The Monk’s Podcast 59 with Govinda Prabhu – Preserving dharma while practicing bhakti

Podcast Video:

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Hare Krishna, going through. Welcome to the Monks Podcast. It's a delight to have you.

I have always been inspired by your penetrating and sometimes provocative takes on various issues, devotional, social, historical, and of course, philosophical. It has been a long time. I started this about three, three and a half months ago.

And since then, we have almost 150 podcasts we had with different speakers. So I'm grateful that you could spare some time and join today. Thank you very much.

My pleasure to be here. So I was thinking today we could discuss on a topic of where our tradition intersects with today's world to the left, the right and dharma. So in today's world, most of the political landscape is polarized between the left and the right.

The left, where the right is often concerned more with preserving existing order through maintaining hierarchies. So that, whereas the left is concerned with protecting and empowering those who are say disempowered by the hierarchies. So the right is often associated with capitalism and left with communism.

So is this kind of polarity seen within the dharmic tradition also? Or is it something which is a modern phenomenon? Yeah, as far as I understand, in my reading of the Shastras and my interaction, you know, because I grew up in a very complex surrounding. It was a place where there was a confusion among the politician in regards to border situation where the one language wanted to rule other language. And also connected to kind of a smaller town where wealthy people, poor people, rickshaw walas, thela walas, you know, I came in contact with all of this kind of people.

All my neighbors were Christians. My shop neighbors were Muslims. My shop owners were Brahmins.

Right. So therefore, in my experiences, I saw amazing dynamics. Okay.

Right. So that is my personal experience, which I do not deny that there was a division because it is but natural that we are living in a world since time immemorial, even in so-called Satya Yuga, which is a golden period. We see there is a disparity.

There is a challenge between so-called Asuras and Devas. Okay. So when we study tradition, I was just listening to one of the, you know, what Yayati, one of the great kings told.

Very interesting. He said to some of his sons who were about to take over. He said few things I want to share.

He said one of the greatest sin is superiority complex. Another greatest sin is those who humiliate others. And he said those who are extremely arrogant, that is also sin.

Another one he said, those who violate Dharma for pursuing lust and wealth. And the last and most important one, he said those who are biased against women, he said this he all considered goes against the whole principle of harmonised living. You know, just to add a little more.

This is Yayati not in the Bhagavatam. This is in the Mahabharata. Yayati in the Mahabharata, yes.

Mahabharata, okay. And similarly we see, you know, there was such an interaction, the Dharma Vyada speaking to a Brahmana sage. Tukaram Maharaj was ordinary Vaishya, had a same kind of calibre like any other great spiritual leader since time immemorial, not just now.

Kanak Das was a shepherd, even the many ladies like Akka Mahadevi, Mirabai and others. So therefore this back and forth connection between highly elevated people in position-centric and highly elevated people who are disposition-centric. Therefore that kind of divide was not seen in the philosophy and regular people's life.

It was seen or not seen, you are saying? It was not seen in a regular people's life. Because both were there. So you are saying that the traditional Brahmanas and renunciates could we could say represent the right in the sense that established authority, they are position-centric and many of the Bhakti saints, they don't have position.

They are on the margins of society in a sense, but they also were respected for their spiritual calibre. Yes. So because of that, that sort of conflict didn't affect the common people.

That's what you're saying. Yes. But then we also have say Tukaram Maharaj Abhangas being, he was told to drown those Abhangas in the Indrayani, I think.

And then they emerged again. So there are some incidents of say conflict between the people in power and those who are not in power. And it seems the Bhakti tradition was often a way for challenging established hierarchies and for creating internal reform.

Isn't it? Yes. So, but the point is how it would happen again, that was also organic. Even those who had a position, they were not organisingly oppressing the people.

Oppression happened because of the arrogance of certain individuals. And the intelligent people who did not agree with it, they did not rebel against them. You know, just like now, capitalism and communism is an internationally organised system where they fight with each other.

But this would always happen in a very local communities. And because it was happening in a local community, there was a facility to rise against it and trample upon it. If Tukaram Maharaj had to fight against an established order, a finite power cannot fight the infinite power.

They could squash him down anytime. So therefore, even the powerful were very disorganised in establishing their power. It was never a systematic order.

It was a meanness caused by selfishness by some people. And you could resist against it, whether it was Kanak Das who came from a shepherd family or whether Tukaram Maharaj came from a very ordinary Vaishya family. Yes.

I think many historians of comparative religion, they say one distinctive feature of the Hindu tradition overall is that it never had any centralised authority. It never had any institutional structure. So maybe because of that, the power struggles were also very limited in scope.

Yes. So when you talk about organisational structures, say Shankaracharya created his mathas all over the country in four corners. And in Madhava, they also had his mathas.

And there is some system of, some kind of system was there, who will do or worship when. So when we say there was no organised structure, are you talking something about a nationwide scope or what do we mean by organised structure not being there? Again, so therefore we have to study, when you talk about Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, Madhava, Vishnu, Swami, again why did Shankaracharya start the whole system of organisation? It was basically to deal with the non-Vedic religion who became organised. The first organisation structure began with the non-Vedic people and they basically created a power system by inspiring the kings.

You know, whenever a new religion comes, it becomes very, very preachy in their behaviour. They create a structure, they create an organisation. Otherwise, the Hindu tradition, Rishis were always very, very decentralised.

If you read in the Valmiki Ramayana, if you read in the Mahabharata, in the Vanaparva or in the Aranya Kanda, you find hundreds of Rishis with their family, with few students. The biggest number of the students was Valmiki Maharshi's ashram and even he would not be controlling every part of his ashram when Sita Maya was taken to the women's wing. The women in the Valmiki ashram, they said, oh Maharshi, you have come after a long time.

So, he gave them the complete autonomous to do what they wanted to do. He controlled them not by systems, he inspired them by his good example. It was not a rule centric control, but it was an example centric control.

More we can call it as a protection rather than control. And even Shankaracharya, if you see, when they started, maybe there is a confusion about dates also, he was only focusing on those one or two sannyasis and for education, for always, they went out of their Matha. A teacher, an educationalist was different from Matadhesh and therefore if you study in the Kanchi and in the Hampi, there were people from all the tradition learning from a teacher who could be from any Sampradaya.

