God as the supreme therapist 3 – Devotional detachment is not freedom from emotions but freedom of emotions
[Narasmiha Chaturdashi series on Prahlada’s prayers 5.18.8-14]
[Bhagavatam class on 5.18.10 at ISKCON, Denver, USA]
Video:
Transcript
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
Hare Krishna So today morning we are discussing on the prayers of Shri Prahlad Maharaj which he is offering to Narasimhadev. We are going to continue the theme of how Krishna is the supreme therapist. And in this verse, Shri Prahlad Maharaj is praying that let my emotional energy be directed only towards you, O Lord, and not be directed towards anything else.
So the theme I will speak on today is that devotional engagement is not freedom from emotions. It is freedom of emotions. Freedom from emotions means there are no emotions at all.
Freedom of emotions means that our emotional energy is free with us to direct where we want to direct it. So the theme which we are taking overall in these classes, in the first class, I spoke on the theme of how people are distressed and people need relief. And the distress today is primarily emotional or psychological distress.
And the process of bhakti can offer us relief. But it has to be understood properly. In yesterday's session I talked about how because people have a lot of emotional sensitivities, so we have to be sensitive to their emotionality and then present bhakti accordingly.
So today, one thing which people find difficult to accept is the theme of detachment. People say that, if you become spiritual, you become uncaring, you become hard-hearted, you become asocial, you withdraw into your shell. However, the purpose of bhakti is not becoming apathetic to the world.
It is not becoming unconcerned about the world. The purpose of bhakti is to become concerned about something bigger than the world. You want to become concerned about Krishna, who is eternal.
The world with all its attractiveness is temporary. So it is not that devotees are meant to be or devotees should become hard-hearted or uncared. Rather, they care for something bigger.
And then smaller things they are able to see in proper perspective. So what this means is that each of us has our own individuality and we all have our emotional energy. If you look at the character of Prahlad and Hiranyakashipu, we see Hiranyakashipu is, as Prabhupada says, the example of the typical materialist.
He wanted to get more and more and more for his worldly enjoyment. For him, this world and its pleasures were the ultimate goal of life. Krishna says in 16.11 in the Bhagavad Gita, for such people, the prime necessity of life is enjoying the senses.
And then what happens? We consider what is the result of attachment. Why is attachment bad? Attachment brings us under the control of the object to which we are attached. If somebody, say, becomes hooked to drugs, attachment can be of various types.
It can be transcendental, in goodness, in passion, in ignorance. But to understand this controlling power of attachment, let's consider attachment and ignorance. Somebody gets attached to drugs.
Then that person, initially the drug peddlers may give a free sample to get the person hooked. And once the person is hooked, then after that, the person may just go crazy. And they so desperately want drugs that they may rob, they may steal, they may commit crimes, they may even kill.
And the drug peddlers, they may start controlling and manipulating the person, making them do whatever they want them to do. So, generally, addiction is considered to be one of the fairly reliable predictors of criminality. If a person is becoming an addict, sooner or later the addiction will make them do something criminal.
So basically, we see here, by becoming attached to drugs, the person comes under the control of the drugs and the control of those who are offering those drugs. And that's how they become manipulated. So, attachment actually makes us lose our control over ourselves.
It brings us under the control of something else. It makes us do destructive things. Self-destructive things, even more destructive things.
So, those who are completely captivated by this world, they get consumed and they do self-destructive things. As it destroyed their soul, all the souls are indestructible, they have destroyed the spiritual prospects of their soul. They act for harming the world also.
So now, if we understand this attachment in the sense of being emotionally dependent on something, being controlled by something, that is bad. So, we could see that what is the opposite of attachment? The opposite of attachment, we can understand at three levels. The opposite of attachment can be aversion.
The opposite of attachment can be detachment. And the opposite of attachment can be devotion. So, let's understand the difference between these three.
The opposite of attachment, it can be aversion or detachment. What is the difference between aversion and detachment? In aversion, the emotional energy is still invested in that object. But now, it is invested with a negativity.
