Bhagavatam canto 6 study 6 6.4.1-34 The pure heart is the secret to know the pure Lord

Bhakti Vaibhav class at Govardhan Ecovillage, Wada, Mumbai

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

Great. So I'll continue with this canto. Now this section of Ajāme spans over three chapters.

And it's about the vision, the pastime of Ajāme, the story of Ajāme itself. That's the first chapter. The second chapter is primarily the discussions between Nibbāna-mūrtas and Yantra-mūrtas.

And the deliverance of Ajāme comes in the second chapter. And the third chapter is the discussion between Yantra-mūrtas and Yantra-mūrtas. So now at the end of that pastime, that particular section ends.

See the… It's 6.15. So Nibbāna-mūrta moves on. As a largely… As a question-driven narration. It's like sometimes we have a class.

And the class is primarily the speaker-driven. The speaker has prepared a particular subject. And based on that, the speaker speaks.

But after the speaker has completed the class, then the question answers. And then the discussion, the narration will go on largely based on questions. What kind of question is asked? Then based on that, the narration will go on.

So the Bhāgavatam is largely question-driven. So it's question-driven means whatever questions Pariṣit Mahārāja asks, it is co-opted with Shukadeva Goswami's answers accordingly. Now there is of course a theme in the Bhāgavatam.

And there is a unity overall in the structure and the content of the Bhāgavatam. But still, the primary driving emphasis is the questions. And these questions shape the narrative of the Bhāgavatam.

Now sometimes the questions are also a part of the linear flow of the Bhāgavatam in the sense that, especially in the 10th Canto, a particular pastime is happening and then the background of pastime is asked. Here in the 6th Canto also we see that when the Chitraketu story is told, or the Uttarasu story is told, and then the background is asked, and then the Chitraketu pastime comes up. So that is within the story.

So the connections are relatively easier to understand. But sometimes the connections require the commentaries to understand what question is being asked and how that is connected with what has gone on earlier. Sometimes the question may not be connected.

Just like if we have a class, the second question is not necessarily related to the first question. The second question will be related to something in the class earlier. And what section of the class that is related with, that means if somebody is just starting off at that point, they have not really immediately realized that.

So like that let's see what is the question with which the 4th chapter starts. This chapter is called the Hamsa Guhiya Prayers. So the prayers with which the Lord is pleased become the secret prayers.

And especially the word Hamsa comes in the prayers. And it is the theme of the prayers, Hamsa means a swan, Hamsa is also an avatar of the Lord. Hamsa also is a symbol of purity.

Just as the Hamsa can purify, take milk out of water and separate the two. Similarly, the theme of this prayer, the word Hamsa will come also in the prayer, the theme of this prayer is that one can perceive the pure Lord, the pure consciousness. That Lord who is Guhiya, when our consciousness also becomes like a Hamsa, we will be able to purify.

The Hamsa Guhiya can have multiple meanings. But if you look at the prayers themselves, the prayers themselves have this theme that the pure Lord is perceived with the pure consciousness. Tasyaiva Vyasam Ichchami Gyatum De Bhagwanyatha Anusargam Yaya Shaktya Sasarja Bhagwan Paraha So Sasarja Bhagwan Paraha How did that transcendental Lord create? I wish to know this.

Sasarja Anusargam Yaya Shaktya How he brings about the creation? Sarga Anusarga, Anusarga refers to secondary creation. I wish to know that, Yaya Shaktya, by his energy. And also I wish to know something else.

What is that? He gives a list of the various beings in the universe. Deva, Sunna, Sargo, Naga, Nama, Nuka, Pakshina, Shiva, Devata, Asuras, Humans, the serpents, the animals, the birds. And so Sargo.

During the creation, how all they are manifested? Sama, Sikastvaya, Brokto. You have described this in Sama. Sama means briefly.

You have mentioned it briefly. So like Sama is actually like a Samadhi. You have summarized it earlier.

Vestu Svayam Bhuvayantare. All this happened in the Svayam Bhuvanvantar. So that you have described earlier.

So actually the process of creation has been mentioned in the third canto. How the living beings manifest. And since you have mentioned that earlier, I would like to know more about it.

Say you have Vyasa and Ichchami. The word Vyasa literally means editing or editor. So here editing can involve cutting down things, expanding things.

Basically making things more understandable. The editor is the one who acts as a bridge between the writer and the audience. To make the writer's message more intelligible for the audience.

So like that here, he says Vyasa and Ichchami. I desire to hear it. Please allow me to say Vyasa and Ichchami.

So Bhagavan again, Bhagavatam repeatedly uses the word Bhagavan to refer to great persons. So it does not reserve that title only for the Supreme Lord. I wish to know it all.

O Bhagavan, O Shukadeva Goswami, Ziraja Vajra. So now here what happens? In detail I wish to hear this. So what is happening in the Mahabhata means that Swayambhu Manu's life is being described.

I discussed this at the start of the sixth canto. We should broadly, from the third canto onwards to the seventh canto, it is Swayambhu Manu's life going on. And in Swayambhu's life, first the various descendants, Maharaja Uttanapad, then Dhruva, then his descendants, that line goes down, that all comes in the fourth canto.

So some of his daughters, like Devahuti and others, they are described in third canto, what happens in their life. In the fourth canto, his son is described, Uttanapad, Dhruva, and then in the fifth canto we have his other son, who is that? Devraj. Yeah.

So he is described, and then after that, while describing his accomplishments of how he moves his chariot across the universe, and his descendants are also described over there, then the universe is described, and then here he is saying that how things move forward in the creation of Swayambhu Manvantara, that is described. So please describe that. So, text three.

I am hearing this question, Rajanashir Bhadralaya, the great sage, so Rajanashir Bhadralaya, the great sage who was known as Bhadralaya, he spoke, Prathilanya Mahayogi, Prathilanya, he was pleased, he appreciated the question, and that person was the Mahayogi, Jagad, he spoke it, Munisattama, Munisattama is, Suta Goswami is a refuge of sages, amongst the foremost of sages, he is addressing them respectfully. So, Prachani Bari was described in the fourth canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam. Now, he had his ten sons, they had entered the water for performing austerities, and while they were performing austerities, what they, when they came out, when they finished their austerities, when they came out, the Dakadrishis, they saw, what did they say? Gaam, Dhrumayee, Ritam, Gaam is the earth, Dhrumayee is trees, Ritam is covered by.

So, it's like if we go to a place that is, say, a garden, or a place which is in the greenery, and then that is neglected, and often weeds grow all over, and everything, the vegetation over grows, and it becomes disorganized. So, like that, the trees had grown very wide, and then what had happened was, the tree, there is a overall balance in the universe. And there are different species and they all have their allotted space.

But the nature is, as we will see later in the section, that there is competition. And whenever, say, if the king was, Chetas, sons, the Prachani Bari Shas, basically, the Prachetas, they were rulers, and when they were not ruling, at that time, the kingdom became neglected, and the trees overgrew. And here they see, you will see subsequently, the anger at the trees.

This anger is actually almost like a Kshatriya becoming angry with an invader. So, they see the trees as if they have invaded their kingdom, and they have taken over their kingdom. And that's how they become angry.

So, here what is happening? Navin is, first there is a question. What is the correlation between the question and the answer? Is it? The question was, I wish to explain how, please describe how the creation took place, and how, when these living beings were created. So, here what he is doing, he is doing a back story, that the primary agent from whom many living beings, all the various living beings are manifested, that is Daksha.

And how Daksha appeared, they are describing that. So, Daksha, he is the son of the Prachetas. So, there is a brief story about the Prachetas, and then Daksha's appearance will be described.

Daksha's appearance, and then how Daksha creates will be described. Sometimes it can lead to confusion. So, usually when, Bhagavatam is, you know, he is not in, Parikshit Maharaj is not in a hurry.

So, when the answer is here, it can be a back story also. So, quite often, you know, it is said that in question answers, a good way, a good strategy while answering questions is, first answer the question, then explain the answer. That means, so, for example, say, yesterday somebody had asked a question, can Lord Shiva also give liberation? So, now, at that time, if, if I start, I start putting this scripture saying, this scripture saying, this scripture saying, and I can go in all that direction, and all that is good, but throughout at the back, there is a possibility.

So, can he grant liberation or can he not grant liberation? But that question is always there at the back of the mind. So, usually, if we are answering questions, it is good to first answer the question and then explain the answer. If you start explaining the answer without actually giving a specific answer, people, people, they are, they are, what happens is, they are hearing, but they are not just hearing the argument, they take, okay, what is, what is the actual answer? So, sometimes the question answers, if they are, especially if you don't have much time, then it's good to be terse.

Say something? No. So, there are situations when this strategy may not work. But I am saying, in general, there are times when a direct answer is not advantageous.

And there are times when a direct answer is advantageous. So, if it is a matter of chosen strategy, then it's perfectly fine. As a matter of strategy, in certain situations, a blunt answer may alienate people.

And at that time, giving a background and giving the answer is fine. That's a chosen strategy. Sometimes what happens? If we have an answer and we want to think, okay, I mean, this point, that point, that point, and we start trying to build a case for the answer, but in that process, we don't explicitly give the answer.

So, it is as a, I am talking about strategies. So, if we know the answer, if the answer is clear and the answer is not really going to alienate people, it is better to give the answer and then explain the answer. But in some cases, as a matter of strategy, if the answer is going to be provocative, it's going to be alienating, then better give a context and then give the answer.

