Understanding attachment, detachment and commitment

Understanding attachment, detachment, commitment 1 – Frustration is not renunciation

Understanding attachment, detachment, commitment 2 – Detachment is not hardheartedness – it is levelheadedness

Understanding attachment, detachment, commitment 3 – Devotion as emotion, disposition and cultivation

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Thank you for coming here today evening and as mentioned today I’ll be speaking on the topic of beyond attachment and detachment to commitment. So I’ll be speaking largely based on the Mahabharata and I’ll take certain relationships of the Mahabharata as examples for illustrating the concepts and today I’ll speak on the relationship or based on the relationship between Vidura and Dhritarashtra and in that connection we’ll also discuss the three relations Vidura, Dhritarashtra, Duryodhana and then we’ll also discuss the relationship between Dhritarashtra and Yudhishtira. So today I’ll focus on Vidura and Dhritarashtra and then tomorrow Vidura, Dhritarashtra and Duryodhana and the day after tomorrow Dhritarashtra and Yudhishtira and we’ll discuss these concepts.
Now when we talk about attachment, detachment and commitment. So usually in spiritual circles the understanding is that attachment is bad. We should not be attached.
We should become detached. That is how we can make gross the ritual. Yes, that is one way of looking at things.
The Bhagavad Gita, let’s talk about detachment. If you look at the Bhagavad Gita, it has 18 chapters. In the first six chapters talk about how it should work without attachment.
People in general act out of attachment, but the wise person acts but without attachment. The attached suffer, they become bound. The detached remain peaceful.
The Bhagavad Gita talks about attachment and detachment repeatedly in the first six chapters and त्यावगाच् शामनुदि तेरनंदितरम् If one is detached, one can have peace. At the same time, in the seventh chapter or from the seventh chapter onwards, the Gita also talks about something positive. 7.1 begins with मैं आसक्तमनहा मैं आसक्तमनहा पार्थ योगम्युईन्मदाश्रिया असंचयं समग्रम्माम् यतावज्ञान्स सिदच्छुनु So Krishna says, now I will tell you about the process of yoga by which your mind will become attached to me.
मैं आसक्तमनहा And this 7.1, it is actually at the end of the sixth chapter, the sixth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita is called ध्यान्योगा which involves, Krishna says, the yogi gives up home, goes to a jungle, शुचवु देशे पतिष्ठाव्यः थिरमासनमात्मनः नात्युच्वितम् नातिनीचम् चैलाजिन कुष्रोतरम् The yogi gives up home, goes to a jungle, sits in a sacred place, in a yogic asana and then starts meditating. So he is talking about giving up connection with the world. And in this way gradually after sadhana one attains निन्यन्येवं सदात्मानं योगीपिकतकल्मशाः सुखेनव्रम्मसंस्परश्यम् अत्यंतं सुखाश्यते In this way, the yogi keeps practicing yoga sadhana and ultimately the mind becomes peaceful, the mind becomes purified and then one will experience spiritual happiness.
And the highest state of spiritual realization, Krishna says, is constantly thinking about Krishna. योगिनामः कि सर्वेशाम् मद्गतेनां तरात्मनां शद्धावान् बचितेयोमां समेन्युक्ततं मोह्मताः Krishna in 6.47 says that among all yogis, those who think about me constantly, they are actually the topmost yogis. So that means if we consider what is happening in the Gita, say this is the axis, this is the negative part of the axis, this is the zero point, this is the positive axis.
So initially, Krishna is talking about moving from material attachment to material detachment. And material detachment is like the zero point. But afterwards, he starts talking about spiritual attachment, which is on the positive axis.
So मै आसक्तमनः become attached to me. And in that sense, the Gita explains that from the bhakti perspective, attachment and detachment, from the spiritual perspective in general, there is a spiritual perspective and there is a devotional perspective. Spiritual perspective simply focuses on, this is matter, this is spirit.
Matter is to be given up, matter is temporary, matter is entangling, matter is to be given up. And spirit is eternal, spirit is blissful, which is focused on spirit. So in that sense, in the spiritual perspective, attachment is bad, attachment to matter, detachment from matter is good.
But from the bhakti perspective, the focus is not just on matter and spirit. The focus is on the source of matter and spirit. That is Krishna, God.
He says that ईत्यो निन्भूतानि सर्वानित्यो पदारया अहमु कुछनस्य जबत्या प्रभावात्रयस्तता Whatever exists in this world, it all comes from me. So material and spiritual, everything comes from Krishna. And from that perspective, the material thinking, this is material is to be given up, this is spiritual is to be taken up.
In one perspective, it is good. But if you focus on your attachment and detachment, both can actually be self-centered. The attachment is I want to enjoy this.
And detachment means I can’t enjoy this, so I give it up. So most of us know the story of the fox and the sour grapes. The fox wants to jump up and get the grapes.
And when the fox finds I can’t get the grapes, the fox says, oh, the grapes are sour anyway. Forget it. So now there is a big difference between frustration and renunciation.
Frustration is inability to enjoy. Renunciation is unwillingness to enjoy, is not having an interest in enjoying. So in frustration, there is the desire, but there is no ability.
Whereas in renunciation, one has got something higher by which one doesn’t have an interest. So externally, frustration and renunciation may seem to be similar. But internally, the consciousness is very different.
So if detachment is not properly understood, then attachment and detachment can actually be two sides of the same coin of self-centeredness. Attachment and detachment can be two sides of the same coin of self-centeredness. Because it is I who is in center.
I want to enjoy and therefore I want this, I want this, I want this. I can’t enjoy that, so I don’t care for it. I don’t care for it.
I don’t care for it. So attachment and this is actually not exactly detachment. This concept of detachment is basically frustration.
So that is still a person is self-centered. A person is self-centered. And when we are self-centered, we cannot be Krishna centered.
We cannot actually grow in Bhakti. So now in the Mahabharata, the whole Mahabharata is actually a book about Dharma. Now try to understand what is Dharma.
Now generally the word Dharma in common language, it is often translated as religion. Another sense in which it is used is duty. So Dharma means there is Hindu Dharma, there is Christian Dharma, there is Muslim Dharma.