Even now, one of my friend, Nithyanand, he is studying Nyaya Shastra. So, the students who are there, you know, the teacher is from Shankar Sampradaya, the students are there from Shri Sampradaya, the students are there from Madhya Sampradaya and there were particular teachers who have sent them, you go and study, maintain your tradition but go and learn that knowledge from him because he is qualified to teach. So, they don't stop them from studying because they have certain faith.

So, therefore, there was a restriction in regards to their systems of worship but there was no restriction in regards to where you go and study about certain particular subject. So, that's why Jiva Goswami could go to Banaras and learn from him. So, in a sense, we could say there is a difference between what you call it material and spiritual knowledge but how would you differentiate between the two? So, therefore, studying anything supporting to study Shastra was considered as a universal knowledge.

If you study the Bhagavad Gita, if you study the commentary of Sripad Shankaracharya, other than the certain specific details of ultimate destination, Ramanuja and Madhya Sampradaya have picked up many detailed commentaries of Shankaracharya as it is, which is connected to the logic of life. There is no distinction between fire, if you speak from a Shankar's principle or Madhva's principle, if you talk about detachment from Shankar's principle, Madhva's principle, they are one and the same but when it comes to ultimate destination, Dvaita, Advaita and Vishistha Advaita, they might differ there. So, therefore, the student would go to study where they were facilitated to study scripture, whether it is Nyaya, whether it is Vyakarana, whether it is Chandas, whether it is different kinds of Veda principles, there was no distinction between what the teacher was teaching as Advaita Sampradaya and what the student was learning from a Vishistha Advaita Sampradaya.

So, the object of worship was considered to be one's personal area of faith and the broad, even scriptural education, philosophy and grammar and everything, logic was considered to be separate. Yes. Okay.

And that's how, say in the Ramayana or in the Mahabharata, we see that the Pandavas meet sometimes Vaishnavites, sometimes Saivites, Mahabharata also has Shiva Sahasranama. So, there doesn't seem to be like a serious conflict between Vaishnavas and Saivites or something like that. Is it because it was already understood to be your personal faith? Because if you study again the whole concept of Shraddha, faith-centric religion is very modern in regards to making it a public affair.

Even Rupa Goswami, therefore, in his literature, he writes that Guru and Nama, that is your mantra and your Ishtadev is a very very private affair. Guru, Nama and Ishtadev. Yes, it has to be a private affair because that is between you and your teacher, your Deva, your Ishtadev.

So, it was never taken into a public place. Anyone if it is taken in a public place, those discussions would happen only among the highly cultured intellectuals. They knew how to debate while keeping the decorum of the respectable behaviour.

So, therefore, if you study again Gurukul, if you study the Gurukuls of India, that it was not a Vaishnava Gurukul, it was not a Shaiva Gurukul, it was not Shankaracharya's Gurukul. Gurukuls were not run by the Sanyasis. The Gurukuls were only run by the Grahasthas, the Rishis.

No? Okay. So, when you earlier said about the difference between the Mathadipati and the teacher, so the Math might belong to a particular, say, group, but the teacher would teach their own subjects and there would not be interference in that. Yes.

Okay. Complete difference. Yeah.

And so then often there are reports of say conflicts between Shaivites and Vaishnavites or Advaitins and Dvaitins. So, you are saying these didn't affect the general mass of society. There was no intolerance or conflict.

It was only at a high level between intellectuals. On the debate level, the general people were not affected by this. And even those battles which would happen in Kumbh Mela, where the Shaivites and that was specifically connected to Naga Sampradayas and the Ramanandas, not like Madhvas, Ramanujas and the more softer version of Vaishnavas and Shaivites.

It was only these fighter Vaishnavas and fighter Shaivites. They actually had a conflict. It happened once in Kumbh Mela and then once happened in Nasik Kumbh Mela and that's how then there was a separation made.

These were sporadic but not organized conflict causing to destroy one from the other. This is a very striking point about Shraddha because recently there is a tendency to say lump Hindus and Muslims. I was in America and so many people in America have the perception that Hindus and Muslims are at the necks of each other constantly in India.

But there is a statistic that the total number of people who have been killed in Hindu-Muslim riots post-independent India are actually less than the number of people who die in road accidents or gun violence in America. So the point I was making is that it seems in the Abrahamic religions, quite often there is violence which is recommended against wrong believers. But in the Dharmic traditions, it's against wrongdoers.

The Kauravas or even Ravana, it was not because what he believed but because what he did. So does that resonate with what you are saying about Shraddha being a personal affair? Very simple. In the Bhagavad Gita, you find no verse where Krishna is speaking, if you don't believe me, I will send you to hell.

No, he speaks, those who worship the Devatas, they will go to Devatas. Those who worship the Bhuta Pishache, they will go to them. Those who worship the Pitris, they will go to them.

Those who worship me, they will come to me. And then where does he talk about in the 17th chapter when he talks about 16th chapter, three athletes leading to hell. It is not connected to your belief system, it is connected to your activities which is lust, greed and anger.

On the battlefield of Kurukshetra, on the side of the Pandavas, there were people who did not believe in the Vedic culture like Ghatotkach. And on the other side of the Kauravas, there was Bhishmadeva, ardent devotee of Krishna, Dronacharya, he regularly chanted the mantras from the Vishnu mantra he chanted. Bhurishrava was also a Vishnu devotee, Bhagadatta was a Vishnu devotee, but still they were brought down not because of their faith in God, but they were brought down because of their Adharma.

So there is a difference between Dharma and Faith. Dharma and Shraddha are two different things. Your Shraddha is very private, but your Dharma what decides whether you are causing harm to the society or you are causing contribution to the society.

That's striking. So then even when Krishna 16th chapter says before the Trividham Narkasidam verses, Panaham Dushyataha Kruran, so there he is saying they are envious of me, but it's not that you are saying that it is not the envy of Krishna that makes them cause them to go to hell, send them to hell. It is what is described in the previous verses that they are murderers, they are mercenaries.

Those actions are the cause of their going to hell. Yes, otherwise we see, if you don't take the entire Gita to its complete context, we are plucking out here and there one verses, quoting Krishna out of context, it's not worth it. Because we saw in the entire Mahabharata war, even in the Ramayana, first time when Lord Ram saw Ravan, he said, wow, what a power, what a glitter, what a power he has.

He could be a great ruler. Except he has this papa of kidnapping somebody else's wife. So therefore Shraddha, in fact in the Bhagavatam third canto, when Kapil Muni explained to mother Devavati, he condemns even Shraddha which is connected to Vishnu and Tamoguna, exclusive Shraddha, he said they are separatist, they are violent.

