Balance philosophy with sensitivity – Be dharma-centered, not karma-centered
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
So, good morning. We are discussing the topic of balancing philosophical fidelity with human sensitivity. So, this is a continuation of yesterday's topic.
That was preaching sensitivity. Today, I am speaking more in terms of even in our own application of philosophy. So, we want the fidelity to faithfulness.
So, balancing philosophical fidelity with human sensitivity in our own individual application and in our application of philosophy in the community of devotees. So, this is a section from the Bali Mutharaj and Vamanadev pastime. So, the point is being made here by Shukracharya.
And he is saying over in Maharaj, if you give all your charity, everything that you have in charity, not all you have is gone, and you take everything away from you. And if you think that actually, you will gain some dharma by giving everything away in charity. But he said, even to attain the fruit of that dharma, you need a body.
And how will you maintain the body if everything is taken away from you. Therefore, his conclusions don't give to charity. So, it's like some pushpa phala.
Yes, the pushpa phala is true. Atma, vruksha is the reality. Ultimately, you may say, I don't want this thing, consortium for everything else.
The ultimate truth is the spiritual wealth that we have. But even to get that spiritual wealth, that is the pushpa phala of the vruksha. Now, we have the word Atma.
See, Atma, generally we talk about as looking to the soul. But there are essentially Atma, if you go deep into Sanskrit, it essentially means the soul. So, it's not just self, it can also refer to the self-conception.
Therefore, for people who are at the mental level, the Atma can refer to the mind. People who are at the bodily level, the word Atma can refer to the body. The Bhagavad Gita also includes the word Atma, sometimes referred to the body.
And of course, it refers to the soul. In fact, several places, for the impersonalists, who think of themselves as super-souls, the Atma can at places where we have the verse Isha Vasya Namsarapuna at the start of the Isha Upanishad. The similar prayer, where it says Atma Vasya Namsarapuna Mirti Jatakam Tene Tete Bhuji Rama Buddha So there, the whole verse is the same except for Isha Vasya and Atma Vasya.
So, the Atma refers here to the supreme law. So, in this particular context, which is the Vriksha, which is the Vriksha, that is, the body. From that, we get two fruits.
But Vriksha Ajivati Natu Kalinasya If the Vriksha, if the tree is not alive, then fruits will not come. And then, we may say, but this tree, it is perishable. Yes, it is perishable, but it is not by its perishing automatically, but if it is alive long enough, you have to ensure that it survives.
And therefore, we say, Even if, you have to, even if this tree is founded on the root of Andhrut, that is okay. So, now, in one sense, the terminology used here sounds somewhat Mayavadi. It is not exactly Mayavadi, I have clarified that.
If the tree is the body, now its fruits are liberation, all the fruits. Now, when we talk about the roots of the tree, what is being referred to is, how is this body maintained. So, normally, you would like to maintain the body also by drinking.
But, he says, maintaining the body is so important, that sometimes even if Andhruta is there, falsehood is there, that is also okay. In fact, a similar theme comes in the instructions of Vasudeva to Kamsa. In his deliberations and in his instructions.
And, Jyotapada writes in the Parpot over there, that as far as possible, it is one's duty to maintain one's body and to do whatever it takes to maintain one's body. So, that's why, you see Vasudeva tries almost desperately to maintain his body. And in one sense, Vasudeva even doesn't hesitate to use flattery, because he uses words like Mahabahu and then in one sense, he gives a false promise.
He gives a promise that I'll give you all my sons. And when Krishna is born, he doesn't give him that promise. So, you could say that actually Kamsa trusts him because he is trustworthy, but he proves to be untrustworthy.
No, but the point is that he is working for a higher purpose. So, material trustworthiness is important, but beyond material trustworthiness is social trustworthiness. And there is no dispersion for which we need to push it.
But the point is, he tries a lot to protect the body of Devi and protect her whole time. So, now, why is that? Because he, for a husband, to protect his wife, to take care of her, to engage her in company and to live with her. In our Vedic culture, the wife is called a dharmakarya.
And there also, so, the point here is that if for the body, when there is an emergency, even untrue means can be used. That's what Vick said about it. And what to speak of using true means at normal times? No.
The spirituality that we talk about, it is not body rejecting. It is soul affirming. Body rejecting means you are not the body.
But then, I cannot wish away my body immediately. I have to live in my body. Any metaphor that we use to explain anything in philosophy, that metaphor will have implications.
Every metaphor is like a rubber band. A rubber band can hold on to one portion of the object. And by holding on to the rubber band, I am able to lift up the object.
But the object is not the rubber band. The rubber band gives us a hold on the object. But the object is bigger than the rubber band.
Similarly, any philosophical, spiritual truth that we are talking about, a metaphor is like a rubber band giving hold on that truth. But the metaphor itself does not convey the complete truth. A simple example of this is, we talk about the standard example for the body soul as the car and the driver.
Now, in this particular example, the car, the driver is the soul. But then, if you want to talk, so this example simply conveys one point that there is a difference between the body and the soul. And the source of animation is the soul.
But then, if we go to the most historical example, that of the chariot god, then there, the soul shifts from the role of a driver to a passenger. And then there, what comes up, intelligence comes up. Now, even in that metaphor, in this chariot here, even in that metaphor, we don't have the super soul directly.
If we say that metaphor is for the interaction of the body and the soul through the sub-body mechanism, that is there. But where is the intelligence in this metaphor? So, the intelligence of the person who has provided the whole chariot, and I did it in one lecture, that we should make the super soul our chariot. The dhami, buddhi, yogantri and the dhamma, piyantri.
So, our intelligence should become spiritualized. But directly, in that metaphor, the super soul is not there. So, every metaphor will have its limitations.
Similarly, say, let's consider one metaphor. Okay, this world is like a dream. And you have to wake up from that dream.
So, now normally, we think that somebody says something is a dream. It's unreal. And normally, what do I have to do? Okay, if I am dreaming and I am awake, I just wake up.
