​Bhagavatam canto 6 study 4 – 2.32-3.11 Boost inner resolution with external facilitation

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

So, we continue our discussion on the Srimad Bhagavatam, Chapter 2 of the 6th Canto, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna. So, we continue our discussion on the Chapter 2 of the 6th Canto. We discussed text 31 and 32.

So, in this chapter as the, as Vishwanath Jagatakur says, there are three aspects, the Vishnu Dutas, they counter the arguments of the Madhutas and release Ajamil. Ajamil thereafter reflects and repents and then eventually he attains liberation and So, we are in the section of Ajamil reflecting and repenting. So, he, we discussed how when we become aware of the greatness of God, then our own smallness becomes very evident.

So, he becomes aware of how terribly he had misbehaved and then he thinks, I was deserved to go to heaven and starts thinking, what was this mystical vision? Was it a dream? Was it real? And where have all these people disappeared? After reflecting thus, now he starts thinking about what he should be doing. So, text 32 onwards. So, Durbhagasya, so although I am very sinful, that although I am very unfortunate, unfortunate because of my own sins, Vigudottama Darshani, still these best of the Devatas, Vigudha, I have been able to Darshani, I have been able to see them.

How could this have happened? In the past, I must have done some good. By which? Now, I have become joyful. This Atma Prasidhati, Atma Viprasidhati is a common phrase in the Bhagavatam.

In the first canto also, Yaya Atma Prasidhati, Yena Atma Suprasidhati, these verses come again. So, here also it comes here. So, usually we will see time and time again in this Bhagavatam that when somebody gets some unexpected good fortune, even Kubja, when she gets this realization, she suddenly gets the detachment awakens.

Then she thinks that probably I must have done something in the past because of which, Noonam me Bhagwan prito, Vishno kenapi karmana, nirvedo yam durashaya, yen me jataha sukhavaha. So, Noonam me Bhagwan prito, Bhagwan has become pleased with me. Vishno kenapi karmana, because of some work that I did in the past.

Because of which, nirvedo yam durashaya, yen me jataha sukhavaha. Because of which, nirveda, nirveda means detachment is awakened in my heart and thus I am becoming joyful, sukhavaha. So, what it essentially means is that a devotee, a spiritual seeker, when they get some fortune, they don't think themselves qualified.

Because if I have done some unknowing good deed, then I don't even know what I have done. So, if I don't even know what I have done, somebody comes and suddenly, you know, we are going to some place and suddenly, thank you, thank you, thank you. What did I do to thank me? So, we will be a little surprised.

So, like that, when they say that I must have done something in the past. The idea is that they are not taking credit for what they have done in the past, but they are simply recognizing that somehow I have got this good fortune. I don't deserve it, but I have got the good fortune.

So, bhavitavya mangalena, bhavitavya, what has happened in the past, that's a mangala I must have done, something good, that's how I got this. So, now Chakravarti Pad says that there was the mercy of devotees involved. So, it's described by the Acharyas that actually when he had his last son, at that time some Vaishnavas came to his house and the Vaishnavas suggested to him that he name his son as Narayan.

So, that contact with the Vaishnavas and that acceptance of their suggestion to name him as Narayan, that became the seal of his auspiciousness, of auspiciousness for him. So, now he says, why would somebody say that he has got some good fortune? He says, without the fortune what would have happened? Anyathāndhiyamānasya nāśucer vishalipate vaikuntanāmagrahanaṁ jihvāvaktum ihārati So, anyathāndhiyamānasya, and otherwise at the time of death, nāśucer vishalipate, I who was unclean, I who had married this prostitute, how is it possible that vaikuntanāmagrahanaṁ, how could I have chanted the name of the Supreme Lord, jihvāvaktum ihārati, just came on my tongue also, how did it come? It would not have been possible. So, normally there is, we attract things of similar disposition.

For example, somebody in goodness, they are attracted to things of goodness. Somebody in ignorance, they are attracted to things in ignorance. So, if something is in ignorance, some person is in ignorance and suddenly they are attracted to something in goodness.

It's a little unusual. If a person likes to drink, they will go to a bar, they won't go to a library. Isn't it? Library is a place where people in goodness go.

So, normally according to the way we are, we are attracted to things accordingly. But suddenly if somebody does something which is completely out of character, you know, a person is a habitual drunkard, you find him sitting 6 hours and studying a book. You wonder what is this going on? It's a little out of character.

So, like that, he says for a person who was sinful like this, for him to chant the name of Narayana at the time of death, how could it have happened? It would have happened because of some fortune, because of some mercy. Otherwise, it would not have been possible. Now, we could say he had named his son as Narayana and he was addressing Narayana only at that time.

He was not addressing Lord Narayana. But still, at the moment of death, Yamadutas could have come at any time. Yamadutas could have come, say at a time when his son was far away from him.

And if they had come at that time, even if he had been attached to the son, he would not have thought of the son. Or even if his son had come, even if the Yamadutas had come, he might not have seen his son, who might have just been some other side and he might not have called out the name. So, even with attachment, at that time to think of Narayana, to actually utter the name Narayana, that is a matter of fortune for him.

And he says this is very special, this is very unusual. And thus, he appreciates what he has got. Further, he says, he talks about the contrast between what should have happened to him and what happened to him.

So, quite often, we think of this contrast when our expectations are frustrated. That means we expect something good to happen and something bad happens to us. And it all happens to everyone sometime or the other.

We have this question, why bad things happen to good people. But not many people ask this question, why good things happen to bad people. If we look at our own life, there are often times, there are many times when, say like, sometimes when you call in lectures, students sometimes ask, I prepared so well for my exam.

And still, you know, the paper came out bad and I just could not get good marks. It happens sometimes. But if we are honest, we will also know that sometimes we do not prepare much.

And still, whatever we have prepared only comes in the exam. And then we get good marks also. So, if we look at fate, it does not always work unfavorably for us.

It does work unfavorably sometimes. But sometimes, there are situations when we get better than what we deserve. Deserve in terms of what we have done in this particular, in preparation for that particular context.

So, fate works both ways. It gives us both kinds of hands. Sometimes good hands, sometimes bad hands.

So, he is saying what I expected to get and what I got. What I would have expected was, if he understood his karmic position, that would have been very low. So, he is drawing on, highlighting that contrast to underscore the mercy that he has got.

So, 34th text. kvachaham kitavah papo brahmagno nirpatrapah kvachanarayane teta bhagwan namamangalam kvachaham kitavah papo So, what kind of sinner and cheater am I? So, kaitava is cheating, kaitava dharma we have, cheating dharma. So, kitava means one who is a cheater.

He says, I am a cheater and a sinner, brahmagno. A shaveless killer of brahmanas. So, now actually, here there is no mention that he, Ajahn will actually murder people.

He arrested people it is said. He stole from people. But here when you talk about brahmagno, it is not so much killer of a brahmana, it is killer of brahmanical respectability, brahmanical conduct.

For a brahmana to behave in such a way, that is something which is very, very grievous. Nirpatrapah. Nirpatrapah means that he not only did all this, but he was actually ashamed.

He just continued doing this. There is something which people do wrong, but they do it discreetly. Because they are ashamed for others to not know about it.

But sometimes when people do something shamelessly, publicly, then what happens is that means that they are not only, they are brazen about doing it. So, it is said, can you close the door? Will it make any difference? So, it is said that hypocrisy is the last tribute that vice pays to virtue. Hypocrisy is the last tribute that vice pays to virtue.

What does that mean? That hypocrisy means what? Somebody, that person is not virtuous. That person has vice. He is acting viciously, but that person pretends to act as if he has virtues.

So, a person is corrupt, but that person acts to be very honest and upright. So, that is hypocrisy. But when is a person hypocritical? So, hypocrisy is also a tribute by vice to virtue.

Why is that? Because at least that person wants to appear virtuous. Isn't it? When the person doesn't even want to appear virtuous, then that means that person is having no regard for virtue at all. So, hypocrisy is the last tribute that vice offers to virtue.

So, when a person is hypocritical, it is not good to be hypocritical. We should have integrity. But at least if we consider, there is integrity where a person is virtuous and there is an image of virtuousness.

Other is a person is vicious internally, but creates a perceived image of virtue externally. That is hypocrisy. But if a person is vicious and is shamelessly vicious, publicly vicious, then that indicates that the person has lost the sense of shame also.

And that can be quite unfortunate. So, he said, I was like that. I was publicly living with other prostitutes and I had lost all shame.

So, from that state, to be able to chant the name of Bhagawan at the time of death, that was extraordinary mercy that I have got. So, now he thinks that I have got this mercy, what should I do with it? I have got the second chance, now let me use it properly. So, quite often the tendency is that if we get something special, we, the nature of the, like once a person came to Prabhupada, he said, Swami, yesterday Krishna came in my dream.

Yesterday night Krishna came in my dream. I said, all right, serve him today. Serve him today.

I said, fine, if Krishna can come, we are not saying that Krishna cannot come in the dream of someone. Fine, if Krishna came in the dream, that's fine. But that is not the important thing.

See, our growth in spiritual life doesn't depend so much on what Krishna does as it depends on what we do. Because what Krishna does is important. But ultimately, we have to choose to direct our heart towards Krishna.

We have to choose to love Krishna. So, what we do is more important than what Krishna does. In the sense that for our ongoing transformation of heart, Krishna may give us some extraordinary experiences also.

And they are wonderful. We need to be grateful if we get some extraordinary spiritual experiences. But they won't transform our heart in as sustainable a way as our own increase commitment.

Yes, there can be miraculous ways in which Krishna intervenes in our life. But what we do after that is important. But that is more important.

It's not that Krishna's intervention or Krishna's miraculous intervention is not important. But that alone doesn't lead to transformation. That should lead to a transformation in our hearts and our lives.

So, here we see that is that miraculously the Vishnudutas intervened in his life and helped him to, saved him from the clutches of Yamadutas. So, now he expresses his resolution. I got something which I did not deserve.

And therefore, what will I do? Now I will commit myself to diligent practice. So, 35 onwards. Soham tatha yathishyami.

Soham tatha yathishyami. Ya chittendriyanilaha. Ya chittendriyanilaha.

Yatha nabhuya atmanam. Yatha nabhuya atmanam. Andhe tamasimajjaye.

Andhe tamasimajjaye. Soham tatha. Therefore, I will yathishyami.

I will endeavor. The word yathi often refers to renunciate, sanyasi. But yathato means to endeavor.

So, actually in one sense sanyas or renunciation, it requires continuous endeavor. Because there is always a desire to attack and always we have to resist, push back the desire. So, I will endeavor yathishyami.

And how will I endeavor? Yatha chittendriyanilaha. So, my consciousness, my senses, my life air, all of them I will regulate. So, normally we talk about controlling our senses.

The control of the senses is related to the control of the life airs. When the life airs, their movement is regulated. So, like in the yam yam asan pranayam, when pranayam is done, then pratyahara becomes easier.

And at that time, the control of the senses and the rejection of the sense objects becomes easier. The life air is regulated. You can also see when we become passionate, our breathing becomes faster.

