhyam Adhikari. Kanishta Adhikari sees Krishna only in the needy and thinks as long as I am worshipping the needy nicely, I am a good devotee.
But a Madhyam Adhikari understands that my relationship with Krishna depends not only on how I am worshipping the Lord but also how I am dealing with devotees. I should be friendly with them. How I am helping the innocent people.
How I am keeping a safe distance from those who are envious. So basically putting Krishna first doesn’t mean neglecting other people. It means infusing our other relationships with an appropriate service attitude.
So if you have a misunderstanding of what putting Krishna first means, then we may neglect other people and that hurts them and that creates coldness in relationships. Another problem that may come is that when we put Krishna first, we sometimes, our spirituality should make us more understanding of others. But our spirituality sometimes makes us more judgemental of others.
That means, you know, just as I am struggling with my mind and senses, similarly you are struggling with your mind and senses. He is struggling with his mind and senses or she is struggling with her mind and senses. Everybody is struggling in this world.
But the difference is that I may find some things very easy and those very things may be very difficult for someone else. So what happens, something which I can do very well, you know, I make that, I hold that as my standard and use that to pat myself on the back. You are a good devotee.
And then I use that as a standard by which I beat others. You are good for nothing. So if I have a body by which I can do fasting very easily, then I fast niljal or ekadashi.
And I feel very good. See, I am such a serious devotee. I fast niljal.
And then somebody else may have a body by which they just can’t fast. And then if I am fasting on ekadashi and then I go to the kitchen and see who is eating what. So attached.
Sense gratifier. Hopeless. Then my body may be fasting, but my ego is feasting.
So we will not make any spiritual advancement by that. So what I’m saying here is that, now it’s good if I can fast, I should fast. But I don’t have to judge others by my standards.
By my standards means, somebody may say it’s not my standard, it’s scriptural standard. Yes, but scripture tells us so many things. Scripture doesn’t tell us just fast.
Scripture also tells us to be sensitive. Scripture tells us to be kind to others. Don’t offend others.
Don’t disrespect others. Don’t hurt others. But we are not taking that.
So what happens? Something from scripture which we can do well, we do it well and we make that as our standard. And then we judge everyone by that standard. And because of that, we become judgemental towards others.
So we have to understand that different people have a different set of mind and senses. Because of that, what may be very easy for me, may be very difficult for them. As long as they are trying to serve Krishna, I should be judgemental.
Why are you not doing this? This is so simple. But it may not be so simple for them. So we need to be more understanding.
Rather than looking at the specific, that I can do this so easily, why can’t you do it? We have to become more understanding. Just as I can, instead of looking at this thing which I can do so well and they can’t do, I can look at something which I can’t do. And think, although I want to do it, although I know this is the right thing to do, but for me it’s so difficult.
So just as my mind and senses make this thing so difficult for me to do, similarly their mind and senses makes it difficult for them to do that thing. So rather than seeing I am following standards and they are not following standards, we can see that by that we cultivate an adversarial position. But we understand that we are all fighting the same war.
Within that war, each of us may be fighting against specific soldiers, specific enemy soldiers. They are fighting with their mind and senses, I am fighting with my mind and senses. But we understand we are all fighting the same common war.
Then we become more understanding of each other’s needs, more understanding of each other’s struggles. Some people, if we are told to do something, we just remember and do it. Some people, they just forget.
How can you forget? That’s just the way they are made. I am not justifying that they should forget. They should try their best to remember.
But it will just not work for them. So we have to understand that we shouldn’t judge others by our standards. So if we do that, sometimes your spiritual standards, like I told earlier about incorporating certain things from a particular worldview to another worldview, sometimes spiritual standards become incorporated into our, incorporated as weapons in our ego battles with others.
That means, you know, I want to prove that I am better than you. And then in that, see, I follow the standards so well. You are so attached.
So what has happened is actually our relationships can be ruined if we take standards as means for one-upsmanship in our relationship with others. Because I follow the standards, so I am better than you. If we start using, if we start misusing standards for these purposes, then we can ruin relationships.
Because people feel alienated, people feel scorned, people feel violated. So they are trying their best in their situation. So our spirituality will make us more understanding, not more judgement.
And we all have our own set of standards by which we judge others. That’s why sometimes there is, there can be greater friction in a devotee community than a non-devotee community. Because we become more judgemental.
It doesn’t have to be like that. And third thing I would say is that even when we are putting Krishna first, even if we are like-minded, still we are not alike. All of us are individuals.
And when we are individual, now we are not just individuals at the level of the body and the mind. Soul also we are individual. So we are irreducibly individuals.
So that means that sometimes even about serving Krishna, even when we have put Krishna first, even when we are trying to serve Krishna, still we may not be able to agree on how specifically to serve Krishna. So at such times, rather than focussing on the practise of serving Krishna, we should focus on the principle of serving Krishna. The practise of serving Krishna means, I want that this project should be done like this.
And another person will say, I feel it should be done like this. These are practical details. And sometimes we get so conflicted over those practical details that we forget the principle.
