QA session in London 2018

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
this is that some how young people taking up Krishna Consciousness and how the view is gone see young people are definitely not homogenous unit so our movement somehow has been able to present itself in a way lot of engineering students are attracted other humanities somehow artists writers not attracted so much so engineering students they often become either brahmacharis or they become dedicated devotees grahasthas in several temples brahmachari ashrams are growing quite nicely that’s one thing the general youth community they do appreciate ISKCON in the sense that ISKCON has a good name and it’s not like America where we are considered a cult the brand value of ISKCON itself has a good name in ISKCON India even among the youth but they know that a lot of educated intelligent people join and people appreciate our presentations so in the IT field we are reasonably well known because there are lot of IT IT professionals are very large in number but there are lot of IT people who have also become devotees so it’s a that part of India which is which is you could say leftist influenced which is very modern or post modern we don’t connect with them at all ISKCON is primarily seen as a religious organisation we call ourselves spiritual but the way we conduct ourselves our dress, our dancing in streets our distributing books our building temples all that makes us seem very religious so those people who already have some natural piety but they have some intellectual misconceptions which prevent them from acting on their piety they if our philosophy addresses those misconceptions then they take it up and they take it up quite seriously but those who are out and out sceptics or those who are you could say the opinion opinion shapers or opinion leaders of society they generally keep a long distance from our movement so we don’t have many journalists so basically people who shape public perception in a mass sense that kind of people we don’t have much yeah but I think there are there is a bit of an IIT WhatsApp there are a lot of misconceptions first of all the problem has become the religion itself concept has become so much polarised right and so they don’t understand what scripture means when people talk about Gita basically from Gita it doesn’t talk about any it doesn’t talk about Hindu it’s not sectarian there is no word of that it’s not so it can be anyone people really don’t know people would pick one line from somewhere now this situation situation in Kashmir there were a lot of discussions there was a woman on the IIT WhatsApp there are not many women she kind of said that KK said Kunti said women are a source of world trouble or something like first of all Kunti is Mahabharat so she didn’t know that she kind of said it was not Kunti it was KK problem is people have this thing which they have heard and that’s it and these are intelligent people and they are not actually studying and I keep on saying guys read books go to the source maybe the way it’s come to you has gotten contaminated read the books it’s very difficult to motivate people to read the books but yeah there is a certain amount of piety they will challenge I get a lot of messages saying it was a nice conversation and you were very polite and corresponding to all the queries people do appreciate if you are nice they are not you have to be very careful this big group don’t know all of them yeah see people as far as people taking one statement from scripture seeing the tradition in a particular filter that is just the way human mind works all people how many of us have really well informed opinion about things so especially with tradition somehow there are no ways in which we can know about our tradition in authorised ways authorised way means that in India in the name of secularism we don’t study our own history very much we have a very sketchy outline so secularism means not it ideally should mean not supporting any religion by the state but it doesn’t mean turning a blind eye to the existence of religion itself and the way I present the Bhagavad Gita and the Ramayana Mahabharata also I speak of it I book the wisdom texts and then if you present it that way there are people even I have seen there is a professor in IIM one of my friends did a IIM degree and he said that leadership lessons from the Ramayana Mahabharata and he is a south Indian from Ayangar and there are people from all sects over there and they learn the lessons so it’s if it’s presented well as a source of wisdom people do accept it but it has been very easily politicalised and there is a lot of need for rational presentation one of the challenges is that Hinduism at large has been centred on charismatic gurus so of course every religious tradition has to have its charismatic leaders but among all religious traditions let’s say Hinduism is quite guru centred so people form personality cults around particular leaders and it can now what happens by this is the charisma of those leaders attract some people and sometimes seeing the almost obsequiousness the servility which others demonstrate towards that leader many people get put off so I was at a conference of Hinduism in the 21st century there was a prominent saying that charismatic gurus will come and go but it is what will really shape Hinduism’s future is thoughtful Hindus present their tradition in a rational and intelligible way now it’s not that the gurus can’t do that the gurus may also do that but the gurus their primary charm is through their charisma and if there is rationality then that’s a plus but the nature of charisma is that it just attracts some people and alienates some people also so to the extent we move towards rational presentation where we are not centred on the authority of someone as an explanation but rather explanation based on logic and reasoning giving proper context then people are open to it so personality cults are just unavoidable in religion because people want some god like figure to worship that’s a human need but then the religious movement goes up and down with that person for enduring appreciation of the religious tradition there has to be the rational presentation so to the extent we can do that to the extent Hinduism at large and the bhakti tradition in particular we could say has a bright future whereas that kind of presentation people do appreciate it … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Material life is temporary.
You reject the material life and practise spiritual life. So, you could call it the rejection. Rejection model of spirituality.
Second could be complementation. Material life is good, but that alone will not give you fulfilment. That will not give meaning and purpose to your life.
So, you need spiritual life. That’s complementation. The third is, you could say, improvement.
Your spiritual life will improve your material life. By having spiritual you will manage stress better. You will have better relationships.
You will have better health. You will be more happy in this world. One of the defining differences between you could say modern and pre-modern thought is that modern thought more or less rejected considerations of any other world.
If you consider eastern or western traditions, the whole idea was that this life is a preparation for another life. Whether it is by surrendering to Jesus or following Mohammed or whatever. But even in Buddhism also, the tradition was you have to get liberated.
Nirvana is the goal. But in the modern times, initially how it started is that many Christians, they consider, many of the initial scientists were all believers in God. And they thought that it is just as God’s grace manifests in the spiritual arena through Jesus, it manifests in the material arena through science.
And spiritually we will improve by Christianity, materially we will improve by science. But over a period of time as science seemed to have offer endless promise of improvement, then the idea of spiritual improvement got sidelined. And we can create paradise through technology here in this world itself.