We just slow down our breathing, then the passion also goes down. So, one of the very brutal ways or a very gross way in which to control agitated desire, control the desire, agitated desire. It is like, you know, if a computer is just not turning on, just press the power button.

Just hang it and turn it back, turn it on again. So, whatever you do, it does not work. It is like a force shut down and start off again.

So, like that, then the mind gets agitated too much and we are just not able to control. Just stopping the breath, just closing the doors. What happens by that is, the mind is going towards sense objects, mind is going towards this, there, that, that.

And suddenly, I am not feeling air. So, all the thoughts go away and they focus. So, yogis use that as a shock treatment to stop the mind going towards sense objects.

So, that is just one extreme way of illustrating how the control of the life airs can help in control of the mind and senses. But broadly speaking, the regulation of breath helps in the regulation of the mind and the senses. So, as I say, putting all three together, chitta, indriya, anilaha, brings all of them together.

yathaanam bhuya aatmanam And I will not again, I will not andheni tamasi manchanye. I will not let my consciousness again go into darkness as it had gone earlier. So, actually, this is a very nice verse to memorize and recite.

Sometimes when we do something wrong and we want to resolve, I won't succumb to this once again. So, okay, this is what I did, but I will try that it won't happen again. We will recite this once again.

Soham tatha yathishyami yath chittendriyanilaha yathaanam bhuya aatmanam andheni tamasi manchanye So now, so what will I do? One thing he said is I will control my senses. But further he said I will take some practical actions. You know, quite often if a person has a house above a bar and he says I will stop being a drunkard.

It's not going to work. Every day when they are coming to the house, going out of the house, they are going to see the bar, they are going to see people drinking. So sometimes to control our senses, especially if we are caught in a very difficult situation, then it may require some radical change of circumstance also.

So, resolutions cannot be always executed in isolation of the circumstances, especially when there are some radical changes that we have to make. So sometimes if we are in particular circumstances where we have succumbed again and again, just change of circumstances doesn't guarantee change of consciousness. That is definitely true.

But circumstances where we are especially weak, where we have been repeatedly victimized, sometimes if we want to change our consciousness, some radical change will be required. So we see this radical change that he does is he renounces his house and he takes that resolution away. Namucchatam imambandham avidyākāmakarmajam sarva-bhūrtsurut-śānto maitraḥ karuṇa-ātmavān mocaye grastam ātmānam yoṣiṁ mayyātma-māyayā kṛḍito yayaivaḥ kṛḍāvṛga-ivādhamah So, namucchatam imambandham, therefore I will give up this bondage.

avidyākāmakarmabhim, which is born of ignorance and desire. So, Kuntimani also uses this word avidyākāmakarmabhim. And Prabhupāda while explaining this says this is minimum words, maximum wisdom.

He says these three words describe material existence. From ignorance comes desire and from desire comes fruitive activity. And then you become bound with this word avidyākāmakarmabhim.

So, here also avidyākāmakarmajam. So, because of ignorance I had worldly desire and because of worldly desire I engaged in fruitive activities. And thus I got bound.

So, then I will give up this bondage. sarva-bhūrtsurut-śānto So, I will become well-wisher of all living beings. So, basically the qualities of a transcendentalist I will try to acquire.

sarva-bhūrtsurut means that one will not have partiality. Oh, this person will give me something, this person will not give me something. No.

I will become equally poised towards śānta, peaceful. maitra-karuṇātmavān Compassionate, friendly. The word ātmavān is quite interesting actually.

Like we have dhanavān means possessor of wealth. jñānavān is possessor of knowledge. So, ātmavān means possessor of ātmā literally speaking.

Now, how does somebody possess ātmā? Krishna also uses this word ātmavān. nirbandho nitya-sattva-stho niryoga-kṣema ātmavān Here also he says this. So, 2.45 So, ātmavān means possessor of the soul.

If I am the soul, how do I possess the soul? It means that we become conscious of the soul. Say, if I have some money in my pocket, but I don't even know that I have that money. Or I have some money in my bank, but I don't even know that I have bank account.

Then it's almost like I am not possessing it at all. So, to be a possessor of something means to be aware of what we have. So, similarly, to become ātmavān means to become conscious of one's spiritual self.

And to live in the consciousness of one's spiritual self. So, in this way he says, I have become ātmavān. And then, mochaye grastam ātmānam In this way, my soul which is bound, well, how was it bound? So, first he says that this is what I will go towards.

This is how I will try to move towards liberation. Before that, when he discusses, okay, how am I bound right now? Grastam ātmānam, I am bound. Yoshin mayy ātmāmayayā Yoshin means woman, ātmāmayayā.

So, I was bound in illusion in the form of a woman. Vikrīdito yaya īvāham And who treated me like a plaything. Krīdāmṛga īvādhamā And I became like a plaything for her.

Krīdāmṛga So, krīdā is play mṛga is animal So, now Prabhupāda is going to translate this as plaything. Now, krīdāmṛga, it seems that in the past, women would have pets at home. And the pets would simply do their bidding.

So, even when Sita saw that deer, she said, I want this deer as a pet. And she said, we will take it home and I will give this as a memento of our stay in the forest to Kaushalya, your mother. So, the idea is that now a pet of an animal, a pet of a woman rather, is just dancing to the tunes of the woman.

So, now for a man to become the pet of a woman is considered to be a quite a great thing. So, I have become like this krīdāmṛga īvādhamā So, it is a very fallen condition that I got into. So, when a man is attached to a woman, then when we are attached to something or someone, to get what we want from them, we have to give them what they want.

So, attachment does actually make, puts us under the control of those to whom we are attached. And then when we are attached to someone, then we get under the control of them. So, that they give us what we are attached to, we have to give them what they want.

And in that way, whatever they ask, we have to give. And that will become controlled by them. So, if a man wants sensual pleasure from a woman, then whatever the woman asks, he has to give her.

She may ask for ornament, she may ask for clothes, she may ask for this, that. And the man has to be able to provide that. So, now he says that I actually, because I was so attached to her.

So, I became like a plaything. So, whatever she would ask for, I would get for her. And in getting for that, getting her, getting for her those things, I committed many sinful activities.

I just became a plaything for her. A dear plaything may have told go this, get this, get that. Like that I was getting things for her.

So, actually kāma and lobha are related. When there is kāma, and kāma is to be fulfilled. There is kāma, krodha and lobha.

When kāma is not fulfilled, it leads to krodha. But when kāma is fulfilled, it leads to lobha. In what sense? When a desire is not fulfilled, we get frustrated, we get angry at that.

But when a desire is fulfilled, how does it lead to greed? Because when the desire is fulfilled, at that time, the object who is going to fulfill our desire, we have to pander to their demands. And that makes us crave for other material things. And thus, kāma leads to lobha.

This is, I became like a dancing dog in her hands. Kṛḍāṁ krodha īvāyam dhamām. So, now, sometimes expressing our predicament in the bluntest possible terms is the shock treatment needed to pull or push ourselves out of it.

Sometimes we are in a situation where we have got attached, we have got entangled. What am I doing? What am I doing? I am just fighting for small things. I renounced the world, I became a brahmachari and now I am fighting for small things.

What am I doing? So, you know, putting a contrast between what we were meant to do and what we are doing or phrasing our predicament in the bluntest possible terms, that acts like a jolter. What am I doing? So, Bharat Mahārāja, suddenly at one point he thought, I renounced the world. What I did? I renounced the world to fall for a deer.

Stupid. So, like that, when some attachments start catching us, Prabhupāda also did that. You know, Prabhupāda told Śyāmasundara, will you let a cigarette come between you and Kṛṣṇa? Does he know that for a cigarette's sake are you going to give up Kṛṣṇa? So, like that, when our attachments catch us and they start dragging us down, pushing us down, we can put our predicament in blunt terms.

For this, am I going to give up everything like this? Then what happens? That sort of blunt phrasing of our situation that jolts us. And that gives us the impetus to, no, I don't know, I won't be like this. I will rise out of this situation.

So, he said, kṛḍāṁ hṛdāṁ, I have become like a plaything, a dancing dog. No, I don't want to be like this. That's how he reinforces his resolution.

So, the resolution which we make, it has to be reinforced from both ways. One is, there is a higher destination to be achieved and we want to go towards that higher destination. But other is, the present situation is also, it is not good.

It is a terrible situation and I want to get out of this. So, both ways, get out of here and go there. So, that way, if we have both impetuses, then we can move forward.

If we have only one impetus, that is nice, but this is also not bad. Maybe I will go there, but sometime later. And this is bad, but I don't know what that is.

So, better I will stay here only. So, when we are convinced that this is terrible and that is wonderful, then the impetus to move from here to there becomes much stronger. So, mamaham iti dehādau hitvā mithyārtha dhīrmatim dhāsye mano bhagavati śuddham tatkīrtana dhibhī So, mamaham iti dehādau.

This is a standard misconception that I am the body and the things related to the body are mine. Iti dehādau, related to the body and other things. hitvā mithyārtha dhīrmatim I will give up this.

This is mithyārtha dhī. So, dhī is intelligence, mati is consciousness. So, my intelligence, my consciousness, they are all caught in this mithyārtha, this false sense of what is valuable, false sense of what is meaningful.

dhāsye mano bhagavati But then instead I will focus my mind on the Supreme Lord. śuddham tatkīrtana dhibhī And as I focus my mind, I will purify it by doing this kīrtana. So, resolutions, when we make, they have to always be backed by practical course of action.

If there is no practical course of action to back the resolution, then it is very difficult to work the resolution. So, if I decide that, okay, tomorrow morning, from tomorrow onwards I am going to wake up at 3 o'clock. But then, if I don't have an alarm clock also, then it is practically impossible to wake up.

If I have an alarm clock, I keep one alarm clock next to me, I keep another alarm clock far away or whatever. You know, the resolution of the practical course of action, what happens? It is like an airplane. So, there is take-off and there is landing.

An airplane takes off, it has to have adequate fuel to go to the landing point. Otherwise, it takes off and then crashes in between. So, like that, if we don't have a tangible course of action for implementing our resolutions, our resolutions take off, but then they crash land in between.

They don't reach the destination. So, along with whatever resolution you make, if you have a plan of practical course of action, okay, how am I going to do this? If, say, I decide I am going to read Shastra every day one hour, then I have to find out, okay, where do I get the time? The plan, at least, okay, if this happens, this is the time I normally study, if this doesn't happen, then this is the time when I can study. If it doesn't happen, then at least at the end of a week I can make it up or something like that.

You need to always have some plan. Without the plan, without a practical course of action, no resolution can be sustained for very long. So, that practical course of action is like, now what I will do is, I will, the practical thing is I will take my mind out of here and fix it on Tatkirtanadhi, on chanting his holy names.

Iti jātasu nirvedaḥ kṣaṇa-saṅge na sādhuśu rangā-dvāraṁ upeyāya mukta-sarvānu-bandhanah Iti jātasu nirvedaḥ In this way, nirveda, detachment that had awakened in this consciousness, kṣaṇa-saṅge na sādhuśu, by just a momentary association of the sādhus. Who are the sādhus in this case? Vishnu Buddhas, yeah. So, now, it was not a very long time.

