Beyond attachment & detachment to commitment. Melbourne, Australia. ｜｜ Chaitanya Charan

Today I will discuss on a topic of how our bhakti, our retreat to practice spiritual life, how it affects our relationship and the responsibility in our relationships. I'll talk about mainly attachment, detachment and commitment. Three things I'll talk about.

So how to be spiritual and responsible, that's a broad topic. Attachment, detachment and commitment. So when I travel across the world, often different devotees come and share different challenges that they are facing, devotees or new people also.

And then while I try to address the challenges at that particular time, I also try to observe what are the challenges that are more widely prevalent. Are there some repeated patterns across the challenges that come. And one of the challenges that I have observed is that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what attachment is and what it is not.

So everything that I speak today will be summarized in one phrase. Be cool, not cold. So detachment means to be cool headed, not cold hearted.

So quite often detachment is misunderstood and one becomes heartless or cold or indifferent, uncaring. So the idea is the sequence at one level it is quite plausible, it's reasonable, but it is erroneous. So spirituality, if you become spiritual, we will, we should become detached.

That is reasonable. Spirituality, one of the characters of it, it should lead us to detachment. But the next step is detachment leads to coldness or heartlessness.

Basically no emotions, no caring. And then that leads to lack of a sense of responsibility that makes a person irresponsible. So this is often the conception.

Now, in general, most misconceptions are not 100% false. They start from something which is right and then they go in some direction which is wrong. So that spirituality leads to detachment is correct.

But that detachment should lead to coldness. That is what we will question. And now coldness, sometimes emotion may not be present.

Should that lead to irresponsibility? That also we will discuss. But our focus will be on what detachment is and what it isn't. Now, let's start by exploring why at all spirituality should lead to detachment.

The first step. We will try to understand it carefully. Then we will see how the second step goes.

So we will call this as one, two and three. So this is the conception that is there and we will have by the end of the session another sequence which clarifies and corrects this conception. So let's start with why should spirituality lead to detachment? Many of you have thoughts about it? Detachment leads to bondage.

So that would mean detachment will lead to spirituality. Is that right? Or spirituality will lead to detachment? Both could go together. So we can say that it's a good point that if we say attachment leads to bondage, then what we will by inference conclude is that if I want to move towards liberation, then for liberation, for not being bound, I should actually become detached.

So we are starting with that. Detachment is important for what? Becoming, going spiritually and becoming liberated. That's correct.

Anything else? Yes, please. To become attached, we need to let go of certain things. Okay.

To become attached, we need to let go of certain things. Okay. So what you are saying is that if you want to grow spiritually, then we have a higher attachment.

Or the right attachment or the higher attachment, you could say. And because we have that higher attachment, so as a result of that, or as a part of that, what we do is we, let's put it this way, that it can be because we want to do it or after we do it, that lower attachment might be there. We can let go of that.

Now, what do we mean by higher and lower attachment over here? Spiritual desire. No, I understand, but so what would be lower attachment? Let's keep it simple now. What would lower attachment, what are the attachments that we need to let go of? Material desires.

Material desires. Let's, material desires is a very broad term. Can we take it in terms of things? What are the things that we need to let go of? Which is not conducive for our spiritual growth.

Okay. Fair enough. So we are getting a little bit more nuanced understanding over here.

That, so when we talk about detachment, one understanding is that, that which is not conducive, we let go of that. Now, there is something deeper over here. There is the soul, then there is the mind, then there is the body and then beyond that there is the world.

And in the world there are other people. And also in the world there are objects. So, if we consider soul, mind, body and objects of the world, so what are we thinking about detachment? At what level does detachment apply? Mind.

Okay. So, detach, let me explain what I am saying is, are we to be detached from the world, from the body, from the mind or from what? Is the question clear? Okay. When I say detached, so am I meant to be detached from the things of the world? Am I meant to be detached from the people of the world? Am I meant to be detached from the body itself? Or am I meant to be detached from the mind? All.

Okay. That's a safely dangerous answer. Yeah, it's a safe answer.

So, we could say, in the scope of detachment, we could apply, include all four things over here. So, when you talk about detachment, it could be from the things of the world. It could also be from the people of the world.

It could be we become detached from our body itself. And fourth is we become detached from our mind. So, let's look at all of these one by one and elaborate on this.

Now, what is the essence of attachment? When attachment comes upon us, what essentially happens? How do we know that somebody is attached? What is the expression of attachment? Affection more generally. Expectation, bodily attachment. But if somebody is attached to something, what do we see in them? Desire, lust, emotions.

Isn't it? See, attachment is basically seen through two main things. In general, as souls, when we function, let's go back to the previous diagram, that there is a soul, mind and body. So, there are two main ways in which the mind functions.