So religion has also been absorbed in this vision. To the extent religion can promise to make things better in this world, whether you call it religion or spirituality, to that extent it is appealing. And traditionally Buddhism was very world-rejecting.
But today the way Buddhism is presented itself, it’s very world-affirming in the sense that Buddhism talks about mindfulness. The Dalai Lama was asked, what is the essence of religion? He said, tolerance and compassion. Now, it’s very appealing to the modern mind which feels that there is so much religious tension and violence in the name of religion.
So if we consider the three modes, Buddhism offers many practises and principles which can get people to goodness. And that does offer relief for people who are agitated by passion and ignorance. Now the religious traditions of the world can take people higher, but do they actually take people higher? How many of the followers are actually rising higher? That’s a question.
In the sense that some people of course are rising to spiritual consciousness, but many stay where they are and portray that I am great because of my religion. And that happens with us devotees also sometimes. So give the example that suppose we are lost and our vehicle is also damaged.
Now if there is a vehicle making a lot of noise, giving out a lot of polluting gases, riding in a very wavy and jerky way, if we find the destination, find the path back, we are in the right track back. But that doesn’t, just because our destination is right, doesn’t mean our driving will automatically become right. Our vehicle is still the same.
So like that people who come to religion, even to spirituality, whatever you want to say, if they come to Krishna consciousness or any other religion which talks about love of God as the ultimate goal of life, they got the right destination. But still their body, mind, vehicle may still be in the modes of passion and ignorance. So I talk about ideological faith, which is in terms of what you believe as the ultimate goal of life and functional faith.
How do you think things should be solved, things should be dealt with? So I was talking about how even when you practise religion, it is, or we practise spirituality, the ultimate goal of life also. Still that doesn’t mean that just because my destination is right, doesn’t mean my driving is right. I still have to learn how to drive.
So there are many religious people who claim to be following, claiming to love God, but they are in the modes of passion and ignorance. See, broadly speaking, jihadists. So I say that in the mode of goodness, if there is a conflict, we try to resolve it by discussion.
Sometimes people feel there should not be any arguments. Why should there be arguments? But actually when arguments stop, bloodshed begins. Arguments stop, it is not that the conflict is resolved.
The nature of the world is that there are going to be differences. So in goodness, we want discussions. In passion, we want domination.
I just want to prove that I am right. And in ignorance, we want destruction. Not only I want to prove I am right, I want you to get out of the way.
So it’s like you are going to go to hell and we’ll help you get there faster. So there are many religious people also who are in the mode of passion and ignorance and they give a really bad name to religion. So now you can say Buddhists are also in the mode of passion and ignorance.
But because there is no God in them, so there is no religious rationalisation for violence, which is there in other religions. For violence, we are fighting in the name of God. So that is not there.
And Buddhism offers practises where people can come to goodness. Oh yeah, that is a major reason. Somehow if you consider the Hollywood depiction of religions, Buddhism is the most favourably depicted.
The Little Buddha and many other movies are talking about a very enlightened kind of person. Many prominent Hollywood stars have also become their Buddhist followers. And they talk about generic spirituality without talking about God.
Spiritual but not religious. Yeah. And that’s true.
That’s a huge genre of people. I think spiritual means being open-minded, religious means being narrow-minded. So I want to be open-minded.
I don’t want to be narrow-minded. How do you equate spirituality then? I think it’s the openness to some higher experiences, just being peaceful, having good feelings about yourself and others. So I would say they equate spirituality with more and more of goodness.
So now we need some kind of funnel effect, where if you see Iskcon’s traditional presentation of spirituality has been, reject the material world. Iskcon began in that mood. Prabhupada’s basically followers were people who had already rejected the material world.
And then they came towards, they just surrendered everything to Krishna. Now you see the second generation of Indians who have taken up, they are definitely not in the mood of rejecting the world. So most Indians, if they are religious and they are somewhat pious and inclined, they are in the second zone.
Material life is good, but we need to have something more also in our life. They have no intention of giving up material life. And that is why in some parts of Iskcon, we see a conflict between the first and the second generation.
The first generation of leaders say, you should go on Harinam, you should go on Buddhist tradition. Why do you need such a big house and this and that and that? So they expect that model, which is not what Indians are looking for at all. So the rejection model may work if we are a temple based movement.
Now we are congregation based movement. So we can only have the complementation model. But even the complementation model doesn’t have many pickers.
It has definitely much, much more than rejection. But most people are looking for spirituality as something that will improve their material life. So we need some devotee leaders, you could say, at the fringes of our movement who can present spirituality that way.
And then from there, the funnel effect, we get them towards spirituality as complementation. And ultimately towards the end of life, we have to reject. That’s true.
That’s why we started doing that because we’ve seen that the second model doesn’t work. We’ve all been recognised the need of doing that. Yesterday you presented very nicely that there is this inner stream.
You were talking about the mind consciousness. We were talking in the afternoon. We were talking about the inner stream.
So I wanted to, you know, I was reading the, I can read that translated, first hand of it, chapter 11, verse, where it’s all about the, how the people were reading scriptures, the transcendental sound, the transcendental pastimes, the transcendental, just glorifying the Lord. So how does that, all the sound, the sight, I’m talking of transcendental as opposed to material, how does that give happiness as opposed to when we talk about, we can’t call it, make anything work, but if you can’t have it, you can’t have it. So according to that model of the soul, the consciousness, and then connecting to the inner stream, you were talking about the projections, withdraw that, and then the second step is to get connected to that.