If you consider the number of verses, probably 15-20 verses that the Vishnu, Yamadutas spoke, 15 verses, and then 15-20 verses that Vishnu Buddhas spoke. So, it was not a very long time that the discussion happened. kṣaṇa-saṅge na sādhuśu rangā-dvāraṁ upeyāya He went to the coast of the Ganga river.

That is described in Haridwar. mukta-sarvānu-bandhanah Giving up all attachments. satasmindevasadanah āsino yogam āsthitah pratyārtendriya-grāma yoja-manātmani So, devasadanah, after going to Haridwar, what did he do? He went to a temple over there.

āsino yogam āsthitah He sat down in yogic posture. and he pratyārtendriya-grāma pratyārtendriya means pratyahara That stage of rejecting the senses. Shutting out the sense objects.

All the senses, he drew in words. yoja-manātmani And he focused his manātmani. So, the word ātmā, Vallabhi Devakasana explains in Govinda Bhāṣya, it can mean the self and it can mean the Lord.

So, quite often in the Bhagavad-gītā, the Bhagavad-gītā normally uses the word ātmā to refer to the soul. But on many occasions, the Bhagavatam uses the word ātmā to refer to the Supreme Being, to the Supersoul. So, ātmā essentially means that which animates, that which pervades, that which is the source of life.

So, the ultimate source of life is the Supreme Lord. So, yoja-manātmani. This way he fixed his mind on the Supreme Lord.

This is what he did practically. He renounced the world and he did this radical transformation of his situation, of his settings. And that way, that change of circumstance helped him to solidify his resolution.

So, you know, all of us have our own temptations that trouble us. And we need to, internal resolution is important. But along with that, some external facilitation is what we all need.

Without that, it is difficult. We may not be able to sustain whatever resolution we have. So, for example, nowadays, especially among young students and young people, with smartphones available everywhere, it's very easy to access the internet and access all kind of undesirable content on the internet.

So, now, there are a whole set of, when we talk about materialistic people, among materialistic people also there is goodness, passion, ignorance. So, there are a whole set of systems made by which people can regulate their internet browsing. There are parental control softwares, other kinds of softwares.

So, even materialistic people also, it's not all of them are just sense gratifiers. There are parents who are concerned, there are other people who are concerned, and they regulate their content. So, if we just have free, one press a button and we can go anywhere and everywhere, then it's very difficult.

At any time, the mind messages something and at that time, we just act on it and then we go down. So, what happens is there are ways in which we can filter, don't have some internet filter on the computer or on the phone or whatever, so that the access is regulated. And this is, it is simply, it is basic common sense protection.

It's just like if I am going on a road, it's not that I will walk in the middle of the road. I will walk on the footpath, isn't it? Walking on the middle of the road means simply inviting danger. So, like that, if we have a particular temptation which troubles us, then it is important to create the proper system of regulation.

In fact, I am working with a team of devotees. There are Christians who have made some very good softwares. So, what they do is, if you install that software on your computer, then as soon as somebody clicks any search word or anything which will lead to some obscene site, not only will the site get blocked, but instead, after blocking, a Bible verse comes over there.

A Bible verse talking about the danger of lust, about how one should protect ourselves. So, that draws people out. Hey, I should not be doing this.

So, like that, we are working that, there are some devotees that, we can make a software where Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam verses come up. Whenever people go to some wrong site, they are immediately reminded. Not just don't do this, but why should we do this? What should we be doing? You get a positive reminder for that.

And that way, so we may not, in today's situation, it is not that when we have attachments, we can renounce everything and go to some temple somewhere else and just sit down and absorb ourselves in meditation. But we have to do what it takes to protect ourselves. So, what it takes, it will vary from person to person, from situation to situation.

And when we take the steps forward, Krishna guides us forward how to move forward from that point. So, here he, yeah, 41st. tato guṇeṃ bhyātmānaṁ viyujyātma-samādhinā yuje bhagavad-dhāmi brahmanyānubhavātmani tato guṇeṃ bhyātmānaṁ viyujyā So, guṇeṃ bhyātmānaṁ, a soul connected with the boards or the products of the boards, that is the sense objects, yuje, he separated his soul, separated his consciousness from the sense objects.

ātma-samādhinā yuje So, he focused his consciousness on samādhi, on samādhi stage. bhagavad-dhāmi Now, Vande Mithyam can explain. He gives an elaborate analysis.

And the word dhām, normally we say it refers to a board. But he says dhām can also refer to form. So, he says param brahma param dhāma pavitram paramambhava So, he says there the dhām refers to form.

We have the supreme brahma and we have the supreme form. So, here also bhagavad-dhāmi, he says that he focused his consciousness on the form of the Lord. brahmanyānubhavātmani That brahmanya, that is spiritual reality.

anubhava-ātmani That is the ultimate anubhava for the ātma. We have many different experiences in this world, many different anubhavas. But none of these anubhavas actually satisfy us.

They leave us dissatisfied. But when there is bhakti, pareśānubhava, viraktir anyatra ca When we practice bhakti then we get pareśānubhava. And that anubhava of the pareśa, that experience of the Supreme Lord is so satisfying that viraktir anyatra ca, one becomes detached from other things.

So, here he said that he focused himself on the process by which he could get brahmanyānubhavātmani, he could get experience of the spiritual absolute truth. 42 Here he upāraddhīṣṭasme, in this way when he absorbed his consciousness in the spiritual truth, then ād-adrākṣit, he saw puruṣānpuraḥ, those four people he saw again whom he had seen, upalobhyopalabdhānprāp, those whom he had seen before, he saw them again and then bhavandeśirasrādvija, he bowed his head down to them. So, now here he is not referred to a dāsitpati, he is referred to a dvija.

Right? Because he is acting brahmanical, he has reinstated himself in a brahmanical position. So, bhavandeśirasrādvija, he offered his obeisances. Earlier also he had offered obeisances.

But at that time they were there and they went away. But now they have come back again. So, the Bhagavatam doesn't mention specifically how long he performed austerities over here.

But it is clear that he renounced the world and he focused himself on Yoga Samādhi and eventually he had a darshan of the Viṣṇudāsa again. Now they had come to take him. hitvā kalevaram tīrthe gangāyāṁ darshanādanu sadya svarūpaṁ jagruhe bhagavatpārśvavartinām So, hitvā kalevaram tīrthe.

So, at that tīrtha, that sacred place, he gave up his body. gangāyāṁ darshanādanu. On seeing these people on the banks of the Ganga, sadya svarūpaṁ jagruhe, he got his form.

And what was the form? Bhagavatpārśvavartinām. Bhagavatpārśa. Pārśa is pārśana.

Associate. So, he became an associate of the Supreme Lord. Basically, it was not just that he got liberation, but he got personal liberation in the spiritual world.

He got his spiritual form over there. So, sākaṁ vihāya sāvipro sākaṁ vihāya sāvipro mahāpūruṣa kiṅkarai haimam vimānam āruhya yayaṁ yatra śrīyāpati So, sākaṁ vihāya sāvipro. So, this brāhmaṇa, accompanied by the Viṣṇudūtas, mahāpūruṣa kiṅkarai.

So, same word is coming, described by the Viṣṇudūtas. Servants of the great person. And haimam vimānam āruhya.

Haima is gold. So, golden airplane he ascended and yayaṁ yatra śrīyāpati. So, there he went where śrīyāpati, the lord of the worlds of fortune decided.

That means he attained liberation. He went back to Vaikuntha. So, who all are the people in the Bhagavatam who are described as having attained Vaikuntha? Dhruva Mahārāja.

Dhruva Mahārāja. Ajāmila Prabhupāda. Actually, Pruthu also is described.

Pruthu also renounced the world and he went and the Viṣṇudūtas came and took him. Pāṇḍavas. Pāṇḍavas is described, but specifically the Vaikuntha airplane coming and taking them.

Pāṇḍavas is described that they just went to the north and they left the world and then eventually they attained perfection. So, especially the Vaikuntha airplane coming or Viṣṇudūtas coming to take someone and Dhruva and Ajāmila are the primary two things. So, Pruthu, of course, it is described he might attain liberation.

But specifically the description of the Viṣṇudūtas coming with the airplane. So, Pruthu's wife. Dhruva's mother also, yes.

So, basically Dhruva and his, those are related with him, his mother. Pruthu and his wife. Anybody else from any of the other cantos? When Prithvāsura dies, it is not described, by the way.

He just dies and it is said that Indra keeps trying to slash, slash, slash and it is already at that time Prithvāsura has departed to the spiritual world. There is no description of even a soul rising higher or anything. It is just said that he departed to the spiritual world.

Yeah, there is no description of the airplane. Parīkṣit, what happens? His body burns and then it is said that he is liberated. The snake bites.

It is said that even before that only he has left his body. He is absorbed in samādhi and he is left. But there is no Vaikuntha airplane coming.

Who else? For Balram it is described that a snake emerges from his body and then he ascends on the snake and then a snake rises up. There is no description of Prahlad's disappearance. Let's go over canto by canto.

First canto, there is no Pandavas. Dhritarashtra also, it is not, it doesn't attain, it is said to be that kind of liberation. Second canto, there is none of them.

Second canto, there is just discussion. There is no discussion. I mean particularly devoted in liberation.

Devahūti and Kardama and Kapila. Kapila is said to be, even now he is performing austerities. And Devahūti and Kardama also it is not described anything like that.

Kardama renounces and he attains perfection but there is no specific description. Fourth canto, there is Dhruva and Pūṭha. So, fourth canto there are two.

Now, Anga just renounces the world. There is no description of Vaikuntha airplane. Fifth canto.

Prachitas, I mean there is no description of Vaikuntha airplane as such. What happens to Bharat Mahārāja's third lifetime eventually? Yeah, so what happens eventually? There is no description of Jadbhārata getting liberated. Yeah, I said there was a forest fire.

Yeah, right. So, it is basically described how Jadbhārata becomes enlightened and Jadbhārata, Jadbhārata enlightens, Jadbhārata enlightens Rahu and that's where the story ends. So, Jadbhārata's liberation is not described as such.

But it is understood that he is liberated. Sixth canto, we are here right now. In this, Uttarāsura is the next person.

And then apart from that, Daksha of course is very different. Daksha comes in the fourth canto also that way. Gajendra, he gets a divine form, he gets a spiritual form also.

So, but it is not, it is actually Vishnu himself comes. Much higher in one sense. So, seventh canto, first ten chapters are about Prahlāda and the next five chapters are about the, about the Varanāśrama.

So, there is, in those chapters nothing. Eighth canto, Gajendra is there, very nice. And after that we have Parashurāma, we have Rāma.

There are lot of other things, but there is no description elaborately of anyone attaining specific liberation. Yeah, okay. It's interesting.

Yeah, Gajendra is a good example also. Tenth canto, we don't have any. Yes, sorry.

Vishnu has showed Vaikuntha dāna to all. Rajasthi also, yeah. Basically this kind of description of, of demonstrated departure to Vaikuntha.