Attachment is seen through two main things, emotions and desires. Now, are emotions and desires the same? What do you think? Okay. What is the difference between the two of them? Emotions at a physical level.

Your desires can be expressed at a physical level. When I see something delicious, my mouth starts watering. So, it's the expression of desire.

Emotions are a result of desire being fulfilled or desire not being fulfilled. It's an expression of desire. All the explanations are true.

It's a little complicated. But let's start with something simple and then we look at the new answer. Emotions are associated with the jnanendriyas.

When we see something in the outside world, we see emotions. Desires are associated with the karmendriyas. When we have desire, we want to do something.

When we have emotion, it's like somebody has done something. So, we see something and we feel something. We hear something, we smell something, we feel something.

So, emotions are associated more with the inflow of consciousness. The jnanendriyas are the knowledge senses. So, through the knowledge senses, things from outside come in and then we experience some emotions.

Whereas desires are associated with the working senses, karmendriyas. So, in general, attachment is seen through emotions and desires. Now, the opposite of that would be detachment.

So, can you say detachment would mean what? If attachment is presence of emotions and desires, what would detachment be? Yes. So, emotions, yes. Desires, yes.

That is attachment. Now, detachment by opposite, by extension would be that no emotions and no desires. Now, let's try to think about this, that is it possible to live with no emotions and no desires? You will basically become like stones.

You will become unfeeling enough. Consciousness itself means there will be some emotions and some desires. So, in one sense, this idea of detachment would seem not only impractical, but even it's impractical in the sense that we can't do it.

But it's impossible in the sense of, it's difficult to conceive it. When somebody has no emotions and no desires, how would they function at all? So, there has to be some nuance over it. That at one level, emotions are natural.

So, when we perceive something, we experience emotions. But when we talk about detachment, detachment happens at multiple levels. So, for example, if somebody has no interest in cricket, when a cricket match is going on, they have no emotion about it.

The match is going on, let it go on. So, that is also one level of detachment where there is no emotion. So, in one sense, attachment progresses, if you consider.

First is jayato vishayan pumsaha sangas teshu pajayate. Sanga is nice. That is an emotion.

And then from emotion comes jayato vishayan pumsaha sangas teshu pajayate, sangat sanjayate kamaha. So, from that's nice to I want it. That is the journey from emotions to desire.

So, attachment to detachment, when we are talking about this, at one level, we could say, that if we consider the same idea of the soul, mind and body. Now, detachment could mean at one level that when the input comes in, there is no emotion. That is one level of detachment.

There is no emotion at all. Now, generally when there is attachment, it's not just emotion. After the emotion comes recollection.

We are passing by and we see a new iPhone is going to be released. So, we feel that again I would like to buy it. But it's not just at that moment we feel I would like to buy it.

After that, we go somewhere else, maybe I can buy it. How can I buy it? Where will I get the money from? Can I sell something? Can I save something? Can I cut off something from somewhere else? So, the image is deeply inside us. So, many things come inside us, we may be passing by somewhere, it's a food item.

Let's eat this. But we go away, out of the mind, out of sight, out of the mind. So, temporarily we feel the emotion but afterwards we don't feel it.

But if there is attachment, there is, what happens? Not just emotion, but there is recollection. And it is not just passive recollection. When we say recollection, the Gita uses the word jhaya, so it's contemplation.

So, the key of contemplation which leads to desire, which leads to growth of desire, is not just a passive remembrance. Okay, like, okay, in my childhood I learnt, what was the capital of Belgium? If I remember it, I feel happy. But there is not much, maybe somebody asks me and I remember it, I feel happy.

There is no investment of emotions over there. But the key over here is that there is, in the mind, there is imagination. It is not just recollection, but it is recollection associated with imagination.

Because when we imagine, oh, if I eat this, it will be so tasty. If I hear, if I buy these clothes and wear them, I look so good. So, there is imagination.

If there is no imagination, then there is no triggering of desire. Now, from that, so recollection, there is recollection, but recollection alone is not enough. But recollection plus imagination has to be there.

And then after that imagination happens, then there is action. Of course, we have talked about desire in between, desire and then action. So, this may seem a little bit analytical, but let's look at it a little more carefully, that even when we may imagine many things, it's not necessarily we desire those things and such that we will do something about it.

So, first we perceive, then we like it. Then we keep remembering it. And we fuel that remembrance with imagination, then the desire to buy goes away.

And then we actually go into it. So, now, detachment can be at an external level and an internal level. At an external level, detachment could mean that we, at an external level, detachment could mean that we don't see it at all.

At another level, external detachment could mean that we don't do it at all. That even if I feel like buying it, I have the desire to buy, I am not going to buy it. So, this is detachment at the external level.

Now, there could be detachment at the internal level. Internal level means that we block it over here. So, I might see it, but I will not dwell on it.