That is religion. Dharma is also translated as duty. If somebody is a student, it is your duty, it is your Dharma to study.
So like that Dharma can also be translated as duty. Another meaning of the word Dharma, if you look at the Sanskrit, it comes from the root Dhru. Dhru means to sustain or to maintain.
So that which sustains a thing in its existence, that is called Dharma. That is that which makes a thing what it is. So for example, Srila Prabhupada, in his Bhagavad Gita introduction, he explains that Dharma of sugar is sweetness.
That means the defining nature, that which makes sugar, sugar is sweetness. You know somebody comes and tells us, today I have got salty sugar. What do you mean salty sugar? If it is salty, it is not sugar.
So sugar is defined by sweetness. So now that means the word Dharma, if you look at from the essential or the etymological meaning, it actually refers to the essential nature, the essential nature of a thing. So then how are these three meanings, religion, duty and nature, these three meanings of Dharma related? Actually how they are related is that Dharma is that duty which enables us to return to our nature.
That duty which enables us to return to our natural state is called Dharma. This means the Bhagavad Gita explains that we are all souls. As souls we are parts of Krishna.
He says in 15.7 in the Gita. And as parts of Krishna, we are meant to be in harmony with the whole. So our nature is to love Krishna, to serve Krishna and to delight in that.
That is our essential nature. And that which enables us, the activity which enables us to return to this nature, that is also Dharma, that is also religion, that is duty. So now to illustrate this point and its connection with our main subject.
Dharma is actually liberating, it is freeing. If a fish is in water and if a fish says, I want to be free to do whatever I want to do and the fish jumps out of water. Actually that is not freedom, that is misery, that can be death for the fish.
So some people have the idea, freedom means reject all restrictions. Reject all restrictions, that is what will make me free. But it is not necessary that rejection of restrictions will always bring freedom.
For a fish, water is its natural habitat. The fish comes out of water, it will not become freed. It will actually become agonized, it will become miserable.
So freedom comes not by rejecting all restrictions, but it comes by finding the restrictions that set us free. We all need some restrictions. If somebody says, I want to drive super fast, and that person says, I won’t drive on the road.
Well, you are not driving on the road, what to speak of driving super fast, you will not be able to drive at all. So if a person wants to say, somebody is doing some super fast car racing or something like that, then driving on the road is what enables them to drive fast. A train has to go on the rails.
To the extent it agrees to stay on the restricted path of the rails. To that extent, the train can go fast. Otherwise, what to speak of going fast, it may not even be able to move.
So dharma at one level can appear restrictive. Oh, don’t do this, don’t do this, don’t do this. So in the Bible, it is said that the first word is, in the beginning was the word and the word was God.
That’s how the Bible begins. So there are some atheists who make a gag, a joke on the Bible, and they say the beginning was the word and the word was no. The word was no.
So their idea is religion is very life denying. No, you should not do this. You should not do this.
You should not do that. You should not do that. But that is a very incomplete understanding of religion.
Actually, the purpose of religion is not to restrict us and to deprive us. There are some restrictions, but the purpose of restriction is to free us. So that we can do our way.
The train, to the extent it stays restricted on the rails, to that extent it can move fast. So like that, freedom comes not by rejecting all restrictions, but it comes by finding the right restrictions. By finding the restrictions that enable us to bring out our best.
So the Mahabharata is whole a search for dharma. What is dharma? That is the question. In fact, the Bhagavad Gita also, when Arjuna is bewildered on seeing his own grandfather and his martial teacher on the opposite side, thinking, how can I fight? Guru Nath Tvahi Maha Anubhavaan says, Katham Bheeshma Maham Sankhye Dronam Che Madhu Soodhana Ishu Bhi Pratyodh Swami Pooja Ramavari Soodhana They are worshipable for me, Bheeshma and Drona.
How can I shoot arrows at them? So he is bewildered, Arjuna, about what to do. But at that time, he doesn’t ask Krishna a simple question. Should I fight or should I not fight? If Arjuna had asked Krishna a simple question, then Bhagavad Gita would not have been relevant 5000 years ago.
Some war 5000 years ago, some person asked, should I fight or should I not fight? What would be the interest now? What makes the Bhagavad Gita of universal interest is that the universal question that Arjuna asks. Arjuna asks, Pruchcha Mitwam Dharm Samud Chetaha Pruchcha Mitwam, in 2.7 he says, I am asking you, what is dharma? What is the right thing to do? What is the thing which will enable me to become free, which will enable me to return to my nature? And this is answered at different levels in the Gita, in the Mahabharata actually. So how do we know what is right and what is wrong? Now the Mahabharata gives us three levels of answers, that it can be by intent, it can be by content, and it can be by consequence.
I’ll give an example for this and then we’ll come back to this. Say there is a doctor and a patient comes to the doctor. And then the patient is having a lot of fever.
And the doctor says, oh, this patient is having so much fever, so much suffering. And then the doctor says, I really want to heal this patient. The doctor has good intention.
Now, based on that intention, the doctor gives a medicine. Okay, you take this medicine, you’ll be cured. So now, there can be sometimes, some people who offer not health care, but they offer health scare.
What they do is, they think that the more I create fear in the patient, and the more the patient will pay for more tests, then I can fleece the patient more. So here, the intent itself is bad. So if the doctor sees the patient, not as a person who is to be helped, but simply as a bank account to be sourced, then that is very sad.
So it is said that a doctor heals you with his pills and kills you with his bills. So sometimes the doctors have a… I hope there are no doctors here. And if I’m saying that, does it apply to them? Does it apply to them? There may be a few doctors who may be doing like that.
I’m not making a statement about the medical profession in general over here. The point is, sometimes some people may have bad intentions. So what is right and wrong, we can say it is decided by intent.
You have good intention or you have bad intention. So if a doctor deliberately tells do tests which are unnecessary, the intention itself is bad and that is a bad thing to do. Now intent can be one criteria by which we decide what is right or wrong.
The second criteria can be content. Content means what are we telling a person to do? Or what is a person actually doing? Now, suppose, going back to the same example, a patient is very sick. Somebody is very sick and they come to the doctor’s clinic.
And at that time, the doctor is not there. And the doctor’s assistant, some compounder is there. And this assistant is not medically trained, but has very good intention.