No, he is very clear to speak about it, exclusivity, separatism is dangerous to the growth of people. Then he continues to talk about Rajogun Bhakti, where there is a competition. Only Satvaguna Bhakti he kind of approves where there is a cooperation.

Then he says it is beyond the three modes of material nature. True Bhakti is beyond three modes of material nature. Therefore Prahlad in the seventh canto of the Bhagavatam, what does he say? He says when we can see Vishnu everywhere, when we can see Vishnu everywhere, that is one of the core teachings of Prahlad to his friends.

You know sometimes what happens with the spiritualists, they are more focused on seeing where their God is not, rather than focusing where their God is. Yes, I have seen that, yes. So now just to clarify, you are talking about, so when you are talking about Bhakti, you are associating that with Shraddha.

And so as the Shraddha grows, then we can say, that is the various stages of Bhakti are there, from Shraddha to Prema, as Bhaktisamud Sindhu says. So Dharma will never be in the three modes. We can have Shraddha in the three modes, but Dharma is like universal codes of conduct which apply for everyone.

Yes, everyone. And so then, say for example, when we are trying to, as the Krishna conscious movement, we are trying to teach scripture, so we are sharing, we are helping people, we are teaching people Bhakti or we are helping people come to practice Dharma or both? It has to be integrated only, because if people become Shraddhalu, without the foundational principle of human sensitivity, their very Shraddha will cause Ashraddha in those people who are very closely associated with them. Oh, okay, yes.

No, because Shraddha is the foundation. Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita did not say, you know, let us take the words of Krishna, Yadayadayi Dharmaseglani, he did not say Yadayadayi Bhaktiseglani, because Bhakti is a very private affair. One can be Dharmic and he may not possess that enthusiastic Bhakti, but there is a feeling for Supreme, there is submission to the laws of God.

Even if they do that, you know, he will appreciate them. Bhakti is a very private affair where those who proclaim that I want to be your devotee, you know, for them Krishna will appreciate. Therefore, Krishna punished Bhishma in a public place because he had stand for Adharma.

But when he gave him award, that was private, there was not a battleground, it was in one sense a very private affair, of course, recorded by Suta Goswami, you know, therefore, it is available to us. Therefore, Bhakti is privately rewarded and Adharma or Dharma is publicly recognized. That's striking.

That's why now even when talking about the Brahmanas qualities in the 18th chapter, Shamo, Dhammo, Tapas, Chocham, Krishnardhan mentioned Bhakti over there. He talks about Astikyam, as you said, a general faith in scripture. So now Bhakti is relatively easy to understand, say like attraction or devotion or submission to a transcendental being.

But how would we define Dharma? What all would comprise Dharma? Is it sensitivity or what all would be there in it? So basically, as far as if you study, you know, Dharma, in one sense, transparency, because you're living in a society, you are receiving from the society. It does not matter whether you are a spiritualist or not. Even the greatest of the spiritualists needs society to provide him.

Right. Even Shukadeva Goswami, for that matter, had to go to the society to collect at least one glass of milk. Yes.

Right. So you cannot avoid that. So what does Dharma mean? Dharma means basically where there is a balanced contribution from each other.

That's beautiful. One way, I mean, just sorry to interrupt you, but one way I try to explain Dharma to new people is that it's like a harmonious belonging to a whole. It's say if somebody is driving on a road, then to follow the rules of road traffic, that is Dharma over there.

Yes. So harmonious belonging to whole and you're saying if you're belonging to society, then we take from society and we have to give to society. Yes.

So then Dharma doesn't necessarily have to correlate with say particular regulative principles or particular rules, but it is just overall contribution. Yes, it's overall contribution. Therefore, why would Krishna forget the Mahabharata? In the 11th cant of the Bhagavatam, he talks about Dharma Vyada in the least of the great devotees.

Yes. And unfortunately, not many people have spoken about this because it creates a confusion. How could Dharma Vyada? Vyada being a Dharmic and Krishna is speaking about him in the Uddhava Gita 11th canto in the least of all the great devotees, including the Gopis.

And if you study Dharma Vyada story, his devotion to Lord Vishnu is connected to the universal law, submission to the universal law. What do you mean by submission to the universal law? Submission to the universal law means there are universal law, which is basically the Rtu, Yukta Ahara, Yukta Vihara, Yukta Chastasu Karmasu, that responsible life somebody lives coherently, he respects the Rtu, Rtu Chakra. One who is respecting the Rtu Chakra, submission to his family, doing his puja at the right time, doing his business honestly, so that person is also appreciated by Krishna.

It's very interesting and therefore if you study the 20 qualities of a devotee in the 12th chapter, who is dear to him? Nowhere he says those who proclaim boldly, those who go around talking about me, he doesn't say that. He is basically talking about the qualities of inner equanimity. That's beautiful.

I always thought about this that in the 12th chapter, Krishna is talking that it is a virtuous devotee who is dear to him. So we could say dharma broadly equates with virtue and virtue is like civilized social conduct. So the association of dharma with certain rules and regulations.

So is it that say somebody, the Vyada, he is a great devotee and he is supposed to, the Dharma Vyada means he is also following dharma. So then where does, say we talk about the four virtues of Daya, Satya, which are associated with the four regulative principles. So are those, so those virtues, they are themselves important, the specific way they will be expressed, they may differ, that may differ from person to person.

That will actually, yeah, because see again, when you create an organization, you need a system, you know, but devotion is never organized. Okay. Devotion is never organized.

Therefore, somebody asked Prabhupada, you know, how many devotees are there in India? I said everybody, you know, that is the actual true definition he gave. How many members are there in your movement? Then he would say 300, 400, you know, so there is an Ishkon organization and there is a devotional disposition. So the devotional disposition is a universal principle.

I always ask this question to some people, someone does not know the definition of Krishna, does not know the stories of Krishna, does not know anything about Krishna, but this person living in some remote part of the world have a sensitivity. When they are taking water from the river, they offer gratitude to that river. When they see somebody else, their heart bleeds in their suffering and in whatever way they call God, in whatever way, they believe that God is very kind.

He is very large hearted. He is extremely liberal in his approach to living entities. So they know the substance of Krishna without knowing the name of Krishna and somebody knows the name of Krishna and stories of Krishna, but they do not have the substance of Krishna and therefore they are condemning others.

