Expanding the conception of god part 2 – Chaitanya Charan

This is an AI-generated transcript and it might not be fully accurate:

Krishna. So today we continue a discussion on the demoniac plans of Hanya Kashipu. He is discussing over here how he can disrupt the universe and ultimately establish his own supremacy. So Krishna I’ll continue this theme of using the contextual the framework of context insight and takeaway. So we discussed the context yesterday but I’ll add one more point to that today that in the context the Bhagwatam is talking about the demonia character here in Nikkasha. Now if you consider among all the demonia characters in the Bhagatam The one demokin character who actually gets the maximum attention among them Hand Kashipu is probably the most if you consider there’s not much description of Rahana in the in the Bhagwatam. Now Kamsa is talked about but Kamsa comes only in one or two chapters initially when he is with Devaki and then first two and then finally he is there in the background as an agent. who is uh sending various demons but he actually comes and springs into action only once when he is attacked and killed by Krishna consistently for so many chapters. So we could say like in any book or any movie any novel there’s a hero and there’s a villain. So we could say how much screen time a hero gets how much screen time a villain gets. So in some ways if you consider in this particular pastime the hyundic the past time of this particular Palad past line. Okay. So if you consider the amount of time the characters get. So actually Hand Kashiku gets the most time then Prahalad gets the second amount of time and Narimv gets only very little time. Isn’t it? So he comes Narimv appears in the 8th chapter. And even after the eighth chapter when he appears he does his action he kills and then after that the entire ninth chapter is lord even prahalad offering prayers. So then of course 10 chapter there’s some reciprocation. So relatively speaking kashipu we could say is the is is the most described villain in the bhagwatam h. So now through this in many ways the bhagwatam is depicting the demoniac mentality. So now what is the what we’ll be discussing today is the how the demoniac mentality arises and that discussion we’ll move further and we will link it with the concept of god that we discussed yesterday. So here prahupad elaborately in his purple talks about the world view within which hir kashipu is operating and what that means for us. So he is planning a attack in multiple ways. So if kashup consider is here he’s saying I will attack the top guy I will attack vishnu h and then you go and attack the Manavas. Now the dwas are in between and he says the manavas they do yagya for the dwas and vishno gives power to the dwas. So if we attack both ways what will happen is we destroy the destroy we destroy the manovas basically destroy manos human society how by stopping the yagyas and everything and then we will uh I’ll uproot I’ll destroy Vishnu and then the das will also fall and then what is the high idea then I will go to the top I’ll become the supreme see at the root of the demoniac mentality how does this all these schemes start his scheme the schemes start with Hanya Kashipo feeling that his brother Hanya aka he was killed unfairly. Now it’s interesting. The Lord had a straight fight with him and after fighting there was no unfairness. Like somebody might argue that say the way Karna was killed was unfair. He was not having weapons. But Lord Vahade killed Hanyaaka in a fair fight. But still he feels that the killing of was unfair and what was the unfairness? It was not the mode of fighting. It was just the fact of fighting. What do you mean fact of fighting? He said that Vishnu is supposed to be impartial. Vishnu is supposed to be neutral and he chose the side of the devotas there. before he has given up his position of neutrality and impartiality and because he has given up that position he no longer deserves that position he no longer merits that position and therefore I will remove him from that position so this is where actually this feeling that life is unfair This is a universal feeling. Everybody feels that life is not treating me properly. I’m working so hard but I’m not getting the proper appreciation, recognition, reward. I’m doing so much work in my company but my company doesn’t promote me. I’m doing so much for my family but my family members don’t value me. I’m doing so much even the devotey community but devotees don’t recognize what I’m doing. Everybody feels that they’re not treated well. that is life is unfair or at least if whether life is unfair or not life at least feels unfair in many different ways. So now this is a universal feeling. Now from there what do we do the there is a divine mentality and there is a demoniac mentality. Now the demonic mentality it’s a little themoniac mentality itself is a very harsh word and there are degrees in it but the if life feels unfair life is unfair whatever it is let’s that I need to change my perception I need to change my perception this is the divine mentality if it feels unfair maybe it’s my own doing I have to purify myself So the demoniac mentality is that change the in charge who is in charge here? God is in charge. So So remove God and I will make a fairer world. I will make a world that is more fair. In fact, if you consider the idea that if now in the world there are two main political systems, there’s communism and capitalism. The communism has its softer versions in socialism and others. So, communism might have been defeated when Soviet Russia fell, but socialism is very much active. Now, one of the fundamental ideas of socialism is that as Karl Mar said, religion is the opium of the masses. And what he meant by that is that he said that society is unfair. What is the unfairness that there are so many ridiculously wealthy people and then there are so many poor people. There are actually the number of wealthy people are few but there are hugely wealthy people. There are kings and often the they have the royalty or the aristocracy. Royalty is with the kings. Aristocracy is the kings and the dukes and the vic counts and all of them in that hierarchy what we might call as the chhatrias and the second is the clergy. Now much of the clergy clergy is the brahmanas they also lived in a bit of comfort and royalty. That is how it was. So he said there is this huge unfairness in the world and when people see this unfairness Why don’t they fight to correct it? That is because they have been indoctrinated into believing that God has arranged this. And as long as people believe in God, they will remain passive and they will not fight to remove the unfairness of the world. Therefore, if we want to bring fairness and equality in society, His thought was the first thing we have to remove is destroy people’s faith in God. Because if people believe that society the way it is arranged is arranged by God. So God has arranged that these people are be wealthy and God has arranged that I be poor. As long as you believe the present situ the situation is God’s arrangement, you will not work to change it. And therefore only when we destroy faith in God then we can actually destroy inequality and then we can have all people can be equally wealthy. So the idea is that life feels unfair and we could say no it’s not just a feeling there are many ways in which I talk about specific forms of unfairness but life is at its very beginning unfair some people are taller than others. Some people are physically stronger than others. In certain countries, certain complexions are valued. So