He says, oh, this patient is suffering. Let me help this patient. And this compounder, this assistant, who does not have proper medical knowledge, he prescribes some medicine.
But it is a wrong medicine. The intent is good, but the content is off. And that is a side effect.
Sometimes the side effect of a medicine can be the main effect. So it heals some small thing, but sometimes it creates a big problem otherwise. So just the intent being right is not enough.
The content also has to be right. A doctor should not only want to help the patient, but the doctor should also have the skill for helping the patient. So after that, there can also be the consequence.
Nowadays, just a few months ago, I was at a conference in India. It was organized by a medical association. So basically, in India, as well as in other parts of the world also, the relationship between patients and doctors is becoming very tense.
And especially if a patient dies, and the patient’s relatives or other people feel that the doctor was negligent. Sometimes the patient’s relatives, they become aggressive towards the doctor. They become violent.
And then the doctors, they also become insecure because some of them have been physically assaulted. And then they’ve made their own 911 or 100 whatever, their own emergency lines. And they have various measures for trying to protect themselves.
So the whole theme of the conference was that doctors and patients, from adversaries to allies, they’re not meant to be adversaries. They’re meant to be allies. But from the patient’s relative’s perspective, my relative came in on his feet into the hospital and he went out as a corpse.
So you must have done something. So from the patient’s point of view, or patient’s relative’s point of view, they see the consequence. Nobody can see the intent of people.
And we may not be qualified enough to know the content, whether they did the right thing. We say, well, you did. You’re supposed to treat.
But the patient died. So the common people, the patient’s relatives may judge based on the consequence. So you must have done something wrong.
So it now sometimes also possible that the doctor gives a medicine which has some other effect. This is a side effect. The consequence turns out to be bad.
So consequence can also be one way to judge that this was the wrong thing to do. This is the right thing to do. So when we say we learn from experience, what does it mean we learn from experience? That means when we experience the consequence of our actions, at that time we understand, oh, this action I should not have done.
So the right and the wrong thing, we can also decide by consequence. So broadly deciding what is right and what is wrong, this can be done in three ways. What are three ways? Intent, content and consequence.
So now, of course, The Bhagavatam explains that how do we know Dharma? It is from Shastra. It is coming from God and God has spoken through Shastra. At the same time, Shastra itself contains many things.
Many, many different instructions are there. There are different kinds of scriptures are there. And also Shastra also has to be applied according to time and place circumstances.
So we do get knowledge of Dharma from Shastra. But how that Shastra is to be applied in our world, we have to consider. And for that, so Dharma is the foundation, Shastra is the foundational ground for knowing what is right and what is wrong.
But even while studying Shastra, we have to consider this intent, content and consequence. So when we talk about attachment, detachment and commitment, that’s our subject. So when we talk about attachment and detachment, we focus on that right now.
So I talked about earlier about how frustration is not renunciation. So in content, the frustrated person and the renounced person, they both have given up some things. But the difference is in intent.
The intent of the frustrated person is still they want to enjoy, but they’re not able to enjoy. It’s like say somebody is fasting because they want to, because it’s a holy day and they want to purify themselves and fast. Somebody else is fasting because their stomach is upset.
So in content, both of them are fasting. But in intent, there is a big difference. So the frustration and renunciation, it’s like that.
The difference is in intent. And in one sense, intent, content and consequence, they’re all related also. So Krishna, he says that in the 18th chapter in 6th, 7th, 8th verses, he talks about tyaga, about renunciation in the three modes.
And there he says, कायक्लेशभयात्यजेदुक्ष्मित्येवयत्कर्मा कायक्लेशभयात्यजेद्सक्रुत्वाराजसं त्यागम् नईवत्यागपलंलंहेत् So he says some people give up work, give up their prescribability because they feel it is very troublesome. दुक्ष्मित्येवयत्कर्मा All this work, so much misery in it. कायक्लेशभयात्यजेद कायक्लेशभयात् That means there is so much trouble to the body and I don’t want all this trouble to the body.
And because of that when they give it up, सक्रुत्वाराजसं त्यागम् Such renunciation is in the mode of passion. And नईवत्यागपलंलंहेत् Such renunciation will not lead to the fruit of renunciation. Actually, this is a very striking usage.
नईवत्यागपलंलंहेत् Actually, throughout the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna is talking about doing त्यागवपलं Be detached from the fruits of work. But now he is talking about the fruit of detachment. Normally Krishna is talking earlier about be detached from fruits, But now he is talking about the fruit of detachment.
So what is the meaning of the fruit of detachment? Everything that we do has some purpose. And detachment also has a purpose. The purpose of detachment is to raise our consciousness from the material level to the spiritual level.
So detachment means when we are attached, our consciousness is consumed by the things that we are attached to. By the things which we wish to enjoy. Say an alcoholic is attached, addicted to alcohol.
The consciousness of the alcoholic is caught in the alcohol. When will I get it? When will I get it? When will I get it? And detachment means the consciousness becomes free to think of higher things. Now when a person gives up something simply because of the fear of the misery involved in doing that.
So at that time the consciousness is not elevated. It’s like a person is fasting because the stomach is upset. The person is still thinking when will my stomach become okay then I will be able to eat.
So there is still a longing for the same material thing. And in that sense there is no elevation of the consciousness. But suppose somebody is fasting because it’s a holy day and they want to purify their consciousness.
Then they won’t just be fasting. By fasting they may be chanting extra, they may be hearing some Krishna katha, they may be worshipping the deities. They are doing things which are connecting their consciousness with Krishna.
And then the tyaga phala, the fruit of the tyaga which is the elevation of consciousness that will come. So when I said that attachment and detachment can be two sides of the same coin of self-centeredness. So self-centeredness means this will give me so much enjoyment, I want it.
And this is causing me so much trouble so I’ll give it up. Then this is actually the result of, this is simply self-centered consciousness. This is not detachment.
This is frustration. This will not lead to the fruit of enunciation that is elevation of consciousness. It’s like sometimes when say a boy and a girl get attracted to each other.
And they say we want to get married, we want to get married now. We can’t live without each other, why don’t you understand? So before marriage they say we can’t live without each other. A few months after marriage they say we can’t live with each other.
