Freeing ourselves from Karma

Podcast: Video:

Hare Krishna everyone. Welcome to our next session on the topic of karma with His Grace Chaitanya Chandra Prabhu.

Very grateful to have him again with us. Hare Krishna Prabhu, welcome. Since he's such a knowledgeable monk and mentor in our community.

So last time we had spoken about karma in a very basic way and Prabhu, you have agreed to kindly recap briefly what we spoke about last time and then we're going to continue on this time building on those concepts because there can be some, you know, confusion and misconceptions specifically around the idea of mercy, compassion in the face of karma. I'm hearing a little bit of an echo. Are you able? Are you listening? Are you hearing the echo as well? Let me see.

Let me just turn off the mic. I'm just going to try that for now. Okay, sorry about that.

Maybe, let me, when I speak, I'll know. Okay, so today we wanted to focus on how to understand karma in an empowering way for us so that we don't kind of lose sight of the goal of karma. Why does karma exist and how to not become a little bit, maybe, jaded by other people's situations in our own situation.

But sometimes we can become a bit apathetic, a bit lacking compassion if we look at everyone with this eye, the lens of karma. Sometimes people criticise this idea of karma as being, oh, well, then that's how the caste system and that's how there's a lot of discrimination. Sometimes it's a misconception and it's perceived like that.

So we're going to peel some layers today. I welcome you, Prabhu, to maybe just recap what we spoke about last time and then start with this idea. Yes, certainly.

Thank you. So broadly, I think we discussed four points last time. That first was that when we talk about karma, what exactly do we mean by it? So karma is sometimes confusing because it can also refer to the action that we are doing, the reaction we are getting and also refer to the system of karma, action, reaction.

And then you can also refer to one particular kind of action where we have karma that is good karma. Then we have weak karma, which is bad karma. We can also have a karma, karma which brings no reactions.

So in that context, then now why do we even need to consider the idea of karma at all? So because we see in the world that we all act to get. Sorry, it's frozen a little bit. But sometimes we don't get the result that we expect, not only the opposite of what we expect.

Am I better now? Clearer? It's come back now. So if we could just maybe repeat that last bit, please. Yeah, so why do we need to even consider karma? Because we all act in the world seeking some results.

And if those results don't come, then naturally it bewilders us. Sometimes we get even the opposite of what we expect. So karma gives us a broader framework to understand things.

So in that connection, we discussed how the reaction, connection between karma and fulfiller is not just one to one correspondence. There is karma plus daiva plus kala will lead to fulfiller. So karma is the action that we do, our endeavours, our duties.

Daiva is destiny, kismet, fate. So just like if a farmer has to plough the land and sow the seeds, that's karma. And the rains have to come in the right time, right quantity.

That's daiva. And then the kala is, we have to wait till the harvesting season comes. Then the crops will come.

Karma, daiva, kala will lead to fulfiller. And then sometimes we may see that I am doing my karma, but I'm not getting the fulfiller. That's because presently daiva is unfavourable.

So accept it. And then we can tolerate it. But this doesn't mean that we don't do our karma at all.

That is, so when Krishna talks about be detached from the fruits of your work, that doesn't mean don't care, don't set goals, don't care for the fruits. It's just that recognise that your karma alone doesn't lead to fulfiller. So don't get so worked up about it.

So one extreme is daivavada, which holds that everything is just time. What is the use of our doing any work at all? The other extreme is karmavada, which is my work alone will produce the results. But we need a balance between the two.

And with that balance, we can move forward more effectively. And then ultimately, we discuss that if we are practising bhakti and turning toward Krishna through bhakti practises, then no matter what our daiva may bring to us, we can find a higher shelter, we can find an anchor. So by our destiny, by our various situations we face, we may actually get a lot of sufferings, which may be like waves coming into us when we are in the ocean.

But if those waves do not sweep us away, then we need an anchor. That's why we say that whatever karma may get us to, Krishna will get us through. Whatever karma may get us to, Krishna will get us through.

Get us through. Beautiful. Thank you so much.

You're well known, world renowned in your ability to be able to concisely and precisely summarise hours long worth of discussion. So thank you so much for summarising so wonderfully the last conversation we had about karma. So recently, there's again, there's been this topic, you know, I'm sure you've heard of Stephen Fry in the UK.

He's a well known atheist. And he has quoted famously that I don't believe in God. But if I ever met him, I would say, how dare you? How dare you put bone cancer in young babies, in children? What, you know, what gives you the right? He's so angry at God, because the conception in especially in Abrahamic religions, maybe you're aware they don't believe in reincarnation, or they don't understand the concept of our own action.

They tend to be, you must accept then the idea that it's kind of God's random arrangement in the beginning of life. When I hear his statement, like this towards God, I realise that's because they don't understand reincarnation. And it's such a sad thing.

Because really, many people, as soon as the suffering comes, we tend to blame God, or someone around us. First thing to do is to so this idea of random chance of some baby being born with terminal disease and so much pain and suffering for no reason, in some sense. That so sorry, I know we're talking about something else.

But right. I understand this is very important. It's good you brought this up.

So, you know, I would respond to something like this. First of all, it's true. It's very painful.

It can raise questions about the basis of fairness in existence. And the idea of a God, a good God will naturally be questioned. So I understand the question is entirely reasonable.

Having said that, that the question is entirely reasonable. We need to move forward a little bit and consider one important point that without, let's say that we say there's no God for argument's sake. That's the Atheist's beginning premise.

That Atheism begins with there's no God. And then we talk about why bad things happen to good people. Or why innocent babies who have done nothing are suffering.

Okay. And the question comes as that. Why? Let's turn the question around.

Let's assume there is no God. Why should bad things not happen to good people? Right. If it was just completely random chance.

Right. That's a very fair question. Why would we even have that question? Why would we even have that question? So the very fact that we have an innate sense of fairness.

And to a significant extent, things do work fairly. I'm not saying always. But overall, we can reasonably say that if somebody comes as somebody has a car accident, it could be that some drunk driver drove over them.

It could also be that they drove irresponsibly. It could be that. So generally speaking, there is some cause effect connection that we know.

So most of the times, we are able to see cause effect causal connections. And that is why when we are not able to see it, that appears so objectionable to us. So what we do is, we need to expand our framework.

So this is a little scientific because as you quoted Stephen Fry, I will use this example. In the history of science, when Newton came up with the law of gravity and the laws of motion, that seemed to be the bedrock foundation of physics. And now we'll be able to explain the whole universe with that.

But then as science started going deeper and deeper at the microscopic level and to subatomic particles, and as we started going further and further to the universal level, macrocosmic level, at both levels, Newton's laws didn't work. Fundamental particles don't follow Newton's laws. And celestial objects don't follow Newton's laws.

So now did scientists say because of that, that, oh, Newton's laws don't work. We don't reject Newton's laws. So what happened is, they tried to expand the framework within which Newton's laws are like a special case.

So Newton's laws do work at a particular level. But when they don't work, we don't reject the theory. We expand the theory.

So now Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity. And within that, Newton's laws are considered to be a subset. They work at our normal observational level.

Very small and very big levels, they don't work. So similarly, at a normal level, we do see, you know, if, say, if any mother has a kid who comes back home and the kid, the clothes are very dirty. What were you doing? No, they just became dirty by chance.

No, we don't function like that. Nobody can function like that for them. It's such a good point.

It's like, so we do accept cause of a connection. And when cause of a connection doesn't make sense for us, that time we reject cause of a connection. Okay, Stephen Fry may say that what kind of God will do that? But then is he ready to accept the point that there is no cause of a connection at all? They say, no.

Then we say, no, no, there is a cause of connection. Science talks about cause of connection. But science doesn't talk about human experiences.

Science can't explain, literally speaking, science can't explain why a particular person has bone cancer. Can you go back into genetics and say, okay, this child was born with this one? Sometimes you can't find anything in the parents also. Why did this person get it? Genetically, see, there are many, we can have broad explanations of why a particular disease comes.

Okay, this is the cause of the disease, and this is the cure for it. But why did this disease come to this person and not to this person? In the same house, with the pandemic going on in the same house, there'll be five people and three people get infected. One of them gets very severely infected.

One of them gets lightly infected. Two people don't get infected. Why the difference? So I'm not saying that science doesn't offer us an explanation, it does.

But it doesn't explain all the observable data exhaustively. So we need a broader framework. So what happens is the broader framework is from the perspective of karma, that there is cause-effect correlation, and there's a significant amount of cause-effect correlation in our observation.

But there is some amount of cause-effect correlation that may go beyond our observation. It's just like when a child, let's say a child has a, the parents have a garden, the child is sowing something in the garden. Now, if you show grains, you can see the grains coming up within three, four months.

But if they sow a mango tree or a mango seed, that may take 20 years to give mangoes, depending on which part of the world we are in, which kind of mangoes they are. So now something comes in two months, something takes 20 years. In both cases, seeds are being sown, but the time frame will vary.

So similarly, our actions lead to results, but they may have a different time frame. So, okay, if we, let's say that, no, no, this is just, you can't explain one thing. So you have come up with another explanation.

You can't explain this, like there are, often the atheistic argument is that to explain one unexplainable, you come up with another thing, which is also not explainable. How do you know this is true? Let's see what options do we have for explaining, say, such inequities as terrible disease in small children. See, one option is chance.

It's just random. Now, if it's just random, hardly anyone functions like that. One of us functions that everything is random.

If everything were random, science itself would not function because science presumes there is cause and effect. And we try to find the cause and cause of the correlation. It's a basis of scientific technique.

