Avoiding the three misdirectons in the blame game (Bhagavatam 1.16.24)
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
Good morning, this is from a very intriguing chapter in the Shiva Bhagavatam which is the setting by which Vachit Biharaj in action will be demonstrated in the next chapter. So, till now in the first chapter, the pastimes of Krishna and the Pandavas, after the Kurukshetra war has got over, have been depicted. So, Madhusudhana Saraswati, a prominent commentator on the Bhagavatam, a prominent scholar, and Sridhar Swami also, they say that the first canto is basically setting the scene for the Bhagavatam.
The first canto is basically setting how Parikshit Maharaj became ready to hear the Bhagavatam and Sridhar Swami became ready to speak the Bhagavatam. So, the 4th, 5th, 6th chapter describes how Narada Muni instructed the ashrams as they meditated. And the meditation existed in 7th chapter.
First in few verses, in about half a dozen verses, how Sridhar Swami progressed from impersonal to personal realization is described. And from the 2nd chapter onwards to 19th chapter, how Parikshit Maharaj became ready for hearing Bhagavatam, that is described. So, till now, there is a linear chronological sequence of events going on from 7th chapter to the 15th chapter.
15th chapter is the Pandavas entire line. And then in the 16th and 17th chapter, suddenly, 16th chapter is a dialogue between the Vrindevi and Dharma. They are in the form of a cow and a bull.
And then in the 17th chapter, Parikshit Maharaj will enter. And the intriguing thing about this chapter is, both of them are suffering. The bull is suffering.
The cow is also suffering. And there is this Kali who has taken the garb of a ruler. And he is tormenting both of them.
And when Parikshit comes there, he is furious. And he asks the bull. So, here the bull and the cow are mutually discussing, what is the cause of your suffering? The bull is asking the cow.
And the bull himself is getting a little bit beaten up. And then Parikshit comes and Parikshit asks, who is the cause of your suffering? Now, at one stage or the other, Parikshit's question itself is absurd. If somebody is being beaten, and you ask the victim, who is the cause of your suffering? You know, you have eyes.
He is beating me. But, since Parikshit asked this question, and surprisingly, the bull does not want to come. He says, the cause of suffering is very difficult to accept.
Some people say, this is the cause. Some people say, that is the cause. Some people say, that is the cause.
And he says, therefore, I have concluded that the cause of suffering is very difficult to accept. And Parikshit says, excellent. Excellent.
He basically says that one who considers the criminal to be responsible for one's suffering, the wrongdoer to be responsible for one's suffering, that person attains the same destination as the wrongdoer. Now, what does he mean by this? It's not that just pointing out a criminal is as bad karma as is doing the bad karma. What he is saying is, both are essentially acting in the same level of ignorance.
That means, ultimately, there is a purpose to whatever happens in life. And if we just get caught in causality and intermediate credential level, then we miss out on the further opportunities for understanding and growth that are there. So, why does Parikshit ask this question? Who is the cause of suffering? Parikshit actually does punish.
Punish Kali also. But still he asks the world to change the understanding of the world. So, one of the ways in which the ego catches us and grabs us is through the blame game.
Basically, when we get problems, we usually blame in three directions. I am talking not only spiritual perspective, but also Vedic philosophy perspective, common human perspective in today's times, when I am connected with the Vedic perspective. Now, either we blame others, or we blame ourselves, or we blame God.
Why am I suffering? Because he did like that, she did like that, they did like that. So, we blame others. Or, we blame ourselves.
May Krishna devotee, we have made a state of mindlessness. And third is, we blame God. And actually, none of these are very productive.
Why is that? Is it good to blame ourselves? Or if somebody has done wrong, isn't it good to point out that they have done wrong? Yes, it is. You see, that the whole central purpose of the Vedic path is a search for Dharma. A search for Dharma.
The Mahabharata begins, the central theme, the defining question in the Mahabharata is, what is Dharma? The defining question in the Bhagavatam is, what is Dharma at the time of death? It is a more evolved question. But still, it is similar. But because the Bhagavatam focuses more on Dharma at death, so the Bhagavatam's narrative is much more world-renouncing, much more world-rejecting.
Whereas the Mahabharata's narrative is much more world-affirming. Now, if you see, even when Arjuna is distressed, Arjuna, when he turns and surrenders to Krishna, his question is not, should I fight or should I not fight? His question is, He is not asking, should I fight or should I not fight? He is asking, please explain to me, what is my Dharma? Go ahead. And he says, without understanding my Dharma, even if I fight, and even if I win the war, he says, without knowing what is my Dharma, even if I attain fabulous success, even if I attain success, not just of winning the whole earth, but even attaining happiness, sovereignty over heavens, still, this drying up of the senses, this grief that is drying up my senses, that will not go away.
It's a very, very poetically gripping metaphor. The choke of the normally, the nature of the human body is, that whenever there is pleasure, there are liquids circulated. So, for example, when we see some nice food, at that time, the tongue starts walking.