So what has happened is there was some initial infatuation by which they were captivated and after that the infatuation has gone off. What is the point of this? So the whole relationship, it becomes sustainable only when there is at least some level of selflessness. So when there is only, oh this person will give me pleasure and I can’t live without that pleasure.
So I want that pleasure and I want it right now. And then because of some reason, this person is not giving me pleasure, this person is giving me misery. And therefore, I just want this person out of my life and I want them out of my life right now.
So what it is, it is again self-centeredness in both ways. So this attachment and detachment, in the past there were renunciates, the sages, you know, who would renounce the world, who would not marry. Now also there is a big movement against marriage.
In fact, in Wikipedia there is a whole article about what all, why all you should not marry. And it has got nothing to do with celibacy or spirituality. It is simply aversion to commitment.
So people don’t want to commit themselves to a relationship. They still want to, the consciousness is still material. So from the external point of view, a person who has transcended, who is at least trying to transcend and go to the spiritual level, and a person who is so materialistic that they just want to have all options open.
All options open. So why do people want to be averse to commitment? That is because they feel, okay, if I commit to one form, one relationship, that means I cannot have other relationships. So that means I want, not only do I want to enjoy, I want to have all doors for enjoyment open.
So that is not at all in any way detachment. So externally it can appear similar, but internally there is a big difference. So we live in a culture which is increasingly becoming averse to commitment.
And because of this aversion to commitment, relationships are becoming less and less sustained in all forms, whichever relationship it is. The idea is that it requires a certain level of commitment. So there is abortion which is being legalized in most parts of the world now.
And there is now, there is a materialistic philosopher. Actually, you cannot call him a philosopher. He is a phoolosopher.
But he made an argument and he said that if after the mother gives birth to a child, if after that she feels I don’t want the child, even then she should be allowed to abort the child. And when this, he published it in a reputed medical journal, it created such a furore. He says, how can you contemplate an argument like this? Child is born, the child is born.
How can you kill the child like that? And this, this philosopher’s argument is, he says, don’t be sentimental. Don’t be sentimental. He says, if you are ready to kill the child when it is inside the womb, what is the problem in killing when it is outside the womb? He says that if you are going to be so, so whatever arguments you are using for saying the child should not be killed outside the womb, that can apply to the child inside the womb also.
And if you are saying that they don’t apply when the child is inside the womb, why do they apply when the child is outside the womb? So his argument, if you take from his perspective, it’s right. Because the argument most of the time when it is given for abortion, it is utilitarian. Now abortion is in individual cases, specific cases, it can be a complex issue.
Say if a woman has been abused and then she becomes pregnant. But those cases, if you consider the total number of abortions that are there, they are very, very small. More often it is because of irresponsibility that it happens.
But either way, the point is that the child who is inside the womb is also conscious. Child also has a heartbeat. Child also is as much as a living being as the child who is outside.
So for us, when we see the child outside, it’s visible. And therefore, the idea of killing such a child is utterly revolting. The child is inside because it’s not visible.
Often it is said that, oh, this is just a tissue and we are removing the tissue. So all kinds of word jugglery that is done by which the truth is hidden. So the point I was making through this discussion about abortion is that when the relationship between the mother and the child is based simply on utilitarianism, the mother feels, you know, I’m too young right now.
I don’t want a child. Having a child will spoil my figure. Having a child will interfere with my career.
And these are the only considerations. These are considerations that have to be taken into account. They have to be taken into consideration.
But all this should be done before pregnancy. So now when this utilitarian criteria is there, then that same utilitarian criteria can apply to the child inside the womb, it can apply to the child outside the womb also. So the point I was making is that our culture is a culture which is becoming increasingly averse to commitment.
So whether it is commitment in the marital relationship or whether it is commitment in the parental relationship, it is becoming increasingly averse to commitment. And sometimes when we come to spiritual life and spiritual life, we hear about how detachment is so good for spiritual advancement. So we think that we are becoming detached, but we are not actually becoming detached.
We are simply becoming averse to our commitments. So aversion to commitment is not detachment. So we think that, oh, I’m becoming spiritual.
Because for many years I was doing student preaching. So many of the students, just before their exams, they develop a great love for Shastra. And they say, I want to read Ramayana, I want to read Mahabharata.
And all these books I’m studying in college, they’re all temporary. Ultimately it’s avidya. I want to study paravidya.
Why should I study all this? But even in Shastra, when they want to study, they don’t want to study Srila Prabhupada’s book with all the philosophy and the parvo. They want something entertaining, like Ramayana, stories from Ramayana, stories from the Mahabharata. So what is happening is, it’s always good to study Shastra.
But when Shastric study is used as an escape way from academic study, then it is not going to lead to much fruit. Because ultimately, when we talk about spiritual advancement, spiritual advancement requires becoming attached to Krishna. And attachment to Krishna is something that comes by the process of bhakti yuga, which requires committed practice.
Krishna says that, in 12.8 he says, let your mind be absorbed in me, let your intelligence be absorbed in me, in this way you will live in me. But for those for whom it is not possible. Then he says, just practice bhakti yuga.
Chant again and chant again and again. Study scripture again and again. Worship while it is again and again.
By this abhyasa, by this practice, your attraction for me will be generated. So he says, you have to do it again and again. By this attraction will come to me.
Attraction for me will emerge. And doing this repeatedly requires commitment. So in bhakti, when we talk about becoming attached to Krishna, that attachment is not something which will suddenly come up.
The attachment also requires commitment. Committed practice of bhakti. And in essence, any form of commitment requires resisting the mind.
Because the mind finds something very nice one day, and the next day, so boring. So boring. Some day our chanting feels so good, you know.
Today I want to chant extra rounds. I am getting so much taste in chanting. I think I have become a pure devotee now.
And next day when we are chanting, we take out the beads from the bag. Has somebody changed his beads from 108 to 1008? It’s just not getting over. What’s happening here? So the mind by its nature is fickle.
It likes something one day, it does not like something. Same thing the next day. And commitment means going against the mind.
Sometimes the mind will go along. But even when the mind does not go along, we have to keep going ahead. So commitment requires going against the mind.