That we don't have so many. So, eleventh canto of course is mostly Uddhav Gita only. And there is a description of the Yadus, but their description is quite different.

And twelfth canto there is not much apart from Parikshit. There is a confusing part of this. Somewhere Vatsal mentioned that how they have attained the perfection.

Because they have done in the Vatsalya Bhāgavatam, in the Samhita Sūrāma. So, how they attained the perfection? So, how the world can be reformed? See, in general, it is understood that if a person follows the process of purification, there will be perfection. So, if you see that way, the whole Kubja path, not Kubja, the, not Kubja, who is the prostitute who gets enlightened? Pingala, sorry.

I was, Pingala, earlier also I mentioned Kubja, I think it was Pingala. I was telling Pingala, not Kubja. So, Pingala, if we see, the Bhāgavatam describes only one incident from her life.

That's all. The incident, her backstory also doesn't come much. It's just that she is a prostitute and one night, if you see from the sheer drama, dramatic point of view, nothing happens in the story.

So, it's actually in the inaction there is great action, that's it. You know, one night she comes out and nobody comes to him. Kar.

And because nobody comes to her, she feels frustrated and then she becomes detached. She renounces. And that's all.

It's over. So, actually speaking from the action, nothing happens. So, the Bhāgavatam is not, it is history, it is itihāsa, but it is not history in the sense of biography.

It is not a chronological account of the full lives of various characters. So, in general, that is the defining difference between the purāṇas and the itihāsas. The itihāsas are, sorry, the itihāsas themselves, when we talk about itihāsas of the Ramayana Mahābhārata, they are more like a chronological biographic.

The purāṇas are more, what is the English word is anthological. Anthology means different essays on different topics or different subjects are discussed together under one rubric, under one heading. So, the purāṇas are usually anthological, whereas the itihāsas are themselves chronological.

So, the Pandavas' life from beginning to end is described, Ram's life from beginning to end is described in the Mahābhārata and the Ramayana. Now, the detailed chronological life that comes in the Bhāgavatam is of Krishna. The 10th and the 11th cantos.

So, yes, it is understood that if, so the point I was making is that the purāṇas as a genre, they don't necessarily give full life of anyone. Especially the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, it has one mission that to help Parīkṣit fix his mind on the Supreme and to tell those stories which can inspire him to fix the mind of the Supreme. So, then the transformational incidents from various people's lives are talked about.

I think even the Avanti Brāhmaṇa, his attaining perfection is not described. It is just simply described how he realizes my mind is the cause of my problems and thus he becomes enlightened. So, in that sense, the Bhāgavatam doesn't give, for many characters or above all, we could say for most characters, it does not give like a full biographical account.

For a few interviews, but we understand that because they have become enlightened, because they have become purified, because they have become detached, they will eventually attain perfection. As you rightly said, it is possible that in some other purāṇas, the description of their liberation may be given. But that is not necessary for us to understand the mood of the Bhāgavatam and the purpose.

Once we follow the process, the perfection will come. So, what did we conclude? Four characters. So, Prithu, Dhruva, Ajāmila, Gajendra and Prithu to some extent.

And of course, Jara. Jara, of course, did not do any sādhanā. Ajāmila also did some sādhanā.

Gajendra sādhanā was his previous life in one sense and this life was just a recollection. Yeah, the soul, the movement of the soul, Yāgāsura it is said, even Śiśupāla also it is said, that the soul moving and merging into this. That is quite different from say Vaikuṇṭha.

Yeah, of course, but at that time what is seen, that he gets sādhukamukti, is a revelation given by our Gaudiya Vaishnavacharyas. What is depicted in the Bhāgavatam is primarily that his soul went and merged into it. Supreme.

So, we have at least four characters. Rajarajan Singh, he asked, where will you go? Then he kind of gave a visualized promise. This is where you will go.

Yeah. And Jīva Gosvāmī explained in Gopālachandru that after Krishna killed Śūtantavakra, which was, that battle happened near Mathura, after that he actually came back to Vṛndāvana. And then Vṛndāvana, he said that he married the gopīs.

And then after that he took them all to the spiritual world. And then after that Krishna returned. So, one Krishna, the Vṛndāvana Krishna went with them back.

And Vaikuṇṭha Krishna, he came back. And then the remaining Bhāstans took place. So, let's move on.

Let's complete this. Only three verses remain. Then we can have question and answers.

You know, I know. So, it's described now. He says, Śukadeva Gosvāmī is sort of summarizing the story.

What was the situation? Viplāvita sarva-dharma. He had actually given up all dharma. This is not sarva-dharmāṁ pratyajya that Arjuna Krishna is talking about.

That is sarva-dharmāṁ pratyajya for the sake of mām ekaṁ śaraṇa-prajñā. He had, Ajāmila had done sarva-dharmāṁ pratyajya for Vrishāli mekaṁ śaraṇa-prajñā. He had surrendered to the prostitute.

So, he was dāsya-pati-patito. So, here there is a poetic alliteration missing. Pati and patito.

So, dāsya-pati-patito-garhya-karmana. Not only he had become a wife of prostitute, but as her husband he had also done garhya-karmana, abominable activities. Nipātyamāno niraye.

And he was meant to go to hell, but far from going to go to hell, he, hatha-vrata he had meant, he had given up all the brahminical vows, sadyo-vimukto, but quickly he became liberated, bhagavān nāma-grana, just by chanting the name of Bhagavān. And such is the glory of the name of the Supreme Lord. nāta-param-karma-nibandha-kuntanaṁ ubhūkṣatāṁ tīrtha-padānu-kīrtanaṁ ayat-punakarma-sujyate mano rajas-tamo-bhyāma-kalilaṁ yato anyathā So, nāta-param, there is nothing better than, karma-nibandha-kuntanaṁ, for one who wants to end the karmic bondage, ubhūkṣatāṁ tīrtha-padānu-kīrtanaṁ, ubhūkṣatāṁ, for one who wants liberation, tīrtha-padānu-kīrtanaṁ, that sacred Lord, chanting His holy names, that is the best way.

nāyat-punakarma-sujyate mano Otherwise, the mind does not become detached from, or rather by doing this, the mind does not become attached, sujyate is attached. So, na sujyate, if one does the padānu-kīrtanaṁ, if one chants the holy names, then the mind does not become attached to karma again. But, rajas-tamo-bhyāma-kalilaṁ yato anyathā.

Otherwise, the contamination of the lower modes comes again and again. It does not go away. This is the best way for purifying the mind.

Now there is a phalakṣruti that comes. yaitat paramaṁ guhyam itihāsaṁ aghāpaham chunyāśraddhaya-yukto yasya bhaktyānu-kīrtaye na vai nisa-narakaṁ yāti mekṣito yama-kiṅkarai vidya-pyamangalo martyo viṣṇu-loke mahīṅyate paramaṁ guhyam, this confidential story, itihāsaṁ aghāpaham, the story of, the itihāsa of a person becoming free from sin, chunyāśraddhaya-yukto, if one hears it faithfully, yasya bhaktyānu-kīrtaye, or recite the story with devotion, na vai nisa-narakaṁ yāti, that person will not go to hell, mekṣito yama-kiṅkarai, that person will never see the Yamadūtas, rādhār yadya-pyamangalo martyo even if he was sinful, after that viṣṇu-loke mahīṅyate, that person will attain viṣṇu-loka. So what has happened in the Yama's life, that can happen in our life also, if we hear the story peacefully, if we hear it faithfully.

So now, again, like we discussed yesterday about the promises, we'll see the last verse. What is the conclusion of the whole pastime? brīyamāṇo harer nāmā tropacāritaṁ ajāmilopya-gādhāmā ki-mukṣraddhaya-granaṁ So Ajāmila, at the time of death, while referring to his child, he chanted this name, agād-dhāma, still even he attained the supreme abode. Then, ki-mukṣraddhaya-granaṁ, so if somebody chants faithfully, how much more will be the benefit.

So it is, the conclusion is, Viṣṇu Ācārya Kitāpura says four things. He says that Ajāmila was sinful, so while being sinful and chanting, he got so much benefit, so if one lives sinlessly and chants, how much more benefit will get. So Ajāmila chanted just at the time of death, but if one chants throughout one's life as a sādhana, how much more benefit one will get.

Ajāmila chanted while indicating his son. If we chant while calling out to the Lord, how much more benefit we will get. And he says he actually did not really at that time have faith in the holy name.

If we have faith in the holy name when we chant, then how much more benefit we will get. So sinlessly, faithfully, directly addressing the Lord and as a sādhana, if we practice, how much more benefit we will get. kim uttara śraddhāyāgraṇam So the conclusion of the Bhagavatam is not that we expect the same, that all of us expect the same thing that happened to Ajāmila.

Its conclusion is that, therefore, if we chant faithfully, how much more benefit we will get. Or how surely we will get the benefit. So in general, like I said yesterday, the phalaśruti of the promise of extraordinary results is meant to reinforce our faith in the standard process.

And by following the standard process, we move onwards and we eventually attain perfection in our life. So these stories in the past and in the Bhagavatam, hearing them itself is beneficial. And internalizing those principles and applying them is even more beneficial.

So yes, questions? Yes, please. One question I have about the meditation is that, when you are, after you have meditated, personally, when I take some rejuvenation, it lasts for two days and then shifts. Again, back to the concept.

So you mentioned one thing that, actually, resolution means practical support protection. So like any sadhaka, what could be practical support protection so that when we get some, you know, some real result, we cannot feel it immediately. So often our resolutions do not last for long.

So what can we practically do to make sure that the zeal to implement the resolution stays on? So first thing I have found is that never take any lifelong resolution. It doesn't stay even for a few days long afterwards. Because the idea of a lifelong thing, it just becomes such a big thing that we just can't maintain that forever.

So usually it's like some medium term resolutions. I mean, okay, I'll study Shastra every day for one hour. If I decide that.

Now one hour seems doable. And for one month also seems doable. If I say one hour throughout my life I'll study Shastra.

You know, we don't even know what all will happen in our life. So if, what happens is, with respect to the mind, if something has to be done for a finite period, okay, it seems like austerity is manageable. So if we are told, okay, fast for one day, it's okay.

Fast lifelong, impossible. It's physically also impossible. But just the idea of doing something lifelong, at least I have found with respect to myself, the mind has this sort of innate revolution to the idea.

It just revolts against the idea. Anything you have to do lifelong, heck no. But if just, okay, one month, two months, whatever, one month, if you just decide, then what happens? The mind doesn't agitate so much.

Then the key thing is, usually if you make a month-long resolution, it's possible to implement it. But at the end of the month you have to be really careful. Because what happens, the mind says, now I did this discipline, now with interest I want to enjoy.

So then at that time the whole work can get undone. But at the end of the month, instead of going into sort of illusion that I have achieved something, instead of that we have some reflection. Okay, I made this resolution.

And okay, I had to do certain things. We become a little reflective. Did this really help me? Or if it helped me, what are the practical ways in which it helped me? So what happens, at the end of a month of a resolution, even if it is not fully successful, some days we are not able to do it, some days we are able to, whatever it is, then if we reflect, and then we note down time to do it.