if the fair complexion is valued more than darker complexion, then somebody is a fair complexion, they just get such a huge advantage. Now if if the we can study and achieve but there’s a basic IQ which we get at birth. So now when we get IQ people ask people who don’t have IQ, they IQ. Why have I not got IQ? Isn’t it? So the idea is when life feels unfair and life we can say is unfair to some extent. This is the just the way now what can we do about it. So this there is like yesterday I was talking about various arguments for the for the for the existence of God. Now there are various arguments against the existence of God and probably one of the strongest arguments is the moral argument against the existence of God. So for example there’s some there’s one philosopher many but he says that so in in Russia in not Russian you Okay, there was a case that given the case was made in the court. It did not survive but the case was that given how much suffering is there in the world the severity of the suffering says that if a good god existed so examples were given say that say when the Turkish soldiers had attacked Russia sometimes when we say there’s suffering in the world and it’s Brama know we don’t really confront the severity of the suffering. So these Turkish soldiers when they would conquer Russian villages what they would do is they would catch all the babies. The parents they would kill and the babies would be there. They toss the baby high in the sky and they would hold their sword and the baby’s body would be pierced by the sword and they would die screaming and if somehow they missed the sword they would fall. and their bodies would crack apart. So the argument is what kind of god would allow such suffering and we may say that okay there is some higher purpose to be served by this there is some higher justice to be achieved whatever so he said is there nothing sacred for god that all of us even when we want to achieve some higher purpose say India is fighting against Pakistan We want to defeat Pakistan but would we send our babies on the battlefield so maybe the Pakistan soldiers will hesitate they will not attack and then we’ll attack them back. Even ordinary people we ordinary humans would not there are certain things which we would not sacrifice. So if we say pain serves a higher purpose is there no boundary to the pain that if God allowed such a pain to exist for whatever higher purpose That means God has no moral boundaries and therefore God is an immoral being. A God who allows such suffering is for whatever higher purpose it might be is an immoral being. And therefore this is not God, this is a devil. This is either there is no good God or there is a evil God. And the idea is that this is this argument against the existence of God. The moral case against God that is as arises from the problem of evil. There is immense suffering in the world. And so now the question comes up over here. Now Han Kashipu felt that God has acted unfairly. Now everybody can everybody feel that sometime or the other life is unfair and sometimes can life can not just unfair but can be unfair. The severess of severeness of life sufferings you know most of us we live a very sheltered existence we have not lived in wars or famines we lived a pandemic there’s a some suffering was there but we’ve not really seen immense suffering

so faced with that how does one continue to even maintain the idea of a loving god So when the unfairness is faced. So what the communist idea was that the state will play the role of God. What does it mean that life is unfair, the world is unfair, money is divided unfairly. So what we’ll do is people are not rising against the wealthy people because they believe it’s arranged by God. So destroy the idea of God. Destroy faith in God. Then we will get the masses to rise against the classes. So in fact the one of the communist thinker he said that Rhupa talks here about the Brahman and Chhathatria’s ruling society guiding society. So this very idea is intolerable to the leftist mind. So did was one thinker. He said the world will never know peace until the last king is throttled to death with the intestines of the last priest. So the last chhatria is killed by tying around the the throttling his throat with the last brahmana. He says these two are the very causes of all the evils that the chhatrias they live in royal prosperity and the brahmanas they live in moral superiority and they also have comforts but they do nothing to change society. So the idea is that whatever is a god-given system rebel against that and fight against that and destroy that. So with now how do we respond to this point that there is suffering in the world and not just suffering there seems to be unbearable suffering in the world. So the broad understanding is twofold over here. See Yesterday I talked about the design argument and one of the arguments against the design argument is that given that there is so much suffering in the world, we could say that whoever created this world is not a good god but a bad being is evil. So there is an operational assumption over here that the world is meant for our enjoyment. That if you say the world is meant for enjoyment. And then the question comes up, it is meant for enjoyment. Why some have it and why most don’t? So see in general in the Vic tradition or specifically you can say the Vantic tradition more than the Vic tradition in the Vantic tradition the problem of Evil problem of evil means bad things happening to good people is not addressed so much and the reason it is not addressed is it’s not addressed you when he’s in the forest repeatedly he asks various sages you know oh has anyone suffered as much as I have suffered I tried to be a good person I suffered so much and then the sages tell him the story of Nala Damayanti who suffered much more than him. So the idea is that in general in the Vic tradition the focus is on not specific instances of suffering but the generic presence of suffering. That means that that in vanta in Van Sutra the question is not Why bad things happen to good people? It is why bad things happen at all. So if Brahman is pure, Brahman is transcendental, Brahman is satan. From Brahman, how did a world come which is filled with duka. So what happens is when we talk about distress, there are specific examples of distress, they can be quite agonizing. But then there is the overall principle or presence of distress. So it is just a principle of existence. And that was what even Buddha he talked about the first truth of life according to Buddha is duka duka. And it’s interesting he called that as the noble truth of life that it is the if we observe the world the first thing we will see is that there’s duka in the world. And there’s distress. So when he sees distress, so when it’s interesting also if you know the Buddha’s story, he he was he lived forever. He lived forever or most of he was protected. His father was afraid that a sloger had said he will become a spiritualist. They kept him in a royal palace in luxury. And once he just managed to go out and he was disturbed not when he saw poverty Not only he saw hungry people, not he saw thirsty people, he was disturbed when he saw disease, he saw old age, he saw death. And then that led him to ask questions about the nature of existence itself. So in the vicantic school of thought broadly speaking the idea is see in the v I’m using the difference between vic and vantic in vic if you go to the rudda yajurveda there the focus is you do better dharma and you’ll get a better life you know. You do dharma and then dharma karmama you’ll get