I will not replay it. I will not invest my imagination in it. So, if the imagination is not triggered, then desire is also not triggered.

Now, if something we are attached to, as soon as we see something, the imagination gets triggered. But sometimes we see something, imagination is not triggered by that. Then people try to imagine.

And then the imagination, when it is activated, that's when the desire comes. So, in the sensual world, it's that people through the advertisements, through the movies, through the explicit scenes in the movies, they are trying to trigger our imagination. And then when the imagination is triggered, then the desire starts coming, it starts becoming stronger.

So, this is a very philosophical discussion. It's not so important for us because we are talking about detachment more in a relational sense, not in a psychological sense. You could look at that from a different perspective, psychological sense.

But at this point, when we are thinking about detachment in terms of relationships, so, is it in terms of primarily emotions or desires or both? So, for example, if a mother sees her newborn child, should the mother be detached from the child? No. Okay, no. Quite confident.

Okay. So, if a mother doesn't feel any emotion in connection with the child, then what will inspire the mother to take care of the child? So, that affection, that is natural and natural. So, when we talk about detachment, what are we exactly talking about? It's certainly not the absence of emotions.

Within the absence of emotions, then there is no caring, no responsibility possible and no survivable human. Among all living beings, humans are different in many ways. And biologically one way humans are different is, that human progeny need the most care for the most time than any other species.

And if human parents would not offer that care, then humanity itself will go extinct. So, the idea is, Prabhupada also says that this is natural and natural affection. So, we are certainly not talking about the absence of emotions.

So, now, from this perspective, we look at what detachment is and what it isn't. So, detachment is not absence of emotion. This will lead to, if it's absence of emotion, we talk about two problems right now.

First was that we will become like stones. You know, it's not possible to live without emotions. And secondly, we will not be able to, there will be no humanity itself.

Humanity will not, it's not just that our heart will become cold, but we will be unfeeling and will not be able to survive. So, detachment does not mean absence of emotions. Now, what it means is, it is the absence of domination by emotions.

That means that when we are attached, let me explain this to another example. See, when we are attached, when we are in relationship with someone, if that person requests something from us, do we like to say no? Say, if a child asks, I want a toy, do we like to say no? If we like to say no, then there is no relationship. So, in every relationship, nobody likes to say no to the other person's request, especially if you want a good relationship.

So, affection means that we don't like to say no. Whereas attachment is that we can't say no. Now, in any relationship, sometimes out of practical necessity or out of the well-being of the other person, we need to say no to that person.

So, the difference between attachment versus affection is that attachment is we don't like to say no. Whereas affection is, no, I got it wrong. Did you get it? Did you get it that I got it wrong? Okay, I did that deliberately.

So, attachment is what? Yeah. No, attachment is we can't say no. So, affection is where we don't like to say no.

Whereas attachment is we can't say no. Now, sometimes in romantic movies, they might say, I can never say no to you. And that might be shown as an expression of great love.

But it's not that simple. That can be very easily misunderstood. So, if you consider the relationship of Dhritarashtra with Duryodhana, was he affectionate or attached? Attached.

And now you can see that clearly there are many times when Dhritarashtra should have said no to Duryodhana. When Dhritarashtra, when Duryodhana said that let's call the Pandavas for a gambling match. And Dhritarashtra said don't do this.

This will destroy a family. So, this will destroy a dynasty. Dhritarashtra will have put his coat down.

He could and should have said no, but he didn't say no. Now, you can say could he have said no or he was just not able to say no. So, the point is that, we will discuss about that, what exactly, how attachment works a little later.

But the point is, when there is attachment, there is domination by emotion. It's almost like the decision making is outsourced to the emotions. So, that is the key characteristic of attachment.

That the person who is attached can be very easily controlled and manipulated through emotions. And so, when we talk about attachment, what we are saying is absence of domination by emotion. Absence of emotions, there are some statements like that in scripture also.

But they have to be carefully understood. In the sixth canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, there is the story of Chitraketu. And Chitraketu has a son, who passes away when he is very small.

And then he is in immense lamentation. At that time, Narad Muni and Angir Muni, by mystic power they get their soul back. And prematurely at that time the soul says, which father, which mother? Now, this might seem as if a complete absence of emotion over itself.

Isn't it? But what is significant is, when is that soul saying, which father, which mother? It is after that relationship has ended. It is that soul has already left that body. And the soul is gone.

So, generally if attachment is too strong, and that is one of the reasons why some souls may become ghosts, that they are so attached to the previous relationship, the previous situation, that that attachment doesn't let them go to the next one. So, one may become, a soul may become ghost for many reasons. And I hope that at the end we don't have all questions about ghosts over here.

That's not our topic here. But the thing is that when the soul has already left the body and the soul is on the next journey, at that time one can say, okay, I have had many lives and I have had many parents in many lives. But when we are within that relationship, we have a responsibility.