It is invested with anger, with hatred, with negative emotion. So, aversion does not indicate any elimination of the consciousness. The consciousness is still as consumed by that object as it was when one might be attached to it.
Sometimes, a man and a woman get attracted to each other and they say, we want to meet each other. And they are in a fight with the whole world. They can't think of anything.
Constantly, they are thinking of each other, seeing each other. Sometimes, people are walking in a bus or in a train, they are holding the train, but they are lost in their own world. They don't even… because they are just consumed by the thought of their object of love.
But, a few months or a few years down the line, the relationship doesn't work. Then, the same people who said, I can't live without her or without him, same person says, I can't live with him or with her. And, they may just go to a divorce attorney and be in a court with murderous looks at each other.
And, they are still emotionally fixated on that person, but now, in a negative way. So, attachment and aversion are two sides of the same coin. And, sometimes, if we are not properly spiritually advanced, we may mistake aversion to be detachment.
Krishna says, Twice he talks about this. 2.64 and again 3.35. So, He says, both attachment and aversion, they steal our consciousness away from Krishna. A simple example.
See, if we come to a temple. But, if we are attached to someone, very attached to someone, attached in a material sense. We can be attached to devotees in a spiritual sense.
But, if we are attached to someone in a material sense, we may come to the temple, but we may just, instead of looking at the deities, we are looking at, you know, when will that person come? When will I meet that person? When will I talk with that person? So, similarly, if we are averse to someone, when we come to the temple, we are still thinking, you know, will that person be there? I don't want to see that person. I don't want to talk with that person. And, even when we are looking at the deities, we are thinking, you know, has that person come? Can I hear their voice? If they are going to come, I am going to know.
So, in both cases of attachment and aversion, the consciousness is no longer available for focusing on Krishna. So, in that sense, attachment and aversion, both are distractions from Krishna. So, we could say, attachment is a temptation, but aversion is also a temptation.
Normally, we think of temptation as something that gives us pleasure. But, more generically, temptation is anything that distracts us from Krishna. So, attachment can be distracting and aversion can also be distracting.
So, if such verses, where let me have no attachment to family, to wife, to children, to home, if these are taken in the sense of, if we mistake the opposite of attachment to be aversion, then we end up becoming irresponsible, in the name of being spiritual. So, if some students, like to study, because studies seem very difficult, they say, oh, this is all material, this is all mundane, why should I study this? But, that is not because they are attracted to Krishna, they just say, this is too difficult. So, then that will not lead to any spiritual advancement.
Then beyond, so, aversion is, the emotions are still fixated, but in a negative way. Detachment means, there is no investment of emotions in it. So, we could say that somebody has never taken alcohol, or never taken drugs.
Some, that person, even if some drug peddler goes, they see a drug peddler, or they see a drug joint somewhere, there is no emotion at all in it. So, detachment doesn't mean that one is uncaring, or pathetic, or hard-hearted. Detachment simply means, one's emotions are not involved in it.
So, detachment is much healthier than aversion. And, aversion to commitment is not detachment. Today's culture, a boy and a girl, they want to live together, but they don't want to get married.
Now, when they are doing this, it is because they feel marriage is a lifelong commitment, I don't want to make this commitment. But, they are not detached. So, what happens, what is the difference between detachment and aversion to commitment? Detachment means, one has understood that there is not much pleasure over here, so there is no need for me to get involved in this.
But, when there is aversion to commitment, at that time, one thinks there are so many options for pleasure, and if I choose one option, then other doors will close for me. So, I want to keep all the doors open. So, in that sense, if you say detachment could be in the mode of goodness, aversion to commitment is in the mode of ignorance.
So, aversion to commitment, in passion, at least, one will say, I want to enjoy this object, I want to do this thing. So, in passion, one material desire dominates our consciousness and drags us. But, in ignorance, we are not even able to decide which material desire to fulfill.