Exactly. So that's the first thing. It is a chance.

Now, nobody functions like that in real life. And if it were chance, what does it mean? Basically, the universe is reduced to a lottery. And some people are just the lucky winners, and some people are the unlucky losers.

And that's all there is. So this is actually a very, very gloomy way of living. And what happens is, if we accept this view of living, the sufferings of life are still there.

They're not going to go away, whether I'm an atheist or I'm a theist. The sufferings are still there. Atheism does not remove the sufferings of life.

It only removes the hope that the sufferings have some purpose. Beautiful point. It does not remove the sufferings.

Either way, if my child has cancer, some terrible disease, they have the disease, whether I'm an atheist or atheist. But at least if I have some faith in God, then I have some hope that maybe the suffering has some purpose. I don't know what the purpose is, but at least the hope is there.

In atheism, there is no hope. So that's one thing. It's a huge point.

Very, very powerful point. Go on. So somebody said, no, actually, you're just being utopian.

There is no hope. You're imagining hope where there is no hope. OK, that could be possible.

But as I said, we don't function like that. We always try to look for cause and effect connections everywhere. That's how science developed.

That's how we normally function in everyday life. That's how we look for accountability in our relationships. So to say that what is happening is meaningless, how it becomes like that is if we accept this, no, it's all random.

It's like science posits, science often accuses religion. Why do you do this irrational ritual? Why do you do this? Why do you do that? Why do you worship this deity? Why do you do that? But then what happens is what is the end result of the atheistic worldview? Now, I'm not equating science with atheism. Science is simply a tool for learning about reality.

And currently, science is largely run by people who are atheists. Not entirely. And that's why science is sometimes seen as a tool for atheism.

But science and atheism are two different things. So all that, what I'm saying is, again, science is saying that atheism is a school, it's a philosophy, it's ideology. And science is a tool which atheists are prominently using.

So the problem here is that when we say that, we say, okay, this ritual doesn't make sense, that ritual doesn't make sense. Okay. But within the atheistic worldview, ultimately nothing makes sense.

Life itself doesn't make sense. We are born, we exist for some time, we struggle through life, and then we die. Absolutely.

Even atheists are very, very proud of scientific discovery, scientific advancement. See, we understood this, and we understood that, and we understood that. So it's like, we're proud of finding small islands of meaning while drowning in an ocean of meaninglessness.

Right. An ocean of meaninglessness. It's such irony.

It's so ironical. Yeah. So that's the atheistic worldview.

So yes, we may not be able to make sense of some things, but we have innate hunger for meaning. And atheism certainly doesn't. Atheism may offer us some islands of meaning, but ultimately we drown in the ocean of meaninglessness.

What theism offers us is, theism does tell us, yeah, there are some areas, you could say they are like marshes, where it's of meaninglessness. But theism says, ultimately there is land, and you can go toward that land. So we could say the atheistic worldview is islands of meaninglessness with within an islands of meaning within an ocean of meaninglessness.

The theistic worldview is, you could say, a vast landmass of meaning with some patches of meaninglessness. I can't make sense of this. I can't make sense of that.

I can't say that. But overall, atheism says, yes, the universe is orderly. Right.

But within this, we need to qualify. See, what happens is the mainstream theistic worldview in today's world comes from the Abrahamic religions. And the Abrahamic religions, they generally don't accept reincarnation.

And because of that, what happens is, these kind of cases where a small child is born with terrible diseases, they're just unexplainable. You can say that, oh, it is God's will and it is God's justice. One of my friends was, what happened was, that when he says, why does God do something like this? Small children suffering.

So he said, God's justice is different from ours. It was the answer he got from his priest. And then he said, OK, God's justice may be different from ours, but it should be better than ours, not worse than ours.

Not worse than ours. It should be better than ours. Exactly.

That small child is suffering helplessly. What kind of justice is that? So in that sense, even in the Christian tradition, there's a book of Old Testament, there's a book of Job. But Job is a person who goes through a lot of suffering.

But ultimately, even God doesn't give an answer. Why is he suffering? Because without considering previous lives, it's very difficult to explain. It's not possible.

I'll give a metaphor to illustrate this point. I'll give a metaphor. Cricket is quite popular in India as well as in England.

So suppose there's a cricket match going on. And somebody looks at the scoreboard and they see, hey, we just started this match. But this team's score is 0 for 7. There's 0 runs and 7 wickets out.

What's going on? Starting itself or this team's score is already 200. And it's starting only. This doesn't make sense.

So the scoreboard seems to be independent of the match being played. Exactly. The match has not started and still there is an arbitrary bias in the scoreboard.

This doesn't make sense. Nobody would accept it. This team just came into bat and their score is already 200.

How does that happen? So one explanation could be that the scoreboard is just working by chance. Whatever comes up over there. That could be one explanation.

The second, this is the atheistic theory. Irrespective of how we are functioning, this life seems to be working randomly. Hmm.

The other is that this team just came into bat, but the score was so good for this team and the score was so bad for this team. You could say the scorekeeper is arbitrary. There is a scorekeeper, but the scorekeeper is arbitrary.

Where the scorekeeper arbitrarily favours some people and disfavors some people. The third explanation could be that this is a test match and this is a second innings going on. Right.

Leftover. If one team in the beginning has a 200 lead, that could be because the team has batted before earlier. Earlier better.

Exactly. So some people, they are born with very comfortable situations. Some people are born with terrible situations.

Like the starting score is different. So we have three explanations. One is chance.

The other is, you could use the word divine caprice or divine arbitrariness. Absolutely. I have to believe that God arbitrarily decides.

This child will be born sick. This child will be born healthy. This child will be born poor.

This child will be born wealthy. It is good. If the only choices were between arbitrary chance and arbitrary God.

Many people will choose arbitrary chance. Because it's like the movie, I'm sure, I'm sure probably you don't know about this movie, but in the Avengers, Thanos, he's the main God. Arbitrarily decides, I'm going to kill off half the population because there's too many people.

And he's the most powerful God. I'm just going to kill them randomly. And that's his.

And when you see that, clearly, he's the bad guy. He's the bad guy in the movie. The whole world is fighting against this maniac God that would do this.

You know, so leaving, like, I like your point of saying that chance, random chance is more preferable than a random God. Yes, because at least I don't have to worship chance. And once God is random, and then I am expected to devote myself to that random God.

Exactly. Why would I do that? These are the only two options that atheism would be a natural logical choice. Exactly.

Her understanding is that this is a second innings. Or you can say it's not a second, multiple innings. In cricket, you don't have multiple innings.

But in our soul's journey, there are multiple innings. So because of this, if we have to see the most sensible explanation, or you could say the most pragmatically empowering explanation, that, okay, why did I get a child like this? I could say that, oh, I'm just unlucky. That's one way of looking at it.

I could say this is just God is angry with me. Well, okay. This is okay.

Maybe, maybe there's something from the past life's karma, which has to be clear. And at least what this karma philosophy does is that it gives me, it tells me to some extent, at least the reins of the chariot of my life are in my hands. It's empowering.

I may have been, yeah, it's empowering. Yes. Yes.

So, okay. Maybe I did something negative in the past because of which I got some negative results. But if I choose wisely now, if I act positively now, I can create a better future.

Otherwise, the other times will go against me and I'll be ruined. Or maybe God will go against me and I'll be ruined. So in that sense, let's put the past aside.

We look at the future itself. All of us have to live, go on with life, irrespective of whatever situations come in our life. So from a purely pragmatic perspective, which is the worldview that is most empowering for us? Which is the worldview? Is it that everything is by chance? If a child is going to school and you tell the child that the child has got very poor marks, you continue studying hard, but you know the kind of marks you get, it'll be by chance only.

How much you study is not going to matter. You study very hard, but you know the teacher is biassed. The teacher is open-minded.

Whatever marks the teacher gives, that will be independent of your studies. Right. Why would the child study? Exactly.

So, I wouldn't go so far as to say that, no, karma is the best explanation or the most satisfactory explanation. It is very difficult when a person is going through that pain of some terrible injustice coming in our lives. But what I would say is that, ultimately, this problem which is called philosophy in circles is a problem of evil.

No, we never have a completely satisfactory explanation for this. But what we can have is the least unsatisfactory explanation. Hmm.

It's wonderful. Somebody's going through suffering like that. Somebody has a child like that.

Just say that it is because of karma. Okay. To some extent, it might be intellectually satisfying.

Okay. Maybe it's like that. But still, emotionally, the heart will still be hurt.

Heart will still be pained. Right. So, I won't say that this is like a magic wand which explains everything.

But at least you can say, even if somebody doesn't find the explanation fully coherent, among the options available, we can definitely say this is the least unsatisfactory explanation. Wonderful. And it's a great segue into the next part of the question that we already explained before that karma, at least it has a purpose.

And, you know, you're saying it's not just karma. It's not just your action. It's also deva and kala.

And then finally, you get the result. So, you're saying it's not a complete explanation of everything that we see. The reality that we perceive is not simply A to Z karma.

You know, so it's, so how can we? Yeah. Yeah, it's not just A to Z karma. It is that we may not know the A, we may never come to know the A to Z of karma.

Right. But that doesn't mean it is not a… Sorry, you're back. There's a small lag.

One of the common questions that people ask. Okay. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you.

But the screen, the video keeps… It's frozen, is it? Okay. Now it's fine. Is it better now? Yeah.

Okay, thank you. So, if you look at when I said that it's not all karma, that's not exactly what I meant. What I meant was that because we do not know the details of what a particular person did in a particular life.