But, can I wake up so easily from the dream of body and soul identification? No. Actually, before waking up from a nightmare, just one ring of alarm clock or somebody spitting water, somebody shaking, that's enough. But, actually, for waking up from the dream of body and existence, probably we need 60 years of shaking.
And even that is not enough. And even during those 60 years of shaking, we have to still keep living in that nightmare. So, there is a long process.
And interestingly, just a slight philosophy will lead to, but it illustrates some phenomenon very nicely. Normally, when we think about dreams, we think of the dream as unreal. And we think of this current reality as the real dream.
The Mayavadis have the idea that just as the dream is unreal, this world is also unreal. And that's how they interpret this metaphor, this world is like a dream. So, Vande Gurudev and Govindadasa commentary on the Vedas says, and what does this metaphor of this, the world being like a dream convey? So, he says, he turns this whole metaphor around and he says, just as the world around us is real, similarly, dreams also real.
Just as the world around us is real, dreams also real. Now, in the western ministry, there was a psychotherapist, pioneer psychotherapist, Sigmund Freud. He wrote a classic book called Classic and the Restitution of Interpretation of Dreams.
And since then, people are fascinated by dreams. There are people who write diaries about their dreams. Every morning they wake up and write, what was the dream I had? And they try to interpret the dream.
There is some hidden wisdom in my heart which is being revealed through the dreams. And if I understand that wisdom, then my life would become enriched. So, now at one level, Prabhupada did not pander to such notions.
He said, this dream is what, it is a concatenation of random images which we have observed during the day time. We may see gold, we may see mountains and we will see golden mountains in the dream. That is one level of understanding.
This is true. Most of our dreams are organized. But there would be several poignant points.
First thing he says, that even in dreams there is variety. In the sense that some people have nightmares. You know, there are some people who have some diseases or some sort of disorder because of this.
As soon as they dream, they start getting nightmares. And they are afraid of sleeping. Sleep is a biological need.
Of course, now, there are unanswered questions in philosophy. So one of the unanswered questions in philosophy is why we sleep? At one level we said this for body rejuvenation. But the body could have created a mechanism by which it could rejuvenate itself without even rest.
Not all organisms sleep the way humans do. Imagine somebody, if we heard of somebody, for every day, six to eight hours, that person could just be lost. Be unresponsive, be forgetful, not knowing oneself, not knowing who one is, what one is supposed to do.
Just because one is schizophrenic or something like that, is forgetting one's identity completely. But because it's so common, we think it's alright. But actually sleeping itself is quite a mystery.
Now, why we sleep and what is the philosophical significance of sleep? Normally, we consider that sleeping is a pharmacy activity. What philosophical significance can it be? But the simple point is, sleep can point us towards the existence of some reality beyond our living reality. How? See, if I want to understand, I am not the body.
All that I have to do is just go to sleep. How is that? See, if I am the body and I am the experiencer of emotions, I am the locus of consciousness, then, when I am sleeping, my body is inactive. It is not experiencing anything.
But still, I am experiencing a lot. So, if I am the body and I am the experiencer, there are two theories, two propositions. I am the body, I am the experiencer.
But, when I am sleeping, the body is inactive, still, I am experiencing something. Therefore, the experiencer is not the body. And therefore, I am not the body.
So, simply, just by not going to sleep, but by waking up and analyzing sleep, by analyzing sleep, we can understand I am not the body. Of course, to understand I am the soul, I have to chant Hare Krishna. I have to study Bhagavad Gita.
That's it. Just understanding I am not the body. Just by analyzing my sleep, I can understand that the experiencer is someone or something beyond the world.
So, now, what was the point is that different people have different kinds of dreams. Some people have happy dreams, some people have horrible dreams. Now, why this variety? If dreams were just an illusion, then why is that illusion not uniform? In fact, we ourselves, we find that sometimes we have good dreams and bad dreams.
Why this difference? And sometimes, the dreams that we have have nothing to do with what experienced in the day. Sometimes, we have had a very good day, we are happily serving Krishna and suddenly at night we have a nasty dream. So, why do we have, why do different people have different dreams and ourselves don't have different dreams? Now, another thing he mentions is that dreams are often orderly.
Orderly in the sense that in some, most of the dreams that we have, we may not even remember those dreams. Some of the dreams we remember in fragments. But some dreams we remember, in that, things happen in an orderly way.
Some things may be chaotic. Okay, I dream that I have gone to Mayapur and then I entered the temple and then I had darshan and then I went around the whole temple almost empty. So, there is some unpredictable things but there is some kind of order in the dream.
And he talks one important thing about the order. He says that in our dreams, we are either observers or we are participants. In some dreams we observe things happening.
Some dreams we are the participants. I talk with somebody, that person talks with me back. He says we are either observers or we are participants but in no dream are we the complete controllers.
Now, even in dreams, everything doesn't happen according to our plan. How can this happen, that happen, something goes wrong. So, he says that if we are observers or participants but we are not controllers, participants are the complete controllers, then who is the controller? So, his conclusion is two reasons.
First is that dreams also have variety and in dreams we do not have controllership although there is some kind of order in the dreams. So, he explains that just as the supreme lord constructs the outer world with gross matter to give the jiva an opportunity to experience karmic reactions. Similarly, the supreme lord constructs the dream world with subtle matter to give the jiva reactions to some minor karmas.
So, for a major karma I may be in a car and the car breaks in an accident and I fracture my leg. For a minor karma the reaction will be I will be in a dream, in a dream I will be in a car and the car will be a channel I will be in a dream. So, that is also the reaction to our dreams.
So, dreams are not unreal. Now, a lot depends in philosophy and semantics. Semantics means words and their meanings.
So, a lot depends on what we are meaning by the unreal. So, if we are talking real, that which is eternal is real, then both dream, dream world and sleeping world both are unreal. But, if we are talking about real in terms of something which is experienced, something which has something tangible to it, tangible not in terms of dreams, we can't touch them because they are gross matter.
