When God doesn’t seem to be equal to everyone – Bhagavad gita 09.34

Podcast:

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So, this is one of the provocatively challenging verses in the Gita. Why? Because there seems to be such an obvious mismatch between the walk and the talk. Like somebody tells, you know, no, you should not eat fatty foods.
It’s not good for your health. And then, you see them at the meal. They are just gorging on fatty foods.
She says, what happened? Oh, that is a you rule, not a me rule. Now, if somebody acts like that, you say, what kind of person is this? Do not be very inspired. Annoyed, if not alienated from the person.
So, here Krishna is saying, I am equal to everyone. But this Gita verse is being spoken on a battlefield. And in a battlefield, there are clearly two sides.
And Krishna is on one side. Krishna is supporting one side and in effect, he is opposing the other side. Krishna may not be taking up weapons for the fight.
But Krishna is clearly choosing one side. So, if he is choosing one side, then how is he equal to everyone? And if it is so clear that he is partial, he is favoring one side, how can he make such a claim that I am equal to everyone? So, to understand this, I will talk about this at three levels. First is, we will talk about what equality actually means.
Then we will talk about how it applies to the Kurukshetra battlefield setting. And then lastly, we will see how we can see equality in God’s actions in our life. In the lives of people around us.
When we see so much inequality and inequity apparently. So first, let’s begin with when we need to get a deeper understanding of equality. So, equality re-envisioned.
So, there are broadly two kinds of equality. Where there is literal equality. Where everybody is treated identically.
And then there is effective inequality. Sorry, not equality. Effective equality.
What it means is, we treat everyone in such a way that it has a similar positive effect on them. Or, helping them grow or whatever the positive effect that is intended. So, let’s understand the difference between these two equalities.
Say, a mother has two children. A mother is training two children. And, one of them is a small sibling is growing up.
And, the mother is training the child, when you eat food, don’t spill food on your clothes, on the table. Eat carefully, so that there is no mess. And, the other sibling is older.
And, for that older sibling, maybe the older sibling now has to go to college and want to stay somewhere else. And, he or she needs to learn cooking and cleaning. The mother tells, when you are cooking, don’t spill food around the kitchen.
When you are cleaning, don’t spill all the waste, eatables all around the sink. So, she is training a child, older sibling, in avoiding spilling while cooking and cleaning. Now, both of them sit down.
Maybe the smaller sibling is around what? 3-4 years old. The older sibling is 13-14 years old. And, both of them eat their food.
And, neither of them spills a single morsel of food. The mother, who is the 3-4 year old, says, Oh, so nice. Well done.
And, the older sibling says, Why are you discriminating against me? You are appreciating her so much and you are not appreciating me at all. Now, is that discrimination? Well, in one sense, if we think of equality as literal equality, then yes, that’s discrimination. But, it’s not because they are at two different levels.
And, equality means the mother treats both the children equally in a way that both are encouraged to grow from where they are. So, the point here is that equality is not as simple as it seems. And, if a mother is to be responsible, should she be literally equal or effectively equal? Effectively equal.
And, it is the sibling who has to mature enough to understand, my mother is not being partial. My mother is not actually displeased with me or disfavoring me in any way. So, what happens is when you have siblings, you become very good at math.
Why? Because you count quarters very carefully. Who gets how much quarters of what? So, there is that calculative comparative mentality. Does the parents love this child me more? Or, younger sibling or older sibling? That’s natural to some extent.
But, everything natural is not necessarily desirable. So, there is a natural comparative tendency but that comparative tendency has to be subordinated with our intentions. So, there is literal equality and there is effective equality.
And, Krishna says, I am equal to everyone. His equality is in terms of effective. How can he be effective constructively for everyone’s growth? So, if we see, the law treats everyone equally or at least it should treat everyone equally.
But, does that mean that it will treat everyone identically? No. Even if two people have committed the same crime and both of them are before a judge, what will happen is the judge will consider the past track record. If for somebody, this is the first time crime, committed circumstantially because of maybe some unexpected circumstances, then what happens is, then the judge may give a little lighter sentence.
But, if somebody is a repeat offender and they are just completely brazen about having committed some wrong. If somebody is a traffic cop, pull somebody over for speeding for the first time. He says, I am sorry, I am sorry.
You know, I had emergency at work. My parents are sick or whatever and they are in the hospital and I was rushing. My mother is sick.
First time, let me go. Some people are just brazen. They just keep speeding repeatedly.
Once a traffic cop pulled over a person. He asked the other person, did you see the speed limit? He said, I saw the speed limit, I just didn’t see you. So, now, most people learn to be so brazen as to say that to the traffic cop, but that’s what they are looking at.
So, if I had seen you, I would have slowed down. But the idea is, if somebody is that brazen, they don’t think that doing anything wrong is a problem. Just getting caught is a problem.
And they keep doing it again and again. And they think if I am just clever enough to get away. So, then everything is fine.
Then if somebody is a repeat offender, then the law will treat them differently. The judge may give a harsher sentence for the same infringement. For the same transgression.
That’s why equality is an important virtue. But at the same time, how equality is implemented in real life is often complex. And things are not always as they seem to be.
I discussed two examples. In parenting and in law. That what may seem apparently unequal may not be actually unequal.
In fact, we could say one of the characteristics of knowledge. Knowledge is not in terms of this information. But knowledge in terms of wisdom is that knowledge enables us to see more than what our eyes can see.
I’ll repeat this. Knowledge enables us to see more than what our eyes can see. If somebody is medically trained, then they may look at a particular person, say for example, now you see somebody has very pale nails.
Hey, this person might be having anemia. Now anybody else will say okay, your nails are so pale. That’s all.
They won’t think anything beyond it. So what happens is, in various areas of life, if our car is not working, for us it’s just that the car is not working. But somebody mechanical comes there and says okay, maybe your spark plug is gone.
Okay. So knowledge enables us to see more than what our eyes can see. Krishna calls this in the Bhagavad Gita as Gyan Chakshu.
Chakshu is eyes. Gyan is knowledge. The eyes of knowledge.
So the Bhagavad Gita gives us the eyes of knowledge to understand how God acts in the world. And therefore, we can see how God is equal to everyone. How God is benevolently disposed toward everyone.
