Even if we have problems we don’t have to be problems

[Bhagavatam class at Connecticut, USA] Video:

So, we'll stop here. We shall stop.

Thank you very much to the Prabhupada. So, I'm happy to be here with all of you today morning. I'll speak today on the theme of how the Bhagavatam, the seventh canto, recently we had Narasimha Dasi.

So, we'll try to look deeper into some of the instructions that Prahlad Maharaj gives. So, this is Srimad Bhagavatam 7, 9, 14. So, not 7, 9, 14.

This is 7, chapter, 8th verse. Lord Narasimhadev, he's just appeared and he is responding to Prahlad Maharaj. So, the background here is that he asks Prahlad, Hiranyakashipu's various attempts to try to kill Prahlad have been thwarted.

And he finally asks him, by whose power are you able to defy me like this? And then he gives a reply which borders on cheekiness. Sometimes you just pick something which you seem to provoke the other person. So, he says, this is 7, I'll talk on 7.8.7 and then 7.8.9 will be the theme of my talk mainly.

So, let's look at the previous verses. So, 7th canto, 8th chapter, 7th verse is first. So, he's asking him, by whose strength are you able to do all this? So, Prahlad is asked, by whose power have you been able to defy me like this? So, he says, what is the source of your power? So, he replies, the source of my power is the same as the source of your power.

It's also the source of the source of your power. That is Brahma's power. And there is one supreme person.

He's the source of the power of everyone. So, it is, it almost seems like he's being provocative over here. He's trying to make him angry.

You know, don't think you have some special power. Your power also comes from someone else. And the same person is the source of my power also.

And then, next verse, he says, he glorifies the Supreme Lord. And then, the 9th verse, he says, which is what we'll discuss mainly, So, Mahat Samharanam, that the best way to worship the Supreme Lord, the great way to, Anantasya Mahat Samharanam. What is that? Asurambhavam, Jahiya Asurambhavam, give up the demonic mentality.

Now, what is giving up the demonic mentality? That make your mind equipoised towards everyone. Don't see anyone as your enemy. And, why should you not see anyone as your enemy? Is there no enemy in this world? See, there's only one enemy.

Rute Ajitaat, that except for the uncontrolled mind, which is not just uncontrolled, normally we talk about how the mind is not in control, but he says, that not only is the mind uncontrolled, but also the mind is misguided. So, the best way to worship the Supreme Lord is to understand that no one is my enemy, actually, only my mind is my enemy. And, if we understand this, then we can greatly worship the Supreme Lord.

It's interesting, the 7th canto, it starts with the question, by Pariksit Maharaj, is the Supreme Lord equal to everyone? Where it's asked, in the previous canto, Lord has appeared and in response to Aditi's prayers, he has killed one of the sons of Aditi. So, there are many pastimes like that, where Vishnu seems to take the side of the Devatas. Therefore, a question comes up, is the Supreme Lord equal to all? And, in response to that, he tells the story of Prahalad.

And, in the story of Prahalad, Prahalad is repeatedly refusing to see difference between people. When his Shanda and Amarka teach him, these are your enemies, this is how you should manipulate them, this is how you should eliminate them, these are your friends, this is how you should use them, he doesn't have any interest in learning that. He doesn't see the difference between friends and enemies at all.

So, the Bhagavatam answers the question in a deeper way, not only is the Lord equal, rather it shows that how even the Lord's devotee is equal to everyone. Then, what to speak of the Lord being equal to everyone? And, Acharyas explain that Narsimhadev was ultimately equal to both because both Prahalad and Hiranyakashyapu got to be on the lap of Narsimhadev. But, because they had approached in different moods, they also got to be there in different ways.

Prahalad was lovingly seated on the lap and Hiranyakashyapu had to have a surgery on the lap. Spiritual surgery. So, the devotees at Bhaktivedanta Hospital have, in their operation theatre, they have a picture of Narsimhadev over there.

He is a protector. So, one time there is a person from another religion, there are many Muslims in the day, some of the Christians also come. So, a person from another religion had come over there.

He saw this picture, what is this picture? He asked. He says, that is the original operation. So, then they asked, what was the result of the operation? He says, operation successful, patient liberated.

So, now, so here, this Prahalad is telling Hiranyakashyapu that you have no enemy except your own mind. At the same time, we do see that Lord Narsimhadev, he does deal in different ways with Prahalad and Hiranyakashyapu. Hiranyakashyapu has to be punished, Prahalad has to be rewarded.

So, is the Supreme Lord equal and is it that the mind alone creates all enemies? There are some people who often act in ways that they may backbite against us, they may do something to hurt us. In business, we work in offices, there are rivals. Now, they try to do politics against us.

So, there are people who act as enemies. So, now there may be terrorists who want to kill innocent people. So, are they not enemies of us? What does it mean to say that the mind, the uncontrolled misguided mind is the only enemy? Actually, there is a functional reality and there is a fundamental reality.

At a functional level, it is true that there are various modes of interactions that may happen in this world. Just as at a functional level, you know, suppose say, when we meet each other, suppose say, you know, I ask any of you your name and if you don't know, you ask me my name. Now, if we start telling, I am a spirit soul part and parcel of Krishna.

Well, that is true, but that is not a very, that is not a very practically useful identity. It's fundamentally, it is true. But even fundamentally also, we are not just a spirit soul part and parcel of Krishna, we have our own individual identity in the spiritual world.

But, so there is in scripture called a vyavaharik satya and a parmarthik satya. Vyavaharik means practical, parmarthik means transcendental. So, sometimes it is said in scripture that the parents are like the guru of the children or the husband is the guru of the wife, patiguru it is said.

Now, what does this mean? Jiva Goswami explains that these are gurus in a vyavaharik sense and he says that even if one has many vyavaharik gurus, one needs a parmarthik guru. The parmarthik guru is the guru who guides us on the transcendental path. So, the vyavaharik reality and the parmarthik reality, this is not to be confused.

Now, these two terms, actually Prabhupada did not use them so much because the impersonalists have misappropriated those terms. Jiva Goswami uses the vyavaharik and parmarthik, but the impersonalists use them very extensively and they use it for saying that whatever we experience in this world is an illusion. They say all sense of duality, say your sense of you-ness, my sense of I-ness, it's all an illusion.

They say only the non-differentiated consciousness of Brahman is all that exists. And they say that we experience individuality. This is vyavaharik and vyavaharik is illusion.

And we have to go from the vyavaharik to the parmarthik. Now, Ramacharya, Shankaracharya talks about this in some of his commentaries. So, Ramacharya responds to it and he says that if this is an illusion, then if this is simply or entirely an illusion, then for one who is in reality, they should not be able to perceive it at all.

If we are seeing a mirage, then we don't see the sand. If we see the sand, then we don't see the mirage. Now, we could say that the mirage is just a, sometimes if we look carefully, we may say, okay, there's no mirage, I can see there's water over there.

Like we have this hologram video, hologram pictures. One way you look, it's a picture of Krishna. Another way you look at it, it's a picture of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

So, that kind of pictures might be there. Now, this is an optical illusion, which is within the nature of reality. So, you can say, one way you perceive like this, another way you perceive like that.

