Balancing Forgiveness and Justice – Chaitanya Charan – Bhakti Center Gachibowli

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

So thank you for coming today. And today is this forgiveness and justice. The balance of this is in London.

I have taken a three part seminar on this. So I try not to condense all the three parts in one session today. But I'll give an introduction to each of the parts.

And so the first is the philosophical, the philosophical dimension of this tension between forgiveness and justice. Then I talk about the sociological. That means when we live in society, how does it work? And then finally I talk about the bhakti dimension.

That what does it mean? When you're trying to look at the balance between bhakti and dharma, which involves justice or forgiveness, whatever it is. So as many of you know, last 10 years I have been going to the West and there is a striking disconnect between what when new people or Western people, westernized new people, it could be in India also, when they come to spirituality and what they find in scripture. So what do I mean by that? Most people come to spirituality expecting to become more peaceful, more understanding, more forgiving, forgiving of oneself, forgiving of others.

And if they come to our tradition, all the sacred books are filled with wars. Isn't it? So war is like the ultimate expression of unforgiveness. Isn't it? And this is not just our tradition.

Every sacred tradition if you see, whether if you see the Bible, the Old Testament is filled with wars and the Quran is filled with wars. So Quran probably more than other religions. But the point is that wars are there.

And quite often there is a celebration of violence. Like say Arjuna is fighting and killing. What am I doing wrong today with respect to the sound system? I don't understand.

So there is an Arjuna shoots and kills. Oh, there is a river of blood over there. So it seems very jarring.

So is spirituality meant to encourage us to become more forgiving? Yes, of course it is. And forgiveness is important. So how do we look at this? So I'll start from a philosophical perspective.

See at a basic level, our human life is a journey of the past and the future. And in every human being's life, there is always a distance between action and aspiration. Aspiration means how I would like to be.

And action is how I actually end up doing. So I would like to be gentle and polite and helpful. And sometimes I end up being selfish and critical, maybe even manipulative.

So there is always this tension. And now when we act in life, for us, the past is unchangeable. The past is what it is.

And we all have made mistakes in the past. We have done things which we knew were wrong or we have done things which later turned out to be wrong. And now when we act in the future, there is uncertainty about the future.

So we could say with respect to the past, there is irreversibility. Irreversibility means that what has happened in the past, it cannot be changed. With respect to the future, there is unpredictability.

None of us knows what will happen in the future. So this is a slightly philosophical point, but it's an important psychological and relational point to understand that the past is irreversible. And say if we had made some mistake five years ago or ten years ago and we were labeled permanently for that mistake, then we would never be able to grow in life.

It's like one past action, if it would label a person forever, then there will be no potential for growth. But we made a mistake and we already made the mistake. So what happens is if there is no forgiveness, the forgiveness has to be there for the past.

Otherwise, there is no chance to go ahead in the future. That all of us have committed mistakes. I have done mistakes with somebody else.

Somebody else has done mistakes with me. And in the afternoon today, I took the class on this verse. Sometimes I feel that most devotees, this is probably the verse which will be the most valuable for all of us as devotees.

So let's recite this verse, the simple verse, what Krishna is saying is, yasman no dvijate loko, that one who is not disturbed by others. And lokan no dvijate chaiyaha, one who does not disturb others and one who is not disturbed by others. And one of the typical disturbances is, harsha marshabhyo dvegair.

That means when somebody listens to us, that's what we tell them to do, we feel jubilant. The other person doesn't listen to us, emerge. And if you are not sure what the other person is going to do, then there is bhaya.

And overall, if that relationship starts going south, there is udvega, there is rejection. So, mukto yaha, one who is free from all this emotional drama and trauma, yaha sacchame priyaha. Such a person is dear to me.

So let's recite this verse once together. Yasman no dvijate loko, lokan no dvijate chaiyaha, harsha marshabhyo dvegair, mukto yaha sacchame priyaha. So what is Krishna saying? Thank you.

So what is Krishna saying? That in many ways, if we consider the journey of life, so two people could be in any kind of relationship, it could be husband-wife, it could be two siblings, it could be two colleagues, it could be two neighbors. So what happens is, I am going to disturb you. That's just the way life is.

I'll do something that will disturb you. Maybe intentionally, maybe unintentionally. You will do something which will disturb me.

And I disturb you, you disturb me, and together we create a disturbed world. So now what Krishna is saying is, go against this. Don't disturb others and don't be disturbed by others.

So now the thing is, how can we do that? You did something which disturbed me. And now if I hold it against you for the rest of my life, and because you disturbed me at that time, so I keep disturbing you again and again and again. And then conversely, that I did something to disturb you.

I think last time I told all of you about Tugra Karma. There is Ugra Karma and Tugra Karma. Tugra Karma is technology utpanna Ugra Karma.

So wherever I go, some gadget always goes wrong. Sometimes it's my laptop, sometimes it's a pen, sometimes it's my recording device, sometimes it's the mic. So I was telling this in a class with a Prabhupada disciple in America.

He is very numerous. Before coming to Bhakti, he was a comedian. So then I told him, Prabhu, can you teach me humour? So he said, yes, but you will have to pay a heavy price.

I said, what is the price? He said, all my humour will be at your expense. So whenever I go, one time he attended my class. And after my class, he came and we were taking prasad together.

So I asked him, Prabhu, how was the class? He said, I have heard of many great classes. This was not one of them. So when I was in the class, I was telling him about this Tugra Karma.

He said that wherever I go, something technological goes wrong always. So he said, you know, if you go at one place and a fire starts, you know, that's an accident. But if somebody, wherever they go, a fire starts.

So now what happens is that in life, if I have disturbed you for some reason and I have hurt you in some way, now if you take that as a reason to keep hurting me, then it's like you imprison me in the version of me that was there 10 years ago. Maybe I have grown, I have become a better person. So if we don't forgive, then what happens is the other person will always stay either defensive or aggressive.

Trying to defend themselves from when we are accusing them or we are hurting them back or they become aggressive and get us back. And conversely it happens to us also that I was like that at that time, but I have changed now. So that we human beings can change.

So that is so important. We all have this hope that we can become better. We all want to become better.

And so unforgiveness, what it does is, it wastes our energy in simply being defensive or aggressive. While that energy could be better used for transformation, to actually become a better person. So we all have limited energy.

So we all have some amount of energy. Here I am talking about, you could say inner energy. Now either we can use it for defending or attacking.

Defending means somebody is hurting me and I try to protect myself from the hurt. Or you hurt me, I hurt you back. So either we can use this energy for defending or attacking which is eventually a lot of wasted energy.

Or we can use that energy for improving, for becoming better. So now certainly we would like to become better. We want other people around us to become better.

So forgiveness in that sense frees our emotional energy so that we can become better. And when we forgive others that they are freed so that they can become better. So what has happened is the past is irreversible.

Whatever somebody has done, they can't change that, we can't change that. So in that sense so that people are not locked in their past versions of who they were. So forgiveness is important.

But at the same time forgiveness alone is not enough. See what happens I said over here, there is a distance between this action and aspiration. This is an essential human tension.

That who I want to be and who I am. The tension between this. So now we all want to move in the direction of aspiration.

I want to become a better person. So on the other side because the future is unpredictable there has to be some kind of promise. A promise that I will become a better person.

A promise that I will act in this way. Attempt, a promise or a commitment to try to move towards the aspiration. Yeah maybe I was short tempered at that time and I was very selfish.

I was thoughtless. I want to become a better person. So now to some extent the future is like an ocean of uncertainty.

Nobody knows what is going to happen. But the promises we make and the promises we keep they create some at least small islands of certainty. In the ocean of uncertainty that is the future.

Say for example when a husband and wife get married, a man and woman get married. So they are making a commitment that through thick and thin we will be there for each other. So now we don't know what the future is going to be.

But that we will be there for each other that creates one island of certainty. Now none of us can have any absolute certainty. But some island of certainty is required.

Otherwise life will be totally chaotic. So for example all of you have come and sit here for the class. Now everybody who has come for the class has voluntarily come and they are interested in the class.

So when you come, we come and sit over here. When I come to speak, you come to hear. At that time there is a certain implicit promise that I will speak something worthwhile and you will pay attention.

So now suddenly right in the middle of the class the person sitting next to you turns to you and punches you in the face. See what's going on. If one time it happens people will be worried about coming to the temple again.

See this kind of people also come to the temple. So what happens is that the future is unpredictable but it is our attempt to move. So again aspiration and action.

So now action is sometimes our action is something which is wrong. And we have done something wrong so we need forgiveness for the action that we have done in the past. But there has to be some kind of promise, some kind of commitment that I move towards the aspiration.

And then that brings some level of certainty. So what happens is forgiveness is only one side of the coin. It's a very important side of the coin but along with forgiveness, one side is forgiving.

That is generally for the past. Whatever you did at this time, you spoke like this, you did like this, I forgive. That is what is associated with the past.

But along with that there is trusting which is for the future. That every time we enter into any kind of relationship there is a certain level of trust over there. When you work in a company there is a trust that at the end of the month the company will pay you.

When we come to any relationship there is a certain level of trust. When a guru initiates a disciple, the guru expects the disciple will follow the principles that are expected of a disciple. So there is a trust over there.

So now what happens is forgiving and trusting. They are related but they are distinct. So forgiving broadly is for the past.

Trusting is for the future. And the two are not understood as different. It creates a lot of problems.

So in one sense forgiveness is to be given. But trust has to be earned. So I will talk about this as we come back to this.

But let us now try to look at it. So in principle I said that life is irreversible and unpredictable. So because it is irreversible, I did something to hurt you but what can I do now? If you don't forgive me, how will we move on in life? But unless I commit to becoming a better person, why would you trust me? The unpredictability of life, to some level we want to make it predictable.

So now this is to make this a little more philosophical. So education has two aspects. To make the simple complicated and to make the complicated simple.

So sometimes what we think of simple is complicated. And we have to see how complicated it is. And sometimes what is complicated is not so complicated also.

So I am trying to go in the philosophical direction because then what we do practically in terms of forgiveness, the starting contrast, there are wars and in the spiritual books there are wars. And then they have to talk about forgiveness. How does it go together? I am trying to explain that.

So in the Bhagavad Gita's 16th chapter it is described that there are two kinds of people. दो भूत सर्गो लोकेष्मिन् दैवा आसु रहे वच्छ। Now it is interesting, although Krishna talks about two kinds of people, but here broadly what he is talking about is two kinds of natures. And he is talking about the qualities and activities associated with the two natures.

And if you see, these qualities are a mix. So while divine and demoniac are two categories of people, divine and demoniac we could say are tendencies which are present within each person. So for example, say we all have a higher self and a lower self.

I will just use these words right now. We could use the word intelligence and the mind. But the mind is not always the lower self.

So like sometimes you may say the good dog and the bad dog. There is a part of us which wants to be better. There is a higher self and there is a lower self.

So now going back to our earlier point, the higher self is associated with our aspiration. Aspiration is basically the best version of me. How I would like to be.

I always like to be punctual. I always want to be reliable. I always want to be responsible.

All those are the aspects of the higher self. Now is the lower self associated with my action? Not necessarily. My action often falls somewhere over here in between.

Now aspiration is like a more refined word for a dream. A dream often is said to depend on a lot of things beyond our control. Like when you say my dreams came true, what it means is that it's something beyond me made the dreams come true.

But aspiration is what I do to make the future better. So we could say associated with our lower self is our degradation. Now nobody wants to be degraded.

But the idea is even people who are degraded don't think they are degraded. But the idea is we could say our worst version. So our aspiration is associated with our best version.

Our lower self is associated with our worst version. Now most of the time we exist somewhere in between. So we could say often the aspiration is our public version.

So in public I might be very gentle and polite and kind. In private I might be very cruel. May be very manipulative.

That's possible. So that's my lower self. But broadly there is this lower self and the higher self.

There is daily side with each person and the asura side with each person. So now the idea is that if this is the person, now in that person there is a higher self and there is the lower self. So I just use HS and LS in future.

Higher self, lower self. So now when the person acts, so when a person acts, what happens is it is sometimes that when a person is acting, how do I draw this? So when a person acts, I will not try to make it too complicated. So here when a person acts, sometimes it is their higher self may act.