Even when there seems to be apparent inequality in his treatment. So the first point was this that equality re-envisioned. A deeper understanding of equality.
A second point I’ll discuss is how this concept of equality can be understood in the historical setting of the Kurukshetra war. And a third I’ll discuss how we understand it in our lives. Any questions at this point? Okay.
At any time during the class, feel free to ask questions. And I will feel free to not answer them. What I mean is that if I think the question is not immediately relevant to the context or if I may answer it later part of the question, I may not answer it at that time.
But I’ll answer it eventually. What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom? See, it depends on how words are defined. In Sanskrit, there is Jnana, which is usually translated as knowledge.
And then there is Vijnana. So Vijnana, in general terms, is translated as science. In spiritual circles, Vijnana is translated as realized knowledge or realization.
ज्ञानम् ते हम्स विज्ञानम् इदम् पक्षाम् यशेष्टापू ज्ञान and विज्ञान are different. ज्ञान विज्ञान तुरुप्तात्मा When you have knowledge and when you have realization, that is when you can become contented, our heart becomes fulfilled. So we could say in terms of differentiation, knowledge can be more informational or theoretical.
Whereas wisdom is more internalized. It is more a resource that we can apply in life. Say for all of us, if it comes to English language.
All of us have a certain level of vocabulary. But our vocabulary often falls in two levels. That is, there is active vocabulary and there is dormant vocabulary.
Active vocabulary refers to the words that we regularly use. And sometimes we want to use a particular word. Sometimes what happens is we overuse certain words.
As devotees may be, you overuse the word wonderful. The class was wonderful, the prasad was wonderful, the kirtan was wonderful, the devotees are wonderful, the Krishna Conscious is wonderful. After some time, the word wonderful is so overused that it becomes meaningless.
So what happens is sometimes we say, I am going to use some different word. The class was insightful, the prasad was delicious, the kirtan was electrifying, the devotees are so encouraging. We could use different adjectives.
Sometimes we want to use a particular word, but we just don’t get that word. And then somebody else uses it. Yeah, that was the word I was looking for.
So what that means is that word is in our dormant vocabulary, not our active vocabulary. We know the word, but we just don’t know it enough to use it when we need it. So what is active is active.
So what is easily available for us, what we readily use, that is active vocabulary. What we know but can’t access, that is more of dormant vocabulary. So we could say similarly, knowledge is the information that we could say.
In terms of this, there is knowledge that we know, but we rarely use it, we rarely apply it. There is so much philosophical knowledge that we remember when we are teaching others. But when it comes to applying ourselves, it seems like that knowledge goes and hides somewhere in our brain.
We just can’t access it. So we could say wisdom is like our active vocabulary, is like our active knowledge. Whereas knowledge in general, which can be called as erotical knowledge or non-realized knowledge, that is just information that we have but we have not yet realized it.
Does that make sense? Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Yes, we have a question.
In the context of this course, give us a map of the Samhastra. Yes. … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … You are stealing my future points.
… … So there is the principle of equality which is mentioned in this verse and later on Krishna mentioned the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity means … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … reflected there, please tell me. I have not yet developed the siddhi to see behind my head.
So if we say God is equal to all, does that mean he is forever forbidden to take any sides in any conflict? That would resume God to a cypher, to somebody insignificant. It’s like the police are meant to be equal to all. But if there are rioters attacking and vandalizing and killing innocent people, and the police say we are equal to all.
So the police say we can’t take side of the one side, there is a conflict over there, let it go on. That’s not equality. So we can’t say that equality is passivity.
So God is not meant to be a cypher, a zero, an insignificant person who can’t do anything in the name of equality. So what does God’s equality mean? There is two things, there is universal responsibility and there is proportionate reciprocity. Universal responsibility means, I am the parent of all living beings, and thus he takes responsibility for everyone.
But at the same time, there is proportionate reciprocity. So if you can’t get God as a parenting example, the parents may love all their children, when they have multiple children. But at the same time, say if one child is profligate, is prodigal, just wastes money, and the other child is quite responsible and frugal about using money.
Now the parents may not necessarily give the key to their treasury at home, or to the port for their bank account, to the child who is profligate, who is wasteful. Now are they being partial over there? Not necessarily, they are being reciprocate. So Krishna resides in everyone’s heart as the Paramatma.
He wants to guide everyone. Sarvasya Chaham Hrithi Sanye Vishnu. He is in the heart of every single living being.
And he doesn’t discriminate over there. You are so irresponsible, you are so immoral, you are so anti-spiritual, I am disgusted with you. I leave your heart and go away.
Krishna never does that. Krishna never abandons anyone. In fact, we can say that, that there is nothing that anyone can ever do that will stop Krishna from loving them.
There is nothing. We don’t have the power to do anything that will make Krishna say, I don’t love you. I hate you.
That is never going to happen. So in that sense, Krishna loves everyone. He cares for everyone.
He is responsible for everyone. And thus he is equal. That is his universal responsibility.
So his presence in the heart is independent of our behavior. But at the same time, there is reciprocity. He connects more with those who want to connect further with him.
And he stays more silent with those who want God to be silent. Why? Because if that’s what they want, Krishna respects everything. So reciprocity is also a sign of Krishna’s personal nature.
Suppose, say we meet someone in the temple or we meet someone in a get-together, a party or whatever, we want to talk with them. And then whoever comes to talk with them, they just have that same stolid face. Somebody praises them.
Somebody criticizes them. The same stolid, unmoved face. You see no emotion at all.
Now we may appreciate how impassive they are, how stolid they are. See in English, there are some words which have certain peculiar meanings. There is passive and there is impassive.
Now impassive is not the opposite of passive. Passive is inactive. Impassive is emotionally inactive.
Because impassive means a person shows no emotions at all. We may appreciate how stolid they are. But it will be very difficult to develop any relationship with them.
Are you pleased with what I am saying? Are you angry with what I am saying? Are you upset? If there is no reciprocation, how do you connect with such a person? It’s very difficult, isn’t it? So Krishna is not just a principle. Krishna is a person and therefore he reciprocates. So his reciprocity is also part of his equality.
So we could say, if you want to put it, is he partial? Well, yes, he is partial, but he is equally partial. What do you mean equally partial? He says that I will give special attention to those who give special attention to me. But he gives everybody the opportunity to give special attention to him.