So, here, Gita is using the opposite metaphor. That when there is immense grief, then the senses get dried up. There is, basically, when there is grief, that is like a taap, it is heat in the world, and this grief within me, a choke of ucho shall be there.
This grief within me is like, like a fire, which is causing this lamentation, will dry up my senses from within. avapya bhumava sattvam nothing is this fire. I need to know what is that.
So, the Bhagavad Gita's question is, the final question, what is that? And Krishna tells, sarva-dharma bhakte cha maa mekam sharanam So, there are many definitions of dharma, but the highest definition is maa mekam sharanam bhakti. And Arjuna does not simply conclude by saying, I will fight. Arjuna's conclusion is, karishye vachanam tava I will do your will.
So, in that particular situation, Krishna's will for Arjuna was fighting. But the Bhagavad Gita's message is not fighting. Bhagavad Gita says, do Krishna's will.
Normally, we may operate under certain stereotypes. For example, in the quintessential image of surrender is Draupadi raising her hands up and surrendering to Krishna. Now, who is Krishna helping? And we think, yes, this is surrender.
Yes, that is surrender, but in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna, I will surrender. And Arjuna says, karishye vachanam tava. I will surrender to you.
But after surrendering, what does Arjuna do? Arjuna doesn't raise his hands in helplessness. He raises his hands in readiness to fight. He says, yatra yogesh yatra paratha yoga gata.
Arjuna has picked up his bow and is ready to fight. So, surrender can have many different modes. And Draupadi's surrender and Arjuna's surrender are the same in essence.
Although in form, they are opposite. Draupadi is raising her hands, given up all action. And Arjuna is ready with both to begin action.
And both are surrender. So the point is that just as there can be radically different external forms from the same internal emotion. The same internal emotion is surrender.
It can have radically different forms of external expression. So similarly with respect to an understanding of what is the cause of suffering. When we, again there are three modes.
You blame others, you blame ourselves, you blame God. So when we blame others, yes at one level others are responsible for our action. So yes somebody has done something wrong and at a normal operational level it should be noted and it should be corrected.
So yesterday I was explaining how the panda was tolerated a lot but once the panda got all dishonored properly then all tolerance was removed. Then it was confrontation after that. So yes at the surface level, at the external level, dishonored properly.
So this is at an operational level important where there is serious grievance injustice that has to be corrected. But is it that the panda's nature changed and before Draupadi was dishonored the panda was tolerant and after that they became tolerant. No it's not like that.
There are limits to forgiveness. There are limits to tolerance and when tolerance goes beyond what is important, if it is not tolerance it is importance. If it is not tolerance it can well then become importance.
So we see that sometimes we think we should forgive, we should tolerate because all this is true. But that forgiveness and tolerance are within a context of a loving relationship where there is chance and there is probability of reformation. So for example we basically have a good relationship with someone and within that relationship someone just speaks something wrong, does something wrong.
So for example Susita in the Ramayana makes a gruesome accusation against Lakshmi. She tells Lakshman that actually you are no different from her. You are simply an agent of her and you are a predator waiting for an opportunity to ravish me and that is why while Ram is in danger you are not going to help him.
You want Ram to die so that you can ravish me. He says rather than being touched by a creature like you I will die with you. She brutally accuses and insults Lakshman.
Lakshman just cannot tolerate it. He is so agitated. He just rushes away from there.
According to the texts of the Ramayana he puts a Lakshmi Rekha around Sita and then he recovers. And then when he sees Ram rushing back at that time Ram says why did Lakshmi die? He says she was just an anxiety. So essentially what Ram tells her is that we should not ascribe intention to what is spoken intention.
We should not ascribe intention to what is spoken intention. All of us we can be subjected to provocative situations. And at one level our character is shown in how we act in the provocations.
That is true. But often it is provocations can bring out the best within us, provocations can bring out the worst within us. And neither our best nor our worst is the real thing.
If we act in a supernatural, courageous and provocative situation and people start expecting this is how we should always behave, it doesn't work like that. And if we act in a bad way in a provocative situation and people say you are like this, that is also not true. So these even provocations are there, even virtuous people can do wrong.
When Supriya promises Ram that I will be ready after four years of the rainy season, I will arrange for soldiers to go everywhere, Pandharas to go everywhere. And by that four months get over, he is lost in the memory. He has forgotten his promise.
Initially Lakshmi is angry. His answer is furious. But after the Supriya rectifies, in the Ramayana, neither Lakshmi nor Ram nor Hanuman, anyone ever reminds Supriya of that.
Mahabharata mentions that. Similarly, when Lakshmi and Sita meet again, they meet after the Lanka war is over. Lakshmi doesn't remind Sita.
No, there are no grudges held against you. So when there is an overall loving relationship with devotees, family members, at that time, there is tolerance and forgiveness and it should be there. If there is a normal loving relationship, if we start having a mentality that every time you will snub me, I will snub you back.
Every time you insult me, I will insult you back. Every time you hurt me, I will hurt you back. Then the home will become a war field and there will be no shelter in the relationship.