And at that time we cannot just dismiss as saying which mother, which father. You see that Krishna himself, when he returned to Mathura and killed Kamsa, and then he met Vatsyjay. And his words there are amazing and revealing.

He says that a child is meant to bring joy to his parents. But I am so unfortunate that even before my birth, I brought so much pain to you. That because of me, so many of your children were killed before.

And then, after that, also you did not, you went to prison because of me. And you lived always under the threat of Kamsa because of me. I hope that now while I am here, I will try to do some service to you.

Please forgive me for having caused so much pain to you. So, while Krishna is playing, doing his leela, but the leela is devastating. Now, how to function within relationships? So, the thing is that we should not mistake detachment to be absence of emotions.

It is absence of domination by emotions. Emotions themselves are natural and necessary. So, now, when we understand this, let's move to the last part now.

How does all this apply to us when we have spiritual knowledge and when we are trying to apply spiritual knowledge? So, there two main things become different. Normal relationships are that I relate with you, you relate with me. And sooner or later, I do something that disturbs you, I disturb you, you do something that disturbs me.

And together we create a disturbed world. So, Krishna says in 12.15 in the Bhagavad Gita, yasmano dvijate loko, lokano dvijate chaya, harshamar shabhayo dvegaye, mukto yasachame priyaha. He says don't disturb and don't be disturbed.

So, don't disturb and don't disturb. This is a remarkable combination. Because at one level, if I am not to be disturbed, the easy way to not be disturbed is to not care for the other person.

To not have any emotions. So, for example, some stranger or some stranger's child does something terrible, we don't really care. Not our child, not related with us, not my business.

So, to not be disturbed, the easy way to is to not have any emotions. And to don't disturb. If we are not in a, if we are just passing by on the road and some stranger is there and they cut across us, we yell and scream at them.

And we don't do anything. We don't want to meet that person again. Not a good thing to do.

But if we are going to be in a responsible long term relationship with someone, we can't afford to have that person disturbed. Because if they are disturbed, they want to disturb us. So, in one sense, from a relationship perspective, you can say this verse is like a peace formula.

Don't be disturbed and don't disturb. So, how do we do that? That is where, when we are don't be disturbed, we need some amount of emotional readiness. So, that detachment is that if my sense of identity, self-worth, purity, all of it comes from the other person.

If I am too centered on anyone else, it could be a parent, it could be a sibling, it could be a life, it could be a spouse, it could be a child, then what is going to happen? If that person does something disturbing, I am going to be disturbed. So, the way this is implemented is by understanding that our primary relationship is with Krishna. And it is this relationship that is the source of our strength.

It is the source of our stability. That is the source of our strength. If any relationship in this world, please think that about strength, shelter and stability.

If any other relationship becomes the source of our strength, not the source of strength, we must get it. That is the only source of strength, the supreme source of strength. Then, if that person becomes upset with us, then what happens? We are not being ready.

So, when we say be centered on Krishna, make Krishna the center of your life, that means our relationship with Krishna needs to be our primary relationship. And then, when we act, if the other person disturbs us, then, okay, you are important for me, but when you are disturbed with me, that doesn't matter. That is not the end of the world for me.

So, the idea is that our relationship with Krishna, this relationship with Krishna creates a shield for us. It provides an emotional shield by which we are not so disturbed well. Vidura throughout his life tried very much to persuade Dhritarashtra.

Now, he tried sometimes to persuade Duryodhana, but he said Duryodhana was never going to listen to him. So, his hope was to protect his dynasty, he can persuade Dhritarashtra and Dhritarashtra will persuade or control Duryodhana. Now, he tried this again and again and again and again throughout his life.

Let's explore the timeline of this relationship a little bit, to understand how things happen. So, in the hierarchy, Dhritarashtra is the elder brother and is also the king. Vidura is the younger brother, he is the half-brother.

So, he is never entitled to be the king. So, in the hierarchy he is in a lower position. Now, in the generation wise, Duryodhana is in the next generation.

So, Vidura noticed that Duryodhana had some dark tendencies and he tried to alert Dhritarashtra. If we read the Mahabharata, before Duryodhana was born, Dhritarashtra has not shown any dark tendencies. Yes, he felt a little bad that because he was blind he couldn't become the king and Pandu became the king.

But Pandu was very gracious, very respectful and because Pandu respected him so much and because he got a very chaste and peaceful wife, Gandhari, he was a little, of course there was emptiness in his life that he didn't have a child. And when Duryodhana was born, that relationship began his downfall. So, he became very attached to Duryodhana.

Attachment means you can't change him. So, there are two, three incidents where what happens is, there is this relationship and there is this relationship. Now, among these two, for Dhritarashtra it's a stronger relationship.