But according to Mayavadi, according to the impersonalists, they say that this whole perception, whenever we perceive there are three things. There is, say, right now, see if I am looking at Sri, then now, she is the object of my perception, and I am the subject of perception, and in between is the consciousness. So, whenever there is conscious experience, there is the object of consciousness, the subject of consciousness, and the stream of consciousness.

So, what the impersonalists say, Advaita Vadi says that both the object and the subject are illusion. Only the stream of consciousness alone exists. And that they call as pure non-differentiated consciousness.

Now, the problem with this idea is, if there is only the stream of consciousness, then how did the illusion of subject and object at all come about? And if the illusion of subject and object came about somehow, then for somebody who is pure and liberated, they won't have that illusion. So, when Krishna says he descends from the spiritual world to the material world, the whole material world is illusion, how can he descend over here? Because this has no existence, this is illusion. So, then they try to say that actually this world has provisional existence.

It doesn't have ultimate existence, it has provisional existence. But then if it is illusion, how can somebody be simultaneously enlightened and be in illusion? So, the Vaishnava understanding is that there is a spiritual level of reality, there is a material level of reality. And Krishna descends from the spiritual level to the material level.

So, now, while we are functioning in this world, we have a vyavaharic identity. So, we may be belonging to a particular country, particular family, particular dynasty, particular gender. So, this is a vyavaharic identity, and we need to work according to it.

But we don't work only according to it. We also have a paramarthic identity. That is, that we are the supreme, we are the eternal parts of the Supreme Lord.

So, we work keeping in mind that identity and we harmonise our vyavaharic identity with our paramarthic identity. So, from the vyavaharic perspective, there may be people who act as enemies. So, when the Bhagavatam says, for example, that Bhagavad Gita says 5.18, vidyā-vinaya-sampanne brahmaṇe gavi hastini śuni-caiva-śva-pāke ca paṇḍitaḥ sama-darśinaḥ When it says that, actually, the paṇḍita sees everyone equally, whether it is a low-class person or a high-class person, whether it is an animal, a sacred animal like a cow, or not so sacred animal like a dog.

Well, a dog is considered sacred in today's world. Almost sacred. You know, yoga has become very popular in the West.

So, there is a new form of yoga, which is becoming immensely popular. It is called doga. Doga is yoga with your dog.

So, you want your dog to do everything with you. So, they have yoga teachers for the human beings and they have a yoga teacher for the dog. And then both the human being and the dog do yoga together.

So, that's called doga. So, now, the Bhagavad Gita is saying that the person who self-realises sees all living beings equally. But even when we see everyone equally, we don't act equally.

If there is a cat in front of us and we clap it, the cat will go away. If there is a big cat, the tiger, and we clap, we'll go away. So, equality in vision does not mean equality in action.

In terms of ultimate reality, I understand that these are all souls. But in terms of immediate action, I have to act appropriate according to the particular practical reality that we are in. So, if we confuse the vyavaharika and the parmarthaika, there can be a lot of misunderstanding.

Say, for example, it is said that Prabhupada said Krishna conscious is the solution to all problems. But then Prabhupada also said that in the last instruction, how will Krishna conscious movement spread? He did not say by Krishna consciousness. He said by organisation and intelligence.

Now, we can say organisation and intelligence are also part of Krishna consciousness, but in their specific activities. So, if say, Prabhupada came to America, and while he was in America, he spoke in Bengali or Sanskrit, who would have connected with him? The message would have been transcendental. But the vyavaharika reality is that people speak English.

So, he has to speak in English. So, when we function in the world, we have a parmarthic purpose, we have the ultimate purpose. But we act at the vyavaharika level.

We do what is practical. If we confuse the two, say, in the Vedic tradition, there is a whole branch of knowledge called Ayurveda, it's medical knowledge. And its purpose is to treat people.

But if we say the word Ayurveda itself means the Veda by which you can be enhanced, the lifespan can be enhanced. But then it is also said that we are all born with the number of breaths for us fixed. So, the number of breaths for us is fixed.

Then how can there be a branch of knowledge which increases our lifespan? So, no statement in the scripture should be taken in isolation as absolute. The point is that there are ways in which we can live by which we can enhance the quality of our life. We all can see that, say, if we had some, if some particular food item doesn't work with us, say, if we take curd and it causes a lot of cough to us.

And if you stop taking curd, the cough goes away. So, at a Vyabhaharic level, if we make changes, some changes, the results also we see at that time. So, what the Bhagavatam, when does it talk usually or whenever in the tradition it is talked about that the number of breaths are fixed.

That is the point of view of that if somebody has passed away, don't lament about it too much. So, philosophy is always context-sensitive in its application. There's a remarkable example of this in the Mahabharata.

Before the Kurukshetra war, Dhritarashtra asks, many people, many sages come to Dhritarashtra and tell him that, you know, stop your son from this terrible war. And Dhritarashtra argues that, you know, if it is the will of destiny, what can I do? Vidura speaks strongly against him. And he says, destiny determines the consequences of our actions, not our actions themselves.

Destiny determines the consequences of our actions. If a student has an exam, a student doesn't study. And mother says, please study.

Now, whatever is in my destiny, it will come. Well, you are creating your destiny by not studying. If you're not studying, you're not going to get good marks.

So, our activity is also important. So, destiny doesn't determine our actions. Destiny determines the consequences of our actions.

About 25 years ago, when I started giving classes, I was given some guidelines by a senior devotee about how to prepare for class. The last guideline was, depend on Krishna. But in bracket, but only after you have prepared.

So, what does this mean that… So, anyway, I'm not going to the intricacy of destiny. I'm making a philosophical point here that initially he asked Vyasadev also. So, is this war destined? So, Vyasadev becomes very grave and remains silent for some time.

And then he says, O king, it is very difficult to discern the workings of destiny. What we should know is that we all are meant to do our duty. So, deliberate deeply, O king, on what is your duty and do that.

Now, after the Kurukshetra war is over and Dhritarashtra is lamenting, oh, all my sons have been killed. At that time, Vidura comes, Vyasadev comes again and Vyasadev tells him, O king, do not lament. This war was destined.

Now, was the war destined or was it not destined? The truth, if we consider destiny, it is not completely frozen in stone. Our present actions also determine consequences. The way we act also has results.

The illusion is to think that the way we act alone causes results. But to think that my present actions alone determine the result, that is an illusion. But to think that my present actions don't matter at all, everything is predetermined, that is also an illusion.

So, the whole purpose of contemplating destiny is to think whether I am doing the right action right now. So, for Dhritarashtra, the right action before the Kurukshetra war was, do his duty to try to stop his son from fighting. But after the Kurukshetra war is over, now there is no point in lamenting, oh, this war happened, my sons died.

Just accept that it has happened, accept that it is the will of destiny and move on in life. So, the philosophy is always context sensitive. So, therefore, the important thing is that people be encouraged to do the best course of action in their particular situation.