So, both strategies are there. My point is simply that a strategy should be consciously chosen. It should not be just unconsciously that we start rambling and leave the audience wondering about the answer.

So, whichever strategy we use, that's perfectly fine. This is not a universal strategy that we should always answer the question and then explain the answer. So, he is giving this background now.

Fifth text. So, Dhrumairbhya, unto those trees. They became angry with the trees.

So, they are filled with anger. The consciousness became filled with anger and that anger inside manifested as fire from their mouth. So, vayu and agni from their mouth, they brought it out.

So, there is this mystic power by which some people can bring out fire from their mouths. Now, it is fire alone in the audience. The fire, if it just stays in the mouth, what does it do? The fire has to go somewhere.

So, along with the fire, some wind also has to come. So, both vayu and agni have come out. So, when they saw this, now what they had performed? They had actually performed a lot of austerities.

Now, it's interesting the correlation that quite often an austerity is performed. Often there is, what happens is, when we perform austerity, we gain a lot of control over ourselves. Now, I may not eat something or I may not sleep, I may not do this, I may not do that.

So, in one sense, austerity can be unhool for bhakti because we can focus our mind, if it is going here and there, focus on Krishna. But one offshoot of austerity is that when we are able to control ourselves, the controlling mentality often becomes strong. And when something external is not in our control or something external doesn't go according to our plan, then we blaze up.

So, one has to be careful when we perform austerity and gain a lot of self-control. Certainly we need to gain self-control, but the self-control is for surrendering to self-supreme control. The self-control is not to increase our controlling mentality.

And quite often that's why we see sages who perform a lot of austerities. They are austere sages, but then, so, they often control lust and sexual desire, but they succumb to anger very easily. What is the classic example of this? The Rohasamudra.

The Rohasamudra, yeah. He is a renunciate, but then he gets angry over trivial things. So, why? Because the capacity, the austerity has increased the controlling mentality.

When controlling mentality increases, when things are not controlled, then one explodes. So, here we will see that this anger at one level is justified. But at another level, the extent of the anger is not justified.

And they will be told later to check their anger. So, because of their austerities, they had that control, control the ship. And they felt that we are the kings and we are also meant to take care of the kingdom.

And these are enroached on the kingdom. So, their anger blazed out as the fire from their mouths. Then what happens? Tābhyāṁ nirdahīyamānāṁsthān upalabhyakurudvahā rājovāca mahān somo manyuṁ prashammayandivā So, Tābhyāṁ, at that time when they were nirdahīyamānāṁsthān, when they were burning the trees, reducing them to ashram, upalabhyakurudvahā, when he came to know about this, kurudvahā, kurudvahā is addressed to Parīkṣit Mahārāja, rājovāca mahān somo, so that person came and spoke.

Who is that spoke? That is Somo. He is also a great person. He is the king of the trees and he escaped.

manyuṁ prashammayandivā He spoke this to pacify them, to appease their anger. So, all of us are subject to our human weaknesses. Whoever we may be, even if we are advanced, still we are all subject to our human weaknesses.

Sometimes we may succumb to lust, sometimes we may succumb to anger. So, what is there is, it is not that even an exalted devotee is necessarily entirely free from this. Even if they are entirely free, sometimes in certain circumstances, certain things may get triggered.

So, Dhruva Mahārāja has darshan of the Lord, but even after having darshan of the Lord, and at that time it's not just simply darshan, he is extremely purified. The extent of his purity is that, that which was his aspiration that had driven his austerity. He said, I don't want that anymore.

He had performed all the austerity to get the kingdom and said, I don't want the kingdom. So, he had indeed become purified. But later, when his brother was killed by the yakshas, he got angry.

And then what happened? He said, this anger, there are inbuilt checks and balances. So, when he got excessively angry, what happened? Now, there was another person who came to help him at that time, who came to guide him. Manu came over to him.

Manu came and he spoke to him, counseled him and told him to calm down. So, that is why it is important that we have some trustworthy spiritual association around us. If we are in a position where people are afraid to correct us, or people are afraid to tell us when they feel we are doing something wrong, then we put ourselves in an insecure situation.

So, strong relationships, it is not just how brightly we smile when we see each other or how tightly we embrace each other. Strong relationships are those relationships that can survive strong speaking. Strong relationships are those relationships that can survive strong speaking.

So, one person may speak strongly to another person. So, when somebody speaks strongly, it's not that it's a virtue to speak strongly. It's not that we make that perversely, I should speak strongly and you should not feel hurt.

No, but there are situations when strong speaking is required. And at that time, when strong speaking is required, if somebody gets alienated by that, and somebody just goes away and closes up, then they cannot be helped. So, strong relationships are those relationships that can survive strong speaking.

And we need to have that kind of relationship at least with some devotees. So, here we see that even the great souls get angry, but there are others who change them. They protect them.

So, that is what Soma will do now here in the Pachitasa. nadrumebhyo mahabhaga dinebhyo drogdhum arhatha nivarthayi savo yuyam prajanam patayah smitah So, nadrumebhyo mahabhaga, oh greatly fortunate ones. So, don't burn these trees.

dinebhyo drogdhum arhatha These are actually trees are helpless. They cannot even move. They cannot do anything to defend themselves.

So, do not burn them. vivarthayi vishya vivarthya means to grow. So, yuyam, all of you, yuyam is a plural second person address.

Like you is, we say when we are addressing one person. When we are addressing many people, all of you we may say. So, in English yuyam is plural second person address.

So, they are addressed because there are ten prachetas. They are being addressed over in Sanskrit, yuyam is that address. This is all of you desire to expand the progeny.

prajanam patayah smitah So, you desire to expand the progeny. You are the protector of the citizens. Then how can you destroy these trees? They are helpless, dinebhyo.

So, he is actually evoking their compassion. And Chakravarthypal explains in his commentary that Soma is very very angry. The prachetas are very very angry.

And Soma realizes that just by words it is going to be difficult to control their anger. So, the previous verse also says iva. Manju, prashanam and iva.

Iva means he spoke words which were meant to pacify. Their anger was so great that words alone could not have pacified. So, he uses different strategies.

Basically, he uses saam, daam and bhed. He used for that and which other verses we should talk about saam, daam, bhed. Go ahead, we will see.

So, saam, daam, bhed means what? Saam means, what is saam, daam, bhed? Saam means calming down basically. You know to give good counsel. To allay whatever anger or grievances that are there.

By good word, by counseling. Basically saying we all share the same interest. Whatever is your concern, my concern is also same.

So, we are agreeing. So, daam is basically giving something to the person. Sometimes daam is thought of as negative.

It is not necessarily negative. Sometimes certain people may have certain expectations. And providing those expectations, it is also a valid strategy.

And bhed means pointing out actually that at one level it means creating division in the opposite party. But bhed also means pointing out to the same person, you have this interest, you have this interest also. You do not think only this particular course of action will serve your interest.

This is also your interest, this is also your interest. And you have to balance both. So, basically if a person has one focus or person is just thinking on one track, then showing that there are different aspects to this issue.

You cannot just think on one track. That is also a nonsense behavior. So, we will see how he uses all these strategies.

So, he goes on. So, first thing he is giving, he is doing saam, he is giving counsel to show, to make them act in a proper way. Basically saam is calmness, equanimity and that's what he is trying to get them to calm down.

So, here there is poetic alliteration Prajapatir Patir. So, Prajapati is Daksha and they are going to be the father of Daksha. So, in the universal order, certain people have certain positions.

It's already known that he is there, the Prachetas are going to be the father of Daksha. So, Prajapatir Patir, you are the father or the master of the Prajapati. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Actually Prajapatir Patir here refers to the supreme lord. It can refer here to Prachetas also. But here it refers to the lord who is the lord of all the progenitors, the supreme lord.

Aho Prajapatir Patir, Bhagwan Hari Ravya. That lord has been described by various words. How we are here, he is Hari.

So, he himself has created this. Valaspati Roshidesh Chara. He himself is Sasaraja.

He is the one who created it. Ishambhu, he is the controller and he has created all this with the fruits and grains. So, he is basically telling, giving them a spiritual vision.

You don't see these simply as invaders who have pervaded, who have occupied your kingdom. They are also authentic citizens in the universal population. And then he, Annam Charanam Achara Yaapadha Paadacharinam Ahastahastayuktana Vipadam Chachatushpadah The words in the first canto are very similar.

Ahastan is ahastana. Padan is padan. So, similar here it is.

Basically, so, here he is saying that how there is competition in this world that Annam Charanam Achara. So, achara, that which doesn't move, like the grains and the grass and the shrubs, they are the anna for the charanam, they are for the moving. Then apadha paadacharinam.

Similarly, those which don't have food, they are often the food for those which have food. They are the food for those which have food. So, ahastahastayuktana And similarly, those which don't have hands, they are the food for those which have hands.

Vipadam Chachatushpadah And similarly, the two-handed are the food for the, so, the two-limbed are the food for the four-limbed. So, it's interesting. Ahastahastanam So, animals without hands are food for animals with hands.

Which are the animals with hands? Monkeys. So, monkeys are usually not considered carnivores. So, the point here is that actually this can refer to humans eating animals also.