You know, ultimately, there are so many people who are doing so many things in this world. This person among the few handful of people in the world is actually trying to serve Krishna. So we focus not on the practise of serving Krishna.
As far as the practise is concerned, there will be differences. And sometimes it may be my way. Sometimes it may be someone else’s way.
Sometimes we come alive at an intermediate solution, whatever it is, the practical details. But if we focus on the principle, they are also serving Krishna, I am also serving Krishna. And then we can see the commonality.
Sometimes we get so caught in the practicalities and then we do not see the commonality at all. They are thinking like this, I am thinking like this. They are wrong, I am right.
So if we focus, they are still trying to serve Krishna. Then we would not let disagreement degenerate into disrespect. Disagreement can be there, but we can respectfully disagree.
But when we, what happens is, the point of disagreement is what we centre on. And we forget the big picture. And in Christian theology, before the scientific age of science started, there were scholastics, there were scholars who debate, they wrote thousands of pages debating how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle.
Somebody said 10 angels, somebody said 15, somebody said 100 angels, somebody said only 1 angel, somebody said 1,000 angels. And they were debating actually. Having huge, literally, you could say intellectual world wars.
You know, what difference does it make? So, like that, sometimes we get so confused. We get so caught in the trivialities. They may not seem trivial for us.
And they may not be trivial also. They may be important details. But still, the big picture, the point is that we are all trying to serve Krishna.
So we focus on the principle that we are serving Krishna and appreciate. If we cannot work with them or they cannot work with us, we can keep a distance. We may even go our separate ways.
Some of us, sometimes people just need their own room to serve Krishna. So we should not spoil our relationship because of practical differences. And in the Bhagavad Gita, there is an example.
Krishna says that Krishna is 18th chapter discussing. Some people say that Yajna and Tapas should be given up. Some people say that Yajna and Tapas should not be given up.
And Krishna quotes both these scholars. My opinion is that Yajna and Tapas should not be given up. But even when talking about Purvapaksha, those who say Yajna, Tapas should be given up, Krishna calls them as Manishinaha.
It’s even those whose opinion Krishna rejects. Krishna says they are also Manishina. Manishina means they are thoughtful people.
Those people who have control over their mind by which they can think of long term reality. So Krishna rejects their opinion but still respectfully refers to them as Manishina. Why? Because they are also thinking of ultimate liberation.
And they are thinking, at least they are contemplating ultimate liberation. And they are thinking that renunciation is the best way to liberation. Krishna is saying no, engagement is the best.
But Krishna respects their intent. So like that, my three things. First is that we don’t make, in the name of putting Krishna first, we don’t neglect others.
We understand that we serve Krishna often through others. Our relationship with Krishna also depends on how we relate with others. Secondly, by not letting our standards make us more judgemental of others.
It makes us more understanding by recognising that just my mind and senses make something difficult for me. And then the mind and senses of others make other specific things difficult for me. And thirdly, by not letting differences or practicalities in service make us so much apart that we don’t see the commonality that we are all trying to serve Krishna.
So practically, we may have to work out some way. Except that it may not always be our way. That is real.
But we don’t let that blind us to the commonality. Disagreement doesn’t have to degenerate to disrespect. So if you keep this in mind, then we will be able to actually move forward harmoniously in our services to Krishna while existing as a community.
Does that answer your question? Thank you so much. Any other questions? I won’t answer so long. How can we strengthen our vertical relationship? The Bhakti Samrat Siddhu talks about a concept called Uddipan.
Uddipan means spiritual stimulus. Just like all of us have particular sense objects that immediately attract us. Some of us will be attracted to say 1980s Bollywood songs.
Some of us will be attracted to a particular cricketer. Some of us will be attracted to something. So when I say attracted to, that means what? As soon as that stimulus comes, immediately thoughts, desires, memories start getting triggered.
So just as we have individual sense objects that trigger us, and they vary from person to person. So like that, even in our spiritual life, we have individual spiritual objects that will trigger our thoughts, desires, memories. So we need to find out what is our particular Uddipan.
So some of us may find that Kirtans is what I really like. And not just Kirtans, maybe a specific bhajan, maybe a specific tune, maybe a specific singer. But then if that is what stimulates me spiritually, then I need to expose myself to that more and more.
There’s a standard practises of bhakti, which we do and they will steadily purify us. But along with that, the specific Uddipan that is suitable for us, that works for us, that will connect us much more rapidly. And we can do that in a more relishable way.
Because our connection over there is happening fast. So while practising bhakti, we can look for what is our Uddipan. For some of us, it may be darshan of the deity.
Some of us, it may be doing deity worship. For some of us, it may be studying scriptures. Or maybe it may be studying a particular book or even a particular pastime or hearing from a particular speaker or memorising a particular verse and reciting that again and again.
So we don’t have to bother so much about quantity first form. We can focus on the principle. What is it that connects me with Krishna? And we do that more and more.
By that, we will have some way to connect vertically whenever we need to. So whenever we face any temptation horizontally or we face any tribulation horizontally, then we can connect vertically quickly through that. Along with that, all relationships develop based on commitment.