So, aversion to commitment means, there are so many materially enjoyable objects, and I don't want to commit to anyone, because I want to have the option of enjoying all of them. So, that is, in the mode of ignorance. Detachment is in goodness, where one has got Gyanam, Sattva Sanjayate Gyanam.
By this knowledge, one has understood that, actually, I am meant for something higher in life. I don't want to get caught in these petty things, in the temporary things of this world. Therefore, one becomes detached.
And beyond this is devotion. In devotion, one is actually, not just no involvement of emotions, but there is full involvement of emotions in Krishna. When our emotions are thus involved in Krishna, they are engaged in Krishna, then that elevates us.
That is what liberates us. So, now, for a devotee, two devotees want that, let my emotion be fully concentrated in Krishna. Let me become completely focused on Krishna.
tvayi me ananya-vishaya madhir madhubhate sakrti rati-muddhvata-dhadha gange vaugham udanvati My dear Lord, Ganga always flows towards the ocean, it doesn't flow anywhere else. Similarly, let my consciousness always flow towards you, and not flow towards anyone else. That is Kunti Maharani's prayer, 1st Canto, 8th Chapter, 42nd verse.
Now, when she is praying like this, this is a prayer, this is an aspiration. But at the same time, there is a process for the, for progressing towards that level. So, what, so currently, our emotions are invested in various material things.
The devotee's aspiration is, let my emotion be invested fully in Krishna. So, the process for this is the process of Bhakti Yoga. By the process of Bhakti Yoga, we chant the holy name, associate with devotees, do our seva.
With this, our emotions slowly get transferred from the world towards Krishna. But sometimes we may think that just by rejecting the thing of this world, I can get my emotion invested in Krishna. But the two are not the same thing.
Now, I may disinvest my emotion from the world, but still I have to invest my emotion in Krishna. If I don't understand that there is a progressive process for this, then, we may actually become disconnected from the world without being connected with Krishna. Srila Prabhupada says that the hippies, they had already done sarva-dharman parityajya.
They had given up their homes, their jobs, their careers, even their hygiene. But he said, that simply led to tamo-guna. I have taught them how to do mam ekam sharanam parityajya.
Giving up all duties is not very difficult. But taking up the supreme duty of committed service to Krishna, that is a challenge. So, for us to do this, there is a gradual process.
So, bhakti can be both exclusive and inclusive. Exclusive means focused only on Krishna. And inclusive means we understand that Krishna is not just present only in the temple and the deities.
Krishna can be served in many different ways. By engaging the devotees that are to the different objects which are there in this world, by engaging them in Krishna's service, also I am serving Krishna. So, in the early days of our… So, this verse, for example, here says that attachment to a spouse, children, family, home, all this is… I don't want all this, my dear lord.
I want to be attracted only to you. But how is this actualized in life? Let's take a metaphor when Prabhupada once gave a class saying that everything is a dream. It is only because we think it is real, so it is real.
So, one devotee, just a young person, he heard this class. He said, everything is a dream. Is this wall also a dream? So, if I say this wall is a dream, this wall is a dream, if I walk into the wall, what will happen? Will it be a dream? So, he walked into the wall, Prabhupada said, everything is a dream in the sense that it is temporal.
It is like in dreams, we explain something, but it is temporal. And even if I understand everything is a dream, if I understand I want to wake up to spiritual reality, I can't just wake up to spiritual reality by dismissing the world as a dream. There is a process by which my consciousness needs to be tuned to spiritual life.
If I am tuned to the spiritual level, then I can actually wake up. Then I can pursue spiritual reality. Suppose I am having a dream, and in that dream, I start thinking, oh, I am dreaming.
Suppose in the dream, I start thinking I am dreaming, that thinking alone doesn't wake me up. Waking up is a separate activity which I have to do, and then I will pursue the other reality. If I am half asleep and I am half awake, then I will say, okay, that was a dream, and now I am waking up.