See, meat-eating is not a recommended course of action. But it is not entirely forbidden. See, what Prabhupada has given us is not just Vedic culture, he has given the best of Vedic culture.

Best of Vedic culture means it's largely a Brahminical standard. So, the Kshatriyas would hunt and often after hunting they would eat the meat. There are some Kshatriyas who would not eat.

Prabhupada says in the first canto that Rantideva was a Kshatriya but he never ate meat. So, the point is that the Vedic culture was pragmatic. Pragmatic means, if Kshatriyas are going on a long journey, and then they are fighting and they have to travel at high speeds, at that time they cannot carry huge quantity of grains.

Grains also have to be cooked elaborately. So, at that time if they just eat fruits and shrubs, they don't get enough strength. So, at times during aggravation Kshatriyas are allowed to eat meat.

It is not a recommended course of action but it is a sanctioned course of action. And those who are in Satvaguna, they don't eat meat. And if you see even from the anatomy point of view, from the human anatomy, our body is not suited for meat eating.

But it is not utterly incapable of meat eating. We also have some teeth which are called canine teeth. With which we can, they are sharper teeth and with which we can cut sharper.

So, now the problem is, the problem is two things. That meat was a part of the human diet but it was never a prominent part of the human diet. Human beings, we are not really capable of, nowadays people eat meat morning, afternoon, evening.

Many people can't even conceive of food, especially in the western world, they can't conceive of food without meat. That has become a staple food and that was never the case. It is an occasional food, even for people who are living in the forest and people who are hunters.

It is not that they would eat only the hunted animals. They would also eat fruits and other things. But one problem is that there is the excessive quantity of meat.

Meat can be a small part of the diet for some people when it is necessary. But when it is a major part of the diet, a regular part of diet, a daily part of diet, that becomes a problem. And further, in the past there were never organized slaughterhouses where not only children were there who would kill animals.

But organized slaughterhouses means that the natural order is totally disrupted because in the slaughterhouses not just, we consider slaughterhouses places where animals are killed. But actually now what is there in the world is not just slaughterhouses, there are animal farms. Animal farms means the animals are grown over there exclusively for the purpose of slaughter.

And the conditions there are very brutal, unnatural and very horrible. So, hundreds of animals are sometimes crammed in a small place and it's a very… So, it's organized brutality. It's organized brutality and excessive eating of meat.

These are what are uttered, these are what are very strongly condemned. But sometimes even Prabhupada was open about it. Narikesh Prabhu told that if I go to the middle, if I go to the Soviet block, then there is no vegetarian food allowed.

So, Prabhupada said eat meat but preach. So, Prabhupada certainly did not encourage meat eating. But the point is that it was meat eating is a fact in human civilization.

But the excessive proportion of the meat and the organized brutality that goes into animal farming, that is what is strongly condemned. So, now why is he talking about this? That okay, different living beings are cool for different living beings. The point is that the Prachetas may argue that okay, they are also citizens of the universe.

But why are they encroached? Why are they encroached on the whole kingdom? So, the point they are making is that actually there is always this competition. And whenever anyone gets an upper hand, they will take the upper hand. So, the trees, there is nobody to regulate them.

So, they overgrow. And that's how they are spread everywhere now. यूयं च पित्रान्वादिष्टा देवदेवेन चानधा प्रचासर्गायः कतं दिक्षान्निर्दद्धुम अर्हता All of you, पित्रान्वादिष्टा by the order of your father, पित्रान्वादिष्टा देवदेवेन चानधा And not only your father, but even देवदेवेन, the supreme lord has ordered you, you are sinless.

प्रचासर्गायः, he has ordered you to expand the population. And then दिक्षान्निर्द्धुम अर्हता, then how can you kill the trees? So, one point is, again for the previous one you talk about the cycle of the biosphere. Another point is that actually the trees are required to sustain other living beings.

Even if you say that you have to create अदर्प्रजा, the अदर्प्रजा is also going to need the trees. Because there is a interconnected chain of being, where all living beings depend on each other. So, if you destroy the trees, how will you fulfill your duty of expanding the population? Then he further says, आतिष्ठत्सतामार्गम् ओपं यच्छत्धीपितं पित्रापितामहे नापि युष्टम्भप्रपितामहे So, सतामार्गम् the path of the righteous, the true path which we followed earlier, आतिष्ठत्सतामार्गम् ओपं यच्छत्धीपितं पित्रापितामहे नापि युष्टम्भप्रपितामहे and who is following? Your father, grandfather, great great grandfather, all of them have followed this path.

And what was that path? They did not, they acted according to dharma. They did not give up dharma because of any emotion. So, there is kopam yachchadipitam, give up your anger.

So here is all the part of the counseling and giving that you should act in a way that behooves your dynasty. You are members of a great dynasty, so act in a proper way. Further, tokanampitravbandhu, drushapakshmastriyapati, drushapakshmastriyapati, drushapakshmastriyapati, patiprajanam vikshunam, gruhiya ajnanam budhah surat.

So here, multiple examples are given of how one living being is meant to protect others or especially those who are in a leading position, they are meant to protect others. So, tokanampitravbandhu, so pitravbandhu, that the parents protect their family, their children, their family members, children. Drushapakshma, so the eyelids protect the eye.

Nobody has to tell the eyelids to do their duty. As soon as some danger comes, the eyelids automatically blink and they protect the eye. So, astriyapati, the husband protects the wife.

So, patiprajanam, so the prajanam vikshunam. So, pati here refers to, the second pati refers to actually the householder. Prajanam vikshunam, the people who are renunciates, the householders are meant to maintain the renunciates.

Gruhiya ajnanam budhah surat, ajnanam budhah. So, those who are ignorant, they are meant to be protected by the wives. That means, the ignorant people don't know what to do.

They are to be guided by the wise people who have the knowledge of what to do. So, in this way, there are different people who have some power, some ability. They are meant to protect others.

So, ok, so how it is? Chakravarthi Balakshmi says, triyapati and prajanampati. So, actually, they are being told, so striyapati refers to the husband of the wife, the wife who is supposed to protect. Patiprajanam refers to the king who is supposed to protect the citizens.

And vikshunam gruhiya. So, they are given, they are told, you are the king who are to protect the citizens. And for that, they are given four other examples.

So, pitrabandhu, drishyapakshma, striyapati, actually five examples. Vikshunam gruhiya and ajnanam budhah. So, in this way, you are meant to protect them.

antar dehe shubhutanam antar dehe shubhutanam atmas te haririshvarah atmas te haririshvarah sarvam taddhishyam iksharbham sarvam taddhishyam iksharbham evam vastoshito yasau evam vastoshito yasau So, antar dehe shubhutanam. All living beings see that atmas te haririshvarah. The super soul is situated in all living beings.

sarvam taddhishyam iksharbham All living beings are his abode. See things in this way. Don't see these trees as intruders.

Now this is, there are different levels of vision. First is, the trees are creations of the Supreme Lord. Second is, the trees are also citizens of the universal population.

The trees are maintained, trees are required for you to do your duty. If you create praja, the trees are required for the maintenance of the praja also. And now, there are higher and higher levels of vision given.

The trees are also the abodes of the Supreme Lord. Supreme Lord is present over there. And when you see like this, then evam vastoshito yasau In this way, the Lord will become satisfied.

Haritoshanam we have. Toshita means to satisfy, to please. In this way, you will be able to please them.

yah samutpatitam deha yah samutpatitam deha Akashamanyu ulvanam Atmajikyasayatyakshet Sagunanati vartate So, now, Chakravartibha says, this, he is talking about the bhed. So, he is talking about sam till now, giving all this, how you should see the trees. Now, he says that, suppose the anger is coming inside me, the anger comes, how can somebody control? So, he says, see that this anger inside you is not you.

It is coming from the moulds. So, you are a person, you know, one of the important things for us to resist temptation is to not identify with the temptation. Now, if somebody comes and tells us, say, if you want to eat a regulated diet, he says, come on, come on, let's have a feast.

I say, no, I won't have a feast. But if the same desire comes from inside, come on, let me go and eat. What happens is, that desire which comes from inside, we assume it to be me.

Whatever is inside me, we assume it to be me. But here, he is saying that, if you can see that whatever is inside you is not necessarily you, then you can go beyond the moulds. Sagunanati vartate You can go transcend the moulds.

That means, the moulds are producing this Samudpati tam deha aakashan manyu ulvanam So, samudpati tam deha, in the body, when suddenly anger arises, at that time, what should one do? Atma jijnasaya yacchet Atma jijnasaya refers to enquiry about spiritual reality. When it arises suddenly, aakashan manyu ulvanam means like a comet or an asteroid suddenly appears in the sky. So, sometimes anger comes like a bolt out of the blue.

Where does it come from? At one moment a person is calm, at the next moment a person is blazing in anger, shouting irrationally. Sometimes when anger comes like that, how do we control that? See that this actually if we meditate on the Supreme Lord, then that checks the force of the anger on us and that reminds us of spiritual wisdom. Dhanu Vidhi Yogam.

See, actually this anger is inside me, but it is not my anger. It is something which is externally coming within. So, he is saying that don't see this as your desire that is being thwarted.

You say, I am angry and I am expressing my anger. Rather, think that actually this anger is something which has come from outside into you and that is controlling you. So, create that bhed within yourself.