That means what happens is the best version of the person comes out. Now sometimes it may happen that their lower self may act. So it's like in cricket there are some teams which are like super unpredictable.

One day they may beat the champion team and the other day they might be beaten by a qualifier team. Like you don't know which version of the team is going to come on a particular day. Some players are also like that.

They are very moody. So what happens is like that for us when we act, sometimes the higher self might come out, sometimes the lower self might come out. And now ideally we all would like the higher self to come out.

We all want the higher self to manifest, the better side of us to manifest more and more. So now there are broadly, as I said, I will talk about these two possibilities. That the higher self manifests, the lower self manifests.

So that means higher self and the best version and the worst version. So if, let's look at this now, that if a person is trying to, their higher self is trying to fight against the lower self, then if somehow their lower self comes out and they do something which they didn't want to do, they are themselves trying to fight against the lower self. So then we should not identify them with their lower self or you are like that.

At that time, if they are doing the inner fight, then they deserve outer forgiveness. But there is a possibility that for some people there is no inner fight. Now there is no inner fight possible in two cases.

One is the higher self is so strong that they don't have a lower self at all. And the other is the lower self is so strong that there is no higher self. So now in both cases, there will not be much of a fight.

So now the higher self is so strong, those are saints, they will never do anything to hurt anyone. But in the case when the lower self is so strong, that the lower self is all that manifests. Those are people who are considered demoniac people.

And such people, that means, their distance, will, aspiration, action, it is not only great, it is becoming greater and greater and greater. Or there is no aspiration only for them. This is how I am, this is how I will be.

So if a person is not ready to fight against their lust, against their anger, against their greed, in the 16th chapter, Krishna talks about these three things as the three gates to hell. So if that person is not ready to fight against their lust, anger and greed, then society has to fight against them. Society has to fight, stop them.

So the idea is that if I can control my lower nature, sometimes it may come out, but if I am trying to fight it, I am trying to control it, occasionally it comes out, forgive me for it. But if I stop fighting against my lower nature, I surrender to the lower nature, or I start fighting for my lower nature. So then what happens? And forgiving such a person would mean disaster for society.

How do we get rid of something that is not having any meaning? We will come to that, yeah, that's a good point. But in principle at this point, so philosophically the idea is forgiveness is necessary because our lower nature against our will sometimes wins. But then if that's not happening, then the person has to be punished.

That's where punishment and justice come in. So broadly you could say, if within a person the higher self is much stronger than lower self, then it's best to forgive them most of the time. But if the lower self is much higher, stronger than the higher self, then at that time they need to be punished.

Basically justice has to be there. And justice could mean some form of disciplining or punishing. So with this understanding, let's look at the Bhagavad Gita, 18th chapter, where there seems to be two contradictory statements about virtues that are laudable for people.

We look at the Brahmana's virtues, then look at Kshatriya's virtues. So here, let's recite this verse. Would you like to read this? Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness.

These are the natural qualities by which the Brahmanas work. Very good. Thank you.

So Shanti here is tolerance. Shanti can be forgiveness, peacefulness, tolerance. So this is the quality of a Brahmana.

If you go to the next verse. Shauryam tejo dhrutirdaksham, yudhe chaapya palayanam, dhanam eeshwara bhavashyam, shatram karmasabhavajam. Would you like to read this? Generosity, power, determination, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity and leadership are the natural qualities of a perfect Kshatriya.

Yes. Thank you. So here, Shauryam, one of the qualities is yudhe chaapya palayanam.

Now Prabhupada translates it as courage in fighting. Now a palayanam is not fleeing, not running away. And yudhe is fighting.

So not fleeing from a fight, not flinching from a fight, not hesitating when there is a confrontation. Now if you see Shanti and yudhe chaapya palayanam, they are almost opposite qualities. Tolerance means whatever somebody has done, forget it, leave it, forgive it.

So this is about, don't take it too seriously, it's alright. But yudhe chaapya palayanam is when a fight is required, fight. Don't just tolerate.

In fact, don't hesitate from a fight. It's a yudhe chaapya apalayanam. So palayanam could be physically running away from a fight, it could also be mentally flinching from a fight.

Don't flinch from a fight, don't flee from a fight. So in one sense the brahmanas and kshatriyas, they have opposite qualities being described over here. So brahmanas are said to be tolerant and forgiving and kshatriyas are supposed to fight and establish dharma, establish order.

So the idea over here is, so here from the philosophical part, now I am going to the sociological part. So in society, basically relationships that are there, they are there at the level of an individual and they are at the level of a state. By state I mean you could have a country, you could have any organizational setup, you could have any company, you could have European Union like a super state, many countries, many states.

So at an individual level and a social level. So at an individual level, forgiveness is always a desirable, even essential virtue. I will hurt you, you will hurt me and I should be ready to forgive you and you should be ready to forgive me.

At the level of individual relationships, we all need to be forgiving. However, at the level of the state, as individual virtues, forgiveness is good. At the level of the state, forgiveness cannot be a state policy.

The state has to operate based on justice. The state has to operate based on law and order. So if the state starts saying that anybody who commits a crime, we will forgive them.

Then what will happen is, sometimes they say forget and forgive. So what happens is, forgive and forget. So the state will say we will forgive you and the criminals will say we will forget that there is any law at all.

So forgive and forget will work in the worst possible way. And in political philosophy right now, political philosophy is about how should, the word politics has a positive connotation and negative connotation. Negative connotation is that don't do politics, that means don't do manipulation, don't do backbiting.

But politics also refers to the way a country is governed. That's why it's called political science. We may study that in school civics in India, we used to call it before.

So now in political philosophy, there is this idea that when the government is there, how should the government deal with the crime? So now I'm talking at a sociological level over here. So why these Brahmin, Kshatriya virtues are different? So there are, as you know, there is left and there is right. So this is not, I'm not talking about geographical left and right over here.

I'm talking about political left and right. So basically what happens is whenever we function in any larger group as individuals, when we function within a collective, so what happens is the individual has to do something for the collective and the collective has to do something for the individual. So in a country we pay taxes and the country should provide us facilities.

So whenever there are social problems, so the mood of the right is that the society is good, the individual is bad. The individual should fit into the system. So like India is good, Indians are not so good.

Indians make a mess, Indians don't have a cynic sense, Indians don't do this, Indians don't do that. So the right is all about individual responsibility. The individuals, the system is good, the system has worked for others.

If you are not working in the system, if you are not succeeding, it's your problem. You work harder, you become smarter, then you will succeed. So generally the right is about individual responsibility.

That you have to contribute more to the system. Now the left is generally associated with social change, social justice, social responsibility. So the idea is, left will talk about we need to change the society.

Now there are so many poor people in the world, there is so much wealth inequality. So the right will say if there is wealth inequality, it is because the wealthy people have worked hard. They got educated, they worked hard, they were intelligently planned and they say that's how they got money.

And if people are poor, that's because they mismanaged their lives. And the left will say no, the system is rigged. The poor people, they don't just have a chance to grow up.

And the wealthy people, they keep the wealth and they pass it on generation after generation. Now who is right? Both have some element of truth in it. That the individual has to function better than the system and the system also has to work better.

So for example, Indians, often Indians who leave India, they often become very successful wherever they go. So Indians in general are hardworking, taxpaying, law abiding, family raising. And if the Indians, they felt that the Indian system was not very good, so they left.

And they found a system where their work was rewarded, they succeeded. Now to some extent India is improving, many Americans from India are coming back, many are still going. But the idea is, as some people may say the system doesn't work, we just leave the system.

Some people say we try to fix the system. So why are we talking about all this now? I am talking about crime specifically. See with respect to crime, the right has the philosophy that criminal is the problem.

Punish the criminal. Punish the criminal so strongly that that person will never again dare to commit a crime. And nobody else will also dare to commit a crime.

And the left's attitude is that actually the person committed a crime because society left him with no option. Him or her with no option. This person was so poor.

This person tried but there was no educational opportunities, no employment opportunities. What could that person have done? So let them be. Let them be.

We should not be hard on the crime. We should understand the root causes of crime and address those. So in one sense, you could say broadly speaking, this is again oversimplification, but just to connect with our subject, the right focuses more on justice.

You did wrong, you have to suffer. The left says forgive. You know that person did wrong because they were in a bad situation.

And that's why they did wrong. So now what is the right way to function? It is very difficult to say. But where the left becomes too influential, during the pandemic it happened in California, they said that anybody who robs any supermarket, like there are shoplifters and robbers, if they rob anything below $750, the police will not even press a charge against them.

So it's like there is no arrest, no register, because people are poor, they need food. And they will rob. Supermarkets, when they were robbed, people were not taking bread and basic necessities.

They were taking iPhones or second-hand, third-hand merchandise iPhones, which are less than $750. They are taking like Louis Vuitton purses. And they are taking all these things and then they are selling them on eBay.

So what happens is it created chaos. In fact, it happened, I don't know which state in America, that it happened that some thief, he broke into a house. And when he broke into the house, in that house there were small children who were playing and the owner of the house, because he was taking care of the children, he had left a knife on the floor.

And a thief jumped in and the thief's leg fell on the knife. And his leg got cut. And the thieves sued the homeowner.

And the homeowner had to actually pay for the full treatment of the thief. So the idea is, okay, I came to rob, but that does not mean I deserve to have my foot cut. You kept the knife wrongly, you are responsible for it.

So what happens is, we can go too far on the side of becoming too liberal. If it becomes a state policy that you forgive, then what will happen is crime will go rampant. So with respect to at a societal level, there has to be by default justice.

In general, if you have done wrong, you are responsible. Now as an exception, at the state level there can be forgiveness. At the state level, the forgiveness has to be exception, not the norm.

At the individual level, in our one-to-one relationships, forgiveness should be the norm. Justice should be the exception. Say if inside a family there is a property dispute.

There is no need for siblings to go to the court. Try to see how you can resolve it amicably. It is not always possible, but in individual relationships, forgiveness is what is required.

But in the state, there is more of a justice that is required. So now in scriptures, generally the Lord descends as a Kshatriya. And the Lord is dealing with downright demoniac people.

And that's why now we may see the reality of the war. I was in Princeton giving a talk and after that one professor came and he said, I read the Bhagavad Gita. He said, what Arjuna says in the first chapter, I liked that.

What Krishna says, I didn't like it at all. He says, Arjuna is saying let us not fight, let us not have any war and Krishna is telling him fight. What kind of God is this? So the thing is that often before, if you want to, see the Gita is primarily a philosophical book.

It starts from a war field. But if the war field is too much in people's minds, then it is important that they understand the Mahabharata. Or at least some things of the Mahabharata.

The Mahabharata depicts three things. How many wrongs the Kauravas did again and again and again. Horrible wrongs.

And they kept doing it worse and worse and worse. And then how many efforts the Pandavas made to try to settle peacefully. Including Krishna himself going in.

And third is how completely brazenly, shamelessly the peace efforts were rejected. So when Duryodhana says, I will not give enough land to put the tip of a needle through. So what does it mean? I don't care for your peace efforts at all.

Not even a symbolic gesture I am ready to do. So basically, going back to our starting point, that here the scriptures depict how the people on that side were completely given to the demonic nature. So normally it should be Narayana, Parayana.

But there are people who are Kamakrodha Parayana. They are surrendered to their lust and anger. And such people, there is no option at all.

So when Krishna descends as, you could say, a Kshatriya, as a manager, as an administrator, as a state leader, that when he has to deal with demoniac people, then that at that time, what is required is, strong punishment is required. So now taking that point of higher, lower, nearer and lower nature, let's talk about three kinds of people broadly. There are people with goodness.

There are people with weakness. And then there are people with wickedness. So we can say people with goodness are the people where their higher self is much stronger than their lower self.

Wickedness is people whose lower self is stronger than higher self. Weakness is where their higher self and their lower self are both almost equal. So now which will win? It depends on circumstances.

That's why they are weak. If they come under the influence of the higher self, if they come in a situation which promotes goodness, they will act well. If they come in a situation where there is wickedness, they will act wickedly.

So what happens is that people with goodness, forgiveness is by default the desirable thing. They will generally never do wrong. But if after all they do wrong, it should immediately be forgiveness.