that but in the vidantic the opishik school of thought the focus is that on moka that we have to get go beyond this world so with this now what is our operational assumption about the nature of the world based on that we can evaluate so there is if we consider design so we could say design If something is designed then the design should lead to some purpose. Isn’t it? So if the sound system see a design can never be evaluated without considering the purpose that if I look at this phone and decide I want to use this phone as a hammer to hit a nail in and if I try to use it like that and the phone cracks Say what a terrible hammer. If I go and ask the phone manufacturer, they say we need a hammer to hit your head with or did somebody hit you with your your head with a hammer already. Why would you think that a phone is meant for being used as a hammer? It has a different purpose. So design always has to be evaluated in the light of the purpose. So what does this mean? That if If we consider the world, what is the world like? So is the world meant to be a place for our enjoyment? Mhm. So the idea is within the karmakandanda worldview, within the worldview of pious religiosity, bias religiosity is the karmakandanda worldview. The world is considered to be like a hotel. Then a hotel Still various food items are available. You order them and if you have the money to pay for them, you will get them. And once you get them, you can enjoy. So now the hotel worldview is then the question comes up, oh why do some people have more money and why do some people have less money? But the idea is you through dharma you get ara then you get karma and you can enjoy. But the this is this is more like the world view. By the vantic I refer to the opishads and the bhagatam comes the vantic. The vdantic worldview is more that this world is not so much like a hotel as it like a hospital. So the idea is if we consider the hospital if we cons if we evaluate the design in terms of is there evidence of design in the world. See the problem with respect to the argument between theists and atheists, it goes on endlessly because the theists theist inscer theist because the main main dialogue or confrontation debate between theism and atheism that has happened in modern times is between uh between Christianity and modern science. Now of course in the Vic tradition also So there have been debates. Buddhism as I said yesterday was atheistic. So among all the all the classical languages, classical languages means Greek, Roman and Sanskrit. The maximum number of books on atheism were written in Sanskrit. Because what happened was Buddhists they initially Buddhist was like a mass religion. It was a pali and pra. But eventually as intellectuals started Buddhism becoming Buddhist they also started writing their critiques of religion in Sanskrit. So there are significant number of books on atheism written in by Buddhists in Sanskrit and then in our tradition there’s attempt to refute them but the atheistic argument really didn’t catch much hold in the Indian mind for very long but the theists they emphasize design oh there is so much design in the world. How can you deny the existence of God? And the atheists emphasize suffering. Can’t you see how much pain is there in the world? How can you say that there’s any design over here? What kind of design would allow so much pain to occur? So the problem is both in one sense are operating with a particular assumption. So is there any metaphor that includes that there can be design and there can be suffering both and that is the metaphor of a hospital. H now there are various metaphors. We often use the metaphor of the world is like a prison. Now the problem with the metaphor of the prison is that we are not told why we are in the prison. We don’t remember what we did to be in the prison and the prison metaphor leaves no room for the ex for the the role for a loving God. You are in prison and you stay in prison till you reform yourself. But if you consider hospital in the hospital God is the doctor and so the prison metaphor is not a wrong metaphor. Definitely it’s a valid metaphor but it is not a metaphor that supports bi There is no role for God in prison in the prison met you are there. Now of course we can say God comes as the avtar and attracts and that is true but God’s constant action if we consider the hospital metaphor the emphasis there is in a hospital there is pain but while pain is a feature of the hospital pain is not the purpose of the hospital. The purpose of the hospital is to free people from pain. So the idea that what atheists say oh there is so much done right for you in the world and atheists say there is so much wrong in the world. Well right and wrong are both being evaluated from the perspective the metaphor of a hotel and that metaphor itself is problematic. So if we consider the hospital metaphor then we understand that both the reality of pain we can accept and the reality of design we can accept. There is No denying the fact that things in the world are organized in such an intricate way that it’s very difficult. Even atheists acknowledge that there is a prominent atheist said there’s a very strong illusion of design in the world. So he says it’s not design illusion of design. But as science is advancing more and more we are recognizing complexity of everything in nature. So now why are we talking about the hospital metaphor in this context of our disc discussion today that so in the Vantic tradition it is not why do bad things happen to good people but why do bad things happen at all. So in a hospital there could be specific people suffering with specific diseases but the whole point of the hospital is to be discharged and get out of the hospital. So the point is mokia now uh I’ll make two last points and we can have question answers cuz I wanted to give a little more time for question answer today that see in the vic tradition in the I was talking about communism what communism tried to do was that there’s a prominent critique of communis of communistic ideology wrote a book called the quest for cosmic justice the quest for cosmic justice means that the communism begins with the idea that the universe is unfair and We will make the universe fair. And how how will we make the universe fair? That is we will remove all the current rulers and we will have the state as the ruler and the state will fairly distribute wealth. H but what happened in communism was actually the opposite. There’s one social commentator a social critic British critic he said in communism all people are equal but some are more equal than others. What it meant is what he meant was that basically he said okay we will create equality in society but how will you create we will make a classless society where there’s no discrimination but how will we do that we’ll have to redistribute wealth you take wealth from the wealthy and give it to the poor but the result of this is that who is going to redistribute wealth so those people naturally become more powerful than everyone. So already a class is created. Everybody is supposed to be equal but some are more equal than others. Those who going to redistribute wealth, they become stronger. And communism just didn’t work at all. So the idea that the state can be God, India also had socialism. Russia had US had communism. So most of you may not may have been born or may not remember. See when India before its economic liberalization everything was so scarce now I remember my parent my both my parents worked in uh worked in uh government fairly good post but at that time when you had to get a phone my