Accepting our limitations helps us see the light beyond limitations – SB 10.49.19
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
Hare Krishna. So today we are discussing the instructions of Akrura to Dhritarashtra as he has been sent as a messenger by Krishna to enquire and if possible prepare for the welfare of the Pandavas and their mother Kunti. He is going to enquire by asking Kunti and Pandavas and prepare by trying to give advice to Dhritarashtra.
So here he is giving advice saying that samatve vartashvat, act equally towards the Pandavas and the Kauravas. Today I will discuss this class from Dhritarashtra's perspective. Dhritarashtra we often condemn as a person who is very attached and that is definitely true.
But we can always, Prabhupada wanted us to study scripture from different perspectives and we can learn how he went wrong if we understand his psychology and then within his reasoning where he was wrong. Because everybody whatever they do, they have some reasoning by which they are doing it. Now their reasoning may be unreasonable, but it is their reasoning they are following.
So understanding why certain people think in particular way and act in particular way can not only help us to understand them better, but also advise them better whenever it is possible. In general, hurt people hurt people. People who are hurt themselves, they hurt others.
Hurt people hurt people. Now that doesn't mean that the people who hurt others can be forgiven indiscriminately and the appropriate action has to be taken. But it is a fact that generally the soul who is covered over by the three modes of material nature, acts in wrong ways quite often because of some wrongs which have been done to that soul.
Of course we have free will and we can respond to wrongs by rights. And in fact that is the essential teaching of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Both the Pandavas as well as Lord Ram were victims of injustice.
But they responded to injustice with integrity. So now in one sense if you look at Dhritarashtra, he was also a victim of injustice. What was the injustice? He was born in a royal family and he was born blind.
There can be very little more crippling limitations for someone. For a person to be born in a royal family where practically one's entire self-identity and self-worth depends on one's physical perfection. One is born right with a physical imperfection.
So to some extent I can relate with Dhritarashtra more because I also have physical limitation. Of course mine was not from birth. It was after about a year after birth.
But either way, the point is that when somebody has a physical limitation which from this life's perspective one is not responsible for. If there is a champion cricketer and then while fielding and catching runs carelessly and breaks his leg and is never able to play afterwards. You could say that person was careless.
But where somebody has a limitation which that person at least from this life's perspective is not responsible for. Then it's very difficult to accept that. In our culture doing the impossible is often glamorized.
Scale mountains that no one has ever scaled before. Scale the mountains that no one has scaled before. And impossible is a word in a fool's dictionary.
Now of course Prabhupada also quoted that and that is true in some extent. But just as achieving the impossible requires courage, admitting that something is impossible also requires courage. Admitting that something is just beyond me to do.
That requires courage not to face the world's censure. It requires courage to face our own ego's censure. The ego wants to imagine that I am perfect in every way.
In essence I am God. And this is God is omnipotent capable of doing everything. So similarly I can also do everything.
And much of today's self-help is centered on imagining the omnipotence of the human will. If you just set your mind on something you will be able to achieve it. So now there are only two verses in the Bhagavad Gita that Krishna repeats almost identically twice.
So one is the famous Manmanabha. It comes in 9.34 and then 18.65 where he is telling practice devotional service to me. And there are other verse fragments that are repeated but the only other instruction that Krishna repeats is this comes in 3.35 and then 18.47. So now the first two lines generally if we want to refer to lines of a verse within the verse then we say 3.35 a b c first line second line third line fourth line.
So 3.35 a b is the same as 18.47 a b. It is better to act according to your dharma than to try to do some of the others dharma. The c and d I will explain the meaning later but I will just go through the verses first. So c and d of 3.35 are Swadharme Nidhanam Shreya Paradharmo Bhayavaha.
Swadharme while doing your own activity destruction is better. While doing your own dharma destruction is better. Paradharmo another nature is Bhayavaha.
Bhayavaha is very fearful. And in 18.47 c and d are Svabhav Niyatam Karma Kurvan Apnauti Kilvisham. So Swadharme Nidhanam Shreya Paradharmo Bhayavaha.
So Swadharme Nidhanam Shreya Paradharmo Bhayavaha. So Swadharme Nidhanam Shreya Paradharmo that niyatkarma, kurvan na apnoti kilbisham, you will not attain any contamination. Now the word kilbisha at one level can be translated as sinful reactions, but at a deeper level if you go into Sanskrit and analyze, kilbisha basically refers to the results of any incompatibility, anything that is disharmonious, anything that is wrong, so you will not be in a disharmonious situation, Krishna is saying.