You don't know Krishna, that means you will go to hell. So who is better appreciated by, we have to ask Krishna only, whom will you appreciate Krishna? Will you appreciate somebody proclaims your glories but has such arrogance and violent behavior or do you appreciate that? Because understanding Krishna's nature also is very important rather than simply knowing about the external, the murti, the superficial Krishna. There is nothing superficial about Krishna.

He is full of substance only. He is also a Saragrahi. He is not a Bharvahi.

Yes, normally we apply to us but you can apply to Krishna also. Yes. So when you talk about the substance of, knowing the substance of Krishna, are you referring to say here to Bhakti or to Dharma or to both? Both.

Because if you are actually Dharmic, Dharma basically therefore when Bhishma Dev spoke to Yudhishthira Maharaj, he spoke about all kinds of Dharma. Dana Dharma, Stri Dharma, Raja Dharma, Varana Dharma and then he spoke about Bhagavad Dharma also. So again if you study in the Bhagavad Gita, again this is, let us see Bhakti from the perspective of Krishna rather than our definition.

Our definition will be more specific because a devotee, you know, a devotee by nature, exclusivist. No? And that is not, nothing wrong about it. That is nothing wrong about it.

You know, but when his exclusivity towards Krishna, when it is caused by rasa, no? When it is caused by rasa, that exclusivity is very tasteful. But there is no rasa only and we are becoming exclusivist, that becomes cause of violence. By rasa, you mean here that the devotee is personally experiencing Krishna and relishing it.

But there is no inner experience of Krishna but there is outer imposition of Krishna on others. Then it will become violence. No? That becomes the violence.

So therefore, how does Krishna define, you know, in the Bhagavad Gita if you study carefully, the definition of Ishwar is multifarious. Krishna says in the second chapter also, sixth chapter also, one who can see, you know, God in everything. Or he also mentioned one was experiencing equipoised nature, equanimity.

He says he has already reached Paramatma. He has already reached Paramatma. So there he is not talking about himself.

He is not talking about himself specifically. So Ishwar in Bhagavad Gita is talked about if you are equipoised in happiness and distress, you are experiencing Paramatma. That is one thing.

If you are able to respect the, you know, how, he is able to see divinity in nature, he is also very close to God. 12.8 to 12.11. If you love me, if you cannot love me, do sadhana bhakti. If you cannot do sadhana bhakti, do nishtam karma, offer the fruits.

If you can't do that also, do something good. You know, do something good and he is going to accept that. You know, Krishna is accepting that also as devotion.

So what is your and my problem? How can we define what Krishna should accept and what he should not accept? That's striking. And Krishna says all of these will come to me eventually. So you are doing good work.

Yes. So just going back to that 12th chapter, the last verse in 12.20, he says, So there he is bringing dharma and shraddha together. So what is he referring to in that verse? The previous verses are all talking about virtues.

But what is that last verse referring to? Because again, Bhagavad Gita is a universal book also and it is also a book for somebody who has a devotion to Krishna. Both are there. For example, this is my question to you, asking you a question.

If somebody follows the teachings of Bhagavad Gita, discovers his swadharma, contributes to the cause of harmonious growth of the society, he is an astika but not necessarily worshipping two handed form of Krishna or four handed of Vishnu form. But he said, I believe in God. He follows everything what Krishna is speaking in the Bhagavad Gita other than basically that natural attraction like Arjuna had for Krishna.

Will Krishna send him to hell? Will Krishna be angry with him? Will Krishna be upset with him? Definitely saying hell is obviously no. But will that person go to Krishna? That person will get elevated. But if that person doesn't know Krishna, then based on their conduct, that person will go to wherever the swabhava they have acquired.

So you are saying that it is not one zero. So this is interesting. Then somebody comes to Bhagavad Gita and say learns Karma Yoga.

And so the problem is not that they come and learn Karma Yoga or teach Karma Yoga based on Bhagavad Gita. The problem will come if they see this is the only teaching of the Gita and they neglect the Bhakti part. Yeah, that exclusivity claim, we don't need Krishna here.

When they make those kind of statements, then again they are becoming exclusivist. Either Karma Yogi exclusivist or the Astanga Yogi exclusivist or Jnana Yogi exclusivist or Bhakti Yogi exclusivist without deeper understanding of Brahman, Parmatman, Bhagwan are simply becoming consciously or unconsciously Abrahamic in their nature. By Abrahamic you are referring to exclusivist broadly or what is it? Exclusivist.

Yeah. Okay. Like I'll give a simple example.

I give this example in regards to Bhagavad Gita is integration of all the four Yogas. You cannot live life without having these four Yogas. Not possible.

Giving an example of drinking water. When you drink water, just act of drinking is Karma. Drinking water with understanding where does the water come from, Udaka Tattva in the Vedas, that becomes Jnana Yoga.

When you drink that water with the principle of understanding, oh, this is coming from the Supreme Prakriti, which is connected to God, then that becomes Jnana Yoga and Karma Yoga because you are drinking now. And when you drink that water knowing very well, I should sit and drink, I should not drink after eating, I should drink in such a way, that becomes Astanga because Astanga is a discipline. And when you drink that very water with all this knowledge, with the gratitude, oh, Krishna, oh God, you have given me water.

So where is the question of you only saying that I'm only doing Bhakti. All the four Yogas are included because the knowledge of Bhakti has to be there. If not in this lifetime, all the four are there.

Naturally the heart, the relationship part is the most evolved part in this. Okay. So whenever Krishna makes any exclusive statements that are primarily with respect to attaining him in Aham Veda in a Tapasa, but he's not talking about a person's say moral caliber or ethical worth.

And how do we understand in Sarva Dharmaan Parityajyam Aam Ekam Sharanam Rajyam that is primarily for protection from sin or that is also for attaining him when he's giving up Dharma. Now, if you study Sarva Dharmaan Parityajyam to the entire context of the Bhagavad Gita, there are more than a hundred verses in the Gita as far as I know, I'm just getting that full, you know, proper where Krishna is focusing on Nishkama Karma, doing your duty without having, you know, control over the result. And it is not even, it is not even a sermon.

It is a logical reality. You know, I planned a tree that is within my control, but when the fruits will come, how many fruits will come? Can anybody control that? That is not possible only. So therefore, Krishna is repeatedly speaking about it.