So, when as long as we think this is my desire, then to resist the desire it seems like suppression. But when we see that it is not my desire, then to resist it is actually a victory. This is something external that has come into me and it is controlling me.

Then, I won't let it control myself. So, that means the key to resisting desire is resisting the identification with the desire. As soon as I identify with the desire, then I will feel as if I am suppressing myself by not indulging in this.

Why should I suppress myself? But if I can avoid identifying with the desire, then what happens? Then I see that actually this desire is controlling me. This desire is conquering me. And it becomes like I want to protect my consciousness.

So, rather than we seeing it as suppression, we see it as protection. We see it as protecting our own consciousness. Protecting our territory, our consciousness territory from getting overcome by temptation.

So, here it says, in this way, see that this anger is not your anger and resist it. And now in the last verse, Soma will also use Dham. So, Sama Bheda Dham.

Let's see what it is. Allam Dada Dhruvati Dheenaish Dharamda Dadamitha Heelanaam Shivastu Vah Shivastu Vah Varkshi Ye Saavarava Kanja Patnitvee Prateegruheeyataam So, Allam Dada Dhruvati Dheenaish Ok, now the trees have been burned, enough about it I don't need to talk more about it. What has been done has been done.

They have burnt, but don't burn. Khilanam shivam astu. For whatever remaining trees are there, let there be astu, shivam astu, let there be auspiciousness for that.

Don't burn those trees. Varkshiya esha vara kanya. So, here is this kanya, vara kanya, she can be your bride, patnitve patigruhiyatam.

Accept her as your wife and she is the daughter of the trees. So, Soma is considered to be the king of the trees and thus he has that authority. So he offers their daughter of the trees as a bride for them.

So usually, so again, this whole thing is like a Kshatriya conquest, when one Kshatriya attacks another kingdom and then when there is a treaty made at that time, they decide to stop the war. So, at that time, something is offered as a sign of peace, as a peace offering. So, it may be tribute, it may be wealth and sometimes to seal an agreement between two kingdoms, quite often a marital bond is formed and through a marital bond, there is a much greater level of security to the connection because now we are related through marriage, so then the hostilities cease substantially.

So, here by offering the daughter, they are saying that now, this is also what they are using for pacifying. So, the Prachetas are Kshatriyas and then they are offered the daughter of the trees as a queen and you see that at this point, through the psalm, Ved and Dham, the Prachetas, they become pacified. Iti āmantya varārohaṁ kanyābhāpsara-sindhrupa somo rājāyayau tattvā te dharmenopaye mire.

Iti āmantya varārohaṁ, in this way, when he was, they advised him, he spoke in this way, kanyābhāpsara-sindhrupa, so this kanyā was āpsarasin, she was the daughter of āpsarasin, of an āpsara, Pramalocha, so she was given in this way, somo rājāyayau tattvā, after giving, he departed and te dharmenopaye mire and then according to dharma, they married her. So, in fact, this marriage of the Prachetas to the daughter of the trees, this is quoted in the Mahabharata as a pramana for Draupadi marrying the five Pandavas. So normally, in the Vedic culture, there was polygamy, but polygamy usually was that one husband, one man had many wives and there are multiple reasons for that.

One major reason was that the women needed protectors and the male, the female population was more than male population, then the women needed protectors and one man could have many wives. But in some exceptional situations, one woman could also have many husbands and this is given as a previous instance of this thing happened and here also how it is, Soma is a devata, he is a higher being than human beings and he has sanctioned it. So, they married in dharma, normally dharma is referred to because usually it is not so common for one woman to have many husbands.

But according to dharma principles, as per the instruction of Soma, they married her. So, now here in one verse, the summary is given and then this will be elaborated later but in that girl, Temdhyas, was born Daksha Prachetasa. So, Prachetas, their son Prachetasa was Daksha, he was born and he Pajavisarajan, he created a population by which Lokapuritastri, all the three worlds were populated through him.

So, now here, Chakravartipal explains in his commentary further that actually there was Daksha Prajapati who is described in the fourth canto and then he is cursed and he dies. Now, he is reborn. Right now what is going on? Right now still, the Sayambhuva Manvantara is only going on and Daksha Prajapati does his creation in the Chakshushya Manvantara.

So, he actually performed austerities for a long time and by performing austerities, eventually he populates the universe. So, they quotes a verse for the fourth canto where it is stated that in Chakshushya Manvantara, he actually, he filled the universe with population. Now, here he goes on and further describes how he went on in the creation.

Yatha Sasarja Bhutani, Yatha Sasarja Bhutani, Daksho Duhitra Vatsalaha, Daksho Duhitra Vatsalaha, Preta Sa Manasa Chaiva, Preta Sa Manasa Chaiva, Tanmama Vahitha Harshano, Tanmama Vahitha Harshano, When I am speaking here attentively, Yatha Sasarja Bhutani, how he created the living beings, Daksha Duhitra Vatsalaha. It's interesting, he said that he loved his daughters. So, actually he had acted in a very heartless way with his daughters.

You know, Daksha and Shiva is that whole pastime in the fourth canto. But he loved his daughters. That particular time because of ego issue he had acted in a very heartless way.

His father, he loved his daughters. It's an interesting, describable news from Duhitra Vatsalaha. And Preta Sa Manasa Chaiva, how did he create? In two ways.

Through semen and through mind. I'll explain how he created all of them. So, he created with his mind.

What did he create? Purvam, with his mind he created earlier Prajapati, Imanapaji, all these populations. Dev, Asur, Manushya, Deen. Basically, in the three worlds it was mentioned.

Devatas, Asuras and Manavas. On the earth, on the sky, Nabha is the sky, Sthala is the earth, Jala is the water. So, basically he created aquatics.

He created terrestrial animals. And he created the aviaries, the birds. All of them he created.

TAM AM BRUMHITAM ALOKYA PRAJASARGAM PRAJAPATI VINDYAPADAN UPAVRAJYA SOCHARADUSHKARAN TAPAH So, when he saw Alokya, Abrumhitam, he saw that actually the population is not increasing. PRAJASARGAM PRAJAPATI He had a mission of expanding the population. That was his duty.

VINDYAPADAN UPAVRAJYA So, he went to the foothills of Vindhya. And DUSHKARAN TAPAH He went there to perform difficult austerities. So, it is interesting.

PRAJAPATI The whole concept of Prajapati, one who is the progenitor. So, if we see, there is a whole person who is entrusted the responsibility of bigotry. So, sometimes we may have, especially when we are in the renounced order, we may have a very negative perception of grasta life and of sex.

Sex is essential for procreation. That is the way the system has been arranged. For most living beings, there is procreation through sex.

There may be, for a few cases, there might be through, a sexual reproduction is there in our observation. And then through the mind there will be reproduction. But producing, progeny and maintaining the dynasty, that is also an important responsibility.

And in fact, it is said that if somebody is a grasta, somebody is a householder, then one of their duties is to their ancestors. And the duty to the ancestors is not just to do pindadan for their well-being. It is also to beget children and continue the dynasty.

That is also considered a responsibility. So, children are seen as the gifts of God. And children are to be treasured.

In the early days of our moment, people would have a very very negative, devotees came from, they didn't have the whole cultural context. See, talk of renunciation makes sense when there is a culture of responsibility. When people don't have any sense of responsibility only, then what happens? That aversion to responsibility is equated with renunciation.

That is not correct. So, one has to have the culture of taking up responsibility. And then one gives up that responsibility for taking up a higher responsibility of spiritual growth.

So, what happens is, if one has only a negative conception. So, it will happen that sometimes some devotees when they would have children, children rather than being seen as gifts of God were seen as products of lust. These children are the products of lust.

What shall you do with them? They are products of lust, you just send them to the Gurukul and you continue your service. Done it, now forget it. The idea of the Gurukul was also seen as very negative.

Not so much as a place where children would be cultivated in good qualities. Rather it was seen as get those children out of the way so that you can start your service. So, it was a very negative conception.

And that sort of negative conception has to be avoided. Now, it's a part of the universal order that there is procreation happening. And that is also responsibility.

Of course, that is not our only responsibility. And somebody shouldn't think that my responsibility is to procreate. And of course, many times when people enjoy sex, procreation is not even in their minds.

Or rather procreation is very much in their minds in a way that they want to avoid it. So, they may take pills or they may do whatever things by which they can avoid procreation. So, that is not, that is certainly wrong.

But the point is that we shouldn't see the whole thing negatively. Daksha Pujapati, you know, some population he creates with the mind, some population says he creates with retas, he creates with semen also. And it's not that that activity itself has to be demonized.

So, now this comes to the major part of this chapter that how he offers prayers. TATRAGHAMARSHANAM NAMA IRTHAM PAPA HARAMPARAM UPASPRISHYANUSAVANAM TAPASATO SHAYAD HARIM So, TAPASATO SHAYAD, for satisfying, he performs actually Harim, for Lord Harim. So, what is that? IRTHAM PAPA HARAMPARAM That Lord who is, he went to the holy place called Aghamarshan, which Aghamarshan, PAPA HARAM, which destroys sins.

And there he performed austerities and he satisfied the Supreme Lord. ASTAV SHIDDHAR DHARM DHAMSA GURYENA BHAGVANTAM ADHOKSHAJAM DUBHYAM TAD ABHIDASYAMI KASYA TUSHYA VYATHA HARI So, in the previous verse he says that he Toshya Dharim, now Kasya Tushya Dharim. So, how he satisfied Harim, that I will describe to you now.