Now some people who are against Vedic culture, they say these verses are a rigid endorsement of the caste system, where Krishna is telling that one cannot give up one's caste at all. It is better you die doing your own caste duty and not do any other caste duty. But such an interpretation of these verses neglects many other places.
4.13 Krishna says that according to this chaturvalan is done not by birth, but by qualities and activities, as Prabhupada would very often quote. And then also Krishna talks about the transcendence of bhakti to any material limitations. When he talks about mam hi partha vyapashritya ye pisyu papa yonaya striyo vaisyas tatha shudras tepi yanti param gathim.
So in 9.32 he says that even if a person is born low, it doesn't matter, that person can transcend. So essentially this verse is not endorsing the caste system, it is endorsing swabhava. So now traditionally the Varanashram that was there was meant to facilitate people to act according to their swabhava.
It was not meant to restrict or limit people, it was meant to facilitate people to act according to their swabhava. And if a person was found to be of a different swabhava, different from what the person was born in, then person could be facilitated accordingly. So our nature is determined by various things, largely a kind of karma we have done in the past, but along with that our upbringing and our own choices also affect the nature.
But we all have a distinct nature and in one sense we are all unique. Like I am unique, you are unique. This uniqueness may seem to be a claim to pride, but it is not because we are unique just like everyone else.
So everyone is unique. So in that sense, uniqueness is commonplace. But coming to the point which we are discussing, that understanding that all of us have a particular nature and accordingly engaging ourselves in life is important.
Now we see that in principle, Krishna tells Arjuna, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja. Give up all varieties of religion and surrender unto me. But in practice, Arjuna keeps serving Krishna according to his varanashram dharma as a grahastha and as a kshatriya.
So is it that Arjuna is not following Krishna's instruction? No. Actually when Krishna tells sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja, essentially it is asking for a change in motivation, not necessarily a change in occupation or vocation. So Arjuna's nature is to be a kshatriya and Arjuna will continue to be a kshatriya.
But he can do it for Krishna's pleasure. So when I said earlier that admitting that certain things are impossible for us also requires courage. That means recognizing that we have a particular nature and that nature may not change.
So admitting that okay I have certain limitations, admitting that we have limitations is the way to see the light beyond the limitations. Now we have some limitations but there are certain other talents which we may have. And as long as we are bogged down by our limitations, we will not explore what other talents we have, what other opportunities we have.
Now when somehow life closes one door in front of us, we often keep staring at the closed door, resenting it without looking which other doors are open for us. And this essentially is the life story of Dhritarashtra. Just from his birth, the door of becoming a king was closed for him.
So because he was the eldest among the two or three brothers, actually two because Vidura was never in contention for being a successor as he was not born, as his blood was not pure, he was not born from a Kshatriya womb. So it was only Dhritarashtra and Pandu. And Dhritarashtra in one sense had the natural claim because he was elder, so primogeniture was prevalent at that time.
But he was unqualified because of his blindness. Now denying our limitations is often the way to perpetuating our limitedness. I have certain limitations.
As long as I keep denying it, I imagine that I have the qualities to do that. It's not that I am going to develop the qualities. A person, let's put aside the blindness part right now.
A person has a vaishya mentality. It is not that that person will suddenly become brahmanical just by desiring to become brahmanical. And person may try to act brahmanically, but person cannot change one's nature.
In ISKCON we have brahman diksha and we give it to businessmen also. And is it that they all have become brahmanas? In the sense of developing all the qualities of a brahmana, there is guna and karma. Now even business can be done in a brahmanical way.
In the sense that all the activities, somebody can be an intellectual, which is normally considered to be an activity of brahmanas in goodness. But somebody can be an intellectual in a passionate way. Somebody can be intellectual in an ignorant way.
That's why Krishna talks about this paradox of intelligence in the mode of ignorance and knowledge in the mode of ignorance. So intelligence in the mode of ignorance basically intelligently perpetuates ignorance. It intelligently perpetuates, continues on, spreads ignorance.
So often people who are intelligent in ignorance use word jugglery to hide ugly realities. So for example, today in today's society which is increasingly grossly materialistic, we have many euphemisms of deception. Euphemism is a polite way of stating a harsh reality and sometimes it's a part of culture.
But euphemisms of deception means that we speak in a gentle way so that an ugly truth is not known only to people. So for example, this is slightly off the subject, but I am talking about how intelligence can also be in ignorance. So there are clubs where men go to watch women strip naked.
So strip clubs are called as gentleman's clubs. Now if you look at a dictionary, the word gentleman means a person who is very cultured, considerate and very proper in behavior. So a gentleman's club is no place for a gentleman, except for those gentlemen who gently want to deny that they are no longer gentlemen.