And when we equate aversion to commitment with detachment, we think that aversion to commitment is detachment. Then what is happening is we are not going against the mind. Rather we are going along with the mind wherever it is going.
So today in some relationship, in some profession, in some vocation, a student may say, I don’t want to study because I want to practice bhakti. He studies all Monday. But then even in the process of bhakti, even in the process of studying shastra, eventually the mind will say, this is not very interesting.
Let’s read something else. And what will one do with that? If one has made a habit of just going along with the mind and doing whatever the mind says. And today I give up my academic studies for studying scripture.
And tomorrow I’ll give up my scripture study to read some novel. And then we will not get anywhere in our life. So to develop commitment means that we have to go against the mind.
And in that sense, any relationship that we have, any profession that we have, any vocation that we have, if we do it in a committed way, that trains us to go against the mind. And in that sense, it can help us to grow spiritually. I’ll talk about material commitment and spiritual commitment in one of the later talks.
But in principle, the point which I’m making here is that sometimes we see material and spiritual as opposite. To give up the material for the sake of the spiritual. But at one level it is true and separating the material and the spiritual is good so that we give due amount of time for the spiritual.
Yes, I need some time for chanting, I need some time for associating with devotees. So for that separating, this is my spiritual life, this is my material life, and I have to give time for the spiritual life. For that purpose, separating material and spiritual is good.
But after that, in our day to day life, it is not necessary to always be thinking, is this material, is this spiritual? For example, somebody makes a joke in a class and I laugh. Am I laughing for Krishna’s pleasure or am I laughing for my own enjoyment? I didn’t think like that. So, it’s connected with Krishna.
We are discussing the message of Krishna and that’s fine. So, in terms of our actual execution of things, we don’t have to be always thinking, is this material, is this spiritual? What we can be thinking about is that every situation in my life is an opportunity to serve Krishna. So, your mother is serving the child, the child has been placed in the mother’s care by Krishna.
We are in a family and we have to do something for our family members. We are in that family by Krishna’s arrangement. So, if we see that every situation is an opportunity to serve, then we don’t have to separate the material and spiritual.
Because every relationship, every commitment is an opportunity to express selflessness. There is self-centeredness which keeps us away from Krishna. And the ultimate selflessness is to be devoted to Krishna.
But every relationship or every commitment, it forces us to become selfless. Selfless in the sense, not that I don’t, I’m not concerned about the self at all, but rather selfless in the sense that I have to put my mind aside. I have to put my feelings aside and I have to do what I have to do.
So, if I have a job, sometimes I may not feel like going for the job, but then I have to go for the job and that commitment forces me to discipline my mind. So, every relationship, we can see that it actually forces us to discipline our mind. And that disciplining of the mind can help us in our spiritual life also.
So, rather than seeing the spiritual and the material as radically opposite, we can see the spiritual as an expansion of the same journey on which we enter in the material commitments also. So, every relationship, every activity in material life which requires a commitment that helps us to go against the mind. It helps us to become more disciplined.
And that going against the mind, that becoming disciplined, that will help us in spiritual life. That will help us to grow spiritually also. So, in that sense, the material and the spiritual can both become harmonious in a journey towards selflessness, a journey towards progressively higher levels of selflessness.
So, the Mahabharata illustrates this point. I will not get time to go into the Dhritarashtra and Yudhira relationship today. I’ll talk about it tomorrow, probably.
But right now, the point is that Dhritarashtra is selfish. His self-centeredness is, he wanted to be the king, but he could not be the king. So then, he thought, let my son become the king.
So now, his self-centeredness was so great that Yudhishthira was his nephew. Normally also, if he has some relatives, we feel affectionate towards them. Uncle feels affectionate towards the nephew.
And actually, the uncle feels even more responsibility for the nephews, if they are orphans, if they don’t have a father. So Dhritarashtra, when Pandu passed away, he should have felt more affection for him. But he, because of his attachment to Duryodhana, felt no such affection for the Pandavas.
Instead of seeing the Pandavas like his nephews, which are like his sons, he did not see them as his nephews or his sons at all. He saw them almost exclusively as threats to his sons, as threats to Duryodhana’s claim to the kingdom. And Vidura, he was not biased by such attachment.
He was, he naturally, as uncle, he was affectionate towards Duryodhana also, he was affectionate towards Yudhishthira and the Pandavas also, Pandavas and Kauravas. But he could see Duryodhana was arrogant, Duryodhana was vicious and he tried to correct him. And Vidura also saw that Yudhishthira was cultured, he was gentle and he was virtuous.
So he wanted, and he was being attacked, so he wanted to protect him. So it was Duryodhana, it was Dhritharashtra who was partial to Duryodhana. And then Vidura tried to give good advice to Dhritharashtra and told him, stop Duryodhana from his activities, Yudhishthira also has a right to the kingdom.
At that time, what was Dhritharashtra’s reaction? Dhritharashtra’s reaction was, you are always partial to the Pandavas. You are always against my son. It’s just the opposite reality.
It was not that Vidura was partial to the Pandavas, it was rather Dhritharashtra was hostile to the Pandavas. Dhritharashtra was blindly attached to Duryodhana and that blinded him to Yudhishthira’s virtues, to Yudhishthira’s goodness, to Yudhishthira’s rights, everything. So at one particular point, Vidura would repeatedly give instructions, again and again he would give, but Dhritharashtra would never be ready to hear.
And so we see that Dhritharashtra at one level, he was himself not the king, he was a caretaker king, but he was attached through Duryodhana and that attachment blinded him. So that attachment blinded him. But if we see, the result of it all was eventually that Dhritharashtra could not do any good to Duryodhana.
Duryodhana died. He was killed. And Dhritharashtra lamented afterwards.
So at that time, Dhritharashtra’s eyes were opened by Vidura. Vidura came and instructed him. That story is told in the Bhagavatam, in the first canto.
We’ll discuss that later. But the point I want to make over here is that attachment can blind a person to what is the reality. And it can blind one in such a way that actually rather than recognizing that I am attached to somebody, what happens is one perceives the opposite.
He started perceiving that Vidura is averse to my son. Instead of recognizing that he was irrationally attached to his son, he started perceiving that Vidura is unnecessarily averse to my son. So when we are attached, our vision becomes distorted.