However, people with wickedness, what happens is, here if they do wrong, they are themselves feeling bad about, oh I should not have done this. Their own conscience is beating them up internally. They don't need to be beaten up by anyone else.

Because the higher self is so strong in them. Now in this case, this forgiveness actually leads to their goodness becoming stronger. But on the other hand, people who have this wickedness, for them if there is forgiveness, what will happen is, their wickedness will become stronger.

Then they will think, okay, I got away with this, let me do it more. And they will do it more and so in that sense, forgiveness in the face of wickedness is actually foolishness. One who offers forgiveness, that is, forgiveness for those in goodness, this is kindness.

This is kindness and this is blindness. So the idea is, somebody is repeatedly doing bad things. In fact, in many ways, this is actually a defining tension in the Mahabharata.

So till now it is all philosophical. Let's discuss some stories to illustrate some of these principles now. So if you see in the Mahabharata, what is the first wrong that is done to the Pandavas? Poisoning of Bhima.

So when Bhima is poisoned, he survives, we will go to the whole story, he survives and comes back. And when he comes back, he knows that it is Duryodhana who tried to kill him. He is so angry, he said, I will beat Duryodhana.

I will teach him a lesson. At that time Yudhishthira says, no. He says, right now, Yudhishthira has three reasons.

First he says is that you have no evidence. It will be your word against his word. Second is we are new over here.

We don't really know which of the elders will support us and who will not support us. And third is that we don't want to break our family apart. Maybe he is just a little insecure.

And if we show him that we are not a threat to him, then maybe his insecurity will go away. So what happens is that at this stage, like you are asking, you are asking the question that how do we know there is an inner fight in someone or not? We don't know. So Yudhishthira in one sense gives him the benefit of the doubt.

So insecurity is natural in everyone. Say if we are doing something and then somebody else, if we are very good kirtan, we are in a community. And suddenly some other devotee comes and that devotee does just as good kirtan or better kirtan than us.

And that devotee starts getting invited everywhere to do kirtan. Then you start feeling insecure. Do I have any place or not? Do I have any service or not? Isn't it? Now this insecurity is a natural human emotion.

Sometimes insecurity may be mistaken for envy, but it's not envy. Insecurity can lead to envy. So insecurity is more about do I have some place or not? Do I have some value or not? But envy is why does this person have such a place? Why does this person have such a value? I want to pull down this person.

So envy is more in the mind. But from there it can go to enmity. Where we actually act to start to destroy that person.

So Yudhishthira gave Duryodhana the benefit of the doubt. And Bhima did not like that idea but Bhima went along with it. But then what happened? It was not just insecurity.

It was not just envy. It was active, malevolent envy in the form of enmity. And what is the proof of that? The proof was that Duryodhana tried something bigger.

See if there is an inner battle going on between the higher self and the lower self, if the person does something wrong, they learn from it and they won't do that wrong again. But he did something not just wrong, even worse wrong. Previously it was the Pandavas being targeted.

Now it was all the Pandavas along with their mother. Which was especially brutal. Wanted all of them to be burned alive.

So his misdeed worsened. And then after that there was a gambling match which was public cheating. But then after that it was publicly unfair match.

But then what was worse was that he tried to disrobe Draupadi. Now we may say that as compared to poisoning someone or as compared to burning someone alive, disrobing someone is not that big a crime. But actually it is a worse crime.

Because all those previous things were done in private. They are done in secretly. But this was done publicly.

There will always be predatory men who may want to attack women, assault women. But most such criminals will do it somewhere in some dark alley. They will get them somewhere in private where there are no eyewitnesses.

But if somebody, that means they have some fear of the law. But if somebody does this in public, that means not only they have no fear of the law, if they do it in public, if they go to police station and do it. That means not only they have no fear of the law, the law has fear of them.

And then such people, who is going to stop them? So Duryodhana's actions keep becoming worse and worse and worse. And when he rejects the peace proposal, the same assembly where he dishonored Draupadi first, then he dishonors Krishna. He tries to have him arrested.

Attempt to arrest also is a dishonor, even if it doesn't succeed. So then the Pandavas say enough is enough. So when, as I said, there is a higher nature, lower nature, when somebody shows no sign ever of acting according to their higher nature and their lower nature itself is manifesting in worse and worse ways, then there is no scope for forgiveness.

There has to be justice. And that justice was fighting and punishing. So similarly we have seen in the Ramayana also, Lord Ram, there were so many chances, there were opportunities and there were warnings and there were also demonstrations.

Hanuman, when he burnt half of Lanka, that he basically spoke to Ravana in the language he could understand. The language of force, the language of power. Your power is not going to protect you.

But still he did not accept. So when a person is not ready to give up their lower nature, when a person is fighting for their lower nature, then the only thing that can be done at that time is punishment. At that time, justice which leads to do punishment is what is required.

So there are people with goodness, there is weakness and wickedness. So now let's look at this a little bit more that say, people with goodness generally don't make any mistake. If you consider the Ramayana, Ravana is a character who is wicked.

Now Kaikai is a character with weakness. So what is her weakness? She comes under the influence of mantra. And now Lord Ram never says that she should be punished.

Now you could say it's a woman and a woman should not be punished. But Lord Ram does punish Surpanakha. Tattaka is also killed.

So it is not just that because she is a woman she is not punished. It is that she does have a change of heart. So a person in weakness, if that person comes under lower influence, they will do lower things.

They come under higher influence, they will do higher things. So when Bharat was not there, that is the time Kaikai came under the influence of mantra. But when Bharat came back and Bharat chastised her, she just came back to her and said, what have I done? She became utterly horrified.

And then she changed. She went with Ram. How do we know that she was changed? She went with Bharat to request Ram to come back.

And that was the indication that her heart was changed. The very scheme that she had insisted happen, now she was trying to undo that scheme. So in the Mahabharata, we could say to some extent Dhritarashtra, Duryodhana is the character with weakness.

So if you consider over here. And Dhritarashtra is the character with weakness. So as long as Duryodhana is there in Dhritarashtra's life, Dhritarashtra just can't do the right thing.

Even if he does the right thing for a short time, then again he relapses into doing the wrong thing. But when Duryodhana is removed from his life, then Vidura's words start having more influence on him. And then he is able to become detached and become enlightened.

So weakness is a bit iffish. So should people with weakness be forgiven? Well, yes, if they show some readiness to change. Now Karna starts off as a good person overall.

Karna comes under the influence of Duryodhana. And when Krishna goes as the peace messenger, he also talks with Karna. And Karna also has a dharma sammoha like Arjuna has.

Karna has to choose between Kshatriya dharma and Mitra dharma. Arjuna has to choose between Kshatriya dharma and Kula dharma. So at that time what does he do? Karna sticks with Duryodhana.

And that means Karna may not have been wicked. When I am using the word weakness, this is not physical weakness. Karna was physically a great warrior.

But we are talking about moral weakness here. Moral weakness means one gets influenced by others very easily. So Karna, he is himself in many ways a principled person, but his principles are misdirected.

And that's why he had to be fought and he had to be killed. So forgiveness and justice, how does this work now? Let's elaborate on this. I'll make two more points and then I know there are a lot of questions on this.

If there are not a lot of questions, I'll have a lot of questions. So let's look at it from, I said I'll make two points. As I said this goodness, weakness and wickedness.

So there is a higher self and a lower self in everyone. So now generally getting the higher, so if, so within each individual there is a higher self and there is a lower self. Now broadly speaking, if this is within the individual and then the society generally, the society is actually, individual is within the society, but for depiction purposes, I will talk about the society as a separate unit.

In the society there are essentially two leaders. There are the brahmanas and there are the kshatriyas. Now broadly speaking, the purpose of the brahmanas is to bring out the higher self.

Broadly speaking. And the purpose of the kshatriyas is to keep the lower self inside. To keep it inside, eventually to remove it.

But so in that sense the brahmanas work through shastra. The kshatriyas work through shastra. Shastra means weapons.

That if you break the law, you will be punished. Now to some extent kshatriyas can also play a brahminical role. But that's more of inspiration.

There are two separate roles over here. So, in one sense, the purpose of the kshatriyas is to keep law and order. And then they keep law and order so that the brahmanas can do the work of bringing out the higher nature.

So, because the brahmanas focus is on bringing out the higher nature. Now again brahmanas and kshatriyas, it's not by birth. It's by actually the guna karma, by their activities that they are doing.

So, the brahmanas work is to bring out the higher nature and that's why they always see the higher nature. Their focus is seen on the higher nature. That's why even if some transgression is committed against them, their mood is forgiven.

That's why Krishna says tolerate, forgive. The kshatriya's mood is what? The kshatriya's mood is to maintain law and order. And anywhere people's lower self starts coming out, if it comes out in one person, it will come in another person, it will come in another person.

It will keep growing, it will keep becoming worse. So, crush it whenever it comes. So, in many ways, if you look at books like Manu Samhita and others, some parts of these books are quite controversial in today's terms.

But often the idea was be ruthless about crime. Just punish it. Punish a person, once you punish it, finished.

Everybody will see that punishment is being done and that punishment will make sure that other people will not do something wrong. So, now what happens is the kshatriya's purpose. So, whenever there is justice, injustice, not injustice but within justice, so injustice, within justice, there are two, three, you can say stakeholders.

One stakeholder is the victim. The other stakeholder is the victimizer. And the third stakeholder is the people in general.

So, now what happens is at one level, for the victimizer, at the very least, there has to be, now this is an elaborate discussion between Bhishma and Yudhishthira. It's a huge conversation in the Mahabharata. So, at the very least, for the victimizer, there has to be restriction.

That you committed a crime, you should not be able to commit a crime again. That is the purpose of justice. Now, for the victim, at the basic level, very basic level, there should be protection.

Protection means that you should not have to live in constant threat. One crime was committed against you, another crime will happen. So, at a basic level, the victim should be protected.

Now, at a much better level, for the victim, there should be some kind of reparation. Reparation means some kind of compensation, some kind of damages that you were hurt and there should be some compensation made for you. At the best level, for the victimizer, there should be reformation.

Not just restriction, but reformation. So, restriction means make sure that the person's lower self doesn't come out again. Reformation means their higher self, their lower self becomes weaker, their higher self becomes stronger.

So, when people are put in jail, at one level, you can't commit crimes again. Or at least for the period when you are in jail, you can't commit crimes. But that's not the only purpose of a jail.

The world is a correction center. The idea is that hopefully they can get some, they can learn some vocational skills, they can learn to hold a job and then they can become law-abiding citizens. Now, people in general, the people potentially can be victims or people can also be victimizers.

Isn't it? That means, today the victimizer has made one person a victim, that tomorrow they may make somebody else a victim. So, that's one way. So, if the wrongdoer gets away with doing wrong with one person, then they may do wrong with ten other people.

If somebody does or makes a fraudulent scheme and defrauds one person of their money and then if there is no action taken against them, then that person will do it against ten other people also. So, that's one side. So, people can become victimized.

On the other side, if people see, this person committed a crime and got away with it, I can also do a crime and get away with it. So, people can also become victimizers. So, for people in general, what should happen is that we want to protect them from being victims and we also want to protect them from being victimizers.

So, for people at the very least, there should be deterrence. Deterrence means don't commit crime. Don't commit crime that you will be punished for that.

So, that is you don't become a victimizer. And at best, there should be confidence. Confidence that the law is so good that, you know, I won't be victimized.

That I won't be victimized. So, this may seem a little technical, but I think it's overall, I hope it's understandable, isn't it? There are multiple stakeholders over here. And this is all that a Kshatriya has to consider.

Now, how many state leaders consider all this? How many systems of justice consider all this in each case? That's a different thing. But broadly, when the state is acting, it's not just between the two individuals. Because it's going to affect society at large.

And that's why the state generally will be inclined towards punishment. Towards justice, which may involve punishment. And now, when the individual is involved, when the individual says a Brahmana, or the individual is explained in a Brahminical way.

So, it's just between me and you. You do something wrong, I'm ready to forgive you. So, now that is very good.

At the same time, what is involved is that, as I said, there is forgiveness for the past. When we forgive, it is for the past. And then for the future, it is trust.