But, we do experience them as real during the time of the dreams. So, the point which we are discussing over here is that the dream metaphor, going back to our fundamental discussion, when we talk about dreams, third point that Baldev Japshan also said about why dreams are real is, he says many times the supreme reality of those who are living supreme reality are also real. Sometimes the lord comes in the dream, sometimes the spiritual master may come in the dream and therefore the dreams cannot be real.
So, coming to our point that dreams, when we consider this world to be like a dream, our present experience is like a dream, but coming out of our bodily level of reality is not as simple as just waking up from a dream. It requires a lifelong process and that lifelong process requires living a balanced existence, a balanced existence. Now, we have to balance, this is from Sadhanath Maharaj in his new book The Journey Within, he describes that the art of living is to balance the elegance of our souls with the awkwardness of our body.
To balance the elegance of our souls, as souls we are pure, we are free, we are liberated and what do we have to do? We just have to live in a shattered existence. Right now we are in the where our is the awkward which is one bump or one bang and when we crack, the body is actually very brittle and very limited. So, we have to balance the elegance of our souls with the awkwardness of the body and that is the art of living.
So, actually we cannot just wish away our bodily existence. We have to live through the bodily existence and for living through bodily existence what does it mean? Let's look at one example. I will talk about three different things.
One is dealing with bodily diseases. Second is dealing with bodily losses. Bodily losses means losses of those connected with our body.
And third is dealing with our bodily nature. So, first is dealing with bodily diseases. Now, the body at one level we can say that it is as scriptures say so many diseases that become the body.
It is a unlimited variety of diseases. But the same Vedic literature that has given us this novel, the body of breeding ground have also as one of the Pradhan Kamalas Ayurveda whose whole purpose is what? Ayurveda's purpose is to Ayurveda the Veda of Ayurveda the Veda of how we can extend our life. And not only that, if you see, interestingly Krishna says If we eat the food that is in goodness what will happen by that? Ayur Sat Kapala Aurodhya so our life span will increase our existence will improve but we have no strength Aurodhya health will improve.
Now if you see over here interestingly again that many times we stress this point that the number of breaths that we have is fixed. So in that sense our Ayur is fixed. So why would Krishna say that eating certain foods will increase our Ayur? Or why would the whole Veda which is devoted to Ayurveda actually enhancing and increasing our Ayur? The point is that when we talk about our life span being fixed in advance we don't know how our life span is.
So we need to live as if we can live long enough as long as possible for Krishna. Now for example in the early 70s some devotees were travelling from one place to another they were very dangerous but they went that side and all the devotees were accepting that. And Prabhupada got the news some devotees said Gopal Gopal was very sad when he got the news and then Prabhupada said Gopal what's his destiny? But they all died.
Prabhupada said it was their responsibility they should have done it here. Now what does it mean? How can somebody die if it is not their destiny? The point is that there are certain things which are beyond human control. And actually in one sense philosophy begins with an attempt to understand the transhuman.
Normally there are How can I eat? How can I sleep? How can I eat? How can I defend? Is there some dimension beyond my body? Is there something beyond me? I am trying to make things happen but it is not happening. So in one sense philosophy is an attempt to understand the transhuman factors at work in the universe. I am a human factor at work in this universe.
So are there any transhuman factors also? Is there something beyond all of us? And then different people try to address it in different ways. So actually even sports people. Now there are fewer activities than sport, actually very few activities where so much depends on the individual's talent and performance.
But even sports stars know that there is something beyond us. It plays a huge role. It plays a huge role.
I could be informed every day but I cannot be informed every day. So now all, many cricketers, many of the most famous cricketers in history, they had their own pet idiosyncrasies. You know, their peculiar beliefs of what would determine their performance and what would not determine their performance.
There is a famous Australian cricketer who believed that associated things parallel with their own washroom. If any of the lids of the commode in the washroom would be open, he would get out quickly. So every time he had to go out to bat, first he would go to the commode, close all the lids and then he would go out.
And then, if you would get out early and come back, you would not come to the commode, you would first go to the commode, then you would go to the table. There is another famous and celebrated cricket captain. You know, he used to have a red handkerchief and he would keep that red handkerchief one third out of his pocket in his right pocket.
And if the handkerchief wouldn't be there, or there properly, he would perform well. And sometimes he would drop a catch, before looking at the ball, he would look at the handkerchief one more So, now, these cricketers are not foolish people, in one sense, in the sense that they know how important it is to perform their practice for hours and hours to get a little work done. But, these are their fledgling attempts to understand humanly incompetence.
They understand that there is something beyond me that also shapes the results. And what it is, how can I harmonize with it, how can I tap it, or at least how can I avoid antagonizing it. So, these are all their fledgling attempts to tackle that.
So, the point I was making is, philosophy begins with an attempt to comprehend the transhuman factors at work in existence. So, now, philosophy is meant to extend the human participation in the cosmos. It is not meant to constrict the human participation.
I'll repeat this. It's meant to extend the human participation, not constrict the human participation. What do I mean by this? Suppose, say, tonight there is a feast where there are very nice papayas.
And suppose I eat some 25 papayas. And then, tomorrow morning I wake up with my whole thought to complete the meal. And then, I get the thought of past karma.
If not past karma, it is yesterday's karma. It is yesterday's karma. It is yesterday's karma.
karma. It yesterday's karma. It is yesterday's karma.
It is yesterday's karma. It yesterday's karma. It is yesterday's karma.
But then, it doesn't deny the importance of taking medicines. Some people ask this question. Ultimately, everything comes to us according to our karma.
Then even our sicknesses come according to our karma. And why do I mean by this? First of all, there's a little technicality now. The word karma has four meanings.
And if we confuse these meanings, then we will get caught in a, you know, get caught in a philosophical banana peel. So karma has four meanings. The first meaning of karma is simply action.
Now, we have to be careful about what karma means. It's a generic word for action. Second meaning of the word karma is reaction.
We are all suffering our karma. So here actually what we are referring to is karmic reaction. The third meaning of karma is the system of action reaction.