So I’m not clear as to how do you, when you say transcendental sound, for instance, really bring that to us, how is it satisfying our soul, how does it work? So if you consider, say, the model of the inner screen, consider the model of the inner screen and the soul being the inner seer, how does transcendental sound awakens our spirituality, basically? How does it provide spiritual fulfilment? So I would say that there is a, the transcendental sound is not just the holy name. It is whole Krishna Katha. It is that which will awaken us to spiritual awareness.
So to expand that example further, the example I gave is that the mind is like an inner screen, and the world out there is the outer scene. The soul is the inner seer. So in a sense the soul is different from the whole world.
But the soul’s consciousness is projected onto the material world. That’s why the soul is experiencing various phenomena, happiness and distress, whatever is appearing on the inner screen, pleasure and unpleasant stimuli. Now imagine a child is watching a horror movie, and the child is horrified, scared, trembling, sweating, and the mother is right next to the child.
But the child is so caught in the horror movie, if the mother touches the shoulder of the child, the child thinks the monster from the movie has come. So in that situation, the mother wants to help the child. The child is so engrossed in the inner screen on the horror movie, that the mother cannot contact the child directly.
So say, you can envision, say, if that TV screen is there, and the mother has another remote, and she uses the remote to change what appears on that TV screen. And there, maybe, they have shot some pictures or some movie of the mother and the child being together, playing together, enjoying together. And then suddenly the screen over there changes.
Or that comes with another channel over there. And the child starts saying, who is this? I know this person. She’s so nice.
She loves me. And gradually, now some other channel might also be going on, this is also another channel that is going on. As the child starts watching this more and more, then the child starts getting, oh, this is my mother.
She loves me. She’s a nice person. And then as he starts becoming more and more tuned to her, then after that, the mother comes and touches her.
Touches the child. Oh, the mother will hug her. Similarly for us, we at present can’t perceive any reality beyond what is projected in our mind.
We actually don’t even perceive the physical world. We perceive the physical world also as it is projected on our mind. So, what Krishna does is, he manifests in the physical world.
Be it as the deities, of course he comes himself as the avatars also, but as the deities, as the holy name, as the scriptures, even as devotees who act as the representatives. And through them, they start manifesting on our inner screen. And to the extent we tune into that channel, to the extent we start connecting with Krishna’s manifestations in this world, to that extent our spiritual sensibility or spiritual faculty starts awakening.
And then as we become more and more familiarised with Krishna, as he is manifested in the inner screen, through being in the outer scene, then we start becoming receptive to Krishna’s presence within us also. So, eventually, so we could say, first we need Krishna in the outer physical scene. We need to go to a temple.
We need to be in physically spiritual association so that we can be spiritually stimulated. If we keep exposing ourselves to such stimuli over a period of time, they will become impressed on our inner screen. So even when we are not with devotees, we will be remembering devotees.
Even if we are not directly in devotional environment, we will remember devotional philosophy, devotional service, devotional impressions will keep coming. And so that’s when the mind becomes spiritualised. And eventually after that, the soul gets liberated from the world.
The soul doesn’t need the body and doesn’t need the mind also. All of them are left behind and the pure soul goes back to the spiritual world. So eventually we can perceive Krishna even without the inner screen.
So that is, so the sound or in general the process of Bhakti Yoga, Bhakti Yoga is called a sensory spirituality. It is not just spirituality, but spirituality is made accessible through the senses. Rishikena rishikesha sevanam bhakti vichyate.
So through the senses when we connect with Krishna, then we move forwards and then we can perceive him even beyond the senses. Sukham atyantikam yathat buddhi grahayam ateendriyam. That is, it happens that experience beyond the senses.
It is experienced directly by the conscious faculty of the soul. So that’s how spiritual sound, it first appears through the physical scene on the inner screen and then gradually it awakens our inner seers, this realisation that the supreme seer is with us. That’s how the whole process takes place gradually.
My question is that we are explaining this on the basis of, as a given that the transcendental sound comes from the inner screen then affects the inner seer and hence it stimulates it. My question is why transcendental sound? Now why not hearing Coca-Cola does that? So how do we see the difference in that? Because this is obviously the mechanism but there must be a difference in the transcendental sound, the transcendental sight as opposed to material sound, material sight in that relation. So why does the soul awaken by the transcendental sound? Because the soul has an eternal relationship with Krishna.
You don’t have an eternal relationship with Coca-Cola or anything like that. So that eternal relationship is activated. So the sound is transcendental because it is connected with transcendental reality.
Other sounds are not connected with transcendental reality. So if you consider what appears on the inner screen, it could come either from the physical world, it could just come from imagination or it could come we could say from the spiritual manifesting in the material or in the physical or spiritual manifesting in the mental. So for most of the stimuli in the world which we perceive, most sounds they are just physical sound waves coming from the physical realm.
Most stimuli they are just physical or at the most they are mental. But the names of Krishna are directly transcendental. So the transcendence is manifesting at the physical level and through that it is taking us to the spiritual level.
So we could say someone chanting, now is chanting meant to be inside out or outside in? Inside out means we feel devotional and we call out to Krishna. So the devotion inside is expressed outside through chanting. That is that will be inside out chanting.
Or outside in chanting means through the physical act of chanting, gradually the connection with Krishna is established and then we start experiencing spiritual emotional relationship with Krishna. Now many times our… Even now we do experience some spiritual connection. Now it may not be necessarily that the soul is being awakened but even if the soul perceives Krishna on the inner screen, that also, that is the mind.
The mind is basically where… Yeah, so like you have your house and somebody who comes at the gate, you don’t have to physically go and see over there. You have a mirror over here, you have a screen over there, you can see over there. It’s like the outer world is projected onto our inner screen.
That is the mind and the soul is the inner seer. Yeah, soul is seeing the mind. Exactly.
It’s a screen which can act in various ways. So most of the time our chanting is meant to be outside in. Of course sometimes we are just outside outside.