So in the context of an intimate relationship, tolerance and forgiveness are essential. And the Pandavas were trying to have that kind of relationship with the cowherds. But once the cowherd was dishonored properly, then there is no possibility for a loving relationship.
Then afterwards, it is not that suddenly their nature changed or they snapped or they lost their tolerance. It is not that we let others trample on us and let ourselves be exploited. The point of tolerance is that we don't let small things become unnecessary in life.
But if something is already big, tolerating it is how you solve the problem. So if you see, tolerance is not an indiscriminate virtue. The way I am using tolerance over here, it means that there is tolerance and there is action which is important.
So when you talk about tolerance as a virtue, that is primarily that you don't make small things very big. Don't make small things very big unnecessary. So one is that you blame others.
So blaming others, yes you did like this to me, you did like this to me, you did like this to me. Often all that it does is it ruins relationships. It doesn't ruin relationships, it brings a, it makes relationships frosty.
Frosty means the sweetness goes away. Coldness, a hardness comes in the relationship. So blaming others doesn't really help much.
You see, there was a, sometimes if somebody has a fault, you may think that okay by pointing out the fault of that person, maybe that person will be improved. But usually there is a, it doesn't work like that. There was a survey done in Wisconsin University.
There were a group of students. They all wanted to become writers. They were humanities students.
And the boys formed a club saying that we will, everybody will write assignments, write articles regularly and we will have each other critique the articles. So in this way, if you critique the articles, then we will find out what our faults will improve. So when the boys formed a club like this, the girls also formed a club.
But the girls wanted their own identity. So they decided we will do the opposite of what the boys have done. So the boys are pointing a fault at what they have done, whatever they have done, we will find the good in what each of them have done.
And so the researchers followed these two groups of students 10 years and 20 years down the line. And what they found is that in the long run, among the boys, they had 25 boys, not one of them had become a professional writer. Five of them were, you know, pretty decent writers.
And 20 of them were pathetic writers, below the average of that educational level. On the other hand, among the 25 girls, five of them had become professional writers. Well-paid, reasonably popular writers.
And all the remaining 20 were above average. In their informal as well as formal writing, they were considered by their friends and colleagues as above average writers. So they extended the survey further and they found that when does fault finding lead to improvement and when does fault… So what happened with the boys is that they had got so many critiques from others when they were writing that they just lost hope that we'll be able to ever become good writers.
And they stopped trying. So what they found is when does finding fault help people? There are only two situations. One is if correcting oneself is a matter of survival.
If I'm in a company, if I'm in a job and I'm hostile, if you do like this, I'll fire you. You have to correct yourself. And if it's a matter of survival, then I'll correct myself.
And the other is if my motivation to do it is very high. My mother says, some child is playing and he says, you can't bat. I want to bat.
Or I want to do this. The motivation is very high. Then in spite of the correction and discouragement, the person will perceive it.
But in activities that are thought of as voluntary, criticism, fault finding usually causes abandonment of that activity. If I try to do something which is known as voluntary and I have a little bit of that if I learn to love cooking and anytime I cook, there you go, this is terrible cooking. Why try? And most of all, although from the ultimate point of view, spiritual life is most essential.
But from the practical point of view, at our level, most people consider spiritual life and within spiritual life also, many specific skills or talents, many self projects or self improvement that we want to do, we consider them to be actually voluntary. And if there's too much criticism, too much fault finding, people just close down. And they give up the attempt to improve.
So it doesn't lead to improvement, it leads to discouragement and even abandonment of the attempt to improve. The fault finding ends up having opposite effect. So now when you say, when I'm finding fault, I'm not concerned about other person, I'm concerned about me.
Because of his or her faults, I'm being hurt. What about that? So, yes, there is a, this is where detachment comes into the picture. A few days ago, I was at Colorado State University, I was giving a lecture, so one girl asked a question after that, you know, you talk about detachment, but doesn't detachment make you hard hearted? You leave your loved ones, if you're detached, you don't feel anything for your loved ones, you just abandon them.
So I explained to her that detachment is not hard heartedness, detachment is clear-headedness. Detachment is not hard heartedness, it is clear-headedness. Clear-headedness means that we are able to perceive which actions, which emotions, which emotions are detrimental for us, which are damaging for us.
And we can step away from them. So which actions, which emotions, which relations. So all of us have certain thinking patterns, certain behaviour patterns, certain relationships, where within those, what happens to us is that, we simply hurt ourselves, that's all we get hurt.
So detachment is clear-headedness, by which one can see, okay, by being in this situation, I'm hurting myself. And then one can move out of that situation. So Dhritarashtra, he did not have this detachment, and that's why he let himself be subjected to the manipulation by Dhritarashtra.
So detachment is not hard heartedness. It is not that we don't care for the feelings of others. Detachment is more like, we are able to evaluate unemotionally, unsentimentally the situation, and see what is its effect on me, and then act appropriately.