The law of karma is inexorable. And the fourth meaning of the word karma is one particular category of karma. Then we have karma with karma and a karma.
So all three can be called karma in a generic level. That's the first meaning of the word karma. And within the generic meaning of the word karma as all action there can be one kind of action which is pious action, karmic action.
So karma can refer to action in general, reaction, the system of action reaction, and pious action. The four different meanings are possible of karma. Actually unless you understand the four different meanings, you can't understand that word.
It's a karmanya karma. It's a buddhima karma. Now when you see the action in action in action in action, this word is both a tongue twister and a brain twister.
But I'm not going to that word right now. Simple point here is that no, there are certain actions which are called past karma also. But the whole principle of Ayurveda and of Vedic life in general is not to replace this life's causal and past life causes, but to extend the causal chain beyond this life when it is necessary.
So for example, if a patient gets sick, I go to the doctor doctor doesn't say because of the past life karma. He finds out, okay, what is the cause? What is the cause? And in one sense you could say because of past life karma, but even past life karma comes through some cause in this word usually. So we try to find out that cause and we deal with that cause.
And then, if, dealing with that cause, sometimes a person doesn't get cured, then we understand that this is the destiny for a person to have a sickly body. So why should we take medicine if anybody has sickness at this time? The point is sickness is this time, but then along with that, what is ordained by scripture also is that we have to perform our duties. And one duty is to take medicines so that we take care of the body.
The body is entrusted to us and taking care of that body is vital for us. Now, Prabhupada was very pragmatic. Prabhupada did not exist in Ayurveda.
He himself personally chose Ayurveda. But there are times when it was Ayurvedic also. I've been related to the last days, 70's I've been gone to London and then we had a severe health problem.
And Prabhupada was pragmatic. The body is material. Whatever works, we make use of it and keep functioning with the body.
So, Ayurveda has no use of fatalism. Fatalism is a doctrine that everything is destroyed, nothing is in my control. Actually, we have control over a significant portion of what happens to us.
Because two ways, one is that often we make choices which come back to us as disastrous consequences. And even when disastrous things are happening to us, our choices can aggravate or mitigate those consequences. So, I may be in a situation where I'm supposed to get an accident.
But say if I'm driving slowly and I want to skid off the road. When I'm driving slowly, the accident will be there, I'll skid off the road. But, when I wake up and get damaged, I'll not suffer such a situation.
But if I'm driving recklessly and I skid off, the accident might turn out to be a tragedy. So, we do play a role. What does this mean? We are talking about how when we live in the world, we cannot wish away material existence.
We have to follow a process by which we can become liberated from material existence. So, that process involves taking care of the world. Certainly, the process centers on becoming purified, on practicing yoga.
If you look at this famous verse, 6.17 in the Gita, there are two components here. yukta har nivarasya yukta cheshta se karasu yukta swapna manasya yogo bhavati dukkha ha So, when we quote the first part of the verse, yukta, yukta, but the heart of the verse is yogo bhavati dukkha ha. By the practice of yoga, bhavati, what will happen is dukkha ha.
One will become free from all the residual material existence. But, importantly what kind of yoga one has to practice, that is yukta, yukta har nivarasya cheshta. Be regulated in the body and then when you practice yoga, then we can actually become free from the residual material existence.
So, suppose a devotee is sick, and because of sickness there is pain and everything like that, and the devotee is not able to perform the work himself and who will mind? Well, it is monstrously intensive. Yes, it may be that the person may be mentally weak because of physical sickness, but actually a person is such a person who can manage that need affirmation. Otherwise, a person will be devastated.
And then, it can become very, a sickness can become a very alienating experience. At that time, we know, even if we know we are not the body, still we understand that we are practically helpless without the body. And we need help in healing the body and some help that is required also is mental strength, understanding, essentially organizational perspective of the person.
And all these things will go away. Nothing is going to stop eternally. So, when we actually go through sickness, what we at that time do with the leader philosophy that we are not the body, maybe it is required in some special cases.
But what There is a time for education and there is a time for commiseration. Commiseration means sympathy, empathy, being expressive emotions. There is a time for instruction and there is a time for commiseration.
And knowing the difference between the two is compassion. When to educate, when to instruct and when to commiserate. Knowing the difference between the two is compassion.
And this will bring us to the next point. I think we will discuss three things. First is bodily disputes, not bodily losses.
Bodily losses means that what if someone loses a loved one. And we see the example from this in the Mahabharata itself. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says how we should not be attached to worldly things.
And in fact this is a specific word also in 30.8-12. Where he talks about what all a person in gyana should be attached to. It says, kutra-dhara-vibhava-dhishu. And normally one would put the spouse before any other people.
But Krishna puts son before and then dhara afterwards, wife afterwards. And just after the Bhagavad Gita is spoken, on the 13th day, Abhirati dies. And Arjuna is devastated.
That night when Arjuna comes back after fighting a fierce war. And Susharma is one of the Tridakta leaders. And he has taken a vow that we will challenge and divert Arjuna.
And we will either kill him or we will fight till the last of our lives. And Susharma is actually killed by Arjuna on the 18th day. So on the 13th day he is diverted.
And then Abhimanyu is trapped with Chakravarti and Abhimanyu is killed. And then when Arjuna comes back. At that time he starts fighting some really sensual, impending war.
And he goes to Krishna. And he sees that some disaster is happening. What do you want from me? So Krishna responds to him.
No, no Arjuna, don't worry yourself. Probably some minor reversal has taken place. And as Arjuna returns to his camp.
He sees that nobody is willing to look at him in the eyes. Everybody is looking away. And Arjuna, the warrior, will come back.
At that time there is a music of celebration. There is a silence of doom and gloom. And as he enters, a disaster strikes him.
When he has been fighting in the heat of battle. When they are fighting. They also hear sounds here and there.
He just vaguely remembers. One of the soldiers was shouting. Don't ask for Chakravarti.
Because he was fighting so fiercely. And did not register on him. At that time, in the heat of the battle.