There is no inside only. There is a physical utterance and it doesn’t even register inside. Which is just the way we are conditioned.
But because it is connected with eternal spiritual reality, that is why there is the possibility or the potential of spiritual awakening through this sound. Now we could conceivably say that just repeating any other sound also can bring some calmness. It’s possible.
Nowadays people talk about affirmations. Just affirm, everything is alright, everything is alright, everything is alright. And thinking like that also can help.
But it can help to the extent that it may bring us to goodness. This has gone wrong, this has gone wrong, this has gone wrong. Things are okay, things are okay, things are okay.
Don’t worry, calm down. Sometimes it may help. Affirmations help if they can remind us of a reality that we already accept to be true.
God is in control. He will take care of things. Calm down.
So if I have faith in God, the affirmation will help. But if I don’t, if the affirmation is something which I just don’t believe, then the affirmation is actually psychologically damaging because I don’t accept it and I am trying to repeat to myself. So suppose somebody thinks that they don’t look very good.
They look fat or whatever they are. And I say, no, I am very attractive, I am very attractive. Now that kind of affirmation can be damaging.
But affirmation of something which we accept as true but circumstantially we tend to forget that. So then repeating that can also help. Yeah, God is in charge.
He will take care of things. So even if you have a shloka recitation, sometimes it calms us down. If you become conscious of me, you will pass over all obstacles by my grace.
Of course, shloka also has spiritual power because they are connected with Krishna and coming from Krishna. But I am just giving that as an example. If there is an affirmation that we already accept as true, then affirming it again and again can calm us.
But it is not really connected with spiritual reality. So it is direct spiritual reality that manifests through the Holy Name. So just staying on that concept, you know, we talk about the Holy Name purifying us in terms of our previous conditioning and I always see it as an onion peel which is unpeeling it.
So if you just stay on your model and be looking at the Holy Name, then appearing on the inner screen and by repetition and everything else and then awakening of the transcendental reality which is already stored inside, how does this purification or unpeeling or unconditioning happen with this thing as opposed to again, for example, material sound? So if you want to say that in terms of inner screen, how does purification happen? I give the example, say if in our computer we have visited a particular site, say Bollywood.com many times. Then we come to temple or we come to spiritual programme and hear about Bhagavad Gita. And then now we want to search in Google for Bhagavad Gita.
We type B and immediately it comes Bollywood.com. So what has happened, just like there are preferences stored in our browser, similarly the actions that we have done in the past, they are stored as impressions within us. And the past impressions become the present propositions. So if somebody has drunk alcohol a lot, those past impressions will come.
If they pass by a bar, let’s go and drink. But somebody is never drunk, there is no impression over there. So their browser is blank, type B, there is no Bollywood.com is not going to come.
So basically for us we could say purification happens in multiple ways. One is by simply repetition. If I just keep visiting Bhagavad Gita again and again and again, Bhagavad Gita.com, then if I type B, Bhagavad Gita will come.
So similarly by mechanical repetition of devotional activity also, the fresh impressions are formed in the mind and they can remove the negative impressions. And that’s how people, then by mechanical repetition of a particular activity, even people who are not even spiritual or devotional, they can also form new habits. And they can also conceivably break old behavioural patterns.
So we could say this is simply the repetition method. Bhakti also involves, so purification basically means the unwanted propositions stop coming. So Bollywood.com just stops coming over there.
So for us, if we consider, there will be three stages. First is intellectual conviction that, okay, I don’t want to visit Bollywood.com. I don’t want to do these things. So that is what we get by our study of scriptures.
This is something which is unwanted and I need to free myself from it. Now conviction is not purification. Conviction is simply the decision or the resolution that this is where I want to go.
Yeah, determination. The second we could say is intellectual conviction, the devotional application. Devotional application means that I just go to Bhagavad Gita.com again and again and again.
Krishna says wherever the mind wanders, bring it back to me. So that is like choosing, doing repetition again and again. But the third is then there is spiritual purification where the unwanted tendencies just disappear.
So in terms of the inner screen, when we keep Krishna, when you keep invoking Krishna on the inner screen, then the unwanted material things will stop manifesting over there. Those propositions will either not come that forcefully and that frequently or eventually they may stop coming entirely. So this is how purification gradually takes place.
And for us, there is conviction, there is application and then there is purification. So now purification will take time in general. That’s why we need regular boosting of our conviction by which the application will go on.
So if there is no conviction and the application also stops most of the time. So if I am not convinced that I should visit Bhagavad Gita.com, then sometimes I go to Bhagavad Gita, sometimes I go to Bollywood. Then if I just keep oscillating, then the Bollywood still stays over there and it will keep coming back.
No, we had that good question in the afternoon. So you were mentioning about the consciousness. So you mentioned about the soul is the source of all consciousness.
Then it flows onto the mind or the inner screen and then it gets projected out. And this projection, you have to bring it back by all these methods that you were describing, like the meditation, etc., etc., which is non-devotional. And then it comes back devotionally connected to the Supreme.
So is consciousness flow unidirectional or bidirectional? You are talking about the inner screen outward? Yes, you are getting it to the inner screen anyway. So the soul is getting to the inner screen. But is there any bidirectional flow back from the inner screen to the soul of consciousness? Not of impressions, not of events.
So is the flow of consciousness unidirectional or bidirectional? Well, it is we interact with the world in two ways, the karmendriyas and the jnanendriyas. So the jnanendriyas, we take in impressions from the outer world or take in stimuli, perceptions from the outer world. And through the karmendriya, we act in the outer world, the working senses.
So now both require consciousness. So with respect to the, if you consider, the mind is like this integrator, integration point for the impressions coming from the senses as the inner screen. And then the mind makes a decision or rather at the level of the mind, the decision is conceptualised internally.