So in that sense, at our level of cognition, it's not a complete explanation. But in one sense, we are finite beings and we have to work with the information that we have. In fact, this is one of the existential predicaments of humanity that we have to constantly take big decisions on finite information.

You could even say insufficient information. So right now we are facing the pandemic. Now, which medicines will work for the pandemic? Is the vaccine going to work or not? Is a booster shot going to work or not? Do we need vaccines for the children? We just don't… It's such a crisis that we don't have time to do the exhaustive research, keep time for multiple years and then come to a decision.

For that matter, so many areas in our life, say if somebody decides to get married, how much can you really know about the other person before you get married? When you choose a career, how much can we know about that career? We say this career is very promising right now. But maybe five years down the line, by the time I graduate, this career may not be that promising. So in general, in no area of life, do we ever get a comprehensive explanation for everything? So in science, this is called the problem of resolution.

The problem of resolution means that how precise is the information that I need for functioning? For functioning in my life, say if my car is showing this car speed is, I'm moving at, say, 70 miles per hour. So now, is it okay if it is 70.0001? If I had a metre which was going to show me 70.0001, how big would the metre be? And then at what resolution do I stop? So, you know… Is there a purpose for it, right? Yeah, so it's like, how do you put it that? No, we evaluate a particular design in terms of its purpose. That means the purpose of my speedometer on the car is not to give me a precise speed down to maybe 10 decimals below zero after the point.

Okay, I just don't want to go beyond the speed limit. I want to make sure that I have control over my car. So like that in every area of life, we operate with a certain level of information.

Nobody can have complete comprehensive information of anything at all. So that's just the reality of our existence. So similarly, with respect to karma, we don't have a complete understanding of say, which action, which life led to which particular positive or negative situation in this life.

But overall, we understand some principles. And those principles can empower us. That's really a good point, even for me to hear.

You know, many times you try to listen to even Bhagwat stories, even Hindu scriptural stories, you'll hear stories that this happened in this life, and then this happened in the next life. And sometimes you think, it maybe doesn't match up to our expectation of what it's meant to be. It doesn't seem balanced sometimes.

And it's nice to reflect on this, that karma is not fully graspable. It's not meant to be that we dissect every single angle to the minutiae so that we can feel satisfied in ourselves that, oh, yes, now it all balances out perfectly. So it's an important acceptance in life to, it's almost like a bit of humility that, OK, we have to accept that there's some explanation, maybe not the complete explanation.

And maybe that can help us into the next phase of this conversation on how to then, therefore, remove ourselves from just being able, blindly or maybe apathetically stating that everything is because of your karma. Usually, we kind of box people in according to their karmas. And the tendency can be to become a little bit, you know, uncompassionate, unkind, apathetic.

So it's very, very, an issue that I find that some people would find as a criticism of this karmic theory. Agreed, agreed. That's, unfortunately, that has happened.

But we need to always separate, see, the philosophy from its application, not separate completely, but we can't always evaluate the merits of a philosophy by evaluating the ways in which it has been applied. If that were the sole criteria, then you can say that, why not apply to science? Why not apply to technology? Say, we can say WhatsApp is used to incite riots. The internet is used to, internet was used by terrorist organisations to spread hate.

Social media causes people to commit suicide. Yeah. Yeah.

So do we evaluate the merit of the technology based on its performance itself? We never do that. You know, if we say that, say, if we had not invented the weapons of mass destruction, or even technologically advanced weapons, neither World War I or World War II would have been that bad. Right.

Even terrorists, say, in 9-11, they attacked the, they brought down the twin towers. If we didn't have that, if we didn't have aeroplanes, they wouldn't have been able to bring down the twin towers. Right.

So we never blame technology. We say, no, it's the ideology of the people who did those things. We didn't blame the Nazis.

We didn't, we blame religious extremism, whatever it is. So technology is a tool. How you apply a tool is up to people.

So similarly, ultimately, philosophy is also a tool. You can have the most meaningful philosophy, which can be applied in the most self-serving way. The most meaningful philosophy, the most, say, for example, medical knowledge.

Medical knowledge can actually do so much good to people. But sometimes, especially when medical knowledge mix with the pharma industry, then they may not let certain cures, which are cheap and widely available, spread. Right.

Because that will interrupt their money. So does that make medicine itself bad? Does that mean medical industry itself bad? Not necessarily. So similarly, yes, let's look at the karma philosophy and then look at how it is being applied.

So one misapplication could be that when a person is a victim, person is suffering, and you just tell them that you are suffering because of your past karma. Just accept it and live with it. Now, yes, that could be an application.

But is this kind of application ever done in the scriptures? If you look at it, if you look at the Mahabharata, Draupadi is grievously dishonoured by Duryodhana, by Karna, by Dushasan. Now, after that whole incident, does anyone tell Draupadi? Sorry, you've frozen again. There is a very important balancing point.

Can you hear me? Sorry, I lost you there in the middle. Just if you could repeat the last sentence. I said that nobody says when Draupadi is suffering that it's her karma.

Because within that same tradition, there is the philosophy of karma, but there is also an emphasis on dharma. Dharma is duty, the right thing to do. So whenever somebody is suffering, at that time, the emphasis is not on what was their karma because of which they are suffering.

The emphasis is on what is my dharma in the situation. Right. Wow.

It is my dharma that is important. And that is why, say, when Sita is abducted, Ram doesn't think, oh, it was Sita must have done some bad karma because of which she's abducted. She thinks that what is my dharma right now? She's my wife.

I have to protect her. So he goes and wages a war. And then we hear many incidents in the Ramayana of the Mahabharata when citizens come and complain to the king, oh, these thieves are robbing us.

This injustice is happening. The king doesn't tell the citizens, your own karma. Very good point.

If the king started saying that, then the king would be failing in their own dharma. So there are two things. So in one sense, I always say that the philosophy is karma is not for post-mortem.

It is for prognosis. Not for post-mortem means not when something has happened, you look back, OK, what must this person have done because of which they got this. Wow.

Good point. Never talk in those terms. It's not meant to be talked in those terms.

So if you consider in the Vedic tradition, it said that five kinds of people need to be protected. So the children need to be protected. The elderly need to be protected.

The cows need to be protected. Women need to be protected. And the saintly people, the Brahmana need to be protected.

Now, each of these, they are very important for society. But each of these, they have certain vulnerabilities. So old people, their bodies are weak.

They cannot protect themselves. Now you could use the same philosophy and say, oh, you have become old because of your own karma. So why protect them? Why is there a duty to protect at all? So it is not karma is somebody else's karma is never meant to justify my abandonment of my dharma.

Wow. And if you see that that way, Indian culture was always known for hospitality. That even when the European colonisers came to India before that, when Islamic people who came later became invaders, they were always warm and welcoming.

And the idea was that nobody should go hungry. I'm not saying the Indian culture was extremely exceptional in that. In the past, across various cultures also, the welcoming attitude was there.

But the point I was making, Indians could say, if you are hungry and you're starving, it's your own karma. You'd never think like that. I've lost you again, bro.

What is my dharma right now? What is my dharma right now? I'm really sorry about this. No, I'm sorry. It could be mine.

Can you hear me now? Yeah, you're back. Okay, good. Thank you.

So the emphasis on karma is never to abandon one's dharma. That's a very important principle. So if somebody has applied it like that, that is a terrible misapplication.

That is not how it is meant to be. It is not meant to make us heartless. There are many examples of kings who are ready to sacrifice even their own lives to protect citizens.

So that's the understanding. It's not meant to be a misapplication. So I like what you said about it.

It's a tool for prognosis and not for postmortem, meaning we don't use it as like, what you've done in the past. Now it's your fault. So just bear it.

Don't complain. Don't be a burden to me. Essentially saying, don't tell me what to do and how to help you.

So if we could just maybe expand a little bit more about on the prognosis part. So then how can we feel more empowered? Okay, so prognosis part. See, there's one part I will say about this karma, that individual, when they face a terrible situation, they may say, oh, it must be some karma I've done in the past because of which I'm suffering.

So there is a certain level of acceptance of the unavoidable that is required for all of us. So take the same example of a citizen who comes and tells, say, in the Mahabharata for the Pandavas, Brahmana says, I've been robbed. What are you Kshatriyas doing? You're not protecting me.

So if a citizen is being robbed by the king, or robbed by thieves, and the citizen comes to the king, and the king needs to endeavour to catch the thief and get the things back. But if sometimes the thief just runs away and the king cannot catch it, then that person can accept, okay, maybe this was my own karma, let me accept it. So that means after we have done our dharma, if something doesn't work, that time we can accept, okay, this is, let me accept this as my karma from the past.

Say, if a mother has a child who is crying, now, would any mother anywhere, even the mother has complete faith in the philosophy of karma, will the mother say, oh, this child is crying because of the child's own past karma. Let the child keep crying. No, nobody will do that.

Obviously not, why? The mother thinks, what is my dharma? What is my duty right now? Now the mother will do everything to comfort the child, if the child is sick, to cure the child. But sometimes the child may be having some disease, which will take some time to cure. It will take some time to diagnose also for that matter.

So at that time, after the parents have done their part, after the parents have done their part, then if the disease is not being cured, the child is still in distress, then they can accept, maybe there is some karma over here, let me accept this. So just saying everything is karma, that way you can say, why would the Vedic tradition even develop the whole system of Ayurveda? Everybody who falls sick, falls sick because of their past karma. So let everybody suffer their karma.

But they've developed one of the most sophisticated systems of medicine in the world. Ayurveda is becoming more and more recognised now. As non-intrusive with the powerless side effects.