Unless somebody comes and gives a message specifically. You cannot just trust what you are hearing here and there. So he didn't register on him.
He was so hot in fighting. Hundreds and hundreds of soldiers were attacking him. So he has found the Chakravarti.
And the only person he wanted to go to was Arjuna. Arjuna went to Abhimanyu. Then he was just thinking.
And every evening when he would come back. And they would have a common tent. Which is the place where all of the warriors would meet and discuss the tradition.
And every evening, Abhimanyu would be waiting outside the tent. To welcome his father. The father had some kind of tradition.
If the father came back first. He would wait for the son. If the son came back first.
The son would wait for the father. And every evening. Abhimanyu saw Arjuna.
As he was kicking him apart. He saw the Chakravarti. And he couldn't understand what he was seeing.
He went inside. And in the tent. All the warriors had their own throats.
And his eyes were straight to the seat of Arjuna. It was Arjuna. Arjuna's heart would stop beating.
And he looked at his brothers. And all their eyes were red. Feeling the marks of tears that had been shed and dried.
Which were crumbled to the ground. As he looked at them with mortified eyes. As Arjuna realised that it was really come true.
He shuddered. And he still got up and came looking at them. And in broken words he asked.
How is it? That my 16 year old son was killed. When all of you were there. Himli.
And all the weapons that you carry. And all of them were women's bangles. And all of you together could not protect Abhimanyu.
That's what my baby knew. It is I who is blaming myself. That is the pursuit of glory.
I am connected by you to my son. And I trust him that he will be safe in your hands. Krishna, if you would have known what is happening.
Why did you tell me? Surely. As Abhimanyu was a nobility kid. He must have called out to me.
Hoping that his father would come and protect him. In this time of need. Or maybe.
Because he was a son of Subhadra. He would not have called me. He would have called his mother.
Or he would have called you, Krishna. But he did not call me. Because I knew it.
And I thought that should have happened. What if Krishna knew? He would have gently went and called me. Put his arm on his shoulder.
So mother. Do not pierce the hearts of your brothers and loved ones. With such a little noise.
Can you see that their hearts are as pierced as yours? This is not the time to increase the grief of the loved ones. Such weakness is not before you. Oh mother.
And she has given me gentle, compassionate voice. So most gently. Understanding and sympathetic.
Encouraging and consoling. Krishna did not say. Arjuna has spoken.
But what of the loss of me? Not one word. Not one word. At that time he would have consoled me.
The cause of loss. What people need. Is omniscience.
Not just education. Now you may see there is another example. There was a king.
Who was indulging in grief. And he had Narad Muni and Angiravishnu. They go and instruct him.
That is true. But that is when. That is when the king is just indulging endlessly in grief.
There is a natural outpouring of grief. Which is actually a part of the healing process after loss. Just as when a wound is there.
Some blood comes out. And there is blotting afterwards. So similarly.
There is some natural expression of grief. Which helps in the healing process. Because emotions that are pent up.
They will burst out sooner or later. So that should not inject you as a Christ. What has to be done is.
If one is indulging in the grief. And refuses to go on with life afterwards. Then the strongest element is inquiry.
But a natural human expression of. Grief. Needs to be perfectly understood.
As. As a human. And what do we need to do? We just need to.
Actually. Be there. Be sympathetic.
Be kind. And not cry. Or deny.
Or whatever. That is not what. That is not the time for that.
Time for being. Kind, sensitive, encouraging. So.
If we. Actually. Bring in.
The philosophy. As a replacement for sensitivity. We bring in philosophy.
As a replacement for sensitivity. Then we can heal it a lot. Heal it a lot.
From Krishna. One of the ways in which philosophy has been historically abused. Is.
Through the caste system. The caste system originally. Is Varanasi.
Is according to politics. But as it became by birth. You know how.
What was the idea that was. Perpetuated, fossilized. That.
Actually. You Shudras are no more. Because of your past karma.
And because of your past karma. Throughout this life. You have to stay low.
If you try to rise. You are going against your karma. And it will crush you further.
And there have been. Tens of atrocities that have been done. You know.
The caste system which was there. Which was. We just.
Explained away saying that. It is not based on the body. It is based on the.
But actually historically it has been based on the body. And there have been cases. Where say Shudra child comes and.
Drinks water from a Brahmana's blood. The people will come and. This is a 5-6 year old boy.
Beat that child. How does the child understand. Now what has happened over here.
The philosophy. It was used as a tool. By the Brahmanas.
To secure their superior position. And to. Bury.
The lower caste in their lower position. Prabhupada. Already brought on this.
Prabhupada already said that. You know how there are so many people. Converted to Islam or Christianity.
He said the higher caste didn't care. He said the lower caste are suffering. He said you are meant to suffer.
Then other religions came and said we will help you. So. Philosophy should not be abused.
Yes. But that doesn't mean. That one.
That society has to be. So that people keep suffering. No.
The Shudras also have that place. In the Yudhishthira's Radha Kriya. Even the Shudras were attending.
They had their own place. The Brahmanas had their place. And all of them were given dignified place.
According to the Shudras in the society. So the important thing is. Philosophy should not be used.
As a replacement. For basic human sensibility. So Veena.
You know a couple of years ago. There was this brutal gang. On an office.
A gang of physiotherapy students. So. After that.
He asked a question on the website. He said what was the Karma of a woman. Because of which she got married.
So. Now. Basically.
The point here is. The whole philosophy is. Of Karma.
Is not for postmortem. It is for prognosis. Postmortem means.
After things have happened. Why did this happen. Prognosis means.
To ensure that future things don't go wrong. See. When Draupadi is dishonored.
Do the Pandavas say. Oh it was all her Karma. No.
I can't say it is a severe dishonor. And those who have dishonored. Are to be punished.
When Sita is abducted. Nobody says it is her Karma. Because of which she was abducted.
The point is. That. When somebody suffers in this world.
Especially those who are. Administrative of society. If they start saying.