Similarly, vulgar forms of entertainment are called as adult entertainment. Now there can be no more insidious rephrasing of reality. You know, when we become adult, the way it sounds, it's almost like a desirable rite of passage.
When you become adult, you get a right to vote and you get a right to enjoy adult entertainment. It's something like that. So intelligence in the mode of ignorance perpetuates ignorance intelligently.
So the point which I am making is that when we have brahman diksha in this corner, it's not necessary that every person who gets a brahman diksha will develop brahmanical karma. To some extent, brahmanical guna can be developed and business can also be done in goodness. Although business will require certain amount of passion, but there can be some amount of goodness while doing business.
Just as I said, brahmanical activity which is intellect study and writing can be done in passion and even ignorance. So now we all have our limitations. And Dhritarashtra throughout his life just could not accept the fact that I cannot be the king.
I cannot be the king. So it's interesting that towards the end, just before the war, Vyasadeva comes and asks Dhritarashtra that what do you want? If you want, I can give you your eyes also. This happens just before the war.
And in fact, slightly before that, Krishna, when he comes and asks Shanti Doodh and displays the Virat Rupa, Dhritarashtra asks Krishna, please let me see your Virat Rupa. So now the question may come up that on the second occasion, Krishna actually gives Dhritarashtra eyes. And when Vyasadeva says that I can give you eyes also if you want to see the battle, Dhritarashtra refuses.
His heart says, Dhritarashtra, his heart is caught between knowing the inevitable and denying the impossible. So knowing the inevitable is what my sons are going to be killed. And denying, not impossible, inevitable.
Knowing the inevitable and denying the inevitable. Somehow I hope it will not happen. So in his heart he thought that, I never got to see my son's life, why should I see my son's death? So he didn't ask for eyes.
But was it not possible, we often say that at that time there were so many brahmanas and mantras and ayurvedic physicians were there who had so many powers. Couldn't anyone have restored Dhritarashtra's eyes at that time? So as far as I have read, the Mahabharata doesn't raise this issue explicitly. But we also understand that certain things are there by karma as unchangeable realities.
And even today with advanced technology, it's not that anybody and everybody, anything and everything can be rectified. In fact so many more things go wrong in different ways today. So he was blind and that meant he could not become the king.
We see that if he had just been open minded enough to accept this limitation, he had the illustrious example of Bhishma himself. Bhishma had no limitation by birth like this. If somebody has to live in royalty without the privileges of royalty, of kinghood, he had the privileges of royalty actually, being a member of the royal family.
But without the privileges of monarchy, he had the example of Bhishma for doing that. And Bhishma was not deprived because of some external limitation. He was deprived by his own choice.
So if he had just accepted that limitation, I am not supposed to be the king and gone on with life. Then so much disaster could have been avoided. He accepted it inevitably.
The commanders of the Kuru army were anxious. When the time for the next king came up, how would a blind king be able to lead the army in battle if it's required? And finally Vidura spoke. And that was one of the reasons why Dhritarashtra detested Vidura in many ways.
Now actually Vidura simply spoke the truth and somebody had to speak the truth. It's rather that if something is the truth, it's better that we ourselves acknowledge it and somebody else has to point it out to us. So Vidura did not do anything wrong but that created harshness and strain in the relationship between Vidura and Dhritarashtra.
Because Vidura pointed out that he did not say that Dhritarashtra cannot be a king. He just politely said, there is an important question to consider. How will a person without eyes be able to lead the army on a battlefield? And he said this is the question which is troubling the commanders and the generals of the army.
And for Bhishma, he never had sons but he treated Dhritarashtra, Vidura and Pandu like his own sons. Of course later when they grew up, they were all in one sense elderly. So he did not want to hurt Dhritarashtra by saying that you are not qualified.
He knew it. In fact everyone knew it but Dhritarashtra was not ready to admit it. Somebody had to speak it.
Somebody had to bell the cat. And Vidura took the responsibility and Dhritarashtra at that time reluctantly accepted it. But then his hope at that time was that if I can't become the king, my son will become the king.
And somehow destiny seemed to favour him. Because he came to know that Pandu was cursed because of which he could not unite with his wives. And therefore he thought my son is going to become the king.
And then his son Duryodhana, the eldest among his sons was groomed right from childhood. Although initially because of the bad omens that were there at the time of his birth, Dhritarashtra advised that he be abandoned. But when Dhritarashtra refused to do that, then it was accepted that he is going to become the king.