And Arjuna in the 18th chapter in the conclusion is still has this fear, not because he is confused, because he is Dhirga Bandhu, he cannot forget relationship with Bhishma, he cannot forget relationship with Dronacharya, he cannot forget relationship with Krupacharya, he cannot forget relationship with others also. So still he is hesitant. How can I do this? You know, it is against disrespect.

Even during the battle of Kurukshetra, he chastises Yudhishthira Maharaj for, you know, telling that lie. So because of his, and therefore one Vaishnava commentator says, this character of Arjuna connecting to relationship of the superiors is the character of Lord Vishnu, Lord Krishna, because Lord Krishna never forgets relationship with his living entities. Never forgets.

So because of that, it was very context centric, Arjuna almost being hugged by Krishna, he said, don't worry, I am there for you. It's not a demand, it's an assurance. It's an assurance.

And after that also, Arjuna continued to remain a Kshatriya. You know, I always ask this question, what happens when you surrender everything? Do you stop functioning in this world? Gopi surrendered but went back to their husbands. The Brahmanpatti surrendered, they went back to their duties.

Their duties never stopped. What changed was, they became more dedicated in regards to offering the results of their activities to Krishna. In fact, their very action became surcharged with devotion to the Supreme Lord.

Bhakti doesn't reject dharma but bhakti permeates dharma or animates dharma, you could say. Dharma with bhakti. In Arjuna's context also, I read that at one level, Arjuna had a tension between Kula dharma and Kshatriya dharma.

So should I protect my Kula or should I do my Kshatriya duty? So Krishna has told him that, do that dharma which will help you to serve me. So sarva-dharmat pratyajya mam ekam saranam vraja is not literally give up all dharma but give up that dharma which obstructs you in your surrender to me. But as you said Arjuna, in that context he chose Kshatriya dharma.

So now are there situations when dharma, so bhakti doesn't reject dharma but bhakti permeates dharma, but are there situations when bhakti and dharma can pull into opposite directions and then what is one to choose at that time? Even if it happens, again it happens in a very evolved condition, that becomes that there dharma. Like Shukadeva Goswami, he studied Mahabharata but he didn't got interested in this, it's there. In the Mahabharata it is explained he studied but because he was so evolved, you know he pulled out from the realities of life rather than forcing everybody to come out of the realities of life.

Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu when he became so absorbed in devotion, he told a student now I can't teach you, go to somebody else. He didn't stop the concept of schooling only, you know, otherwise that will create Varana Sankarata. So therefore what happens those who are not actually evolved, when they take to the path of Vairagya, they want everybody to give up everything.

What is the point in driving? What is the point in farming? What is the point in doing this? Just focus, just chant Hare Krishna, do your spiritual meditation, everything will be provided. That will destroy the Yajna Chakra. So therefore at no point of time dharma has a conflict with your devotion because that devotion itself becomes your dharma.

Okay. And that's why we have a verse like na buddhi bhedam janaed, says don't disturb the mind of ignorant people. So that means he's saying that if their dharma is different and say somebody is attracted to a higher level of dharma or to bhakti, don't disrupt that.

Yeah, that's beautiful. And not only not disrupt that, when there is a conflict, like people say, oh, Krishna, whatever he spoke up till 18th chapter, it was okay. But the final verse is sarva dharman parityajya.

Sometimes people say sarva dharman parityajya cancels all others what he has spoken. No, many times people say this. But that is not the truth.

Because Arjuna continued to remain a warrior. And again, in the third chapter, Krishna already told Arjuna that those who are self-realized have no duties to perform. Right.

But still, to set an example, they do duties. That is the verse. Then, okay, let us say, he doesn't stop there.

He said, I have no duties to perform. And the same principle is spoken by Rupa Goswami in the Bhakti Rasamritha Sindhu also. He said, internally, you are practicing raga marga, but because you are part of the world, still you continue to practice the external sadhana bhakti.

Otherwise, it will create such a disruption in the society, whether you take Bhakti Rasamritha Sindhu or you take Bhagavad Gita, there is a beautiful flow. There is no contradiction in regards to the underlying principle of life. When Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was in his divine consciousness, he was about to go and touch a woman.

And what did he tell Govinda? He said, if I have done it, I would give up my life. He would not justify that I was in divine consciousness. So therefore, even in that divine consciousness, he was very conscious of his dharma.

No, it's amazing. So you're saying something about Bhakti Rasamritha Sindhu. How was that connected with dharma? I'm sorry, I lost that thread.

Because whatever Krishna told in the third chapter is also spoken by Bhakti Rasamritha Sindhu. He said, even if you are raga marga, internally you are worshipping, but externally, you continue to practice all the rules and regulations. Okay, so that means there is a substantial emphasis on maintaining social order, that one's own devotional advancement should not cause the disruption of the social order.

Then, now to some extent, if we consider, there are two directions in which we could go now. One is we could go more into the Bhagavad Gita itself. And this is a fascinating discussion for me.

Or we could look at the contemporary application and we could see where we as a movement or we as individuals may misapply things. Is there any preference where you would like to? Wherever you want to take, you are the driver, I am the passenger. Okay.

Thank you. So then let's take the second part. I mean, because that will be relevant for many of us.

So one thing that struck me is that as I have been reading Prabhupada and understanding Prabhupada's context, now Prabhupada presumed people would have a certain level of dharma. And he was taken aback when in the name of Bhakti, say people neglected dharma. So an example is that when the book distributors, when the temple leaders told young mothers to leave their babies in the temple at some caretaker and go out and distribute books, Prabhupada was shocked and he said, I am shocked that you have left your babies.

Instead of caring for them, they are like your deities. So sometimes the emphasis of Bhakti, Prabhupada's emphasis on Bhakti was so, we could say over applied that dharma itself was completely trivialized. Was that like a mistake in our understanding or how did that happen you feel? Now you are discussing the social issue, but I can discuss because you know, I would say when the younger devotees, especially from the Western world, they came from the broken families.

What was their good qualification, their loyalty, their sincere devotion? Their sincere devotion and their loyalty did not change their background in regards to experience of life. I remember talking to one Western sanyasi, he would say the Western world, it is Mahapap which stops one to take to devotional service and in India it is Mabap which stops one to take devotional service. First time I heard it, I laughed, but now I look back at it, it's shocking, it's morally jarring.