parents applied for a phone in 1982 and we got a phone in 1989 it the and that was not a smartphone that was a dial phone on the wall so it was Rahopal said that when he went to Russia everywhere there were cues and there was Rashad what he told me that his father told him that in in sovit Russia wherever people would see a queue automatically they stand in the queue without even knowing what is there because if there’s a queue something of value must be there and if it runs out we won’t get it. So even for getting basic food supplies even for basic getting grains for getting everything. So what happened was within communism that they said that every Everybody should be equal. But the problem became that say for example there were there were wealthy farmers and from those wealthy farmers they took away all the land from them. Some of them kill them and send them to Siberia whatever they knew and then they redistributed the land to everyone. Now it is possible that those wealthy farmers had become wealthy by exploiting others. But it’s also possible that the wealthy farmers had become wealthy because they were expert at farming and these poor people were getting farms. Now farming is also not very simple. It also requires expertise. Not just hard work but expertise. And when all these wealthy farmers were killed or banished, what resulted was in Ukraine it happened one of the worst famines in human history. And it’s completely not almost not completely almost completely humanmade. Like we have natural calamity and a man calamity. So, so what happened in Soviet Russia was say imagine in a class. Now, however you study, we want equality. So, all students will get the same marks. Then what will happen? Those students who could study and learn and be expert, they will not study because they will think anyway we’re going to get the same marks. What are the same marks? Is it that we will decide all the marks that all the students have what is actually happened in school with Russia that we will take all the marks that all the students have got. We will sum them together and we will divide them by the number of students and the average will be the marks of all students. But the result of that was what? The top students start why should we study? Anyway, we are going to get the same marks as everyone. Those were talented students, those were interested, dedicated students. And those who were anyway not interested in studying, they thought even if we don’t study, we going to get better marks than what we would get. So why study? So the result was everything went down. So like that in communism the result was that those who could be industrious there’s the word industry and there was industrious. Industrious means those who work hard those who could be industrious they thought why should we work hard because you’re not get anywhere getting any rewards. So don’t work hard at all. And people who were anyway lazy they also didn’t work. So everything went down. So everything was in short supply. Everything was and then The government tried to make it very harsh on people and try to force people, torture people to get them to work but it just didn’t work. So India actually after India 1992 93 when we got we call it what is called economic liberalization after that see when the state controls everything even if people don’t work who’s going to challenge the state but when the only phone provider was the government when private players started coming then what happened was there competition to the government and then as competition comes in then everybody’s forced to become better and whoever provides better products that person thrives. So overall this is doesn’t mean capitalism is necessarily everything good. There’s a lot of bad about capitalism also but my point is when the when communism tries to replace God with the state and that there’s unfairness in the world and we’ll try to fix the unfairness in the world by through the state. It didn’t work at all. All it led to huge amount of disaster. So now why why am I talking about this that there is there is there is in the in in the Vic tradition this is the last point I’ll make and how it applies to us. This is the takeaway. See in the Vic tradition there is a conception of liberation and now in the modern political context there’s a concept of liberty. Now if you go to America, one of the iconic images is the statue of liberty. H now both are similar and yet both are hugely different. So liberty is often used in the outer sense. So it is freedom for h is you should have the freedom for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as they say. The idea happiness is of course metal happiness largely. So freedom for for eating whatever I want, enjoying the way I want, buying whatever I want, traveling wherever I want. There is a freedom for. Now there is space for that. But liberation is freedom from it is freedom from karma crow. So now the idea is this is the idea is that we could say that Liberty is meant to make people free so that they can pursue good things in life. But what happens is that often people who when they are made free they become free for karma daloga. That means many people end up using or misusing the freedom for for self-sabotaging pleasures for materialistic pleasure but not his metalistic treasures not it’s not even karmakandanda it’s karma and now in the vic context also it’s not that liberty is not important that the citizens were taken well taken care of citizens were provided for is that citizens could move from one country to another country if they wanted to in the Ramayan is described that in ashhat’s kingdom there were citizens from various kingdoms and that is seen as a sign of the prosperity of his kingdom like if one country like America attracts immigrants from all over the world. Cities like Bangalore or Mumbai or Delhi, they attract people from all over India. So if a city is attracting people from other parts of other kingdoms or a kingdom attracting people from other kingdoms, that is considered sign of prosperity of the city. And the idea is people were free to move that’s how they were able to come. So liberty was there. But the primary focus in the Vic tradition is not on liberty, it is on liberation. So the idea to conclude this whole discussion is that life in there is unfairness in life. And everybody will experience that at to different degrees and we can work to correct this unfairness both at a material level and at a spiritual level or you can put it put at a worldly level and at a other worldly that means beyond this world, the next world level, next life or next world level. So it is not that at this level of the world, it is not to be dealt with. So the the brahmanas would give charity. It’s interesting the brahmanas get charity but the brahmanas also give charity. The chhatrias they take taxes but they also supposed to give charity. And the idea is that charity is one element by which we fulfill our obligations to human society. A charity is one way to correct the unfairness of life that if somebody is poor we give we somebody is in need we help them and the idea is that in the western world when whether socialism is there the the idea of charity by individuals is replaced with social security by the state but when there’s social security by the state what happens by that is the human bonds are cut off why Because say if there’s somebody in our neighborhood who is poor or who is starving somebody they lost somebody in their family that any community any well well knit together community everybody in the community will come together and help them.