He gives every opportunity to connect with him and become his devotees. So in that sense, it’s like, suppose there is a millionaire or a billionaire and they live in a particular locality. And if there is any problem in that locality, they give profuse charity to the person who is there.
Now they may say that, oh, you don’t give charity to everyone. But they say, everyone is welcome to come and live in this locality and I’ll give you charity. So they are in one sense partial, but they’re not partial also because they’re giving charity to everyone.
They’re not discriminating based on, you know, which race you are, which religion you are, whatever. I’m giving charity to everyone, but in this locality. Nobody is having infinite resources.
So in that case, that may be understood that way. But the point is, Krishna says, if you connect with me, now here connecting with him is, you’re growing spiritually, you’re becoming more responsible, then I’ll connect more with you. Parents may love everyone, love all their children.
But this reciprocity is also a sign of trust. Now, what do you think is the difference between love and trust? First of all, do you think love and trust are the same things? No? Okay. How many of you think love and trust are different? Some of you don’t trust me to get the answer.
Okay, some of you think that love and trust are different. How many of you think love and trust are the same? Okay, one, two, three. Okay, fine.
Let’s explore this a little bit. So those who say that love and trust are different, can you say how they are different? Yes? I can’t, like, say you have a manager, you trust your manager to give you like a paycheck every week, you trust your manager to like give you the instructions to do your job correctly. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that you love your manager, because you’re not necessarily close to them.
But like, your parents, you love them. So you automatically trust them, you can love somebody and trust them. But it doesn’t, it doesn’t mean that you love everybody you trust.
So I guess, just because you put trust in people that you don’t necessarily love. That’s a good example. So we might trust someone, but we don’t necessarily love them.
If we are going to get a surgeon, we’re literally entrusting our life in the hands of the surgeon. But that doesn’t mean we fall in love with the surgeon. Isn’t it? So that can be trust without love.
Now, that’s one way of definition. Nice. Thank you.
Yes. Yeah, I was thinking about mother’s love and soldier’s trust in his commanding officer. So a mother’s love is always there, regardless of whether the child listens to her or not, or may not believe her and all of that.
But a soldier’s trust in his commanding officer is because they’ve been trained to do it. And if the commanding officer lets him down, he’ll be shocked or he will not believe it or whatever. But a mother will never think like that, even if the child has listened to her.
That’s my opinion. So you’re saying that love is conditional. So love is unconditional.
Whereas trust is somewhat conditional. You may trust someone, but if they betray our trust, we may stop trusting them. That’s true also.
Now, any one more answer you want to give? Yes. Don’t tell your children that. So we love our children, but we don’t trust our children.
Yes, there’s a stage. There is love. One part of love is not trusting, in the sense that if there’s a small child, and then if the child plays with a knife, I trust you.
But the child doesn’t know what’s in the knife. And the child cuts himself or herself up. And then the parents are trusting the child.
And the child protection services say, we don’t trust you anymore. So sometimes a part of love, an essential expression of love is withholding trust. That doesn’t mean there is no love.
So on one side, there can be trust without love. And there can be love without trust also. So in terms of the growth in a relationship, a deeper relationship is when there is both love and trust.
That’s when the relationship is very deep. So when the child has grown up, the child has become more responsible, has shown a track record of responsibility, then the parents can say, when I’m not there, you can take care of the house and you can take care of your younger siblings also. So there’s a greater level of intimacy when there is both love and trust.
So why I’m talking about this differentiation is that Krishna loves everyone. On the battlefield, Krishna loves the Pandavas and Krishna loves the Kauravas. He cares for both of them.
But the difference is that he doesn’t trust both of them. Because both of their past actions have been different. In fact, in some ways, we can say that Krishna offered love more to Duryodhana than to Arjuna or even Yudhishthira.
How? Because Krishna went as a peace messenger to try to petition for peace. Sometimes some people, when they hear about the Bhagavata for the first time, they feel a little disturbed that there is this peace-loving Arjuna who doesn’t want to fight and there’s God who’s inciting him to fight. What kind of God is this? And what kind of Buddhist book is this? It can be a little disconcerting.
However, the Gita is much, much deeper than this. It’s not that Arjuna is specifically peace-loving. Arjuna is a warrior.
He’s been trained to fight. It’s like when the United Nations find that there is some violence, some insurgent group is killing innocent people or between two groups of people are fighting and innocent people are being killed in between. Then the United Nations may send a peacekeeping, what do they call it, peacekeeping force.
Isn’t it? So you want peace, but you need force to keep peace. So sometimes violence is the only way to stop violence. That’s not the best way all the time.
That’s certainly not the worst way. But sometimes that was required. So Arjuna was a Kshatriya like that.
And it was not that Arjuna didn’t, Arjuna was peace-loving. He knew that sometimes fighting is required. But in this case, he was not sure whether fighting was the right thing to do.
And Krishna’s purpose had been just to get Arjuna to fight. And Krishna would have done that very easy. You know, when some people want to incite violence, get people, get a mob to attack and to do arson and to go on a rampage, what is the easiest way to incite somebody to become aggressive? Anger them.
How do you anger them? That’s true. Well, okay, we don’t want them to be angry with us. We don’t want them to attack us.
It’s true. Walter? Yeah. Remember what you did in Ethiopia and just remind them of something that the other side did.
Yeah, you know, it’s generally when somebody wants to, when some self-interested political leaders want to incite a mob and go and do some ethnic cleansing or some kind of violence against a particular group, what they do is demonize the other group. See, they did this and they did that and they did that. How terrible they are.
They deserve to be destroyed. So what happens in such a case is that there is this word hate speech. Sometimes this portrays other people negatively by exaggeration, by distortion of fact, by disinformation.
So now in this case, what happens is in the case of the Kauravas, Krishna didn’t have to do any disinformation or misinformation. So disinformation is when somebody speaks something false. Misinformation is when somebody reports something false because they don’t know it is false.
There are different ways to understand it. But the idea is somebody knows something is false and they propagate it because they want a particular effect. That’s disinformation.
But the idea is Krishna didn’t have to use any disinformation or misinformation or anything like that. As he said that the Kauravas had actually done terrible things. They had tried to publicly disrobe Arjuna’s wife Draupadi.