It's very shocking. Why? Again, if you see the statistics, I remember talking to one American devotee, he said because of this broken background, the statistics of maintaining your spiritual life, you know, chanting rounds every day for rest of life is very less. It is less than five years consistency.

Oh, that means devotees don't last more than five years. Less than five years consistency. Yes, not more than that.

They can chant 16 rounds. He did a survey. And if you take people coming from a stable background, because they already have a stability of life, when they come to spirituality, they are not looking for social stability in an organization that they already have in their family.

The ups and downs of the temple does not bother them so much. In fact, they will basically help the topsy-turvy situation to settle down because they have a stable background. They have managed diverse relationships, mother, father, uncle, aunt, neighbors.

So that's not a big deal for them. They have seen it. So this leadership, especially after the departure of Prabhupada, they became ambitious to do something.

And in that stage, they destroyed the social order by quoting the stories of Gopis wrongly. And a simple, another very great scholar, he said, very interesting, he said, a family is a collection of people, a diverse background. If you do not have the experience of reconciling between the diverse background of a small number of family, how can you stay in a bigger family? Because an organization means there is a larger diversity, larger number of people.

It is but natural that you will have your own idea, you will impose your idea, you will force your idea. And if you are a leader without that background and you are using the concept of Sharanagati and creating a disruption in the community. You know, in a sense, this is, we are like treading in provocative waters, but at one level, many of our disasters, our movement's disasters have been associated with large-scale social experimentation.

It's not, it's like, say, we try to have an isolated community or we try to have a Gurukul. So when we try to create, based on exclusively devotional principles, like faith and obedience to authority, a whole social order without the principles of Dharma, then eventually it all imploded. So now, this is with respect to the West.

So in our context, we see in India, most of the people who are joining our movement, either as Brahmacharis or as Grahastas, we could say broadly they have some Dharmic orientation. They have some culture of Dharma with which they grow. And then we come to Bhakti.

So how do we address the tension? When you start practicing Bhakti, what should, say, now we can put aside for the time being renounced order, but if you look at Grahastas who come, then how much should, say, maybe 10-15 years ago, if somebody had told me that they are coming from a Shaiva family or a Shakta family or something like that, then I would have told them that your Shraddha and Krishna would be seen by giving it all up. But then that causes a huge disruption in their family and eventually that disturbs their Bhakti also. So, you could say in the Indian setup, how do you suggest devotees can reconcile Dharma and Bhakti together? So therefore, if you study all the rituals, whether you are Shaiva, whether you are worshipping Ganesh, whether you are worshipping Kuladevi, for example, I attended one Naga Pooja in South.

You must have heard about Naga Pooja. We always discourage people, Naga Pooja, never do it, just focus on Sankarshan. Lord Balramji is there and it's the truth also.

But when I attended a Naga Pooja in my village, went to my village after 30 years, I wanted to consciously understand what they are doing and what mantras they were chanting. The ultimate conclusion of that Naga Pooja was, they were invoking Shesha, they were invoking Anantnag, they were invoking all the names of Lord Vishnu and even that Naga Pooja was full of begging forgiveness for causing harm to even ordinary living entities. One of the mantra was, if I have ever offended a pregnant bird, made her die, so I beg forgiveness for that.

Is it not Rukomis Goswami said in Bhakti Rasamrishan, one of the 64 items of devotional service is that to be careful even in the ordinary dealings. So therefore, whether it was a Devata Pooja, whether it was a worship of Pitri, you cannot avoid Vishnu because the very definition of Vishnu is all pervading. Very definition of Vishnu is all pervading.

That means even the specific worshippers cannot be directly worshipping Vishnu, but the object that they are actually worshipping is a manifestation of Vishnu. Yeah, their mantras are out there only, but what happened last few hundred years, every sect became exclusivist. The Shaktas had a conflict with the Bengal in Vaishnavas, you know.

In South India, the Dwaita and Advaita had a conflict. You know, this is a very recent two, three hundred years or four hundred years maximum. Otherwise why would you think Lord Chaitanya would go to Meenakshi Devi's temple and had the same devotion? He didn't say, I will not go.

I remember, you know, Babula temple is so close to here. You know, I never went there during Shivaratri also. Not that there is a conscious this thing, but the culture was not there.

When you have your temple, why go there? Right, like whether you are a Vaishnava, like we read in the Chaitanya Charitamrita, Lord Chaitanya went for Madhyanika. Now what is the word Madhyanika? The word Madhyanika has a meaning, word Madhyanika has an activity, word Madhyanika has a legacy and a tradition. Now in English translation, what can Lord, what can Prabhupada do other than say he went to perform noonday duties? Right, but when Kaviraj Goswami is writing Madhyanika, he is basing that word based upon the Vedas.

Madhyanika is nothing but afternoon Sandhyavandan. In Sanskrit, Madhyanika involves not just taking bath in the afternoon, shower bath. Madhyanika involves for a Brahmana, for a Vaishnava or a Sanyasi following all the rules of that Brahmanical principles.

That also Mahaprabhu followed. Pratha means doing all that, Madhyanika means that and Sandhya means doing the same thing. No, we can't use English word to define the Madhyanika.

We have to use Madhyanika to explain what you mean by noonday duties. Krishna in the 10th canto of Bhagavatam. 10th canto of Bhagavatam Krishna, if you read Narad Muni the great devotee is visiting.

What did you see? This is in the Bhagavatam. He worshipped the Devatas. He worshipped the forefathers.

He worshipped the Surya Devata. Read in the 5th canto of the Bhagavatam. When Priyavarath Maharaj was doing different kinds of yagyas, when they invoked the Devatas, he said these are the different limbs of Lord Vishnu.

No, he didn't stop it. He just had a better understanding of it. Even Pruthu Maharaj also, when he is worshipping, he also invokes the Devatas.

Yeah. Respecting them for their position. Now when you said that the sectarian conflicts are relatively recent, and you said the earlier conflicts between Dvaitans and Advaitins, they evolved more at an intellectual level, but the recent conflicts maybe caused a little more social disruption.

So what was the reason? Is it simply the effect of Kali Yuga or is it interaction with other invading cultures and their influence or what made the conflicts more widespread? One thing, therefore the Shastras, the books, the Granthas were not read by anybody and everybody. Now the Granthas are easily available to everybody. A yogya vekti when he reads Grantha, he uses them out of context.