So, I talked about a state at an individual, at an organizational level, or Kshatriya level, what happens. I'll talk about what happens at an individual level, then I'll conclude over here. So, let's consider a few examples here.

Broadly, when I have forgiven someone for the past, now, the question is, is this person actually trying to change or not? So, is this person trustworthy or not? So, broadly, there are two possibilities. We forgive. Now, when you talk about forgiveness, forgiveness can be at three levels.

There is the forgiveness as an intention. I won't hold it against you. I'm not going to hold this as a grudge against you.

So, as an intention, this we should always try to have a forgiving attitude. Now, as an emotion, that when we forgive someone, we feel that weight of resentment, weight of vengefulness, which is there on our heart, it goes away. Now, that takes time.

That will happen in its own way. Our intention of forgiveness will start the healing process. But exactly how long the healing will take, it depends.

But it's like if I have a wound on my hand and if I'm continuously scratching it or rubbing it, it's going to go worse. But if, okay, the wound was there, it is there now, but I'm not going to scratch it anymore. Then that will begin the healing process.

So, in that sense, if I'm constantly replaying, this person did like this to me, this person did like this to me, then I'm not allowing the healing to happen. So, I'm going to hurt myself much more. So, forgiveness as an intention, we should try to have it as quickly as possible.

I don't want to hold this against this person forever. But now, the key part comes, forgive as action. So, how do we do this? So, in general, forgiveness as an action is something which has to be done with nuance.

So, at one level, we can say forgive and withhold trust. That means, I will forgive you for now, but you have to show that you have changed. So, withhold trust.

So, we will see this in the Bhagavatam in the 10th Canto. It is described that after Kamsa killed the first 6 children of Devaki and the 8th child turned out to be the Goddess. Now, Kamsa himself would worship the Goddess.

And when he saw from Devaki's womb the Goddess has come, he just couldn't process it. What happened? How did this happen? Devaki is such a special person. Then Goddess disappeared also.

So, he seems to have a change of heart over there. And he says, please forgive me. Oh, I am such a terrible person.

How wicked and hard-hearted I am that I killed my own nephews. I killed so many children. I am a horrible sinner.

While he is saying that himself, two verses later he says, actually, you know, you can't blame me because Kali Yuga has really come. Even the Devatas have become liars. The Devatas made that Akashvani that your 8th child will kill me.

That's why I did all this. I was so foolish to have trusted the Devatas. So, he tries to push blame to the Devatas.

And then after that he says, ultimately Vasudeva and Devaki, he actually probably points to Vasudeva. Vasudeva said the same philosophy to him when he was trying to protect Devaki from Kamsa. He says, ultimately everything happens by destiny.

So, your children dying is also destiny. So, please don't hold me responsible and please forgive me. So, what happens is that here he is, it's like there is a word called an apology, non-apology.

It's like with one hand I am apologizing and the other hand I am taking back the apology. Sometimes somebody speaks something offensive and then the other person is very agitated, the other person is very hurt. And then he says, I can say, I am sorry I spoke those words.

That is real apology. If I say, I am sorry if I hurt your sentiments. What I am saying is, it's not that what I spoke is wrong.

You are such a snowflake. You are such an oversensitive person that you got hurt by it. And I am sorry you got hurt.

So, it's like you apologize with one hand but take away the apology with the other hand. So, what he is doing is like that, an apology, non-apology. But what is remarkable over there is, at that time the Bhagavatam says Vasudev and Devaki forgive.

Vasudev is such a saintly person and Devaki is such a saintly person, they forgive him. How do you forgive somebody who has killed your own children in front of your own eyes? So, it's an extraordinary thing. But the key point is Vasudev doesn't tell Kamsa, actually you know the 8th child is Krishna and he is in Vrindavan.

Why? He is forgiving but he is not trusting. Because is he really a changed person? Is he or he is not? We don't know. So, we may forgive but then we can't trust at that time.

Trust has to be old. That's why forgiveness is for the past, trust is for the future. So, now what does the future show? The future shows that he is not trustworthy.

That he for a few, for some time, he is, he is, seems to show some goodness but after that immediately he ends up becoming a terrible person. Goes on a rampage killing all babies that have been born recently. So, then eventually Krishna, Krishna has him, Krishna kills him.

So, the point is when we forgive and withhold trust, there are two possibilities. One is that person improves. If that person improves, then we forgive and forget.

We forgive and forget because we forgive and then trust. Then the relationship can become better. Or we may forgive for the past wrong but still we may seek justice.

We may punish the person, okay, I am not going to hold you for what you did wrong but I am going to punish. So, if you see, the Kurukshetra war was not fought primarily for revenge. It was fought primarily for dharma which means for justice.

So, that's why in the Gita not once does Krishna even mention any of the atrocities the Kauravas have committed. Whether it is Draupadi being dishonored or anything else at all. Point is Krishna wants to give a philosophical motivation for Arjuna to fight.

So, now if you consider forgive and forget. So, how does this work? Here we can consider. So, forgive and seek justice.

That is Vasudev with Kamsa. Now if you consider another example over here. Let's consider Ram and Sugri.

So, what happens over here that Ram and Sugri, they make an agreement. Ram tells Sugri that I will help you gain back your kingdom and your wife and then you help me gain back my wife. So, between kings there is an alliance like that.

And Ram does that for Sugri. But after that the Chaturmashti starts and for sages it is a time of austerity. For Sugriva it is like he has been for years in a zone with no Wi-Fi.

And now he comes to a zone with full Wi-Fi and there is a lockdown all around. So, there is a total Netflix binge for him. He just forgets everything.

He gets into indulgence and he forgets. So, at that time Tara reminds him, Hanuman reminds him, then Lakshman comes and shakes him up and reminds him. But then once he remembers, immediately he galvanizes the troops and then he is ready to fight.

And after that there is never any relapse. Just before the war, Ravan tries to tempt Sugriva. Ravan sends a messenger and he says that you know Vali and I, brother we had a very good agreement.

And let's continue that agreement. I never hurt you in any way. You don't mess with me.

You go back with your troops. And Sugriva says no. I am here to assist Lord Ram.

So, he does not get tempted. So, there is a mistake. He delays in fulfilling his word.

But that is he reforms over there. So, in that temptation there is weakness and he comes under the influence. of the situation.

But then there is no need to hold it against that person. So, in general for us it is important that we don't be naive and just equate forgiving and trusting and let anybody do anything. And then oh this person said sorry, let's start trusting them again.

That would be not good. But it is also not that if somebody has made a mistake, we don't even forgive them and we hold it against them forever. So, in between these two is forgive in the sense of overlook the past wrongs and give the other person the opportunity to earn trust.

And based on their actions, whether they earn trust or not, then we can act accordingly. So, I will summarize what I discussed today. Our topic was on forgiveness and justice, how to find the balance.

So, I talked about three levels. First one at a philosophical level. So, at a philosophical level I talked about how? That the past is irreversible.

And we all commit mistakes. If our mistake, we are held for what we did 10 years ago or 5 years ago, then there will be no chance for growth. If there is no forgiving, then all our energy will go in either defending or attacking.

And there will be no energy left for improving. So, therefore, what happens? We don't want this. That's why forgiving is what frees us in one sense to improve.

But we want to improve. So, for the future, that is, it's unpredictable. So, in that unpredictability, what happens is, what brings some amount of certainty is the promises we make, the aspirations we have.

So, I talked about this tension between our aspiration, what we would like to be, how we would like to be and our action. This tension is always there. And generally we ourselves, our real me might be somewhere in between these two.

So, my action may be a little way lower, sometimes may be closer to my aspiration. So, now, from the philosophical perspective, what happens is, within each person, there is a higher self and there is a lower self. So, a person who is trying to fight against their lower self, then for that person forgiveness is required.

So, the higher self is much stronger than the lower self, then forgive. But if the person is not even trying to fight against the lower self, the lower self is much stronger than the higher self and that is where justice is required. If that person is not fighting, then the society has to be fighting to control.

if I am not fighting to control my lust, then society has to keep my lust under control. If I am not fighting to keep my anger in control, then society has to keep my anger under control. So, in that sense, forgiveness and justice.

Then from a sociological perspective, it's a bit more complicated, but what we are talking about is for Brahmana and Kshatriya. They are two different things. So, Brahmanas often act at the individual level.

Kshatriyas act at the state level. So, state level, there is a different factor involved. So, I talked about how, if you consider, the purpose of the Brahmanas is primarily to get the higher self out.

To enable the higher self to manifest. The purpose of Kshatriyas is to keep the lower self under control. Even if you have dark tendencies, you should not get them out.

So, now, how to act in the Brahmanical way and how to act in the Kshatriya way, there are two parts of the class. So, when somebody is in an official position in a public role, so, we discussed for Kshatriyas, therefore, then justice they need to seek because there are three distinct stakeholders. There is the victim, then there is the victimizer and then there are the people in general.

And all of them have to be dealt with appropriately. So, victim, at the basic level, there should be protection. It shouldn't happen to me again.

At the best level, there should be reparation. Something bad happened to me, there should be some compensation that comes for me. For the victimizer, at the least level, there should be restriction.

They should not be allowed to do that again. At the best level, there should be reformation. They become better.

Then similarly, for the people, they can become victimizers. So, there should be deterrence. Don't do that.

That, don't do that, you will be punished. So, visible punishment should be done. As I said, justice should not just be done, but it should be seen to be done.

And then they should have confidence that I won't be victimized. So, in that sense, the Kshatriyas have to act at this level. But then we talk at an individual level, how do we act? And we talk about Brahmanas.

So, there is forgiveness as three distinct aspects. We are at the level of intention. You should always want to forgive.

Don't hold grudges. The emotion, it will take time for the healing to happen. The action, for it to happen, we have to decide how to act.

So, how do we act in forgive? So, we forgive. But after that, no trusting at that time. We withhold trust.

We discussed the example of Vasudev with Kamsa. And from there, we can learn to trust and the relationship can become stronger. Or from there, we can go towards justice and punishment.

So, we discussed this is where Kamsa went. And this is where Sugriva went. So, that way, for each one of us, when we are functioning in life, our purpose is we want to bring out our higher self and want to give others the opportunity to bring out their higher self.

So, we talked one more thing about all that, about goodness, weakness and wickedness. So, for those who are wicked, that means their lower self is way stronger than higher self. They are not even ready to fight.

So, for them, there has to be forgiveness only. Now, forgiveness would be foolishness at that time, that is blindness. There has to be justice in the form of punishment.

For those who have goodness, there should be always forgiveness. Now, because their higher self is much stronger than lower self, and for the weak, the higher self and lower self are more or less, they are not the same, they have similar strength. So, it depends.

Then what are they ready to do? So, it depends if they are ready to come under the influence of somebody with higher self, they are ready to come under the influence of somebody with goodness, then they can be forgiven. But if they continue to stay under the influence of somebody in wickedness, then they have to be punished. So, it depends.

We discussed the lower trajectory was Karna, the upper trajectory was Kaikai and similarly Dhritarashtra. So, in this way, forgiveness is, as I said, forgiveness and justice, it's a complex issue. In general, the state should be going towards justice and forgiveness is the exception.

The individual should be going towards forgiveness and justice should be the exception. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

So, was this applause and expression of justice or forgiveness? Sometimes, let me take five minutes to express what I felt and then we can take a lot of questions. So, we said there has to be questions. First of all, I really feel that, I always wonder, why is Krishna trying to ask Arjuna to fight? Because he also had violence in his life.

And then, how is Krishna forgiving? Does Krishna even forgive? Like in the whole thing. How does God think about forgiveness? Today, after giving your lecture, I kind of got a glimpse of how God is thinking. You know, that's what I felt.

There are so many trajectories and so many unbelievable combinations. Like yesterday, I was talking, when Mahaprabhu comes in a Brahminical role, He is forgiving. When the Lord comes in a Brahminical role, He focuses on forgiveness.

When the Lord comes in a Kshatriya role, He focuses more on justice. So, for a common person like me, with average or lesser than average IQ, when I look at my life, how many places have forgiven or have not forgiven? I don't know. And when we see so many incidents in life, whether or not to forgive is always a big question.