Any ordinary person would get angry if that family member were dishonored. Not to speak of Arjuna, he is a trained warrior. Arjuna was a fearless warrior and a fearless warrior.
He was quite competent to punish the Kauravas. But it is remarkable that in the entire Bhagavad Gita, not once does Krishna mention about the insult of Draupadi. Not once does he mention anything about any of the atrocities committed by the Kauravas.
Why is that? If Krishna’s purpose had been to incite Arjuna to fight, it is an easy way. He is not even distorting it. He is just reminding of the reality.
If you can eat food like this, why eat like this? So if Krishna’s purpose has been to get Arjuna to fight, why is he going all this way? That is because Krishna’s purpose is not simply to get Arjuna to fight. Krishna’s purpose is to expand Arjuna’s worldview of what is happening. Ultimately, Krishna’s purpose is to inspire Arjuna to harmonize with the divine will.
To take responsibility in God’s plan for the good of the world. And that is why at the end of the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna doesn’t say, I will fight. In 1873, Arjuna says, I will do your will.
So the Bhagavad Gita is a book for this. It is a book meant to inspire all of us to become instruments of God’s compassion. To do our part in making the world a better place.
That is, so we could say if a pendulum is there, one is that the Gita is a book of violence. And that is what the first impression some people make on seeing the context of the Gita. And there is at least one prominent Indian spiritual leader who said, actually the Gita is a book of non-violence.
Or you can say silence. But the Gita is neither a book of violence nor of silence. The Gita is a book of transcendence.
Transcendence. Transcend the normal worldly motives for acting and see from a higher perspective. How can I serve God? How can I act in a way to make things better in a mode of service to God in this situation? So that is the conclusion of the Gita.
That is the purpose of the Gita. So I am talking about this is, God is a plan for the betterment of the world. And the Pandavas are ready to assist in that plan.
Like say, if there is a national emergency, say there is a pandemic. And now the government wants to offer some relief, maybe send some information, provide some masks, provide some emergency relief food to those who are in need. And some people become volunteers.
They say we will help. And then there are people who are the opposite of volunteers. They are disruptors.
They are just spreading rumors. They are sick and still they are going around and they are spreading the vaccine to others. Now what happens is, from the government’s perspective, both of them are citizens.
But one is helping make the things better. The other is making things worse. Because actually the government will treat people differently.
So in one sense, we can say that if you re-envision the Kurukshetra, that this is not simply a war between two human parties, between two political fighters. This is a war where Krishna wants to establish a virtuous order in the world. And Duryodhana is obstructing Krishna’s purpose.
Whereas Arjuna is assisting in that purpose. So we can say, Krishna hasn’t taken Arjuna’s side. Arjuna has taken Krishna’s side.
It is not that Krishna is partial. Krishna is very clear. This is my mission.
I want to benefit everyone. And Arjuna is assisting Krishna in that. Whereas, Krishna is not on the side opposite to Duryodhana.
It is Duryodhana who has taken the side opposite to Krishna. Now Krishna, as I said, is completely different. So Krishna is himself, and we went to Duryodhana to petition for peace.
And what did Duryodhana do? Does anyone remember what Duryodhana’s reply? Yeah, I’ll not give enough land to put even the tip of a needle through. What does this mean? We just went into this nice dialogue. But actually, if you think about it, the implication, it’s quite great.
Sometimes we invite someone for a program, and they don’t want to come. So they make an excuse. Now they are making an excuse.
We know that they are making an excuse. And they know that we know that they are making an excuse. But at least they are polite enough to try to make an excuse.
So, you know, one devotee is very sharp. So he invited somebody for a program, and that person tried to make an excuse. And he said, at least don’t insult my intelligence.
I am making an excuse that I know is false. Make a more believable excuse. So anyway, at least there is some amount of courtesy in trying to make an excuse.
But in contrast, if we invite somebody for a program, and they say, even if I die, my dead body will never come to your home. This is not just saying no to the invitation. This is like punching the person in the face.
So this is Duryodhana’s attitude. When he is saying that I will not give even one particle of land, he is just punching Krishna in the face. He is even kicking Krishna in the face.
And what has happened is Duryodhana is not just against Krishna’s purpose. Duryodhana is acting in a self-destructive way. He is acting in a way that will create a very dark future for himself.
When we do wrong, there will be consequences for our actions. Sometimes the consequences may come a little later, but they come. So in one sense, Duryodhana is acting in an anti-spiritual way.
He is against his own soul. So Krishna wants even the good of Duryodhana at the level of his soul. And that’s why what he is going to do, he is going to stop Duryodhana from doing terrible things.
What happens is sometimes we have bad intentions. Of course, you know, many times we have bad intentions. But what happens is most of the times our better intelligence prevails and we don’t act on the bad intentions.
When somebody provokes us, something else, we just punch that person in the face. But you know, our intelligence, our conscience, our culture, you know, I shouldn’t do that. But sometimes some people are just too short-tempered.
So if they are acting very brazenly, say if a small infant gets angry, the infant can just flail their hands and looks at Duryodhana. If a young man gets angry, they can find a gun and shoot people. If the President of America gets angry, they can nuke an entire country.
So sometimes to stop people from doing dangerous things, one of the ways is to take away their powers. Then if the President of America is about to use nuclear weapons against a particular country, then that’s not necessary. Maybe the President has to be impeached and removed.
So they have to be sent forward. So that is what Krishna is doing. He is stopping Duryodhana.
So he’s not against Duryodhana. So this is the context. Krishna is not partial towards Arjuna or he is not biased against Duryodhana.
He has a mission for the world, world’s benefit. And Arjuna is assisting him and Duryodhana is obstructing him. And now Krishna is acting in such a way that if Arjuna assists him, Arjuna will be elevated.
And if Duryodhana opposes him, Duryodhana will be degraded. So therefore Krishna is neutralizing Duryodhana. So that at least he won’t be making things worse for the world and making things worse for himself.
So Krishna may not be equal in the sense of being identical, but he is equal in the sense of being effectively equal. Not literal equality, but effective equality. You had a question or comment? So couldn’t we say like Duryodhana was making Krishna’s life easier, like he was also like assisting Krishna because he was against him so that way in war like they could get rid of all the evil.
Like apart from Duryodhana, he is facilitating the destruction of all the evil people also. And like we have similar examples in like those two people like who grew up like those trees in Krishna’s backyard. So yeah.