Okay, I decided to read one hour every day for a month. And yes, see, I have completed or almost completed one canto. I really was able to do something tangible.

Then we write it down. Then what happens? Initially there might have been some source of the inspiration to enact the resolution. But now we have some tangible result to reinforce the resolution.

See, the fuel that got us started in the resolution, that fuel may not last throughout. So along just like a flight which is going say from India to America, it may not have enough fuel directly to go from India to America. So it may have to land somewhere to refuel itself.

So like that, it is almost natural that whatever fuels our resolution initially, that same thing may not fuel our resolution after some time. So we have to find out some other things that may fuel the resolution. For example, we may hear some class, and some senior devotee or a spiritual master, they may say, you know, we should study Shastra, and they speak very much about Bhagavatam.

We feel inspired. But what happens? After one month, the same class we hear again, we do not find it that inspiring. That is just the way the mind is.

So we have to, if we expect the same fuel to fuel our resolution all the time, it's not going to work. That's why if after enacting a resolution for some time, after implementing a resolution for some time, we get some tangible results, and we quantify or note down those results, then that can also fuel our resolution. Actually, I did this, and it benefited me so much.

These were the benefits I got. And then we use that practical benefit that we got from the resolution as a further fuel. So that way, you know, say if we study Shastra very nicely for one month, and then we are preaching somewhere, and somebody asks a question, and I read this, and we were able to give a very good answer.

Then we can even note down that incident. You see, because I studied like this, it was not necessarily that in my study I got that answer automatically, but just the fact that I was studying kept me intellectually alert. And when the opportunity for preaching came, the answer just popped up in my mind.

It was a good answer, a proper answer. So, you know, we have to find out, as we are going along the journey, what will fuel our resolution onwards. And sometimes we may also have to refine our resolution.

Modify, amend our resolution a little bit. You know, it's not that the same resolution, sometimes we find that, okay, one hour I'll study Bhagavatam every day. But then I find, okay, Bhagavatam is good, but maybe to understand the Bhagavatam, I also want to hear some lectures, then my understanding becomes deeper.

Then I may decide, okay, half hour I'll study Bhagavatam, half hour I'll hear some lecture on the topic of which I've studied in the Bhagavatam, whatever. So that way, based on how, based on what actually inspires us, what actually benefits us, what helps us to grow in our spiritual life, we may have to amend or refine our resolutions. And then when, so we can get some, usually our resolution comes from some external impetus.

And external impetus is good. Somebody speaks something, we see something, we hear something. We may hear some class, you know, some devotee we think is our equal.

But then that devotee goes to a very learned class. We think, I've studied Bhagavatam so much, I've not studied anything. The initial impetus may come from anywhere.

But the external impetuses are not only sustainable. We have to get some internal impetus. And internal impetus doesn't just mean a feeling.

Yes, I want to do this. But feelings, they come and go. Earlier I was talking about spikes of lust, how the lust sometimes goes up and then comes down.

Actually, even the inspiration to increase the intensity of our bhakti, that also comes like a spike sometimes and goes down. So the spikes when they come, the positive spikes, we are fortunate when they come. And we should cherish them.

But again, they will not sustain. So we have to have some internal intellectual impetus. evam buddhe parambuddha samsthavyatmanamatmanah Krishna concludes the section on lust by saying, with your intelligence, situate yourself on the spiritual platform.

With your intelligence. Yuga Swami says in the Sandarbhas that when we are pure devotees at that time, priti keeps us on the spiritual level. But till we come to the pure stage, the sadhaka stage, it is buddhi that keeps us on the spiritual level.

It is by buddhi we keep ourselves on the spiritual level. So we need to, for sustaining our resolutions, create some internal intellectual impetus. So that means if we make a resolution, why is this important for me? How is it benefiting me? And how has it benefited me? We note it down, put it down, maybe in a journal or in a diary somewhere.

And then whenever our resolution, whenever our resolve starts going down, at that time, we look at that. And by looking at that, we get the inspiration, yes, I should do this. So that's one practical way which you can do it.

Of course, there are things like we can pray to Krishna, we can maybe seek the blessings of some senior Vaishnavas that I know started this resolution. That can also help. Another practical thing which we can do is to have an accountability partner.

An accountability partner is actually a term that is used in de-addiction courses. When a person is addicted to something and they want to give up that addiction, they say that you have to have some person to whom you are accountable. It need not be a senior spiritual authority.

It can just be a friend also. When we talk about accountability, it doesn't mean necessarily that we have to bear our whole heart to them. Just about whatever one thing we are doing.

So, for example, if you decide to study Shastra, if you decide I am going to memorize one verse every day or maybe one verse in three days or one verse a week, whatever. Then if you have some other friend who also wants to do something similar, at least with them we can share. That person is memorizing one verse, we memorize one verse.

Or even if they are not doing it, still, you know, okay. Now, we just tell them, if we have a close friend, we request them that I have decided that every day I am going to study Shastra for one hour, in a week I am going to study for seven days. Now, if you could just ask me once at the end of a week, how did you study? How did things go on? Then that itself can help.

If two devotees can come together and make a resolution. We will both study Shastra for one hour. That's wonderful.

But you have to see whether it works out or not. Because there are so many practical situations so it may not work out. But having a partner to whom we can be accountable a little bit.

Now, if we have authority and if we can have authority, that is good. We have a counselor or a mentor or whatever. But even if it is a friend also, that can help.

I just, what happens by this, having this accountability partner is that we use our ego in devotional service. We dovetail our ego, wants to portray that, you know, I am a good person. I am not a bad person.

And it is not a bad thing. In some way or the other, I am a Christian. So, if I told you I will do it, I will do it.

So, that way also, that is something which is quite empowering. And because we come from a Rajasic culture, we also still have some Rajoguna. Often, setting some targets or deadlines also helps.

There is a resolution about what I will do or what I will not do. But if you can quantify that, that means, say, if I am going to study Shastra one hour every day. So, what happens is, that is a resolution which may not translate into tangible results.

In terms of, okay, I study the Shastra one hour every day. But if you can roughly quantify, okay, my pace is that I can read one page in three minutes or one page in five minutes, whatever. You decide that.

Then if I read one page in three minutes, that means in 60 minutes I can read 20 pages. So, if I read one hour every day, that means in a month I will be practically reading 600 pages. In 20 pages every day if I read, I am just giving a hypothetical.

Somebody may take 10 minutes to read one page. Our pace is our pace. But if we translate that 600 pages means practically, one and a half canto I will be able to complete.

So, that sort of quantifiable target gives us inspiration. And I say, okay, that means if I just stick to this resolution, I will be able to do this, this, this. That way also setting some targets, setting some deadlines, quantifying things helps us to inspire ourselves.

Because even if we do rely a lot on our senses in the gross world. No, that means if we see something which is visibly, tangibly achieved, that helps us a lot. So, refueling our resolution periodically by developing some internal intellectual impetus and having some accountability partner and creating some tangible goals to accompany the resolution, that all that helps in practically implementing the resolution.

And of course, if we start doing these things, we will see the dhamma-buddhi-yogam. Krishna gives into this, maybe I can do this to reinforce the resolution, maybe I can do this to reinforce the resolution, to implement it. That Krishna will give us the impetus of how we can improve things.

Does that answer your question? Okay. Yes. The utility here is that we get the same, but not the same one.

So, actually if we, it is apparent from, like for example, Yudhishthira Maharaj, everyone. So, this sounds more like Yudhishthira Maharaj, like we get the same, but not the same one. If we look at Bhima's wordings and how he plays us, it is kind of apparent that he is also heading for the right cause.

Like, for whatever he did. So, for that most, I mean, practically how is it working? One is not so much elevated as, I mean, both are pure devotees, but one has a way of looking at things this way, another has a way of looking at things that way. Okay.

And the sinner also, for that very reason that he has chosen to become sinful. And then, I don't know, ultimately maybe he is also hating the sinner only. Not the sinner.

Ultimately. Okay. Good question.

So, Bhima hated Duryodhana. So, did he follow hate the sin, not the sinner? Or was he actually hating the sinner also? Yeah. First thing is that the Mahabharata is primarily a book of Karmakand.

There are elements of Bhakti within it. And the elements of Bhakti within the Mahabharata are highlighted much more in the Bhagavatam. But the overall book is at a particular level.

So, if you look at the Mahabharata, the Mahabharata hardly ever talks about Vaikuntha. Hardly ever talks about Vaikuntha. The cherished aspiration of the heroes in the Mahabharata is attainment of heaven.

The Mahabharata's overall mood is of attainment of Vaikuntha. Within the Mahabharata, there are sections of Bhakti and there is Bhagavad Gita is there, there is Vishnu's asana is there, there is Narayana is also a section where prayers to Narayana are offered. So, there are sections of Bhakti definitely which where Vishnu is the focus.

But otherwise, Mahabharata's overall mood is the mood of Karmakand. And Bhima's character largely is in consonance with the Mahabharata's mood of Karmakand. So, that's why when a Kshatriya is angry, they are not just angry at some abstract lust or abstract greed or abstract… No, they get angry at the person who embodies that greed.

They get angry at the person who embodies that lust or whatever. So, in terms of the conduct appropriate for an aspirant of pure devotion service, it is not that the Pandavas literally can be models. In principle, the Pandavas are models.

But in practice, the Pandavas are Kshatriyas. Today when we are sadhakas, we are not Kshatriyas. So, at least primarily that's not the, Prabhupada wanted the movement primarily to be of brahmanas.

So, to cultivate brahmanas. So, the Kshatriya way of living is not the literal model for sadhakas. So, Bhima, his devotion to Krishna is seen in the Mahabharata in various situations.

But he is clearly, he, so, among the five Pandavas, we see that Yudhishthira is more like a brahmana Kshatriya. Whereas Bhima is totally like the Kshatriya Kshatriya. His whole mood is Kshatriya.

So, this person has wronged us, we have to punish him. So, that is not wrong. Because ultimately he, even if we say he hates the sinner, he is really angry with Dushasana, he killed Dushasana, he killed Duryodhana.

So, if we have a simplistic notion of what hate, don't hate the sinner means. See, at one level, for doing, like we discussed in the Devavati pastime, for doing a particular activity, a particular setting is required, a particular kind of emotion is required. Without that, that particular action may not happen.

So, it is not that Arjuna, when he is fighting the Kshetra war, he is actually seeing Karna as an enemy, he is seeing the Kauravas as an enemy, Kauravas as an enemy, he is fighting against them. So, Kshatriya, the whole Kshatriya activity, it may have a transcendental purpose, but it involves passionate execution. A war cannot be fought without passion.

But one doesn't go under the control of passion totally. One doesn't embrace adharma just for the sake of fulfilling the passionate purpose. So, without passion, it is practically not possible to do Kshatriya activity.

Fighting involves, you have to have some vigor, some anger, otherwise how can fighting be there? So, we can't have the ideal of one varna superimposed on other varna. The idea of hate the sin, not the sinner, that can be implemented practically in terms of forgiving by Brahmanas. But Kshatriyas, they are the law bearers, the law protectors of society and often they have to punish.