Yes, with Duryodhana it's a much stronger relationship. Now, Vidura was a wise person and Vidura would often seek wisdom. Did Dhritarashtra like to hear wisdom? He liked to hear wisdom but that's all he liked to do.

Hear but not apply. So, let's talk about the, I'll talk about two main incidents because otherwise it will become very long this session. I'll talk about the gambling match incident and then the war.

So, before the gambling match, Duryodhana came with Shakuni to tell Dhritarashtra, call them for gambling match. In fact, Duryodhana said this, Dhritarashtra's first response was, Duryodhana will not approve of it. He was infuriated.

Duryodhana said, why do you care for Duryodhana so much? He says, he never approves of anything that I say. He is always against me. And so, what happens is, somebody is a very influential person and we want to control that person.

So, we tell something to that person and that person takes the other person's opinion, who is always opposite. Then what we want to do is, we want to poison that person's mind about another person. Don't listen to that person.

So, no, no, but he is our well-wisher. Let me talk. And Duryodhana said, oh, see the amount of wealth the Pandavas have.

I am burning with envy. He said, I just feel so morose. Do you not care for your son? I have never seen him so sad in his entire life.

Do you not care for your son's happiness? So, Shakuni also, the Patalji of Dhritarashtra. And predictably enough, Duryodhana opposed Dhritarashtra about that. But Dhritarashtra insisted, no, I am going to have this.

And I want you to go and call the Pandavas. And they called the Pandavas and the gambling match unfolded. And finally the Pandavas were exiled.

And when they went, Timahu said, previous Timahu's vows, I will break the thigh of Duryodhana. I will rip off the arm of Dhritarashtra. I will kill all the Kauravas.

So, in that infatuation, in trying to please Duryodhana, Dhritarashtra did not oppose. But afterwards, at night when he was sleeping, he was trying to sleep, all the angry words of the Pandavas came in his mind. He could not sleep.

He called for Dhritarashtra. He called for Dhritarashtra. I am contemplating what has happened.

Please speak some words that will satisfy my mind. Dhritarashtra was exhausted and exasperated. Who killed him? How do you expect any well being for you and your family now? When you have allowed the public to open your property, when you have offended and humiliated the Pandavas, you will watch the destruction of your dynasty.

I have suspected for a long time that you are partial to the Sanskrit concept. And you are against my family. Duryodhana has been telling this for a long time to me.

But I refuse to believe it. Today, your words have proved that you are against my son and father. Now that you have been exposed, I have no desire to hear anything from you.

I don't need you anymore. Go wherever you like. Dhritarashtra followed the Pandavas.

He said, I do not want to speak to you. Dhritarashtra was also invested and he was trying to get you to do the right thing. It is one thing for someone to reject our advice.

It is another thing for that person to question our character. So, Vidura also felt angry for it. Next morning, Dhritarashtra woke up and said, Oh what have I done? Vidura was always my well wisher.

In a rush of emotions, I spoke something terrible. Can you at least call Vidura back? He said, Vidura, I am just a teacher. He said, no, no, send chariot.

Send him to call him back. So, Dhritarashtra is a classic example of this person with mood swings. So, he had extreme mood swings.

It is, he was a person who was not wicked. He was a person who was weak. So, weakness means what? There are times when he would move towards good but then soon he would move towards bad.

So, normally you know mood swings means you are very fearful and somebody energetic and unenergetic. But in his case, his mood swings were more moral swings than mood swings. So, sometimes he would bend towards goodness.

His mood swings were also there. His mood swings were between desire and fear. That desire for the kingdom and fear that in getting the kingdom what will it cost? What will I lose because of it? So, the Mahabharata says, later on in Perikaman, this was just before the war.

What happened? It was desire for the impossible. The impossible is that the Panchavas will be defeated and he will take the kingdom. And his fear was for the inevitable, the unavoidable.

That was the defeat or destruction of his sons. So, he had those mood swings also. But beyond mood swings, he had moral swings.

Sometimes he would incline towards some good messages and good advice. So, wisdom in the scriptures, it is often compared with light. Like the Bhagwatam it is said that, it's like the sun.

The Gita it is said. So, wisdom is like light. But for Dhritarashtra, wisdom was not like light.

It was like lightning. What happens with lightning? Momentary illumination is there and after that darkness is there. So, he is going to be attacked.

And Sanjay went and killed him. Amriti and Arjuna permanently request, please come back. And Arjuna still had hope that Dhritarashtra could be his king.

Dhritarashtra could be his king. So, he came back. And then he said, oh Vidura, please, no, because I care for my son so much, so I spoke those words to you.

Please overlook them. You will be miserable. Vidura said, I am always there for you and I have nothing in me to give you.