That is a different sleep. But dreaming that we have woken up is different from waking up. If I was dreaming, and in my dream I am sleeping, and in my dream I wake up.
Now waking up in the dream is different from waking up from the dream. Waking up in the dream is different from waking up from the dream. Similarly, if I wake up in the dream, I am still in the dream.
Similarly, if my consciousness is still at the material level, if I think, oh, all this is temporary, all this is illusory, I reject it. Okay, I reject it, but have I got connected to something higher? Even if I say, oh, all this is a dream and I dismiss it, but whatever is happening is going to have a consequence at the physical level. That means, there are going to be consequences.
So one devotee once asked the question, if I am not the body, then if the body does something sinful, why do I get the reaction? Well, there are several problems with this question, but when the body gets the reaction, we suffer because we are identifying with the body. So we can't say the body is doing something sinful. It is we, because of our desires, are participating in whatever the body is doing.
In fact, initiating whatever the body is doing. So just as waking up is a distinct activity by which we perceive the reality, after when we are dreaming, we need to wake up. Similarly, for waking up from material consciousness to spiritual consciousness requires a process.
For investing, for disinvesting our emotions from the world and for investing the emotions in Krishna, there is a process. And that process involves not the practice of exclusive devotion, but the practice of inclusive devotion. What do I mean by exclusive and inclusive? These words can mean different things.
But say some devotees initially when Prabhupada gave lectures, they heard, Oh chanting Hare Krishna is everything. So some devotees said, Oh I want to go to Vrindavan and I want to chant 64 rounds over there. I want to become like a Babaji, I will live on top of a tree and I will sit on the top of a tree and I will chant 64 rounds, 128 rounds.
So Prabhupada said don't do that. No, some devotees in Switzerland, they did that. They went and stayed in Vrindavan for a few days, chanting 64 rounds and 128 rounds.
And then they found that person was at a petrol pump, filling some petrol, filling some fuel at a gas station. He says what happened? He says I have chanted enough rounds for this lifetime. So now I don't need to chant.
So that is artificial. If one doesn't have attachment to Krishna and trying to artificially chant that many rounds, it doesn't work. So there is, we can say that in the pure devotional stage, one is exclusively absorbed in Krishna.
But even there, they are doing practical activities. They are cooking for Krishna. They are churning water for Krishna.
They are serving Krishna in their business. So for us, of course, devotion has to be inclusive. Inclusive means that we see that whatever I am doing in this world, I do it for Krishna.
So for example here, it is said that one should not be attached to one's family members. But then in the early days of our movement, everybody was emphasizing food distribution. So some of the temple leaders told the devotees, some women were there, they had small babies.
Just keep the baby in the temple and go out and distribute books. That is your real service. So now for a mother to be away from a baby who will take care of Veda, it was very difficult.
So one Mataji devotee wrote to Prabhupada. He says this is what you have been told. Prabhupada said I am surprised that you are leaving your children and going elsewhere.
For you, taking care of your children is more important than your own children. Why? Because that is an opportunity by which a soul who has come in our life, we can help them, nourish them and take them towards Krishna. So in this case, Prabhupada did not tell the mother that don't care for your child.
No, care for your child but in a way that you are caring for Krishna. So connect what we are caring for with Krishna. Another way of devotion could be stop caring for the things of this world and start caring for Krishna.
But if we try to do that, it will be artificial. So what we are caring for, we care for it in a way that connects us with Krishna. Generally people who live in the world and earn a livelihood, earn money, they are told to give charity.
Now why charity? Because when we work and earn money, so money occupies a significant place in our heart and we want to give our heart to Krishna. But our heart is filled with so many worldly concerns that we cannot give the heart to Krishna. Therefore it is said, if you can't give your heart to Krishna, give what is in your heart to Krishna.
Give what is in your heart to Krishna. If money is in your heart, then give some money to Krishna. By that, Krishna will get a place in your heart.