So, you will see in the 18th chapter when Krishna talks about Brahmana Kshatriya Vaishya. So, what does he talk about? Shamao damastapa saucham, shantir arjama nivaja. Jnanam vijnanam astuti, brahmakarmasubhavaja.

So, shantir, shanti is peacefulness, tolerance. So, that is the quality of a Brahmana. But just after that when he describes the quality of a Kshatriya, what is that? Vidhe chaapya palayanam.

So, at one level, for a Brahmana it is said, be peaceful, be forgiving, be tolerant. But for a Kshatriya it is Vidhe chaapya palayanam. Fight and don't run away from fighting.

So, that means the qualities which are required for a Brahmana and for a Kshatriya, they are different. And don't hate the sinner. As a principle it applies to everyone.

But as a practical implementation, a Brahmana may implement simply by forgiving the people. But a Kshatriya may have to implement by punishing. A Kshatriya cannot necessarily always be forgiving.

A Kshatriya may have to punish. Therefore, we see Bhima as a model of devotion but as a model of Kshatriya devotion. So, Kshatriya devotion means, he has Kshatriya qualities but his purpose remains devotional.

But just because his purpose is devotional doesn't mean that all his actions will be only devotional. Kshatriya actions involve passion, it involves fighting, it involves also having strong emotions against the person who has done injustice. It is only by those emotions that the Kshatriya can fight and kill as it is required.

Okay. Any other questions? Yeah. Yeah, that's true.

No idea. It's, Rupa Goswami talks about Loka Pramana. They talk about Shastra Pramana and Loka Pramana.

So, Loka Pramana is also accepted. Especially if the lokas are pious or devoted. So, for example, when we go to Vrindavan, there are many stories about Vrindavan, of Christian person in Vrindavan which we may not find in any of the Shastra.

Either Bhagavatam or the Puranas or even the Goswami literature. But still, they are widely prevalent in Vrindavan. And if they are broadly in harmony with the mood of, with the siddhanta and rasa, then they are accepted.

They are cherished. Not just accepted, they are cherished. So, clearly, Tukaram's going in, going to Vaikuntha will not be described by Tukaram himself.

So, it is described by somebody else after him. So, he may say that yeah, as I am going now, he may have said that but that was recorded by someone else. So, I feel that it's a widely, if you look at Tukaram's life, it's clear that he was a very exalted saintly devotee and he would have gone back to the spiritual world.

So, I would say that it's a part of the tradition which has come from him, which is built around him. Guruji, what is the meaning of the commandment which says that one should not take the name of God? So, when we have sankirtan parihasyam, which is anyway we chant the holy name, that is auspicious. But the Bible says that, one of the commandments in the Old Testament is that don't take the name of God in vain.

So, what does it actually mean? See, there is a whole different cultural context in which the Old Testament was given and the Ten Commandments come over there. So, when they talk about not chanting the holy name in vain or God's name in vain, what it means is that at that time, you know, when people swear, sometimes swear can be a foul word or swear can also be I take a vow, I swear that I will do this. So, when people swear, so at that time it is a common form to swear in the name of God.

Both ways, you know, for God's sake don't do this. So, now that kind of swearing had become very casual. People would swear in the name of God, but they would not take it very seriously.

So, take the name of God, don't take the name of holy sacred name in vain. Don't swear in the name of God like that. That is the essential promise.

But if we see that in the Christian tradition, there is a chanting, they chant Jesus Christ, O Jesus Christ have the Hail Mary prayers there, O Jesus Christ have mercy on me. And they do chant the name, there are so many hymns in which they chant the holy name. So, that is not a literal enjoyment that one should not chant the holy name.

So, again every directive has to be seen in its context. There the context was that casual swearing on the name of God, that is something which is not to be done. They are basically minimizing God, measuring God's status.

So, that is not recommended over there. That's what is forbidden over there. Whereas in the Bhagavatam, when it is said that in any way one chants and is auspicious, the focus is on that the holy name comprises a connection with God.

It links our consciousness with God and that connection is auspicious. So, there are many places where we see in scripture, things which can almost seem contradictory, which they come because their focus is significantly different. So, I have seen the Mahabharata that comes at some places that when the sages are instructing Yudhishtira, they talk about the glory of forgiveness.

And Draupadi is chastising Yudhishtira, you know, you are so passive. Only cowards forgive. You know, such an insult, it should be avenged.

It should not be forgiven. So, if you look at the context, you know, different contexts are stressing different things. So, I would say that the context is that and these are not necessarily contradictory if you look at the context.

Both are focusing on having a connection with God. But what is, just like in our tradition also, we say that at one level we may say Sanketyam Parihasyam, anyone who chants it is okay. But then for the serious seekers also we say that you should chant with proper pronunciation, don't mispronounce, chant with proper attention.

So, I would say that in different contexts and different levels. In our tradition also Sanketyam Parihasyam is not an absolute principle. That is a principle for those who are, those who have not even begun their spiritual life.

But for those who are serious seekers, for them it is recommended that they chant with proper pronunciation, chant with proper intention, proper consciousness. And in that sense, we can reconcile both. So, shall we move on to the next chapter or shall we stop here? I will close my eyes.

You decide. You can take a vote or whatever. Sorry? Is this your vote? Okay.

So, it's 1.45. So, we can, we started around 12. So, we will go to 2.30 or something like that. As planned, two hours, two and a half hours.

So, now this is the chapter where there is a conversation between the Yamraj, Yamraj and Yamrutas. So, it starts with Parikshit Maharaj asking a question. So, here just like you know sometimes if you have a drama, there are different events happening in different scenes or different locations.

So, the drama describes the events happening at a particular location and the curtains fall. And then the setting is changed over there and a new set location is described and then events over there are described. So, Shukadeva Goswami narrates the events in Ajaman's life and that narrating gets over.

So, Parikshit Maharaj now shifts this question, he shifts this focus to another scene. He says, what happened to the Yamrutas? They went back to Yamraj and you said that they told Yamraj what happened. So, when Yamraj heard this, what happened after that? By his servants, when they described that pratyaha, that their arguments were countered.

So, at that time, on hearing this, that they were defeated by the servants of Murari. So, what did Yamraj do? What did he say to his servants? How did he respond? So, here Chakravartipa describes that this section has two, this chapter has two parts. The first initial short part is how the Yamrutas, out of frustration, because their order has been thwarted, they become almost disrespectful to Yamraj.

You know, what is your power? They acted on your power, but it did not work. They become a little disrespectful to Yamraj, but afterwards Yamraj glorifies the power, glorifies bhakti. The major part of the chapter is the glorification of bhakti as described by Yamraj.

So, Pariksit is continuing over here. So, he says, if Yamraj has given a danda, normally nobody will violate it. Normally it is said that once death comes, you just have to go, nobody can stop death when it comes.

So, I have a kutaschana visheshita purvasi. It has never been heard that, it has never happened that Yama's order has been thwarted. So, how will this happen now? This is lokasamsayam, this is my doubt.

I have heard that his order can never be violated. It has never been heard that his order has been violated. So, how is it violated now? This is my doubt and apart from you, nobody can remove this doubt.

So, please help me remove it. So, Bhagwat Purusha Iraj and O.K. after being defeated by the Bhagwat Purusha, Yamya patihatyodamaha. So, their efforts, Yamya, Yamraj's servant, their effort was foiled.

Patim vijnapayam asu. Pati refers here to master, not husband. They went to their master, vijnapayam, to inform him.

Yamam samyamani pati. Their master was Yama and he is the pati of samyamani, that is the kingdom of, that is the kingdom of Yamraj. That's where he stays.

Yamduta ucchuhum kati santihasastaro jivalokasya vaipramho traividhyam kurvatah karma balabhivyakti hetavah So, kati santihasastaro. Shastaro is those who do shasana, those who rule, those who are controllers. So, kati, how many are there, santihas? Jivalokasya vaipramho, O master, for the jivas, how many controllers are there? Traividhyam kurvatah karma, when people do karma as per the three gunas, balabhivyakti hetavah, the fruits of the, the phala of that when it comes, so, how many controllers are involved in giving the fruits of work? It's an interesting question, that they had known that Yamraj is the controller.

But now they have found that his control was spoiled. So, they had cast the Yamapash, but the Yamapash was just cut apart. It no longer held, when they saw that the Yamapash could no longer hold him, then they left, frustrated.

So, they asked him, it seems that there is some controller apart from you also. How many controllers are there like this, who cause the fruits of people's actions to be manifested? So, actually they were very frustrated. We go to do something and then they are not able to do it.

Anyone will get frustrated. When somebody goes with a lot of power, a lot of authority and somebody comes in like a king and then that person has to go away like a defeated dog. It's a great disgrace.

So, for them they were very disgraced. So, they were speaking over here. So, they were so frustrated.

Here it is said that Chakravarthy said that they were actually not able to speak properly. They choked syllables. The syllables that they were speaking, they were actually choked as they were speaking it.

So, yadi surbhavo loke shastaro dandadharinaha kasyasyatamnava kasya vrityushyamrta me bhava So, yadi surbhavo loke. If there are many controllers, shastaro dandadharinaha who all give results of the karma to people, kasyasyatamnava kasya then who will decide the results of karma? vrityushyamrta me bhava So, who will decide the results? Who will decide when there should be death? Who will decide there should not be death? How will the fruits be decided actually? So, this is actually one of the fundamental arguments against polytheism. So, there are broadly, at least in the western conception, there are two broad schools of thought with respect to God.

There is monotheism and there is polytheism. So, monotheism is that there is one God. Theism refers to God.

Poly means many. So, polytheism refers to many Gods. So, now the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, they are considered to be very prominently monotheistic religions.

In fact, they are very aggressively monotheistic also. So, now these religions replaced, especially when Christianity spread, all these three religions, they have, if you go back to their lineages, they have, their original stories are very similar. And Abraham is the prophet, if you go to their genealogy, later on there are variations, but Abraham is the prophet who is considered to be the founder.

That's why all three religions are called Abrahamic religions. Now, there are little diversions that happen in their understanding of who is a prophet and who is not a prophet. So, those who followed Abraham, they eventually, those who followed, they are called Jews.

And among those Jews, in one Jew family, one person was born, who was Jesus. And Jesus was accepted as the Messiah by some people. And those who accept Jesus as the Messiah, they are called as Christians.

So, Abraham and Moses, when they all came, they said in the future a Messiah is going to come. So, the Jews were expecting a Messiah to come. But when that Messiah came, when Jesus came, some people accepted him as the Messiah, others did not.

Those who did not accept him, they remained Jews. Those who accepted him became Christians. And Christianity spread very rapidly.

And later on, 6 centuries later, Muhammad came. And Muhammad was thought as the Messiah by others. So, those who accepted Muhammad as the Messiah, they are known as Muslims.

So, in terms of genealogy, in terms of history, they all have the same origin. But later on, they have variations. So, now because Jesus had come and Muhammad had come, like that many prophets had come.