So why would this be developed at all? So that's the part of this. For after we have done our part, if sometimes things don't come about, then we can say it's karma. We do our dharma after that, but not before that.

It goes back to the prognosis part. I like this point a lot. So I just want to restate it, that it comes back to the point you said earlier, that out of the three choices, if you consider it random chance, or arbitrary God, it's the last one, accepting that there's something like karma, in the final stages after we've done our dharma, if we accept the idea of karma, then it becomes empowering.

Because in that state, like you're saying, if the mother is seeing the child still crying after everything they've done, if there's no logical explanation that is to be accepted in our consciousness, then it's very disempowering. But if at that point, when we're going through something, regardless of all of our efforts to avoid that suffering, if at that point, we can really surrender and understand, okay, maybe previously I did something, and now how can I get out of that? That is an empowering state to be in. And I like that we kind of connected the two.

It's like that story about Dharmaraj, the bull in Bhagavatam, that's very famous. You know, three legs are chopped off. And how he goes on to say that, maybe it's this thing, maybe it's kala, maybe it's this, maybe he's never saying that, oh, this person, he doesn't point the finger at the person who's chopping off his legs.

Yes. See, that is a beautiful metaphor. I was going to come to that later.

So you anticipated what I was going to say. Beautiful. No, no, good, good.

We are thinking very similarly then. So the point I was making is that, see, in that, this incident is what Maharaj Parikshit hears, that Kali's influence is spreading across his kingdom. He starts going out as a vigilant king to see.

And then he comes to a place where there's a person dressed in black who is beating a cow and beating a bull, has broken three legs of the bull and is harassing a cow. At one level, this whole conversation can seem absurd. Because when Parikshit Maharaj comes, he asks, oh, bull, what is the cause of your suffering? Now the bull couldn't, can't you see this man is beating me? Isn't it obvious to you? So this is an obvious question.

So why are you asking such a question to me? So first of all, he doesn't ask like that. And he doesn't even say, you know, this is the person who caused this. He goes into a philosophical explanation.

And he says, actually, the cause of suffering is very difficult to understand. So the Bhagavatam is actually, so he, Bhagavatam is actually analysing causality at multiple levels. So the immediate causality is obvious.

The immediate causality is this man is causing it. So after the bull says, oh, I don't know what causes it. Now Parikshit Maharaj doesn't say, okay, so Kali, you didn't cause it.

You can go and do whatever you want. He still disciplines Kali. He's about to punish Kali.

So he says to the bull, that is wisdom. You must be Dharmaraj, because you have the wisdom to see beyond the immediate cause. That is your wisdom.

But he doesn't dismiss the immediate cause and say, okay, you are not responsible. He is ready to punish you and kill Kali. Sorry, it's breaking up, Prabhu.

So I'm just going to repeat what I think I'm hearing. Yes, it broke up in the middle of it. Well, so what I heard is that you're saying that Maharaj Parikshit doesn't just say that, well, I forgive Kali for doing this atrocious action.

He's saying that that is your wisdom, that you are able to see more causality than just this one action that's happening now. And maybe that's empowering. So that's why he calls him Dharmaraj.

You must be Dharmaraj, because you're working on a much deeper level of philosophy than just this immediate action that's taken against you. Yes, exactly. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, perfect.

Perfect. So when we talk about the philosophy of karma, we are not blind to the immediate cause. Can you hear me? Yeah.

We are not blind to the immediate cause, but neither are we blinded by the immediate cause to everything else. The two extremes. I don't see the immediate cause at all, or I see only the immediate cause, and I don't see anything else.

So causality itself is a little complicated. I'll give a simple example to illustrate this from daily life. Can I share my screen? You're okay? So this is, you can call it the frame of reference in which we position situations.

So let's consider an event. The event is, say, this is actually, I had attended a seminar on, I participated in a conference on spirituality and mental health. So one girl in America, she had told the story of how she went into depression.

So there's one evident incident that happened to her, that she was studying in university, and she was also waiting tables to get some money by the way, by the side. So she was serving a client, and the glass slipped from her hand. This was the event.

Oh, no, that glass slipped out of my hand. Now, this simple event can be explained in various ways. Why did the glass slip? Okay.

You know, the glass had just been washed, and washed glasses are slippery. So in the future, let me be careful. If the glass had just come from the sink, then I should make sure that it is dry.

So that could be one cause. So then another cause could be that, okay, that customer screamed at me, and that disturbed me, and that's how the glass slipped out of my hand. Some customers are like that, I shouldn't get too disturbed by that.

That could be another explanation. Why did the glass, maybe the customer's misbehaviour had agitated me. The third could be I was walking along this area, the floor was slippery over there.

So next time when I walk around the area, I have to be careful, or I should get this, I should ask the manager to get this floor fixed. The floor is uneven over there. Or it could be that, you know, okay, I'm not particularly handy at physical work.

Maybe if I need a job, I have to look at something else. So now which of these explanations is useful? It depends on context. Simple and simple like slipping of a glass from a hand.

So she told, she was telling how, if we choose a long frame of reference, actually, this was my explanation after she gave her talk that, she said that at that time, she started thinking, if I can't carry even a glass of water, how am I going to manage my life? I'm a worthless person. Oh, Krishna. How many of us have actually had a glass of water slip from our hands? Probably everyone.

How many of us thought that my life is useless because of that? That is a very unhealthy frame in which to place that incident. So the idea is every incident can be placed in different frames, in different frames. Frames means, by frame I mean a cause effect connection, a causal window, a cause effect window.

Why did the glass slip from my hand? Because I'm an incompetent fool. That's a very unhealthy explanation. Basically, there are many boxes and in many ways, when people have mental health problems, they are placing the events of their life in unhealthy boxes.

In unhealthy boxes. So if somebody has a breakup, and then they just sink into depression. Well, that might happen because, they would think because of that one breakup, I think nobody's going to love me.

I'm unloveable. I'm going to be alone for the rest of my life. Okay.

Does that have to be the explanation that you have to resort to? Maybe the two of us didn't get along together. Maybe there's something for me to learn, but that doesn't make me unloveable. If there's something I need to learn more.

So basically, this itself is a big subject of mental health. But the point I'm making is, that one sign of mental health is to be able to place events in the most constructive frame of reference. To find the most constructive causal explanation for an event.

Now, which of these are true? Well, many could be true. The glass was slippery. Even the customer had screamed at me.

The floor was uneven. And I am not suited for physical work so much. All of these could be true.

But right? I've lost you again. Which is the most constructive explanation for me? So which is the explanation I can act on right now? That is the most constructive explanation. So similarly, with respect to karma, karma basically is meant to give us one more causal framework in which to place the events.

But that should never be the only framework. That should not be the only framework in which you put the events. If we start doing that, then that will be injurious.

And that is not the, you could say almost, if somebody is doing that, that is not the problem of the philosophy of karma. We could say that is almost the problem of the mental health of that person. It is a sign of mental health, mental ill health.

Place events in a disempowering framework. Disempowering framework. So if, is this point, I hope I made it clear.

I really appreciate it. Because it's actually tying in so many little ends that we may not actually connect. Because just like in the earlier example that you gave of a mother and a child crying, if in that moment she says, I'm just a useless mother, or she starts feeling ill feelings towards a child, this child is such a burden, you know, it's giving me so much.

It's all about framework. Understanding the wisdom in that moment is so crucial for our mental health, for our experience of reality itself. And that's, I can appreciate that back to the story of Dharmaraj and Parikshit Maharaj.

That the most empowering situation would be to say, okay, what can I do? What can I do to change the situation? Because this other person is not going to change. Yes. That I find really empowering.

If it's okay, if we can move into how the title of today was freeing ourself from karma. You know, so if we can maybe highlight that, is there an escape? Because in one hand, yes, it's empowering to kind of fix bad situations. But on the other hand, action also gives us joy and pleasure.

So karma itself is, is, you know, responsible for our happiness and our distress. So why is this? There's this idea that we have to free ourselves of karma itself. Why is it said that it's binding? Yeah, good point.

So karma is actually natural for us. So why do we have to free ourselves from karma? So here we have to, you know, again, I said there are two meanings of the word karma. Karma is action and karma is reaction.

So we were saying free ourselves from karma. It doesn't mean give up all action. It means free ourselves from the reactions of karma.

So act in a way that we won't get entangled by further reactions. The two are really different. So it's not that we give up karma entirely.

That's just not possible. Like some people say, you do no work. Just give up all work.

But actually, even if you give up all work, they're still thinking. They're still, our brains are working, our bodies are digesting food. Nobody can give up work entirely.

Somebody said give up all desires. Well, even wanting to give up all desires is also a desire. Very powerful desire.

So we can't do that in one sense. So it's more of, you could say, freeing ourselves from karma means it's a more a matter of alignment or purification. Purification or alignment.

The two are very similar. Alignment means we are all parts of a reality far bigger than ourselves. And each of us has our part to play within that bigger picture.

With that bigger reality. And to the extent we are aligned with that bigger picture, with that bigger purpose, to that extent, we become free from karma. What does it mean free from karma? Free from karma means we are not culpable for our actions.

So first we'll talk on an extreme example. Then we come to ordinary examples. That say, if somebody breaks the traffic rules and they go through above the speed limit or they go break through when there is a red signal, they are culpable.

They're culpable. They'll be punished. But suppose somebody is an ambulance driver and they are having an emergency.

Now what is happening is, if they are rushing, they may even go above the speed limit, they may even break through the red signal and they will not be punished for that. Because that ambulance driver is not just, it's their own desire. I just want to have fun and go very fast.

Even ambulance drivers, they have rules. You cannot just flout all the rules if you don't have an emergency patient. For normal drivers, you cannot break the rules.

But when they are working as a part of something bigger than themselves, then the normal rules may not apply. Then they are not culpable. Now that doesn't mean that they neglect and reject the rules.

It is just that they're not culpable. They are not held guilty. So the traffic rules are important and traffic rules are to be followed.

But if one is fulfilling a bigger purpose, then one doesn't become implicated by karma. So similarly, the idea is that we are all parts of Krishna. And if we start doing our work in a mood of service to Krishna, so then whatever we do, that will not lead to karmic bondage.

That will not lead to karmic implications. So we could say that the three levels of working with respect to traffic, I mentioned this last time, that I just drive along the road and I don't care for the traffic rules at all. I'm soon going to get in trouble.

For some time, I might escape. I saw once a cartoon that the person was speeding way above the limit. And then the cop pulled him over and said, didn't you see the speed limit sign? This person says, I saw the sign.

I just didn't see you. So that means sometimes if you say that there's nobody watching me, I can bring the speed limit and go. Well, you can go for some time, but eventually you'll get caught.

So that way, somebody may break the traffic rules for some time, but sooner or later, they'll get caught. So breaking the traffic rules itself is weak karma. It is karma which will give us bad results.

Then working according to the traffic rules is karma. That is, yes, I'm going to whatever destination I want to go, but I'm following the traffic rules and going. Then the government is not going to interfere with us.

The government will in one sense facilitate the maintenance of the roads are good. But the government is not going to assist us. But if somebody is working in the medical industry and they're an ambulance, they're working on behalf of the government, then even the normal rules may be suspended.

So there is weak karma, there is karma, and there is a karma. So a karma is action that does not produce any reaction. And that is like a doctor, ambulance driver working.

They may temporarily go beyond the traffic rules for a higher purpose. The Gita encourages us from wherever we are to rise higher. So from weak karma, we come towards karma.

From karma, we go towards a karma. A karma means so at one level, Arjuna could fight because I'm a Kshatriya and I need a kingdom to rule. And these people have stolen my kingdom.

I had to get the kingdom back. If he fought at that level, he would still be right. He would be doing karma.

We're doing karma. But the Gita guided Arjuna to fight. Not just you have to gain your kingdom.

Actually, Krishna says, I have come here to this world to establish dharma. And you be my instrument. Nimitta matram bhava saubhe sachi.

In 1133, Arjuna said, you become my instrument. So your purpose is not just to make Yudhishthira the king. Your purpose is not just to gain re-entry into the royal palace.

After gaining your entry there, your position there, you will work for my behalf. You will serve me. You will be a part of my mission for bringing about order in the world.

So if somebody works like that, then it is a karma. So broadly speaking, if we are to become free from the bondage of karma, it is best we move toward a karma. Now, karma means we work, whatever work we are doing in our lives, professional, familial, social, we do it in a mood of service to Krishna.

Now, how exactly we can re-conceptualise or re-execute our various roles in society, our various… Okay, sorry. So… Sorry, I lost you again. Can you hear me now? Yeah.

Can you hear me now? Yes. So I was saying that how we can re-conceptualise all our work, how we can do all our work as a form of service to Krishna, that is taught in bhakti yoga. And bhakti yoga involves learning from a guru, learning from the association of sadh, Vaishnavas, of devotees, bhaktas.

Satsang is very important. But that is broadly speaking, becoming free from karma means to work as a seva to Krishna, to work in a mood of service to Krishna. That is the ultimate we can become free from karma.

And broadly, by aligning with the rules of morality and legality, we can at least become free from vikarma. So vikarma to karma, we can come by following the broad rules of morality. And from karma to akarma, we can come by practising bhakti.

So one might question that, do we need God to become free from karma? Like why would God have created a system in which we get bound up? Yeah, good question. Do we need karma, God to become free? See, God reciprocates with our desires. So ultimately, the world is created for us to have facility for fulfilling our desires.

We have various desires and the world is created for fulfilling those desires. So imagine it's like a vast amusement park. And in each amusement park, there are children who are playing.

A child can go on a slide, a child can go into a tunnel, a child can go on a merry-go-round, a child can go on various kinds of things. Each of them, you could say, have their own rules. You go up on a giant wheel, you cannot jump off from there.

There are straps around you. You have to follow those rules. So you could say the whole world is like a giant amusement park.

Now in the amusement park, if we are following the rules, we can have a good time. And there are many, many things which you can keep doing. But the child says, I've played enough now.

I just want to go back home. I start looking for the mother, father. Then the parents are there, they take the child back home.

So we could say the world is like a giant amusement park in which there are various things we can try out. And for trying out, how much can we try out? There are two things. One is our desire and the other is our karma.

So what do you want, which of the things in the amusement park you want to try out? That's one thing based on real estate. But then how much money does the child have to play? So we could take the expanded further. Some places the child can even earn money.

So there is karma. Karma is our past karmic credits. So the world is arranged in such a way that it facilitates our desires.

So if we do good things, we will get to a better place in the world. But there is a difference between, you could say, religious and spiritual. There's a difference between ritual and spiritual.

So ritual is broadly speaking, what we might say as good karma. That gives us a better condition in life. Now, of course, the word ritual today has a negative connotation because you're doing something mindlessly.

But the original idea of ritual is that if we do something which is prescribed by tradition, prescribed by scripture, prescribed by culture, and it is considered normally to be a good thing. Not all rituals today are good things. But the idea of ritual is there are certain good activities we do and they will give us good results in the future.

That's ritual. But just doing good things is not going to take us out of this world. Doing good things will take us to a better place in this world.

So if you want to get ultimately free from the world, okay, I don't want to play in this world at all. I want to play in this atmosphere. I want to say, where's my mom? Where's my dad? I want to go back to this.

Go back with them. So that's why there is a karma which is recommended in the Bhagavad Gita ultimately. Not just karma, but a karma.

Does that address the question? Yes, it really does. In the sense that it helps analyse why we are continuing in the cycle. It's our own choice.

I like the point that you're pointing out. Krishna has created this to facilitate our desires. Karma is not an oppressive force.

Because many times we get the idea that we are bound by the karma. But actually, what you're highlighting is that it's our own desire. We are here enjoying the fruits of our labour.

And the moment that we give up that control and that need for enjoyment, we can kind of… Like you said, when you're done, when the child is done and says, okay, now I want to look for my parents. I'm done with this amusement part. Then when we let go and decide, then we can move more into the spiritual realm.

Maybe from the ritual, then we get into the spiritual aspect of… So maybe we can just unpack that a little bit more. There's another question here as well. Similar, but what is… Can you explain? What you mentioned, I'll just complete that if you don't mind.

Let's take an example. Say a person has gone from their home to a different kingdom, different city, different country, different kingdom. And now you talk about karma bind.

Why do we say karma binds? Karma is basically a system of cosmic accountability. We're accountable for our actions. That's the essence of karma.

So say somebody goes from, say, somebody comes from India to UK. And now, after coming to UK, they start breaking all the laws over there. And then put in a jail.

Then what happens is they're restricted. They're restricted. Now, there are different kinds of jails also.

Somebody might be put in a jail where they're highly restricted. Somebody might be put in a… There are relatively… If somebody's educated, they can do some good contribution. Even the jail, they might be put in a relatively more comfortable jail.

Now somebody says, OK, you can go home, but you cannot leave the geographical area. You're under parole, parole, something like that. Then somebody will be told, OK, you can go wherever you want.

But you have to give us an account of your activities. So we could say that a person is always under the jurisdiction of the country's laws. But how much do the country's laws control them depends on how they have acted in the past.

So if a person has a very bad criminal record, then the country's laws will be, in one sense, as you said, seem oppressive. They cannot even go out of the cell. Because if you have been behaving badly, even in a jail, then you might be put in solitary confinement.

So like that, what happens is karma, it restricts, but there are degrees of restriction. Right. That's beautiful.

Can you hear me? So somebody has done a lot of negative karma. They may have a lot of… Yeah. Somebody has done a lot of bad karma in the past, negative karma, then basically their facilities will be restricted a lot.

So one way would be they may be born in a very poor family. They may not have a healthy body. They may have very low IQ.

They may be born in a country that has a lot of political instability. I mean, they cannot even be very free to move around. So there are different degrees of bondage and different degrees of restriction.

So if somebody has done good karma, they may not even pursue much restriction. Okay. I have good intelligence.

I work hard. I do well in my career. I was born in a good family.

I had a good upbringing. I'm doing well in my life. So then what is the limitation for them? For them also, the limitation is ultimately that we all have to grow old.

We have to get deceased. We have to die. And then we have to be reborn.

So the limitations, their circles may vary. But ultimately, everybody, the biggest limitation that karma puts us in is that as long as we are under karma, we are in the domain of this temporary world. We are eternal beings.

And we are seeking pleasure and fulfilment in temporary things. So that is something which is existential predicament. So only when we start seeking the eternal, we start turning towards the Lord.

That's when we go beyond the jurisdiction of karma. Okay, beautiful. Right there, what you just said, that we are eternal beings seeking pleasure in a temporary world.

That is the basic predicament. And to get out of it, we must turn to bhakti. Like you talked about alignment.

To completely get out of it, maybe UK, you use the country example, you would need to have a passport for another world, another country. So that passport is kind of like, you know, bhakti. This is Krishna's creation.

And he has that capacity to take us out of this karmic, very broad, you know, boundaries that you're explaining. Birth, death, old age and disease. No matter how karmically fortunate we are, we will all have to go through those cycle and take birth again, which is very non-desirable, to say the least.

So if we can maybe come to this point about bhakti, how much and maybe what are the nuances of how does bhakti take away the karma? Okay, so the idea is that bhakti helps, ultimately karma is not just a system for accountability. Hmm. It's ultimately a system to promote spirituality.

I'll explain what I mean by this is, see, if somebody has done something wrong, and they are put in the jail. I've just changed the question slightly, because somebody else has asked a relevant question to what you're answering. So go ahead.

So it's not just accountability. Go on. Sorry, I didn't mean to disrupt.

Okay. Yes. So a person is put in a jail.

They may say that, okay, for this crime, you have to be five years in jail. But the purpose of the justice system is not just to incarcerate the criminal for five years. If the criminal is behaving very responsibly, is maybe learning some life skills by which they can get a better life outside, maybe in three years, they will be allowed to come out.

Isn't it? So if that happens in our justice systems, then what to speak of the divine justice system? Right. So the point is that the more we align with the ultimate purpose of life, with the purpose of God for the world, then we may have done some negative karma in the past. But the purpose of the karmic system is not just that every single action you have done, you have to get the punishment for it.

No, that's not the point. The point is, prompt us to become more and more aligned. When Krishna says, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam sharanam vraja aham tvam sarva-papedyo mokshayisyami ma shuchah So he's saying that, the point is, if you become fully aligned with me, then, okay, whatever karma might happen, might have happened in the past, whatever karma you think might happen in the future, I will take care of that.

So that's how, in one sense, sometimes we say, bhakti burns our past karma. Burning is a very vivid metaphor. But the point is, you can say, you can use the word burning, but the point is, the previous karma's reactions, they become redundant.

They're no longer needed. If once a person has become aligned, why is that needed at all? So in that sense, bhakti burns away our past karma. Beautiful.

I think you've answered so many questions just within this tiny segment here. The point of karma is not just accountability. It's not tit for tat.

God is not just a vengeful kind of punishing lord. He wants us to reunite. He wants us to align with his purpose of creation and purpose of our existence, the purpose of our life and meaning.

So as soon as we align, all the other, these are almost secondary. The karma and the dharma almost become secondary to the alignment itself. Yes, that's very good.

I think tit for tat is a good word. Rather than accountability, I think the word which came to my mind was now, after you've defined it, is retribution. Karma is not a retributive justice.

You did this, so you have to get this. The purpose of karma is not retribution. It is reformation.

Reformation. If you are reformed, then there's no need for retribution anymore. Right.

Beautiful. So maybe just slightly more on unpacking this one. Can it burn out our experiences? How much does bhakti burn out? Okay.

How much does bhakti burn our currently experienced karmas? See, firstly, it's not mathematical. Life is not mathematical. Okay.

You can't even quantify how much karma do I have? How much karma does this particular thing cause? We can get a broad understanding. So it's not exactly mathematical. Ultimately, it's personal.

It's reciprocal. It's Krishna wants us to align with him. So it's a matter of developing a relationship with him.

So whatever is favourable for the development of our relationship with Krishna, what we can call as our spiritual evolution, that is what Krishna ultimately arranges through the system of karma. So will a devotee, even somebody who's practising bhakti go through some sufferings? Well, yeah. It's not that the world's nature is going to change.

If there's going to be a storm, whether somebody's a devotee or not a devotee, both of them are going to be inconvenienced. Both of them are going to be threatened. So at a material level, bhakti doesn't promise that the events happening in the material level will themselves be changed.

So there's some amount of inconvenience, some amount of distress will come. But what bhakti gives us is a higher vision of what is happening in our lives. So one way I put it is that the world's power to hurt is immense.

It can hurt us in many different ways. But greater than the world's power to hurt is God's power to heal. So bhakti doesn't stop the, bhakti doesn't ensure that the world will no longer hurt us.

But bhakti will give us access to God's power to heal. So the key difference between somebody who is aligned with the Lord and somebody who's not yet aligned with the Lord, what is the difference? It is not that the world will no longer hurt them. World's hurts are going to come on everyone.

But it's like compared to people in a hospital, they're in adjacent beds. And both of them are in pain because they have a painful disease. But person A, their disease has been diagnosed accurately and a potent treatment has been prescribed.

And person B, their disease has not been diagnosed and various kinds of experimental treatments are being tried out. Nothing seems to be working. So at present, A and B both are in a state of distress.

Right. But their future is very different. A is a person whose disease is going to be controlled and cured.

Their pain is going to decrease and disappear. B, their disease may worsen, their pain may also worsen. So that is the difference between somebody who is a devotee, who is a bhakta.

Somebody is aligned with the Lord and somebody is not yet aligned with the Lord. So the present experiences may not change. But what is what is going to emerge to the present experiences may change.

Both are deceased. Both will have some suffering. But the bhakta is one who has understood, OK, what's wrong in my life ultimately? And how can I set it right? So the diagnosis has been done.

The prescription has been accepted. The future is very bright because of that. Beautiful.

And you explained very succinctly, like prarabdha karma may not change. But your, you know, bija and kuta, like there's some technical terms. You may not be inclined anymore to make those same bad karmic actions.

But externally, externally, the bhakta and the abhakta would look the same. You know, we're all going to be going through sufferings. And in fact, the reduction of suffering is not the goal of the alignment with God.

The reduction of suffering because, you know, in one sense, it's just the world is described as a place of suffering in all sense that we can imagine. But that's true. Yeah.

I mean, it's a good point about reduction of suffering. I talk about this at five levels. If I will just take a few minutes about what happens.

See, first is that once we start getting spiritual knowledge, at the very least, we stop creating future suffering for ourselves. Why? Because I know, OK, these are the things which I do. Like the prognosis aspect.

So first is, at least I know these things I should not do. So we stop creating future suffering for ourselves. So in that sense, it reduces suffering.

So the knowledge to make right choices. Second is, sometimes in some situations, we may have the knowledge to make the right choices, but somehow we are not able to muster the will to make the right choices. I know this thing is bad.

It's like keep doing it. What bhakti does is it provides the inner strength, the inner inside, the higher taste, as we call it. So as we get that higher taste, the habits which we wanted to leave, but which we are not leaving us, we also are able to become free from those.

So that also ensures that we are not creating any future suffering. The suffering because of ignorance, suffering because of attachments. Ignorance leading to bad choices, attachment leading to bad choices.

Both these sufferings are reduced. So that's level one knowledge. The level two is you could say willpower is increased.

Then you can talk about level three is tolerance. Tolerance means that when I start understanding that I am a soul and I am on a multi-life journey. So whatever bad thing is happening to me, I can see it from much bigger framework.

I don't, I won't catastrophise it. This is the end of the world for me. My life is over because, you know, this, as I said, this relationship didn't work out or this job didn't work out.

This interview didn't work out. My life is over. No, no, no, no, no.

We are, we are for the long haul over here. So just Krishna says that he talks about the atma in the 13th verse of second chapter and immediately says the result of knowing the atma is tam sthitiksa svabhārata, tolerance. So one of my favourite examples for this is, actually, I gave this example on a class in Florida and there was a devotee who was there in the class.

He said, I had this experience. That he says that sometimes some leeches, somebody's going out in the forest or somewhere and some leech just catches your leg. And that leech is sucking the blood out.

It's very scary to feel its tentacles going into the body. And now sometimes what happens is that if you try to pull the leech out, it has such a strong grip that it'll rip the whole skin out, but it'll not let go. So what do you do then? The thing to do at that time is just let the leech drink the blood.

How can I do that? It's drinking my blood. But the thing is, the leech does not have an infinite capacity to drink blood. Once it has drunk its capacity of blood, it will itself will fall off.

Or it will withdraw its tentacles and we can just flip it off. So our karma comes like that. It's like a leech which is sucking blood.

But we understand that, okay, it's going to suck certain level of blood, but not beyond that. So tolerate. While it is there, it's not the end of the world.

So whatever inevitable sufferings come, we learn tolerance. That is the third level. So then the fourth level at which we are become better equipped is that we understand the meaning and purpose.

Okay, ultimately Krishna has some plan for us. So we learn to place our suffering in a constructive framework. Okay, one is just alright, it is there, it'll be there temporarily.

But I talked earlier about the framework. We can place this in a constructive framework. Right.

So Shloka Gopal, he tried in so many ways to try to build a big business so that he could support his spiritual master's mission financially. But none of his projects, none of his businesses work. And then what happened was when a particular devastating financial loss he experienced.

So one of his godbrothers told him and he also read in the Bhagavatam that this is Krishna's special mercy. Oh, this is Krishna's special mercy. When Vidura was grievously insulted by Duryodhana, it was a horrible insult.

But what did Duryodhana see? This is an opportunity for me to just leave this kingdom. And I won't have to fight against Krishna. I don't have to fight for Duryodhana.

So it was a very painful thing, but he was able to see it positively. Now this is what people often call as positive thinking. And it's very helpful.

But the scripture doesn't just help us to think positive. It actually gives us a positive vision of reality itself. And there is a higher purpose.

It is that there is a higher purpose over here. And we try to align ourselves with that. So that itself decreases suffering substantially.

Because we are not really, nobody wants pain. But what we especially abhor is pointless pain. Pointless pain.

Yes, I can see this is purposeful. Then, okay, I'll endure it. Nobody would like to be jabbed in their body.

But if they know there's an injection which is going to protect me from disease, okay, I'll endure it. So that meaning, giving us a sense of meaning and purpose at the fourth level of health. That also reduces suffering a lot.

Right. So suppose then the fifth level is what we what we're discussing about is minimisation. See, Krishna himself may minimise the suffering.

Krishna, like the government may reduce a five year sentence to two and a half year sentence. Like that Krishna can minimise the karma. So sometimes what happens is, we just focus on the fifth one.

And we think I'm practising bhakti, why is Krishna not minimising my karma? And if Krishna is not minimising my suffering, what is the use of practising bhakti? Does bhakti even work? But if we focus only on the fifth dimension, we are actually missing out on all these other four things. So I'll summarise. The first is, would you like to summarise or you want me to summarise five things? Well, I don't remember them all in order.

So first I said is that the knowledge to not create further suffering, knowledge to make good choices. Second is the will to be able to make the good choices we know we should be doing but we are not able to do. So you can say purity.

Bhakti purifies us. So one is knowledge, second is purification. Third is tolerance.

Suffering has come, it's going to be temporary. Let's look at each example. The fourth is a meaningful vision.

See meaning in suffering. And the fifth is minimisation of karma itself by Krishna. So in all these ways, we can deal with suffering better.

Our suffering does become minimised and whatever suffering remains, we are able to deal with it better. Right. It's almost like a transformation of the experience of suffering.

It's like the suffering is still there. But like you're saying, our willpower, our intellect, all these extra support systems if we have in place, then we can experience that suffering in a completely different way. So it's like a superpower.

It's kind of like having spiritual power to deal with that. Really helpful, those five points. I'll try to write it out in the comments as well.

But if we could just maybe take a slight detour, which is very much related to this, because we're talking right now about aligning with Krishna's will. You know, turning towards bhakti to in some sense, transform our karma, reduce our karma. What is to stop, you know, how should we check ourselves from maybe using bhakti to be doing the karma? Sometimes people may say, I'm doing God's will.

You know, in the name of God, we shall do, you know, terrorism. It could be anything. It could be how do we know that something is truly God's will and how to avoid all kinds of deeds.

Can anything be done in God's name? It seems we can be justified in God's name. Yeah. So God's will, that can be a very, as you rightly said, can become a rationalisation for doing my will.

And I can claim that I'm doing God's will. That is why there are multiple checks involved. First of all, the biggest check in my understanding is that the Gita has two frameworks.

One is the devotional framework, the bhakti framework, and the other is the guna framework. The guna is the three modes of material nature, sattva, rajas and tamas. So now this guna framework itself is complicated, but let's put it a simple way that what it means is that in tamo guna, a person is completely misaligned with reality.

They can't even perceive physical reality or material reality properly. Persons are driving drunk. They can't even see maybe they're driving so drunk, they can't control the brakes.

They can't see who's coming along the way. That is tamasic. So if somebody is, their overall life is in tamo guna, that means they are just, they're abusive, they're exploitative, they're negligent.

And suddenly that person says, I am doing God's will. Well, definitely you are far, far misaligned from God's will. So there is tamo guna, which is extreme misalignment.

Rajoguna is characterised by, okay, we are following the rules of the traffic to some extent, but it's all for my gain. I have nothing to do with the government. I have nothing to do with any higher purpose in life.

I just want to get my own desires fulfilled. So in rajoguna, one is perceiving material reality reasonably well, but no spiritual reality practically speaking. One may accept some God or something like that, as long as he doesn't interfere in my life.

I may worship him if he can make things a little better for me, but otherwise I have nothing to do with God. So rajoguna, you could say, is a slightly greater alignment with reality. At least a person is perceiving material reality.

So if you consider in terms of parenting, say some parents, maybe unfortunately, you know, they are themselves, they may be depressed and they may be taking drugs and their children are hungry at home and they don't even care for them. It's terrible, negligent parenting. And some parents may be like very, very, very ambitious and they put a lot of pressure on their children and for them, their children just become means for fulfilling their desires.

An extension of themselves, how to enjoy. They may work very hard and they may provide their children a lot of facilities also, but they're not really, they're not really seeing the children holistically. This is a person different from me.

And what is this, who is this actually? What are their natural interests? What are their talents? So a parent in rajoguna is much better than a parent in tamoguna. No doubt. They're caring for the children and if the child is sick or something like that, they may even, they may take mortgage on their own house and everything they may put, but in care of the children.

But they want the children to conform to their idea of who should be. So you're not really seeing the child as a person in their own right. Beyond that is sattvaguna.

Sattvaguna is where we see material reality and we also see spiritual reality. If this is my child, it is also a soul who has their own past karma and that's why they have their own individuality. So I cannot just expect this child to be my Xerox copy or just be an extension of my plan for my life.

So that is sattvaguna. So sattvaguna we can say we are a little more aligned with who the person is. So Krishna actually is asked by Arjuna this question, if people claim to have faith, he says that if people claim to have faith, but how do we know what the level of their faith is? Anybody can claim I'm doing God's will.

So Krishna says don't just accept their claims for faith of faith. Look at how they are living. And he gives parameters for looking at whether how they are living in whether they are overall conducted in sattva, rajas or tamas.

And a person cannot be an instrument of God's will unless they are at least living in sattva. At least to some extent in sattva. If a person is indiscriminately shooting down anyone, killing anyone who opposes them, person is intolerant, a person is arrogant, and maybe they have grabbed some religious authority somehow, that person cannot be considered to be doing God's will at all.

So God's will is not just reading some statement from some religious text and thinking I'm going to do this or just getting some authority in some religious organisation and saying that they are doing God's will. God's will has to be actually an alignment. And that alignment has to be seen in our entire life.

So in that sense, only when a person is steadily living in sattva and moving towards shuddha sattva, that's when we can say that person is doing God's will. That person is largely living in rajas and tamas. Tamas means completely ignorant of even material reality.

Rajas means only pursuing material reality. Such people cannot really be said to be doing God's will. That's why nobody can.

In general, we're seeing most saintly people like Vrishal Prabhupada, he never claimed that when he came to the West, he said, I am doing Krishna's will. Rather, he said, I am doing my guru's will. I am following my guru's instructions.

So the idea is that we need other people around us to hold us accountable. Even when we are spiritually elevated in God's will. So God's will is never meant to override our morality, never meant to override our conscience, never meant to override our common sense, our intelligence.

These are resources which God has provided all of us to some extent. So in exceptional situations, very, very exceptional situations, God's will maybe go beyond all this. But we look at Krishna, how he persuaded Arjuna.

Krishna did not tell Arjuna, this is my will, just do it. That was his idea. He could have completed the whole Gita in six words.

I am God, obey me, fight. He could have finished the Gita in six words. Krishna did not do that.

Krishna did want Arjuna to align with his will. But how? By training Arjuna's intelligence, by reasoning with him. So generally, God's will builds on the resources for discernment that we have been given.

I'll repeat this. We all have been given some resources for discerning what is the right thing to do. One resource is our intelligence.

This product is advertised, it's a good product. Is it really good? I use my intelligence. We have common sense.

We have our conscience. Conscience is something inside us, this doesn't seem to be good. And then we have, you could say, broadly speaking, the cultural moral codes.

And they're not always right. But there are various resources available for us to discern what is the right thing to do. And God's will builds on this.

God's will is not just rejecting all this, and this is God's will, do it. So Krishna doesn't have that move. You have your intelligence, and I will respond to your question intelligently.

Your intelligence to become convinced that aligning with my will is the best thing to do. This is a very dangerous thing if people start claiming that I am doing God's will. First, learn to follow your intelligence.

First, learn to follow your conscience. First, learn to act in a responsible way in society. Then we can first come to sattva guna, then we can talk about God's will.

Otherwise, if before that people are talking about I'm doing God's will, that's not good. Extremely dangerous thing to say. Beautiful.

Well, there's a lot of questions coming through. But I think time is up. I just wanted to go a little bit towards just practical tips on daily life, of freeing ourselves a little bit more.

You know, because we talk about a karmic footprint as if it's a carbon footprint. You know, like if we recycle, if we plant more trees, we speak politely. You know, at least in England, it's a very big thing to be courteous.

And it's a very important part of life. My take on karma is that no matter how much we do, it is not going to relieve us from the karma. Am I wrong in thinking that? Or is there a way that we can live a little bit more harmoniously and maybe just evade all the karmic pitfalls? Is it possible to just live with good Sukruti, good deeds, good Samaritan, lots of philanthropy and just be happy in my life? Why do I need God? Yes.

See, at one level, from the mode of tamas or rajas, coming to sattva is much better. When Bhaktivinoda Thakur says even rajas is much better than tamas. The mode of passion in many ways is much better than the mode of hindranas.

Like I talk about parenting. If a child has a very demanding, expecting parent, that's difficult. But in many ways, that is better than having a completely negligent parent or absent parent.

So in that sense, I would say that anybody who rises from the mode they are in, even a little step higher, they will make their life better and they will help make the world better. Even if a significant minority of people rise towards the mode of goodness, we all can help make the world a better place. So like, say, for example, the issue of our climate change and environmental consciousness that we are cultivating.

Yes. We may not have the power to make big changes, but we all can become a little more conscious, maybe spend a little more, less fuel, a little more conscious about how much we use electricity, and small, small things we can take care of. That's very helpful.

And that can help in small, small ways. So it's not to minimise. If people are more philanthropic, it's valuable.

We can't minimise or trivialise that. Anyone rising their mode, rising up the mode is good. So having said this, there is the understanding that ultimately for bhakti, some people say bhakti is exclusive.

If you're not practising bhakti, whatever you're doing is useless. And there are examples given like that. Bhakti is like one, Krishna is one, everything else is zero.

That is true philosophically. No doubt about it. But that is from the internal perspective.

Not from the in this life's perspective. From this life's perspective, whether somebody is sattva or somebody is rajas or somebody is in tamas, that can make a big difference. If the head of state, if the king or the president or the prime minister, if they are in tamo guna, if they are abusive and exploitative or negligent or whatever, they can make their citizen's life hell.

Then rajas or sattva, they're good. So that one zero framework is true from the perspective of multiple lifetimes. So material things, they are temporary ultimately.

So from that perspective, they are zero. But within this life, they can make a significant difference. And that is why we see in our tradition, there is an emphasis on cultivating virtues.

On Krishna in the 12th chapter, he describes what kind of devotee is dear to him. And it's a fascinating discussion. Not once in the 12th chapter, Krishna says, who is the devotee dear to me? You are my bhaktasamvapriya.

It doesn't say a devotee who chants my name. It doesn't say a devotee who hears Bhagavatam. It doesn't say a devotee who worships my deity.

It doesn't say a devotee who goes on tirtha yatra. All these are important. But what Krishna says over this, a devotee who's equipoised, a devotee who's kind, who doesn't agitate others, who's friendly towards everyone, who is overall living a sattvic life, a living a virtuous life.

So that is also important for Krishna. Because that is required for maintaining order in this world. So what happens is, I'll just live more orderly in this world.

Why do I need Krishna at all? That brings us back to the point which we discussed earlier. If we understand that we are eternal beings, if I'm an eternal being, then I will long for eternal life, eternal love, eternal joy. And how can I get the eternal if I'm not even desiring the eternal? If I'm living in the world of goodness, I'm not even still desiring the eternal.

It's like, okay, I want to feed the poor people. That's very good. But, okay, if you feed poor people, in the Vedic tradition said that, if you fool poor people by giving charity in your next life, you will never be short of food.

You will never go hungry. That's good. At least it will not suffer from hunger in the next life.

But that still means that we are going to take birth in this world. It's still in the domain of temporary world. So why is bhakti required ultimately? Because bhakti means the process for developing our love for the eternal.

And love for the eternal is essential for attaining the eternal. That's why without bhakti, just by good deeds, we may help create a better world, relatively speaking. But we won't go to a better world.

We won't go to a better world. We won't go to the eternal world. Because to go to the eternal world, just good deeds in this world are not enough.

Because good deeds don't automatically create love for God. And for going to the kingdom of God, love for God is needed. For going to the eternal, love for the eternal is needed.

So that's why both the ideal situation is bhakti with virtues. If a person is cultivating sadhuna, having virtues, then they will contribute constructively in this world. And a person practising bhakti, then they will go beyond this world.

Beautiful, beautiful. I'm just going to really briefly try to recount that. That sometimes we may in bhakti, we may do a zero one analysis of all or nothing analysis.

And on the other extreme, it would be just be a good person, good Samaritan and God will take us back. So that might be a slightly Abrahamic understanding that if we are a good person, then somehow the door of heaven will open for us. But you're saying that both are essential.

But if you truly want to get through that door to go back to God and the eternal reality, then we absolutely must have a love for that eternal. It's not enough to just be on a good Samaritan platform, maybe. And obviously Krishna spends a great deal of time in explaining who was very dear to him with all of these beautiful qualities.

So it's not in vain. Sooner or later, we'll probably rise to that. Thank you so much for that, Prabhu.

If maybe you could do your beautiful analysis, summary and maybe bring it all together. There are so many more questions that I would love to ask you, but obviously it's coming to that time. So maybe if we could just summarise on how we are meant to be freeing ourselves from this karma.

So first point probably we discussed is that we can't use karma. Am I audible now? Yes. Can you hear me now? Yes.

Okay. But the first point we discussed was that for working responsibly, for acting, karma is not a justification for giving up our dharma. It is not a justification for saying that you are suffering and you keep suffering your own karma.

No, when we face suffering in anyone's life, anyone suffering, we have to see what is my dharma. So dharma is my duty, my contribution, the right thing for me to do. So then we discussed that, then what is the point of understanding karma? It is that when somebody is suffering, there could be multiple causes for it.

We look at the immediate cause, we are not blind to the immediate cause, but we are not blinded by the immediate cause to everything else. So the bull, Dharmaraj, he did look beyond the immediate cause. I don't know what is the bigger cause, but Parikshit Maharaj, he saw the immediate cause and he said, yes, I'm going to deal with this and I appreciate that you are able to see beyond this also.

So that's how the compassion can be maintained. And then in that connection, actually before this session, we started with how the problem of evil, why small children are suffering, why they will get with bone cancer, something like that. So there we discussed that, okay, we have three options.

One is everything is arbitrary. It's just by chance. The problem with that is threefold.

First is that nobody functions like that. A day-to-day life. Nobody trains their children.

You just study, but ultimately what you're going to do in life is by chance. Your study is not going to determine your results. No, we don't function like that in life.

Even science operates based on cause and effect. And this doctrine of everything happening by chance, it doesn't remove our suffering. It only removes the hope that our suffering has for a purpose.

So this chance is not at all a reasonable explanation. What ultimately chance does is it leads to the idea of atheism, which is associated with everything happening by chance. Ultimately, the kind of suffering that come in our life come by chance.

That leads to us being proud of some elements of notion of meaninglessness. On the other hand, the theistic worldview, if it is only associated with one lifetime, then also it becomes God is arbitrary. And it's very difficult to worship an arbitrary God.

So the third option is that it's like, why is the scoreboard showing such a different score right in the beginning? Is the scoreboard is messed up? It's operating by chance? Is it the scorekeeper is biassed? Is there a second innings going on? So the principle of karma actually reconciles. Karma spread over multiple lifetimes, reconciles a just God with individual accountability. And purpose of karma is not post-mortem.

You're not going to blame people for what they did in the past. It's more of a prognosis. How can I act right now? So how can I act in a way that I can create a better future? And karma is not an absolute explanation for every problem.

You could say that it is because we don't know the details exactly what karma came when and how it came, what karma came because of what. But it is reasonably empowering. And we humans have to cultivate humility in every area of life that we never get exhaustive knowledge.

We have to take major decisions based on finite knowledge. Like how much is the exact speed of my car? What is the exact nature of the career that I'm choosing? What is the exact nature of the person I am having a relationship, entering into a relationship? We all start with finite knowledge. But the finite knowledge can also be helpful.

So karma is, we discussed that perspective, that then I talk about the frames of reference. Karma is, why did the glass fall from my hand? So mental health means that I should be able to place what is happening to me in the most constructive, most empowering framework. So karma is one more framework.

So if a child is crying, the mother should not think that a child is crying because of the past karma. Immediately the mother's framework is, what is my dharma right now? Let me do that. But after taking the child to a doctor, giving treatment, if somehow the child's disease is not going and the child is still crying, then the mother can say, how do I accept this? Okay, maybe there's some karma going on in the past.

So that can be the constructive framework. So that requires intelligence for us to use. So any philosophy can be misused.

So yes, karma philosophy has been misused to sometimes perpetuate injustice. But then, that means the technology has been misused for causing destruction and wars and so much casualty. But we don't blame technology for that.

Similarly, philosophy is also a resource. So we have to learn to use it properly. Then in that connection, we came to more or less the topic of how do we reduce our karma? Why is God needed? So karma is not ultimately a tribute to justice.

It's not for distribution. It is more for reformation. And that's why if we align with the Lord's will, then there is no need for us to get cosmic suffering, any kind of suffering.

And when we are aligning with the Lord's will, then sometimes we may be exempt from the normal rules of traffic. So that is the way there is a huge misalignment is the karma, a reasonable level of misalignment, not following the traffic rules is the karma, following the traffic rules, but going on one's own self-centred desire. That is karma, following the traffic rules and then doing the Lord's will.

It's like working for the government. That is more like a karma. So then we discussed how does our karma become, how does bhakti help us? That's five levels.

First is knowledge for making the right choices, then knowledge about what choices are right, then purity or willpower or inner strength to make the right choices. Third is tolerance by knowing that the suffering is temporary, whereas our destiny is ultimately eternal, like the leech example. And fourth is that a positive, purposeful, positive, meaningful vision of the problem.

Why is this coming? And the fifth is minimisation by the Lord. So in this way, our karma gets reduced. And then last point which we discussed, I think it came in the question answers, was that when we are functioning in our day-to-day lives, our focus always has to be on how, I cannot just presume that I'm doing God's will.

I have to learn so that there's a guna framework is there. You need to cultivate virtues. And if we rise from a lower mode to higher mode from rajas, tamas means complete misalignment, not even pursuing material reality properly, rajas means only pursuing material reality, sattva means perceiving material and spiritual reality.

So only when a person is living more or less in sattva, can they actually be a recipient and instrument for God's will. Otherwise, they're just doing their own will. And that's why at one level for all of us, without bhakti, we cannot be delivered.

That's why we need to practise bhakti. If everybody comes to slightly higher level mode, they all can make their life better and the world slightly better. So ideal is they're practising bhakti and we are cultivating virtue, cultivating sattva.

Then we can contribute constructively in this world and we can also go beyond this world. Thank you very much. For anyone listening, you will be able to attest to how brilliant that summary was.

So thank you. Thank you so much, Prabhu. We're very, very grateful.

Please bless us all so that we can understand this wisdom. We can surrender to this path of bhakti and thereby make our life a little bit more meaningful, purposeful, joyful. And we'll see you again.

Thank you for your thoughtful questions and thank you for this opportunity to share this very profound wisdom. Thank you everyone for listening.