So one cannot suddenly give all the money. But what we can do is, we can start caring for Krishna through what we are caring for in this world. So if, while we are in a particular ashram, one time a devotee had gone for a distribution and he lost all the money.
And when he came back, the distribution guy says, what happened? He says, no, I forgot where the money is. What? How could he forget? Krishna says, we should be equipoised in gain and loss. So be equipoised.
Now, this is a misapplication of the philosophy. We want to be equipoised amidst material gain and material loss. But when we are serving Krishna, there has to be an investment of emotions over there.
And here, when somebody is equipoised, that is because they are absorbed in Krishna. But, when Krishna is talking about that, or they are absorbed in his virtual reality. For us, we are simply being careless.
If I say I am an equipoised, then I am not an equipoised, I am being illusioned completely. So, I am not even able to, we are meant to rise above material responsibility, not go below material responsibility. Taking care of money is basic material responsibility.
Taking care of our family members is basic material responsibility. We want to become more responsible by understanding our relationship with Krishna and relating with him. We don't want to become more, less responsible by being careless of things in this world.
So, when that happens, if we mistake detachment to be aversion to commitment, then we become very uncaring, hard-hearted, apathetic and that doesn't at all help us to grow in anything. So, if I am in the role of being a book distributor and if I am getting money, I have to care for that money. I can't say, no, that money has been used in Krishna's service, that is Lakshmi.
We have to use it in Krishna's service. So, if we are in a particular position, particular role, then whatever is appropriate for that role, we have to do it in a way that helps us to serve Krishna. I answer questions on my website, The Spiritual Scientist.
So, one Mataji wrote a question to me. She said that, actually, she and her sister, from their childhood itself, they were very religious and they had decided when we grow up, we will marry someone who is also religious, who is devoted to God. She said that, my sister, she was in an office, she met a Christian man and she married him.
She is practicing devotion to God and Christianity. My sister's religion teaches that a wife, a good wife, is a blessing from God. But my husband treats me like a temptation who has diverted him from God.
I didn't force him to marry me. He chose to marry me. And I also want to go towards God.
Is it that in Krishna Bhakti, this is how I am meant to feel throughout my life, that I am a temptation to God? I talked with several senior devotees and then I responded, said that this is a complete disapplication of bhakti. For example, at one level, to understand how this is wrong, consider another relationship, the spiritual master and the disciple. Now, the disciple is meant to glorify the spiritual master and name, fame, glory is considered to be subtle sexual enjoyment.
The disciple glorifies me, therefore the disciple is mine. Then how will the spiritual master execute the responsibility of taking care of the disciple? There is a possibility that the disciple may glorify the spiritual master too much and the spiritual master may get inflated. But that inflation, that intoxication of the ego has to be avoided not by deeming the disciple mine, but by becoming strong in our sadhana, by our connection with Krishna, by our bondage.
Similarly, in a family, the husband and the wife, they are in a relationship where both of them together are meant to serve Krishna. There is always the possibility of temptation, but that temptation has to be dealt with by firmness of devotion, not by deeming the spouse as mine. So if we are doing that, there is a verse in the 13th chapter, 8-12 verses per board, that says affection for one's family members is natural.
So what is the difference between affection and attachment? In affection, one cares for others and one strives to do the best for them. In attachment, one is so dependent on them, on the other person, that even if that other person is doing something wrong, it is to not hurt the other person one doesn't tell anything. And to please that other person, one may also start doing something grievously wrong.
So the example of Dhritarashtra and Duryodhana. Duryodhana was vicious, but because Dhritarashtra was so attached to Duryodhana, he just couldn't say no to him. And he allowed Duryodhana to do vicious things and he himself ended up doing vicious things.
So we have to responsibly execute the duties in those relationships in a mood of service to Krishna and that's how we grow towards Krishna. I'll conclude with one last point that essentially growth of devotion is a growth in selflessness. From being self-centered to becoming Krishna-centered.