The same principle if we apply, you know, when we are attached to something, we are attached to our own way of thinking. Sometimes we may mistake frustration to be renunciation. Because I am attached.
This is what I am going to do. This is what I want to do right now. So there was one boy, I’ll conclude with this anecdote and next time we’ll talk more.
Tomorrow we’ll talk more. There’s one boy. Okay, man, he said, you know, I want to become a brahmachari.
And I want to become a brahmachari right now. He used to come sometimes to a program but was never very serious. I want to become a brahmachari right now.
He asked, why? No, you should come to the temple regularly, practice bhakti. You know, you see how much you can do sadhana seriously, how much you can practice bhakti and after some time, you’re still now only a student, you’re not even passed out. Pass out, you take up a job, have some experience, then you can join.
No, I want to join right now. And then we found out what was the reason he wanted to join. You know, he had been having a relationship with a girl and that girl had rejected him for some other boy.
And then I told him, no, right now, this is not a time for you to join. You have to practice bhakti seriously. And what was his answer? He said, just as Bali Maharaj rejected Chukracharya, I reject you.
Bali Maharaj surrendered to Vishnu. I want to surrender to Vishnu and you are stopping me in my surrender to Vishnu. So, when somebody wants to rationalize something, they can actually twist the whole reality to support their idea.
So, rather than recognizing that one is attached, what is happening is one is imagining that somebody else is opposing me. So, this is how our vision can become completely distorted. So, we may rationalize what we want to do out of our material frustration and we say this is actually spiritual.
That’s why detachment and attachment are not so simplistic. Just giving up something is not necessarily detachment. Because as I said, there is intent, there is content, there is consequence, all this has to be considered.
And detachment, we certainly need detachment in our life, but we want detachment in a way that it leads to attachment to Krishna. And that sort of detachment has to be carefully, thoughtfully implemented in our lives. We will discuss about this more in our tomorrow and day after class.
I will summarize today what I spoke and then you can have question answers. So, I spoke about this beyond attachment and detachment to commitment. And in that theme I talked about how the whole Mahabharata is essentially a search for dharma.
What is the right thing to do? That is what the Mahabharata is. Seeking the answer to that question. And within that we discussed the three meanings of dharma.
Does anyone remember three meanings? No, no, three meanings of dharma. Duty, religion and nature. Correct.
So, nature means that which is our innate characteristic. So, dharma is that duty or that religion which restores us to our nature. So, we are parts of God and the way we act, the things which will help us to harmonize with Krishna, all those activities comprise dharma.
They help us to return to our nature of being loving parts of Krishna. And while deciding dharma, how do we decide it? At one level, dharma is known from Shastra. But how to apply Shastra in our life? For that we have to consider three things, what you were telling just now.
Intent, content and consequence. We discussed a doctor prescribing a medicine. Doctor has to have good intention.
If the doctor has bad intention then they will exploit the patient. But intent alone is not enough. If the doctor is not qualified and if the patient has a complication which is not a doctor specialization or it’s a person not qualified, even if their intent is good, content will work out to be wrong.
And similarly, sometimes we learn by consequence. I did this with good intention. I thought this was the right thing to do.
But everything just went wrong. I didn’t consider this factor. I didn’t realize this.
So by experience, when we learn, that means we get the consequence and then we learn what to do. So all three are valid and valuable in deciding what is right and what is wrong. And we discussed this about intent, content, consequence for understanding dharma specifically in terms of attachment.
Attachment and detachment. We are trying to understand detachment. So I talked about how externally in content, frustration and renunciation can look similar.
But their intent is different and their consequence is different. In frustration, the intent is still to enjoy. But one does not have the ability to enjoy.
But in renunciation, one does not have the intent to enjoy. One has got something higher. And renunciation also helps our consciousness to go somewhere higher.
And that’s why there is a falla of tyaga. The fruit of renunciation is the elevation of consciousness. And that does not come if one does not have the right intent.
So I gave various examples of frustration which may be a mistake of renunciation. Like somebody fasting because of religious vows and somebody fasting because of stomach upset. Or somebody studying scripture because they are attracted to scripture and somebody studying scripture just because they don’t want to study their academic studies.
Or somebody pursuing the life of renunciation because they are attracted to God. Or somebody pursuing the life of renunciation just because they are frustrated in some worldly relationship. So like that there can be various examples where the content may seem similar.
But we have to look at the intent. And based on that we know actually whether I am detached or I am simply avoiding commitment. So aversion to commitment is not detachment.
In today’s culture it is aversion to commitment. That means commitment essentially means that no matter how my mind feels still I will do this. That is the meaning of commitment.
But when we are acting simply based on the mind then I want this. A boy and a girl say I can’t live without you. That’s who is saying that the mind is saying I want you.
This person will give me pleasure and I want that pleasure right now. But then when we find that the person has the other side where we start getting in trouble because of that person then I can’t live with you. So in both cases the person is simply driven by the mind.
So if the relationships are not based on the platform of commitment then no relationship can be sustainable. I talked about how this atheist philosopher said that if abortion is right then killing a born child is also right. Because the criteria for deciding it is whether the mother wants it or not.
If a woman after giving birth says whether the woman feels that this is interfering with my life, my career then I don’t want it. So that utilitarian criteria is the only criteria. When there is no commitment then there is no limit over there to where one will stop.
So now at one level we see the material and spiritual as opposite. I give up the material for the spiritual or my material life is here, my spiritual life is here. So that kind of separation is good so that we give time for spiritual activities.
But in another sense the material and spiritual can be like continuous. Because even in our material life, in our material relationships, in our material profession if we commit ourselves, that commitment means we go against our mind. And going against our mind is what helps us to grow internally.
And the disciplining which we do in going against our mind that helps us in our spiritual growth also. So ultimately spiritual advancement, devotional advancement means that we become selflessly attached to Krishna. And that selflessness, selflessness means not just being driven by my own feelings but focusing on some other higher cause.
So that selflessness is required also in any committed relationship that we have. Any committed occupation, any committed vocation we have. So without commitment, attachment and detachment they can both be two sides of the same coin of self-centeredness.
And when we focus not on attachment or detachment but we focus on commitment. In bhakti the commitment means just keep practicing bhakti consistently by which my attachment to Krishna will develop. And for that I need to resist my mind.