So, similarly, if we apply this to the principle of do we have enemies or not, from the paramarthic perspective, from the perspective that we are all souls who are meant to serve Krishna, then getting ourselves too much emotionally involved in this person, because of this person I face this problem, because of this person this happened to me, because of this person this happened to me, and this person is working against me, we need to see that ultimately, whatever relationship I have, it is for a few years, few decades, but ultimately my relationship is with Krishna. And whatever is happening, it is transient. Let me focus on connecting with Krishna.

That is the ultimate vision. At a practical level, if somebody is repeatedly hurting us, we may decide I'll keep a distance from them. I can't open my heart to them.

I can't trust them. I can't count on them. They'll stab me in the back.

So, that practical differentiation we have to do. So, now the Bhagavatam, on many occasions, it talks on the paramarthic perspective. And that is because the Bhagavatam is spoken to a person who has given up all vyavaharic effort.

It is spoken to Parikshit Maharaj, who has decided that now I'm having curse to die in seven days, and I accept that curse. So, he could have done something to counter the curse also, but he chose not to do that. Actually, in the Mahabharata, there is an entirely different narrative of what Parikshit Maharaj does.

And there are different explanations for that. That may be different, referring to some other kalpa also. That Parikshit actually builds a big fort.

And in that fort, he tries to, he has guards protecting him all the time. And that way, he makes sure that no enemy, no takshaka snake or anything will be able to come to curse him, come to bite him and die. And his mood is that his son is not yet ready to take up the kingdom.

And he has a responsibility to his citizens. And he has been unfairly cursed. So, he doesn't retaliate against the brahmana, but he makes efforts to protect himself.

And then eventually, in the Mahabharata, it is described that a brahmana comes to meet him. And he invites the brahmana and the brahmana gives him a fruit, offers him a fruit as prasad. And he takes the fruit and he's about to eat it.

From the fruit, like a bichchu, a scorpion emerges. And the scorpion expands into a snake and bites him. And he dies.

So, the Mahabharata narrative is from a different perspective. The Bhagavatam's narrative is from a different perspective. And these pastimes happen in different yugas and different things can be described in different ways.

Now, of course, Madhvacharya also, says that in the Mahabharata, there is a lot of interpolation. So, this whole narrative, we can also say this could be an interpolated narrative. My point here is, I don't want to go into the specifics of the differences between the Mahabharata and the Bhagavatam.

My point primarily is that there is now Parikshit Maharaj acting at a vyavaharic level is also not wrong. Once, maybe around 20-25 years ago, one of the devotees from Radha Gopinath temple was a brahmachari. He had gone for a preaching programme.

And while he was in Safran and he was returning from the preaching programme. At that time, he did not know, but in that area, some religious riots had broken out. And there were, then he saw in the distance, you know, a group of Muslims marching forward towards him.

And they had a long beard. And then they saw him in Safran and they just started charging towards him. And then he was carrying some books with him.

He just dropped the books and he ran. He just ran, ran, ran. And finally, he ran into a deserted house and hid over there.

So they came, chased everywhere, they couldn't find him. He managed to hide, he survived. After that, he went and met his spiritual master.

And he asked him that, in that, actually, you know, I had gone there and given a class telling you are not the body or the soul. But when my body was threatened, I immediately ran away. So, is it that I am not practising philosophy? He said, Maharaj, the spiritual master told him, no.

He said, no. What should I have done? He says, you can be, whichever approach we feel inspired to do, we can say that this body, with this body, I'm trying to serve Krishna. Shariram dharma sadhanam.

And I want to be purified. I want to serve my spiritual master. And for that purpose, I want to protect my body.

So if I want to do that, if that is the mode in which we flee, that is perfectly fine. And somebody says, if Krishna wants to protect me, he'll protect me. And especially, there's no way to flee.

There are too many people coming to my direction. We just surrender to Krishna. So we see that surrender can be in different ways.

Prahlad Maharaj, one devotee recently asked me this question. Arjuna, he fought on behalf of Krishna to protect. He actually fought for Krishna.

But on the other hand, Prahlad made Krishna fight for him. Prahlad had Narasimhadeva fight for him. Why couldn't Prahlad have fought himself? Is it that the Pandavas' devotion is higher than Prahlad's devotion? In the Brihad Bhagavata Amrit, Prahlad does say that I never got to serve my lord, the Pandavas served the lord.

But each devotee manifests a different mood. Prahlad is manifesting a particular mood. In the Navbidha Bhakti, the nine items of devotion, what is Prahlad's mood? Smaranam.

He's demonstrating how we can attain perfection by just remembrance of the lord. So his way of serving the lord is through remembrance. And of course, externally we can say that Prahlad in the body of a small five-year-old boy and his own father, how can he fight against his father who is the king of the Rakshasas when he's a small five-year-old boy? Arjuna, on the other hand, which is the mood in which he's serving Krishna? Sakhya.

Sakhya is friendship. So as a friend, you don't just depend on your friend, you do everything. So I'll do it for you.

So it is not that Krishna, Arjuna alone carried out Krishna's will. Krishna also helped Arjuna. So there are different moods and it is not that one is right and other is wrong.

It is not that Prahlad is a lower devotee and Arjuna is a higher devotee. They have different moods in which they are serving Krishna. So similarly for us, we may also in different situations serve Krishna in different ways.

Prabhupada himself in Jhansi when he had the League of Devotees, at that time he had planned to make that place as his headquarters of the League of Devotees. But then somehow there was a whole clique against him by the local people and they wanted to use those premises for something else. And Prabhupada said, there's no use fighting this.

He just walked away from there. But then the same should have Prabhupada when he had the Juhu land which he wanted to make into his as he called Mumbai was my office. Prabhupada said Vrindavan is my home, Mayapur is my place of worship and Mumbai is my office.

So there when there was a conspiracy to take that land away, Prabhupada said, even over my dead body this person will not be able to take my land. Prabhupada fought over there. Why? Because both are ways in which we can serve Krishna.

In that situation he felt it is not worth fighting. Jhansi is not anyway a big place, not many very serious devotees over there. But Prabhupada felt now a mission is established, Mumbai is a central city, this is a very good land, we should fight for it.

So it's not that, so the point which I'm making is that at a paramarthic level, the intent is always to serve Krishna. At the vyavaharic level, how the intent will be expressed will vary from person to person, from situation to situation. So the devotee's mood is always to serve Krishna.

But how exactly to serve Krishna that will vary. So when Prahlad is telling Hiranyakashipu, don't see anyone as your enemy, it's only your uncontrolled mind which is actually your enemy. He's talking this from the paramarthic perspective and especially because it's applicable to Hiranyakashipu because Hiranyakashipu was seeing Vishnu as his enemy.

He was thinking, I have to kill Vishnu, I have to become strong enough, I have to do enough austerity and then I'm going to kill Vishnu. So from Prahlad's perspective, from Hiranyakashipu's perspective, Prahlad's devotion was especially infuriating because it is like exactly opposite party. Say if an India-Pakistan cricket match is going on and say we are Indians and somebody in our house starts cheering for Pakistan, you'll be furious, isn't it? Or somebody is in Pakistan and somebody in their house starts cheering for India, they would be furious.