Dhamsa Guryena. So, Dhamsa Guryena prayer which he offered, that is described. Bhagvantam Adhokshajam, that Lord who is inconceivable and Abhidasyami, he worshipped him and he praised him in this way.

He satisfied him. So, what are those prayers? I will describe that to you. So, before we start with the prayers, any questions till now? Related with what we have discussed.

My question is, is meditating sinful for people in general or is it just something to be avoided for those who want to make spiritual progress? Both are true. Spiritual progress comes when we have a sense of empathy. If we don't see the life in living beings, especially when the life is so clearly manifested as in animals, then that indicates a very significant deadening of the consciousness.

And that is very unconducive for spiritual awareness. Pashugna, he says that those who eat meat, they cannot understand. Uman, Viranjay, enough Pashugna, they can't also say so.

Definitely it is unfavorable for people who want to make spiritual progress. At the same time, there is a law of karma. By the law of karma, there are sinful reactions to the actions that we do.

And when we cause pain to other living beings, there are reactions to that. So, now if we see in the laws of nature or the pictures that were made based on Prabhupada's direction, it is said that people who eat meat, they go to hell and suffer. And we see the fifth canto also, there are descriptions similarly.

The point is that in certain situations meat-eating may be a necessity. And when it is a necessity, it is to be done. But when it is not, it is to be avoided.

Certainly there are sinful activity, because we are killing life. And killing life is definitely sinful. So, when we say something may be, the body may allow it, but that does not mean there is no karma in it.

It's like people can say I can have extramarital, my body is healthy, I can do that. But then there is karma involved over there. So, like that meat-eating also, there is karma involved over there.

Because the animals are killed and that is not the prescribed food. See, even Prabhupada says in that Ishopanishad also, humans have canine teeth, like sometimes they can eat meat if they want. But the prescribed food is vegetables, fruits, grains.

But in some situations something else may be eaten and there is serious karma involved. So, it is meant for exceptional situations. It is not recommended definitely.

And there is sinful reaction involved. So, both from the material perspective also. Now, there is lot of studies coming up which show that humans are much more healthier with vegetarian food than with non-vegetarian food.

And I wrote an article on my website, a full article about eat to help the world. So, H-E-L-P is acronym. So, how our own health, how the environment, how the livestock and how poverty.

Our health is improved, the ecology is helped. We prevent the livestock from having so much suffering and poverty. We actually help in eliminating poverty by shifting to vegetarian diet.

So, definitely from both, from the negative perspective of karmic reactions, from the positive perspective of helping to create a better world, vegetarian food is good not just from the spiritual perspective, even from the material perspective also. Clear? Reference for the duty to the parents or duty to the ancestors or reference for what? Okay. Maintain the relationship.

Okay. Is there any reference for that? Actually, first of all, we definitely see that anxiety among kings. Now, kings often go to great extents performing various yajnas and doing various things to get air so that their kingdom will continue.

So, that is definitely responsible. Now, we may say that is the responsibility primarily for the king so that there is a successor who will maintain the kingdom. But then the same applies to others also.

There are landlords, there are ministers and it is general Kshatriyas, especially for Kshatriyas, it's a very important responsibility. And there is actually, there are different kinds of yajnas that are talked about. So, there is Deva Yajna, there is Pitra Yajna, Vishya Yajna.

So, for the devatas, we do yajna by doing the Agni Uttara and other sacrifices. The rishis, we do yajna by studying the scripture from them, studying the scripture that they are given and by serving them. And the pitras, we do yajna by actually offering pinda to them and by procreating and continuing on the dynasty.

So, that Prabhupada talks about pancha maha yajna. So, there is a yajna for the general living beings, for other human beings and for all living beings. So, there are pancha maha yajna which are described to avoid the pancha maha sunya, the five great sins that are there which inevitably happen in material existence.

So, this is to be done. So, it's a standard part of the karmakand way of living. Sometimes we talk about karmakand means denigrated.

But karmakand means the system of material harmony and material prosperity. It's not wrong. So, there is, what has happened in India is that the material responsibility is equated with responsibility itself.

People think that my only responsibility is to make sure that my son gets settled, my daughter gets married and I take care of my family members. That is a responsibility. But that is not the only responsibility.

So, now as far as people being asked and made fun of who is your ancestor, who is your great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather. There are different ways of perceiving things in different cultures. So, especially in the modern culture, it's a highly individualistic culture.

People in general are I-specialists. So, it's such an individualistic culture, you know, where I come from, my connectedness with where I am coming from, that is not given much importance. But not only in India, even if you look at pre-colonial Europe or colonial Britain or pre-colonial Europe, at that time people would have, in the west also they would have something called a family bible.

Family bible is not the family's bible, the sacred book. What family bible means, that is a book where they would have the list of their ancestors. And then every new member that is born in the family, the name is added.

Every person that has died, that is added over there. It's a standard tradition. Not just it is in Europe, it is in America also.

So, that connectedness, wherever there is a culture that is individualistic, that is lost. But when there is a community-based culture, that is quite an important part. And we see that even the Bhagavatam repeatedly talks about people in terms of their dynastic connections.

You are Kurunandan, you are Vrishni. So, why does it, it's just something which is unimportant, why they talk about? The idea is often our awareness of our connection invokes responsibility within us. It's like if I understand that I am representing this particular dynasty and there are so many great people in this dynasty, then I have to maintain that legacy and I also have to act responsibly.

So, there is the Bhagavad Gita also talks about Kuladharma, isn't it? Kuladharma sthanadhana, he says that kuladharma will be destroyed if we kill people. So, kuladharma, it is not the paradharma, but it is an important dharma also. So, that's how, that is also a part of the broad Vedic culture.

Is it clear? Yes ma'am. So, how do we, so if there is killing involved in plants, and then what is the big difference between vegetarian and non-vegetarian? Multiple, we can talk from the scientific perspective, we can talk from the karmic perspective, we can talk from the emotional perspective, we can talk from the aesthetic perspective. So, from the scientific perspective, basically any sensitive human being would not like to cause pain to others.

Or if pain is to be caused, cause as less pain as possible to others. That is the normal culture where people should behave. So, from the scientific perspective, plants have a far less developed nervous system than animals.

And that's why even when they die, the soul in the plant body is also attached to the plant body. But its consciousness itself is less. When the consciousness is less, the amount of pleasure it can experience is less, the amount of pain it experiences is also less.

And that is manifested through the underdeveloped nervous system. So, plants suffer far lesser pain than animals. It's not just that the animals visually they can scream and they can move their hands and legs.

And that's why we can say that we see their pain, we can't see the plant's pain, it's not like that. It is true, we can see the animal's pain and not the plant's pain. But additionally, plants actually because of their lesser nervous system, they suffer less, much much lesser.

And same principle if we take from the karmic perspective, the amount of pain we cause, that much karmic reaction we are able to get. So, the extent of pain that is caused in the case of animals is far far greater than the extent of pain that is caused in the case of plants. Thirdly, in many cases, in the case of plants, the fruits just fall off the tree.

So, there is no killing involved that way. Even if we consider grains, grains actually if they are not harvested at that time they will just die. So, if we see the grains have more or less by the time they grow, they have lived their life and after that they will just rot and die.

So, their life is more, when they are harvested, their life is more or less over by that time. After that they will just decay. In contrast, when animals are killed, animals are usually killed when they are fully grown.

It's not when they are old, especially in harvesting places. They are killed when they are young. So, it is their life is cut short.

In the case of harvesting, their life is more or less going to end after that time. They are not going to live for a long time. So, intuitively also or from an aesthetic point of view if we see that in not just in Indian culture but everywhere in the world, harvesting is a time of celebration.

You know, people sing songs, people have festivals, that is the time of harvesting. But if we go to a slaughterhouse, there is a lot of celebration over there. It's a very gloomy and grim atmosphere.

There is blood all around, they are screaming and screeching. You know, people may say that there is killing in both. But suppose that person is a parent, ask that parent.

You know, if in your school they tell that we want to take the children for a field trip, we will take them to harvesting to see how crops are harvested. No parent will oppose. When you tell them we are going to take them to a field trip to a slaughterhouse to see animals, how animals are slaughtered.

No parent will allow that practically. Very few parents will allow. Why is that? Because intuitively we know there is a difference.

So, actually when crops are harvested, nature has given her bounty. And we are grateful that nature has given her bounty and we are actually celebrating. And nature is also in a festive mood at that time.

So, but on the other hand, when animals are slaughtered, it's completely different. It's the animal's life span is being cut, cut short and it's a very brutal bloody atmosphere over there. So, Prabhupada also says, even if you have to eat meat, just let the animal die its natural course and then you can eat the meat.

You just have to wait for some time, then you can eat that. Prabhupada did not oppose that so much. So, in this sense, we can, even from a, without going into Shastra so much, from a common sense point of view, we can say that there is a big, big difference between plants and animals.

And that's why killing plants is, see, ultimately Jivo Jivo is a Jeevani. We have to kill someone to live. So, if we don't kill, we ourselves will not be able to live.