But what happens in when so this happens this sense of spirit of charity comes through our practice of dharma that everybody is a part of god I should help them but the human bonds get weakened when the human bonds get weakened when the oh the government will take care of it. So this is what happened in America after second world war the lot of veterans who were injured and veterans those who fought in the war they were injured. Now traditionally whether the west or the east the elders of the family were taken care of by the family and the grand the the grandparents are taken care by the parents like that but after the second world war the government said that there are so many veterans it were difficult for the family to take care of them. So the government said we will create huge number of old age homes and we will take care of the veterans. Now the government could have done it separately. They could have said that instead of spending money to build the old age homes, we will give that money to the family to take care of your elders. But instead what they did was they gave money to the elder to the old age homes and that way the generational bonds were broken and now it’s become a norm in American western society that you know you don’t have to take care of your elders. The state will tell retirement homes for them. The state will take care of you have to save for yourself and take care of that. Just a few days ago, one devotey couple called me and I in America. They said they stayed at that placement a couple of times and I visited. They said that you know we have to ask you something. We are thinking of taking divorce. So what happened? They said that my daughter our daughter has been diagnosed with a severe cancer and the treatment for that is very expensive and our medical claim doesn’t cover it. Our healthcare insurance doesn’t cover it. But in America, the idea is that if somebody is a single mother, then the idea is the state will support her. So, so they’re telling that if we divorce then the government will take full responsibility for treating our son our daughter. So, they’re telling should we do this or should we not do it? So, now it’s a very difficult question. How do you answer it? I told you of course. If it’s a matter of life and death, you have to do whatever it is you have to take care of your child. But what has happened is that in yes there are unfortunately divorces or there unfortunately there’s premarital sex and children are born out out of before wedlock wedding or outside wedlock whatever and if such things happen or sometimes women are abandoned by their husbands such people should be supported but the problem is in supporting those who need help. the sense of personal responsibility or family responsibility was eroded. So and uh I was talking with one devote who does western outreach. He was telling me that for young women in America if they have to do get education or if they if they are single and they are trying to they’re trying to get education or they are trying to make a living it’s it’s difficult. But if they outside without getting married they have a child and they become a single mother then even without working the government support them a lot. So what happens is that the government doesn’t support families but the government supports single mothers and this makes men also like even if I don’t get even if I don’t marry in the past in the west there would be what is called shotgun weddings. Shortgun weddings mean is what that if a man and a woman they united before marriage and the woman became pregnant and the girl’s father would come with a gun you marry her I’ll kill you that is called a shotgun wedding so so now weddings would happen like that but now what happens even if the woman gets pregnant the man says either you deal with it you abort the child if you don’t abort it then the state will provide so the sense of responsibility has been eroded so there were natural system in which life is difficult, life is unfair but that unfairness was addressed. But what has happened is we removed those and we thought okay the state will take care of it but what happens by that the natural bonds of family collections or even not just family relations the community relations they all get eroded. So there is dana charity is a very important principle by which in this world unfairness can be decreased and of course if the king is virtuous then nature will also provide bounties abundantly and everybody will have good resources. So if we see in the in Ram Raja what is described yes there is fabulous wealth among the shatrias but it is not that the the other citizens are poor everybody has their needs taken care of currently there’s a huge rebellion against Iran what happened was There was a major water reservoir over there. Iran is in a desert part. There’s a major water river which supplies them. There’s a major water reservoir which needed to be damned and maintained. But the Iranian government got so caught in trying to defeat Israel and build nuclear weapons and pro provide financial support for the for the Hamas and the Hezbollah and others that they neglected maintaining that that particular main body of water and the whole country country. There is practically immense shortage of water and everybody is rebelling against the state now and it’s it’s a huge political upheaval happening over there. Now this is one factor many factors are involved over there but my point is that the chhatrias are meant to in the vic times the chhatrias would have they would have big weapons they would have opulence but it was not at the cost of keeping people poor. It’s not that people should be starving and we will have big big weapons. It’s not like that. So when there is dharma, nature also gives abundant prosperity and ultimately the so ultimate solution for suffering is that we go beyond this world to the kingdom of God. So the problem the world is unfair but the way to deal with this unfairness is by changing our perception. What does that mean? That okay understand that it’s unfair. care for everyone in different ways. Let’s see what I can do to if I do dharma my life will be better. If I do dharma I can help others life become better but ultimately by doing paradharma I can go beyond this world and that’s how that is the solution to the suffering of the world. I’ll summarize what we discussed today. So the topic was God and the world’s unfairness. We’re talking about the concept of God. Second in part today. So I discussed in terms of the context the CI chitakuran in the context I discussed today primarily about how hiran kashipu you know he if you consider the characters han kashipu has the maximum screen time praad has little less screen time actually has the least screen time so in the bhagwatam so why is that because in one sense here’s demoniac mentality is described. So I discussed what is this demoniac mentality. Now demoniac is just basically the reaction to unfairness. So he felt that Vishnu killed his brother unfairly. Not the mode of fighting but the fact of fighting itself. And therefore Vishnu needs to be removed. And the insight part we discussed that Ultimately everybody feels that life is unfair. So how do we deal with it? Either we can go into dharma for making a change or we can go towards adharma. So adharma is the path chosen by the demons. And one example of that is I discussed about communism that communism was that there’s unfairness in the world. And why is this unfairness going on? Because of religion. Religion tells people that you know you are poor. That’s God’s arrangement and they are wealthy that’s God’s arrangement that let it be as it is and live on. So they try to replace replace God with the state. But what happened by that when they try to replace God with the state that means the state tries to play God. So we discussed three main results of that. One is that overall there was still classes were there. Some people are more equal than others. Two classes the ruled and the rulers ruled and rulers were still there. Then there was over all low production because everybody became lazy. Everybody’s going to get the same amount of salary. Everybody’s going to get same marks. Why should anyone study at all? And the last the most biggest con that a personal responsibility was eroded. Personal responsibility is basically dharma. We talked about how taking care of the elders, taking care of your spouse, taking care of your children, taking care of people in the community, all that personal responsibility was eroded. And in this way actually it leads to making things worse in life. Now what is the takeaway for us? That in the vidantic tradition the focus is not so much on specific suffering but on the principle of suffering itself. This is a part of the insight. I don’t have space over there. Specific suffering but the overall principle of suffering and the the state debate it goes on because the theists emphasize how good things are, how there is so much design in the world and the atheists emphasize that there is how much pain in the world and with this there is no reconciliation because both are basically operating. So it’s something like the hotel metaphor. See there is so much good things in the world and all the things are so bad here but the fundamental metaphor if we consider a hospital metaphor that there is in a hospital there is pain but there’s also design and the design of the hospital is not to cause pain but it is to cure pain. This brings in the idea of a compassionate god and then we discussed that in the west there’s focus on not in materialistic school of thought there’s more focus on liberty but in the vic school of thought there’s focus on liberation so liberty means I want to be free for doing good for enjoying life for doing things in life this is Okay. But this is actually supposed to be a very small quest. Again, Ram Raja people were free for various things. But liberation is the much bigger thing. This is what will lead us to actual relief from suffering. So when we do our dharma, so the dharma helps us to both have a good have a life in this world as well as it’s possible. It is in the world and beyond it. That is the best way. to navigate the complexity and the un and the pain and the seeming unfairness of life. Thank you very much. H Krishna, are there any questions or comments? Yes, please.