So if we take up some commitment, even a small service to Krishna, we take up a commitment that will take our relationship to a level of stability that will grant us stability. See what it means is that to the extent I make my service to Krishna dependent on my emotions, today I feel like doing it, so I’ll do it. Tomorrow I don’t feel like doing it, I won’t do it.
Then if my service to Krishna is dependent on my emotions, then my experience of Krishna’s shelter will also depend on my emotions. Because I have made that relationship itself subordinate to my moods, by emotions I mean my moods. But a commitment means whether I feel like it or I don’t feel like it, I will do it.
So when we have that commitment for some service towards Krishna, so our service is going beyond our moods. Because sometimes we just don’t feel like doing something. But Krishna sees not just our feelings, he sees also our feelings about our feelings.
He also sees our feelings about our feelings. That means sometimes I just don’t feel like chanting. Some days chanting is so ecstatic that we feel chanting should never end.
And some days we feel chanting is not ending only. It’s just going on and on. We take out the wheel from the bag, has somebody changed it from 108 to 1008? So that happens.
At that time if, okay I don’t feel like chanting, but Krishna I don’t want to feel like that. Now please help me, please allow me to serve you through chanting. So that feeling is coming on its own accord.
But we don’t embrace that feeling. So what is our feeling about that feeling? We say that, no I don’t want this Krishna. Krishna says in 14.22 and 23, that based on the moods, sometimes we’ll feel illuminated, sometimes we’ll feel I have to do things, sometimes I’ll feel lethargic.
What is the need of doing anything? But whenever those feelings come, rather than identifying with those feelings, we say that they are going to come, they are going to go. We stay fixed in the spiritual platform. So we become, rather than acting on our emotions, we become observers of our emotions.
And then, so that way, we may not be able to do the same quality of service if we are not feeling positively at that time. But still we do what we can at that time. So then we’ll take our relationship with Krishna beyond the moods.
And that means beyond the moods. And that way, when we leave the shelter of Krishna also, even if our moods are not cooperating, still the shelter will come to us. So that way, by developing our connection through a spiritual stimulus and stabilising their connection through a committed service, we can strengthen our vertical relationship.
Yes, sir? I’m very new to the Krishna Conscious Movement. At the time, we understand that certain things are good for the country, and certain things may not be good for the country. And sometimes I hear these social explanations.
Is there a way that I can help you? How do we handle such values? OK. So in our pre-demotional life, we may have found social connections in which we are grateful to others. But after coming to bhakti, we evaluate based on whether something is favourable or something is unfavourable.
So some of our horizontal connections may, where we are grateful to others, they may not be so favourable for our bhakti. So what do we do in such a situation? Yes. There are the best situations where the horizontal and the vertical both move along together.
And if somebody has done something, some favour for us, we’re grateful to them. It is not that for the sake of bhakti, we have to reject them. We have a gratitude for them.
At the same time, we have to understand from a philosophical perspective that whatever, whoever has done for me, ultimately it is Krishna who has done for me through them. One of the most intimate acts of service that can ever be done by one human being for another is a mother breastfeeding her child. She’s offering her whole body’s milk to her child.
And now, at the same time, if we think more deeply, the mother does not do anything special to produce milk when the child is born. The same God who sent a child into her womb and brought that child out, that same God also arranges for milk in her breast. That means that it is not that the child should neglect the mother.
But the point is that it’s Krishna who’s arranging for that child through the mother. So we acknowledge the instrument, but we also acknowledge the source. And as the best is, when we are grateful to the instrument and we are also aware and grateful over the source.
And in some exceptional situations, it can come in conflict. Then the Bhagavatam says, That we all have various debts in this world. But if we are surrendering to Lord Mukunda, we are serving him, then we are freed from these debts.
So we don’t have to act in our horizontal relationship if we are focussing wholeheartedly on our vertical relationship and acting in a horizontal relationship is extremely unfavourable. At the same time, we live in a culture of aversion to commitment. Many people don’t want to marry, they just want to live together.
There are various sociological reasons, but the main thing is people don’t want commitments. And what happens because we come to spirituality, we often mistake aversion to commitment to be detachment. But the two are not the same.
Aversion to commitment is a responsibility. Detachment actually comes from a higher taste. So sometimes because we live in a culture that is averse to commitment, what happens is we very casually trivialise and reject our horizontal relationships and say I am doing it in the name of bhakti.
But actually how much we are seriously practising bhakti, that is also a question. So we should consider, especially those who have close relationships, we have to give them due importance. And how to, in principle, the best is to harmonise both.
The best cannot be harmonised in principle for the vertical relationship, the horizontal relationship, certain obligations can be given up. But we shouldn’t do that in a dismissive or a perfunctory or cursory way. We have to deeply deliberate, consult some senior devotees and then act maturely.
Otherwise we may be just rationalising our own irresponsibility in the name of spirituality. Does that answer your question? Thank you. Thank you, Krishna.
Can we stop here? So thank you very much.