Okay, there’s fire, there’s water over there, I’ll walk this way. So I pursue, there’s water over there, I might slip over there. We walk this way.
So now in this case, consciousness, there are two metaphors for consciousness itself. One we can use is like a torch. यथा आकाशिस्टोनित्यम् वायु सर्वत्रगोमः तथा सर्वाणि भूताणि मत्स। यथा प्रकाशेतिक कुछ्णम् लोकमिमु रवि शेत्रम् शेत्रित्रःगृच्णम् प्रकाशेति भारत। Krishna says over here that just as the sun illumines the world, universe, similarly the soul illumines the body with consciousness.
So here Krishna is talking about consciousness as flowing outwards from the soul towards the body and activating the body. Now Krishna also talks about consciousness flowing inwards in 2.70. आपूर्यमानवचलपतिष्टम् समुद्रमापः प्रविशन्ति अद्वत् तद्वत् कामायं प्रविशन्ति सर्वे सशान्ति माप्नोति न कामकाम। He says that just as rivers flow into an ocean, but the ocean doesn’t get disturbed, similarly desires flow into the consciousness of a self-realised person, but that person is not disturbed. So here Krishna is talking about the inward flow.
So we could say that there is certainly the flow of sensory perceptions, but how can sensory perceptions take place unless there is some agency which is going outwards and coming back inwards. So for example, now say there is some noise going on in another room, in the kitchen, some vessels are being operated, used, moved around. Now if my consciousness at least in some fragmental way is not going in that direction, I won’t perceive it also.
So in that sense, consciousness has to go outwards to take in impressions and come back. So consciousness sometimes compared to a stream of light, but normally stream of light only goes one way. Light goes from say the torch to the object.
But consciousness is not just like a stream. Consciousness is not like a stream of light alone. It could be say, it’s like a stream of light, but then it is also like a bi-directional where the information is gathered and that’s brought back to the soul.
So now with respect to both, there can be intentional and unintentional. Let me say I’m looking, I want to talk with you, but suddenly I think of this, I think of that. My consciousness goes in that direction.
Similar or for that matter, say we are walking on the road and we want to drive on the road, but then we see some say movie holding or some sense object and consciousness goes over there. So then those impressions also come in. So basically for us, the focus of consciousness means that we direct it in the direction that we don’t want it to and we take in only the impressions that we want to take in.
That’s how we become spiritualised. So basically creating a filter? Yes, I could say a filter as well as a focus. Filter and focus are more or less the same thing.
When you create a focus on a particular area, the other thing automatically gets filtered. So when experiences get registered, I was presuming that we are talking of these are registered in the subtle body as opposed to the soul. And then there was this whole piece of work which I had mentioned and I could not find any reference anywhere, is that how does the subtle body travel, I mean subtle body takes the soul from one body to the other body, but how does the subtle body travel from one to the other in terms of a whole series of events.
And I had mentioned about the fire gods. Now I could not find any reference anywhere. There is a whole chain of fire gods, small fire gods which take from one place to another.
So the soul trajectory is mapped depending on where it has to go eventually. So again this travel of soul, is there any substance in it? Well, if you consider soul’s trajectory from one life to another, I would say that there is no specific one trajectory that may apply for all people. Because it depends on the consciousness of the soul also.
But in the 8th chapter, in the latter part, Krishna talks about how agni jyoti raha shukla shanmasa dakshinayanam and then shukla krishna gatiyeti jagatah shashvatayamate that he is talking about all those who die in the daytime or die in the night time, those who die in the Uttarayan or the Dakshinayan. So Baldev Devavishan explains that this is not just talking about times. He says that these particular situations, say like the Uttarayan or day time or the smoke or clear illumination or whatever, they also refer to the vahan devatas.
They are the devatas who act as the path pointers or path providers. So I believe the Vedanta Sutra talks about this quite a bit. Baldev Devavishan has talked about it in his commentary over there also.
And Garuda Purana mentions some of this. But the soul can go from various channels. So in general, once we leave the physical arena, the subtle arena itself is different from physical.
So literally how things happen, that is difficult to say. So I wouldn’t stick to that explanation. In the Vedanta Sutra, it’s been translated by Bhanu Maharaj.
It’s available also in the Govinda Bhashya commentary. There it is mentioned. I think it’s the second or third pada, third chapter.
It is there in it. The description, again it’s not very elaborate, but it is given. But I would say it’s not necessary that one path always has to work.
The soul can have different kinds of karma and can go by different paths. And what’s your take on causal body? Because we talk of subtle body. Yeah, karana sharira they call it, yeah.
This keeps mentioning elsewhere in other literature about causal body. What is causal body? That’s what. Okay, so is there something called a causal body? Basically, if you say that causal body is concerned, my understanding would be that there are different, even in the Vedic tradition, there are different models for explaining the inner reality.
So even with respect to theories of matter, there is Sankhya and there is Vaisheshika. So now Vaisheshika is basically, we could say the atomic theory of matter. Now in western history, western intellectual history, there have been two broad theories of matter.
Traditionally, what kind of Plato it was there was called elemental theory of matter. I mean there are fundamental blocks of matter are elements. Now this element is different from what in the periodic table we call as elements.
They are simply material components. But then for various reasons, that theory was not accepted. And now the current view of matter is of atomic theory of matter.
Where we may have various things which appear as elements to us. But if you go further down, those elements are made of atoms. Now of course, you can go further down and say some atomic particles are there, quantum physics says everything is waves.
So it is not necessary that atomic theory of matter is necessarily the complete or the accurate description of reality. But that is one model which has been mainstream accepted. So in the Vedic tradition also there is the Sankhya which talks about the elemental theory of matter.