But while killing, we should try to create, cause as less pain as possible. And that is why we avoid, we are told to avoid eating meat, out-killing animals and then ultimately, of course, as devotees, we are not just vegetarian, we are Krishnatarians as we say. We don't just take vegetarian food, we take the vegetarian food that is offered to Krishna.

And then when we take that food, that is actually very much karma free. So, even the karmic consequences that are involved in killing animals, even that is avoided when we offer it to Krishna. Does this answer your question? That time? So, sometimes if you want to cultivate some trees or cultivate crops, at that time to grow one thing, we may have to pluck a lot of grasses.

So, if we are killing say, destroying 100 grasses to say have one plant or something like that. So, is it that we should be concerned only about some plants and not others? See, there are two different things over here. Within the plant also, they decide that there are sattvic, rajasic and tamasic plants.

So, sattvic plants, sattva guna is basically, tama guna is sattva guna means we share. Whatever we have, we share. Rajoguna means I first.

Whatever there, I want the best part, I want the first part. And tamoguna means I only. Everyone else will be destroyed, I will take everything.

It's like that. So, that is the broad understanding of the modes where there is higher modes with lesser selfishness. I also want things, but let's all share equally.

So, now if you look at trees, some trees, they just give a lot. Big plants and big trees if you see, there are so many ways in which they are giving. They give fruits and they offer shade and they offer houses for birds.

They are giving in so many ways. But there are some plants which just don't give anything. Just occupy space and especially weeds.

This is occupy space and weeds don't contribute anything to it. So, they are just spreading wildly and consuming the space. So, in that sense, those plants which simply take and don't give, they are considered tamasic, they are considered a lower level.

Those which give, those which contribute, they are considered sattvic. And in some cases, killing the tamasic vegetation for cultivated sattvic vegetation is acceptable. Because ultimately it's an ecosystem in which everyone has to contribute.

So, something is taking more than what it is giving, then the cutting that is fair enough. And quite often we see these kinds of things which we say for weeds and grasses, they also don't need any cultivation, they just grow automatically. So, even if they are killed, others will grow.

And as far as killing one soul for a hundred souls is concerned, we have to see that. Basically, it's not just like our purpose is not primarily to kill. Our purpose is to cultivate land so that it can be used properly for various constructive purposes, ultimately for the service of the Lord.

So, whatever is favorable for that, we do that. Is it clear? So, shall we move ahead? Yeah. Ok.

First question. So, where is the soul present in grains or where is soul present in plants? I have not read any specific statement about where the soul is present. But there is that statement of Chandogya Upanishad which Prabhupada quotes in the 13th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita Parpot that the soul when it falls from the spiritual world, it comes through rains and then the rains fall and drops fall on the ground and then they grow as grains and the grains are eaten by human beings and the human beings, that soul enters into a semen and then it goes into another body and that's how the soul gets a body on earth.

That is one way it can happen. That's not the only way it can happen. That's one way it is described.

So, it seems that in that case grains are talked about as containing the souls. So, broadly speaking, how do we understand the presence of the soul? We may say it's by consciousness. But then how do we know whether something is conscious or not? So, actually speaking, that which is having life, there is matter which does not have life and matter which has life.

Matter is never living. When I am talking about has life means matter which has soul in it. And matter which has soul not just as an abstract presence but as an active principle.

That means that matter comprises a body for that soul in some way. So, when we talk about the embodied soul, otherwise we talk about the ensouled matter. Ensouled matter is matter in which soul is present.

So, when there is ensouled matter, that undergoes the six transformations. There is creation, there is growth, maintenance, reproduction and there is destruction. Maintenance is there.

Creation, there is creation, growth, maintenance, reproduction, deterioration and destruction. Now, when we talk about the matter which has no soul in it, that basically goes only through three phases. It's created, it deteriorates and it is destroyed.

Now, if my hand is cut, then it will clot and it will maintain itself. It will try to maintain itself. Now, if this bar is cut, that bar will not try to heal and join itself.

So, that tendency to maintain itself, that tendency to reproduce, that tendency to grow, that indicates the presence of life, which indicates the presence of consciousness. So, in that sense, the seeds which grow, there is soul present in them without which growth would not have happened. They grow, they reproduce, they maintain themselves.

All that things are there. Now, at what stage the soul comes in that seed, that is something which is difficult to see. I have not seen any shastik praman.

So, it could well be that the souls are looking for bodies and whenever there is a suitable biochemical medium, the souls enter over there. That means, it's not necessary that all grains have souls. But when the grains are placed in a situation where they can grow, where they can grow into, either we have to talk about seeds which grow into plants or grains which grow into further grains, then it may be it is at that time the soul enters.

So, I have not seen any specific praman about that. That's why I cannot see. But the broad principle we can see wherever there is growth, maintenance, reproduction happening, there has to be soul present over there.

And because some grains do definitely go through this, so the soul enters. And exactly when it enters, that is something which is not necessarily always in the same mechanism. Sometimes we say that it is the consciousness of the soul or consciousness of the husband and the wife which determines the kind of child that is born.

Now that is true. But then it is also said that actually there are so many, when a man and a woman unite, there are actually so many sperms, through the semen, there are so many sperms that enter into it. So, is it pumsa? Retakanaashvaya.

It takes shelter of a sperm. So, is it that all the sperms contain the souls or is it that only the sperm that contains the soul that enters the womb, that ignites with the egg and that's how a child is produced or is it that actually there are many sperms that contain souls, not necessarily all but many sperms that contain souls and depending on the consciousness at that time, the soul who has the appropriate consciousness, that soul unites with the egg at that time. So, this is all subtle.

Gahana Karma Mohanty as we say. So, this is not really within human perception. And then scripture doesn't tell us anything specifically.

As far as I have seen, I have not read it. So, we really can't know about it. But what we understand is that there are subtle mechanisms by which the souls are transmigrated from one body to another and then they are given appropriate bodily expression.

So, seeds that grow definitely contain a soul. At what stage they get it, that may vary according to various factors, time, place, circumstances or whatever else. Are brahmanas allowed to eat meat? See when we talk about brahmanas, also there are, at one level brahmanas are meant to be sattva guna.

But then there are sattvic, rajasic, tamasic rituals also. Isn't it? We say there is tamasic worship. And who is going to do the tamasic worship? Sattvic brahmanas are not going to do the tamasic worship.

So, there are brahmanas who are meant to do the tamasic rituals also. And those brahmanas who do tamasic rituals, they may also eat meat. So, there are brahmanas who are, for example, when Ravana starts fighting with Ram's forces.

At that time, the rakshasas have their own brahmanas. They are called yatudhanas. Yatudhanas and they perform rituals for invoking auspiciousness for Ravana.

Now they are the brahmanas or the rakshasas and then they are going to perform rituals of that category. So, especially those brahmanas who are administering shakta rituals. Shakta worship is often quite tamasic, not always, but sometimes.

When it is, so those may be eating meat. The Mahabharata does say at one particular place that when Yudhishthira is going up towards Badrikash, towards high up in the mountains. So, he said there are large number of brahmanas who are accompanying him.

And he says at one particular point that now as we move up, food will be very difficult to get. And he says to the brahmanas, those of you who cannot live without meat, please go to some other king. He will shelter you.

I cannot provide for you now. So, it is not that he was killing animals and providing for them. But then there was the agitation where meat was available.

So, there are sections, as I said, we have to, you know, if we try to look at Vedic scriptures and try to see the principles of Krishna consciousness within the Vedic principle and within the Vedic scriptures, we will find them. But if we try to look and think that all the Vedic scriptures should be talking only about the principles of Krishna consciousness, we will not find that. So, as I told you, one thing is, Prabhupada has not given us Vedic culture.

He has given us the best of Vedic culture. Vedic culture has a large level of, multiple levels of things in it. And then if we think that everything in the Vedic scriptures should equate with Krishna consciousness, then we will always live in a perpetual state of insecurity.

How do I make sense of this? Why is this there? Why is this there? Why is this there? No, the Vedic culture is very broad. It is inclusive. There are multiple levels of people at multiple levels of consciousness.

And they are all accommodated, facilitated to move onwards in a gradual way. So, what Prabhupada has given us is like the elevator, the super fast way. And the Bhagavatam also, it's not as Prabhupada has given it.

The Bhagavatam itself acknowledges the path of Bhakti is there. muktanam pishiddhanam narayana parayanam sudurlabha prashantatma kothishwara mahamudi So, even among sages, among munis, among liberated people, the Bhaktas are rare. In that sense, Bhakti is a rare path.

Do you answer your question? So, we have to move on. I don't know about that. Actually, even there we see that people would deal with animals in a very affectionate way.

Not just Brahmins dealing with cows, but even horses, chariots had their horses and they would have a special relationship with their horses. Taking care of horses was itself a whole developed field. So, if we talk about rasa, if we think of rasa simply as emotional connection, then certainly there can be connection between human beings and animals.

There is no doubt about that. But if we are talking about rasa in terms of say a emotionally fulfilling relationship, then maybe that is not possible. Maybe Prabhupada is referring to that.

I will see if I find out about this. Prabhupada is probably not using rasa there in terms of emotional connection. Because Prabhupada himself was asked which is the best animal.

We would have thought Prabhupada will say cow, Prabhupada will say horses. So, he said, so basically, not best in absolute sense, but best in the sense of the culture, I would say the cultural context. So, but we can see that there is the affection to Shiva.