Okay, that’s an interesting question. That is Duryodhana also assisting Krishna in his plan? Well that’s where the difference is that is a person intentionally assisting or accidentally assisting? It’s like somebody in a battlefield who is trained to fight and they have come there heroically on the battlefield and they are courageously going to the battlefield and maybe throwing grenades in the opposite camp. So the enemy will be destroyed.
And somebody who is a reckless young man who has got some grenades and just throwing them somewhere, they happen to land in the enemy’s camp. You know, it’s a very different situation. So now Duryodhana, ultimately it is Krishna’s expertise that Krishna can further his plan even through those who have no intention to assist in his plan.
But that is Krishna’s glory. That is not that person’s glory. So such people, because they don’t have the intention to serve Krishna, so they don’t get the benefits.
Ultimately, all the power, all the ability that we have is not ours. We have it today, we may lose it too. That’s how the nature of the world is.
Somebody may be in the top of the world at one moment. And just a few moments later, that person may just, I don’t know, what happened to me? If you consider cricket, the Kohli was in the top of the cricket world just a few months ago. And now he doesn’t know whether he has a place in the Indian team.
We have nothing against Kohli, we offer our best wishes to him. The point I’m making is that our abilities are not our abilities. They’re actually abilities given by God to us.
So for those of you who don’t know Kohli, I lament your ignorance. Kohli is a famous Indian cricketer. When I come to America, many of my, especially when I’m speaking directly to people who are Americans, many of my hosts tell me, don’t use any cricket examples.
Because they say, for many Americans, when you use the word cricket, they think of the insect, not the game. So probably in other sports, you know players who are at the top of the world at one time, and sometimes they are, they are nobodies. So our abilities are not our abilities.
So whatever we are able to do, that ability is given to us by God. But what is in our control is not so much our ability as our mentality. So a Durudhan mentality was not a devotional mentality.
Mahabharata ethics is complex. And they both are in different situations. What happens is, see there is black and there is white.
And most of reality is in the muddled middle, when things are not so clear. So yes, Duryodhana, sorry, Duryodhana was clearly evil. He had tried to assassinate his cousins, he even tried to assassinate his own mother, his, you could say, Pandava’s mother.
He had tried to disrobe Draupadi. So he was clearly evil. But for Duryodhana and Bhishma, what happened was, in their case, their moral compass got confused.
See, when there are, when there is a, how should I put it? Say suppose somebody wants to, wants to get some new phone. And then they go to a shop and they say this phone, I don’t have enough money to buy it. But then they look around and say, in the supermarket, the camera here is broken.
So we can put this in my pocket and go. Now at that time, most people know what is right and what is wrong. And to choose the right, we need moral strength.
But sometimes there may be two right options or two good values. So if somebody says, I will always speak the truth. And they have a friend who is being chased by some rioters.
And they say, please save me, because that friend belongs to a particular ethnicity and the rioters won’t attack that person. And they hide that person, that friend in the basement. And those rioters knock on the door and bang on the door.
Is he here? Now what should they do at that time? There is one value is to speak the truth. The other value is to protect someone’s life. So in this case, what should the person do? What do you think? Yeah, save the person’s life.
The emphasis is not on lying. The emphasis is on saving the person’s life. If saving the person’s life requires lying, then do that.
So the idea is, but in this case, there are two moral values and which moral values higher, that is much more difficult. That’s why we don’t just need values to guide us in our life. We need a framework that places values in a hierarchy.
And sometimes some people get the hierarchy wrong. So in the case of Dronacharya and Bhishma, they got their hierarchy wrong. So they placed the cause of dharma below their own personal words or personal obligations.
So in that case, their ethical count there, they were not evil. But they were, you could say, they were misled or they miscalculated. It was not that they lacked moral strength, but their moral intelligence went misfired at that particular time.
There is a difference between the two. So one is motivated by greed or evil. The other is just misunderstanding which is a higher value.
Okay, so let me take the last part and then we can have a few questions before you become liberated. So now in our own lives, when we talk about equality, you may see so many of these and you may see things differently. In our office, we may work just as hard as someone else and somebody else may get a raise, somebody else may get promoted.
And you feel, why is this happening? Sometimes in our family, we may have a sibling and both of us have grown up and we have our family, we have our children, we are doing well in our life. But our parents always seem to appreciate the other sibling, they never appreciate us. Sometimes it may seem that inequality may seem to be there everywhere.
So how do we deal with this? So there are two levels. There is one is a practical level and the other is the transcendental or the spiritual level. So the idea is that in our philosophy, the understanding of this world is real.
At the same time, there is a reality beyond this world. So this world is real means if there is a problem, then we try to fix it at the level of this world. So if somebody is repeatedly treating us as if we are treated equally by our boss, then maybe in a polite but firm way, we assertively ask.
This is my track record. Why was I not given the raise? And sometimes they give the straight answer. Sometimes some people prefer good communication.
So if we experience an unequal treatment, we can act at a practical level to find out what is the cause. And sometimes it’s possible to fix things at will. But sometimes, just some people are biased.
Or sometimes you just can’t make sense. Two people, say two twins grow up exactly in the same environment, eat the same food, live in the same, have very similar habits. And suddenly one of the friends, one of the twins gets cancer.
Now here whom do you enquire from also? You go to a doctor and doctors don’t know what is the, what is, what specifically causes cancer. So sometimes, we just see that there is inequality and there is no practical way to address it. So this is where, so where often atheists ask this question.
Why do bad things happen to good people? And that is a valid and serious question. But at the same time, it’s important to understand that actually when atheists use this argument to say that God doesn’t exist, there is a good God, why would bad things happen to good people? Well, we could turn it around and ask the question, you know, if there is no God, then why should bad things not happen to good people? Isn’t it? If there is no God, there is no ordering principle, then anything can happen to anyone. Isn’t it? Bad things may happen to good people, good things may happen to bad people.
Everything is by chance. There is no moral order to the universe if there is no God. So why even ask this question? So we ask this question because we implicitly understand and experience that if we do good, we get good.
That is how the world works. No parent, even those parents who say, who may be philosophy professors who say there is no God, there is no morality, no absolute morality, everything is subjective, then they will not teach their children. When you wake up, whether you make your bed or not, it’s all the same.