And Vaisheshika which talks about the atomic theory of matter. So these two, how exactly they have to be reconciled, that is a whole different universe. Just as there are two different theories of matter within the Vedic tradition, so I would say in respect to understanding of subtle body also, there are different models.
So the Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad Gita, they derive, if you consider these six systems of philosophy existed in the past also. Now we could look at scriptures from a transcendental perspective that everything is by the plan of the Lord. But you could also look at scripture from a historical perspective.
In the sense that when Shukadeva Goswami spoke the Bhagavatam, at that time there were already certain schools of thought that were present. And Parikshit Maharaj knew many of them. So now Shukadeva Goswami presents all of them, all the existing schools of thought, or at least major sections of them in a devotional context.
With a devotional theistic worldview. The Bhagavatam primarily draws on Sankhya. It doesn’t draw so much on the Vaisheshika.
So within this Sankhya model, the Karana Sharira is not talked about so much. So it’s just like in Ayurveda you have a digestifier. In allopathy there is no concept of digestifier.
So in science they say that facts are theory laden. Facts exist in the context of theories. So it’s not a theory free fact.
Some facts are theory free. Like all of us have an intestine, we have a lungs, we have a heart. They are theory free facts.
But that health is because of the balance of Kapha Vata Pitta. Or health is because of the balance of certain homeostasis or biochemical balances in the world. These are two different, these are theory laden facts.
So basically the concept of the Karana Sharira, causal body, is not something which is primarily used in Sankhya as it is understood in our tradition. But still if you want to look at it, what it means. So we could say Karana Sharira is sometimes similar to the Sukshma Sharira.
There are some few differences over there. Because if you consider that many of the other schools of thought, Sankhya itself was an analysis of matter. But the analysis of matter can be done in a theistic way, it can be done in a non-theistic way also.
So basically in the Indian tradition there are three systems of Sankhya. They call it 24 Sankhya, 25 Sankhya and 26 Sankhya. 24 Sankhya is materialistic Sankhya.
You just analyse matter and that’s all that exists. 25 Sankhya is that you could say monistic Sankhya. There is matter and there is consciousness.
The Bhagavatam Sankhya is 26 Sankhya. There is matter, there is finite consciousness and there is infinite consciousness. So similarly with respect to the Karana Sharira, refers to the, now this could be explained in a theistic way also, but if you consider say Buddhism.
Buddhism does not accept the existence of any Ishvara, any God. But then what fuels transmigration? So they say that all impressions are stored in the subtle body or whatever the word may be different and those impressions are what cause the next body to take place. But we all say the same thing, but we say that it is under divine supervision.
But they say that those impressions themselves are the cause. So in that sense the Karana Sharira becomes the Karana, the cause. So if we consider that it is one cause, but there is also a supreme cause.
If you see in that context, in the Karana Sharira and Sukshmi Sharira can be, in some models we see the same. But in the Sukshmi Sharira the emphasis is on subtlety. In the Karana Sharira, in the terminology the focus is on the causality.
So focus on causality means that they think that this itself produces spiritual reality. So this itself produces the next body. So I would say this is one understanding.
But in the way in which matters analysed within the Bhakti tradition, the Karana Sharira is not given that much emphasis. It’s just a different model of looking at the world. I think what I was saying was that soul, then subtle body and then causal body outside that, which is then the interaction between that.
You said that it could just be a… A different terminology. See, now it is a subtle body surrounded by the causal body. As I said, the interaction can be explained in different ways.
In the 11th Canto and Uddhava Gita, the elements normally, in Sankhya we analyse them into 24 elements. But sometimes they are analysed at, say, some 16 elements, 18 elements, 20 elements. Depending on, you can bring some elements together.
So there in the commentary of Uddhava Gita, Krishna Chakravort says that, he is saying Krishna is, he is envisioning Krishna is responding to Arjuna and to Uddhava. And he is saying that, I am pleased by just, by just analysing material nature in different ways, the sages exhibit their creativity. And because this is done in a mood of trying to know me ultimately, and serve me, I am pleased by such creativity.
So it’s a different models of matter and different models for describing the interaction of matter. They’re just a part of the way we, the way matter is analysed. So in our tradition, the subtle body and the whole subtle realm, or whatever you want to include as, the sukshma and if there is, if causal as an interaction between the subtle and the physical, whatever you want to call it, that subtle realm has been significantly downplayed.
There is a whole world of mysticism. And people have extraordinary experiences sometimes. And they feel like a dead relative is talking with them, or they feel that they are becoming mediums for somebody to speak and somebody to rise through them.
So now some of it, much of it may be false, but some of it may be true also. So the whole subtle level of existence with all its complexity, that is a arena of great fascination to some people. We practically don’t know much, anything about it.
We acknowledge it exists, but we don’t delve into it at all. Let’s focus on something higher. So then, having that as a fact, then he forgets back to where he started off.
So we talk about his dhradvata, and we talk about how, so I can understand that he is giving this excuse, not excuse, but he is bought into that that he has to be faithful to Duryodhana, because for whatever reason that he was promised to Dukatri, but effectively that almost contradicts to what he is saying at the end. Are you talking about primarily the Vastraharan? No, that’s one aspect, but even just helping Duryodhana, or serving him, or being on his side, being completely out of it, just because he has taken that vow, it almost contradicts the person who is speaking at the end. Okay, that’s true.
So if you consider, say, Bhishma, the way Bhishma is so purely devoted as revealed at the end of the Bhagavatam, towards the end of his life as revealed in the Bhagavatam, that as compared to that, the Bhishma who, the way he functions, say, out of misdirected, out of being just loyal to Duryodhana, all that seems to be almost contradictory. Yeah, this is a complex subject, and in general, this narrative can be understood at two levels. At one level it is that Bhishma, if you want to understand it from the morality, you could say moral perspective or transcendental perspective.