The dog of Sivananda Sen also soars. So, that is of course within the field of bhakti. But so emotional connection is definitely possible and Prabhupada has talked about it elsewhere also.

So, that is talked in an unfavorable way when Prabhupada talks about how much people pamper their dogs. He talks about negative, but he acknowledges that existence of emotional connection. But Prabhupada is probably referring to rasa in some specific sense where the word rasa has a meaning that is coming in the paper Bhagavatam Rasamalayam.

There rasa actually means evolved emotion which elevates the consciousness. Bhagavatam is saying rasa is a rasika. So, rasa is not just an emotion.

Rasa is an emotion that elevates one's consciousness and it can be experienced by a rasika. It can be x, yeah. That means just like in a drama, in a stage of Bharatanatyam is performed.

Now an ignorant person who doesn't know what is that is being depicted. What is this movement of hands and legs? But they know they can appreciate. So, rasa can be appreciated by rasika.

So, maybe in terms of some kind of emotional fulfillment that is not possible for the, that kind of fulfilling relationship may not be possible in human beings anyway. Animals. I think we need to move on to that later.

So, now actually this is going to be slightly intellectually demanding. Because this is a whole philosophical section about the prayers that are offered by Nakshya Prajapati. And what we will do is, we may not be able to complete all the prayers.

We may not be able to complete it. We will discuss maybe for half an hour and then we can have some more question answers. Namaham.

I offer praisances. That Lord who is swayamvue, who is self-manifested, who is self-born. Prajapati is going to create.

He knows I am created and I am going to create others. But this Lord is self-manifested. He is again as in a different category of being.

He is not created by anyone. So, sometimes Brahmaji is also called as self-born. But he is not literally self-born.

He is actually born from Vishnu. Self-born as in that he is not born through procreation in normal way. But the Lord alone is ultimately swayamvue, self-manifested.

Namaham paraya. Paraya means he is superior, he is transcendental. He is beyond jiva, he is beyond maya.

Anubhutaye. Anubhutaye means that Lord who grants experience of himself. He is himself knowledge.

He is himself the realization which is the ultimate realization. Anubhutaye. He is meant to be ultimately experienced.

Gunatayabhasa nimittavandave. So, nimitta means the instrumental cause. So, he is the person who actually activates the modes.

He is the ultimate activator of the modes. He is the activator of the jivas. Without him either the jivas can act or the modes can act.

Adhrishtadhamne. So, dham can refer to his abode, dham can also refer to his form. So, now there is a philosophical flow in the verses.

So, to clarify the philosophical flow, I have found Chakravarthi Path's translations more easy to connect in terms of a flow. So, I am mostly talking in terms of his translations. So, Adhrishtadhamne here refers to that his form is invisible.

So, the theme of this prayer is the Lord is invisible and he becomes visible through purity. That's the theme of the Amsa Guhya prayer. So, Adhrishtadhamne.

His form is not visible. Gunatattva buddhi bhi. For those who think, those buddhi thinks that the guna is the tattva.

That means their intelligence thinks that the products of material nature are the truth. This world is the reality and that is all that is there. There is nothing more than that.

nivrttamānāya tadheśvayam bhuve nivrttamānāya That Lord who is beyond our capacity to know, I offer obeisances to him. So, we are under the bones, he is beyond the bones. He cannot be known by us.

Now, although he is very difficult to know, he is actually very close to us. How he is close to us, how he is very, not just in location but also disposition. That is mentioned in the next verse.

Now, if somebody says, you know, he is unknown. Somebody may ask the question, why do you need to know him? Okay, you don't know about Africa. Why do I need to know about Africa? What is the relevance? So, actually the Lord is unknown but he is very important for us.

He is very close to us. That is stressed in the next verse. na yasya sakhyam puruṣho vaiti sakhyo sakhāvasan sambhasataḥ pure yasmin guṇo yathā guṇo vyakta dṛṣṭe tasmai maheśāya namaskaromi And to that Lord who is maheśa, who is the great Lord, namaskaromi, I offer obeisances.

So, how is that Lord described? na yasya sakhyam, his friendship is not known. puruṣho avaiti sakhyo. His friendship is not known to the living being.

avaiti sakhā, how is he a friend? He is such a close friend that he resides not just near us but inside us. sakhāvasan sambhasataḥ pure yasmin. In this very body he resides close to us.

And then how is he not known? guṇo yathā guṇo vyakta dṛṣṭe guṇo yathā guṇo means just as the sense objects do not know the revealing power of the senses. Basically what it means is that the senses have the capacity of perception. The sense objects don't have the capacity of perception.

Here we are not talking about say a man looking at a woman but a person looking at a particular building or of any form. The eyes have the capacity to see the form. The form doesn't have the capacity to see the eyes.

The same example was given in the previous chapter also. The point is not of consciousness, the point is of the hierarchy. The Lord exists at a higher level in our hierarchy and we don't have that in the hierarchy above us and thus we don't have the capacity to know him.

But he is our friend and he is very close to us. Both in location and in disposition. In disposition two people may be living close to each other.

They may be neighbours but they may be quarrels and they may be far away. Sometimes in a family there may be husband and wife living together but they are physically close and emotionally very far. So the Lord is close to us not just in location.

He is in our heart but he is also in disposition. He cares for us. He loves us.

Surudham sarva-bhūtānām. One measure of all living beings. Īde.

Īde means to worship. I worship that Lord. Anandamu is unlimited.

Naveda sarva-jñāna. He is all-knowing but we cannot know him. So Veda sarva-jñāna is like you know there is to know Naveda and sarva-jñāna.

He knows everyone but he is not to be known. So now we talk some further about that hierarchy. It was said that the sense objects cannot know the senses.

Similarly in the hierarchy. Deho asavakṣa-manavo bhūta-mātram. The body, the asavo is the life air, the eyes, the mind, the bhūta-mātram, the gross elements.

Ātmānāṁ anyam jividho param yad. So all of these they cannot know the ātmā. They cannot know themselves.

They cannot know other things. They cannot know the jīva. They don't have consciousness.

Now ātmānāṁ anyam jividho param yad. Ātmā can know these things. They cannot know these things.

The ātmā has consciousness. Similarly sarvaṁ pūmān veda-gudāṁśita-jñāna. So the living entity can know all these things but he cannot know the parampuṣa.

So again the point is the hierarchy of being. Why is this hierarchy of being talked about repeatedly in the Bhāgavatam? It is important to understand the relative position of things. There are tattvatraya in existence.

There is the jagat, there is the jīva and there is the jagdish. Jagat, jīva and jagdish. The alliteration of jīva in this terminology.

So in that hierarchy the jagat is lacking consciousness. The jīva can know the jagat. Jagdish can know the jīva and jagat.

But the jīva it is difficult for him to know the jagat. Because actually we are subordinate to the Supreme Lord. And that is also a reason why material science cannot know God.

Because material science operates by controlling matter. Now we observe matter, we control matter and subjected to controlled experiments to see whether the predicted behavior is repeated or not. So material science requires the control of the object to be observed and studied.

Whereas God being above us, he cannot be controlled by us. Because he cannot be controlled by us, so he cannot be understood through the methodology of material science. I write these articles in the Bhagavad Gita daily.

To understand Krishna stand under Krishna. To understand Krishna, we cannot understand Krishna by intellectual conquest. To stand under Krishna means to subordinate ourselves to him.

So we don't know him by our intellectual power. Rather we know him by submitting ourselves to him and he by his higher power will reveal himself to us. That principle of revelation we will talk about later in this verses.

So in this verse again the same point is being stressed that he cannot be known. Because we are lower in the hierarchy of being. Now after talking about his position, how he can be known? That starts off over here.

So Namahaginath of essence is Hamsaya, that law who is pure. Chuchisadmane, when the consciousness becomes purified at that time he can be known. Yadoparamo Manaso Namarupa, Uparama.

Uparama means cessation. So Manaso, the mind's obsession with Namarupa. Namarupa is a standard term used in the Upanishads to refer to material existence.

Material existence is filled with Namarupa. So it's often used as a shorthand to refer to material existence which has names and forms. So when the mind's obsession with Namarupa stops, Yadoparamo Manaso Namarupa, at that time, Rupasidhrishthasuti Sampramoshad.

So the mind which is, which actually perceives and gets obsessed with all the sense objects, Rupasidhrishthasuti Sampramoshad. So not only the external objects which are perceived, the mind gets obsessed with them, but even the internal attachment of the mind to the objects, that also is destroyed. So no longer is the mind going externally towards the sense objects, nor is it internally attracted to the sense objects.

At that time, Yaiyate Kevalaya Swasamsthaya. At that time, in the pure consciousness, when one is situated Swasamsthaya properly, at that time, that Lord is understood, that Lord is perceived. So when the mind is purified of its material contaminations, then the pure mind can perceive the Absolute, Swasamsthaya, in His position.

So Prabhupada actually says this refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Chikravartipa says this refers to the Brahman. At this stage, we can perceive the spiritual reality.

Both are true. If we consider that at this stage, actually one has become purified and practiced bhakti, then with the mind not infatuated with material things, and the mind permeated with devotion, one can perceive the Supreme Lord also. But in this particular flow, the bhakti has not yet been directly talked about.

But just the cessation of the mind's obsession with matter is talked about. So, Tam Vidya Dukkha Sanyoga Viyogam Yoga Sangeetam. In 6.23 in the Bhagavad Gita, there is an alliteration of yoga.