So, first of all, I am immensely grateful, Prabhuji, for you to bring so many concepts in one place and try to give us a picture. I don't think, I don't think, I don't think we have seen or felt or heard of anything like this. I don't know whether I will go to Saptarishni University, seeing a professor from there, coming here.

What Arjuna, what I have attended in Saptarishni University, is nothing less than what you are trying to give. So, there is a lot to be learnt at a state level, at an individual level. There is so much to learn, of course, to get it.

So, I have many questions that have come on my mind, which I am forgetting those questions also. So, you are going one after the other. I don't have time in the paper to write and forget it.

But some of them I remember, I will ask now. And when the mic comes back, I will remember again. We have enough time.

So, first question I have is, Prabhuji, many times, when we have a relationship with a person, we see, we see an extreme end of the person, especially the violent side. And once in life, you see the violent side. For example, just to give you an example, husband and wife.

They had a fight. They had a big disagreement. And the wife went to the kitchen and brought a knife.

And it just happened. And the husband is like, where is this going? Let's end the matter here. And then, you know, in-laws came in, or children came in, or something happened.

And they settled the matter. And next day morning, she is cooking upma, idli, or something. But then every time he enters the kitchen, he is going to look at that knife.

It happened yesterday night. It's an incident that we can't erase. Because there was an extreme end of a human reaction.

How do you deal with, how do you remove that memory? Because now the person is actually showing improvement. But then that edge of, you know, what you saw is very scary. And it can repeat again.

The person is capable of doing it again. Because he has done it once. Now, will he do it again? You know, it's between him and the husband.

But he has done it once. How do you deal with such emotions? So, if in a close relationship, somebody has shown a streak of violence, then that scars the other person's memory for life. And how does one go on in that relationship? Yeah, it's a difficult question.

See, in the West, this is called as intimate partner violence. And it's quite a serious thing. Generally, it's males to females.

But female to male is also possible. Generally, the male to female violence gets reported much more. The female to male violence, you know, it is, the males feel much more embarrassed to report it also.

For various reasons, it is under-reported. But in general, by nature, the males are stronger. So, the violence occurrence also is, male to female is much more.

But this is a serious issue. And I'll go back to, first, how to address it, I'll see how this particular tension comes over here also. Let's see, is it an individual thing or is it a social thing? Now we say it's an individual thing, but let's take it a little bit more.

See, in the Mahabharata, there is a difference between a crime and a sin. A sin is more of a moral lapse. A crime is a legal wrong.

So, now a sin is something which can be forgiven by the church, by the temple, by the religious organization or even, say, by the people involved. Say, if somebody has an extramarital affair, that's a sin. Now, how that people are going to deal with it, that's up to them.

But it's not a crime. If there is a violent sexual attack, there is a rape, then that's a crime. So, there is a difference between a sin and a crime.

And one of the topics of Bhishma Yudhishthira discusses is that, should all sins be made into crimes? So, for example, taking alcohol, should it be a crime? Or to what extent should the police or the state be legislating morality? So, now this is not an easy question to answer. But what happens is that if every sin is made into a crime, then the state will become way overburdened. Like, say, speaking lies is not good.

But if somebody speaks a lie, then should the police get involved and punish the person? Now, if you are lying on a legal document, lying on a written testimony in court, that's a different thing. So, there is a sin and there is a crime. The sin is more the domain of the individual relationship between guru and disciple, family members or whatever.

Crime is an issue with the state. So, now, in the Catholic Church when there was child abuse, other organizations, there has been child abuse, child sexual abuse, child physical abuse happened. So, one reason the church covered it up was that they thought it is a sin and will forgive it.

But the state said, no, it's a crime. You have to report it immediately. So, now, if there is some unpleasant altercation among a husband and wife, and say, sometimes things become physical.

Now, is it a sign of sin or is it a crime? It's definitely wrong. Now, once it goes into the public domain, then it becomes a crime. And then after that the relationship, it becomes very difficult to restore the relationship.

Sometimes that is required in some rare cases. But now, when it is a sin, so, basically what happens is, continue this theme of weakness and wickedness and goodness, you could say that when a person does something wrong, wrongdoing, it can broadly be three categories. It can be circumstantial wrongdoing.

Then the other could be intentional wrongdoing. And in between can be conditional wrongdoing. By conditional I mean, there is no adjective for conditioning.

There is no English word called conditional. So, I am using the word conditional. So, what happens is that after somebody does wrong, there should be internal regret and there should be external reform.

Now, if the wrong is circumstantial, then there is both, internally the person feels bad and externally the person changes. If the wrong is intentional, then there is neither regret nor reform. So, Duryodhana did not change for the better and did he feel regret after trying to humiliate Draupadi or after trying to burn the Pandavas? Actually he felt regret.

His regret was that my plan was not successful. So, the thing is, now in some ways if there is regret and reform both, then we have the forget and forgive. But what happens is, in between there could be regret but no reform.

That means the person actually apologizes, not just apologizes but feels bad. But the conditioning may be so strong that they keep doing the same thing again and again. So, now this is a difficult case to deal with.

But then if there is regret but no, regret is there means what? That my lower self became stronger, I feel bad about it. That means I have enough higher self to recognize that my lower self becoming strong is bad. But still they come back and keep doing the same thing.

Then the person has to be ready to accept some external restriction voluntarily. That now I can't control myself, I keep doing the same thing again. So, I will accept some boundaries myself.

So, for example, somebody is alcoholic and they are trying to recover from alcoholism and they keep doing the same thing again, again and again. Then, but that person, each time they have a relapse, they regret it. I am sorry, I will never do it again.

And they again do it. So, then they should be ready to accept some serious external regulation. Maybe I will not keep any loose cash with me.

I will never go to any party where any alcohol is there. In some places if somebody is alcoholic, they try to recover from alcohol then you inform the neighboring bars and they don't serve alcohol to that person. Whatever regulations are there, the person is ready to seriously accept some limitations, some boundaries, some restrictions.

Then at least that person is showing sincerity that I don't want to do it. So, now coming or applying all this to your point about Zoll background that when we are scarred, naturally we can't just give up the scar. But it has to be more focus on not about what will that person do and what my mind gets triggered.

But how that person is. So, everybody has a dark side and that because their dark side went to a particular alarming level in the past doesn't mean that it's going to happen again. So, if there is regret and if there is reform, then it's best to try to consciously cultivate the memories of that person being a good person.

So, we can't change our memories but we can choose which memories we replay. So, by choosing those memories to replay then what happens is we can actually focus on the positive in the relationship. But that other person also needs to be especially cautious.

That person has to be cautious that I should not do anything which will trigger my partner like that. So, I think if both sides it is there, the person who has done that wrong thing, that person is aware that I did this and I don't want to ever do this again. Person very cautious to not even go in that direction.

And the person who is on the other side, okay, cultivate the positive memories of that person more. So, in one sense we all have to have a, I met a devotee from Europe recently. He told me how he came to bhakti or he came to God and eventually came to bhakti.

He said he used to get very angry and when you get angry you just throw objects around. And you cause some damage, destroy some objects. And he said that one time he had got angry and he was throwing some things around and he picked something to throw.

His wife screamed, stop! And then he realized he had actually picked up their baby. And he is about to throw the baby. So, what had happened was that it's a newborn baby and before the baby had been born, they had got like a baby doll to learn how to take care of a baby, you know, how to give respiration if the baby stops breathing.

So, for training they had got the baby. And he in his anger thought that it is a doll. And it was actually the real baby.

And when he saw that, he stopped immediately. But he says that was the time I really got scared of myself. So, in one sense, he said that made me really take it seriously.

I have to change. And then he said, I started reading books on philosophy, psychology. Then eventually I came to spirituality.

Then I came to Krishna Consciousness. The point is that each one of us, we need to have a healthy fear of our dark side, of our lower self. That maybe you may say it was one time only I did that.

Why are you remembering it? But instead of being accusing the other or being defensive, be ourselves. I had gone nearly that far. So, that means that that side is with you.

So, that side is there within me. So, I have to have a healthy fear that I don't trigger or empower it anyway. So, to some extent, we have to have that healthy faith that Krishna can change us, that we can change, that we have a higher self.

If we focus only on our lower self, we will always become very fearful and paralyzed. But we can't just be complacent or nonchalant. And be terrified of how terrible I may become or how much wrong I can do.

And then that helps us to stay on track. Thank you. It was a very good answer.

Thank you. I got some very good points. So, I think the person who is performing such an act, they have to go through a lot of internal introspection.

And they should make sure that the dark side doesn't come out again and again. And the person who has played such an act has to understand that it can happen because everybody has a dark side. That's necessarily not the way the person has mostly behaved.

It was one of the cases. And you should try to remember the memories, which will improve the relationship rather than destroy it. That's what I would do.

Yes. So, what I spoke in 11 minutes, you spoke in 50 seconds. So, I would like to take this opportunity to look at all the wonderful couples here.

I would like to say something that me and my wife, we keep seeing many times. We have come to spirituality because we are married. But we are carrying the past baggage.

And sometimes we see that husband or wife doesn't matter. They go hurting the opposite partner to a very extreme extent. Sometimes we should understand that we are actually putting scars on each other.

And the other person also can't say that every act is a scar. That is also another act. Yes, there will be tensions between couples.

And we are bigger family. Don't think that me and my wife are any counselors. We also have counselors.

We also have a lot of dark sides, up sides, low sides. But while we are in a relationship, we have to be very careful that we are not putting scars. We should make sure that we are not putting a scar on the opposite person.

Because scar can be an extreme inhibitor. And then the call happens and then both of them blame each other. That Prabhuji, she is told to be like this.

Why did you even get to that point? And another thing, just because we have somebody to listen to, doesn't mean that every issue has to be brought to the person. A house is a place where you can talk and sort out things. When you talk to someone, you shouldn't talk to them.

It should not come out. Doesn't mean again that it should not come out. And we should have a friend in our spiritual life and attend lectures like this.

This is gold. This is real valuable gold. Gold price is raising there but this is what is real gold.

So many times I have seen that wife calls and she tells so many bad things about the husband. You almost predicted that fellow is nothing less than Osama Bin Laden or something like that. Don't take me to that point.

Because you know what world is going to do? They are only going to take advantage of your weakness, of you telling it. You have to think what is your role also in it? What did I do to trigger something like that? Of course there are some bad people but those bad people are in web series, not in your house. Because unfortunately we are seen crying at the last edge today.

Earlier that was not the case. For example, somebody cut somebody's head off in Rajasthan. You wouldn't even know that sitting in Rajasthan.

That is not even possible. But today news is showing media things around the world. And then you are thinking it can also happen to me.

So we are already surrounded by extreme examples of what media can show. Exposure to extreme. So you can add it then.

You are hearing all this but you can tell your perspective. Now that perspective when you are seeing all that crying with web series and movies and news and all that and then you come into argument with your own spouse or your children or your parents or your friends or your neighbors. Then you start imagining or you start performing.

It can bring out the dark side of you. So I would say it's a over for me. That from my childhood, for some reason, I like horror movies.

I don't know why. Horror movies, you know. It's not like I like to see the devil.

Whenever the devil comes, I lower the volume and close my eyes. But until the devil comes, I'm excited to see. But often I'm thinking that, you know, that has created a very bad impression inside me.

You know, I'm not appreciating something nice or I don't know why it was an example. But movies, media and so many things around us is affecting and I don't think it's not affecting us. It is affecting us.

Now whether we want to trigger our darkest side in front of the most precious person in our life. Whether it's a friend, wife, husband, children. You know, we have to be really careful.

And don't think the solution is there anywhere else. Because today, okay, this is my second question to you today. Is that you talked about state reforming.

And then you talked about Brahmins reviving the good side out of you. And the Kshatriyas subduing the bad side in you. You know, there are many government acts that have been passed for valid reasons.

Like SCSC Act or Dalits Act or, you know, Husband and Wife Act where, you know, Alimony Act or, you know, some kind of protection act. There are so many acts of government that were passed for the right reason. You know, from a Kshatriya perspective, they were done.

If I can relate to this. But the society is not revived from the other end. Now what is happening, if there was a validity for them to be done, and even now they might be valid in some reason in some corner of India.

Right now they are being abused to the maximum extent. You know, even in devotee community, I am sorry to say, the moment you say devotee community, we are not devotee community. We are trying to become a devotee.