So, Muhammad said no more business of prophets. He said, I am the seal of all prophets. So, after me, no more prophets are going to come.

Now, with respect to this whole genealogy, they are aggressively monotheistic religions. And especially Christianity in Europe, it replaced the Greco-Roman tradition, which was quite polytheistic. Now, some people say, and even Prabhupada hints at that, I say for example, Socrates got many of his ideas from the Upanishads, from the Vedic literature.

So, the Greco-Roman system of polytheistic worship, it has some similarities with the Vedic system with many devatas and all that. But there are some differences also which naturally happen because of geographical or cultural differences. But, so Christian thinkers, they strongly criticized the idea of polytheism and they said that how can you have, how can there be many gods? Because ultimately, if we use the word god to refer to the supreme being, there can only be one supreme.

And if there are many supremes, then there is going to be contradiction, there will be conflict between them. And in conflict, after the conflict, somebody else will, somebody will win, somebody will lose. And then this will, otherwise, there must be a perennial conflict going on.

So, the idea of polytheism, the main problem with polytheism is that whose order rules? Who is the ultimate, who is the ultimate doer of things? So, here they are also saying, they are arguing that who, this is your bhava world, ok. There are many controllers, then what is going to happen? There is going to be ultimately chaos. So, now, you may say, oh, you can have different people with different levels of jurisdiction.

So, they, so, for example, if there are two controllers and one person says, ok, this person is punishable, another says this is not punishable. Whose rule is going to, whose verdict is going to be prominent? Or they say, oh, both may say it is punishable, but you should do this punishment, others may say you should do this punishment. How are we going to decide even that? Or even if we decide that this person, both decide it is punishable, who is going to implement the punishment? So, they had thought that, they knew that there are other devatas, they themselves refer to devas, you know, Aryadeva or Upadeva.

So, they know there are other devatas. But their understanding is that as far as administering punishment is concerned, Yamaraja is sovereign and nobody can interfere with it. So, there may be different devatas with different jurisdictions, but when it comes to administering punishment, their conception is Yamaraja is supreme.

And therefore, they say that is it in the administering of punishment, also there are many controllers. So, if that is the case, then who will decide who is to be punished and who is not to be punished? I will come to the point of monotheism and polytheism later, again soon. But let us look at some of the verses here more.

किन्तु शास्त्र भहुत्रेष्याद भहुनामिह कर्मिनाम शास्त्रत्वं उपचारोही यथामन्दलवर्तिनाम So, somebody will say, actually there can be many different people who may have different jurisdictions. इधि शास्त्र भहुत्रेष्याद भहुनामिह कर्मिनाम So, for different works, there are different controllers. शास्त्रत्वं उपचारोही But actually, ultimately their controllership is nominal.

उपचारोही is nominal. Why? यथामन्दलवर्तिनाम मन्दलवर्तिनाम means, the literal translation Chakravarthypadu says, there might be districts and there will be heads of the districts. But all the heads of the districts, they are ultimately subordinate to the king.

The king is the prime person who is the boss. And they may have some limited jurisdiction. But above them, the king's word reigns supreme.

So like that, they are saying that their conception was, with respect to administering of justice, Yamaraja's word is supreme. And nobody would count on Yamaraja's word. So now, interestingly, when the, so the Christians, when they encountered the Greco-Roman mode of polytheistic worship, they ridiculed it.

What is this idea of so many gods and the gods are fighting among each other and all sort of crazy things they are doing. So that was their frame of reference when they thought of polytheism. And when they came to India, they found that here also there are many gods.

So they thought this is also something similar polytheistic. But then as they started studying a little bit more, initially if you see there was a lot of mockery which they did. But later on they found that this is something peculiar.

Because although they talk about many different gods, but it seems that when a god is being worshipped, he is worshipped not as one among many gods. He is worshipped as a supreme god. He is worshipped as the supreme being.

So if we look at Vishnu Sahasrana, if you look at the Bhagavad Gita, the Bhagavad Gita talks about Krishna, Vishnu in a similar mode of supremacy as in the Bible talks about the one god which they talk about. This is one true god. So they have the idea that there is one true god and there are false gods.

So false gods means that those are actually not gods, they are pretenders. They have no power but they are somehow misleading people and people because of their imagination or misconception they are worshipping. So their idea is that to establish the glory of the one true god, the false gods have to be removed.

That's why if you see it's not just in radical Islam, it is actually integral right from the Old Testament onwards to New Testament to the Quran that whenever any religious king conquers a kingdom, the first thing he does is he goes and destroys all the idols. He goes and destroys all the idols in the temples and this description is given in a very celebratory tone. Oh so wonderful, in this way he destroyed all the idols of the false gods.

So that idea of the worship of the one true god being established by destroying the worship of the false gods that is quite central to Abrahamic religion. That's why I said they are not just monotheistic, they are aggressively monotheistic. So the Vedic conception of the absolute truth is actually, it doesn't fit into these categories of monotheism and polytheism as they are defined by western intellectual discourse.

Because here if we see there is, the Gita talks about the one god, the Bible says I am the alpha and the omega of all things. And Gita says aham adhishya madhyam cha bhutanam antayo cha, aksharam akarosam, I am the letter A in alphabet, I am the beginning, middle and end of all things. So if you talk simply in terms of attributes, broadly speaking Krishna has the attributes of the monotheistic deity.

That I talked about in the Bible also. But Krishna does not talk about the other devatas as false gods. They are true gods but they are lower power than him.

So what we say is that actually neither polytheism nor monotheism are adequate to describe the Vedic mode of worship. The Vedic mode of worship is actually what we call as multi-level monotheism. Multi-level monotheism means that there is one god that is worshipped but there are multiple levels at which you can worship him.

So there are some people who can directly worship him. There are others who may worship his representative, the devatas. Now sometimes those who worship the devatas, they may know that the devatas are representative of the supreme.

Others, many of them may not know that the devatas are representative of the supreme. And that is fine because if somebody is Tamoguna, they cannot really accept the worship of Sattvic deity. They accept the worship of Rajasic deity or Tamasic deity and from there they make progress forwards.

So although sometimes in the Puranas there is a description of some fights among the devatas, various devatas, but constitutionally in the Abrahamic religion there is a conflict between one true god and the false gods. Whereas in the Vedic understanding constitutionally there is no conflict. There is one supreme god and there are many assistant gods.

So Prabhupada made that explicit by using the word demigods. The word demi is a prefix which means partial. So like we have circle, semicircle, partial circle, so like that.

Demigod means they are beings who are higher than us but they are not the supreme beings. So now in this, ethamandalavartinam, so their idea is even if there are multiple controllers, their Yamadugas conception is that as far as administrative justice is concerned, you are the supreme controller and therefore your word should never have been countered. Your order should have been obeyed.

That the fact that your order has been thwarted means that something is wrong. Atastvam eko bhutanaam, sheshwaranaam adhishwarahaam, shasta dandadharo dhrunaam, shubha shubha vivechanahaam. So this they are saying now.

You are the one controller. Atastvam eko bhutanaam, sheshwaranaam adhishwarahaam. Yes.

There are sheshwaranaam, there may be Ishwaras also, that means there may be devatas also but among them also adhishwara, you are the highest among them. For what purpose? Shasta dandadharo dhrunaam. For giving danda to people.

Shubha shubha vivechanahaam and for deciding what is right, what is wrong, what should be, what kind of sentence should be given to people, for deciding that their conception is you are supreme. Tasyate vihito dhando. Nalloke vartate adhuna.

Chaturbhir adhbhutai siddhai. Ajnaate vipralambhita. So ajna or vipralambhita.

Normally we use the word vipralambha for separation. Vipralambhita means the order has been separated from the execution. It was violated, it was thwarted.

But this time it has happened that the danda which you had ordained, that has been not implemented and there are these four extraordinary beings who seem to be like perfected beings, they stopped us from doing it. Niyamanaam tawaadeshaad. Asmabhiryatanagrahaan.

Vyamauchayan paathakheenam. Chitvaapashanprasahyate. So niyamanaam tawaadeshaad.

So your adhish, your order. Asmabhiryatanagrahaan. That a person who had meant to get yatana, who was supposed to suffer, who was sinful.

Vyamauchayan paathakheenam. He was freed from the bond of chitvaapashanprasahyate. So they are basically narrating.

What happened? You gave an order but that order was violated. Taamsteveditum ichchamam. Yadinomanyasekshamam.

Narayanityabhihite. Mabhairithiaya yuyurtham. So taamsteveditum ichchamam.

You would like to know this. Ichchamam. Yadinomanyasekshamam.

If you think that if it is kshama, it is beneficial for us to know it, so please tell us. Who were these people? What exactly happened? Narayanityabhihite. When they chanted Narayan, Mabhairithiaya yuyurtham.

They said, do not fear. Mabhair. And these are very powerful beings.

And they immediately came over there. Something like, suppose we hear some philosophical points. Einstein also said, I simply trace the lines that come from God.

And we go to him. There are great scientists also. We go for preaching and we say in the Kulchi class and all that.

That great scientists have also believed in God. And if you quote Einstein. And somebody says, no, Einstein was atheist.

And they quote something. Einstein said that, you know, I am simply furious with people who call me a believer in God. And I don't believe in God.

I'll just give you a hypothetical statement over here. Somebody may say, what is this? You come back and you quote it like this. And somebody else quotes it like this.

What is happening? So sometimes we have some faith in our authorities. And based on the faith in our authorities, we go out and present some things. But then what happens? We may find that if somebody contradicts what we have heard, then we get really confused.

So here we have to understand this specific example. See, Einstein was a waverer. And sometimes Einstein made statements that he believed in God.

So what happened is when he studied the nature and studied science, he did observe and he felt that this cannot come by itself. There has to be a majestic intelligence over it. And that intelligence he conceived of as God.

But when he approached the prevailing religions over there, that is Christianity and Judaism, he was a Jew basically. So he felt that the conception of God revealed therein was not at all intellectually satisfactory. So he appreciated the character of Jesus.

But he did not find the conception of God revealed in the Christian tradition as very satisfactory. So when it came to believing in God as revealed in the Abrahamic religion, he made statements saying that I don't believe in God. In a personal God, with the conception of a personal God as revealed in Christianity.

Or in Judaism, Christianity at large. But with respect to scientific research, based on that he felt that yes, there is an absolute. There is some higher intelligence which is manifested in the order of nature.

So that's why he, we could say that he was more like a Deist. Now Deist means one who believes in the presence of God as manifested in nature. And in Deism, the school of thought believes that God is the creator but not the controller.

And God set things up but he doesn't control the things, just like a clockmaker. Now clockmaker, certainly a clock requires a maker. But the clockmaker doesn't have any control over the clock now.

The clock is under, it's working on certain mechanisms and that's all there. So like that God set the universe like a clock. He was made initially but he is the creator but not the controller.

So in European philosophy there was a thinker called Spinoza who was a prominent proponent of Deism. And Einstein was quite influenced by Spinoza's conception of God. So he accepted the notion of God but he did not accept the personal conception of God.