It was always good for them to hear from an evolved soul according to the level of reality. But now because what was available only to few great scholarly people is available on your phone. Just imagine somebody has heard, one who knows Krishna knows everything.

And we start believing that I know Krishna and therefore I know everything and therefore a young 16 year old boy who has become a devotee, he has the audacity to speak ill about the great Shankaracharya. But he does not hear that part, it does not matter whether he is Mayavadi or whatever, he has to be offered respect for his position. Without doing that he is discrediting for his philosophy but does not even address the issue of cultured behavior, lifetime of tapasya, lifetime of worship.

It is not that a Shankara follower, Shankaracharya is all the time thinking I am God, I am God, I am God. First of all the concept of I am God does not come for somebody. Again this whole concept of I am God is very recent because in Brahmavad they said I am Brahman.

So what happened now when they translated that into English, I am Brahman became I am God. That translation itself is so wrong. I am Brahman I can say, I am Brahman Krishna can say, I am Brahman Vishnu can say.

But to say that God has taken a material form that is different. Now wait a minute, so you are saying that I am Brahman to translate as I am God is wrong because Brahman refers generically to spiritual reality to which we also belong and say Krishna also belongs. So they are not actually claiming that I am God in the sense that I am Krishna but rather what they are claiming is that the same Brahman from which all reality emerges, I am that reality.

That is the Brahmavadi but because of the English language all the modern neo-spiritual organizations started saying we are also Krishna, I am Brahman, I became Krishna, I am Brahman, I became Shiva. So this language became so cheap. Otherwise other than specifically connected to some aspect of Mayavad philosophy where it claims that Jiva is Vishnu or Vishnu has acquired a material form.

That becomes problematic. Just like even in one of the Vaishnava sampradaya they have this understanding the souls have also Sattva guna, Rajo guna, Tamo guna. When Lord Krishna killed Putana they say the Putana rakshasi went to the hellish planet and Apsara who was there in Putana she went to the higher realm.

Now they basically kind of somewhere feel I would say the full of knowledge, full of bliss and full of eternality is compromised by this philosophy. There is no concept of Jiva being eternally Rakshas. That goes against the Vedic philosophy.

I was talking to one Vaishnava scholar, he is a Vaishnava only, he said I feel it might have come because the Kerala coast, the first Syrian Christians came from there and they have this concept of eternal condemnation. So the eternal condemnation was some other unconsciously got influenced here. Otherwise how is that a simple principle? In Christianity if I condemn you I will not create a burial for you.

Even if you are my father or mother it doesn't matter. No burial for you. But in Sanatana Dharma after the death of Ravan, Lord Ram told give him final rites.

The final rites whether you are an atheist, whether you are a debauchee, whatever you are, the final rites mantra for a debauchee are also same and the final rites mantra for a Rishi is also all the same. There is no distinction between the two. That's a striking example of say the lack of bhakti not affecting dharma.

So performing the last rites is rituals. So now don't the last rites involve invoking the deity which one is devoted to or that's a specific part but overall rituals are the same? Yeah because then if you are born in a Vaishnava family but became a debauchee, if you become an Asthika then your son or your family member will perform that final rites invoking that specific deity because you are part of that family. Okay so there might be specific variations within the way the ceremony is performed but overall the principle is that the ceremony is to be performed for everyone.

I remember even reading in some World War 1, World War 2 stories how at least initial stages they would actually bury even the opponent soldiers who were killed. Of course later on things became very severe. So now taking this point of you are talking about respecting Shankaracharya for his upasana, for his culture and his sadhana.

So there is this differentiation of devotion and bhakti and dharma. So sometimes we reduce people to their devotional or non-devotional orientation and then we neglect everything else. So that means somebody is a Mayavadi, somebody is an atheist but even they might have dharmic virtues and they might have dharmic virtues more than what we might have also.

So this like looking at only one part of reality, this is we can say that this is although we are claiming to be devotees but actually this is knowledge in the mode of ignorance. Krishna in the 18th chapter says that you look at one thing. So has that also, would you agree with this assessment that when we reduce people to their devotional orientation that is not a proper perception? Therefore I am saying if you read our Shastras, Mahabharata, Ramayana, they are more practical scriptures and even if you take for Bhagavatam for example, you know do you see the segregation of practicing Vaishnavas as against the practicing Shaivites? Forget that.

Krishna on behalf of the Pandavas came to Kauravas and he said let us reconcile. Who is Duryodhana? He is a debauchee. He tried to disrobe Draupadi.

He deserved death penalty. You know the talk given by Krishna to the Kaurava Sabha, even though Vidura told him don't go there, he will not listen to you. He will not listen to you.

He describes the disqualification of Duryodhana. He said he will insult you. But Krishna still goes there to reconcile.

He says you be the king. You rule and the Pandavas will follow you. Give them five villages to rule.

They will separate you but you take over. So he was willing to give that facility for Duryodhana. So you do not find in a regular living because you do not have a separate island.

You are part of this world only. You are all part of this world. Therefore being loyal to your understanding, your Shraddha, therefore I say there are four identities for everybody.

One is a global identity that is called Dharmacentric, universal law. There is a cultural identity which is considered as nation identity which is surrounded by the Himalayan mountains, the different rivers, the holy land. That is a national identity, Rashtriya identity.

And there is a local identity connected to your village, Grama Devi. Now we are going to celebrate Radharani's Radhashtami. Even she had her Kula Devi called as Sheetala Mata.

It is connected to her village Rawal Gram. So every village had her Kula Devi. If you go to Hampi, this was the land of the hardcore Madhvaites eventually.

The Krishnadevaraya, before him, one king Salva Narsinga became a Vaishna, then Krishnadevaraya. Even though they became Vaishna, they did not dismantle the Devatas and Devi temples. In fact they built more also because people were there of different kinds of worship.

So therefore the local worship also involves worshipping a Grama Devi and Grama Devi is worshipped by everybody, offering her respect. That is a local. And the personal, the personal is your Ishtadev, my loyalty for Krishna whom I am fascinated by.

So therefore there is a universal, there is national, there is local and there is personal. What has happened when the personal comes to the forefront with such an aggression, that will create a disruption within your family also. Because you are going with your family, your father, mother, with your personal identity and destroying their good, you know responsible.