So detachment is a strength. So sometimes if because of other people we are getting hurt, we just have to move away from them. What moving away means, when we are in a constitutional situation, relationship, that is difficult.
But the point is that blaming the other person doesn't solve the problem. Blaming the other person doesn't improve the other person, quite often it doesn't improve the other person. Blaming the other person doesn't also resolve our problem.
We may have to take some assertive steps to change ourselves. Now second, I will come to blaming others later. Second is we will blame God.
And third is we will blame ourselves. Now when we say blaming ourselves, it's good isn't it? It's my own bad karma. So isn't that good that I blame myself? Actually speaking, whenever anyone is suffering, in the Bhagavatam, or in the Mahabharata, or in the Ramayana, nobody says to that person that you are suffering because of your karma.
When Sita is abducted, nobody tells Sita, because of your karma only you are abducted. When I was in America, one Mataji had come to the program. She had gone to some other program somewhere, and that speaker was speaking on karma.
And she had asked this question to the speaker after the program, that if I am raped by someone, does that mean that I raped someone in the past? And somehow that particular speaker said yes. Now this is absurd. It means that because Sita was abducted by Rana, that means Sita abducted someone in her previous life.
And Draupadi was disowned by Dushyasan, that means Draupadi disowned someone in her previous life. Now we cannot use that, which is a very complex subject, to simplistic your default acts on a relationship. See, the Bhagavatam is very subtle.
When a Christian woman is suffering, and at that time, what does Parinishma say, in the Jastishtaka, Aho Vashchamahonyayam. He says, how many, what a great atrocity, what a great tragedy it is that someone like me is suffering. He more than says, the fact that you are suffering means you must have done the bad karma in the past.
No one argues like that in the scripture. See, why don't they argue like that? Isn't it true? If I am suffering, it is because of my bad karma. The point is, every particular philosophical point has a purpose.
And if we diverse philosophy from its purpose, then we can actually do violence instead of good. Just like the immortality of the soul is a philosophical truth. But what does Hiranyakashipu use it for? He says, I am going to do Tapasya and then I will get strength and by that strength I will kill Vishnu.
And I know that to get strength to kill Vishnu is going to take a long time. But still, it doesn't matter. Because the soul is eternal.
So even if I die, in my next life I will continue my Tapasya. And in that I will do Tapasya for many lifetimes, eventually I will become strong enough to kill Vishnu. So the Atma Gyan is meant to help us surrender to Vishnu.
But Hiranyakashipu is using the same Atma Gyan to do what? To plan to kill Vishnu. Krishna says that I am knowledge, I am the door and I am the goal of knowledge. So knowledge and goal of knowledge both need to be spiritualized.
Otherwise, if we have philosophical knowledge but we don't understand the purpose of that philosophical knowledge, we can defeat the very purpose. So the primary purpose of the knowledge of Karma is in terms of prognosis, never in terms of post-mortem. Prognosis means what I should do and what I should not do.
Not prognosis, what I may have done or what I may not have done. If we start holding people responsible when they are suffering, we will descend to monstrous insensitivity. Like Shyam used to say that devotees suffer from bad health.
I thought you were a great devotee, but now you have got this disease which you must have done some terrible Karma in the past. That's why you have got this disease. You are not such a great devotee.
You have completely lost the point. If a baby is crying and the mother says, oh you are crying because of your past Karma. What will happen to my Dharma now? So in our day-to-day interactions with others, the focus for our behavior should be our Dharma, not other people's Karma.
The focus, the defining factor for our behavior is our Dharma. What is right for me, what is wrong for me. So for Ram, Sita is his wife and he is meant to protect her.
When Sita is abducted, we don't have to think what is Sita's Karma in the past. What is my Dharma? My Dharma is to protect her, to rescue her, to restore her own Karma. So similarly, Yudhisthira, Bhrima, they don't ask what is wrong with this Karma.
What is my Karma? Similarly, if a devotee would say, this is a fortune for Vaishya, you don't have to. If you start thinking about past life Karma, we completely miss the purpose of the understanding of Karma. The purpose of the understanding of Karma is to help us make right choices.
So now also, it is not that one action leads to another reaction. It is exactly the same thing. Sometimes we illustrate the principle of Karma.
Some stories may be told, that if you kill a cow, then you will become a cowherd and be killed. But that is not the only way Karmic reactions come. Karmic reactions can come in many different ways.
So if someone is suffering, we have to understand that the cause of the suffering is ultimately unknown to us. And the important thing is, ask not why this, ask how now. Why this has happened is unanswered ultimately.
How now is, how should I act now? What should I do to deal with this situation? And this itself will shift our metanergy in a much more constructive direction. Much more constructive direction. So blaming ourselves is not always the healthiest thing to do psychologically.
See, there is, yesterday I mentioned, there is humility and there is self-pity. And extravaganza can tell you very similar. Oh, I am so fallen, I am so fallen, I am so fallen.