Whether you brush your teeth or not, it’s all the same. Whether you eat your broccoli or whether you eat chocolates, it’s all the same. Nobody trains anyone like that.
We all understand that our actions have consequences. And that’s how we train. And we train those who we love.
And that’s how we act. So the point is that in general, we do see that our actions lead to consequences. And if we act properly, there are good results.
But there are some times, some people may say many times, when we act properly, but we don’t get the proper results. So it is, we could say, it is because we have good things happening to good people, sometimes, that we get the question, why don’t they happen all the time? I hope my point is clear over here. We all have experienced, say, if our life is very disorganized, and then we start organizing our life, we start managing our time better.
You know, some people, they eat very healthy. And there are some people who treat their tongue like a conveyor belt. So anything and everything goes on their tongue.
Now, sometimes they may say that they may have a metabolic system that it can digest even stones. But it won’t last for very long. It will catch up with them eventually.
But so suppose somebody starts eating healthy, it may not be that the health improves miraculously, but their health does improve for the better. So to some extent, we do see that good actions lead to good results. So then, when the good actions don’t lead to good results, how do we make sense of them? So the point is that that is where God comes into the picture.
That is where we understand that there is a bigger picture. There are bigger things happening in my life than what I can understand. One of the fundamental virtues on the spiritual path is humility.
There are 20 virtues that comprise wisdom. The first he says is humility. Now, humility doesn’t just mean when we come in front of the Lord, we fold our hands and we bow down.
That is physical humility. But much more important than physical humility is intellectual humility. Intellectual humility means what? It means that we don’t presume just because things don’t make sense to me, there is no sense to things.
Intellectual humility means that just because I can’t make sense of things, therefore things are all senseless. Intellectual humility means the openness that I don’t understand what’s happening right now, but maybe there’s a higher plan. Let me be open to it.
What happens is we look at the present and plan the future. God looks at the future and plans the present. I repeat this.
You can repeat with me. We look at the present and plan the future. God looks at the future and plans the present.
Because of this difference in perspectives, sometimes we don’t understand why this is happening. But if you understand this principle of effective equality, so somebody else may do the same thing. Somebody else gets a raise in their office.
Somebody else gets some other good thing happens to them and for us it doesn’t happen. Maybe there’s a bigger plan in our life. God is effectively equal.
He may not be literally equal. Somebody is doing good and they’re getting good. We are doing good and we’re not getting good.
That doesn’t mean God is biased against us. That is we are at different places and if we are doing good and not getting good, that is an opportunity for us to grow in wisdom and devotion. Because earlier I said knowledge means the capacity to see what our eyes can’t see.
It’s very easy to have faith in the fairness of God when we do good and get good. But when we do good and don’t get good, that’s when we have an opportunity to express our faith, to exercise our knowledge. Maybe there are bigger things in this universe than what your philosophy can comprehend.
So we all have a particular philosophical value but there are bigger things in the universe. So when we understand this, then what do we do at the end? So I’ll conclude with this point. At least we have the intellectual ability.
Maybe something is going on. Maybe something is going on. So how does Krishna himself guide? Later on in the Kurukshetra war, what happens is Arjuna’s son Abhimanyu is killed.
And he is killed in a vicious way. Six warriors attack him simultaneously and they kill him. And when Arjuna comes back on that day after fighting, Arjuna has been sidetracked by other warriors.
He is fighting relentlessly all day. Then he comes back to the camp. Normally, see in those times, a battle was like a sports.
You would fight all day and then at the end of the day, no matter how, what a tense point my match is poised, you say, okay, stop now. We’ll continue to play tomorrow. So that is more a sporting spirit.
It’s a test of skills and strength. So Arjuna came. And normally when the players come back, there may be music and some entertainment, some relaxation.
So normally they will celebrate with music in the camp. On that day, when Arjuna came back, there was complete silence. There was a somber atmosphere.
And not one of the soldiers or warriors was meeting Arjuna’s eyes. Arjuna started feeling a bit in his stomach. He had heard during the war, so much was happening.
He had heard somebody call out, Oh, Dronacharya is forming the Chakravyuha. But he had been so busy fighting that he had not paid attention. He started thinking.
Did they form a Chakravyuha? That was true. Chakravyuha was a very complex military formation. And one can trap and overpower any enemy, most enemies.
So only Abhimanyu knew how to break out. Abhimanyu was Arjuna’s son. But Abhimanyu didn’t know how to go in.
He didn’t know how to come out. So he started, his heart started palpitating. Has anything happened to Abhimanyu? And then as he came into their tent, as soon as he entered, his eyes went straight to the throne of Abhimanyu.
All the prominent warriors had their own thrones. And he saw Abhimanyu’s throne was empty. His heart stormed in horror.
He just couldn’t accept what his eyes were showing him. Still not wanting to believe it, he looked at his brothers. And he saw Yudhishthir’s tear-stained face and his worst fears were materialized.
He collapsed on the ground, aghast. He started crying. I think Yudhishthir had this extremely difficult meeting as the eldest brother.
He came forward and started explaining to Arjuna what had happened, how Abhimanyu had been isolated and trapped and then massacred. And as Arjuna heard this, his grief turned into fury and he latched out at his brothers. He says, are all your weapons just ornaments? Could not one of you protect my son? What is the use of all of you being such great heroes? He started lambasting his brothers.
At that time, Krishna came forward and hugged Arjuna on his side. And Krishna said to Arjuna, O Arjuna, in this world, adversities befall everyone, both the good people and the bad people, the wise people and the unwise people. But the difference between the two is that amid adversities, good people act in a way that makes things better.
As bad people, unwise people act in ways that make things worse. O Arjuna, look at the faces of your brothers. They are grieving Abhimanyu’s death just as you are.
They love him just as you do. Pray, O Arjuna, don’t speak words that increase their misery. So it’s a signal that we should finish.
So the point I’m making is that Krishna, what does he do over here? He tells Arjuna, act in a way that will make things better, not worse. And that is what we can do. Sometimes life seems to be unfair to us.
We think even God is unfair to us. God is not effectively unfair, although he seems actually unfair. But at that time, what we can do is, okay, I don’t know why this is happening.
I don’t know how to make sense of this. But let’s ask the question, what can I do to make things better? And let me not do anything that will make things worse. And if you just ask this question, life may be unfair to us, but we don’t have to compound that unfairness by being unfair to ourselves.
How can we be unfair to ourselves? Sometimes we may beat ourselves up. You know, maybe I am jinxed. Maybe my destiny is rotten.
Maybe I’m never meant to amount to anything in my life. So no, that’s not true. Yeah, everybody goes through bad cases in life.
Bad cases will happen. But how can I act to make things better, not worse? So what the Mahabharata does is, the Pandavas were good people and many bad things happened to them. And the Mahabharata doesn’t go into too much into previous lives.
They did this and they did that. And because of that, this happened to them. But it focuses on how the Pandavas responded to all the bad things that happened to them.
So the wisdom texts of the Bhakti tradition, they reframe the question, why do bad things happen to good people? That’s an important question. And there are karma and other things to answer that question. But the emphasis of scripture is to reframe the question.
What is the reframe question? When bad things happen to good people, what do good people do? What do good people do? They act in a way that makes things better, not worse. So that is ultimately the way we can reciprocate with God. I started by talking about effective equality, which can seem like literal inequality.
So when life seems unfair to us, we can see that as an opportunity to grow up spiritually, to put faith in God. Okay, I don’t understand what the situation is or why I’m in this situation. But I understand that God is my salvation and he wants me to grow up.
And the way I grow up is by trying to act in ways that makes things better. And how can I make things better? We stop being resentful. We stop seeing it all the ways life has treated me unfairly.
Just look at some ways in which life has treated me fairly. Some ways life may have treated me more than fairly. Sometimes we have got more good than what we deserve.
We all, if you look at our life, we all got some lucky breaks, when something just fell for us. So look at that and be grateful and try to act and to make things better. And if we act in this way, we will find to our amazement that things will become better.
And especially if we do it in a mode of service to God, not only will things become better externally, but we will become better internally. If we act in a way to make things better, we will find that our faith in God will increase. We will have grown wiser.
We will have grown stronger. We will have grown deeper in our life. And that is life’s most enduring pain.
That greater wisdom, that greater devotion, that will take us to life’s highest destination. That will toughen us to face the toughest challenges that life throws our way. And that will ultimately take us to be united with God, to be with him for a life of eternal love and eternal joy.
That is life’s supreme purpose and supreme perfection. So in summarize, I spoke broadly three points. First was the idea of, yeah, that thing was how to understand when life or God doesn’t seem to be equal to us.
So first was equality. It’s not literal, but effective. Parents may treat different children differently for equally encouraging them to grow.
Then was Krishna partial on the Kurukshetra battlefield? Krishna was not taking the side of Arjuna. Rather, Krishna wanted the good of everyone and Arjuna had taken Krishna’s side and Duryodhana had taken the opposite side. And Duryodhana had not just taken the side opposite to Krishna, Duryodhana had taken opposite to his own soul.
And to benefit Duryodhana, Krishna neutralized him. So Krishna was equal to both of them. And then in our life, when we see that, feel that life is treating us unfairly, we can act at a practical level to try to resolve it if we can.
Just politely but assertively ask and try to get things resolved. But if we can’t, then what do we do? If life is unfair, don’t be unfair to ourselves by becoming resentful towards the world or towards ourselves. Just change the position.
Not why is this bad thing happening to me, but what can I do to make things better? And if we act in that way, not only will we gradually make things better externally, but we will become better internally. And that will be a lasting gain for us. So let’s conclude with a small prayer.
My dear Lord Krishna, please give me the strength to always have faith in you and to maintain a service attitude toward you. Please let me always act in ways to make things better and avoid acting in ways that make things worse. Thank you very much.
So, prior to the battle for Accenture, whenever they were choosing going to King’s to get permission and stuff like that, whenever Duryodhana went to Balarama, I don’t know if this is how it exactly happened, but Balarama essentially was like, he decided to remain neutral. He didn’t take any sides because he didn’t think it was fair that the crowned above retreated this one way and Duryodhana was treated another way because Maharajas participated in the game of dice. So him, I guess essentially, why did he actively remain neutral? I know that he didn’t want to fight against Krishna, but he also didn’t want to be in support of the war.
Yeah, that’s a tough question. While Balarama did not support the Pandavas directly, he, in fact, Balarama is also known as Duryodhana Guru. He had trained Duryodhana in this fighting.
See, there are different levels at which something like this can manifest. At one level, Duryodhana was brilliant. He was what you can say an evil genius.
One of my friends in India gave, nowadays there is a lot of attraction for subversive analysis. Subversive analysis means, what is the normal understanding? Just give the opposite understanding and everybody is attracted. So, I was in South India and there was, I said, there is a program, I belong to RPC.
What is RPC? Ravana Protection Committee. So, they said, actually, Ravana was a good person. He just made one mistake in his life.
And then all these Brahmins, they have spoiled his good name. So, I want to restore the good name of Ravana. So, there is subversive analysis.
So, one of my friends, he gave a seminar in a college, learning leadership qualities from Duryodhana. So, Ravana said, what, he is a terrible person. Well, not so simple.
He was expert in his own way. We often just say, we said, Duryodhana had how many brothers? 99 brothers. They have to talk to 100 and his 99 brothers follow him.
If you have one sibling, try to get that sibling to follow you. It’s difficult. So, Duryodhana was expert in, you could say, what in today’s world would call spin doctrine.
That’s how he actually presented his side of the story in such a way that people just believed his side of the story. So, what happened was, that’s how he was able to get 11 of Shambhala soldiers to fight with him. He was able to form a bigger army.
So, at one level, we could say that even Balram was affected by that. But that’s an external understanding. Balram is God.
He is not going to be affected by that. But that’s one level of lesson we can learn, that even just because somebody is bad, doesn’t mean everybody will automatically understand that they are bad. If they can do good marketing of their cause, even a bad cause can seem to be good.
So, it’s not enough to be good in the world. It’s actually important to be seen as good also. We don’t want to exhibit our goodness, but we have to be concerned that our virtue is known to them.
Otherwise, there will always be people who are malignants. What happened is, the Pandavas were in the forest and because they were isolated from all the other kings, they didn’t get time to tell their story to anyone for almost 13 years. That’s one side.
But the other important point is that Balram often acts in contrary ways to spice Krishna’s pastimes. So, there is Moushe Mabila. Moushe Mabila means that sometimes some devotees of Krishna, they take on the role of demons, that Krishna can have some excitement of fighting with somebody who is challenging, like Jai and Vijay.
They are the doorkeepers of Krishna. But they become these demons. They become Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakashipu.
They become Ravana and Kumbhakarna. They become Shishupala and Dantavakra. So, we could say Balram takes that contrary role just to spice Krishna’s pastimes.
So, Krishna and Balram never fight, but Krishna and Balram have fierce arguments at times. And Balram opposes Krishna and Krishna responds to it. So, that’s how there is some Rasa in that.
Thank you. Yes. That is an aside.
Could you say that Balram is God, also Krishna? So, that embodies actually this text here. Balram was equal to all, but then Krishna was part throughout the same time to his devotees. Okay.
That was my question. That’s a good point. So, Balram was equal to all.
Well, Balram, even he had his personal preferences because Balram trained Duryodhana. He didn’t train Bhima. So, you can say that at one level, it was not because of Duryodhana’s qualification that Balram trained him.
It was because of Balram’s own compassion. But sometimes even God can offer compassion to the undeserved. But sometimes the undeserved may reciprocate with that.
Sometimes they may not reciprocate properly. So, it’s not so much a matter of fair or unfair over here. It’s more of God manifesting in different moods in different manifestations.
So, Krishna has a particular mood, Balram has a particular mood. And so, they are the same person, but they are very different personalities. And based on their personality, they have naturally attraction to some people.
So, personality means individuality. Now, Krishna plays a flute. Now, why? He says, Krishna is partial to flute.
Why can’t Krishna play harmonium? Krishna can play harmoniums if he wants. But that’s his personal. He likes a flute.
Okay. My actual question was, I believe you said that Krishna gives everyone the opportunity to have partiality towards him. What about the people that don’t ever, at least in this lifetime, don’t get to meet Krishna, or people that are born from Brahmana families? How is that equal opportunity? So, those people who don’t get the opportunity to turn towards Krishna in this life, well, it’s not necessarily Krishna in a particular, like a two-handed flute-playing manifestation.
During the course of human life, everybody comes at some point or the other towards a juncture where they start thinking, is there something higher in life? And at that time, there are crossroads. They can explore. And if they explore, then the path to Krishna will open for them.
But many times people just turn back. Yeah, maybe there is, but it doesn’t matter. So, it’s a choice.
So, everybody gets that opportunity, not necessarily directly connect with Krishna, sometimes directly connect with Krishna also, but just to explore higher lives, higher sight, higher meaning, higher purpose. Some time of the life brings them to that. But they have to take that opportunity.
And at the same time, we can say, therefore, it’s our responsibility to try to give that opportunity as much as possible. So, we open the door to spirituality for them. We give them a book, we act cordially and friendly with them, invite them for programs, even if they don’t come, we maintain a cordial relationship.
So, whenever they feel inspired, when your life brings them to a juncture where they become introspective, spiritually reflective, then our open door is by giving. Okay, thank you. Maybe last question.
Yes, please. You spoke about the quality of Krishna, but in the same verse, it also speaks about his partiality, where he says also, he asks our Krishna to declare that his devotee never perishes, that he has a reciprocity, where he treats his devotee differently because they are partial to him. How do we understand this in cases, not only when devotees are materially in difficulty, which, as you said, is his way of thinking as well, but how do we understand this in cases where the devotional service itself is in question, right? Devotees may stop practicing, or they may be in difficulty because of devotional service.
Is that only on their part, or is that something that Krishna is allowing as a habit as well? So, if some devotee faces such difficulties, some devotees face such difficulties that they can’t bear it and they stop practicing their bhakti. So then, where exactly is Krishna’s protection at that time? That’s a tough question again. My understanding is that Krishna’s protection can come in multiple forms, and in such situations, quite often, it is we who have to manifest Krishna’s protection.
So, if somebody is stopping the practice of bhakti, then we try to become their connection with Krishna, not just become their Kali Matani, why don’t you come to the temple, chant some Ramayana. No, just see what difficulties they have and try to offer support. We generally can’t guilt people into practicing bhakti.
How can you stop chanting? How can you not do this? You know, Krishna, just consider the example of Manju. I was expecting this question. All of you know the answer, right? Arjuna heard the Bhagavad Gita and Krishna said, A wise person is not bewildered by death, because there is a change of voice.
Then why was Arjuna so shattered that his own son died? Well, let’s first, I’ll answer that question, but let’s first look at Krishna’s response. Krishna didn’t say, Arjuna, you already forgot the Bhagavad Gita, what I taught in this? How are you so dumb? No, Krishna didn’t do that. Why? See, it’s because there is a time for philosophical instruction and there is a time for emotional support.
So when somebody has lost someone as dear to them as a child, okay, the philosophy is important, but, and the philosophy needs to be remembered, but there is a real hurt. It’s like, suppose, you know, somebody has an accident and they break their hand, their hand gets broken in the accident, and then they’re going home to study. They can’t lift books.
And they say, I can’t lift this bag. Come on, Prabhu, you’re not your body. Yeah, I’m not my body, but this body is the instrument that I have and it is injured, isn’t it? So just like the body can get injured, the mind, which is our subtle body, that can also get wounded.
And when something or someone very dear to us is lost, there is a real emotional wound. And at that time, that person needs support. Just like a person can’t lift weight because their hand is fractured.
At that time, there’s no point in telling them, you’re not your body. Yeah, I’ll lift it for you. So similarly, at that time, when somebody is going through some difficulties, we should be there to offer them support.
And if we offer them support, and they say that, yeah, devotees are helpful for them, they will not just see we helping them. They will see actually, okay, these are Krishna’s devotees who are helping me. It’s Krishna who is helping me through these devotees.
So that’s how we have to become the instruments of protection. And when we do that, that can strengthen others’ faith a lot. So rather than judging or guilting people into bhakti, we just try to help them in whatever way we can.
And yes, sometimes people are going through difficulties and they have to process those difficulties on their own terms. We can help them, but they have to process it on their own terms. So they may need some time to process it.
So we either re-manifest that protection or let that protection manifest to someone else. Okay. So thank you very much for your thoughtful questions and for your active participation.