What is it? What he has done to me? He has not given me Krishna. So in this way we created a lot of disruption and therefore, again what Krishna is speaking in one sense, consciously or unconsciously, sometime the aggressive spiritualists become cause of Varna Sankarta for a good intention. So you mentioned this earlier, how exactly, what do you mean by Varna Sankarta and how does that result? Because if somebody takes to the path of spirituality in such an aggressive way, giving up everything, so then you depend on the society.

Society has to ultimately provide. So by Varna Sankara you are not referring specifically to like a illicit male-female union leading to some birth. You are just talking about a person who is like a parasite in society.

Yeah, see unwanted children doesn't mean that simply coming because of the illicit activity only. Unwanted children will become burden to the society. No? So Varna Sankara basically means, you could say non-contributive members of society.

Yes, non-contributor, non-contributor of the society. Okay. So now I am just thinking whether there are, you differentiated between say the personal or the devotional identity and the remaining.

So are there any traditional categories or nomenclatures? Like there is the categorization of Paramarthik and Yavaharik and even Jiva Goswami uses those terms in his Andharvas. So can we say that one's devotional aspect is the Paramarthik and everything else is Yavaharik? Yes, absolutely. And in fact, because again, today only one devotee called me, very interesting story, that his mother suddenly passed away.

She was 63 years old and he was broken. He said, Prabhuji, I was so attached to her, I was not able to serve her properly, I wanted to because she always…so this lady born in a family in the coastal area of Karnataka, came from a meat-eater's family but still very, very cultured in regards to worshipping her Vishnu Murthy regularly without fail and when her son became a devotee about 14 years back, instantly she gave up eating meat. Stopped it.

She did not attend even one satsang program because she couldn't manage because she had two other sons who did not become devotee. Her husband was there. They were hardcore meat-eaters.

She tried to communicate. So she was not eating for 14 years. But she cooked for her husband.

She cooked for her son who was practicing spirituality separately. Kept separate pots for them, for both the parties. And all along she would say, you know, I have done my duties properly.

When the son got engaged recently, she told, I will not be there for your marriage. My son was saying, Mummy, what are you talking? She was very strong, very fit. She said, I will not be there for marriage.

And she said, I want to give up my body on Ekadashi day. And every time whenever her son, when he was young, he would go to play, bring his 15 friends and she would cook kudosa for them. Feed them.

She never liked people suffering. She left her body on another Ekadashi, early morning 6.15, massive heart attack. She left her body on the lap of her son.

Son was bewildered. He did not chant the Hare Krishna mantra, but she was very softly, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Radhe Radhe. By saying this, she left her body in his lap.

That was the fruit of a whole life of Dharma. Yeah. You know, it was not institutionalized devotion.

It was a spontaneously raised inner character. And it was fructified. And everybody was shocked.

Just now before this talk, he called me. I was crying, he was crying. And she was so conscious.

She would not, I said, you should have fed me, you know, eating from her hand would be so good. She was conscious, you know, son, I will feed you because you are staying here. I would love to feed your friend devotees, you know, especially those who are staying in the temple.

But you know, we have to cook in our house. It is better that we don't contaminate them. Even though she had a separate kitchen.

So you tell me, you know, I was like crying, you know, this lady, and she would always tell him, beta, I always serve people, I love to serve. But my only pain and fear is that I don't want to take any service from anybody. Till that day, and that was also the day of her son's birthday.

She celebrated her son's birthday. And morning on Ekadashi day, on the day of India's independence, she experienced the greatest independence. Seamless life.

If you see, if you see that kind of background, they need some connection. That's all. So, okay, so I'll, maybe I'll just try to quickly summarize.

And then if you, if there's anything I left out, if you want to add some concluding words, you can do that. So, we discussed today about broadly the topic of preserving dharma while practicing bhakti. And you started right from the Bhagavad Gita, how Krishna focuses on maintaining dharma, and the qualities of the brahmanas, even the qualities of a devotee, qualities of brahmanas don't involve bhakti, qualities of devotees are, he likes those devotees who have dharmic qualities.

And this, this essential difference, like in education, gurukul education, there was personal worship, which was separate, and there was education that was separate. And that was like a universal education provided by everyone. And in the tradition, even if there was a conflict between, say, people who are in position centric, and people who are position centric, because it was all decentralized.

So, everything was resolved organically. And even if there is some organizational structure that is a more of a result of, say, non-Vedic groups getting organized. And even within the organized structures, if there are conflicts, they are more at an intellectual, among intellectuals, but people in general, their faith and their practice was not disturbed.

So, then we talked about how this dynamic of shraddha and shraddha bhakti and dharma plays out in our movement or in our situation. So, in the Western world, when Prabhupada preached, he presumed that people would have basic dharma like mothers caring for their children, but that was not there. And so, dharma was neglected for bhakti and that had severe disruptive consequences.

And even in our life, we as a movement initially. So, you talked about four levels of identities. There is a universal, national, local, and was it familial or personal? Personal.

So, the personal identity is not meant to, the personal spiritual growth is not meant to disrupt the other identity. So, dharma, if you want to define it, you said it is, if we take, we need to give. So, dharma is like contribution, harmonious belonging or contribution to a whole.

And varna sankara or non-dharmic people are those who are non-contributors. So, we end up, if there is a tension between dharma and bhakti, it has to be resolved at an individual level for very great saintly people. Like Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself did not teach grammar, but he did not stop others from teaching grammar.

And for most people, the two need to be reconciled properly. And even Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was a sanyasi. He was practicing bhakti, but still he practiced dharma.

He did not want to touch a woman. So, but sometimes as a movement, we have completely neglected dharma and dharma has universal principles. Say, for example, even the worship of some devata like Naga, there is a principle of Vishnu over there, even if they are not consciously aware of it.

So, by this, by overemphasizing bhakti over dharma, we sort of reduce people to their devotional orientation. And then we may end up disrupting a person as limited as Shankaracharya, disrespecting Shankaracharya, although he is far more cultured and dharmically more virtuous than us. So, then lastly, you talked about investing in people so that they can grow without being disrupted.

And you talked also about that mother who, who might not be practicing institutional bhakti, but her heart was devoted and she departed also in a glorious way. So, if we invest in people, then there will be organic growth, like say, IITs invest in people and then people invest in IITs. Yes, Pragya.

Thank you very much for your, I would say, illuminating at the same time, you could be somewhat agitating. I don't mind. At least we spoke to each other.

Even if you don't have to put anything of this, I'm absolutely okay.