You may be saying, I am so fallen, I am so fallen, I am so fallen. And as we are repeating this mantra, that we use Heart Chakra, Hare Krishna Mantra, I am fallen, I am fallen, gradually the mind shifts the focus from fallen to I. Basically when we thought, we become very self-centered. Thinking about I am and I am and essentially that does not lead to any solution.
That does not lead to any solution at all. So again, humility is a virtue. But humility has a purpose.
And if we divorce humility from the purpose, humility can transmogrify. Transmogrify means change into an ugly form. Transmogrify means something which is very disempowered.
And what is that? That is self-pity. Humility, the purpose of humility is to enable us to not focus so much. We are normally very, very self-conscious.
Oh, I am this, I am this, I am that, I am great. We want to shift our focus from self-consciousness to Krishna Consciousness. And humility is the launching pad by which we can shift our consciousness from ourselves to Krishna.
Because when we have humility, we don't think too much about ourselves. Yes, our consciousness is not caught in self-consciousness. Then we become free with Krishna Consciousness.
Humility is meant to act as a launching pad for catapulting our consciousness towards Krishna. But when we forget this purpose and I am so fallen, I am so fallen, it becomes hard. That whatever humility we are saying, instead of raising us out of self-consciousness, it drowns us deeper into self-consciousness.
By thinking, oh, I am this, I am that, I have done this bad thing, I have done that bad thing. And like that, by thinking so many things, we become unnecessarily disheartened. So, okay, so if I am, that means there are two different possibilities.
One is that externally there are problems coming in my life because of which I am like, oh, I must be a very sinful person and I have a bad mind. Or it is that we have a dark desire, we have many doubts. So, internally there is contamination or externally there are problems.
Either way, we need to focus on Krishna. The important thing the Bhagavad Gita tells us, the essential message of this verse is that Krishna's love for us does not depend on who we are. Krishna's love for us is not because of who we are, it is because of who he is.
Krishna loves us not because of who we are, but because of who he is. He is a supremely selfless, supremely loving, supremely compassionate person. And irrespective of who we are, still he loves us.
Normally, we talk about Krishna and Tamil and all that, but here he refers to Krishna as Krupana Vatsala. He says that, O Lord, He is praying over you. In the previous verse he is saying, everybody has this terrified vision of the previous form of Krishna.
And in the previous verse he says, I am not afraid of this form. But in this verse he says, I am afraid of something. What is that? I am very much afraid of material existence.
And in that connection he says, Krupana Vatsala. That, O Lord, you are the benefactor of even the Krupanas, not just the Vatwas. So Krishna's love for us depends on who he is, not on who we are.
Now, there is a caveat here. This caveat means a warning. Krishna's love for us depends on who he is.
But our experience of his love depends on who we are. Our experience of his love depends on who we are. Just like the sun gives light to everyone, the pious and the impious.
But whether we see the light or not depends on whether our eyes are open or not. Similarly, if we are caught in pursuing material things, infatuated by material things, then we can't see Krishna's love. So to the extent we turn towards Krishna, to the extent we focus on Krishna, to the extent we open ourselves to experiencing his love, but irrespective of whether we experience his love or not, still he loves us.
So blaming ourselves, it should never be the main contemplation of a devotee. The main contemplation of a devotee has to be Krishna and how I can serve Krishna. And if sometimes we start becoming proud by doing our services, then we say, oh, I have so many conditions.
I have so many problems, so many this, so many that. And that way we can use it to cut our ego down to size. But the important thing is a devotee's normal focus should be Krishna and service to Krishna.
So if in the name of humility, we are talking too much about us, we are thinking too much about us, oh, I have this deficiency, I have that deficiency, I don't have, I can't do this. I have this other, I have that. Then we are losing the opportunity to grown as Krishna.
And usually sometimes I'm told, I'm very follower, please pray for me. Yes, in the initial form of expression of humility, that's fine. But that should not be the default mantra that one is talking about.
We have to particularly know how we can serve within our situation. So bhakti is eminently pragmatic. What we can do, we should do for Krishna.
You know, I mentioned this, surrender means to do what we can with what we have now. That is surrender. So now this is with respect to blaming ourselves.
So if we are blaming ourselves, we are disempowering ourselves, making ourselves disheartened. And there is no need to blame ourselves. But what does it mean only to blame ourselves? Is it, am I at fault or am I not at fault? The point is, the important question is not whether am I at fault or am I not at fault.
Important question is what am I doing about it? What am I doing about it? So if I am bothering too much about, oh, am I at fault, am I not at fault? I'm losing the opportunity to correct the situation. So the third is that we will blame government. So, all in the cause of messenger.
In the Vedanta Sutra, 1.8.26-28, this philosophical question is raised, if Brahman is the source of everything, then Brahman is the source of this world also. And if there is evil in this world, then does that mean a Brahman is the source of evil? You know, in the Gita, the Christian tradition, there is the problem of evil. And usually they talk about the problem of evil in specific terms.
That they say, for example, that the small children gets a terrible sickness. And then they suffer terribly. Or in some cases, illicit people, they suffer in some ways.