If you feel that I favour the Pandavas, that is because of two reasons. One is that they do not have their voice. That is why I feel naturally perfectly with them.

And he wanted to say it to his social media. And second he said that they are hateful. They are not trying to antagonise Prabhu's exclusion.

They do not want that. So, Dhritarashtra accepted that. What happened over here is, if Vidura had no emotions at all, then he could have just left.

And he would not have come back. He came back, he was not detached. If he had been attached, he would have been scared of displeasing Dhritarashtra and he would never have spoken anything critical of Vidura.

So, he was not detached, he was not attached, he was committed. So, commitment is what is important. Now, afterwards, just before the war, Duryodhana appreciating Vidura, when Dhritarashtra again, Dhritarashtra stopped Duryodhana from antagonising the Pandavas and leading the war on this land.

So, at that time, Duryodhana's words hurt Dhritarashtra, hurt Vidura. But what hurt Vidura even more was the silence of Dhritarashtra. He then, he was at that time grievously excited.

He decided, I am not going to stay here. I am going to leave. And he departed, he left.

But, he did not think he knew and never left. He recognised that, he told Dhritarashtra, Dhritarashtra, Dhritarashtra, Duryodhana is not your concern, Duryodhana is your enemy. He refused the call of Dhritarashtra.

But he realised that as long as Dhritarashtra is not his enemy, he is Dhritarashtra's non-enemy. But, he had hoped that Dhritarashtra might listen if Duryodhana did not. And that's why Vidura did not do what Vidisha did.

Vidisha went over to Lord Rama's side. Vidura did not go over to the Pandavas. Why? Because Vidura had been an active participant in the side that killed Duryodhana.

That Dhritarashtra would have been so against that person that Dhritarashtra would never have heard of him. So, Vidura went away to the forest, onto the green fields and died. I need to become wiser.

I need to become purer. And then after the war was over, after Duryodhana was no longer in Dhritarashtra, Vidura came back. Now, that time when he spoke words of wisdom, penetrating, cutting words of wisdom, that was the triumvirate of Dhritarashtra.

And he moved forward towards the path of enlightenment. So, what do we learn from this, in terms of our relationships, that we do not want to be like Dhritarashtra was with Duryodhana. Certainly, that would be attachment.

But we don't want to be uncaring and heartless. Prabhupada started the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Prabhupada did not start, say, just the word society is important.

It is not the International University for Krishna Consciousness. It is not the International Institute for Krishna Consciousness. It is not the International Training Ground for Krishna Consciousness.

It is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. And society means that we have to have relationship. In fact, one of the purposes of his conduct, Prabhupada wrote in his birth work, is to bring all people closer to each other and closer to the prime minister.

So, it is not just closer to Krishna. It is closer to each other and closer to Krishna. That's why the relationship that we have in this world, they are also important.

They are not more important than our relationship with Krishna. But we cannot say that because I have a relationship with Krishna, I don't want any other relationship at all. This is Krishna, this is I and this is the other person.

So, we can consider three relationships. One, two and three. My relationship with Krishna, my relationship with the other person and that person's relationship with Krishna.

So, my relationship with Krishna is, we can say, my sadhana. So, my relationship with others is my seva. And their relationship with Krishna, how it develops, is my sharanagati.

We cannot force others to develop their relationship. We can inspire them, we can encourage them. The ideal would be if one, two, three and all go together.

That one grows, two grows and three grows. They become closer to each other and become closer to Krishna. But if that doesn't happen, then it is not that we have to break peace because it's not working.

That's not what we are talking about. So, we do one as a seva. Another way to look at this is, this can be seen in terms of bhakti, all three are components of our relationship.

And another way to look at it is that our relationship with Krishna is our bhakti. Our relationship with others is our dharma. Dharma is our responsibility or duty in this world.

But within the purview of bhakti, all three fall in. And so, here, with this particular diagram, let's look at what attachment, detachment and commitment would be. So, attachment, if it is there, it will be that for the sake, two becomes much much greater than one and for the sake of two we give up one.

That is not healthy at all. Just because we have a relationship with someone, it could be for their sake we give up our one. That is not healthy.

Now, detachment in the negative sense will be heartless. As devotees, we want to have emotions in relationship with Krishna. So, we will not be heartless in the complete sense.

But if in the name of our relationship with Krishna, one becomes so much greater than two, that we just reject, we give up two. That would be, in the view of one, that is also not healthy, that's certainly not healthy. Prabhupada himself when he met his spiritual master, at that time, his spiritual master encouraged him, you know English, Krishna's message, Shri Mahaprabhu's message, in English is across the world.

Prabhupada said, I would not be married at that time. I would have never joined Shri Mahaprabhu. I was married, I had a child.

It would be unfair for me. So, at that time what did he do? He continued his service. So, the idea over here is that in between is commitment.