And everybody gave him special attention and respect and love. And then although Gandhari was frustrated when Kunti gave birth first, but Pandu did not seem to have any intentions of coming back to the kingdom. And that's why it seemed that although it was just in one sense, actually the Mahabharata is not clear, but Neelakanta in his commentary in the Mahabharata mentions that it was only a matter of just a short period, just a matter of days, that Yudhishthira was older than Dhritarashtra.
So again Gandhari and Dhritarashtra felt that we had been denied. That at least our son could have become the king. Now normally speaking, if the line goes to a younger brother or an intermediate brother, the kinghood, then it doesn't come back to the elder brother or his sons.
It goes on. And in fact that was the reason in the Ramayana also, when Kaikeyi at the instigation of Manthara asked for her two boons, send Ram to the forest and make Bharat the king. So at that time Dashrath Maharaj requests, if you want Bharat to be the king, let him be the king, but I cannot live without Ram.
Please don't send Ram to the forest. So Manthara has told Kaikeyi that this is what Dashrath will say and don't listen to it. There are several reasons she says.
First is that if Bharat is there, if Ram is there, Bharat will not accept the kinghood only. And even if Bharat accepts, the citizens will not accept, the courtiers will not accept. So you have to get him out of the picture and then Bharat will in affection.
So at that time Kaikeyi tries to persuade her and says, why do you have to do all this? He says, Ram is also like my son, he becomes the king. And maybe after him, he may give the kingship to Bharat. So Manthara starts laughing, you foolish lady, don't you know how the kingship works? If the kingship goes to Ram, it will never come to your son.
It will go after Ram to his sons. So in one sense, once Pandu became the king, the kingship was lost forever. It was going to go to Pandu's sons.
And Dhritarashtra was simply a caretaker. He was not the king. But just, you know, because we are given a position, we imagine we have the qualification for the position.
So that's how life works. So just because Dhritarashtra was the king, he imagined now I have a right to be the king. And my son will become the king in future.
So he just couldn't accept the point that he was never meant to be the king. And then when Pandu stayed in the forest itself, he thought, OK, my son is going to become the king. But then unexpectedly Pandu passed away and then the sages advised his widowed wife that you should come back and stay with the elders.
They said that, you know, we can take care of you, but it is for a woman, especially with young children. Somebody has to not just take care of you, somebody has to train your sons. They are Kshatriyas.
And Pandu was himself taking care of the training of his sons. But the Rishis were not Kshatriyas. They said, you go back to the kingdom.
Now, when they came back, Durodhana and Dhritarashtra were initially nonplussed. But then Durodhana was a pampered, spoiled, insolent child. But still, because he was going to be the next prince, he was loved.
But when Pandus came back and people in general, as well as the courtiers in particular, they could not but contrast the difference between the gentle demeanor of the Pandavas, gentle, cultured, respectful behavior, and the often insolent, arrogant behavior of Durodhana. And because, now, at that time, nobody knew who is going to be the next king. So, naturally, you know, whenever say, if there are some, there are some government officers, and there are elections, so one party is in power, and next time you don't know who is going to come to power.
So what you try to do is, you try to be on the good side of both people. Because you don't know who is going to come to power in future. So, like that, the courtiers in general, earlier they were giving all their affection and attention to Durodhana, but now, they also started giving some attention to Yudhishthira and the Pandavas.
And that was not just because they were trying to, as they say, sit on the fence, but they also, Pandavas were likeable. And this was something Durodhana could not tolerate. That I am no longer the Sainuja of all eyes.
You know, there is respect that comes by position, and there is respect that comes by disposition. So, Durodhana had respect by position. He was the successor.
Yudhishthira had respect by disposition. He was such a respectful, gentle, and the same was true for the Pandavas, in general. So, now, respect coming from position is lost when the position is lost.
But respect coming from disposition, disposition is our own nature, that is never lost. So, Durodhana never had a likeable disposition. And that's why, when his position was no longer clear, he did not get the kind of respect and adoration that he was getting earlier.
And he found that intolerable. And that's how he became extremely envious of the Pandavas. So, there is generic envy, and there is specific envy.
Just like there is generic lust, and there is specific lust. In general, any person who is embodied, feels some sexual attraction. When a sexually attractive object comes in one's consciousness or vision, that is generic lust, which will come and go.
Specific lust means, when that lust is directed towards a particular person, then that goes into a danger zone. Because generic lust, it's not something which we are likely to act on. But when it's specific, then we act on it.