From the moral perspective, Bhishma ends up committing Niyamagraha, sticking to the letter of the law while forgetting the purpose of the law. So he had taken a vow that he would always stand by the side of the ruler of the throne. Now he could not have envisioned that at that time later, somebody like Duryodhana would take up the throne.
So now he feels this is the word I have given, this is what I have to follow. And he sticks to it through thick and thin. He does make his displeasure and even opposition to Duryodhana very strongly expressed on many occasions.
He does not express it as strongly as does Vidura because he feels bound by his word of honour. Now we live in a very different culture where the concept of word of honour, it is not really given that much importance. And how important the word of honour is, we can see that even Duryodhana, Narjuna goes and asks for the five arrows, Duryodhana also gives those arrows.
Now if you see that if Duryodhana was so honour bound, then why didn’t he return the kingdom only to the Pandavas earlier? So at that time he tries to screw out of the way by saying that actually you did not complete the agyatvas. That you were detected before the one year was completed. That’s his reasoning.
That’s why you have to go back to the forest again. Now there is some difference among Duryodhana and Bhishma when they detect Arjuna on the Mathsavata battlefield. So at that time you can have solar, lunar calculations based on which exact month duration will vary.
So my point I am making is that Duryodhana at that time feels that I am not honour bound because they have not yet completed that. They were detected beforehand. But the word of honour was considered extremely important.
Even Duryodhana followed it. Then there was a case of black and white. I have given my word and I will give it to you.
So in that sense Bhishma wanting to honour his word is understandable. In that context where word of honour was taken very very seriously. So we could say that Bhishma commits Niyamagraha.
And rather than saying that, a safer way to say it is that through this incident we are taught by the example of Bhishma the danger of Niyamagraha. Rather than saying he committed Niyamagraha, this action demonstrates the mistake of Niyamagraha. That’s at the ethical level we can learn.
Sometimes we can just take it at transcendental level. And our Acharya has also explained that way that Krishna wanted to demonstrate using Bhishma that no matter how exalted a person you are, if you go against God, you will be destroyed. So Bhishma voluntarily chose to do that, to support Duryodhana throughout, to stay silent and Draupadi was dishonoured.
By his staying silent at that time, Krishna manifested and Krishna protected Draupadi by offering her the unlimited cloth. Similarly, the whole Kurukshetra battle in which Krishna intervened in various ways and protected Duryodhana. So his, Bhishma’s opposition became on many occasions one of the reasons for Krishna to manifest as Bhaktavatsalya.
So by Bhishma’s apparently inimical attitude, Krishna manifested as Bhaktavatsalya towards the Pandavas. But that Bhishma had done all this not in actually a mood of hostility towards the Pandavas or Krishna, but in a mood of devotion only. That was demonstrated when Krishna came in front of him.
So throughout the Mahabharata, Krishna is manifesting his Bhaktavatsalya for the Pandavas. But at the end, he is manifesting his Bhaktavatsalya for Bhishma. tathāpekānta-bhakteṣu paśyabhūpāṇu-kampitam yanme suṣṭha-jata-sākṣāt kṛṣṇa-darśana-māgata Therefore, Bhishma says, therefore, O King, just see how merciful is this Lord that because I was his unflinching devotee, therefore at the moment of death, he himself has come to give me his darshan.
So it might seem a little audacious for Bhishma to say I am unflinching devotee. But he is not saying that to glorify himself. He is saying that to glorify how the Lord reciprocates with one who is unflinching.
And his focus is, O Yudhishthir, you also don’t flinch. I was called upon to do a difficult duty, that of fighting against my Lord. I did that and just see how he rewarded me.
And now you also are called to do a difficult duty, that is that you have to administer this kingdom, which has come to you after a great amount of bloodshed. Do this duty and the Lord will reciprocate with you. So that’s how we understand Bhishma’s actions.
So, at that time, I was talking about righteousness, everything is instructive. But Bhishma, if you see his actions, I don’t know if about this Vrata and all this, that’s contradictory to what Duryodhana told you, I think that, you know, there were a lot of instances where there was, a king had to differentiate between right and right, as opposed to right and wrong. And so, this was not an obvious choice, which side to take.
There were a lot of instances in the scriptures. So then they went to the Brahmanas, and went to the Council of Ministers and took advice, which side to take. So, Bhishma also, in his heart, would have known that I am doing wrong, although you can say that he is doing for a service, that he is doing wrong by serving the Duryodhana, but because he is bound, that’s why he is doing it.
Was there, that’s one aspect, but the extreme is the Draupadi’s instance. So, to actually sit through that and not say anything would be, it is almost would be unacceptable to any person with any ethics or morality. And so, he would have really, something would have come out of that in terms of a solution for him.
So, again, not trying to find a solution at that point, is it just so strong devotional service, or is it a lack of his credibility, or lack of his thoughtfulness? Krishna was doing it as an act of devotion to Krishna, because Krishna was using him as an example, that if you are not on the side of Krishna, you are always going to be defeated. So, the whole process is working towards that. So, he is just playing a role.
Does he not know about this? That’s an external reason. That’s external. That’s an external reason, that’s not really.
It’s such a superficial reason, does he not understand that? I don’t, that’s, I would say, So, okay, let’s see. I agree with your point. See, Bhishma himself, Bhishma himself says that, you know, I have to fight against the Kauravas, against the, fought by the Kauravas, because I am bound by their wealth.
There is a verse which comes like that. He speaks this to Yudhishthira just before the battle starts. So, Yudhishthira comes to seek his blessings.
And he says, I would love to fight for you, but I cannot. I’m bound. And he says, I’m bound by their wealth.