Everything is happening by past Karma. Then there will be no article decision. So.
If a suffering in this world. Has a disability cause. Then it is our.
Responsibility. To address that cause. According to our capacity.
According to our capacity. So especially if somebody is a king. Or somebody in a responsible position.
Pandavas and all. They are both kings. As well as they are gastric.
The Tanzanian history. So. We should not.
Have social life. Governed by past life considerations. It is.
Governed primarily. Wherever. Dislike explanations are there.
Dislike explanations have to be taken into consideration. And. Things have to be corrected accordingly.
But wherever. Dislike explanations are not adequate. Then we understand.
It is my past life Karma. And I will try to solve it. If we don't take corrective measures.
Then. What is the need for a king? Because everything will happen. If the king just made a short piece of a throne.
He is going to do justice. And what does justice mean? Justice means. If somebody is doing wrong.
It has to be set right. And setting right means actually. Judging that this was caused by this.
We don't bring in the past life karma into the picture. We start bringing in. The philosophers or.
If somebody has been grievously hurt. At that time. Again.
Somebody has been terribly excited. Somebody has been hurt. By somebody else's insensitivity or whatever.
And it is improved. Do not be angry at the instrument of your karma. Yes.
That is true. But. The point here is not.
Whether this particular suffering. Was karmic in its kind or not. I will just conclude with.
This example. There is A, B and C. So A has done something which is wrong. Which has hurt me.
And C is in authority position. So now B is feeling very hurt. Because of what A has done.
Now. The important point. Within culture.
Is not as I said. Karma centric. Dharma centric means.
What is my dharma? What is the dharma of different people? And that has to be understood. One has to act accordingly. A most graphic example of this.
Comes in Kamsa, Vasudev and Devaki pastimes. When Vasudev tells Kamsa. That actually.
Death is this time. What is this time? Therefore. Why are you.
Killing Devaki. Your sister Devaki. To avoid something which is ultimately avoided.
Now. He doesn't turn. His logic around and think.
Death is this time. Devaki is going to die. Why am I trying all these arguments to protect her? Why does he think like that? Isn't it equally logic? If Kamsa death is this time.
Then you could say everything is also this time. So why doesn't he use that logic over there? Because. Of.
Dharma considerations. Now. For him.
As a husband. It is his dharma to protect his wife. And he will not give up his dharma.
Because of considerations of wife. But. Kamsa is giving up his dharma.
You know he is a brother. Actually he has three reasons. He says.
A Kshatriya is meant to protect his wife. And a brother is meant to protect his sister. And any cultured person.
Is not meant to create inauspiciousness in an auspicious occasion. And marriage is an auspicious occasion. She is a woman.
She is a sister. And it is a marriage day. How can you do something like this? So why does Kamsa.
Why does Vasudev. Remind Kamsa of destiny. Because Kamsa is giving up his dharma.
So. Our considerations of karma. Should inspire us to do dharma.
Not inspire us. Or not rationalize our giving up dharma. Not rationalize.
Our giving up dharma. So. He does not invoke it on himself.
Because he would have given up his dharma. But he invokes it for Kamsa. Because by that Kamsa can impact to his dharma.
Let me simply say. Mahabharata illustrates this. Dhritarashtra.
Dhritarashtra. Dhritarashtra is trying to persuade Dhritarashtra. Don't let this war go on.
Stop Dhritarashtra. Otherwise the whole Dhritarashtra will be destroyed. Dhritarashtra tries to argue and says that.
If the war is this time. What can I at any moment do? So what does Dhritarashtra imply? Destiny determines. The consequence of our actions.
Not our actions themselves. Destiny determines. The consequence of our actions.
Not our actions themselves. So. If I am sick.
Destiny may determine whether I get cured or not. But destiny doesn't determine whether I take my medicine or not. That is something which I determine.
So similarly. Now if some woman is abused. Then destiny may determine.
Whether the police are able to catch the person. Catch the right person. And make sure that the person gets the right punishment or not.
But destiny doesn't determine whether the police will pursue that person or not. So. The whole Indian culture.
Another very important point. Just before the war. Yashadev comes to see Dhritarashtra.
And Yashadev also tries to do Dhritarashtra mode of response. It is interesting. And then Dhritarashtra asks Yashadev.
Okay. How is here? Isn't it that. Actually everyone gets their coming reactions.
And isn't it that. If everyone dies in this war. They will die because of their karma.
So Yashadev. Went silent for a long time. And afterwards.
He doesn't give direct answer to the question. He says okay. The.
Something similar to Govindam. The intricacies of how karma works. Is very difficult to know.
But what is vital for us. Is to make the right choices. Okay.
You know the right choice. But you are not using it. And that.
Is your great advantage. So the point is. That actually.
The whole. Human culture. Will collapse.
If we use philosophy. The replacement is insecurity. There will be no administration.
There will be no medicine. There will be no social development. Everything will collapse.
Okay. The most extreme example I gave. Like a baby is crying.
And in need of food. And in need of comfort. And a mother said your baby is crying.
Because of a lost child. Not only this. It is incorrect also.
Because what the baby is crying is. We don't know. But we know what the mother's duty is.
So. This point I conclude with. Talking about social service.
One important misunderstanding about social service. See. Now Prabhupada is strongly against.
Devotees. Getting too much into social service. This criticism.
Has to be understood contextually. Contextually means. If you look at the Bhagavatam.
There are things. We have Bhrigu Maharaj. We have Bhrigu Maharaj Shirdi.
And we have Bhrigu Maharaj Ramdev. They are all actually. Doing humanitarian work.
Bhrigu Maharaj offers help to his citizens. Who are starving in the Himalayas. I want to speak of humans.
Ramdev and Shirdi. They help food. Not only animals.
Therefore. This is not to be done at all. So.
Now there is a division of labour. Between Brahmana and Kshatriyas. And.
Brahmanas do not get. Humanitarian work as a major activity. But Brahmanas.
By their education. They instill a. Sense of Dharma. And selflessness and charity.