But Russia, oh sorry, China, China is thriving with the communism. So we talked so much of the Russian communism but the China also assist communism but is thriving economy and seems to be happy.

So So, China is thriving. Well, China also doesn’t officially have the communist form of government now. Mhm. Okay. So, China is very much in some ways capitalist. You know, there are the most developed parts of China are where they they’re like special economic zones they call them. And so, they have also a good amount of competition. But what is different about China? So, China when as long as under communist rule officially, Maoong Zong was caused a lot of distress. He wanted a giant leap forward but it was like a giant leap backward. So many people died because of that. So now what has happened is China does not have although they have nominal elections they don’t have democracy. But the key point that has helped is that China has a strong sense of accountability that say that is one big difference between India and China because what happens is there is one ruler see the head of state If China has succeeded, it is more that head of state is more like a monarch. He’s like a more like a king. You know, he has now extended his term. All the dominant elections are there. He extended his term so that he’ll be ruling lifelong that the two or three terms that was a limit. But like America has two terms maximum for the president. India does not have any term limits for the president for the prime minister. So China had but they removed it. So the thing is that if there is a head of state who is benevolent now I won’t say that Chinese head of state necessary prevalent but in terms of we have hostilities with China and other things but the point is overall there is a strong ethos of accountability that you see but the problem with the communism was that everybody became complacent like India also typically you know it’s not always true there are a lot of people who work hard also in the government but that’s that ethos of complacency comes in so China it is not like that they have a strong ethos of accountability And uh so it’s a if you we ask Chinese people also Chinese government they also don’t say they were communist they they have their own they call it the Chinese model of a hybrid of uh capitalism with socialism. So basically what China does is how it has become successful many things but one three main things for them is they use the state to subsidize and develop certain industries and then in those industries the cost of production is reduced because the state subsidizes it and then they export those cheap products and all other international companies they will throw them out of competition because if the state is paying one/ird of your cost then China also has cheap labor so the all the competitors fall out and then the state remove the subsidy And because they have monopoly all over the world they continue to rule after that. So so they did many things but the point is it’s not exactly communism at all. Now China is it atheistic? Yes it definitely is atheistic. So um but within China also there’s a lot of economic inequality. It’s not that everybody’s flourishing there is. So that idea of communism that the state will take wealth and redistribute it to everyone. That is not the core at all the core principle of Chinese government. So uh now how much is the atheism or theism atheism contributed or impeded their development? I say one’s belief in God. Can it lead one to material prosperity or can it lead to material apathy? It depends. It’s there’s no one toone correlation that because of belief in God sometimes people may work harder and succeed more materially. And sometimes belief in God may lead people to become apathetic. And the worst combination of that happened for Hinduism. See both Christianity and Islam they believed in a karmakanda version of religion and they thought that their military conquests and their economic success is the evidence that God has blessed them. So when almost all initial wars Islam came to India was thousand around thousand but the first few two or three decades but each time the Islamic army was much smaller than the Hindu army and they won they used evil techniques or they used deceptive techniques or whatever they won and they saw it all as Allah’s blessings and science modern science and technology developed in the in Europe so they thought that this is actually God’s blessing on us and unfortunately during this time India was going through a very deep influence of mayawad and that is why India became quite apathetic toward the world. So Indian religion made it otherworldly and the in invading people their religion made them this worldy and so that’s why we ended up really getting a bad bargain. So whether religion will lead one to material industriousness or material laziness or apathy and whether belief in God will lead one necessarily to goodness or not. See, I think the success of China is not because of atheism at all. It is independent. It is primarily because they created good systems and if they create good systems there’ll be things will work out. Rahan also had a prosperous rule for a good amount of time. Duryodhan also it is not that the kingdom was bankrupt under him. He was ruling. So in one sense material if there is material efficiency Okay. It is a result of that. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions human being doing ya and the devotas and know giving the gifts. So it’s a mutual transaction which is happening. So we are dependent on das. So we benefit a lot you know by doing ya.