He says that we can’t buy wealth, but wealth binds us. He says a verse like that over there. So now, in my understanding, that statement is seen as a statement, to be seen as a statement of humility and is bound.
Is it that, see, if Bhishma could live as a celibate while living in royalty, while living with so many, in royalty there are beautiful women, maidservants as well as queens. If he could remain a celibate in that, could he not have lived as a renunciate going to the forest? He could have, he didn’t need wealth. So, to say that he is bound by the wealth, I don’t need the wealth at all.
And he could have done that. Generally, Aishwarya is primarily needed for bhoga. So, if one doesn’t have the desire for bhoga, then to say, the attachment to Aishwarya will go down substantially.
So, to say that Bhishma was bound by the wealth, he says, okay, I have eaten their soil, that’s why I have to fight for them. That’s just his expression of humility. Because if he felt himself so bound like that, then he was not like exactly an unquestioning servant.
Time and time again he opposed. I tried to give good advice to Duryodhana. So, it was definitely not like an unthinking slave or something like that.
That I have to be just doing whatever they tell me to do. But at that particular point, Bhishma has tears in his eyes and he feels how harsh is the duty of a Kshatriya that you have to fight against your loved ones. He is saying, I am bound by the Kauravas’ wealth.
That’s more of an expression of humility rather than his actual motive for fighting. His actual motive was, so we could say there are three levels. One is that the external reason that he gives, I have to fight because I have lived on their wealth.
Now actually speaking, it is not even the Kauravas’ wealth, it is his wealth. Because he is also part of the royal family and in fact his claim was higher. He voluntarily renounced that claim, although he was the eldest son.
So to say that, it’s like say, if we have a grandfather in our family and the grandfather is saying, I am living on your money. Well, okay, if you had earned the money, that’s a different thing. But if the grandfather has only passed down the money to you, and for the grandfather to say that I am living on your money is completely inappropriate.
So it’s just an expression of humility at that time. So that could be one external reason which he gives. Another level of reason could be that he feels he is bound by his word to always stay by the side of the Kuru ruler.
And the innermost reason would be that, that is how Krishna inspires him to act at that particular time. Yeah, because he had taken a vow when his father wanted to marry Satyavati. At that time, Satyavati’s father said that, but what, you will become the king? He says, no, I will not become the king.
He says, well, you may renounce the kingdom, but your children will want it. He says, no, I will never have children and I will myself act as a protector of whoever is the king. At that time he had taken that vow.
What’s your definition? I know there are tonnes of definitions, but how can you make it so nice and concise? Yeah, so how can we practically understand humility and surrender? I put it that humility means to not let our ego come in the way of our purpose. We have a purpose of serving Krishna in our life and I won’t let my ego come in the way. So that means if to do the service, if I have to accept disrespect or humiliation, I am ready to accept that also.
But that doesn’t mean that I will always be like a push around. If my purpose, if my service requires that I take a strong stand, then I am ready to take that also. Prabhupada at one level, he was, when he was in India, he was respected as a pious sadhu.
When he went to the West, nobody cared for him. He was just an old man and his early disciples, early followers, they didn’t even have the courtesy to, they would just eat food and go away and he would have to wash their plates. So in a sense, Prabhupada was respected much more in India than in America.
But Prabhupada came to America because his service was there. That was his service. His purpose was to share Krishna.
He found these people were more genuinely hungry, genuinely eager. But when Prabhupada came back to India, he established the Krishna Conscious Movement. He, at one time there was a programme and in Jaipur, the devotees had arranged a pandal programme and they had made posters, Bhakti Ayan Swami with his foreign disciples.
And Prabhupada said, why foreign disciples? Write American and British disciples. And he said, why American and British? Because Indians are enamoured by them. So Prabhupada wanted, when that honour or praise or respect or prestige, whatever you want to say, if that would make people take his message more seriously, then Prabhupada wanted that to be used.
So there he was ready to, you could say, promote himself. So humility means that sometimes if our service calls for it, then we have to take a strong stand. We have to take a strong position and if it is done with the intention of service, then it is not contrary to the principles of humility.
So humility basically means to stay fixed in the purpose of our service without letting our ego come in the way. But if the service requires that we seek a certain level of respect or we need a certain level of authority, then seeking that is not against the principles of humility. And as far as surrender is concerned, there can be two broad models of surrender.
One is Draupadi’s surrender where she just raises her hands, Krishna, I surrender to you. The Bhagavad Gita at the end also tells Arjuna, surrender to me. But then how does Arjuna surrender? It is not by raising his hands up.
It is by lifting his bow up to fight. So that is also, that is Arjuna’s surrender. So that means if you consider that there are in our life certain situations which are in our control and certain situations which are not in our control.
And the magnitude of what is in our control and what is not out of our control also keeps changing in different situations. So for that which is not in our control, we surrender in the mood of Draupadi. It is dependence on Krishna.
And for that which is in our control, we surrender in the mood of Arjuna. That is diligence for Krishna. So dependence on Krishna and diligence for Krishna, both are ways of surrender.
And in different situations, sometimes the diligence role may have to be taken up very much. Say if I am giving a class, then I have to properly prepare for the class. I cannot say I am dependent on Krishna.
During the preparation phase, my surrender is through diligence for Krishna. And after that, diligence means doing responsibly, diligent, being responsible, being committed, doing things properly. And afterwards, once we have, say after I have given a class, the question and answer session comes up.
I don’t know what question who is going to ask. So I have to depend on Krishna at that time. If I say, oh, you know, difficult questions come up, I will not take question and answer session only.
That will not be good at that time. So both dependence and diligence comprise surrender together. Surrender, humility is basically not letting our ego come in the way of our service.
And surrender means for things which are in our control, we do our best. And things which are not in our control, we leave the rest to Krishna.