We try to develop a relationship, and then many things happen after that. Same way, there is generic envy, and there is specific envy. Generic envy means, there are poor people living in the slums, and then they see somebody going in a very big, very posh car.
They naturally feel envious. Oh, this person is living in such prosperity. But that does not necessarily mean that they are going to go on a riot, and destroy that car, and beat up the person.
It's when some person specifically becomes a visible symbol of what one is envious of. Then that generic envy becomes the French Revolution. There was a huge amount of iniquity.
The poor people were starving, and the wealthy people were in enormous wealth. Now in one sense, that has been throughout history. But at that time, the difference became very, very visible.
How? The poor people marched up to Louis XVI, I think it was the 16th or 14th, and they said, give us bread. And his wife, she was so insensitive, in fact not just insensitive, so ignorant about the plight of the common people. She said that, if you don't have bread, then eat cake.
So she had no idea of shortage of food. And that incensed the masses. And then there was a bloody revolution in which, all the nobility, all the aristocracy, right from the king to the courtiers, they were all very brutally killed, gulleted.
So this is an example of generic envy becoming specific envy. Now of course, there was some, it was not just envy, there was some moral authority to what they were doing also. They were deprived.
I am not going to go into the ethics of French Revolution here. But I am simply making the point that, Duryodhana had a generically envious nature. But the arrival of the panda was on the scene, and his displacement from the position of being the center of attention in the Kuru family, and the Kuru court, that was what made that generic envy, specific envy.
And specific envy is what is dangerous. Generic envy can be dangerous, but only after it becomes specific. So, now here, Dhritarashtra, he, if he had accepted his limitation, okay, I am not going to be the king, then it would have been easier for him also to accept that, his son is also not going to be the king.
But because we all, to some extent, live life vicariously. Vicariously means by identification with others. So, this happens not only in material life, but also in spiritual life.
You know, when India won the World Cup 3-4 years ago, at that time, Indians were mad with the material version of ecstasy. So, why is that? Because they identify with India. Actually, you know, I wrote an article about that.
There is a triple level misidentification there. Why triple level? First is, we identify with the body which we temporarily have. Second, we identify with the country in which this body is currently living.
And thirdly, we identify with the sports, which is only presently popular in this country, which is the place where the body which I am in temporarily is there. So, there is a misidentification with the body, then with the country and with the sport that is popular in that country. But even that triple level misidentification can be so intoxicating.
So, why do people feel so happy when India won the cricket match? Because it's vicarious enjoyment. Yes, I identify with Indian cricket and that's how I enjoy. And we may do that even in the spiritual life also.
It's not wrong if somebody is asking very critical questions and if a preacher gives a very intelligent answer, then we feel proud. Oh yes, we belong to a world which has all the answers. There was one devotee who told me about a program.
This is a very popular American Christian pastor who gives millions of people attend his classes online and television. So, he spoke and one said, everything that is not in the Bible is coming from the devil. And he started giving examples of how self-help and this and that and that, it's all from the devil.
And then he said, even if they are the Hare Krishnas who have answers to every question that you ask, but still those answers are coming from the devil. You know, criticism is often veiled appreciation. So anyway, the point which I am making here is that actually we all identify with something and we get pleasure in that.
So as I said, if some devotee gives very good classes, some devotee sings very nicely, or in the Krishna consciousness movement, builds a very beautiful temple and it all comes in the news. Then, especially devotees who live in the world and they are always stigmatized, what are you doing? You know, you are doing something strange. But then when something appreciative of the Krishna consciousness movement comes in the mainstream media, then they also feel vindicated by that.
So we all live to some extent by vicarious identification with others. And what we vicariously identify with is very important in determining the trajectory of our life journey. So Dhritarashtra chose to identify with his son.
And that's why in his son's prospects of becoming the king, his dream of being the king lived on. And that's why he could never muster the will to reign in his son. He tried several times, but he just couldn't do it.
Because he was, now the attachment which he had for his son, that was actually a projection of the attachment that he had to his own ego. And it was that which he was not ready to let go. So now, this is all about learning.
Now if he had just accepted his limitation, I am not going to be the king. What else can I do in life? Now Bhishma continued to live a very respected life. Although he was not the king.
Dhritarashtra would also have been respected like that. Because he was a member of a powerful royal family. But unfortunately, he was not ready to do that.
In our own lives also, we all have various limitations. And to a large extent, we fight against those limitations. Now it's not necessarily wrong that there are certain things which we may be able to improve if we keep doing them.
And actually, even in the field which we are talented, we need to practice and persevere to improve those things. But the little bit of experience living in the body that we have presently, we can make it clear. These are things which I can't do.