But in uh like I’m not able to understand thing that if I don’t do yagya I will I will lose but how will theyas lose like they suppose das are not receiving yagya is it that key they will starve or their facilities will go down so uh although it’s given in propad books but somewhere it doesn’t click me

yeah so see if we don’t do yagyas is it that the devotas will will suffer a language well there two different ways I have asked many senior devotees including from general hind Hindu scholars also I haven’t found any clear references originally in scripture for it let’s to take two distinct example let’s take the example of Indra when the go when the puja for him was stopped it was not that Indra got angry because he was starving Indra got angry because he felt dishonored so the at one level the yagyas were ceremonies And in the ceremonies different people are honored appropriately. That’s why everybody would come and take their portions of the ya. All the devotas would have their own place. They would come to that place and the how they would be offered to them. So it’s more a matter of acknowledging their position and acknowledging uh their and giving them appropriate respects. So from the Indra example, it does seem that it’s not so much that they needed for survival as it is more like a acknowledgement of their position. Now having said this, prahuad uses the other side you can take it is that prahuad uses the word yagya as a equivalent to tax. Tax is not a very popular word among people in general. They say there’s nothing as sure as death and taxes. The government comes and taxes and you takes money but prahuad seems to have quite a sympathetic use or sympathetic view of the word tax and he says even like a king who is ruling. So in that that verse what is that so in that section rulership in 1.10 in the bhagatam prahuad says that that nature paid taxes to yudishra maharaj So the idea is Yudhishtir as a king was not only taking care of humans he was also taking care of nature and therefore nature also was giving him taxes. What are the taxes that is the flora and for the fruits and grains and vegetables that propad uses that like that and then propad also uses that yagya is like tax. Now we could say that there is some poor person who gets just a gets a few Rupes a year totally or whatever and the government has so much money. Does the tax of this person contribute? How does it make what difference does it make? Well, it might be a meager thing but it contributes. So if we consider the yagya to be like tax then it does seem to contribute. So now of course it is also said that the devotas are immortal and they are amaral. So and the swara is a place of enjoyment. So How much exactly the lack of yagyang will affect the devotas. So see uh that is something which is open to question and in general the devotas don’t some if you look at the overall stories the devotas seem more threatened by the assuras attacking their kingdom rather than simply by manavas stopping the yagya. But it does seem that stopping the yagya seems to disrupt the the cosmic arrangement. So So this was so now if you say now what does that mean at a literal level it means you please them and they will please you. Now our pleasing them can be in a so I’ll conclude is my understanding of this is that Say the parents provide something to the children. Now the children also provide something to the parents. Now what the children provide is respect, gratitude, obedience, growth. They study. The children don’t have to pay money to the parents. In one sense, what the parents give to the children is much more tangible and what the children give to the parents is much less tangible. But still there is a exchange. Mhm. And when that exchange is happening that’s when the relationship is fulfilling. So like that the what the devotas bless us with is much more tangible and what we offer to them is more in the form of worship or yagya or whatever that is not that tangible. So but the point is there is a reciprocation. So the exact mode of the reciprocation and the now is it that the parents will starve If the children do not offer them respect or gratitude or obedience well they won’t physically starve but emotionally it’ll lead to a lot of emptiness to have what Shakespeare say sharper than the pain of a serpent’s tooth is the pain of an ungrateful child. So it is quite painful. So the idea is that for the cosmic harmony the Human actions and the human contribution through yagya does play a role but it may not be as tangible as they starving. Okay. Good question that why did not kill the yeah kill the devot. So are there any examples actually where where the devot are killed specifically see it is said when the dotas are killed like you know when the fight happens it’s often the data soldiers are killed so like In the heavens also there is a hierarchy. So generally my understanding is the devotas are. So they normally cannot be killed till their lifespan gets over. Now in some exceptional situations there might be it might possibility but in general they are not killed and also if you uh in many ways for him it is a greater celebration of his glory to show how all these powerful devot are dancing. to my tombs. You know, in one sense, killing your enemies is easy. Letting them live and making them obey you. That actually shows your greater power. Even if you are alive, I’m so powerful, you cannot do anything to me. So, he seemed to enjoy that like power trip that just by my glance, I can change I can get the Utas to dance to my tune and change the weather and everything. So, that’s also seems to be what Kamsa also does. that he he controls the DVD. Even Rahan there’s no description of and Rahan goes to Swara and he goes to Indra I mean Indrajit his son defeats Indra they make they they make in they make Indra a prisoner and then Brahma comes and asks Indra be released and that’s the time Indrajit gets some special weapon special wounds so I don’t think there are many incidents of the devotas being killed yeah let’s finish with the Physical questions first.

Har Krishna. Uh recently I was seeing a video in which uh a teacher was explaining about uh like how initially monarch is there and monarchs when men may not get corrupted then communism comes in then communism gets corrupted then capitalism comes then democracy and monarch again when democracy get corrupted monarch this was his theory and he was telling the cycle keeps on going and uh in our devot circle like in Bhagat Gita Krishna what we see as Krishna’s arrangement we feel it is like is propounding this van system or it uh it is like monarchy only and from devotees also I heard many times like in Kalyuga democracy is better than monarchy because absolute power will corrupt so sometimes it feel like Krishna system is failing in Kalyuga so how to Okay. So is Krishna system monarchy? I haven’t heard praupa talk of Krishna system is vanasham. In vanasham there are chhatrias. Now does that necessarily necessitate monarchy?

I mean because we read in our

okay I’ll come to that point. See that that so does it necessarily mean monarchy. It means there will be a ruling class and there’ll be intellectual class. Now the ruling class how exactly they rule that is secondary. So I wouldn’t say that warasham is incompatible with democracy. It’s possible. Now within scripture there are many teachings. So there is always going to be a hierarchy. So prahuad said it is the international society for Krishna consciousness. He started He also did not start a international society for vanasham reestablishment. He did not start the society certainly for international society for monarchy reestablishment. So now within the vic vic scripture there will be many teachings and which teachings are more important which teachings are less important. That is something which the living teachers will have to decide. Of course considering the previous teachers emphasis but the living teachers will have to decide that. So what is most relevant today? So So is it that I don’t think we should use the word Krishna’s system for monarchy that was the the system at that time and that was used but if we see in the world today uh is democracy better than monarchy it’s it depends you see that the Middle East has flourished quite a bit and it’s not only because of oil money you know Dubai has diversified beyond oil quite a bit now and it’s become more a tourism hub and it offers a tax haven and and there are there are the shakes live in prosperity enormous prosperity but everybody else is not in stinking in terrible poverty. So there is if there is a good if there is a decent king then that helps in Singapore initially they had the first head of state was was a king more he rule like a king now they’re moving more and more towards democracy And Singapore is probably the country that is it’s a economic miracle in one generation they have dramatically grown. Now if you consider from the perspective of Krishna consciousness it’s