So how could a good God allow this? So in London, there is a lawyer who has made a court case. He said, belief in God should be made equal. He said, the stage should be belief in God equal.
And what is his reasoning? His reasoning is that, if you believe in a good God, and you see the God as good, and you can actually see there is so much suffering in this world. He says, holding on to a belief in a good God, while confronting the reality of human suffering, is an insight to that suffering. People are starving, people are dying, people are in tsunamis, people are in terrorist attacks.
He says, to maintain the dignity of human suffering, and the dignity of human being, we should believe in a good God more. Because a belief in a good God is, it insults the reality and gravity of human suffering. So now, of course, there is a huge protest against that.
But it's not just a matter of protest. It has to be philosophically founded. Their philosophical understanding is that, God is not the cause of our suffering.
God is the cause of our belief on suffering. Our disconnection from God is the cause of our suffering. Prabhupada gives another example that, the sun is not the cause of the shadow.
It is when we turn away from the sun that we see the shadow. So we say, what does the sweet flow of it mean? Or the Gods are not because of it? Practically, what does it mean? Krishna is the cause of all causes. But that does not mean that he is the desirer of all causes.
What does that mean? Krishna is the cause of all causes, but he is not the desirer of all causes. That means, if A hurts B, A kills B, Krishna is not the desirer that A should kill B. A is the desirer. And Krishna, because A has the desirer, A has the karma to act on his desire, so Krishna sanctions that.
So there is God's omnipotence and there is human independence. If we neglect the reality of human independence and we focus only on God's omnipotence, then we will think that all the suffering, God is the cause of it. The Mahabharata demonstrates, traditionally, the saying is, man proposes, God disposes.
The Mahabharata demonstrates the opposite. Krishna goes on a peace mission, God opposes, Duryodhana disposes. So how is it possible? How can God oppose and man dispose? So, Krishna, when he comes to Duryodhana's assembly, he comes to his kingdom, Hastinapura, at that time he chooses to stay in Duryodhana's place.
And Duryodhana, at that time, he is serving Krishna and talking with Krishna. At that time, Duryodhana asks Krishna, Krishna, why have you come here? Duryodhana is so adamant. We have all tried and become tired of trying to give you seasons.
You know that he won't give you seasons. Duryodhana has a great, great fear. His fear is that in that same assembly where Krishna is going to meet the Kauravas, in that very same assembly, Draupadi had to be disowned 14 years ago.
And now, Duryodhana's fear is that something similar may happen again. And this time, it may happen with Krishna. That Krishna will be disowned.
Duryodhana has already said that he, initially when they come to know that Krishna has a message, Manda has sent a message here, Krishna says, I will myself come as a peace messenger. He is overwhelmed. So when they hear this, Duryodhana and all the Kauravas, and then Duryodhana says that, I will offer a lavish reception to Krishna.
And with such a reception, he will be overwhelmed. Krishna says, Krishna cannot be overwhelmed by anything except devotion. And that is something which you are lying to him.
So Duryodhana exactly says, let us see. I will offer a reception the kind he has never seen before. But I have a second plan of action also.
He says, if Krishna does not come to my side, then I will have him arrested. And this is before Arjuna and Duryodhana have gone to Krishna to ask for his help. You know, Duryodhana is so shameless in one sense that if he tries to arrest Krishna, and then if he rejects Krishna's peace mission, and after that he himself goes to Duryodhana, Krishna, please fight on my side.
You know, Krishna is so gracious that he will allow him to come inside and give his full army to him. So anyway, the thing is that Krishna, he is Duryodhana, Duryodhana manages that, I will arrest Krishna. And everybody is sitting over there, Krishna just gets furious.
He says, Duryodhana, what you are speaking should not even be thought about. Even an ordinary alloy can never be arrested. What to speak of someone like Krishna? When has he desired any harm for you? In the Mahabharata, Krishna is usually referred to by the name Keshava.
This Keshava is your valetian. Just to desire to arrest an alloy is a desire for harmony. To desire to arrest an alloy like Krishna is supremely alarming.
You will not succeed in it. You will be bored in trying to do this. But even to hear the thoughts which are alarming but uncontrollable, I cannot tolerate it.
It walks out of the assembly. So Duryodhana has come to know about this. And Duryodhana's great fear is that Krishna will be dishonoured.
Now Krishna is going to the Shanti Dhoom. He says to the escort, India and Pakistan, there is always some border conflict going on. And when the border conflict happens, India sends a medical secretary or Pakistan will have a medical secretary to have some talks to resolve the border tensions.
Now can you imagine that there is a border tension and at that time, Indian Prime Minister will go to Pakistan for a peace talk. And suppose the Indian Prime Minister goes to Pakistan and Pakistan arrests the Indian Prime Minister. Oh, it would be a national outrage.
Even if they don't succeed in just the attempt to arrest, it is an insult to the Prime Minister and an insult to the whole nation. So like that, the attempt to arrest Krishna is unspeakably atrocious. Even Ramana does not contemplate such a thing.