Commitment means that one is important, two is important and three is important. But they are in that hierarchy. So, we make sure that one is not at the cost of two and two is not at the cost of one.

And three, we try for it. But that is where our detachment and bhakti is. Not that we don't try for the other person to develop it.

We don't try. It doesn't mean we should try. But we don't try to control them.

And that way we will be able to move forward in our life here. So, I will summarize what we discussed today. Probably, we discussed today about what is detachment or detachment in the path of bhakti.

So, the first point we discussed is that often detachment leads to some people becoming cold. And that is not healthy. Detachment should make us cool.

Cool means cool-headed. Not cold-hearted. But cool-headed.

Cool-headed is what it means. So, why we thought that detachment, spirituality will lead to detachment. So, the idea that spirituality will lead to detachment because otherwise attachment leads to bondage.

So, spirituality leads to detachment. Attachment-detachment means, remember the first step? I talked about four steps. That we become heartless and when we are heartless, we become irresponsible.

So, this is a very dark trajectory to go in. This is correct. But this is not and this is also not.

So, how detachment does not lead to heartlessness? And how detachment does not lead to, how bhakti does not lead to irresponsibility? That's what we discussed in the class. Why is it that detachment does not lead to heartlessness or cold? What's wrong with it? We discussed that attachment, when we are attached, it involves emotions and desires. So, if detachment means no emotions and no desires, then it is, if we take detachment means no emotions.

Then the problem with no emotions is twofold. One is that we will become like stone, which is impossible. And the second is that there will be no humanity left itself.

Not just in the sense of human emotion, but at the basic level, children, human progeny need caring. So, nature has arranged, biology has arranged in such a way that if humanity were detached, humanity would become extinct. More than any other system.

So, detachment is not about heartlessness. It is not about not caring at all. Then the main relationship we discussed was between Vidura, Dhritarashtra and Duryodhana.

So, because Duryodhana-Dhritarashtra relationship was too strong, Vidura-Dhritarashtra relationship did not work. So, he did not give it up, but he beat him. So, his detachment manifested, Vidura's detachment manifested as patience, not as, not as non-caring, heartlessness.

His patience was there, but his commitment was that he came back. He came back and finally he helped. And then we discussed how bhakti should not lead us to irresponsibility.

Bhakti or spirituality should not lead us to irresponsibility. We discussed that in terms of how normally I will disturb you and you will disturb me. So, when we practice bhakti, what will happen is, if you disturb me, how do I prevent it? Through my relationship with Krishna, I get a shield.

And that shield steadies me. So, I am not disturbed by you. And then I can act also in a way that won't disturb you.

How do we do that? We discussed that. There are three relationships. There is a relationship with Krishna, then there is I and then there is the other person.

So, ideal is that these three relationships, one, two and three go together. So, one is our sadhana. Two is our seva and three is our sharanagati.

It is our surrender to Krishna. So, what we need to do is, we want to avoid the two extremes. One is give up one for two.

That would be attachment. And the negative understanding of detachment and heartlessness would be, we give up two for one. We give up two for one.

The balanced understanding is that we maintain all three, but one is the most important, two is second important, third is the important, but among these three, it is least important. That's how we can be detached. We can practice bhakti, we can be spiritual and we can be responsible.

And our detachment will not be no emotions. It will be no domination by emotions. This is not the right understanding.

There is no domination by emotions. We don't outsource our decision making to our emotions, but still we consider emotions as an opponent. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions or comments? Do you have a mic? Thank you for the lecture. I just wanted to expand on the commitment part, which is a balanced part. So I think we should expand a little bit on the commitment part.

We are in a sadhana equation. You are seva, you are still doing it. And then you are taking the shelter of Krishna, leaving everything to Krishna, whatever Krishna's plan is.

And then you are having that patience, like you were saying, the Yuga. The commitment, what would it mean? It would mean that we are basically able to persist in our practice of bhakti, our service to others and our service to Krishna. So how do we do that? We understand that we have a higher purpose in life.

To the extent you understand that life is not just meant for pursuing one particular relationship, but it's primarily for pursuing our relationship with Krishna. Generally, what makes us committed? The more we understand that something is important, not just understand in an intellectual sense, but also realize it in an emotional sense. That's what helps us to stay committed.

So that's why in many places Krishna says, So with our buddhi we understand how we need to persevere in our relationship with Krishna and in our relationship with others appropriately. And then we develop the appropriate emotions. So when the rational and emotional factors are both directed, then we will be able to persevere.

Then we will stay committed. Thank you for the lovely class. The question I had was, when you talked about the emotions and the desire to take actions, when you talked about the introduction and the transition, you said that externally you can stop desires from emotionally.