And this can happen for most people it happens in a progressive way. Progressive way means that normally people nowadays are narcissistic, self-obsessed. They are what you call I-specialists.
Not I-specialists, but I-specialists. So self-centered very much. And actually whenever we commit to any relationship, that forces us out of our narcissism, out of our self-centeredness.
I care for myself all the time, and that is a growth in selflessness. Now if my caring expands only towards my family and doesn't expand further, then that becomes a problem. But if I see that as a progression, I come out of myself, care for my family members and in turn start caring for Krishna.
Then this expansion of consciousness and selflessness can move linearly from the material to the spiritual level. So to be narcissistic, to be passionately attached, to be attached to others for one's own enjoyment, that is the mode of passion. But to be responsible without being emotionally entangled, that is the mode of goodness.
And to be spiritually responsible, to be absorbed in Krishna and to see everyone in relationship with Krishna and to care for them in that relationship, that is actually devotion. So devotional attachment is freedom of emotions. That means a devotee is not sentimental.
A devotee knows what is worth investing one's emotions in and what is not worth investing one's emotions in. And where the emotions are invested, they are invested in a way that helps one serve Krishna and move closer to Krishna. So I'll summarize.
I spoke today about devotional attachment because we're discussing the theme of how bhakti heals our emotions, how Krishna is the expert therapist. We're talking about how our emotion, how something may turn people off emotionally. And that is the conception of detachment.
So we talk about attachment, its converse can be, we said this to be aversion, it can be detachment or it can be devotion. So we're attaching the object to which we're attached to and we become controlled by that object and controlled by those who are providing that object. So if we develop aversion, then we are at the same level of consciousness.
Our emotions are still fixated in that object but still just in a negative way. So from the spiritual perspective, attachment and aversion, both are distractions, both are temptations. So the more informed way is seen to be detachment.
So detachment means there is no emotional involvement. And aversion to commitment is not detachment. Aversion to commitment is in the mode of ignorance where one is not able to even decide which material object to enjoy and one wants to keep all the doors open.
Detachment means one has risen above the temptations of the world understanding that they don't give much pleasure. So our emotions get fully invested in Krishna. And we don't become uncaring about the world, rather we start caring for something bigger than the world.
That is Krishna himself. So now, to move from attachment to devotion is what will lead to our spiritual growth. But if we don't understand it carefully, then we may simply reject worldly things and think that I want to become devoted to Krishna.
The purpose is exclusive devotion but the process to get there is inclusive devotion. If I become uncaring, then I am simply irresponsible. If I lose money, that's in the mode of ignorance, that is not transcendental.
If I start deeming others as maya, as illusion, then that is wrong because if I am in a particular relationship, I have to act responsibly in that relationship. The possibility of temptation is there in any relationship. Just as in a marital relationship and a spiritual master-disciple relationship also temptation is there.
But the freedom from temptation is not just by deeming that relationship maya or rejecting it, but by firmly situating oneself in devotion by which one's consciousness rises above that temptation. And inclusive devotion means whatever roles and responsibilities we have in our life, we do them diligently and what we care for, we connect that care with Krishna. So money we are invested in, so we have asked for charities for that.
If we can't give our heart to Krishna, we give what is in our heart to Krishna. And in this way, by this training practice of bhakti, we rise to the place where we will be fully emotionally invested in Krishna. And for us to do this, we have to… we can't just wake up within the dream.
To think that this whole world is illusion, everything is temporary, artificially without having become aware of the spiritual reality, that is like not waking up from the dream, but waking up within the dream. And that doesn't free us from illusion. The way to free ourselves from illusion is to see that spiritual growth is a growth in selflessness and we move from self-centeredness, which is a mode of ignorance, to caring for others, for myself that is passion.
If I care for others in a mode of responsibility and duty, that is goodness. If I care for others in a mode of service to Krishna, that can take me to transcendence also. And in this way, by expanding our consciousness progressively, through diligent execution of our responsibilities, we can move towards devotional consciousness and devotional absorption in Krishna.
Thank you very much. Yes? Thank you very much. My question is just an appreciation.
I feel that what you are saying today really connected nicely to what you said about how the modern culture that we are observing is very much about emphasizing movement and motion over logic, as you were pointing this out. And I think that you did a nice job of showing how the commitment for the culture of modern world is really a culture of just keeping one's options open so that this kind of conditioning can be carried into our own devotional practice. Because we see in this verse that Prahlada Maharaj, Mahajan is saying, I don't want to be a pastime, family means, so Kunti Maharaj says the same thing.
But the Shastra also says to do your family duty perfectly, even in the presence of the Lord, to do your family duty as a service. Prahlada Maharaj became a king. For the majority of the total time comes to actually do your family duty perfectly.
But there's a tendency to kind of bring that thing well, because I really don't want to do something, I don't like to take the responsibility, therefore I'll stress that part of the Shastra. And if that is the case, then the exclusive devotion to maturely take on behalf of the so-called exclusive devotion has to just be a justification for your responsibility. And in a sense, we can see that and the rest of us don't understand this because it's a fanatical understanding because you're rejecting the responsibility in favor of actually doing it, rather than not having to deal with it.
So thank you for that. Thank you for the comment. Next one.
Thank you. So this topic of diversion being the opposite side of the same coin of attachment, yeah, it makes sense, logically, but then I've come to a certain point where I don't really understand it anymore because there are certain verses in the Shastra which seem to promote aversion. First thing that comes to mind is the verse, when I think of sex, I feel my lips curl with the taste, and I spit at the thought.
So I'm thinking of like one's personal experience, maybe a good example would be the four evil principles. One, at least in the beginning, and if not further on, at least in the beginning, one becomes averse to sinful activities and sense gratification, especially when one might say they're very averse to eating meat or something like that. So I'm trying to understand how to word a little better aversion and how it applies in a negative sense, and it seems to also be used, the exact word aversion seems to also be used in a positive sense.
So could you elaborate on that? So, is aversion always bad? In Yamunacharya's words, I spit at a sensual desire that it seems to indicate aversion. The words have to be seen in their context, what they mean. So if you look at Yamunacharya, what is his point? He is saying that I'm so absorbed in Krishna that when, I can sing so much, that when I'm absorbed in Krishna and I'm getting so much taste in Krishna that when I think of sensuality, my lips curl in this taste and I spit at the thought.
So, the point is not that he is emotionally obsessed with that. He is emotionally absorbed in Krishna. But while being emotionally absorbed in Krishna, if some other desire comes up, some thought comes up, it's not worth it.
So, when I use the word aversion, when Bhagavad Gita uses the word aversion, raga dvesha mukta isto, it is referring to emotional fixation in a negative sense. We see aversion, some people may say that in America now there is a whole strand of white supremacists. They say, oh, you know, we are the real Americans and all these immigrants, they are creating trouble for us.
So, Mexicans are creating trouble, African-Americans are creating trouble. Some people, people of particular religion are creating trouble, people of particular region are creating trouble. So, in that case, one is obsessed with them.
So, one's mind is filled with I have to get back at this person. I hate this person. So, for a devotee, when Ramanacharya is saying when I am absorbed in Krishna, if anything tempts, if anything comes up, so the point here is not that I am, that, the point here is not aversion to that desire, the point is the sweetness of Krishnamukti.
Normally, when we get something delightful, something worldly which promises pleasure, if there is some craving for it, but this verse is talking that when one becomes absorbed in Krishna, how great must be the taste that there is absolutely no craving. It is that one feels this is nothing. I don't need this at all.
So, there is no emotional fixation in a negative sense in sense objects. It is in a, as compared to the sweetness of Krishnamukti, I don't have to get involved in this. Now, yes, for us in the sadhaka stage, sometimes, a little amount of aversion may be helpful.
So, a, let me say something, once bitten twice shy, I am playing with a dog, or once burnt twice shy, if I have drunk some milk and I thought it is very hot, next time, every time I get milk, I just be careful, I won't drink it. I am playing with a dog, I have got bitten, then I won't go near a dog. So, similarly, if there is a particular area in which we have fallen into illusion, then we may need to take extra precaution.
So, if somebody is in a renounced order, then they have to be a little more cautious when associated with people of the opposite gender. So, in this case, it is caution, not aversion. Now, what is the difference between caution and aversion? Caution is centered on one's own safety.
Aversion is centered on on on that object and considering that object is so bad. The two are very different things. The focus is, this is not healthy for me, so I will not do this.
This may tempt me, this may delude me, so I will keep a distance from this. But that doesn't necessarily mean that object is bad. A simple example, let's say, somebody has got diabetes and in our movement there is so much sweet prashadam that is there.
So, now, if I have got diabetes, if I start, sweets are so bad, nobody should be eating sweets. Sweets are maya, sweets are maya. Well, that is wrong.
Sweets are something which I should not be eating. So, I have to have caution and that is required. So, sometimes the word aversion may be used in the sense of caution.
But, when it is used in that sense, the emphasis is that we have to keep the same distance from it. But it is not that that object is bad. So, aversion means we start demonizing that object itself.
That is unhealthy. I will repeat the question one more time. So, at the same time, trying to deal with people and our partner at the same time.
Okay. That is true. So, it is said that Prabhupada said that we should not associate with non-devotees.
By the same time, we also should not become hard-headed. So, how do we balance this? See, the word non-devotee can be a very generic describe. Just like I was giving a class on does religion cause war in DC.
So, I was talking about the word religion can be very generic. There are the Amish who forgave a gunman who killed their own children. And they went and supported his widow.
And there are Jihadis who use children to kill others including children. Suicide bombers. So, who is religious? In the category of religious, you can have people in goodness and you can have people in ignorance.
Similarly, among in the broad describer non-devotee, there can be people who have goodness and there can be people who have ignorance. So, Bhagavatam and the Upadesa Amrit both of us tell us that there are Prema Maitri Krupa Upadesa. With the Lord devotion, with the devotees friendship, with the innocent compassion and with the envious, we have to keep a distance.
So, when you say non-association war non-devotees, that is primarily with respect to those who are envious of Krishna. Those who are aggressively against God, against spirituality, against religion and they are aggressively materialistic and they infect us with material desires. So, then essentially association is not physical proximity, it is not even just cordial talking.
Association is transfer of desires. If somebody is attached to say baseball and I go and start talking with them and they talk so enthusiastically about baseball that I go home and start watching a baseball match. Then I have association with them.
I may go to a baseball field but if I am going there to distribute books I am associating with baseball fans but I am not taking their association. I am giving my association to them. So, we need to be cordial with everyone, polite with everyone.
If somebody we find that their association infects us with their desires then we have to keep a distance from them. So, that is where our devotional desires get wounded and our anti-devotional desires start getting triggered. Then we keep a distance from them.
But other than just redeeming all non-devotees association is bad. We say Asat Sankhya is Vishnavacharya. Now, Asat can be translated broadly as non-devotees but Asat specifically would say that those who are attached to the temperament those who are almost you could say demoniac.
So, even among non-devotees there are people in goodness relatively speaking people in passion people in ignorance. So, depending on their disposition towards Krishna their receptivity or non-receptivity towards Krishna their receptivity towards Krishna their neutrality towards Krishna or their hostility towards Krishna if they are receptive then we need to be compassionate to them and we need to share Krishna with them. If they are neutral then if you have to work on a functional relationship we do that without we are both in office together we are doing a project together we have some relatives we do some family work together and the neutral will do it but if there is hostility towards Krishna then that is when it is a matter of serious concern and that is what we need to avoid.
So, even while avoiding that we can be cordial but we have to be cautious that the desires don't get transferred to us. So, thank you very much.