Among the Kshatriyas. And the Kshatriyas do this activity. Now in the modern times.
There has been somehow. A huge amount of poverty in India. Because of centuries of exploitation.
By foreign interests. India was phenomenally poor. And.
Several religious leaders in Christianity. Started using this poverty. As a means.
To convert people to their religion. So. Actually from the 1700s.
Christians started actively trying to proselytize in India. And initially. They basically used three strategies.
One was condemnation. Second was irrelevance. And third was fulfillment.
Condemnation means. You worship stones. You are stupid.
You are a polytheist. You are an idolater. And so on.
Some of the literature. Which have come out in the 1800s. Have been so terribly.
Terribly critical. Of the Hindu-Tamil version. So one of those literature.
Let us see how disconnected. Hinduism is. That actually the amount of money.
That is spent. On the ghee. In one meal of a gram.
Is more than the amount of money. That is given. For a full month's meal of a shudra.
How can such a religion be God. It has come from Satan. Give up that religion.
So. What happened is. The first study that they used was.
Condemnation. And they found. Rather than rejecting Hinduism.
They started reforming Hinduism. And. They started saying that we cannot convert.
The second strategy is irrelevance. In India. It might have been true at that time.
But now science has come out. How can you believe that a stone can be God. So many things.
And then. They started saying that. Actually.
Christianity was in the mind. And now the mainstream strategy. That Christianity is fulfillment theology.
Fulfillment theology means. Yes Hinduism is good. We follow Hinduism.
And then by that you become a good human being. So that you become qualified. In the grace of Jesus.
So in Pune. They have the second biggest seminary. In all of India.
There are 7000 students over there. So they call their seminary as. Gyan Deep School of Theology.
And their slogan is. Gyan Deep Bheem Bhasma. From Bhagavad Gita.
And what is their image. They have all the Hindu Gods. In a candle.
And the top of the candle is Krishna. And from the flame of the candle. Jesus is coming.
This is fulfillment theology. And all the Gods will lead you to the grace of Jesus. So the success of.
Being a Hindu is to become a Christian. So anyway. Why I am talking about all this is.
That the Christians. They realize that just by opening this. Fulfillment theology we are not going to convert people.
So as India started. Inching towards democracy. They did not convert.
The best way to convert would be. Just go to the masses. And that's how they branched into.
Education and social work. And they in their own way. Did a huge amount of social work.
In terms of opening hospitals. Feeding the poor and all those things. And many people started converting to that.
Because of that. Converting to Christianity. So some Hindus started thinking.
That you know. If it's just humanity that is required. Why do people have to give their religion to convert people.
We can convert to Hinduism. And therefore. Now they wanted to inspire.
Hindus to also give money for charitable causes. And to do that. Some of them went over there.
Because the Hindus. Give charity to. The temple to the ladies to the God.
But they don't do charity to poor people. To inspire. They started coming up with slogans like.
All those things. Now what happened by this. See there are two different things.
There should be devotional service to the God. Taking care of the law also. And there should also be.
Taking care of the people. But when these two are equated. Not just equated.
What the Maya believers did is. They said that. If you can see God only in the needy.
But not in the poor person. Then you are at a lower level of consciousness. If you can see God in the poor person.
Then you are more evolved. Therefore feeding the poor people. Is better than.
Actually obliteration to the Hindus. So. Their original cause is not wrong.
That wanting people. To not convert. Just for humanity purpose.
And more importantly at a human level. To take care of our fellow Hindus. That's a noble cause.
But the way they tried to go about it was. Demonizing. Demeaning devotional service.
And this sort of criticism. Attacked the roots of devotional service. And that's why our Acharyas.
Reacted very strongly. And they said that. If social service is done like this.
With this understanding. Then. What is happening is.
People will use all the methods for salvation. All the devotional services. And they will end up.
Stuck in the religious system. So. When there is condemnation.
Of social service. It is not. It is not an instruction.
To be insensitive. To suffering of poor people. Please understand the difference between the two.
When the Acharyas. Strongly disapprove devotees. Getting into social service.
It is not an injunction. That we be insensitive. To suffering of poor people.
It is that. We don't philosophically. Confuse social service.
To be equal to. Or superior devotional service. The same thing.
They will not do charity to the poor. The beggars, the negroes. And.
They will say. You know. I will use this money for hering.
And shall not give it to poor people. But then. The same.
Materialism. That prevents you from giving charity to the beggars. Out of the temples.
Will prevent you from giving money in the temples also. So. It is a dogma.
So. We should consider that. Sometimes devotees.
Treat as social service is a simple activity. It is definitely not simple. It is actually a pious activity.
It is a very noble activity. But where things go wrong is. If it is mistaken to be superior devotional service.
So now. Remember that. I talked about division of labour.
Brahmanas and Kshatriyas. Brahmanas are primarily meant to teach. Do the spiritual knowledge.
Teach philosophy. And Kshatriyas are meant to do humanitarian work. So in one sense.
Brahmanas take care of the soul. Kshatriyas take care of the body. So now.
What happens is. Now is the soul a Brahminic body. Or is it a body.
Meant to establish Varanasi. Now. The soul as a living body.
In it's main focus. Should not go into social service. Temples are not meant to become primary centers.
They are meant to be centers for spiritual education. There are many spiritual organizations. They actually become social service centers.
Some of them are Brahmin. Who will teach philosophy. Who will teach philosophy.
That is very important. So by teaching philosophy and spiritual knowledge. We are doing a magical service to society.
Which is actually. Nobody else has done. A very few people have done.
But. If some devotees. Have Kshatriya religions.
Kshatriya religion doesn't just mean. Taking out a sword and fighting. There is only one aspect of Kshatriya.
That is the most glamorized aspect. But Kshatriya also means. Everything is free to do.
So if they feel inspired. To engage in humanity. And bring in some level of devotion into it.
When you do Prasad. And if you connect with Krishna. In that way that is also good enough.
Then that is not wrong. So what should not happen is. We start thinking poor people are God.