There may be stories in popular folklore about how somebody was told you cannot become a sportsman or you cannot become a writer. And that person was rejected. Manuscript was rejected 20 times, 30 times, 50 times.
And yet after that person became a very big success and became one of the most famous authors. There are stories like that. Now, yes, there can be these things.
But the point was, there is a difference between that situation and this situation. That situation is a situation where a person has talent but the world does not acknowledge or recognize that talent. But there is another situation where the person does not have that talent or that particular ability.
And then a person continues to try to do that particular thing because of an externally imposed definition of success. All of us have particular definitions of success in our life. We have a general definition of success that we want to advance in our devotional life.
We want to become pure devotees. We want to go back to Krishna. That's an overarching definition of success which is common for all of us.
But within that, we all have certain definitions of success. Now, what would we like to do? Now, maybe some of us would like to become preachers and then we can have… A lot of people we can bring to Krishna through that. Some others may want to become very big book distributors.
Or… Now, big not in the sense of wanting others to glorify us for all that we have done but big simply in terms of making a worthwhile contribution. Some others may want to be pujaris and ensure that the deities have the best decorations. So all of us, within our specific services, we have certain definitions of success.
Now, often, we, at least in our initial stage in our spiritual life, we just do whatever services we are told to do. And that is good. That is a matter of surrender.
And that is a matter of learning the attitude of being a servant. But after that, how we are going to serve, over a period of time, we gravitate towards that which is our psychophysical inclination. And often we deny that because we are enamored by someone else's definition of success.
That means, say, some devotee is a very good speaker, a very popular preacher. And then when that devotee is giving class, hundreds of people come for the class. And whenever that devotee is going anywhere, there are always people around, back and ahead.
And then you may think, I want to become like that person. And then I may want to become like that person. And yes, we want to be an instrument of Krishna's compassion to get more and more souls towards Krishna.
But that doesn't mean that that has to be done only in one particular way. There are many ways in which one can preach. One can, if one wants, teach.
Where one is preaching primarily to devotees. And it's not necessary that one is counseling others. And it's not that there are always people surrounding someone.
So sometimes, we, because of the glamorization of certain services, accept that, accept a particular service as our definition of success. Even if that's not our nature, even if that's not our disposition, even if that's not what we are qualified for. And then that causes a lot of dissatisfaction.
So, dissatisfaction at a spiritual level is because we are not connected with Krishna. That is true. And only when we are deeply connected with Krishna, will we become fully satisfied.
But, when we act according to our material nature, for Krishna's service, there is also deep satisfaction that comes by that. And, now, of course, in today's society, because of various factors such as mixing between the various Varanas, nobody's Varana is very clearly known. So, we cannot assume that I have a particular nature.
We have to observe over a period of time. And we learn after some time. And, if we are more or less satisfied doing whatever services we are doing, we don't have to worry too much, I don't know my nature.
Because, just like in, if you go to Ayurvedic doctor, there is Kapha, Vata, Pitta, the three primary Prakritis. But because lifestyle is so unnatural today, that very few people have a purely Kapha, or purely Vata, or purely Pitta Prakriti. It is always a mixture.
So, like that, even today, it's not that people will have just a Brahminical, or a Kshatriya, or a Vaishya, or a Shudra mentality. There can be combinations of all these also. So, the important thing is, that we are, we are able to do our services properly, whatever they are.
Properly means, what? Two things. We are competent in execution, and we are competent in doing that service, at least to some extent, and we are satisfied doing that service internally. So, if we accept our limitations, refusing to accept our limitations can cause a lot of dissatisfaction in our devotional service also.
You know, if I am not a very good singer, and I am constantly hankering, when will I become a good singer? When will I become a good singer? You know, one thing I have learnt is that there are many projects, which I have to postpone to my next life. In this life, I just don't have the ability to do certain things. So, actually, if we don't accept the limitations, then that is something which keeps us constantly and unnecessarily dissatisfied.
So, accepting our limitation doesn't mean that we are not dedicated, it doesn't mean that we are not not willing to extend or sacrifice. It just means that we are discriminating and intelligent in choosing where we focus our commitment and our sacrifice and our extending spirit. So, if, of course, if our senior devotees feel that we should do a particular service because that's what they want us to do, then we can do that as a matter of surrender whenever it's required.
But then, as our movement is expanding, it's unlikely that, you know, senior devotees will have the time or the energy to observe every single devotee and find out what is that devotee's nature and engage that devotee according to that nature. And even if that is there, how long is it going to be there? It's not going to be there lifetime. And we are here to serve Krishna throughout our life.
So, even when we are doing certain services which we are told to do, and sometimes we are doing variety of services, we should always be observing, which are the services which I am most comfortable doing, which are the services I am most compatible doing. So, I would say this comfortable refers to that if you are feeling comfortable doing the service, that's because of the guna that we have. And we are competent doing the service, that's because of the karma that we have.
So, that's how we can, as we are observing, we do various services, but then we also keep a note, which are the services which I like to do, which I feel not like in a, not like in a sense gratificatory sense, this is the last point I'll conclude with, but like in a swabhava sense. You know, we'll see this paradox in the Bhagavad Gita. In direct, it seems like a contradiction in 3.33 and 3.36. So, 3.33, Krishna is telling, nigraha kim karishasi, what will repression accomplish? And, after that, in 3.36, Arjuna is asking, what is it that impels one to do something wrong? athakena prayuktoyam, paapam charati purushaha.
What is it that makes one do something wrong? So, now, Arjuna could have said, Krishna, you have only said, you know, what can repression accomplish? So, whatever I feel like doing, I'll do that. So, Arjuna doesn't do that. Often, we tend to separate our emotions as material and spiritual.
This is material, this is spiritual. That is okay, at one level, but within material also, there is aparadharma, and there is adharma. So, our swabhava relates with our aparadharma.
And, our vasanas relate with adharma. So, our swabhava, our psychophysical nature, that will determine our aparadharma, our material activities. And when Krishna is telling, nigraha kim karisyasi, what will repression accomplish? He is referring to one's aparadharma.
And that's why, through just two verses, after 3.35, he says, that, You cannot, Arjuna, you are a Brahmana, you cannot give up your, sorry, you are a Kshatriya, you cannot give up your Kshatriya nature. Act according to that. nigraha kim karisyasi.
But then, when it comes to vasana, which leads one to adharma, lust, anger, greed, which leads one to adharma, then what does Krishna say? That, regulate it, conquer it. 3.41, 43, Krishna says, again and again, conquer it. So, we cannot just reject everything material as undesirable.
Within the material also, there is something which is dovetailable, and something which is, which is worthy of rejection. So, our swabhava, which is according to our material nature, that has to be dovetailed. And we cannot dovetail if we don't know what is the doe and what is the tail.
You know, if we have never observed ourselves, we have never come to know what is our swabhava, what will we dovetail? You know, we will just be trying to fit a iron, a round nail in a square hole. We will not be able to do that. So, therefore, we actually recognize our limitations at the material level, but then after recognizing our limitations, okay, these are things which, because of my own body-mind, I cannot do this.
These are things which I can do. And when I recognize that, then I focus on that and that's how we grow in our spiritual life. So, Srila Prabhupada, he, there are many pastimes, last time also I think I spoke this pastime, that this one devotee in London who came to Prabhupada and he said that, London was at that time European headquarters, and he was there with, and devotees from Germany, from France, and various other parts, where preaching was going on, had come there.
And then he, so they all were reporting to Prabhupada, how the preaching was going on. Prabhupada was asking and they were reporting. And there was this devotee, this pastime comes in Prabhupada nectar, that, there was this Ishana Prabhu, he felt that everybody has something to do for Srila Prabhupada, but I don't have anything to do.
What can I do? So he went to Prabhupada and asked him, Prabhupada, what can, please give me some service. Prabhupada said, what would you like to do for Krishna? So he thought, Prabhupada is testing me. Prabhupada, whatever you tell me, I will do that.
Now Prabhupada asked again, he said, what do you want to do for Krishna? He says, no Prabhupada, whatever you tell me, I will do. Then Prabhupada became very clear and he says, understand our philosophy. Our philosophy is to find out what we like to do and then to do it for Krishna.
This is actually a, this is an example of Bhagwat Arpit Karma Yoga. It may not be necessarily Bhakti Yoga, but it is Bhagwat Arpit Karma Yoga. And if it is done with the attitude of selfless service to the Vaishnavas and to Guru and Krishna, then it will gradually become Bhakti Yoga.
So then this devotee, he said, Prabhupada, I like to think, I never thought like this. Now often we are taught of as practicing Bhakti means surrendering to the instructions of the spiritual master. But Bhakti also has another aspect.
It is taking initiative. Prabhupada writes in the, in the, I think the third verse of Third Mantra of Isopanishad, Kurvan eve karmāṇi jīvaśeśakam samaḥ In that purport he writes that every individual has certain initiative and using that initiative for Krishna's service is the way to perfection. So, Bhakti also means taking initiative on behalf of Krishna.