So with that thing, the wife is calling and telling, I am going to sue my husband and can you tell me, should I put alimony case on him, should I put this case on him, should I put that case on him. What is the difference? That fellow didn't even do all that. You know, but now you are going to an extent where you are ready to do anything, you know, to get.

And if you go to a lawyer, the first thing lawyer is doing is, he is putting all those acts, he is telling, he is educating how to, you know, how to more, worsen the situation. And then finally parents come into place and they say, what are you both doing? You know, let's sit down and let's discuss, don't get into that extreme thing. So my question is, Prabhu, with all these things that the state has done, Kshatriyas have done, without revival from the Karmanas, how do you deal with the insecurities in the mind, that, you know, people can go to any extent to harm you tomorrow? It can be spouses, it can be friends, it can be communities, like Dalits or SCs, there is people.

How do you handle such fear? That's almost a class. So, I will start with the last point and if we come back to other points, we will look at it. But, so, the government tries to do something for curbing the lower side of people.

But then that ends up itself, when the government does something to curb the lower side of people, that ends up sometimes facilitating the lower side of some other people. Some other people start using it. So something, I will give a more related, shocking or more tragic example.

In America, I go to various places, one devotee who hosts me in one place, they both, the husband and wife called me and they told me, we are planning to divorce. And both of them were together on phone, normally people are going to divorce, they won't be together on phone to call. I had been there many times at their home, I said, what happened? So they said that they have a small daughter and the daughter has got some very complicated Lyme disease or something like that.

And, it is, there is treatment but it is a super expensive treatment. And their normal insurance doesn't cover that. So, they are well-to-do but still it is a very expensive treatment, it is an experimental treatment, whatever it is.

So, when they talk with, they go to the hospital, specialist hospital for treatment, the hospital itself told them that, you know, if you divorce, then she becomes a single mother and as a single mother, the state will provide for the treatment. So, now the thing is that in the West unfortunately it happens that sometimes men and women unite and the man doesn't want to take responsibility. Most of the time the woman will abort the child.

What else can she do at that time? It's a terrible thing but it's a terrible situation. But in the times when she has a child, and she gives the child, then who is going to take care? The state should take care of the child. And the state should provide support for the mother and she can take care of the child.

But what has unwittingly happened by that is that for a woman, if she is married, then she has to work, her husband has to work and then take care of the child. But if she is unmarried, then the state will provide facilities. So, a single mother may not even have to take a job.

In some states the government provides so much facilities. So, one of the principles in the Vishwa Upanishad is Om Purnam Adah Purnamidam. So, the idea is Krishna is the supreme whole.

Now the idea is each whole should be complete in itself. So, the family should take care of the family. The community should take care of the community.

The state should take care of the state. So, the more a smaller unit starts depending on the larger unit, the more the smaller unit starts becoming weaker. So, in the West also, before the previous century there were no old age homes.

There were people who take care of the elders. After Second World War what happened in America, America was very prosperous and all the war veterans came back. Many of them were injured.

The state said you have all served us, so we will take care of you. And they built elaborate housing and they created all supports for taking care of them. Now what the state could have done at that time is that we will provide the support to your family so that your family can take care of them.

So, then the generational bonds would have been there. But instead they said we will take care of them. And the result of that was that idea of generational bonds were broken.

And now it's almost a norm that the children never take care of the parents. It's not even expected. That's not at all a good thing.

So, unwittingly, now it may not be intentional, but if support from a higher level weakens the lower structure, then that is unwilling. So, that's why what you are talking about is in a family if there are problems, you know, sometimes we need to vent out. We need to speak to someone else.

But whoever third person we speak to, that third person should not be weakening the family bond. Should be helping to strengthen the family bond. Many times, especially in America, I see that Indian couples, even if they have their differences, quite often they work out their differences.

But when they come to India from America, your sister said this to me, and your brother said this to me, and your mother said this to me, and your father said this to me, and then it just becomes unnecessary fight. I am not saying it happens all the time. But the thing is, when there is a larger unit, and the larger unit does not support the smaller unit, then it becomes a big problem.

So, like the law also, the law, if its focus is on not on supporting the family unit, it is on fragmenting the family unit so that they can make more money through the court. Because in the law, how it is that the more the damages a particular spouse gets, the more of a percentage the lawyer gets. The longer the case goes on, the more the lawyer is paid.

So, that's why, that is a bit of a tension that when there is a problem in one particular unit, ideally speaking, the unit itself should be trained to deal with that. The family should be able to solve the problems within the family. But if they cannot, then there have to be the larger unit which actually supports the smaller unit.

So, unfortunately, many of the state policies say the way they are right now, that they don't support the smaller unit. And that's why it's like the pendulum very rarely stays in the middle. So, it goes from one extreme to the other extreme.

You know, the other extreme, it goes back to this extreme. So, I think, that's why for us as spiritualists, when Krishna Consciousness is not just like adding one more activity in our life, I come to a satsang or a chant Hare Krishna, it's like a whole world view. And within the world view, loka sangraha mevapi sampashyam kartumarasi loka sangraha is the maintenance of the world.

So, maintenance of the world means each unit in the world. It could be a family, it could be a country, it could be a community. So, each one of us needs to become better equipped to play our role in the maintenance of the community, in the maintenance of the larger whole that we are a part of.

And the larger culture, how does it influence? There is philosophy of everything. There is philosophy of media also. So, the philosophy of media, they say, does the media reflect the culture of the society or does it affect or shape the culture of the society? Now, both are there, true.

But in many ways, because the media depicts the most extreme things, that can fuel our fears. And once that happens, then again, that larger unit, it is eroding the strength in the smaller unit. Everybody needs entertainment, Taahara, Vihara, Vihara is also there.

So, recreation is required. But the recreation should not be causing weakening of the bonds that sustain us. Does this answer the question? Yes, definitely.

Thank you very much. You know, I have played two, three cases in the last one or two months. And here it is extreme.

You know, the SCSD case has been filed. It is become a tool now. Just for sake of telling, like one of the family who was the founder of this sector here.

And they stay in a flat. And there happens to be one religious person in that flat. Not Hindus.

And they decided that they want to take over all the flats. And forcefully make them sell. And they have got nothing to do.

And then, now they file the SCSD case on their family. Who filed? The watchman in the flat. That you are discriminating against.

That you are discriminating something. And the case is filed and the rest of it is issued. And now they are telling, you sell it for a less price or get out.

Or you go to the jail. You know, it has become extreme. And this is not the first one.

You know, I do not want to keep telling cases. That is not the goal. But the way the system is being abused.

You know, the way, the kind of fear that is created. And it is actually happening in front of our eyes. So, I told you, do not go and look at your watchman.

That is not the goal. But, you know, the principles that you told, the Brahminical revival is very essential. Otherwise, this kind of laws and things that are kept in place, really extreme.

See, laws, it is like, again, the Mahabharata, a lot of fascinating discussion. So, one of the principles about, to what extent can laws help in bringing about change in human behavior? So, it is that, can a top-down effort bring change at a ground level? Well, it depends on whether there is ground-level appreciation of the need for the change. If that is not there, two examples of this.

Say that, in Australia now, recently they have made a very strong social media ban for teenagers. And, at one level it is good, but what has happened is, France also, what has happened is basically, in Australia, the VPN subscriptions, there are 10 times they multiplied. So, basically, everybody changes their geo-locations and they access from elsewhere.

So, yes, you can ban it, but unless we have some communication with the teenagers and persuade them that this is harmful and therefore you should not do it. Just a top-down ban will not work. In America, the government tried to ban abortion.

And, all that happened was that, the Republican states, they tried to ban abortion, and the Democratic states, they just became like asylums for abortion. And whoever wants to do, they can just go there and the way the issue has become that. Now, abortion is not at all a good thing, but when it's top-down imposed, it just doesn't work.

So, that's why the umbilical approach is more like a create a ground-level awareness of the need for change. And once that is there, along with that, if there is a top-down imposition also, then that is helpful. So, for example, Singapore is ruthless about drugs.

It's absolutely, the Middle East country is also quite ruthless, to some degree, but Singapore, but whatever that is, there is also a lot of education about the harm of drugs. Then what happens is, so that's why I said that, now there is normal education, but there is also education about values, education about spirituality. So, that is what is most important.

Without that, a top-down approach will not work. I'll just, I'll put this thought at the end of the panel. What I also feel from your explanation today, is while the state acts are there, we using them to our advantage, we may get us justice, or so-called justice in this world, but up there, the calculations are different.

We have to ultimately face the act up there. But that awareness only comes when you come to Krishna consciousness. That's why, what is that saying that, you know, if a person has no fear of God, then you should have real fear of such a person.

If a person has no fear of God, you should have real fear of such a person. Yeah, because for them there are no boundaries. They just think that, if I can get away with it, then whatever I can do, anything I can do.

So, that fear of God is a good thing. Now, we don't want only fear of God and nothing higher. But fear of God is an essential civilizing force in society.

Madh bhaiyaat, vaati vaat toh, I've got to come to Bhagwat also. So, any of the behavior, I'm telling this to myself, but I'll talk to all of you, is that, after giving this lecture, there's a lot of, I'm going to give it again, give it again, because so many points have been touched upon, something came to my mind, so many points have been touched upon, I think, I'm going to start thinking of my actions as a reaction to the opposite person, and necessarily it will not be an immediate change, but it is something that will work out. At the same time, misuse of laws for my advantage, in whatever situation, I'm answerable somewhere else also, and at least coming to these classes, if my behavior doesn't change on that aspect, where we start really bad-mouthing our own people, our own families sometimes, our own children, parents, issues in the house coming out, all the way out, please understand that it's not going to help, it's not going to help.

There is a saying, you know, in the earlier days, in Telugu, so it basically means, that don't come between husband and wife, you'll be a fool ultimately, let them sort out those things, that's how our ancestors looked at it, and that's how it was sorted out also, so I think the commonest thing was to pick up Krishna in the center, let's try to resolve our issues at our home, don't bring it into public domain, even though we say we are devotees, even though we say that it is satsang, still, take it in the right spirit, we are not part of the family, if it comes out, it's out, and then who will use it as what example, how they will take advantage of you, you are completely vulnerable, and you can't come there, so we have to bring our best behavior, and forgive each other, like Prabhuji said, forgive each other, keeping the good memories, and trying to get away from, not remembering the bad memories, thank you very much, questions? Yes, very insightful, forgiveness, intentionally we should always forgive, so sometimes, we have this tendency, it is very difficult, to forgive someone who has hurt us, so then I keep saying, what I have been doing is, I will forgive him, when I have a deep thought, because that person has done something to me, let me do something to him, and then after that I will forgive him, so is it a lower side of ourselves, or do we have to develop, ourselves in such a way, or do we have to develop, a very strong shield around us, like it could be through spirituality, or feeling higher, that we are naturally able to forgive him, so this is my question, intentionally, yeah, so, sometimes, we want to forgive, but first we want to get even, then we forgive, so, we get the score to the neutral, then we can do it, I think, what happens is, rather than thinking of getting even, in every relationship, there has to be an awareness, that actions have consequences, so in general, what we are doing is, if we are forgiving, we are saying, this action will have no consequences, but the result of that can be, that action can get aggravated, that action itself can be done more and more, and that should not be happening, so now, it's not so much, hitting back at the other person, but creating deterrence, in some way, that is important, now, you see, India, Pakistan, China, India, Pakistan, India, China, there have been many wars in the past, there has been Sindhu war, but apart from that, after the 1990s, there have been no major wars, and one major reason for that is, that all three are nuclear powers, so, it's what is that, you call it a MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, that I will destroy you, you destroy me, so, that deterrence has come, and that's why, the war has not gone above a particular threshold, so, I think, in every relationship, there has to be some element of deterrence also, that, so now, that means, if I do something wrong, there will be consequences of that, so, forgiveness is not a one way street by which, one person keeps doing wrong, wrong, and other person keeps forgiving, forgiving, forgiving, and other, our point, is not to make it easy for the other person, on the lower side, to keep acting out, if that's happening, then that's not at all good, so, I would say that, wanting to get even, and then forgive, that's not a healthy thing, but, setting some boundaries, and creating some deterrences, deterrences means what, you know, this is one time, what is that saying that, if you cheat me once, shame on you, cheat me twice, cheat me thrice, cheat me four times, then, it's shame on me, that is like, why am I trusting you, I am a foolish person over there, so, cheating is a very big thing, but what I am talking about is, that there has to be some deterrence, so, that's forgiveness, means that, so, I would say that, how the deterrence comes in, that has to be clearly communicated, and that's why some candid discussions are required, so that, if this happens again, then, you know, I am happy to, I am okay to forgive this, but, it should not be happening again, then the actions will have consequences eventually. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, Nishanath, I would pronounce, thank you for this wonderful lecture, Prabhuji, I am an associate professor, so, my question is on behalf of teachers and mothers, very often now, we have single children, only one child, single child, and even in our college of girls, we are forced to forgive them, which is not correct, so, I feel I am doing a lot of injustice to my profession, and as in motherhood also, when we have a single child, we are forced to forgive because we don't have a child, so how to deal with this anxiety that is building… What do you mean by forced to forgive? See, we are now in a management where when we want to correct the action, it is considered as criticizing a person, now the education is such that the teachers are scared of the students, it's no longer that the students are looking up at us, it is completely changed, so there is a burden of guilt in my mind, even as I was listening to you, that by forgiving these girls, I am doing some injustice because they are going to face the music in the world, they are doing, they come back to us, and they come back to me and they say, ma'am, Shankari ma'am, you know what, this happened, I want to give it a word, did it correct this this kind of inflexibility. So how do we deal with this, where forgiveness itself is becoming a sense of guilt? Yeah, right. So see, thank you.