After Ramana has had, you know, Hanuman arrested. He has had Hanuman arrested because Hanuman was creating a disruption in Ashok Vatika. Then he says, you know, he has destroyed Ashok Vatika.
He should be killed. Then Hanuman, you know, he has come as a messenger to Sita. But Hanuman is also very expeditious.
He says, actually, I have come as a messenger from Ram to you. And he says, what is the mistake? You should return Sita to me. And then Ramana says, just kill him.
He has destroyed so many of my soldiers. He has destroyed my forest. So, my garden.
So Bhupiji Bhupiji says, that Hanuman can never be killed. And with Ramana, no matter how difficult it is, Ramana listens to him. Hanuman cannot be killed.
So there are certain codes which are followed even by demons. But in Duryodhana, I tell you, I was Krishna, I was Bharadwaj. And at that time, when Duryodhana asked Krishna, why have you come here? Why have you appeased Duryodhana, you have simply settled yourself up, not only for liberty, but also for disorder.
So Krishna said, I have not come here for Duryodhana's sake. I have come here for the Pandavas' sake. I want to make sure that no one in the future should blame the Pandavas, that they were responsible for this world.
Because the Pandavas did everything humanly possible and everything divinely possible to avoid the world. So no one should blame the Pandavas for the world. That is, to demonstrate that to the world, I have come here.
So the point which I want you to know here is, when you blame God for the world, you do not understand what the relationship between divine will and human will is. Our suffering is not because of God. Our suffering is in spite of God.
Our suffering is because of disconnection from God. There is divine omnipotence, but there is human independence also. And if human independence and humans act in wrong ways, that leads to suffering.
So, the cause of suffering is coming because of the movement that humans are making. Human beings, we cannot blame God for that. So the Ram Chitra, when we face this question, it answers that, actually, the suffering is not because of, so, Brahman is not in, if the suffering in this world is Brahman-evil, then no.
Brahman is not evil, suffering is because of the karma of the living beings. Then it raises the question, but what about in the living? Or if there is no living being without karma, how will suffering come about? So then, the Vedanta Sutra makes it so that actually, the new entity which exists is Anavati. And Shankaracharya in his commentary gives the example, and that is the example which is accepted by the commentators also.
It's like the seed and the tree which comes first. It is psychic, it doesn't really exist. So essentially, the point is that Krishna is the cause of all causes, he is not the desirer of all causes.
Many of the causes, the desirer is the soul. When the soul desires evil, then that results in suffering. So, by blaming God, what do we do? We, by blaming God, we deprive ourselves of the surest relief from our suffering.
Suffering is a matter of inevitable reality for everyone in this world. Whether we are devotees, bhajan or devotees, everyone will have to suffer here. But, if we take shelter of Krishna, we experience relief from that suffering.
Now, how we experience the relief and how that relief represents Krishna's love, that has to be understood in the eyes of knowledge. When children are very small, children are new born, the new born infant is there, at that time, the infants are purely in Andamaya Kosha. Andamaya Kosha is all of existence is potentially new.
They drink milk from mother's udder, they look at their thumb, they want to put their thumb in their mouth, they look at their leg, they put their leg in their mouth, they get some toy, they put it in their mouth. Their introduction to the world is through the tongue. So, at that time, an infant will be drinking the mother's milk from the mother's breast, but the infant will not even understand that this is the mother, this is the person and she is loving me, she is giving me a milk.
Their consciousness is not there, they are just drinking. Say for example, it's a cold night, and the infant is trembling, and the mother puts her blanket over him. Now, the infant, she experiences relief from the cold, but she doesn't understand, my mother is in the night.
However, as the infant starts moving, when she was sleeping, as she was sleeping, she feels a blanket over her. And as she grows, she starts living that connection. How was the hour that the infant was sleeping? My mother was sleeping in the night.
So, this happens by growth. So, similarly, in this world, all the things we experience are there. But when we absorb all the senses and memories of Krishna, whether it's by chanting, whether it's by prayer, whatever way we absorb all the senses and memories of Krishna, tapanti vidya sthapa naitan madhkat cheta sahab.
Kapila Siddhi says that. There are many sensory beings, but naitan, avyedhana, is there to affect those who are madhkat cheta sahab, whose consciousness is absorbed in them. So, we can all experience it.
We can have stress, we can have anxiety, we can have agitation. If somehow we can absorb all the senses and memories of Krishna, we experience a great life. We experience a great life.
A comforting life. Whereas the baby will automatically grow up and in the connection between the warmth of the blanket and the mother's love, we have to consciously strive to grow up. Many people then come, and nowadays kirtan has become quite a popular cultural form of entertainment.
In a book store, they have what they call as kirtan music. And there are so many professional singers who sing kirtans and people like that. That's fine as far as it goes, but there is not much spiritual growth happening because people don't connect the relief, the joy that they get from kirtan, they don't connect the philosophy of Krishna sthapa.