only the countries where there is democracy there we have the facility for public practice. Now wherever there is monarchy democracy means the western world India wherever there’s where there’s monarchy theocracy whatever other things are there in communis countries not much democracy was there. So we are not we didn’t have any practice. Prahuad could barely visit Russia for five days. He swed the seeds for a phenomenal moment thereafter. But it’s only after communism fell that came. So of course now in the Middle East we have their devotees but it’s all private practice. There’s nothing public. No Haram sank, no public distribution, no public sitan. So it seems that in today’s world democra is what is the most conducive for the practice of bacti can that change of course it can change but then I don’t think there is any magic wand because even if say tomorrow we have a we have a head of state who is Krishna conscious still there will be problems because which Krishna consciousness will that head of state work that means you know every current is gone guru has their own emphasis. So which Krishna consciousness would that particular king choose and if he supports one particular guru then you know when that particular guru gains that much power would that guru allow other gurus to stay. So you know power it is not that the power can corrupt only the chhatrias the power can corrupt the brahmanas also. So prahupad created a proper did not create a single successor he created a body now and the body he wanted it to operate on consensus if not consensus democracy so it seems that um with respect to this our principle would be yuktavi rather than saying that krishna system doesn’t work what we say is that ytavi can we say ayura is krishna system well it dwantri system or krishna system but is it that all devotees have to follow ayurvea only. No, if it works for you, great. If it doesn’t work, see whatever works and move on. So, in general, navigating through the material world is complex in that there’s a lot of dishala involved. So, Krishna consciousness is that primarily we navigate through the world to get to Krishna. Now, exactly how we navigate through the world That will depend on time, place, circumstance and that’s perfectly fine. Like praupad said simple living and high thinking that farm communities will help us in doing that. But many places people who live in farms they just cannot do the full morning program because farm work it’s hot and in afternoon you can’t do it. So most of them just do mangalarti and they go and start working on the farm and after the after the second half of it not everywhere but many the second half then they will have they will do their chanting they will do their bhagodam class that is practical. So this living in the material world is very complicated. So there were devotees who were doing farming in the first generation and they said dotiki korta is the devotey dress. So they were trying to do farming wearing dotiki korta and you know some devotees got injured. One devotey doti got stuck in a tractor and he got severely injured. and he almost died and now devotees don’t wear that dress and do so you know there we have to have what is called as tart is a hierarchy what is more important what is less important and navigating the material world you cannot do it with any one simple formula each one of us according to time place circumstance has to see how best I can go through the situation and move towards Krishna that’s why there is prahupad and I think that’s my understanding That’s one reason why prahuad created each temple as very decentralized. The pro each temple and it each temple’s leadership will decide how best to spread Krishna consciousness. At one time some devotees some GBC decided that we’ll centralize all the finances. All the money collected by all the temples will come to one central body and they will all lot to different projects. When they made that resolution, Prahupad was so upset. said praupa just suspended the whole GBC and he sent a letter to all the temple presidents for the time being if you have any decision consultation consult me directly don’t consult the GBC at all and praad strongly said the GBC came to meet him and they were very apologetic what had happened was there one devotey was very good at finances he was expert in finance some degree he had so he said if you do this you’ll be able to and manage the finances more much more efficiently but praupa said the centralization destroy our movement. So I’m paraphrasing over here this he said kept the movement quite decentralized. So one understanding is that not just the individual leaders inspiration but it’s also the individual leaders dis discretion okay what does this place need what can we do at this place so if we had not had discretion see if we go to the middle east I was just in the middle east one month ago and everything that we associate with Krishna consciousness Almost all of it is not there. We Iscon means full-time devotees. Not a single full-time devotey. Iscon means duty worship. No dity worship. Iscon means book distribution. No book distribution. Iscon means public haram sanka. No public haram. So everything that we normally associate with is none of that is there. And still there are thriving devotees. Now in Abu Dhabi they have their Sunday they have Sunday feast. They have 600 700 devotees 500 devotees. go to Dubai just one and a half hours away they have more than thousand devotees 45 minutes away there Sharah they have 600 devotees so three Sunday feasts happen in that area and there’s not even a single temple over there they just hire a hall and they do it everywhere so if we had made this is the material way things have to be done if the decentralization had not discretion was not allowed things would have been very difficult so I don’t think we can show tai Krishna consciousness to any specific material of implementing it. Okay. Any last question?

Okay. Yeah. Harrishna G.

So my question is you were talking about liberty and liberation. So can you give a example of that you know how person you know follow his duty also and he get liberated like you know in material life we face many difficulties. So sometimes we won’t able to be liberated like many financial issues we have. So and rebration is like not properly also many you know people can follow all that if they follow there is no like is no chances they will you know get liberated or something the faith is not there no so this is the question can you please

okay so the point I was making is what what is the priority when I was talking about liberty and liberation in the west the priority is liberty in the eastern tradition is liberation that’s what I talking about now can both of them go together that’s That’s a completely different question. So each person based on their particular karma may be able to get different degrees of freedom in this world. That’s where the comes in. So somebody might become somebody works in a company and they rise to the top of they become the CEO or they become the team lead or something like that. They have much more freedom. Somebody is doesn’t rise that much in the hierarchy. They won’t have that much freedom. So seeking liber Liberty is not the problem. But liberty and how much a person will succeed in getting that liberty. It depends. It depends on their past karma. It depends also on their present karma. That means how they use their talents and abilities. So that will vary. So for example, you could say that Yudeshir among the pandas had much more liberty than Bhimar Arjuna Nakul or Sahadi. This was the eldest brother and everybody listened listened to him. Of course he was virtuous and Now Duryodhan had much more liberty than Duchasan or others. So it happened in both sides. So that liberty will always be in a hierarchy. Some people will have more liberty and some people will have less liberty. That’s just the way it is. It depends on past and present karma. Now while seeking liberty, can one pursue liberation also? It depends how they are pursuing liberty. If one is doing it within the boundaries of dharma, then it’s not a problem. See, material life is not a problem. Materialistic life is the problem. Material life means where we seek our material needs. Materialistic life means those m pursuit of material things become so important that we forget everything else. So dharma karma mokia is a progression. So in one sense ara and karma is a form of liberty isn’t it? When you have ara you have financial freedom. Karma means you have freedom to fulfill your desires. So that is so liberty and liberation are not in compatible but the problem often comes is when people get into dharma takama they just get caught in that they forget mok so then it becomes a problem but otherwise it is possible praad says many places that it is possible that we can be happy in this world as happy as is possible in this world and ultimately we can go back to Krishna okay thank you very much