So anyway the point here is, I was talking that, so if we hear something from authority then we speak that and if we feel that is countered then we may get confused. So like that they had an authority and they acted on the basis of that authority but then they were thwarted. So what are we to do? That's what they are asking.

So when he chanted Narayan, immediately he came. So what happened? They are narrating the incident, let's go forward. So Vishwa Chitrakoot says over here that actually they were very audacious.

Normally whenever people see us, everybody becomes fearful. But they told us, Mahabhai, do not be afraid. In fact normally everybody becomes fearful of us but not only were they not fearful of us, they told others also to not be fearful of me.

This is something which is very audacious. We have never seen anything like this. Prajasamyamano yamaha pritah sva-dhutam pratyah smaran padaamujam hare In this way that's being questioned.

So prushtah, a prushtah is asked like this. Prajasamyamano hare Yama, Prajasam, by his servants who was the king of Samyamani. pritah sva-dhutam pratyah He became pleased because he had heard them say the word Narayan.

smaran padaamujam hare He remembered the lotus feet of Lord Hari. He was pleased with the servants because they helped him remember the lotus feet of Lord Hari. And then he got the opportunity to speak the glories of Hari.

Devatas usually have a functional role in the world. Functional means you worship a devata and you get the same result. So normally the devatas fulfill their functional role but they don't get frequently the opportunity to glorify the Supreme Lord.

Suppose for example, say there is a shopkeeper. And that shopkeeper is also a teacher. So now the child comes and starts speaking something in broken English.

Give me this chocolate, give me this chocolate or whatever. So then the class teacher, there may be an English class teacher. But when that person is functioning as a shopkeeper, we have so many customers coming or whatever.

At that time the shopkeeper is not going to take on the role of a teacher and teach the child who is coming. When they are in a school they may teach. But when they are shopkeepers, they are going to primarily act as shopkeepers.

So like that the devatas, they are also devoted to the Supreme Lord. But in this system of cosmopolitan administration, when they have to worship, when they have to accept worship and give some fruits, they act in that functional role. And they don't get much opportunity to play the role of teachers.

Yamaraj himself was very pleased when he became Vidura because although it was a curse for him, but also he wanted to act as a devotee and speak the glories of the Lord, speak spiritual wisdom to people. He had no opportunity to do that in his position as Yamaraj. So when he became Vidura, he was pleased that he could do that.

So normally they simply stick to their functional roles. But here Yamaraj had an opportunity to go beyond his functional role to his vaishnava role, his devotional role. And he will speak devotionally in the subsequent verses.

So this is one section of the chapter which is complete. We will stop here. And future we will continue in the next chapter, next part of the chapter.

Any questions? We spoke about the mentioning that Manoj Devji is our teacher. One thing I would like to mention is that the Lord means in different forms. The Lord is a completely different person than the human being.

He is a different God, common and partial. He is a different Narayana. He is a different Rasa also.

So one question which we were trying to get from when we tell that he is the source of the world, Krishna is the source, and at the same time we tell that they are also in the same planet for all the time. And because of this, the emergence and the creation of the entire universe. Can you explain what is the importance of telling that Krishna is the source? So if all the forms of the supreme are eternally existing in their own spiritual world, what is the point of saying that Krishna is the source of everything? Again, I would say that at our level of preaching to people in today's world, stressing Krishna's supremacy over Vishnu's or Ram's is not really important.

It may be in the later stages, may be in Bhagavatam classes or preaching to new people, Krishna and Vishnu are the same thing. They are saying one God in different moods. In different moods, that's all.

Getting into technicalities causes unnecessary controversies and it causes alienation. Jiva Goswami has a whole Krishna Sandarbha where he tries to talk about, where he tries to establish how Krishna is the original supreme personality of God. And he quotes various scriptures for that.

Now the point is that there Jiva Goswami has a specific mission. That is he wanted to give the Shastric basis for Gaudiya Vishnu. So we can envision preaching as if there is a pyramid.

Pyramid at the bottom has a broad circumference. As it moves forwards, upwards the circumference becomes thinner. At the peak, it's just one point.

So what is it is that when we are initially preaching to new people, at that time we are not really preaching Gaudiya Vishnu. We are just preaching basic spiritual philosophy. And at that time, people who need to understand basic spiritual truths, if you start getting into esoteric Gaudiya Siddhantas, it creates unnecessary conflict.

So most of the people who come to our programs, I mean most of the people, they are already having some piety. They already have some faith in God. And they come to Krishna Consciousness, start practicing and by practicing they progress.

They get realization. And once they get realization, by inner experience, their doubts get removed and they start focusing more on Krishna Bhakti. So Bhaktivinoda Thakur has written a book on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, which was sent to the McGill University, you know, famous book.

The introduction to that he says, now we come to the identity of Sri Chaitanya. He uses the word Sri Chaitanya. Prabhupada would use only one word, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

Previously the Asuras would use Sri Chaitanya forever. Now we come to the question of the identity of Sri Chaitanya. He says that as far as the Vaishnavas are concerned, they accept Sri Chaitanya to be non-different from Krishna.

And they also quote many miracles as proof of his divinity. But we know, so Bhaktivinoda Thakur is not really putting himself in the category of Vaishnavas. Vaishnavas say like this.

But he says we know that miracles are no proof of divinity, no conclusive proof of divinity. After all demons like Ravana also perform miracles like changing their form. So he says the real gift of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is the gift of love of God.

And by following the instructions of Lord Chaitanya, one can flood one's heart with the supreme experience of love of God. And it is this ecstasy that is accessible for those, for all those who are ready to follow Lord Chaitanya. So there may be people who accept Lord Chaitanya as a Sanyasi, as a great devotee, as a founder of the Gaudiya Vishnu Sanchi Sampradaya, but they may not accept him as Vishnu, Krishna.

It's fine. You don't have to get into that discussion at this stage. Krishna's Kshatriya Raj Goswami, Chaitanya Chaitanya Tantra is very strong in establishing.

Because that is an insider book for insider people. So at our level, when you are preaching to new people, it's best to avoid conflict and just simply say Krishna and Vishnu are the same person. Yes, the Bhagavatam does talk in various places and it can be, Yogoswami makes a fairly strong case to establish how Krishna is the source of Vishnu.

But since they both are eternal, the idea, see we say that does God, the three questions, does God create in time, does God create through time or does God create time? What does it mean? When we say God creates in time, that means God creates the world in time. That means time was already existing. So just like we were saying, OK, this building, at a building in Mayabiri, 1815 or 2007, 2015.

What is it? It was created in time. So time was already existing. And at a particular time, this building came into existence.

So does God create in time or does God create through time? Through time means time is the agency through which God creates everything. So God is not directly involved, but God creates through the agency of time. Or does God create time itself? Time is something God creates.

Now our understanding is neither of the two. Because our understanding is time also is eternal. Time is eternal, matter is eternal, God is also eternal.

So when everything is eternal in this spiritual world, the idea that there is one person who is the source of everyone else, that is not talking about chronology at all. It is not talking about time sequence at all. It is talking simply about philosophical understanding.

So that way for that matter, you know, soul comes from Krishna. But then the soul also is eternal. So how can the soul come from Krishna? So it is, this is not, so when we talk about one thing coming from another in spiritual circles, that is not meant to talk at all in terms of chronology.

That is meant to talk primarily in terms of, the philosophical word is ontology. Ontology means nature of existence. So that is meant to talk about the nature of reality.

It is just meant to illustrate the point that Krishna has more qualities than the other manifestations. Same one absolute truth when he manifests as Krishna, more qualities are manifested. You know, 64 qualities, 60 qualities like that.

The differentiation is there. So Krishna is God manifested in his complete fullness. All the various rasas, all the kind of relationship that God can have, various of them are manifested in their richness.

Their richness is slightly less in Ram and substantial definition, you know, and like that it goes on. So we, it's not at all in terms of chronology. It turns in terms of philosophical understanding of the nature of these people and of their relative interrelation, that is what it's talking about.

So better not get into it. But if we get into it, we can just explain that this is not talking about chronology at all. Every one of them is eternal and it is simply a way of explaining things which is meant to illustrate a philosophical point.

The philosophical point is that Krishna has all the qualities that all the manifestations of God have. And the other manifestations of God may not have all these qualities. So just to illustrate this philosophical point, there is one way of saying it.

It is not a literal statement of fact that Krishna is existing at one time and others are not existing at another time. See rhetorical statements are quite often used in scripture to drive home the philosophical point. So, for example, when Srivastava expresses his faith in Lord Krishna, he says, I just clap three times and everything will come.

So Shorty Shetan Mahaprabhu says, your faith in Krishna is so great, therefore, even if the goddess of fortune becomes power-restricted, still there will be no shorting in your house. The fact is, the goddess of fortune can never become power-restricted. Since Lakshmi, all Lakshmi belongs to him, belongs to her.

So when it is said that she becomes power-restricted, that's simply a rhetorical statement. Or there is a proverbial statement which says that, na ham vasami vaikunthe yogi nambhudeshu vayatrgayanti van bhakta-tapashtham naram. When Krishna says, when Narayana says that I am not saved in Vaikuntha, what does it mean? It means that Vaikuntha is unpopulated.

It means that there is succession crisis in Vaikuntha, that Vishnu has gone away, don't know who is supposed to succeed Vishnu. Nothing like that. So, and Krishna is also present in the heart of yogis.

He is present in the heart of all living beings. So, he is present in the heart of yogis also, yogi nambhudeshu vayatrgayanti van bhakta-tapashtham naram. The point is, in his presence in Vaikuntha and his presence in the heart, he is not accessible to the common people.

But when Krishna as the whole being is accessible to everyone, yatragayanti van bhakta-tapashtham naram. So, the point is, this is not a philosophical statement of absolute truth. It is not a literal statement to be taken.

It is meant to illustrate a particular point. Point is, Krishna's accessibility as the whole being is much more than his accessibility, his own personal form. So, like that, the idea that Krishna is the source of all avatars, that is meant to illustrate the point that Krishna manifests the qualities of divinity more than other devatas.

But it is not meant to minimize the devatas and it is not meant to create unnecessary conflict. If unnecessary conflict is happening, you can just straight away say that actually Krishna and Vishnu are the same person in different ways and leave it at that. Is that a question? Yeah, last question.

Yeah, correct. So, Mahabharata and Bhagavatam sometimes have different narratives of the same stories. Yes, Acharyas have explained that this is usually because of Kalpabhedra.

They describe narratives in different yugas. And that's why the narratives are different. That's the primary reason as explained by Acharyas.

Additionally, there can be other reasons also. Every narrative has a particular thrust, a particular focus. So, all the sub-narratives within that narrative will be adjusted to fulfill that purpose.

So, adjusted means now we may get the question what actually happened then? So, we understand that different things have happened in different yugas and the sages see different things at different times and accordingly they put them in the books. So, rather than thinking of what actually happened as only one, the recognition that the universe has many lifetimes and we also have many lifetimes helps us appreciate the answers that whatever is the described in the scripture that can have happened in different ages. And that's how the various events are reconciled.

Thank you very much. Thank you.