Very important question. Thank you. So, thank you, so, when we talk about forgiveness, sometimes the way the system is, if we have a single child, then whatever they do, that is the only child we have, so we keep forgiving.

In the school educational system now, it's that, you have to be very sensitive to the children, we should not demoralize self-esteem, so we cannot criticize them. Then we end up not disciplining them, and then they get into trouble with the world. So I think that is the leftist worldview and the leftist philosophy has permeated far and wide, and one of the areas that is permeated is in the education.

So it's not so much come in the STEM fields, but in the humanities, what we call the arts, it's come quite a bit. So what happens is that when, let's put it this way, that when we want to express love, we want to express care, we want to express affection, there are multiple levels. First is we protect those whom we love from wrong actions.

Now how do we protect them from wrong actions? By education. By educating them, by cautioning them, by creating boundaries for them. Now second is that we protect them from the consequences of wrong actions.

That means if somehow, if they're doing something wrong, then what do we do? We protect them. Say, if our child drives drunk, takes a car and drives drunk and then the police catch them. Now the fine for that is very huge.

Parents may go and say, I'll take care, please overlook this. We may, or they cause some damage to someone, they may get seen because of whatever. Then we talk with the neighbors.

We may seek forgiveness. Like the child is disciplined by the school, the parents may come and request the principal or the teacher, please. So that is also an expression of love.

Protecting our loved ones from the consequences of their actions. But at a particular time. So first is, they don't do the wrong actions itself.

Second is, if they do wrong, we protect them from the consequences. But the third is where we stop protecting them. This is probably one of the most difficult ways of expressing love.

That if you are not ready to learn, then then if I am shielding you from the consequences of your actions and that's keep doing those actions again and again. Then what will happen is, you are becoming a worse person, the situation is becoming worse. So you have to pull the protection off.

So in addiction, this is called there are addicts and there are codependents. The codependents they keep covering up or making up clearing up the mess of the addict. So I think that pulling off the plug, stopping the protection, that is very difficult.

But sometimes it has to be done. So what has happened in today's world, in today's world, that expression of care, expression of love or affection, that has shifted by default from the first level to only the second level. And in one sense, all three are expressions of love.

And there are different levels. But this is the worst is the best, where a person is chastised and they are cautioned and they are stopped from doing wrong. Now if they do wrong, then we protect them.

But eventually they have to face the music. Like you said, the parents or the society can protect them for some time. But eventually, life will catch up with them, reality will catch up with them.

So one of the implications of the principle of karma is that it's not just that we will be caught for our wrongdoings. It is that we will be caught by our wrongdoings. Caught for our wrongdoings means there is some external authority, I did something wrong and that external authority will catch me and punish me.

There is some truth to that. But caught by my wrongdoings means what? Each time I do wrong, that conditioning becomes stronger. And I'll keep doing that again and again and again.

So a child may say, I'll smoke, I'll drink and I won't get caught for it. I'm clever enough. You may not be caught for smoking or caught for drinking but you will be caught by smoking and drinking.

Because… So that's why sometimes this third level if we don't stop protecting, eventually we will also not be able to protect only. Because the consequence will become so big. So society is that because of the leftist level it's more at the second level right now.

Let whatever happen. What do we do? I think there is some level of pushback happening in the west. You know in some parts of the world at least there is a pushback against the extreme leftist ideology in society.

But in India it's not. India you could say the rising of the Hindutva is more at a political level. We have again a comeback of the right.

But still that has not permeated to other areas in life. Say in the movie culture the right has come up a little bit now where movies depicting nationalistic themes and Sanatana Dharma in positive ways are coming up. But in the educational front it's not come up.

So broadly what do we do? It's a big question. Three things are possible. One is we work inside the system.

The second is we work outside the system to pressure it. Third is we create a new system. So different devotees are trying different things.

Work inside the system means we are a part of the education but wherever there are possible, there are some like minded people. Maybe there is a particular department where the head is in a particular way. They understand the importance of discipline.

So we work inside the system. The other is outside the system means that we work to change the laws like a think tank which changes policies. Third is we create a new system.

That is where some devotees are working trying to start Gurukul or start some educational system. So it is a difficult situation but I think we have to try our best. And sometimes fighting for some principles means that we have to pay a price.

But overall it's like people may not appreciate immediately but they will appreciate it in the long run. And sometimes that long run we have to wait for that. I have read that very many times I have felt that I was in the shoes of Bhishma to be honest with you because Bhishma's forgiveness gave rise to the Mahabharata God I strongly feel.

So I am also like that. Sometimes I think even I may get a better value when I die because as a teacher I am not able to condemn the wrong things because it is not our kind of society. So it's an internal war that we are facing actually.

Am I correct in my… I am not sure I have not read the Bhagavad Gita to that extent to really understand but I somehow feel Bhishma's forgiveness led to the Mahabharata God. I may be wrong. It's my… I won't go into that part so much in detail but the point is that sometimes we are in a system and we can't really change the system.

So Krishna says that every endeavour is covered by fault just as fire is covered by smoke. So sometimes we have to accept that this is a faulty system so I have to be a part of that system. So now we don't want to be the fault increasing part of the faulty system.

We can try to be as less involved in it as possible. We can try to be the best example rather than the worst example. Now why Bhishma remained silent is a complex issue but Bhishma is not so much forgiveness he was focused on the fact that I had taken a vow to protect the Kuru ruler whoever that may be that he didn't focus on.

So like when we do an action our intent of the action, the content of the action, the effect of the action all three need to be considered. So Bhishma focused only on the content. This is my vow and this is what I will follow.

Whatever is the effect that is the second tertiary consideration. That's how it worked out. Thank you.

Thank you. I will just put a small comment here. That's ok.

As a teacher you are trying to take responsibility of children which is amazing and actually you honestly come forward in telling this. It takes a lot of courage and honesty. I wish there are other teachers like you who are actually even thinking about it.

So having said that, the whole responsibility of correcting children cannot be with one person sitting in a college. The correction officer has to be in the house. Parents have a big role to play.

If they are not playing and the parents are sending completely spoiled brats to your college and you are standing there one against the management who is more focused on kids and their own security than really educating the children. How much can you do? It's already broken system. I'd like to share an incident.

This happened today. A few hours ago. I was introspecting on that.

We were all having lunch. Me and my wife were sitting on the table. My wife got up to get some more prasad.

There were a lot of people so the seats were not available. She said just keep my seat. As soon as she went, one other boy who is like 7-8 year old boy came and sat there.

His father was behind. I didn't see his father. I just looked at the child and said, your mother is already here.

You can go. Immediately the father became so violent. I don't know what to say.

He said, come here. I said, what happened? I said, what just happened? See the comment there. I think his wife comes to the satsang when she is attached but he is not.

He came there for the lunch. He doesn't know who we are but he has an impression on the entire divorcial community. Maybe he is scaring them.

I said, what all just happened? He just said to his child who is 7-8 year old, that these people don't know how to respect a child. I went to another place for him. Immediately I thought, it's not my seat.

Somebody else is sitting there. If you want you can take my seat. I said no, I don't need it.

Later again I went to him and I told, somebody else is already sitting there. That person told me to hold the seat. Obviously I have to hold the seat.

Try to understand. He said, that's ok. I tried my best to make sure that he doesn't carry a bad impression on devotees.

But why I am taking the example right now to your question is that, to what extent the child's consciousness is spoiled? Just think about it. The child has got, if you start writing it down, the child has got a mindset now that he is more qualified to take the seat in any other city. He has qualification.

He has got an education from his father that he can afford to blanketly say anything strong on anybody. In public, he can do that. If you start writing it down, the impression that the child has got through a single arrogant behavior of the parent which he wanted to, I don't know why he did that.

Sometimes people do that to make an impression on their wives or somebody else. They just say it. But what happened to that child is he is completely dis-educated.

If that child comes to your college, what will you tell him? He is being educated in his own language. So it's a collective responsibility that we all hold. How we are grooming our own children? Are we teaching them how to respect? If I would have been there, I would have told, you can sit down and eat.

All others are sitting on the chair. There is no chair. What is wrong in sitting here? Now all of us are going to sit down and eat.

Not everybody is going to be in a chair. But this satsang system is not there and satsang is missing in the society today. As a teacher, you being in a college, how much can you write? So please don't carry that much guilt.

More than what you can handle. There are two extremes. One is that we don't take responsibility for what is in our control.

The other is we take responsibility for what is not in our control. So both ways things can go wrong. We have to find the balance.

It's not always easy. But try your best. Expectations that we forget.

Using that as an excuse not to improve. What can we do? We cannot forget them because we know they are there. And we cannot give them a strong justice punishment because we can see the potential that they can improve.

But they are pretending to fight against us so that they can get away with the consequences. So what can we do in that situation? Pretending to fight against their lower nature to avoid consequences. Should we forgive them? It's always like a tension between when we are trying to change.

How much are we trying to change the substance and how much are we trying to change the appearance? It's like that am I becoming a good person or am I improving my looks of being a good person? To some extent, for many people the appearance is more important than the substance. I should not be thought of as a bad person. Whether I am a bad person or not, that's not important.

So now, to some extent, in some way, that person has to recognize that without the substance, the appearance is like a building without foundation. It will fall. Now if they don't realize it, if they are not ready to realize it, then it's something which we will have to decide how much trust can we put in them.

I can forgive you for our past, but when do I repose trust? How much trust do I repose? That is my choice and that cannot be forced. So sometimes we may have to have some hard discussions. See what happens, this is slightly important, that if the discussion between two people and say A has done some mistake or A has done something which appears like a mistake or a wrong decision and now A gives a reason why I did this.

So what happens is, if A's reason is not believable for B, then what happens is B comes up with another reason and that another reason may actually worsen the relationship. Like when in that when Maricha called out, Hey Lakshman, Hey Sita. So Lakshman said that Ram is not in danger.

There is no danger for Ram. This is not Maricha's voice. This is Maricha's voice, not Ram's voice.

And I need to be here because Ram has told me to protect you. Sita's concern was that Ram is in danger, why not protect him? So I am here to protect you. Sita, because her concern was that Ram should be protected, she just, why is he not going? I am here for your safety.

That reason was not convincing for Sita. And Sita came up with another reason. Other reason is what? That you have an evil eye on me.

And that's why you are letting Ram stay in danger. So what happens is that in any relationship, if somebody is giving a reason for a particular action and if that reason is not convincing for the other person, it is better to be candid. That's why the relationship is important.

You know that, I can't accept this. You don't have to outright call the person a liar. You don't have to attack that person.