And then by serving them. We don't need to any longer serve them. But if we understand.
That actually. We want a devotional culture. To pervade all of society.
And devotional culture has various levels. And. We make sure that we have a vibrant center.
Where. Devotional activities are going on. And branching out from that center.
We have various levels of activity. So. Whatever level of connection.
Krishna and Krishna activities. That is okay. So that is actually.
A part of Vedic culture. So social service. Is something which.
Is a part of Kshatriya duty. At the part of Kshatriya it is important to do that. And for Granthas.
Those who are earning. Charity is an important part of. This human sensitivity.
Human compassion. And we do charity by that. What happens is that.
We. Keep having. Missing for suffering.
The ultimate goal is to. Is to free people. From all sufferings.
But at our level. We may use the word. Suffering souls in mental existence.
But in a suppose. We are walking by and we see a movie theater. And some young boys and girls are watching.
We don't think they are suffering souls. Maybe I am suffering soul. I am missing out.
So. We want to be compassionate to the suffering souls. But.
If we cannot be compassionate. Even to the suffering. That we see with our eyes.
How can we be compassionate. For the suffering we can't even see with our eyes. The soul that is suffering.
In mental existence. That is not stable or protectable. So.
You know this remain a very hypothetical idea. How people are suffering. And I am sharing Krishna Consciousness.
To help people become free from suffering. Now. Yes it is true that by sharing Krishna Consciousness.
People will become free from suffering. But we can't even perceive that. So I am not saying that we should only.
Remove. And talking about. The feeling of sensitivity.
For other people's suffering. So when we see it like that. We can give Prasad.
And we give Prasad. Not just thinking worldly. That Prasad is Krishna.
Along with that. We want to know the times of hunger. And it is painful.
Somebody is having water. It is not that we are not meant to take care of the water. In fact.
Our care is not meant to be restricted. Only to the water. So.
Spirituality. Is not body rejecting. It is soul empowering.
So. Body rejecting means. We just don't care for the body at all.
We will care only for the soul of the people. As long as you go back to God. And before that even if you suffer terribly.
I won't do anything for you. You can't help. When you want to help somebody.
You help the complete person. The body, the mind and the soul. And the Vedic culture offers.
A complete program for the Vedas. And that program is. Vidyancha Vidyancha.
Avidyam Krishna Vidyanaya. Vidyanaya. So.
This verse says that. By Vidya and Avidyam. One will go beyond.
So now. Avidyam Krishna. The word Avidyam here doesn't mean ignorance.
It means knowledge of how to. Navigate through certain existence. So to navigate through this kind of existence, we need material knowledge.
अविद्ध्याया उन्हुःति विव्द्ध्वा और विद्ध्राया अम्हुःति विव्द्ध्वा Yes, we need spiritual knowledge. So, it's like, we often use the example that we are like souls tossing about in Bhavasagar, middle ocean. And Krishna comes and picks us up.
You all see that image of Krishna coming and coming up. That is true, Krishna will come up and pick us up at the end of our life. But till that time, we have to be in the ocean.
नावदः पतंद ओशी So, if we don't learn how to live in this ocean during that time, we can get brutally battered by the waves that come. And we may get so wounded by the waves that we may not even be in a position to actually practice the ocean service. Or, we may batter the reputation of Krishna consciousness so much that people will not want to practice the ocean service.
So, while we are in the ocean, which will be for 30-40-50 years, whatever, we need to know how to keep alive and how to keep calling out to Krishna in this ocean. So, अविद्ध्याया उत्युत्युत्यि विद्ध्वा This उत्युत्यु साधर is there. We need avidya, we need mental knowledge to navigate in that.
And mental knowledge includes, as I said, sensitivity to what others are doing. Others' bodily feelings. And then, as we keep practicing bhakti during this period, then, at the end of our life, उद्ध्याया अम्दुद्धविश्विदे, Krishna takes us back to him.
So, I'll summarize. I started by talking about the topic of how philosophy should not become a replacement for sensitivity. And then, I discussed about how the world may be called unreal, but it's unreal only in the sense that it's temporary.
And then, we are now doing the dream journey. Because the dreams are organized. Because the dreams have variety.
And because, in the dream, sometimes the dream reality also appears. So, every metaphor is limited like a rubber band. The dream metaphor is limited in that we can't just wake up suddenly.
We actually, there's a process for waking up. And that process involves living intelligently in this material world. And living intelligently in the material world means, we discussed, we have to be sensitive, intelligent, intelligent in our body, living with other people in society when they face losses, and living with society at large.
So, for example, in the body, we discussed how Ayurveda does not just use the idea of destiny to not take medicine. It has. It talks about the concept of our, we don't know how long our I will live, so we have to take care of our body the best we can.
Then, with respect to dealing with others, we saw how Arjuna was very sensitive. Krishna was very sensitive when Arjuna was grieving because of the family. And how Vasudeva did not use the argument of destiny to give up his duty.
So, Vedic culture is not karma-centric, it's karma-centric. And, lastly, we discussed about how in society at large, wherever karma gives us an explanation that is adequate from this life's perspective, wherever, or rather, our human experience gives us an explanation that is adequate from this life's perspective, then we have to address those causes. And if we don't address them, then we heroize the society.
And that can also be discussed about how Pandavas and Lord Rama were to punish those who did wrong things in their lives. And we also discussed about social service. Now, social service is a biased activity.
Where it becomes dangerous is when it is quoted as a substitute, and a stupid substitute to devotional service. So, with a proper understanding, when we do devotional service, not thinking that people are God, but we do that, they can be brought slowly towards God by this. And a Godly culture will take care of its people at all levels.
Not just spiritual, spiritual and physical. Then, that is a part of strong Vedic culture. And there is a Vidyancha-Vidyancha.
So, while we are in the ocean, we need to know how to live here. And that knowledge has basic human sensitivity as an important part of it. And then, as we use our sensitivity in this world, by the practice of social service, by the practice of our faith, we go back to Krishna.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions?