Understanding papa, punya and bhakti – How the good obstructs and supports the best

[Talk at Scarborough, Toronto, Canada]

Video

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
inspiring association.
Thank you for yours. Thank you for coming today evening. I’ll speak to you on the topic of how the good can be the enemy of the best and also the friend of the best.
So, what do I mean here by the good and the best? So, I’ll take this class in three parts. First, I will give a philosophical context about what we mean by good and best. Then I will talk briefly a story from the Ramayana along with some other scriptural incidents and then we’ll have a concluding part to bring it all together.
And you can have questions after each of the three parts as well as at the end. We have time. So, in general, life forces all of us to make choices.
Sometimes the choices are small. Today evening, when I cook food at home, should I cook this item or that item? Or it can be a very big choice. Should I take this job or that job? Should I marry this person or that person? Should I stay in this country or immigrate to that country? Basically, during our life, constantly we have to make choices.
And normally when we make choices, actually, what is the basis on which we make those choices? We all have a certain framework. So, for example, we have certain priorities, certain purposes based on which we choose. This is what I want to do in my life.
And by doing this, this can also be good. But if this can’t be done, this is what I want to do. So, if you’re going, say, to meet someone and along the way, there is a fast food center, where some attractive snacks are there.
So, now we want to eat that along the way. If there’s a long queue over there and you have to wait for half an hour, one hour, I say, not worth it. But if we are just going for a leisurely tour and it’s going for fun, I’ll wait for some time.
So, basically, when you make a choice, what is the basis on which you make the choice? Usually, it is not just how much we like it or we don’t like it. But it is also how much this will influence that which is most important for me. So, basically, whatever things we have in our life, there’s a hierarchy of importance for them.
So, for example, we want to, we want to say, have food that tastes good. But at the same time, now, just the food that tastes good may not always be healthy. So, you may have one item which tastes good, but then other items are healthy.
So, when we eat food, it is not just the food that tastes good. So, tasting good is one value. But health is another value.
And in this hierarchy, if the health is put at a very high level and taste is not considered at all, then what happens? Eating becomes an austerity. So, like, eat your broccolis. So, now, broccoli is like a symbol of a food that is healthy, but not tasty.
And you have to force somebody to eat it. So, if there is no taste, but it’s not delicious, but only nutritious, then we don’t feel much pleasure eating it. But it’s only delicious and not nutritious.
Then what happens? Then it is, it will be delicious for some time, but it can be vicious for our health and the lot. So, basically, food that is delicious is good. But food that is nutritious is even better.
And food that is delicious and nutritious is the best. So, this is the hierarchy of values. Sometimes some people take some food which are actually neither delicious nor nutritious.
Sometimes some people may take some food which is extremely spicy. When they eat it, their tears come from their eyes. But then they feel stimulated by that.
Now, for that particular body, it might be nutritious also, we don’t know. But for most people, it may not be. So, just as in food there is a hierarchy, and there can be good, better and best.
So, similarly, just as food is what we need in our life, broadly speaking, in our life, what is the purpose that we live for? And how does that purpose affect our various values in life? That is what we will be discussing. So, broadly speaking, there are three kinds of actions we take. There is vikarma, there is karma, and there is akarma.
Or rather we will put it as paap, punya and bhakti. So, what does this mean? So, paap or sin is action that might be pleasant right now, but it has terrible consequences. So, it is action which we don’t consider the consequences at all.
It’s like somebody steps down from a 10 storey building, steps out, and they may forget gravity, but gravity won’t forget. They’ll come crashing down. So, what happens is that when we are in the lower moods, when our consciousness is not at all clear, then we don’t even think about anything.
So, punya, so paap is like, there might be very little immediate pleasure, but there’s a lot of trouble that comes out of it. Now, punya, on the other hand, is where we do something material to get something better material. So, we do means we sacrifice something materially to get something better material.
In fact, this is one of the most significant differences between humans and animals, that, you know, what are the four activities common to humans and animals? These are four common things. And now these at one level are required for the existence and for the continuance of existence. The two are required.
And what is the difference between the two of them? Between humans and animals, what are the activities that are different? Intelligence. Consciousness. Very nice.
The animal beings. Speech. Consciousness.
They can do bhakti. Animals cannot do bhakti. Animals cannot do bhakti.
Yes. Also they can feel what is human. Human beings can feel what is right and what is wrong.
What is right and what is wrong. Yes. Choice.
Choice. Intelligence. All these are pointing in the direction.
Let’s look at it first from a maybe a scientific perspective. Then we will come to a more experiential and a scriptural perspective. See, all living beings have impulses.
Impulses means I feel like doing something, I do it. So for example, a few days ago I was in Ekadashi. So now the human beings might see delicious food but in Ekadashi I won’t eat it.
Now if a cat sees a mouse the cat can’t think oh today is Ekadashi. If the impulse to eat comes, it will immediately eat. So basically all living beings just by being in a particular body have impulses.
Animals largely are slaves of their impulse. The impulse comes and they give in to it. Now when the impulse comes, it’s not necessarily that they are unintelligent.
They might also use their intelligence to fulfill their impulse. So for example, if a tiger wants to catch a deer. The deer is here, the tiger is here.
The wind is coming this way. And the tiger knows that the deer will smell me. The tiger may go all the way around and then attack from the other side.
So in a sense, the intelligence is there. So when we say somebody is impulsive, that doesn’t mean that they lack intelligence. It just means that the impulse is fulfilled intelligently.
The intelligence is not used to evaluate the impulse. The intelligence is used to fulfill the impulse. So intelligence, in one sense, all the meanings have, but the intelligence to check the impulse.
Check can be used in two senses. Check means is this worth fulfilling? I’m getting this impulse, I’ll stop it. So that intelligence animals don’t have.
So what is it? Choice or conscience. That’s also correct in that sense. That means we might get an urge to do something, but if our intelligence is strong, although the impulse comes, we can evaluate the impulse.
I don’t want to fulfill this impulse. And this at its fullest extent is directed towards spirituality. So by this capacity to check impulse, we can look beyond short-term things to long-term things.
So for example, we human beings spend a lot of time educating our next generation. No other species spends so much time in the education that is given to all species. But it is a very functional kind of education.
But we human beings spend a lot of time educating our children because by this the whole idea of education at one level is to see beyond the immediate. To see the long-term. The whole principle of education is a child can just play.
Or a child can start working and earn something. A teenager can also work, take a job and earn something. But what they are doing when they are educating is studies might not be enjoyable for everyone.
But they are at least guided by the parents and by the development of their own intelligence. In a sense, they are trading the present for the future. The present, whatever enjoyment I might get, I will sacrifice that so that I can get more in the future.
This capacity to restrain our impulses and look for something in the future. To see the long-term. That is a human capacity.
In fact, every field, even science, how does it develop? It is, scientists may do 100 or 1000 experiments to try to arrive at one insight. And they could just function with whatever knowledge they have. But, I am not getting any understanding by this.
I will keep doing it. Why? So I will keep doing this so that I will be able to move forward in my life. The idea is that scientists, they have an existing level of knowledge.
But they might do 100, 1000, 5000 experiments. But because they want to get some more insight. And that insight might transform the very function of the world.
So the basic point I am making is that we human beings have the capacity to sacrifice the present for the future. Which other species don’t have? Now sometimes other species prepare for the future also. Say, whenever the seasons are going to change, birds might migrate from one country to another country.
But it is not a conscious plan. They have instinct which tells them to go there. They don’t have a conscious plan.
That’s why a bird can build a very intelligent nest. Very artistic nest. But it is not that each bird will keep preparing a better and better nest.
It’s not that say you put 100 birds together and they will have a nest building competition. Who has built the best nest? Sometimes in fairy tales you might have competition among birds also. But in real life, the birds even if they have artistry, that artistry is not done by conscious choice.
It is just programmed intelligence that is there. But the intelligence to question our programming, to direct our programming, to reprogram ourselves, that is distinctly there in humans. So because we have the conscience to choose right or wrong, that’s how actually we can do more good than other species and we can also do more bad than other species.
We generally don’t talk about animals as being evil. If a tiger eats a deer, the tiger is not evil. So the tiger will act exactly according to its body traits.
But if a human being kills someone, that’s evil. So when we talk about the bad, the good and the best. So the bad is power.
The good is punya. And the best is bhakti. And how are these three related with our discussion of impulses? So impulse and intelligence.
So when we human beings are simply impulsive, we soon degenerate towards paap. We start degenerating towards wrong way. You want to eat food? Just keep going.
Whatever tastes good. Then what happens is that we might just kill brutally. Now here we have organized slaughterhouses.
Horrible. I was in Hawaii and there was one devotee couple who were hosting me. So the devotee, Mataji, she was from one of the Soviet Russia states.
I think it was Byelorussia. So she was telling that they were, in that country, their profession was they would cook and sell crabs. Now crabs are among the only animals in the world which are cooked alive.
They are aquatics and somehow it’s said that when you, if you, their body gets decomposed, a lot of germs and stuff come in and they become very sick. So actually you catch the crab and put it in hot water. You can see it suffering, suffering, suffering.
And that was their profession. He said that, and I never thought it was wrong because this is what every one of us were doing. But then when I came, when I was in, when I read Prabhupada’s books and I understood what he was saying, what am I doing? Just stop it immediately.
And it created like a furor in her family. What is this? This is our profession. How can we stop this? But somehow she was very firm and then she continued it.
But the point I’m making here is that the search for pleasure, if we are governed only by impulses, now one animal might kill another animal. But which animal will like, will put a, will torture another animal by boiling it with boiling water? Nobody will do that. So if we live only for our impulses, we end up going towards wrong looks, towards sin.
And that is bad. And we see this in every aspect of life today. I just recently wrote a, I wrote an article about a documentary film which, a movie film, motion picture which I just made on the issue of abortion.
It’s called Unplanned. So this was a woman who was herself, an abortion clinic director. And under her, 22,000 abortions were done.
And even after doing these, she never knew what actually happens in abortion. She was educated as if there is a lump of tissue in the body, the tissue is removed. So then she was a clinic director and once there was a sonography guided, sonography guided abortion attachment.
So as the embryo becomes bigger and bigger, you need more and more support to do that abortion. So then she says, she was called, there is nobody to assist, can you assist? And so after being 12 or 13 years in that profession, first time she actually went to see another abortionist. She is the director of the clinic.
And then she saw it, the sonography, and actually saw a baby, a fully formed baby, with hands, legs, ears and everything. And then the suction machine goes inside the baby and the baby is struggling to get out. And then suction machine catches and then systematically crushes.
And it was horrifying for her to see. That very day she just said, I can’t continue this. And she gave it up completely.
So, now, somehow, even people working in the abortion industry, they are blinded to the reality of abortion. So, they don’t even use the word abortion. They just use various words, like the organization which does this primarily as abortion, they call themselves as Planned Parenthood.
So, Planned Parenthood. That is a very sweet sounding name. But what are they doing? So, what happens, the point which I’m making here is that impulses are there in everyone.
But, only human beings will give in to the impulses in such an indiscriminate way that they can become brutally cruel towards their own progeny eventually. So, when we live only for our impulses, we go towards power. And that is bad.
It can be very bad, depending on how bad what kind of action you are doing, it will vary. But then there is Punya. Punya is where we start looking at the long term.
As I said, humans have the intelligence to check our impulses, to sacrifice the present for the future. The difference between Punya and Bhakti is primarily in terms of how long term we see. In terms of long term, there are four categories.
There are four categories of living beings. There is Martya, there is Amara, there is Chiranjeeva, and there is Nitya. So, Martya is we human beings living on the earth.
So, we have a finite lifespan, maybe 100 years or so. That’s Martya. Now, as compared to us, those who live in Swarga, they live for a very long time, thousands and thousands of years.
So, they are called as Amara. But they are not literally eternal. But as compared to us, they live forever.
So, it’s in a comparative sense, they are called Amara. Now, beyond Amara is Chiranjeeva. So, those who live for the lifespan of one universe, that is, one lifetime of one side, left hand or right hand, which is an astronomical amount, that’s Chiranjeeva.
Now, specific terms and durations may vary depending on certain context. But beyond it all is Nitya. So, only Nitya is eternal.
So, by Punya, one can rise to a higher level of existence, where we can have better lifespan, better facilities. But it’s only by Bhakti that one can go beyond this material world. We can go to the spiritual world, where life is eternal.
So, the Bhagavata Krishna says, आभ्रम्भुवनालोका पुणरावर्थिनो अरजणा मामुपेथितु कौंतेय पुनरजन्मन विद्धिते So, in 8.15 he says, 8.15 and 16 he talks about this, in 8.16 he says that, आभ्रम्भुवनालोका Right from the abode of Brahma, which is the highest level in the world, Bhuvana, one of the lower hellish planets, पुणरावर्थिनो अरजणा Everywhere if one goes, one will come back again. One’s life span will be temporary. One will have to die and take birth again.
And, मामुपेथितु कौंतेय, but if you worship me, you won’t come back in this world. पुणरजन्मन विद्धिते So, the good is, the bad is पाप, the good is पुण्य, and the best is वक्ति. Because in पुण्य also we are thinking of something long term.
Thinking not just about my pleasure immediately, we think about it long term, and that is good. But in वक्ति, we think not just of the material long term, but we think about the spiritual long term. So, I’ll conclude this with a simple philosophy, but I’ll conclude this with one part, then you can ask some questions if you have any.
See, there are, we could say there are two broad systems of further the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and there are Dharmic religions. In Dharmic religions, we have Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Sikhism. So now, if you see among them, let’s consider say Buddhism on one side, and Christianity on another side.
So, Christianity, Islam is similarly, they have many similarities. So, Christianity accepts the soul without reincarnation. And Buddhism accepts the reincarnation without the soul.
So, what happens now? That means Christians say, yeah, there is a soul, but they say that this life is the only life you have. So, what happens because of this, the religion, because there is no difference between the body and the soul, their idea of religion also becomes quite materialistic. Materialistic means there are people who have the idea that, oh, if I go to heaven, I will enjoy life in heaven.
So, at least in Christianity, the idea of heaven is like an eternal family reunion. So, your grandfather and your grandmother and your great-grandfather and your cousin who passed away and your uncle and your cousin, all of you will be happily reunited. But the idea is, it’s materialism.
Materialism means it’s centered on the body and relationships based on the body. Now, in some versions of Islam, that same materialism is extended even further. It’s not like an eternal family reunion.
Many of these jihadis are made to believe that if you kill and die during jihad, you will go to Jannat and in Jannat, you will for the rest of eternity enjoy with 73 virgins. So, now when they are laying down their minds, that is not out of love for Allah. That is out of love for those virgins.
So, what is happening? So, it’s basically, if there is no understanding of spirituality properly, religion can also be misused. So, at one level, somebody is oh, I’ll follow scripture and I’ll do something. There is something destructive because of that.
So, punya basically means we worship God, follow some religion but the idea is God will make my life better in this world. And punya is not bad. Punya is definitely better than paap but it is not the best.
Because punya will not give us anything. Anything eternal. It will give us something which will last for some time but it is temporary.
Now, of course, what was talked about in the way the verses are interpreted in the Quran, that is, of course, not what is actually said but it is just interpreted so that people who are non-Jewish can be fired and they can be exploited for their own vested interests. But the broad point I am making here is there is punya, paap and bhakti. So, any questions or comments about this? Thank you.
Just a quick question on the last point that you just made. With regard to paap versus bhakti, the three categories that you mentioned, in some cases, yes, devotees distribute prasad related to bhakti but also there are other runas or debts that everybody owes to manushya and society and things like that. So, it is also recommended that we do something like digging a well.
So, how does that apply to devotees? Can that be dovetailed? Say, somebody is giving some donation to a hospital. Can that be dovetailed to being spiritual if you think of Krishna even though it is not directly spiritual but distantly connected to doing some activities that are meant to be done? Excellent question. If there is something like our debt to the devatas or our ancestors and there are some pious activities that are recommended, like say digging a well or something like that.
How should devotees see this? Yes. So, Prabhupada in the Ishopanishad says that all kinds of isms in terms of communism, capitalism, all these isms can be perfected if they are done for Krishna. So, basically now, actually this was going to be the concluding part of my class but let’s bring it to this point here.
As compared to papa, punya is, you could say, hundreds of times better. Why hundreds of times better? Like, even this example I gave of a family structure and of parenting and abortion and all that. So, when I go to colleges in America and Canada and Australia also, when I talk to students so many kids are from broken families.
There was one boy, he was coming for my I was there for almost two months and this boy was coming for each program. And after coming for four or five programs, he decided to go very close to this. He said, I grew up in a foster home.
And I asked, what happened? Did your parents pass away in an accident or what? He says, no, both my parents are alive. I said, really? Then why are you in a foster home? He said, when I was five, my parents separated. When they separated, both my parents told me that this marriage was the biggest mistake of my life.
And you remind me of that mistake. And both the parents said, I don’t want anything to do with you. Okay, how horrifying it is, isn’t it? Okay, but what is the child’s mistake? Your marriage may be a mistake, but why take it out of the child? So, although he had both parents, he became a ward of the state.
And he went to an orphanage for some time, but after that he was in a foster home. So now, here you can say that what is the level of irresponsibility? Okay, two people can’t get along. Okay, sometimes it happens, what can be done? It’s not good, but sometimes we should try to tolerate, but we can’t.
What to do is, you know, at one level, after marriage, say, the parents make children. But at another level, the children make parents. In the sense that, children force people to become irresponsible.
I can’t just think about my pleasure and my indulgences. I think of the child. And start taking care of the child.
Now, everybody has a need to nurture. A need to nurture. And if somebody doesn’t take care of that need to nurture, then they will find something else to nurture.
So, somehow in the western world, feminism, if you want to say feminism in terms of women should be given equal opportunities in their career, that’s fine. But sometimes feminism becomes very aggressive. So, what happens? There is a trivialization of the maternal role.
And then, so this abortion, it is quite clearly, if we look at it from a scientific perspective, logical perspective, experiential perspective, the baby has life. But what some aggressive feminists say is that, if a man and a woman come together without proper responsibility, the woman becomes pregnant. And then she is stuck with the child.
So, the woman needs to be protected. And marriage is a structure where they are protected. Actually, nature has been unfair to us.
So, their argument is, when I first read it, I was shocked. It says, pregnancy is biological slavery. And abortion is technological liberation.
So, nature has been so unfair to us that nature has burdened us with pregnancy. Actually, bearing a new life is a special privilege. And that privilege nature gives to women.
And it’s such a deep-rooted need. But when that is completely distorted, society can collapse completely. So, in many traditional cultures, if a couple doesn’t have a child, they feel unhappy and they try various things to have a child.
There are so many kings who do various yajnas. In Ramayana, there is a shloka that does various yajnas. So, now, there are many women who don’t like to say, I’m childless.
They say, I’m child-free. Now, if somebody doesn’t want to have children, that’s okay. That’s their choice.
But to say, it’s child-free, child is a burden. We just let ourselves be completely governed by impulses. Now, society just has not had a foundation at all.
So, the point I’m making here is, they’re taking care of the family. It’s a basic, it’s the basic functional unit for society. And, now, even if your family members don’t become devotees, but still taking responsibility is very important.
And, getting out of ourselves by that, if one takes care of one’s family responsibility, that is good. Now, if somebody thinks that is all that is there to dharma, then that’s incomplete. But we can’t minimize or trivialize that.
Same way, if we live in a broader social circle, the whole principle of yajna is that if we take something, we have to give something. So, if you’re taking something from society, it’s our duty to give something to society. Just like, say we take amenities from the government, then we give taxes to the government.
So, similarly, as far as charity is concerned, so, sometimes if charity becomes a substitute for spiritual, or rather, social welfare becomes a substitute for spiritual welfare, then that is unhealthy. But it’s not always it has to be a competitor for that. Sometimes it can be.
There’s one disaster relief organization whose slogan is God, in double quotes, God sends disasters, we send relief. It’s a horrible way of looking at things. It’s not that God is sending disasters.
It is. Now, why disasters happen, we can get into a lot of analysis about that. But the point is, God is not the cause of the suffering of the world.
God is ultimately the cure of the suffering of the world. So, if somebody starts doing social welfare as a means of rejecting God, then that social welfare is unhealthy. So, in India also, there are some people who say, manavseva hi madhavseva hi.
Now, okay, it depends on in what context we are saying it. If we are saying that, oh, people are starving, and you just go to the temple and worship the temple and not take care of people at all. Well, that should not be done.
In most Indian temples, wherever there’s opulent worship of the deities, there’s also abundant distribution of food. And anybody can come and take food. In the Udupi temples, only the temples.
So, we don’t have to separate manavseva and madhavseva like that. So, in madhavseva, madhavseva is not just going to temple and doing worship. Madhavseva is a holistic culture which also includes taking care of humans.
So, you see, the Govardhan puja, when the puja is done for Govardhan, Krishna says, offer food to everyone. Not just cows, but all living beings. Other animals also.
And not just to brahmanas, do dakshina and food. People of all castes. So, the point over there is that madhavseva is a whole culture which includes manavseva.
But when manavseva is separated from madhavseva, you just do this, why don’t you do that? So, some people, there was one person who was considered to be quite a prominent spiritual teacher. He said, you Hindus, why do you worship? Why do you water things? What do you get out of this? I don’t want to spend time watering something. Water a brinjal tree.
You get something to eat. Now, this is completely utilitarian and there is no transcendental understanding. Tulsi Devi is a manifestation of the Supreme Goddess of Fortune.
I’m worshipping her. How much water are you going to put in tulsi? Is tulsi a competitor to some edible food? Hardly. So, when manavseva is positioned as a competitor to madhavseva, then what happens? People say, I spend so much money on this.
You spend money on this. But, madhavseva is inclusive and these things can also be done. So, now with respect to charity or any kind of social activism we could say, social welfare.
See, as devotees, we all have certain drives which we get from the past. Some people might be, even before coming to bhakti, they might have a lot of zeal to do some kind of social welfare. Now, if they have that zeal, it’s not that in bhakti you have to give it up.
You spiritualize it. If you like to distribute food, then let’s see how you can offer food to Krishna and then distribute that food. If you like to help poor people, then see, what could you do? Maybe you could build some houses but have something spiritual within it.
So, there are various ways in which devotees at individual level, if that is what they are inspired to do, they can surely do that. Actually, Prabhupada started ISKCON for a primary purpose, that is, promoting Krishna consciousness. So, the primary energies of the Krishna consciousness movement should be focused on the direct activities of promoting Krishna consciousness.
But devotees who are inspired by the principle of Krishna consciousness, they can take that at an individual level, using their own inspiration, they can do other activities. So, when we do such activities, there is a standard person of Krishna consciousness and there is an individual inspiration which we may have, which is broadly compatible with Krishna consciousness. So, the individual inspiration that we may have, we could say that is like a preference.
And, say, chanting Hare Krishna or worshipping the deities or having satsang, this is a principle. So, preferences, if we have, there is no need to campaign for them that everybody should do it. And for somebody else, there is no need to campaign, don’t do this.
You feel inspired, do that and do it in Krishna consciousness. So, when preferences are made into principles, then it becomes fanatical. So, same way with respect to somebody who has been brought up in a very dharmic consciousness and they would do some yajna or homa or they would give some charity like that, say, build a well or some kind of charity.
Just because they have come to bhakti, they don’t want to stop giving that charity. I mean, somebody did not have that consciousness before. Now, is it that by practicing bhakti, they will develop that consciousness? They may or they may not.
Because each one of us has a particular kind of body and mind and with the kind of body and mind we have, we will function accordingly. Somebody who has just come to bhakti and they are struggling a lot, chanting so many rounds, coming to these programs and all this, and then you tell them, you know, actually you do this charity also, you do this also, you do this also. This is too much for me.
I can’t do this. So, there is no need to impose this but there is no need to reject this also. So, in general, as devotees, we should live at the level of punya.
We don’t want to do punya, we want to do bhakti. But apart from bhakti, when there are direct devotional activities, apart from the direct devotional activities, we should be living at a level of morality and we could say, culture. Culture and values.
So, Prabhupada was asked, how do we know your followers? So, Prabhupada could have said, they chant sixteen rounds, they follow these four eggs or whatever. But Prabhupada did not say that. What Prabhupada said was, my followers are perfect gentlemen.
Perfect ladies and gentlemen. Now, what does ladies and gentlemen mean? That means they behave in a way that is respectable. That is cultured.
That is, that will be appreciated by people in society. Because people in general, they are not going to care how many rounds you chant. They are not going to care how much you fast.
They are not going to care how much puja you do. They will see how you behave. How you behave and how you conduct yourself in your day to day work.
So, that is why, that is important. We cannot trivialize that. So, in general, devotees should live at, devotees are recommended to live at the level of punya.
It is not that we want to do punya. But punya means, we can see the big picture and don’t just live for our immediate pleasures. We see the big picture and we contribute to society, we contribute to nation, we contribute to the family, we contribute to the community and ultimately, you contribute to Krishna’s.
Does that answer your question? Any other questions about this? I had a follow up question. Prabhu asked. Sometimes, that deviation between faap and punya is not so clear.
For example, over here, we have many charities or the Canadian Red Cross, where you can donate blood. Then, there are clinical research organizations that are, in one sense, I have heard, they are karmically very heavy. But then, they are working towards getting new medicines that will treat certain ailments.
So, how do you know where you should invest that? Can I add a question on this? Can we donate to a charity when they are buying food in another way, giving food, probably not toxic foods, like they may give, they may kill a cow or chikara or something, which is not evil. Which is not evil in western culture. I mean, killing a dog is evil, but not killing a cow, right? That’s it.
In the same line. So, are we supposed to connect all our sakarma with Krishna consciousness? All the karma. Like, if I want to donate, I will go to Prabhuji.
I will give it to him. Because he is handing out karma back. And then, whatever he does, with that value.
Okay, I think they are related questions, but let’s investigate. I will come to that one by one. So, okay, let’s look at these two questions related.
Should we give all our charity to Krishna only or is it that better? Suppose we give charity to some organization which gives food, but they may give non-vegetarian food, which they don’t consider bad. They consider that also as a way of feeding the people. So, should we contribute to that? Okay.
So, there is three modes of material nature. There is sattva, prajna and tamas. And beyond them, there is transcendence.
So, broadly speaking, we could sometimes classify this as spiritual and all this as material. But within material also, we can say sattva is pro-devotional. Rajas is non-devotional.
Boda, passion, non-devotional. And tamas is anti-devotional. Now, sometimes passion can be anti-devotional also.
But broadly speaking, we would say like that. Now, should we give all charity only to Krishna? See, charity is voluntary. It cannot be legislated.
In fact, spiritual life is all driven by inspiration. So, we cannot legislate it in any way. Bhakthachandra Thakur, when he had taken a pilgrimage to Vrindavan.
So, at that time, outside the temple, there were some beggars. And his disciples, they would not give anything to the beggars. And Bhakthachandra Thakur said that, you know, we may say that I will not give charity to anyone except Hari.
And eventually the time comes, we won’t give charity even to Hari. So, he says that charity is not just a matter of activity. Not he is saying this.
I am explaining this. Charity is not just an activity. Charity is a mentality.
So, some people say, OK, I don’t have enough money right now. In the future, my salary will increase. And at that time, I will give 51% of my salary to Krishna.
But now, I can’t give even 1%. So, what happens is that the whole point of charity is not just to give money. It’s to inculcate within us the consciousness that what I have got is actually not just money.
It is actually given by me to Krishna. So, it’s my duty to give a part of it back. So, even if somebody gives a huge charity at one time, that’s good.
But for the mind, for impressions to form, more than the quantity of doing something is the frequency of doing it. And the frequency, if every month, or whatever, we give a small charity, that habit gets developed in the mind. But if once a year I give some charity, that’s also, some habit is formed.
But once a year, there are millions of other impressions that are forming in the mind. Somebody says, once in a lifetime I will give a charity. That’s also good.
Some charity is better than nothing. But as far as forming a samskara, an impression in the mind, that will be very, very less. So, the idea of giving the prasad, so what Rukhsana Swarup says is that if somebody is coming to you, if you don’t give charity, then your heart will become hard.
And with a hard heart, you cannot approach Krishna. So, basically, it does not mean that anybody and everybody who comes, we have to give charity. We also have to be intelligent.
But it is best, say, if we can give prasad, if somebody asks for food, then we can give them, if somebody asks us for something, if we give them money, then they can abuse it. But if we give them food, then it is less likely that they will abuse it. So, there is one devotee in India who started a social welfare organization, and he told me that what he does is, he, whenever beggars ask him for charity, he tells them that, okay, go and clean that street and come back, and I will give you enough charity for one meal.
He says, most beggars won’t come back. So, the idea is that sometimes when people are in need for help, that help should actually help them to grow, not just keep them where they are, or degrade them further. So, if we feel inspired to give charity to Krishna, that’s wonderful.
But the point is, we want to develop a soft heart. And if we feel inspired to give charity to other causes, ideally speaking, if you are doing something else, that should not become like a competitor to Krishna. I give so much here, so I cannot give over here.
There should be some service to Krishna, and apart from that, if he has some inspiration, then the more we can Krishna-ize it, the better it is. So, with respect to food, devotees are also working now. Like say, Amazon has this, if you buy from Amazon, then they have some charity, Amazon will give a charity, you can donate to a charity of your choice.
So, now there are many, like the Food for Life, Discount Desire Tree, or so many other forums are also including that charity. So, it’s best if we can, if we cannot give to a direct devotional charity, we can try to give to a pro-devotional charity. So, it’s a pro-devotional means, that is something like, somebody is feeding the hungry, but they are giving something to others.
Somebody is doing something, it’s a welfare, but they are doing that welfare in a devotional context. So, if we do it that way, then that is the best. We can’t really completely control how something that we do is going to be used by others.
The Mahabharata says that broadly, the actions that we choose, how do we know whether the action is right or wrong? There are three broad factors. Intent, content and consequence. Intent is, why am I doing this? Content is, what exactly am I doing? And consequence is, what is the result of my doing this? So, let’s say somebody gives, actually one of the triggers for me to start practicing spiritual life or start exploring spiritual life was that the futility or at least inadequacy of social service became very apparent to me at one time.
Since my childhood, I had a lot of faith in the power of education. That by educating people, we can help them create a better future for themselves. So, when I was studying engineering, at that time I joined a social service organization and we were near my college, there was a slum behind.
So, on behalf of that organization, I would go to the slums and I would offer free tuitions to the children over there. So, I would teach English, Maths, History, some other things like that. So, I was doing that for some time and soon these kids, they became friends and I’m telling that almost every one of their houses, their home life was terrible because their fathers, mostly fathers, sometimes mothers also, but mostly fathers were alcoholics and then under the influence of alcohol, there would be domestic violence and horrible things.
So, then I started thinking their life, their home life is so unstable and so insecure. So, how much is my teaching them calculus or something like that really going to help them? So, then we talked and that organization is quite flexible. So, we decided to go into anti-alcohol campaign.
So, one of us, I used to go to the slums, one of my friends would go to a nearby village and we worked and we counseled and we got some other people to come and speak also and over a period of time that one small village, the whole became free from alcohol and we felt it was a great victory for us. Thank you. Thank you.
But then, after that, one day my friend came from that village and he looked completely devastated. He said, what happened? The local elections were there at that time and one of the political candidates, he brought two truckloads of free alcohol for all the candidates. And not only the fathers, but even their sons, teenage sons, they were all drunk.
Wow. It’s free. Free.
Whenever something is, whenever a product is given free, that means we are the product. Except poison. Except poison.
But even in poison they want to get us. Isn’t it? So, basically what happened was, at that time I started thinking, at one level, I am trying to help people. But are people able to receive that help? There is something within them which prevents them from taking that help.
So, that’s the time I started reading a little bit more of self-help and spirituality. So, when I read Bhagavad Gita at that time, I read 3.36. Rajan asked this question, what is it that makes us do wrong things? What is it that makes us almost against our will do that which is harmful for us? As if I have forced you, impelled you to do something wrong. So, then when I read that, and then I gradually started understanding the philosophy of Bhagavad Gita, what it struck was that, for all of us, whenever there are some anarkas, there’s lust, anger, greed, anger, pride, illusion, and these prevent us from doing our own good, doing good for ourselves.
Now, for example, domestic violence is a significant issue in many parts of the world. In the western world, it’s an issue. And the government makes a lot of laws.
If there is a small incident also, you should report to the police and the police will come and arrest the offending man. It can sometimes lead to overreaction. But there are many studies done 90% of, between 70-90% of domestic violence cases happen because of alcohol.
When people are drunk, everybody becomes angry. But when do people become violent? See, what alcohol does is, it removes our inhibitions. We all have certain inhibitions about doing certain actions.
Alcohol removes our inhibitions and we may act in ways in which we normally never act. So now, nobody wants to talk about that aspect. Why? Because there’s big money for the alcohol industry.
I had a friend in Japan. So he was telling me that, because there is a lot of workload everywhere, but especially in Japan, there’s a lot of workload, so people are under stress. So they smoke a lot.
And because of smoking, they have a lot of insurance and a lot of, the economy goes down because of people’s health going down. So the health ministry gave a strong recommendation to the government saying that we should create a heightened awareness about smoking and get people to stop smoking. But then, there is a whole lobby of the cigarette producers.
And from the government’s perspective, they are giving us taxes. And this campaign against smoking, that will take our money. So that campaign is spreading much.
So, the point which I’m making over here is that in some ways, my intent, you could say, when I was going there and trying to offer that education to the children, was good. But I saw the desired consequence was not coming. So then, am I responsible for the consequence if I know consciously that this person is short-tempered? And then, I end up giving them money.
By which, they buy alcohol and they become more short-tempered and they attack someone. Then, legally, I may not be responsible. But still, morally, I am responsible.
And if I give a gun to someone and that person goes and shoots someone, then legally, I am also responsible. The point is that for us, when we are going to do a particular action, we have to consider the intent, content and consequence. And based on that, we have to choose the right action.
So, at one level, you could say a person is starving and if they have nothing else to eat and they are given meat to eat, at least they will live. And Prabhupada also said, if you go to the Soviet Russia, and there is no vegetarian food available over there. Prabhupada said, eat meat, but share Krishna consciousness.
So, in extreme situations, if there is no food even, animal food is okay. But in most cases, it is not like that. So, in most cases, some people say that if we don’t eat animals, animals will grow so mild that they will overrun the earth and there is no space for humans to live.
That is completely untrue. Because in today’s world, animals are produced in the factory farms. Artificial insemination is done so that animals can be produced in large numbers and they are produced to be killed.
So, it is not that the animals are growing in nature and they are overgrowing and we are going there and killing them. It is not like that. We are systematically growing them so that we can kill them.
So, in that sense, intent can tell consequences, we see. Based on that, we can take a prudent decision. So, if somebody is starving and there is no food available, okay, then at that time, meat is okay.
But, if there is an alternative, where somebody can be given something which is not anti-demotional, then that is much better. And we can try to contribute to something like that. A Jhansi question? Meat-eating is a karma or a sin? It is both.
But, Manu Dharma says otherwise, the Kshatriyas, Shudras, they can eat meat. They get karma but not sin. Is that right? Okay.
For now time, deviating is okay. Okay. So, is it that eating meat gives karma but not sin? Well, I don’t really know whether you can really differentiate between karma and sin like that.
Basically, you could say that there is good karma and there is bad karma. And bad karma itself is called as sin. So, now, I’ll come to that point.
See, So, this is in the Bhagavatam also and this is also there in the Manu Samhita. The point over there is that that, say, meat-eating, intoxication, and to some extent, promiscuity, understood as sexuality, these are the ways of general human beings. प्रवृत्तिरेशमुताना But, नुरृत्तिस्तुमहावनु If one gives this up, then one can get the great result.
So, the idea is that instead of the Bhagavatam, or generally the broad dharmic text, don’t give dharma as one circle. If you are doing this, you are dharmic. If you are doing this, you are adharmic.
Give dharma as a set of expanding concentric circles. So, it’s like, imagine a pyramid. So, the top of the pyramid is one small point.
As you keep turning downward, downward, downward, downward, it becomes much bigger in the perimeter, in the circumference. So, like that, we could say, there are dharmas for different levels of people. And, what is the point of having dharmas for different levels of people? That if you cannot fit here, you fit here.
If you cannot fit here, you fit here. So, the idea is, it’s not one-zero. If you are doing this, you are going back to God.
If you are not doing this, you want to go back to God. Now, we can say that for Kshatriyas, meat-eating was allowed, which is true. Now, there are practical reasons for this.
Kshatriyas have to do a lot of physical work, fighting. And, Kshatriyas are going into the forest. Grains don’t grow naturally.
And, traditionally, for Kshatriya courts, you are not meant to plunder. Even if there are some farms, you are not meant to plunder. People don’t just make that.
So, then, if they are going through forest areas, and, the sages of the forest can live on on herbs and fruits and vegetables. But, Kshatriyas have to do heavy physical work. They, at the least, need grains.
And, if grains are not available, then, then meat can be eaten. So, Kshatriyas could eat meat. But, you have to see that Kshatriyas, what else they did? Kshatriyas were ready to give up their life when their citizens were in danger.
चतत्रायते इति शत्रिया One protects them from Kshatriyas. Protects others from injury, from hurt. They are Kshatriyas.
So, some people want to say that, I am a Kshatriya, so I will eat meat. But, okay, are you doing the other dharma of a Kshatriya? युद्दे चाप्या पलाये न? If dharma has to be protected, are you ready to fight against all odds? Now, most people are not ready to do that. So, we cannot take, oh, this was allowed, and it was allowed.
So, the point I am making here is that, yes, if you could say that for Prabhupada broadly, the four agenda principles which he has given, it is a Brahminical way of life. Prabhupada has not just given us Vedic dharma, he has given us the best of Vedic dharma. So, Vedic dharma can be multilevel.
They can be in concentric circles. Now, somebody may say that, okay, I want to be at the level where I eat meat. That’s what Kshatriyas were doing.
Okay, that’s okay, but Kshatriyas were doing many other things. If you are not doing those other things, then, I will say, I am a Kshatriya, so I eat meat. Then, Kshatriyas would do something, many things to do than Purnima.
And, within that particular lifestyle, this was an accommodation. See, in every, in every level of dharma, there is, you could say, a recommendation, and there is a concession. So, now, concessions should not be made as recommendations.
If you go to a doctor, and the doctor says, okay, what time it is? So, then, the doctor says, okay, you take this medicine, morning, afternoon, evening. And, he says, don’t take any sweets. No, doctor, I can’t live without sweets.
Okay, take sweets only once a week. No, not once a week, I can’t do that. Okay, twice a week.
No, not twice a week. Now, the doctor says, okay, twice a week. And, this person comes back and tells his family and everyone else, my doctor told me to take sweets twice a week.
Twice a week. And, the person doesn’t take the medicine. So, now, yes, take sweets twice a week.
That’s also what the doctor told him. But, that’s not the recommendation. That’s the concession.
Recommendation is what I want you to do. Concession is what you want to do, and I allow it. So, the positive activities of Kshatriyas, respecting the sages, protecting the sages, protecting the citizens, protecting dharma, those are like the recommendations.
And, eating meat is a concession. So, the important thing is that, say, for a diabetic patient, if they are going to eat sugar, that is going to have consequences. But, if they are also taking food properly, they are overall having a healthy lifestyle, then that may not have that much consequences.
Similarly, if one is living an overall dharmic life of a Kshatriya, and within that they are eating meat, the other consequences might be offset by that. Within that whole life, that’s okay. sarvarambhahi doshena dhume naagne bhavrata Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita that all endeavours are covered by fire, just as fire is covered by smoke.
Okay. So, we have to consider not just the recommendations, but also family recommendations. Consider these sixteen rounds as a concession.
Well, okay. Yes and no. Are the sixteen rounds a concession? Well, Prabhupada did present it like that, but you have to see very carefully what Prabhupada said.
Prabhupada said that my spiritual master said that anyone who does not chant sixty-four rounds is fallen. But he did not say that. Even in Gaudiya, I have met many disciples of some disciples I have met of of disciples of devotees of Gaudiya Ma and it was not a standard that everybody had to chant sixty-four rounds.
Especially, say, those who were maybe widows just living in the ashram or those who were brahmacharis or sanyasis who did not have active preaching service. They were told to chant sixty-four rounds. But the average was that it was basically it was not sixty-four rounds.
It was four rounds, eight rounds, sixteen rounds, whatever. So, as compared to the standard, always remember Krishna. Sixteen rounds is equal to a concession.
But from a practical perspective, sixteen rounds is quite a serious prescription. And if you do that, that itself can Krishnaize our consciousness significantly. Okay, so what was your question again? Research, no? Yeah.
So, I think it was answered but I just fixed a couple of points over there. Say, sometimes some research is involving some killing of some animals but some medicine is developed, some further therapies or treatments are developed by that. So, should we be a part of it? Well, we have had, I have discussed with several devotees about this.
I’ll give one as an example. Say, organ donation. Now, should we do it or should we not do it? Now, there are different things.
There are some things in scripture which are very clearly given. And those are you could say imperatives. Those are what we have to do.
But apart from that, if there is no specific point talked about in scripture, then different devotees using scripture, scriptural reasoning can arrive at different conclusions. So, there is one school of thought which says that the body, whatever is its natural course, just let it go along its natural course. If the body is dying, then just let it die.
No need to artificially separate the body and take out some organs from there and donate. Nature follows its course. The other school of thought is that, well, do we really, now what does it mean to let nature follow its course in today’s world? Now, maybe 100 years or 150 years ago, if somebody got a heart attack, then they would just die.
Today, if somebody gets a heart attack, we have so many CPR and so many forms of artificial resuscitation of the body. But the person, now do we consider that interfering with the nature? No, we consider that there is defibrillators available, use it. It’s usable.
So, now, what is intervention with nature or intervention in the course of nature and what is simply protection of the body? That line may be fuzzy at some places. So, the other school of thought is that, or other, not school of thought, the other line of thought is that, that after you have died, why be worried about what happens to your body? Why be attached to the body? If with your body you can do some good to someone, what is the need to do it? There is no need to be attached to the body after you have left the body. And be worried about what is happening to the body after that.
So, now, somebody might say that, oh, but you know, if we give our eyes to someone and that person uses the eyes to see something obscene or something like that, will I get karma for that? No, this is true. This is extreme. If you start saying like that, if I do something, if I give someone the facility and they abuse it, now, we can’t control what will happen.
If we know somebody is going to abuse, we have to be careful. Like I said, somebody is angry and I know that they are going to use a, if I give them a gun, that’s horrible. But when there are so many variables, we can’t control them.
We could even take that further and we say that anybody who does anything bad, that is because they are misusing the free will. And it’s Krishna who is giving everyone free will. So, is Krishna responsible for everything bad that everyone does? No.
It’s not like that. Krishna gives us free will and it’s up to us to use the free will. So, generally, in such cases, there is, Bhaktivinoda Thakura talks about, there is shastra praman and there is a loka praman.
Shastra praman is what is taught by shastra. And loka praman is what is generally considered right. Now, he uses the loka praman, for example, to say that, there are many stories about Krishna, which you may hear in Vrindavan.
There are many devotees who stay in Vrindavan, they associate with Rajivasi, many such stories of Krishna. Now, if you ask them, what is the scriptural basis for this story? Now, there is no scriptural basis for this. It’s a tradition.
But now, as long as those are broadly in harmony with the siddhanta and they are in harmony with the mood of Krishna, then they are fine. Even the famous story of Krishna having a headache and the gopis want to give him the dust off their feet. This is not, as far as we are found, we are not found in any scripture.
But such a beautiful story, which tells about the mood of the selfless devotion of the gopis. So, there is no need to reject that. So, loka praman means that if something, we are not talking about something which is openly against scripture that we have to do it, but something which is broadly considered the normal, considered the decent, respectable way to act in society.
Now, should a devotee openly not do that? No, because that will kill you a bit. Prabhupada, when he would go for the morning walks, he will tell some devotees who make slogans like, hai, hello, chhodo, Hare Krishna bahu. Well, okay, it’s nice, but the important thing is that we have to see how we appear in the world.
If somebody already knows that we are Hare Krishna and we talk about Hare Krishna, that’s good. But somebody thinks of us as religious fanatics, you can’t even have basic courtesies, you have to talk about your own religious names and your God’s names, and if you are alienating people, you better not do that. Prabhupada, when he had gone for a morning walk, and some people came and asked him, Prabhupada had a sanyas danda and many of his sanyasi disciples also had their sanyas danda.
So, why is everybody carrying sticks? So, Prabhupada said, to keep the dogs out. Now, another time, another day, when Prabhupada would go for morning walks and he would meet western people, he would greet, good morning. You don’t say Hare Krishna to entirely new people.
So, if there’s a particular way to behave, in a respectable way, in a particular way, we do that. So, that means that if organ donation is considered to be the respectable thing to do in today’s world, and then if we say, I have not donated my buckets, that’s a preference. If somebody chooses that, that’s fine.
But there’s no need to make that into a campaign and you should not do this or you should do this. There are both schools of thought, and both are in their own way, there is a reasoning behind it. But there’s no need.
So, in this case, we have to try to understand scripture, consult some senior devotees, and then pray, and use our inner compass to do the best thing. So, I know some devotees who are into animal, who are doing some research, which is animal research. So, we had a long talk with them.
Should we do it or should we not do it? So then, I told them, let’s try to avoid it as much as possible. But, as I said, actually, if I grew in this field, then eventually, as somebody becomes more respectable, then they also have more influence. So, this devotee, it was about 7-8 years ago when I talked with that devotee, now that devotee has become like a very big researcher in that field.
And now, they have got like full glands, so that they can do animal-friendly research. That means, not hurting animals also. So now, if that devotee had not grown in that field, he would say, I will not do this.
And the field would not have been affected at all. People would still keep doing that. And you would have simply not grown in your career also.
But, in this case, they did what they had to do. They had to do it as less as possible. But eventually, they grew and now they created a whole field.
I mean, at least one research unit over there. So, these are all decisions which are subtle and we have to decide them according to time, place and circumstance. So, like the same fact of intent, content, consequence, we consider that.
And sometimes, we might do a small evil so that we can prevent a… we can create a structure to prevent a bigger evil. Or, if we don’t feel that, we might say, I will avoid this small evil entirely. That’s also okay.
So, it has to be according to scriptural guidance as understood according to our guidance and our own God-given intelligence. Okay? Thank you. Okay, so… I became yoga-brushed in this class today.
So, the story… I’ll simply conclude with a story from the Ramayana which I’m going to tell briefly and the lesson from that. See, in the Ramayana, in the… in the… when Lord Ram is in the forest, at that time, he goes and meets various sages. So, there is a particular… there are two sages whom he meets.
They’re not very famous. Sarabhanga and Shudin Krishna. So, when he meets Sarabhanga, at that time, he is coming towards Sarabhanga and he sees a magnificent chariot in front of that sage.
Sage’s hermitage. And as they’re looking at it, now, they’re kings and they have many princes. They’re no big, magnificent chariots.
But this chariot is far, far bigger and better. And what more chariot is this? It does not look like an earthly chariot. And then they come out and they’re waiting and observing and then they see a falchion personality coming out from the hermitage.
This is not a sage. As they observe, they understand this is Indra. And Indra gets into the chariot and this chariot rises into the sky and disappears.