But when it comes inside, you can stop them internally as well. Or is it that if you are not able to stop them internally that… We need to find an appropriate place to vent it. We cannot direct it at that person.

Maybe we have a close friend or confidant with whom we can talk about it. Basically, if we keep all the emotions inside, if we feel, say, upset, we feel angry, for example. Anger, if we express it, we will burn the other person.

If we repress it, we will burn ourselves. So we need to be able to process it. Now, how exactly we process it, it depends.

Sometimes writing in a journal could help. Sometimes having some kind of guide, counsellor, talking with them can help. If he has a close friend, we can talk with them also.

So we cannot keep it inside all the time. But we need to find a healthy way to process it. Is there both relationship and politics as well? For example, if it's something like ice cream a lot, for example.

So then each of us has to decide what boundaries we want to live in. You know, bhakti is not about… some boundaries are rigid. So, for example, not eating meat.

That's a non-negotiable one. But beyond that, there are some boundaries that are negotiable. And so far, for example, they are from all the countries.

Going to fast. Now, what level we fast, we will fast from grains. But what level we fast, that's negotiable.

So, if the desires are outside the non-negotiable boundaries, we have to say a rigid no to them. If the desires are within the negotiable boundaries, each individual needs to decide how best I can deal with that desire. So, sometimes saying no to a particular desire can consume our mind so much that we lose a lot of mental energy in fighting against that desire.

Now, is that worth it? Maybe it is, maybe it is not. The point is, we don't grow in bhakti only by saying no to worldly desires. We grow in bhakti by having our mind available for Krishna and focusing our mind on Krishna.

So, now each one of us has to decide whether it is indulging in the desire, like saying yes to the desire is taking my mind away from Krishna or saying no to the desire is taking my mind away from Krishna. Now, how can saying no take away the mind away from Krishna? Generally it will not. But if the desire is very strong and I say no, my mind is still craving for it.

Say for example, somebody decides I will fast year zero on Ekadashi. I chant 128 rounds. And they sit down to chant and they are chanting externally Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna.

The mind is saying Prasad, Prasad, Prasad, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Prasad, Prasad, Prasad, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Prasad, Prasad, Prasad. So, they are not remembering Krishna at all. That is just torture to the body and torturing the body itself will not lead to spiritual advancement.

So, that's why I said, sometimes trying to say no to something can consume the mind so much that the mind is no longer available for Krishna. More often than not, saying yes to the mind is what consumes it and takes it away from Krishna. But the other way can also happen.

So, the point is, we need to make our mind available for Krishna. And that's why we have to learn from our own experience, how best to make our mind available for Krishna. Prabhupada says in the 18th chapter of Bhagavad Gita, the purpose of marriage is to make the mind peaceful so that it can focus on Krishna.

So, if a person is feeling lonely, if a person is feeling very strong desires and that is distracting them from Krishna, then having a relationship, having some level of fulfillment of desire, that can make the mind peaceful. But if one gets completely consumed by that relationship or by the pleasure in that relationship, that can also distract the mind from Krishna. That's why one has to find that balance.

Thank you for that answer. As you mentioned that not yet recurred by others to perceive by Krishna. So, what does that mean in the elaborate and how can it be implemented in the practical terms? Can you repeat your question? As you said that not yet recurred by someone to perceive.

So, can you explain that one? So, generally, why do we get disturbed by others' words? It is because we are so emotionally consumed by that relationship, emotionally contained in that relationship, emotionally captivated by that relationship. If we are less captivated by it, we won't be affected by it. If we post something on social media, some stranger criticizes us.

We feel annoyed, we don't feel so very disturbed by it. But if a loved one criticizes us, that will disturb us even more. So, how one can get that seal from Krishna? The more we experience absorption in Krishna, the more we remember Krishna and feel the shelter in Krishna, that requires the practice of bhakti.

It's not just an issue, the mind actually becomes sheltered. Then we will be able to find that shelter and then we will not be disturbed. That way we will be able to distract our mind from whatever is happening.

Yes, correct. Thank you. Last question.

I have a question about you. Thank you for the talk. My question is like, when you said all that and when you said all that, it wouldn't be better if we would go out of Krishna's eye and close into Krishna's, you can say, from Krishna's side, that would be better than going to the forest and coming back.

I already explained the point that it might have been better for him and his bhakti, it wouldn't have been better for Dhritarashtra. His concern at that time was not just for his elevation. He was confident that he had stayed in the Kauravas palace and he had not become compromised by death.

So, he was confident about his own spiritual growth and elevation. He was not so insecure that, oh, if I don't go on Krishna's side, Krishna will not understand and Krishna will reject me. He was not insecure like that.

So, his decision making was based, he had no insecurity about his relationship with Krishna. It was more out of concern for Dhritarashtra. Thank you very much.

Hare Krishna. So, Prabhu has written more than 30 books.