So Hiranyakashipu took that as a betrayal. How can Prahlad, he's my son, he's my blood, how can he cheer for Vishnu? He just couldn't take it. So he's telling Vishnu is beyond his categories.

I'm not cheering for your enemy because he's not your enemy. So especially in a practical sense, we may have different situations in which different people may act in different ways. And we may decide to sometimes combat them, sometimes not combat them.

Whatever works. Whatever is practical. At the avaharic level there will be different things that we may do.

So Bhaktivedanta Maharaj, when he got that melanoma cancer, so initially he, you could say that he had the mood of Parikshit from the Mahabharata. He tried this treatment, tried this treatment, tried that treatment, went to various places. And it seemed that he was succeeding.

But then when the cancer just kept getting worse and worse, then he adopted the mood of Parikshit Maharaj from the Bhagavatam. He said that, okay, let me surrender to Krishna. And then he wrote a whole book about his experiences the last few days.

So in one of his meditations he writes, he writes a letter to the cancer cells in his body. And he says that, you know, that I have been fighting with you for a long time. And this fight has hurt me.

And you, your presence in my body is hurting me. But oh cancer cells, you are winning. I am losing.

I forgive you. Now what do you mean by forgiving the cancer cells? It is just now, it means basically don't let the emotional energy be locked in that. Okay, this is happening.

I accept it and move on. So I decided that now I can't fight this. So I just, okay, this hurt is coming.

Let it, whatever, let me focus on serving Krishna. Let me focus on remembering Krishna. So for us, you know, we all will face problems in life sooner or later.

But if we don't connect with Krishna properly, if we don't have the right attitude, then we may have problems. But on top of that, we ourselves may become problems. That means our reaction, our response, our way of functioning, that itself may create problems for others.

And not just problems for others, for ourselves also. So we can't always avoid problems in life. But we can choose the best response in that particular situation.

And sometimes the best response may just be trying to have as peaceful, as spiritual consciousness as possible. Beyond that, we can't do anything. So when we are sick, say for example, Satsvarupa Maharaj, I met him a couple of years ago in upper upstate New York.

So it's almost from 79, he has got severe meningitis. And he told me that he has tried 6000 treatments till now. Not 6000, maybe several thousand treatments.

But nothing has worked. So devotees call him the sickness Acharya of ISKCON. So he has written various books describing his experience of sickness and everything.

So he is still trying whether this treatment works, that treatment works. But he decided that the best service that I can do amid sickness is to try to be Krishna conscious. Even if I can't do it, he was one of the most vibrant preachers of his time.

He had a library party to distribute books in various places. But after he got this severe headache, his whole service had to be reduced. He couldn't travel so much.

He couldn't do so many classes. He's just doing some writing whenever he can. He's done a lot of writing.

Prabhupada wrote 130 books. He has written 250 books till now. Of course, most of his books are like diaries and journals, his own reflections.

Some of his books are very systematic and commentaries on Niti Shastra and other books. But the point which I am making over here is that we all may have to adjust our kshetra according to our sthiti. Sthiti is our situation.

Kshetra is our area of influence. See, there is, you could say, prakriti is broad material nature. Kshetra is the area of material nature over which we have control.

Say, for example, my body is the area over which I have control. But say, in this body, if my shoulder gets sprained, then I'm able to move my hand here, I can't move my hand above this. So, my kshetra is limited.

If I have to make gestures, I have to make it in this area only. So, we have a particular kshetra, which we have all been given by our past karma. And some of us may have a large kshetra, some of us may have a small kshetra.

And in that kshetra, in that area of influence, we can do some services. But sometimes, even that kshetra may get decreased. So, something which you can normally do, sometimes you may not be able to do that.

So, we have to understand that at that time, the best way I can serve Krishna is understand that what is my kshetra in the situation. Sometimes, when we are sick and bed-ridden, the only kshetra that we have control over is our consciousness. So then, rather than thinking that I can't do any service, I can think instead that the service I can do is to try to be conscious of Krishna.

Ultimately, all the services that I'm doing are meant so that I can be conscious of Krishna. So, usually, our consciousness is invested in things out there. Say, somebody is a singer, their consciousness is not directly in Krishna, their consciousness is singing.

So, when they sing for Krishna, then their consciousness goes towards Krishna. Somebody likes to manage. So, their consciousness is not in Krishna, their consciousness is in management.

So then, when they manage for Krishna, then their consciousness goes towards Krishna. So, we want to offer our hearts to Krishna. Heart to Krishna.

Heart to Krishna. But there are already a lot of things in our heart. So, what we do is, whatever is in our heart, we offer to Krishna.

So, I like singing. I like managing. I like speaking.

I like, say, doing drama. Sorry? Prasadam distribution. Prasadam distribution.

So, of course, prasadam honouring. So, even when we say, for example, when we give charity, what is the purpose of giving charity? The idea is we want to give our heart to Krishna. But our heart is already filled with so many things.

So, if we can't give our heart to Krishna, we can give what is in our heart to Krishna. So, by that, what happens? When we give what is in our heart to Krishna, we give a little place of our heart, part of our heart to Krishna. And that's how Krishna… So, Prabhupada, that was his mood when he said, don't give books free.

Why? Because if people put some money in the book, in getting the book, Prabhupada is a little bit, you know, I gave some money for this book. So, let me see what these rascals are saying. And then they will want to read.

At least they will read something. Something free, they will just keep it aside. So, the idea over here is that normally when we serve practically, going, doing here, doing that.

So, that is how we want to offer our consciousness to Krishna. But because our consciousness is there in various material things in this world, we do those things so that we can offer our consciousness to Krishna. Now, while doing those things, there is an advantage and there is a disadvantage.

The advantage is that when we are doing practical things in the world, practical services get done. And if we have particular abilities, we can do those services properly. If somebody is a good manager, somebody is a good speaker, somebody is a good singer, they can do those services.

But the disadvantage at that time is that often we may start thinking that we are the doers. And we are meant to offer the consciousness to Krishna. But sometimes it is, yes, Krishna is doing it, but he is doing it through me.

So, the focus becomes not on Krishna, but on me. The Krishna is there, but it is, yeah, he is there, but I am the real person. It becomes like that sometimes.

So, then sometimes when we have, when that Kshetra is temporarily taken away from us, then sometimes you can just become resentful. I was trying to serve Krishna, why has this happened to me? Why has this happened? Why I am not able to do this? But instead of becoming resentful, we can say that Krishna has some purpose. That when we are not able to do anything, then that time we understand actually I am not really the doer.

So, think I am the doer, but I am not the doer. So, at that time, if our Kshetra is restricted, the disadvantage is that we can't do much practical things for Krishna. But the advantage is at that time when we offer our consciousness to Krishna, you know, there is no distraction in that.