And then when it disappears into the sky, at that time, they go forward and then Sarabhanga sees him. Sarabhanga, Lord Ram is playing the naralila. So, he offers a respect to Sarabhanga.
Sarabhanga also offers respect to him. You’re the lord. And Sarabhanga, Ram asks him what is going on over here? So, what happened? Why did Indra come here? He said, Indra had come to me to offer the residence of my Punya.
He said, I have done Punya for a long time and now, based on my Punya, I can go to Swarga. So, he had come to take me to Swarga. And you didn’t go? He said, no.
My Guru had told me that you would come and give me your darshan. And I consider your darshan to be far greater than Swarga. So, therefore, although Indra came and told me you can come with me to Swarga, I did not go.
And you could bless me now. And your darshan is far bigger because by your darshan, one can attain Amrutattva. Not just Amarattva, but Amrutattva.
Immortality. Not just eternality one can attain. So, the lord blesses him and says, live for this life.
Exhaust your karma and then you will never come back to this world. You will attain the eternal abode. So, Sarabhanga, he was living in this world.
He could go to, the good was going to Swarga. The best is going to Vaikuntha, going to the spiritual world. So, for him, the good could have become the enemy of the best.
So, he rejected the good so that he can get the best. Of course, in Kali Yuga, practically, nobody is doing the kind of punnet to go to Swarga. Almost everybody, everybody’s house you go, they write, you know, they are related to the past to Swarga Vasi or Kailash Vasi or whatever.
But who knows where they are going? So, you really don’t know where they are going. The point is that, yes, there is the path of going to heaven, Vaikuntha. There is the path of going to the spiritual world by Bhakti.
And there is also the path of going down towards Adho Vakshanti Tamasa, towards the heavenish ways by Paapa. In Kali Yuga, very few people are doing Punnet. So, practically, there are only two choices.
There is Paapa or there is Bhakti. But while doing Bhakti, you can also do Punnet. So, the whole point of that class was that if we have to choose between Punnet and Bhakti, there is no need to do Bhakti.
I am taking care of my family, I am doing my family responsibilities, I am doing this, I am doing that. Then Punnet becomes the opponent of Bhakti. And Punnet can take away from Bhakti.
But while practicing Bhakti, if we have come from a family which has taught us Punnet, we are living in a community that is pious or virtuous, then that can be a very good foundation on which you can build our Bhakti. So, in that way, as devotees, we don’t reject morality. But we transcend morality.
As devotees, we want to please Krishna. One way we please Krishna is by directly doing emotional activities. Another way we please Krishna is by living in the world in a way that attracts people to Krishna.
And that means acting in a responsible, moral, as Prabhupada said, gentlemanly way. And that way, this kind of parallel with the practice of Bhakti can not only help us grow spiritually, but it can also help us to contribute socially in whatever roles we are playing in society. So, I’ll summarize quickly what I spoke.
So, I spoke on this topic of how the good can oppose the best and as well support the best. So, I talked about the bad is papa, where we are simply driven by impulses without considering anything higher. All animals are driven by impulses, but human beings, our impulses, if we just give in to them, then we start using our intelligence to do more harm with the impulses.
All animals kill, but humans construct slaughterhouses to kill. All animals indulge in mating impulse, but humans can create a whole industry of abortion. So, we can become, animals don’t become evil when they act upon the impulses.
We humans can become terribly evil. So, papa happens when we just consider impulses and the immediate pleasure comes from the impulses. Now, we humans have the capacity to go beyond our impulses.
As we can fast, even if we feel hungry, I’ll not eat this food. So, intelligence is the capacity to check our impulses. It means to evaluate it and then to regulate it.
So, now when we regulate it, we humans have the intelligence to sacrifice the present for the future. That means that, what we give in to the impulse will give you pleasure immediately, but restrain the impulse can give you some long-term gain. So, now how much long-term? That degree varies in punya and bhakti.
In punya, say, now a person can just enjoy some shooting and not care for anything. That is path. If society goes to that level, the parents may abandon their children.
Like I talked about that boy or they may have no children only or they may think that children are gold. Society will collapse like that. But when there is some long-term understanding, then parents make children and the children make parents.
So, having a sense of responsibility in society is important and we can say that probably in punya. But we can’t think only that much long-term. Because even that is temporary.
It’s certainly longer than just immediate pleasure. But even what we achieve in this life is temporary. Even what we achieve in heaven is also temporary.
So, there are four levels. There is maratya, amara, chiranjiva and nitya. So, the ultimate long-term is nitya.
And that comes when we devote ourselves to Krishna and practice bhakti. So, punya, if it is seen as an alternative to bhakti, then it becomes the enemy of bhakti. Then the good becomes the enemy of the bad.
So, people say, manoseva hi madhavseva hai. Then what is happening? Every manoseva is a reject manoseva. Then that kind of manoseva is bad.
But if you see manoseva, not just as worshipping the deities or chanting, but as a whole culture in which we connect ourselves and the world with Krishna. Then, various kinds of activities, humanitarian activities or various krisams as Prabhupada says, we can krishnaize them, we can spiritualize them. And thus, when we are doing it this way, then the good can also become the friend of the aid of the best.
And while practicing bhakti, we understand that I am doing some things, I am taking something from the world and I need to give something back to the world. Ultimately, I am taking from Krishna and giving to Krishna, but I can give back to Krishna through various channels. And while deciding how to do charity, where to do charity, we talk about these three principles, intent, content and consequence.
Based on that, we, according to time, place, circumstances, make a sound decision. And there are certain things, if somebody is already inspired to do something more charitable or social service kind of activity, then they can spiritualize that. It’s a preference.
So, there is no need to campaign for a preference that everybody has to be. There is no need to campaign against a preference saying that this is not the principle. So, preferences are preferences and there is room for them.
So, if you make preferences into principles, that becomes fanatical. And if you reject the possibility for preferences itself, that also becomes fanatical. So, there is a room for individual inspiration.
And talk about dharma is like a pyramid. It’s not just your dharmic or dharmic. There are multiple levels of dharma.
And some people may spit at the level of Shatriyas, but Shatriyas also have other dharma. We can’t just take the concessions and neglect the recommendations. It’s a whole package.
And based on intent, content and consequence, when we wisely choose, then through all our activities we get reconnected with Krishna. And stay on the progressive path. As Prabhupada said, we should be like ladies and gentlemen.
That means we function in the way that will attract people towards our spiritual side. So, people will not be directly attracted to our spiritual side, but through our behaviour and our functioning in the world, people can be attracted to us and then we are attracted to our spiritual side. Sarbhanga rejected heaven so that he could get Lord Ram’s darshan.
Ultimately, Lord Ram’s award. Similarly, if the good becomes the competitor of the best, we need to give the good so that we can pursue the best. And in most situations, the good and the best can move in parallel.
There are some activities that are directly devotional and other activities which are devotionalised to whatever extent we can. So, thank you very much. Shri Prabhupada ki… Shri Prabhupada ki…