And that learning to resist my mind can happen even in my material profession. And if we are not careful the mind can completely distort our perception. Dhritarashtra was partial towards Duryodhana but he accused Vidura that you are partial towards Dhritarashtra.
His boy was frustrated and he just wanted to get rid of the frustration of material life. And he was actually not spiritually very intelligent and wanting to join. But then somebody who is well-wisher he tells them that you are obstructing me.
So in this way if we do not have a proper understanding of what spiritual advancement means then our conception of detachment may actually simply the way we aggravate our aversion to commitment. And in that way we neither do our material responsibility properly nor do we gross the ritual. So how to actually live a life of commitment by which there is authentic detachment and there is authentic attachment to Krishna that we will discuss in our future classes.
So any comments or questions? Yes, my question. I have a question. You just spoke about practicing Krishna consciousness with renunciation.
And you gave three examples. One is you are frustrated in your worldly relations. And one is you are running natural life and life is perfect.
But though Krishna always puts us in a situation where you are frustrated and that is why you eventually take to Krishna consciousness. And if somebody is frustrated in their relations and takes to Krishna consciousness and is trying to take to Krishna consciousness but is doing so because he has had frustrations in his life. Is he still heading in the right way? Ok, good question.
So we say that frustration is not a good motive for practicing bhakti or renunciation. But most of us is only when we are frustrated in our material life then we turn towards spiritual life. So then is a person who is practicing bhakti because of frustration is that person headed in the right direction? Yes, they are headed in the right direction.
But how much headway they will make you know that will depend on the purification of the motive. Frustration is a good starting point. But frustration will not sustain us in bhakti.
Eventually the education is required. There is understanding of life’s higher aspect. There is appreciation for the spiritual side of life.
So from the frustration with the material there has to be some positive appreciation for the spiritual that has to emerge. Only then we will be able to sustain in our spiritual practice. Krishna talks about Artho.
Distressed as one category of the four kinds of people who come to him. Chitra Vidha Vajan Tevam, Jnana Sukruti Navarjuna. Artho Jijnasur Artharthi, Jnani Chivar Tarshiva.
There are four categories of people who come to him. One of them is distressed. So sometimes somebody would say that in Kali Yuga there are four categories of people who come to Krishna.
The distressed, the distressed, the distressed and the distressed. So the other category people are very few, if any. But if you look at the progression of the verses, Krishna appreciates these people.
He says, Udara Sarvai Vaithi. All of them are large-hearted. All of them are Sukruti Navarjuna.
But then he also says for those people to become pure devotees. This is 7.16 is this verse. And Krishna goes to 7.19 where it says, Bahunam Janmanam Ante Jnanavan Mam Prapadyate Vasudeva Sarvamiti Samatma Sudolava So to understand Vasudeva Sarvamiti, to wholeheartedly surrender to Krishna, it may take many lifetimes.
So from the point of view of Artho, from the point of view of a person who is starting Bhakti because of distress, to a point where a person understands Krishna is my be-all and end-all, that may take many lifetimes. So it’s a good point of starting Bhakti. Heena Kena Prakarena Mana Krishna Niveshit Any way we can start practicing Bhakti, that is good.
But what I was talking here is that while starting Bhakti, it is not that we should immediately reject our worldly responsibilities. That starting Bhakti out of frustration is fine. But giving up our worldly responsibilities because of, in the name of Bhakti, when actually we are simply frustrated with material life, that is not good.
So yes, it’s possible that somebody may be frustrated with material life and that frustration may become the impetus for practicing spiritual life. But even in that, they will have to exhibit some commitment. And that commitment is something which has to be built over a period of time.
So anybody, from any way they start practicing Bhakti, that is good. But if they are simply abandoning their material life, that is something which cannot be done just on a whim or an impulse. That has to be done only after one has established a steady commitment in Bhakti.
Then we can say that this is not frustration with material life. This is actually this renunciation with higher taste that is developed. So frustration is a good beginning point for Bhakti.
But for sustaining, we need a commitment and that has to be done gradually. Otherwise what happens, somebody may because of frustration renounce material life and they start practicing Bhakti. After sometime they start, they can’t practice Bhakti so well because they are not that committed.
And then they start blaming devotees. They start blaming Bhakti. Because of you I neglected my material life.
I could have done, I could have had this career, I could have done this, I could have done that. But I neglected it all because I wanted to practice Bhakti. Well, we can’t blame Bhakti for that because we chose that.
That’s why before making any major changes in our life, which involve disrupting our material life. There is giving up worldly forms of enjoyment, which we all give up when we start practicing Bhakti in many ways. That is fine.
But I’m talking about giving up worldly responsibilities or upending our material life in a drastic way. In the name of spiritual advancement, that is something just to be done very cautiously. Does that address your question? Any other questions? Yes.
Yeah, right. Okay, good question. Yeah.
If we say commitment in, we should be committed in our material life also. Because that culture of commitment will help us in our spiritual life also. But commitment to material life means that sometimes our office people may exploit us more and more.
So how do we avoid that? Yes, the nature of the conditioned mind is that when one thing is emphasized, the conditioned mind makes that one thing, which is important, as all important. If somebody says, you should chant attentively. It’s important.
We should chant attentively. But it is not that when you are chanting attentively, we neglect everything else. If you have other duties in life, somebody says you should study Shastra.
Study Shastra. But there are other things to do also in life. So the nature of the conditioned mind is to just make one thing the absolute.
The rest will balance. So we were talking about commitment. You could say there are three levels.
One is that one just doesn’t work in one’s profession. And that creates a lot of problems. One may lose one’s job or one may get a bad reputation.
And then one doesn’t learn. And eventually, if later on one is retrenched, one doesn’t know what kind of job to take. So it’s like being below par.
That can create a lot of problems. The other is one does what is expected. And beyond that is one excels.
So now what is required where even if one is excelling, one has to be intelligent. Even if you see materialistic people also, they want to grow in their career. But even they also, they all want time for their personal life.
They want time for their enjoyment. So it is not that commitment in our material life means that that should become a consuming passion for us. It has to be balanced.