When we do that, okay, why do I get this relief in the remembrance of Krishna? Because at my level of consciousness, this is the way I experience Krishna's love. And as I start spiritually growing up, then more and more and more, we'll start taking the connection. Every time you do it, you'll move on just somehow.
It's like some good music that people play. Through this music, it's Krishna's love that is coming out of me. Not just music, it can sound like any form of meditation.
Anyway, we get relief in the remembrance of Krishna, and we get Krishna's love reaching out to us. So we cannot control what kind of suffering is going to come in our life. But we can control where our consciousness goes at that time.
Life determines our problems, we determine their science. Life determines our problems. We all have our problems.
The more we think about the problems, our mental energy makes the problem bigger and bigger. The more we understand, I've got this problem, I've got this problem, I've got this problem. Yes, you've got the problem and you are problem conscious.
And the more we think about the problem, within our mind, within our consciousness, the problems are getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. And then we feel that I can do nothing about this problem. But instead of being problem conscious, we become Krishna conscious.
Then we will see that the problem is shriveling up and we will be able to deal with it. So, Krishna is not the cause of our suffering. He is the cause of the relief from our suffering.
If we turn towards him and take shelter from him. So, to summarize, I started by talking about how we cannot have simplistic assignment of blame when there is suffering. The bull, the bull and the cow is discussing one and the form of their suffering.
And the bull, when Parishad comes to ask him, the bull does not want to say that because Kali is causing his suffering. And Parishad appreciates that he is not blaming him. Then we discuss about the blame game.
The blame game of the ego keeps on doing this. The blame game can go in three different directions. Towards others, towards ourselves and towards God.
So, when it goes towards others, quite often it does not improve the situation. Because when people blame them, we find fault with them. Even if they have this fault, unless it is a matter of life or death for them or it is a matter of great motivation for them, they do not improve.
This is true. I talked about the boys and girls who are trying to write in Wisconsin University. So, what about ourselves? Actually, we need attachment.
Attachment means, it is clear, it is not hard handedness. Not that we are insensitive to others. But we recognize our emotions, actions and relations are injurious to us.
And we distance ourselves from them. Then we discuss about tolerance. Tolerance does not mean that we set ourselves up for being trampled by others.
Tolerance means that we do not play a tit-for-tat game in close relationships. We do not ascribe real intention to our spoken intention. We talk about Sita and Lakshmana.
We forgive. Then the relationship can go on. But, when the person shows no sign of rectification, rather the person mistreats, keeps aggravating, then there is a limit to tolerance.
Tolerance should not become importance. When the Pandavas cross the line by dissolving Draupadi, when the Kaparavas cross the line by dissolving Draupadi, the Pandavas take affirmative action. We talk about blaming ourselves.
So, the purpose of Karma is not post-mortem, what I may have done or what he or she may have done. It is prognosis. What we should do or what we should not do.
So, when someone is suffering, our concern should not be what is their Karma. Our concern should be what is my Karma. And, based on our dignity we should act.
So, no one ever blames the deity. So, blaming the victim or blaming somebody who is suffering can make us monstrously insensitive. So like, I heard about a hermit being blamed, Madhvapati or Sita being blamed or a demon, or otherwise that is your own suffering.
It is horrible. So, even with respect to Karma, the point is that if we start thinking that like, I am guilty, I am guilty, I am guilty, I am fallen, I am sinful. So, if there is consciousness within our consciousness, that is Pratiputti Mahatma.
And we should give it up. Humility and self-pity, the difference is, humility acts as a catapult for raising our consciousness towards Krishna. You know, self-pity acts like a sucker that drags our consciousness deeper into ourselves.
And in that way, self-pity is detrimental to the Mahatma. And then there is the claiming God. We discussed how Krishna is the cause of all causes, but he is not the desirer of all causes.
There is divine omnipotence, but there is also human independence. And suffering comes not because of God, but because of the seek of human independence by someone. Mahabharata depicts God not just as someone out there controlling everyone.
There is a tradition that says man proposes God, this proposal is true. But the Mahabharata reveals a God who is down here petitioning the human being to make right use of one's independence. This is how, when we have the opposite Krishna goes, God proposes, man disposes.
When Krishna lets himself be put in this situation, he is disrespected and dishonored. Why? Just so that he can demonstrate that there is love for the Pandavas, and how the Pandavas tried everything possible to uphold their love. And we concluded that Krishna is not the cause of our suffering, he is the cause of our life.
So even at this level of life, everyone will suffer. There are devotees around the world. By absorbing the consciousness of Krishna, we can get relief from suffering.
And when we remember Krishna, we get relief from that. We use our philosophy, we go spiritually to make a connection between the relief from suffering and the love of Krishna. Just as the baby, as she grows up, she makes a connection between the warmth of the blanket and the love of the mother.
And by absorbing Krishna, no matter what suffering comes, we can deal with it. Life determines our problems, but we need to deal with ourselves. By being problem conscious, we make the problems bigger and bigger.
By becoming Krishna conscious, we learn to keep the problems in perspective and learn to deal with the problems. Thank you very much. Are there any questions?