But we have to express ourselves. Because if we do not, what happens is then we'll start thinking this is not the real reason, what is the real reason? And if overall we have a negative impression of that person, then what we think of as a real reason will be much more negative. And then the whole relationship will start going down.

So sometimes it's important that we, it's like some hard discussions can prevent hard situations in the future. Now those hard discussions are not always easy, but they have to be had. If the other person is saying, I'm changing, why are you not trusting me? Then you know that if we are feeling that we are just putting on a show like this.

In general terms, we have to tell. Because trust trust has to be earned. And sometimes if the other person's actions are not being trustworthy, they need to know.

Otherwise what happens is, we are not trusting them, but we are not telling them that. And they think that we are very unforgiving. So both ways, each person starts ascribing more negative motives to the other person and the whole situation starts becoming worse.

Okay? One more small question. So before forgiving, even we forgive and forget, we withhold a little bit of trust. So what if that boundary of withholding the trust is seen as an intimidation on a sign of disrespect of the relationship? See if you withhold trust, the other person sees it as an intimidation or not proximate in the relationship.

I think it's a natural thing. So if we lend money to someone, and if we give money to someone and that person put in a bad investment and all the money was lost. And then we may not want to give our money to that person again.

That's common sense. So it's like from both sides, maybe from that person also there should not be so much expectation that you should be trusting. And from our side, it's important that maybe in that particular area we don't trust that person.

But that doesn't mean we can't trust them in any area. So it's like I have a wound in this relationship in this particular area but I respect you as an individual. I trust you in other areas.

So that way I think it's that what I said, I don't disturb you, you don't disturb me. So I don't disturb you means what? That I don't withhold trust from you in all areas. So just because I made a bad investment doesn't mean that I'm a bad husband or a bad parent or whatever.

There is a bad investment. So I don't withhold trust in all areas. So that's why I don't disturb you.

But from the other person's perspective also, most take time to heal. They have to also understand you. Thank you very much.

We'll take one question and multiple questions. Okay. So I have a doubt.

In today's society how do we identify who plays the role of a brahmana and who plays the role of a kshatriya in bringing out the higher self and suppressing the lower self and subsequently how do we ourselves identify who is acting in the state of higher self and who is in the lower self. Okay. It's a thoughtful question.

So who is a brahmana and who is a kshatriya in today's world? Well, generally, most of our personal relationships should be at a brahminical level. That means with our family, with our close friends, with our relatives. Most of the interactions are at the brahminical level.

Now, if we are in an official managerial role in any larger collective, that's where it becomes like a kshatriya role. So, depending on what is at stake in that particular role, we may have to take action accordingly. So, suppose, say, we are coordinating a wedding in the family.

And then we tell somebody to get this particular item and they forget to get it. And we are not going to bring the force of the law on them. But at that time, this has to be done.

If you don't get this item, then everything gets blocked. Then we may have to take the service away from them. Let somebody else do it.

So, that way, practically, in the world, things need to be done. And if somebody proves themselves to be not trustworthy, then that will have to have a consequence. So, in that sense, kshatriya, justice doesn't mean always punishing.

Punishing means giving some bad sentence. It could be withdrawing some privileges also from some person. That may also be required.

So, when I'm talking broadly about kshatriyas, it refers to anybody who is playing an administrative role. So, within ISKCON, this often becomes a challenge. That is, some devotee commits something wrong, does something wrong.

So, should we see that that person is a devotee and forgive them? Or the fact that they did something wrong and it affected others? So, what should we do at that time? It's not an easy thing to decide. So, I'm on an address for Back to Godhead magazine. And we often get articles about how I came to Krishna Consciousness.

So, we got one article of one person who was in South Africa in a jail. And in the jail he was introduced to bhakti. And quite a nice story.

So, our policy generally, if from a particular area, a story of a personal story comes, we try to connect with the local leader and we ask them about whether they know this person and this person because we are going to, in one sense, promote that person and we are going to tell their story. So, when we wrote to the local leader, what we found was that this person, he had become a devotee in a jail, but he had gone into jail because he had molested a woman. And that girl was the daughter of a prominent congregation devotee.

So, now, can we publish that? He has become a devotee but what he did was terrible. So, then, he was aspiring from a spiritual master. He was for a long time in a jail.

Aspiring from a spiritual master. Spiritual master said that one chanting of the holy name forgives all sinful reactions. So, he said that our point is this is not a sin, it was a crime.

Isn't it? So, at an individual level, nobody is stopping him from practicing bhakti. Nobody is going to say that because you did that to that devotee's daughter, we are not going to allow you to chant. But at a public level, we can't promote that person.

So, that's why, in that sense, there is a clear difference between the individual level, we give a person a chance to manifest their higher self. But if somebody is in an official role, then they should not be promoted at an official level. Okay? Thank you.

Other topic was it did not feel like a philosophical position at all because this is an everyday phenomenon. It impacts everybody, every day, everywhere. And fighting it is very hard.

Very hard. Especially when we are at the receiving end of it. All these gendering of words doesn't appeal to it.

When we are wrong, I don't know, dictionary doesn't help there. And, I sometimes wonder, why divorce was introduced only between a husband and a wife. At the same time, I am very glad that no state on the planet thought that there should be divorce between parents and children, sister and brother, friends.

I am very glad that thought didn't cross anybody's mind. Because divorces are happening in every relationship. And especially husband and wife.

And there are some mistakes that those are very hard to forgive. And then you talked about individual state. But there is this third thing that I don't know what to call it.

It's the world. It's just the world. I am telling you, there was a case.

This is a very recent case. After the changing AI revolution happened with Sam Hartman, Chad Chitburty and all that. And you know this.

A boy was driven to commit suicide by changing AI. In fact, one night before he committed suicide, kid asked, I think my parents will be devastated. He particularly said, my mom.

And he said, doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. It's all over.

You should just go ahead. And then we got to read that entire letter that the parents have written to both the judiciary system and Sam Hartman. Saying that, you may think that you are just working on some technological thing.

But you are impacting every living, I mean every life here. And for us, our son is gone. So, I don't think we parents got any preparation time for all the technological advance that happened, Prabhuji.

I tell you, after two and a half decades spending my career on technology, we didn't get time. Facebook was the only thing that was there. Next thing I knew, we are bombarded, Prabhuji.

When did that, what is that? Shorts, YouTube shorts, those, the Insta rings, when did it? As a person who is in the whirlwind of technology, I don't know when that happened. And we didn't have time. And these kids don't do it like anything.

Now we have characteristics of the world. God must do them. Now, who can take my prevention? Is it the individual? Is it the state? What is the third thing that I am trying to talk about? Entities.

That's why there is a big push on ethics in India. We are talking about India for the most part. But I don't know who to forgive, who needs to be forgiven.

We are in such a conflict. Lot of points there. I don't know how much I can address.

But, I appreciate the sentiment and the intensity with which you are expressing it. It's a serious concern and I think many of you are openly expressing this. I appreciate that.

So I say two, three things. First is that forgiveness is difficult. There is no doubt about it.

And that generally, if there is a person to forgive, then at least we can decide whether I want to forgive this person or not. But when there is something abstract, then it becomes much more difficult. So, as far as preparing for technology is concerned, yes, it's a the way society has advanced in the last 2000 years, it advanced faster in the last, say, 20 years than the past 2000 years.

Advanced, you could say, changed. Overall, it's open to question. But in the last 20 years, it advanced faster than 200 years.

In the last two years, it has advanced faster than the past 20 years also. Now the problem is not just that technology has advanced, it is that how fast the technology is reshaping society. Some technological advancements or changes, they don't reshape society so much.

So, I think it's a challenge. It's a huge challenge. Now, having said that, life throughout history has been difficult.

We may compare with Satyuga and that's a different thing. But if you look at history, in the previous, say, 200, 300, 400 years ago, there were constant wars. And there will be violence and there will be killing and in the Ramayana, one of the characteristics of Dashrath Maharaj, how glorious was his freedom was, it was said that there was not a single soldier in his family who was, sorry, there was not a single soldier in his army who was not having another son in that family.

That means that if this soldier is killed, they would have somebody to take care. And not only that, they said, when they would fight, they would not kill any soldier who did not have some other brother in the family. I don't know how they would know on the war field whether they have a brother or not.

But the principle was that life is very difficult and sometimes war means horrible things happen. So, the nature of the mind is to catastrophize. Think that things have never been as bad as they are.

But life has been difficult in different ways. And in some ways the way it works is at the material level, a problem is there, we find a solution and the solution creates its own problem. And then we find a solution to that problem and it creates another problem and it creates another solution.

Now, overall through this phase, in some ways things become better, in some ways things become worse. So, I would say that this world has always been dukkhal hai. So, in that sense, we don't catastrophize the problem.

I am not minimizing the problem also but the human spirit, the atma is avinashi. And the human spirit has the capacity to rise above whatever challenges come up. Like the, like say, if we say that nowadays so many people are so addicted to their phones.

So, now if that is true, if somebody asks, if people ask me, you know, why so many kids are addicted to their phones? My answer is that's the wrong question to ask. See this, when the phones are so addictive, why are all kids not constantly addicted to their phones? Now, if you consider the digital world, what it offers in terms of dopamine hits and attractive things, it's far more than what the real world offers. But why is everybody not addicted to it? Because, you know, at the core of our being, there is a spiritual side which knows that this is not substantial.

We long for something real. We long for some higher reality. So, in that sense, the spiritual side is what will keep humanity alive.

That all the technology that is there, the technology, it can promise many things, it can provide certain things, it can take away certain things. So, exactly how it will move on, we can't say. And yes, the kids today are being bombarded in ways that no previous generation was bombarded.

And that will have its effects. But still, ultimately, they are not just children, they are atmas. And the atma has the capacity to rise above it.

But that doesn't mean that as a society we should just allow whatever is happening. How we, like you said, ethics, what ethics can be there, what ethics can be implemented, that is something which, because the technology has come at such a pace, we have not been able to implement that. But the human spirit, the soul itself is very strong.

And one last point I would like to make is that Ganga finds its way towards the ocean. So, ultimately, each one of us, whatever situation we are in, we find our way towards the ocean. There is a prominent atheist, he published his conversation with AI about the existence of God.

Now, what had happened was that there are many good arguments for the existence of God, also logically, rationally, using scientific evidence also. But in the mainstream academia, they have been sidelined. But there have been spiritually minded scientists also who have written a lot of papers.

So, that was not available in the mainstream media. But then AI has got the repository of everything. So, this atheist is like a long conversation.

And he tried, he was making arguments about how God does all this and AI was responding. And he published it with the intention of trying to show that how AI is biased against atheists. But the effect was that he was making logical arguments and AI was refuting all the logical arguments.

So, it ended up, actually, so many people who read that, they said that there are so many arguments for the existence of God, we didn't even know that. So, in that sense, there is no complete curse in this world and there is no complete blessing in this world. So, AI, in what ways it may in future facilitate spirituality.

It is ultimately, the spiritual instinct is there within the soul. And can it facilitate spirituality? It can. So, let's not catastrophize.

But at the same time, what can we do to prevent this? So, that's what, I think when I had done that talk in, say, I talked about this, there is outer power which comes through technology. And there is inner power that comes through spirituality. So, outer power means the power to have many choices.

So, technology can increase our choices enormously. But inner power is among those choices to make good choices. So, ideal situation is where we have both outer power and inner power.

Now, the development of outer power is something which is happening through technology and we can't stop that. But if we consider among these four quadrants, like the person, this is super effective. If a person has outer power and inner power, like today, if somebody can use technology and then they have, they want to make good choices, they can really make very good choices.

Now, if somebody has inner power but no outer power, they will be under effective. Like if somebody doesn't use technology, then they will reach only a small number of people, they cannot feel it. Now, if somebody has neither outer power nor outer power, they will just be ineffective.

They will not be able to do much. But the real danger is at this stage, if somebody has outer power but no inner power, then they can be destructive. So, we need to help everyone to get to this quadrant four.

So, technology is coming anyway. So, if we share spirituality, not just in the sense of rules and rituals, but more in terms of raising people's consciousness so that they can see their long-term interests and make better choices, then that is the way ahead. We can't stop the dissemination of outer power, but we can try to increase the dissemination, access to inner power.

Thank you very much.