So we use our intelligence in such a way that our point is, as I said, that we should not just be running around whichever way the mind is running around. So it is not that in the name of commitment to material life, commitment to our profession, we let the profession completely consume us and not let us do anything else. That means that we are losing the sense of perspective.
Sometimes in our material life, the project may have a deadline. And that time we just have to work over that. That’s fine.
We all go through phases. But overall, we have to come back to a sense of balance. So that sense of balance requires sattva guna.
In passion, we just get consumed by whatever we are doing without a sense of proportion. In tamo guna, we are just so burdened by all that we have to do that we don’t do anything. I have to do this, I have to do that, I have to do that.
Oh, I have so many things to do. What are you doing? I have so many things to do. We don’t do anything at all.
So in tamo guna, we are just burdened and we don’t do anything. Rajo guna, we just get caught in doing one thing and we lose the sense of proportion. We don’t do things properly in a sense of balance.
In sattva guna, we get that balance. So even while doing our work, if we take periodic breaks, say we do our work maybe every weekend or every month, we evaluate. Where is my career going right now? I’m going in this direction.
This is just going too far. In this situation, I was given this work, but this was somebody else’s work. I should have said no over there.
I could have been diplomatic, but I should have said no. So if we take periodic breaks, if we are practicing bhakti, bhakti sadhana is ultimately meant to make us transcendental. But bhakti sadhana also brings us to the mode of goodness.
And with that mode of goodness, if we evaluate, then we can understand this is not going right. This is what I need to make right. And then we can bring a sense of balance.
So we may go off track sometimes, but we can bring ourselves back on track by observing ourselves in a mode of goodness. Does that answer your question? Thank you. Yes, please.
Vedic terms and how science can be explained. Okay. So you said that science, the Vedic concepts can be explained in terms of science or the two can be brought together.
So how can that be done? Yeah. To say that there are two different aspects to it. There is the ontological and there is the functional.
Ontological means the nature of reality, what actually exists. And functional means what is the effect. So the relationship between science and spirituality can be at ontological level, where we discuss what is it that exists out there.
So now science basically looks for, science is a material branch of knowledge. It looks for material explanations for material phenomena. And in that sense, science directly cannot talk about God or about the soul, because these are non-material.
But science can find evidences that point towards the God of the soul. So, for example, there are a lot of cases of past life memories, near-death experiences, which are very, very strong in terms of evidence. Just yesterday, I was in Jacksonville.
I was speaking to the students of North Florida University and I spoke on the topic of near-death experiences. And there are cases. There’s a book written by two researchers called Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper.
So they describe near-death experiences. Near-death experiences means some people who had an accident and they were near death and then they saw themselves outside the body and they described the doctor was doing like this, the nurse was speaking like this. Now, there are many reports like this, but this particular book, which is called Mindsight, here they describe near-death experiences of people who were blind.
That is, those people, since, for example, there’s Vicky Omipek, her case is described in detail and I spoke about her case also elaborately in her class, yesterday’s class. She was born congenitally blind. She was born premature and she was put in an incubator.
There was too much oxygen put over there. That caused damage to the optic nerve. And so no signals from the eyes could go to the brain.
And then she had an accident in which she fell unconscious. And then she suddenly noticed herself from above, from over it. She was looking down and there were some doctors and they were hovering over a woman.
And then the doctor was saying she looks in a bad condition. The nurse was saying, I don’t think she’ll survive. And then Vicky was looking from above and she was feeling very upset.
And she was thinking, I’ll talk with this woman and I’ll wake her up. And she came down and she noticed the wedding ring in her hand. This is my wedding ring.
What is this? I am this person. Because she had no eyes, so she had never seen herself. What is this? Am I dead or what is going on here? And then she, when she came back to consciousness, she described to the doctors, he said this, she said this.
It’s all true. So now she just has no capacity to see herself. Sometimes doctors say that maybe you’re hallucinating.
How did you handle the experience? You’re hallucinating or you’re guessing or you were partially conscious. All these explanations are there. But none of these explanations work.
Because if this person has never seen herself before, she has no capacity to see. So how could she have seen? So there are cases like this which have no explanation at the material level. And that indicates that the real seer is not the eyes.
The real seer is not the optic nerve. The real seer is not the brain. There are tools for the real seer.
And the real seer is the soul. The soul sees through this. So normally she could not see because the tool was damaged.
But in near-death experiences, the soul comes out of the body. And the blockage of the tool that is there, that no longer applies. Because the soul is not in the body.
That’s why she was able to see. So from an ontological perspective, in the relationship between science and spirituality, science can point towards spiritual truths, such as the existence of soul, existence of God. That’s one way the relationship of science and spirituality can be brought about.
Another is the functional perspective. Functional perspective means in terms of how we can function in this world. So the way I put it is that science can make things better.
Spirituality can make people better. Science can make… Now America, it is said that America is a nation of big people. Obesity is a big problem in America.
So what is happening is, with all the technology that we have, the weighing scales are becoming smaller and smaller. But the people on those scales are becoming bigger and bigger. So there is a lot of capacity to manipulate the outer world.
But the capacity to control the inner world. If somebody is very short-tempered, is there any pill? You take the pill, all your anger goes away. It’s not so easy.
You can take a pill while you go to sleep. That’s what they do in some mental asylums and people go wild. Give them a sedative and put them to sleep.
But after they wake up, their anger is still unprocessed in this way. So there can be anger, there can be greed, there can be lust, there can be selfishness, there can be depression. So many emotions in the inner world which are there.
So they cannot be just medicated away through some physical medicine. But they can be addressed through purification. So from a functional perspective, science may make things in the outer world better.
But it’s spirituality which will make things in the inner world better. And that’s why science and spirituality are both required in our life. So we use science for functioning in the outer world.
But spirituality will give us the wisdom for tapping our resource in the inner world. And for achieving life’s ultimate purpose. So in this way, both from understanding what exists, the ontological perspective, we can have the relationship between science and spirituality.
And from the functional perspective, we can see that science and spirituality, both are required for us to be successful and happy in life. Does this answer your question? Very interesting. Thank you very much.
Shri Krishna Prabhupada Ki! Jai! Gaur Bhakta Vrindaki! Jai! Jai Gaur Premanand!