So here this devotee went and thought about it and he came to Prabhupada after a couple of days and he said, Prabhupada, I thought that since my childhood I like to do some some work with my hands, some pottery and that sort of work. So I thought that we have so many Mrudangas we get from Mayapur, they often break. So I was thinking I will make plaster of plastic Mrudangas, not so difficult to make.
We can make them here and then even if they break we can always have them again. So Prabhupada was very happy. He said, Yes, your godbrothers are so passionate.
He says, make the Mrudanga so strong that even if they throw it down they will not break. And then, this devotee he got a lifelong service by that. And that's how he went on.
So Bhakti means surrendering to Krishna. Bhakti means also taking initiative for serving Krishna and using the talents that Krishna has given us in his service. So I will summarize.
I started by talking about how accepting our limitations is very important. We discussed about how Dhritarashtra had a very very crippling and hurting limitation. But if he had accepted the limitation I think he would have been able to find much more light in his life than what he actually did.
And in the course of understanding this point of accepting limitations, we discussed how Krishna says, act according to our nature. That means while we are limited in those things for which we don't have a nature, we are also endowed for things for which we have our nature. And discovering them and then engaging them in Krishna's service is the way to happiness.
So otherwise, if we don't accept our limitations, we will stay dissatisfied even when things are nice, things are good in our life and we are well situated in the path to Krishna. Just because of not accepting our limitations, we will stay dissatisfied and then we may go away from Krishna because of the dissatisfaction. Thinking that it is Krishna consciousness that is not satisfying me.
Whereas it is actually simply our material incompatibility that is the cause of dissatisfaction. We discussed the difference between Swabhava that cannot be repressed, Swabhava which will gel with our aparadharma and Vasana which has to be purified and rejected because that causes Adharma. And lastly we concluded how when in a situation where we don't know our Varna, then it is to some extent our responsibility to observe ourselves and to find out what we are competent at doing and comfortable at doing and take initiative in Krishna's service.
Thank you very much. Are there any comments, corrections? Thank you Prabhu. Could you please clarify the point of generic envy and specific envy and generic lust and specific lust because the person who hears could misinterpret that, oh, I am just generically envious and generically lusty so, it is not so bad, you know, it is just life in a mature world.
It is any day like any other day. But it will lead, it will come out in a very specific way and unless we deal with the generic envy and lust, we will be in trouble. So, once it gets specific, it is almost too late in one sense to bring it back.
So, could you just refine that a little bit for us? Thank you. So, is generic lust, generic envy not a cause of problem because if you are not cautious, will it not become specific and then it will become irreversible? Yes. There is the presence of anarthas which is always a cause of problem.
But then that does not necessarily mean that we have to act on those anarthas. So, tolerance is the bridge between temptation and transgression. Temptation is what we experience because we have impurities.
Somebody has never eaten meat in life. So, if that person sees meat, there is no temptation on it because that impurity is not there in the heart. So, temptation is there because there is impurity.
So, just the fact that there is a generic lust that means temptation will be there. But then, sometimes we have a utopian idea that just because I am a devotee, I should not feel lust. I should not feel envy.
Yes, that is true for pure devotees, but what is important is not that we don't feel lust, but that we don't act upon lust. There is a letter of Prabhupada quoted in the latest part of Brahmacharya and Krishna consciousness. Prabhupada says, to have sex desire is no problem.
To act on sex desire is a big problem. So, no problem doesn't mean it's a license for doing whatever we want. It means that one doesn't have to weigh oneself down by guilt just because of having some bad feelings.
Yes, they come and if I don't act on them, they will go away. And what does Krishna tell? So, he says, if you can tolerate till the end of your life, then you will be happy and you will be well situated, connected with me, to come back to me. So, Krishna is telling that tolerate the desire.
Krishna is not condemning because we have the desire. The desire is because of lust and greed will come, but tolerate them. And if you can tolerate, that is real heroism.
So, when I say that generic lust, it's not that I am condoning it or I am justifying it. I am just saying that it's a fact of nature, which will be there and it is only when we dwell on it and we nourish it, that it will grow and become worse. But, if it is there and we don't dwell too much on it, we redirect our thoughts towards Krishna and then it will diminish and die out.
So, generic lust simply means that we have impurity, but that doesn't mean that we have to become discouraged and give up our efforts to become purified or give up our efforts to control the senses. But, it is just that we don't have to act on it. And then, if we tolerate it, then it will go away over a period of time by the process of purification that happens through bhakti yoga.
Does that answer the question? Thank you very much.