Because we really can't take credit for being the doer because we are not doing anything practically. So, in that sense, sometimes amid sickness, actually we can, so it is one call to Krishna in sickness may lead to greater spiritual advancement than, you know, ten giant leaps in Krishna's service in health. It's not necessary.

It's not that we have to become sick in order to serve Krishna. Sickness is not the cause of bhakti. It is the intention to serve Krishna that is important.

But we don't know in what situation our bhakti will grow the best. Krishna knows that. So, whatever situation comes in our life, if we just try to maintain a devotional disposition, then we may have problems, but we ourselves won't become the problem.

So, we can become the problem. Sometimes some devotees, like say the spiritual master sitting on the Vyasasana and the spiritual master calls some devotee and it's a crowded programme. Many devotees are there and that devotee runs towards the spiritual master and kicks everyone on the way.

Now, they are doing a service, but in doing the service, they are doing a lot of disservice also. So, we may say that, no, actually I was doing so much service. Why did this happen? Now, my ability to do service has gone away.

But Krishna knows what is best for us. So, therefore, whatever situation comes in our life, we just try to maintain that disposition of service. Then, that disposition, that without letting the mind become uncontrolled, misguided, thinking that, no, this is the problem, that is the problem, that is the problem, because of this, this person is obstructing my service, the situation is obstructing my service.

Instead of letting, becoming resentful of that, we focus that, okay, in this situation, how best can I serve Krishna? Of course, we should try to change the situation so that we can serve Krishna better also. Some situations may just be not favourable for the service of Krishna. So, if our health is down, we try to take medicines.

If, say, we find that, you know, working with a particular devotee, that devotee is creating a lot of problems for us or we are just not able to get along with that devotee, then we may decide that, you know, maybe let me serve in some other department or make some change in my attitude, my understanding of the devotee, my appreciation for that devotee, whatever. So, we can also try to make external changes at a vyavaharic level so that we can serve Krishna better at the vyavaharic level also. But our primary purpose is to connect with Krishna at the parmarthic level.

So, sometimes at the vyavaharic level, particular form of serving to Krishna may be interrupted. But at the parmarthic level, our service to Krishna, the flow of our consciousness towards Krishna needn't be interrupted. And that is what happens by seeing that our ultimate connection with Krishna is at the spiritual level, at the level of consciousness.

So, that is what Prahlad Maharaj is telling Hiranyakashipu over there. He says, circumstantially, okay, Vishnu killed your brother. But Vishnu is not your enemy.

It was because Hiranyaksha was acting in a demoniac way, so his demonic activities had to be curbed. But Vishnu is the well-wisher of everyone. If we are perceiving Vishnu as our enemy, then that would mean that we are actually not understanding that we are letting the vyavaharic reality dominate our perception and not seeing the parmarthic reality.

We are thinking, this should have happened this way. And this has not happened this way. That means, I think, you know, sometimes you may say, God is against me.

Why is God doing this to me? So, it is not that Krishna is ever against us. Krishna is always our well-wisher. So, if we let the vyavaharic reality dominate our perception of the parmarthic reality, then we will start thinking that when something doesn't work out, why is Krishna against me? Krishna is never against us.

Krishna is always for us. But which particular situation will be favourable for our growth, that our idea and Krishna's idea will be different. So, rather than insisting that it has to work out my way only, we do what we can to change it.

But if it can't be changed, we move forwards, serving Krishna even in that situation itself. So, I'll summarise what I spoke today. So, I spoke about serving Krishna.

I spoke on the theme of how we all have problems in our life, but we ourselves don't have to become problems. That means that we, when Prahlad Maharaj tells here to Hiranyakashipu that there is no one who is your enemy, except your uncontrolled mind. So, we discussed, sometimes people do act anemically towards us.

So, I talked about the vyavaharic and parmarthic levels. At a vyavaharic practical level, people may act anemically and we may have to act appropriately. So, we see a tiger and a cat as souls, but we don't act exactly the same towards both of them.

So, similarly, in the material world, at a practical level, you have to deal differently with different people. But the parmarthic level is that we are souls and we are meant to serve Krishna. And whatever situation is coming in our life, that is ultimately meant to help us move closer towards Krishna.

The terms vyavaharic and parmarthic are often used in the sense by the Mayavadis to say that vyavaharic is unreal and only the parmarthic is real. The bhakti understanding of the vyavaharic at the material level is also real. And the vyavaharic is meant to be used in the service of the parmarthic, to pursue the parmarthic.

So, Krishna also comes to this material level to elevate us on spiritual level. And we use material things in Krishna's service. And so, I discussed about how with respect to Parishad Maharaj, the Mahabharata gives a different rendition where Parishad Maharaj tried to resist death, whereas the Bhagavatam says Parishad Maharaj has accepted death.

The Bhagavatam is primarily describing things from a parmarthic perspective. Just focus on transcendence. But the Mahabharata is talking about dharma in this level.

Mahabharata describes the war which was fought to establish dharma. So, at the vyavaharic level, Parishad does what he can. So, we saw that at the vyavaharic level, Dhritarashtra is told initially, do your duty, try to prevent the war by persuading your son.

But after the war is fought and done, then now your vyavaharic dharma has changed. So, don't bother so much about the war that has happened. See that as destiny.

So, philosophy is context sensitive. And the intent to serve Krishna is always fixed, that is parmarthic. But at the vyavaharic level, how that intent is expressed will vary.

Prabhupada just walked away from the Jhansi temple, but Prabhupada fought to keep the Juhu temple. So, this similarly for us, in which situation we should decide to fight in that situation, we just walk away from that situation, that will vary from situation to situation. So, we keep our purpose of serving Krishna fixed.

And then we see what is the kshetra in which I can serve. Sometimes our sthiti, our situation may decrease our sphere of influence. And then we may try to again increase our sphere of influence, improve our health.

But if the health is increased, then rather than becoming resentful of that or becoming frustrated of that, we see that, let me in this situation also serve Krishna. So, normally, we can't directly give our consciousness to Krishna. So, whatever our consciousness is, whatever activity our consciousness is attracted towards, we do those activities for Krishna.

That's how our consciousness goes towards Krishna. So, through the kshetra that we have, we offer our consciousness to Krishna. The advantage of that is, many services get done practically.

Disadvantage is that, it may create the mentality of the doership within us. So, when the kshetra is taken away from us temporarily, at that time, then we cannot do anything practically. So, doership doesn't come so much.

But we can still think of Krishna. We can offer our consciousness to Krishna. And spiritual advancement doesn't depend on exactly what all volume of services we are doing.

It depends on how much our consciousness is connecting with Krishna. So, if we are connecting with Krishna by offering our consciousness to Him, then a humble cry, a humble helpless cry in sickness may lead to more advancement and many leaps in health where we do a lot of services. So, rather than thinking that my devotion is limited by the situation, we can say, okay, my particular service may not be done, but I can always keep connecting with Krishna.

And in that way, if we understand that the paramarthic is expressed according to the vyavaharic situation, and the vyavaharic situation is unfavourable, then still I can focus on the paramarthic. That way, our devotion can stay uninterrupted and it can grow through whatever situation we face in our lives. Thank you very much.

Hare Krishna. So, any questions or comments? So, I would like to share something on sickness. There is a devotee, so he was having a bad throat problem.

And whatever he used to eat or drink, it doesn't used to go inside his stomach. And then once he went for a checkup, and doctor told him to drink water. And then he started drinking water.

But that water didn't reach his stomach. It was just in the throat. And then doctor said, it is impossible, you cannot live also, you cannot survive like this.

Doctor said, I mean, he got up and he said, I mean, he said Hare Krishna, and then put little pressure and then water went inside. That's interesting. So, the paramarthic helped at the vyavaharic level also.

So, he went through the surgery and it got well. And doctor told him to, you know, like now, say something so that they can check that everything is okay. He started singing Hare Krishna Mahavatar.

That's good. And the devotee is paramarthal. Oh, really? Okay, wonderful.

Thank you. Doctors were really mad for you. Now you can live.

You are okay now? Again I have to go for checkup. As per them, they say come every six months or a year. But I try my best not to go more frequently unless it is needed.

Because they say big big terms like and I get really scared. I said half of my life I have already lived. Let me live the remaining half peacefully by chanting Hare Krishna.

If you can give me like long life, more than 100, if there is somebody. But if not then nothing good. But still they are calling.

Yeah. Is there a way, you know, at least for distribution or anything that I can, in essence of Srimad Bhagavatam, like, you know, like how you have the ten devotees from Bhagavad Gita? There is one devotee, Prabhupada said, Purnapragya Prabhu has done the Srimad Bhagavatam condensed. So that gives a quick overview of the Bhagavatam.

And then actually the Bhagavatam appears very big. But it can be read in various ways. One way is that we can just read the translations initially.

At least if I want to read a chapter, just read the translations once and get an overview. What is there in the chapter? And that may turn in, there are devotees. I met a devotee in Karthik.

Every Karthik, he reads all the 335 chapters of the Bhagavatam in one month. So if you read about, and he reads, he knows Sanskrit. So he just reads the Sanskrit only.

Then he will read the English. That's a standard form of, what do you say, what is the archana? That you take a month and read the whole Bhagavatam in that month. So approximately it's 30 days.

So if you read around, if you read around 11 chapters per day, then you can complete 335 chapters in one month. So it takes about two hours to two and a half hours to read it. So for us the Sanskrit may be difficult, but just the English we can read.

Now this is in no way mean to minimise the purports of Srila Prabhupada because just the story, it will just have some entertainment value. It will not really lead to much enlightenment. The enlightenment comes by reading the purports.

So we do need to read the purports also. And that if the size is what is intimidating, then at least reading the translations will give us an overview of what is there. Then we can decide, okay, this is the story that attracts me the most.

Let me read it. We may decide, okay, I want to read the Prasad Maharaj pastime. That is around 10 chapters in the 7th canto.

Or let me read the Dhumaraj pastime. There are 4 chapters in the 4th canto. So when we read specific sections, we also get a better understanding.

And completing that also gives us some confidence. Okay, I can read. So generally it is not recommended to suddenly go into the 10th canto, especially the Rasleela chapters.

But otherwise reading Bhagavatam section-wise gives us a taste for the Bhagavatam. Systematic study is excellent, but sometimes systematic study seems so demanding that we just feel, when will I complete this? So the mind says, okay, it takes such a long time to complete. So then the mind takes a long time to start only then.

So it is better that we just start somewhere and start with some attainable target. So Gajendra, Moksha, Leela is there. Just 3 chapters it is.

So I will read that. So start off with, we all know, whatever classes you might have heard in Bhagavatam, you know what are the major pastimes in the Bhagavatam. So just decide to read those.

And gradually as you read those, some sections of Bhagavatam get covered. And we also that way know some things in the Bhagavatam. And then the taste will develop by that.

And then you will be able to do more. So systematic reading, it is not difficult. It is just demanding.

Difficult means it is, it is not easy to do. Demanding means it just requires consistency. So even if you read half an hour daily, half an hour daily is not easy, but even if you read three and a half hours in a week, or that means say about 14 hours in a month, with average reading speed, the Bhagavatam can be completed in about three years, if we read half an hour daily.

So it seems huge reading cantos, but half an hour daily is not that difficult. Or even if half an hour daily is difficult, three and a half hours in a week is not that difficult. We can somehow find some time and read.

So if we do it that way, it is possible also. But it is best to start off with something, three years seems such a long time, when will I complete it? So start with some smaller sections. Take one section and read that.

Take one section and read that. And maybe you could have an index of cards where you write down, means have an index where you write down all the chapters of the Bhagavatam titles, just extract it from the Veda base. And then you could tick, this is how I completed it.

And then gradually you will find, you know, every canto you have read something, something, something. And then that may inspire you, let me start reading the full thing, full Bhagavatam. Let me complete one canto.

So it is a good idea to actually read at least maybe one, two chapters from each canto. So that when you are distributing, you know something from each. And each canto has some special past tense, which are stories, which are not so difficult to read, and which are also quite instructive.

So that way we can do that. And then you can see, maybe at least in each canto, if you just actually, if you just try to read two, three chapters from each canto. So reading two, three chapters will, through Maharaj's pastime, will take just maybe, in a fortnight you can read it, if you read half an hour daily also.

So as reading a few chapters from each canto and covering the whole twelve cantos like that, that will not take more than three months actually. So if you can complete, say, at the most six months you would say. It depends on how many chapters you are selecting for the reading.

Seventh canto, Dhruva Maharaj's pastime is ten chapters. But other pastimes are not that long. So then, within just, so you can, if you read one canto in two weeks, then in six months you have something from each canto read.

And then that way, basically the mind, the mind will look for excuses not to read. And we have to sometimes give the mind reasons to keep reading. So the mind often is in the mode of passion a little bit, it wants to achieve something.

So then we give it a sense of achievement within the realm of devotion. Then it feels stimulated to read. Okay? Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. I have one question. Philanthropic activity that we do, or anybody does, so from the Vyavahari view perspective, how do we look at it? I mean, should we do philanthropic activity or what should be our mood? And typically when we are devotee officials, we typically always focus on serving devotees.

But when the question comes to serving non-devotees, how do we bring that oneness into our conversation? Okay. So we talk about philanthropy activities from a Vyavaharic perspective. Are they important? And how should we do them? If you see in the Bhagavatam, in the ninth canto, there is a story of Rantideva, the story of Maharajshri.

There are people who come to them and they are starving. And he gives them food. He gives them even the food which he himself is going to eat.

So, and directly there is no devotion. Of course, we could say that he's a devotee and he's giving prasad. But the focus there is not on specifically, he's not giving, he's not preaching Krishna consciousness to those people.

Some chandalas come, some dog, a person with dogs comes and he gives them whatever food he has. So the idea there is the selflessness and sacrifice of a great soul. They're ready to give up even what they have for others.

Now, we also have the pastime of Maharaj Pruthu, when his citizens are starving. At that time, he does vigorous activity to ensure that the citizens get nourishment, they get food and grains and other things. So he doesn't tell them that, oh, this is mundane.

No, he provides for them. So the point is that Kshatriyas are meant to take care of the material welfare of people. Brahmanas are meant to take care of the spiritual welfare.

Now, Brahmanas may also give charity. If a Brahmana gets a lot of food, Brahmana may also give food in charity. But Brahmana's primary charity is giving knowledge.

So Prabhupada started ISKCON primarily as a Brahminical movement. He came and said in the West also I'm coming to, I'm looking for Brahmanas. But then Prabhupada also said we want to establish Varanashram.

So in general, Prabhupada's mood was that the Krishna consciousness movement will directly focus on Brahminical activity of giving spiritual knowledge, giving Krishna Bhakti. But then Prabhupada also told, for example, Food for Life, which is, and he said there's a letter where he says, we will win the hearts of the people and the government by extensive food distribution. There's one letter where Prabhupada says that.

So there is, we have to understand that there is an institutional focus and there is an individual preference or individual inspiration or even an individual obligation. When the devotees, when the Bhakti Sanskrit Thakur would take devotees on Parikrama, outside Vrindavan, there were many beggars outside the Vrindavan temples. And the devotees would not give any charity to the beggars.

And Prabhupada, Bhakti Sanskrit Thakur said, you know, in a later lecture he says, we think that we will not give any charity to beggars, we will keep the money to give to Hari. But then we don't give to beggars and we don't give to Hari also. He says we should give charity to beggars.

So now of course, so I'm giving all these examples to talk about how charity also is a part of the broad process of Dharma. Now, because ISKCON was established for a particular purpose by Srila Prabhupada, ISKCON itself will not engage primarily or extensively in charitable activities at a material level. Because it's a body of Brahmanas.

But it is not that all ISKCON devotees are always acting as Brahmanas. In the sense that in individual capacity, many devotees may be businessmen, they are Vaishyas. Many devotees may be working in managerial positions, their roles may be Kshatriyas.

So what an individual ISKCON devotee does is up to them. And if devotees, sometimes, see the Bhagavatam is describing, the whole thrust of the Bhagavatam is to raise a person from aparadharma to paradharma. Pariksit Maharaj was already a religious person.

But to bring him to the level of pure absorption in Krishna. That's the thrust of the Bhagavatam. And from that perspective the Bhagavatam says, even dharma, artha, kama, moksha, that is also kaitavya dharma.

Because that does not lead to prema. But does that mean that dharma, artha, kama, moksha are bad? Not necessarily bad. If somebody can practise parabhakti, then for them dharma, artha, kama, moksha are not good.

To give a simple example, if say parents have two sons, two kids, and one of them barely scrapes through the exam, gets 40% marks. Another gets 80%, very good marks. And today both of them have come, both of them have results.

Both of them have got 60%. The father, the person who got 40% and he came to 60%, the father may say, shabash. The other person will say, badmash, what have you done? Now, actually both of them got the same marks.

But why the entirely different reaction? Because their level is different. So for somebody who is otherwise doing mundane activities, for them to come to the level of, mundane means they are just living for sense gratification, for their own personal sense gratification. If they start giving charity, that is a step up from them.

So they are coming from the mode of passion to the mode of goodness. But for somebody who is working at the level of pure goodness, for them to come to the level of goodness may not be so good. So for somebody to come from 80% to 60% is not good.

Now, the Bhagavatam talks about principles of pure devotional service. And that is what we aspire for. Now, we have to see for ourselves, honestly, how much of our life is in a pure devotional mode, how much in a sattvic mode, how much in a rajasic mode, how much is in a tamasic mode.

These are modes that are there within us. Our goal is transcendental. That doesn't mean we have ourselves become transcendent.

So, if our life is also rajasic and tamasic, then giving some charity, even for a material cause, that may also increase the sattva within us. And sometimes, if we can directly give for Krishna, that may take us towards shuddha sattva. But sometimes that may not be possible.

Prabhupada says in the twelfth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, eleventh verse, purport is that if we cannot give for Krishna, we can give for some good cause. And that will also instil some selflessness within us. So, that means it's more a matter of consciousness than of specific actions.

So, if we are, say, in India, in the streets, if the car is, if we are going travelling in a car and some beggar comes, then we should give something to them. Because when we say no, that creates, that makes a hard heart. And with a hard heart, it's difficult for Krishna to be present.

So, we can always carry prasad and give prasad. If we can't give prasad, then we, if we give them some money, the next time we'll remember and we'll carry prasad after that. So, basically, our goal is to raise our consciousness from where we are towards Krishna.

So, if somebody is at the shuddha sattva level, largely trying to live at the shuddha sattva level, then they needn't come to sattva level. But acting at the sattva level is not bad. Acting at the sattva level is better than acting at the rajas and tamas level, at the levels of passion and ignorance.

So, there can be many people who may not be devotees, but they may be very charitable. And actually, they may have a greater concern for others in a practical, conscious sense, than what we may have for others. So, we can't, as I said, our goal is to come towards transcendence, but we may not be at transcendence.

We may right now very much be in passion. And so, when we are in passion, we have to make sure that our consciousness rises towards transcendence. And if somebody is sattva, we don't have to dismiss that.

So, somebody is giving charity, somebody is being compassionate, being charitable. We appreciate their spirit of selflessness in doing what they are doing. At the same time, we don't think that is the purpose, that is the perfection.

So, that is good. And if we can, we can also channel their propensity to rise upwards. So, for many people, and even for us sometimes, the charity given for a devotional cause may not be so easily appreciable.

Because when we are in the modes, we want to see things manifesting at a physical level. So, when a person is hungry and we give food, and a person is afflicted by some natural calamity and we give some relief, we feel that something practical is being done. So, we want some prateksha pramana.

We want to see some things. With respect to devotion, when we do charity, we may not see some things. So, it may be that, as devotees, we also have to grow spiritually by which we can appreciate the importance of doing spiritual charity.

But we cannot artificially, that is the rest of my life, I am in rajoguna. I am pursuing sense gratification, I am pursuing wealth, I am cutting corners and earning money. And then when only it comes to charity, I say, I will act only at shuddha sattva level.

And I condemn everyone who is acting at the, you are doing mundane charity. Well, 80% of my life is also mundane. So, and it is not just mundane, it is mundane rajoguna.

So then, what right do I have actually to condemn somebody who is in sattva guna? So, we accept the principles that we want, that the Krishna consciousness movement is meant to preach pure devotion and we also want to aspire for pure devotion. And we have to find a real way by which our consciousness rises from where it is to pure devotion. Okay.

Thank you. Hare Krishna. Yes.

So, in the class, you mentioned that while doing the service, you might get the feeling of a doer. I think that is my case. So, how to… That is mine also.

How to avoid getting the sense of the doer, being the doer while doing service? The most important thing is just keep doing service. What happens when you keep doing service is that over a period of time, we start seeing that sometimes the service produces results and sometimes the service doesn't produce results. And then, you know, for me, I had this very striking experience.

I was in Silicon Valley and usually I speak on different topics at different places. But there, the… I spoke at four places, Intel, Google, Microsoft and Salesforce. No, Intel, Google, Salesforce and Stanford.

And all four places, they had figured out the same topic, the missing self in the self. What is the topic of the seminar? Well, now, I found the first class, the audience was good. I mean, I could connect with the audience.

The audience was responsive. We had a few questions. The second class, the audience was like, which language am I speaking in? Because sometimes you feel people are just looking, having blank stares.

The third was okay. And the fourth class in Stanford was outstanding. The people were appreciating throughout, clapping, laughing and a lot of questions after the class.

A lot of people wanted to talk after the class also. Now, my content was, I would say, 80 to 90 percent the same. So, after one of the classes, I felt, Arjun, I said, I am the same chariot, same bow, but what is different? So, sometimes when we try to do a thing, I am the same person giving the content also, but still it is different.

You could say the audience is at a different level, but they are all professionals. So, I realised that when we give classes, it is our effort and our presentation, our ability is important, but that alone does not determine the result. There is something more than us.

And it is when we try to do surveys, especially when we try to do surveys which are not within our comfort zone, try to do something beyond our comfort zone, then we start getting that realisation more. So, if we are good at book distribution, then we do book distribution, but then we try to take up some challenge in that. Then when we are not able to do it, that gives us the realisation that I alone am not the doer.

So, if we stop doing the surveys, then we will never get the realisation that I am not the doer. What will happen is, we will still have that kartabhaav within us, and that will come out as when others do surveys and they do it well, we will simply think they have the doership mentality. So, it is by doing surveys, because ultimately the doership mentality cannot be given us simply by intellectual analysis.

It will be given up by purification and realisation. And purification and realisation happen by practically serving Krishna. So, while serving Krishna, it is also important that we do also the services which we may not be so good at.

That means, I am not saying this is so good at, say, if I am very good at singing, that's nice. And I can do that as my mere service. But along with that, I also need to do my sadhana, study scriptures, do japa.

And by this also I move towards Krishna. By this also I connect with Krishna. So, when I do it this way, then slowly the other services which I am doing, they create the service attitude.

And especially if we try to work with devotees, then other devotees, especially if we have equals, that helps a lot. Because if we are preaching to new people, and new people will appreciate us quite a bit. As seniors, it is very easy to maintain humility in front of them.

But it is with equals that we are brought to the ground by them. Sometimes we start flying in the sky. So, I think equal association is also very important.

So, doing service, doing sadhana and maintaining equal association, either gradually that doership mentality will decrease. Thank you. Okay.

So, is there no reference to vyavaharika and paramaharika in the scriptures? But then I also said, Jiyogoswami is quoting it. Okay. See, sometimes we use the word scripture in a very inclusive sense.

By scripture, I mean primarily say the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas. In them directly these words paramaharika and vyavaharika are not used. But if some particular terms become mainstream, and everybody is using them, then our acharyas may also use those terms, but explain them in a different way.

So, for example, the term Godhead that Prabhupada used. It's a Christian term. Christians use it a lot.

But Prabhupada used it and he gave it its own meaning, Supreme Personality of Godhead. What there are certain usages, which may be circumstantial. And if a particular term becomes commonplace in philosophical dialogue of a time, then we may use that term.

So, the vyavaharika and paramaharika, these terms are used by Jiyogoswami. And because that was a time when Advaita was quite widespread and those terms were there already. So, then he uses them, but he uses them in a different context.

So, ultimately, you know, terms are like the handles for a suitcase. The suitcase is the actual concept. The term is the handle.

So, one suitcase handle, say there's a black handle. That black handle may be attached to different suitcases. One time I was travelling from one place to another.

Just when we were going out of the house, the devotee was coming to pick the suitcase and the suitcase handle broke. So, at that time, I asked, can you repair this? The devotee said that repairing things in America is more difficult than buying new things. So, then they gave me a new suitcase.

Now, because I don't carry my luggage, somebody else usually, either the devotees carry it or the wheelchair assistant carries it. So, then when I came to the carousel, at that time, I had forgotten what my bag looks like. So, I only remember that it had like a red handle.

So, then all the suitcases with the red handle, we are picking it up and looking. Is this my suitcase? Is this my suitcase? So, similarly, what happens, we sometimes get too caught with terms. The terms are like the handles of the suitcase.

And the concept is actually the suitcase. So, now in English, there is a word called run. So, there is an article written by an English scholar.

Has run run amok? What he means is the word run has 640 meanings. It is the word which has the maximum meanings in English. So, now, normally in the context, so, we understand what, so, suppose, you know, he stole my money and ran away to Australia.

How long did it take to run to Australia for him? Run away does not mean physically run away. So, are you running for the elections? What do you mean by running for the elections? The word run has different meanings. So, what happens is the same word may be there, but it may have different meanings in different contexts.

So, the Avaharic and Parmarthic, they have different meanings. And because they were common words used, so, our Acharyas have also used them. And they have infused them with different meanings.

Now, so, is the Bhagavatam not relevant for those of us who are going to function at the universal? The specific way we apply them may not always be the same. And that variation we see also in the Bhagavatam itself. Prithu Maharaj, while he is the king, he does focus on taking care of his kingdom.

Parikshit Maharaj himself does not worry about his kingdom. Let Krishna take care of that. We said Dhruv Maharaj, Prahlad Maharaj tells Hiranyakashipu that the household life is like a deep dark ditch, deep dark well.

But then after the whole pastime, he himself becomes the king. He marries, he has children. So, he also does duty at the Avaharic level.

He does it in Parmarthic consciousness. So, I would say that it's not that the Bhagavatam is spoken because Parikshit Maharaj has announced the world. My point was that each book has its own thrust.

And that thrust is determined by the context. So, we acknowledge the thrust, but that is not what we necessarily literally follow. Just like the Bhagavad Gita.

The Bhagavad Gita's context is Arjuna fought a war. And the Bhagavad Gita does tell Arjuna to fight a war. But does that mean that all of us have to also fight fighting a war? Not necessarily.

And our Acharyas have explained the core principles which are universal. But their application in our context will be different from what was in Arjuna's context. So, overall the Bhagavatam teaches the principles of Bhakti.

But it also gives pastimes which talk about the principle of Bhakti, especially as to how they will apply at the time of death. If you consider, how many of the Bhagavatam narratives are talking about death and the moment of death? Apart from Parikshit Maharaj, we have Gajendra who is near death, Ajamil is near death. We have Ritrasur who dies and dies gloriously.

We have Dhruva who describes his whole life, but in the climax, the pastime is he dies. Pruthu Maharaj's departure from the world is described. So, there are a lot of pastimes in the Bhagavatam which describe the departure from the world.

So, in that sense, that is the thrust of the book. But the thrust doesn't mean that the entire book is about that only. And that doesn't mean the entire book is only for them, only for that purpose.

Rather, it is meant for all of us to keep death in mind and then orient our life accordingly. Does that answer your question? Thank you. So, thank you very much.