Tam Vidya Dukkha Sanyoga Viyogam Yoga Sangeetam. So the word yoga comes three times. So the contact of the soul with misery, there is a disconnection of the connection of the soul with misery, and that connection is called yoga.

So what that means is that the soul's infatuation with matter stops. So here the same point is being made over here at this stage. Now, these next two verses are Prabhupada and Chakravartipada gave entirely different explanations of this.

Prabhupada says, May that Lord be pleased with me. So what is being talked about here? That Manishinam Antavidya Sangeetam. So basically this verse talks about how when a person has potency, when that person by chanting mantras, that person can manifest the fire or can manifest, so there are brahmanas, there is wood over there, wood has a potentiality for fire, but when mantras are chanted, the fire manifests through the woods.

So basically this verse is giving this as an example of a manifestation of something which is latent, which is there, but is not visible. Fire is not there, but by mechanism fire can be manifested. Similarly, purification or invocation of spiritual energy is the mechanism by which the Supreme Lord's presence becomes manifested.

Now here Navabhi, Sthirudbhi, all these nine things, three things, now Prabhupada takes this as all referring to material energy and Chakravarti takes all this as referring to spiritual energy. So when Prabhupada says Sthirudbhi, he takes it as referring to three modes. Now he lists the nine elements of material existence.

So basically what is it? So the way Prabhupada takes it is that within this material world also the Lord is present. Ultimately the Lord is everywhere and when one becomes purified, then the Lord's presence becomes manifest in this world also. But the way Chakravarti part takes it is that actually there are these three Shaktis, he refers to the Samvid, Samvinil, Adini Shaktis.

And then for the nine energies he talks from, there are nine Shaktis which are starting from Vimala and it is mentioned in the Hari Bhakti Vilas. Vimala, Utkarshini, Jnana, Kriya, Yoga, Prahavi, Sathya, Ishana and Anugraha. These are the nine energies.

So basically what he says is, this verse is referring to how the Supreme Personality of Godhead is perceived in a spiritual manifestation, in the spiritual world. So he says by the process of purification, just as by chanting of mantras fire can get manifested, similarly by the practice, by getting purified properly, Savaima Mamashesh Sheshamaya Nishedhanirvana Sukhanubhuti That means there is so much variety in this material world, but Ashe, there is unlimited variety but it is all Maya. So Nishedhanirvana, when one becomes detached from that, when one stops getting entangled in that, at that time Sukhanubhuti, one starts experiencing spiritual bliss.

And interestingly it is said that one has to go beyond all these names, all this material variety, but then it is said, Sa Sarvanama Sacha Vishwaroopaha, that Lord is also the source of Sarvanama. All names ultimately come from Him. He is the source of everything, He is the source of all names also and He is manifesting as the Vishwaroopa also.

So that Lord, He is beyond this world but at the same time He also pervades this world. So Prabhupada talks about how the Lord as He pervades in this world can be manifested and thus he talks about all this analysis in terms of material elements. Whereas Chakravarthy talks about the Lord's manifestation not in this world but beyond this world, in spiritual manifestation in the transcendental world.

That is manifested through his transcendental energies. So both are valid, there are different ways of looking at the words. yad yad niruktaṁ vacasā nirūpitaṁ dhyākṣa-bhīrvāmanasotayasya mābhūta-svarūpaṁ guṇa-rūpaṁ tattvā sarvair guṇa-āpāya-visarga-lakṣaṇaḥ So, sarvair, that Lord, guṇa-āpāya-visarga-lakṣaṇaḥ He viserves creation, āpāya is destruction.

So that Lord is the source of creation and destruction and yad yad niruktaṁ vacasā nirūpitaṁ niruktaṁ, that Lord, His form, He cannot be defined, He cannot be described by words. vacasā nirūpitaṁ, nor can He pursue the intelligence, nor with the eyes, akṣi-bhīr, akṣi-bhīr is used here to represent the senses. vāmanasotayasya, even by the mind He cannot be voiced.

mābhūta-svarūpaṁ guṇa-rūpaṁ tattvā Because all these are material. So again the difference is between material and spiritual. The Lord cannot be known by material things.

So earlier it is said that okay, by mantra invoking, by purification He can be known. But by material things alone He cannot be known. And then, although He cannot be known, He pervaded this world also.

He is there in this world. How is He there in this world? Let us mention in this next verse. So here is the alliteration of the Y sound, the new sound.

yasmin yato yena ca yasya yasmay yadhyo yatha kurute kāryate ca parāvareśāṁ paramaṁ prāprasiddhaṁ tad brahma tadhe tur ananya tekaṁ So actually there are multiple alliteration in this verse. The y sound comes 5 times in the first line, 3 times in the second line. That is 8 lines.

Then the kurute kāryate. So that is actually the ka sound in the beginning and the e sound at the end. So there is a double alliteration, kurute kāryate ca.

And in the third line all the words start with pa. So parāvareśāṁ paramaṁ prāprasiddhaṁ So it's a very beautiful poetic verse over here. And actually the translation which Chakravarthi Path has given is also very beautiful.

So it is yasmin yato yena ca yasya yasmay. So what is it? That absolute truth in which, from which, by which, of which, unto which everything occurs. Yasmay means in him.

So everything that exists, it exists in him. Yato. Yato means from him.

Everything has come from him. Yena. By him everything is permeated.

Yasya. It is of which everything belongs to him. Yasmay.

Unto him. So it talks about everything comes from him. Everything is sustained by him.

Everything is ultimately meant for him. That broad thing. And there is further elaborated.

It all belongs to him. So yasmin yato yena ca yasya yasmay. Yadyo yata kurute kāryate ca.

Not only everything exists in him, come from him and return to him, but also whatever actions happen in this world. Kurute kāryate ca. Ultimately he is the initiator.

Without him nothing can happen. Parāvareṣāṁ paramam prāptasiddham. That lord, he is the supreme lord.

He is transcendental. He is the supreme being. So the two aspects of the absolute truth are talked about over here.

There is immanence and there is transcendence. Immanence means how the absolute manifests in this world. How God manifests in this world.

And transcendence means how God manifests beyond this world. So parāvareṣāṁ. That lord is also, he manifests in this world.

The world would not exist without him. But at the same time, he has his self-existence beyond this world. Tad brahmata dhetur ananya dekam.

So that is the absolute truth that exists. And beyond him nothing exists. He is the ultimate reality.

So this is similar to what is taught in the third verse of the Chaturthi Bhāgavatam. That we search into our existence and ultimately we come to tad jijñāsa yā deitam. We come to the conclusion that he exists.

And apart from him nothing exists. So when we say nothing apart from him exists, that is not in the Māyāvādī sense. We exist but we are also parts of the absolute.

We are also his āmśas. This world is also his energy. So when we say God exists, that means God along with energy exists.

So this is, he is talking about what is the nature of the world. So earlier it was said he cannot be known by material means. He can be known by purification.

Now he is giving some understanding of what the Lord is. He sustains the world and he transcends the world. Now here it comes, okay, you are talking about this, but there are different people who have different conceptions of the absolute truth.

So, or different conception of things they have. So what about that? So he says, these different conceptions are also a result of his energy only. yacchakta-yobhata-tāmbhādi-nāmaye vivāda-sambhāda-bhūha-bhavanti kuruvanti-caiśyāmbhūha-rātma-mohaṁ tasmaina-moha-nanta-guṇāliya-bhūme tasmaina-moha-nanta-guṇāliya-bhūme So, yacchakta-yobhata-tāmbhādi-nāmaye by which people make their own arguments and there are arguments and counter arguments.

There is agreement and disagreement. vivāda-sambhāda-bhūha-bhavanti So people make their philosophies, vāda and they propagate their vāda. vivāda-sambhāda-bhūha-bhavanti vivāda-sambhāda-bhūha-bhavanti kuruvanti-caiśyāmbhūha-rātma-mohaṁ by such discussion confrontation, what happens is ātma-mohaṁ.

They actually go deeper into illusion. They are overwhelmed by his material energy. tasmaina-moha-nanta-guṇāliya-bhūme tasmaina-moha-nanta-guṇāliya-bhūme So it's important, sometimes when we are preaching, we do have sometimes debates and arguments and we try to convince people of the message of bhakti.

At the same time we have to know that there are different people with different convictions. And we should not get too consumed in confrontation. Because sometimes people are too convinced about something, a person, it is said a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

So people don't give up their opinions. So somebody is very convinced about something, better end that interaction on a positive note. Now be pleasant, give them some ajñātsukruti, I met a nice person and leave it at that.

We shouldn't make it, we don't have to, sometimes we may win the argument and lose the person. So our goal is not to win the argument, our goal is to win the person over. And sometimes courtesy and gentleness may go a further way in winning the person than confrontation and even defeating the person.

So when there is too many arguments, if we see this more, this is very much there in the Gaudiya tradition, that when Jiva Goswami, he defeated, he countered the faults that Vallabha Bhatt had found in Rupa Goswami's book. And this is, no not Rupa Goswami, Rupa Kaviraj, I think Rupa Kaviraj. Rupa Kaviraj had come and he asked Rupa Goswami to sign, was it Rupa Kaviraj? Rupa Narayan, yeah, Rupa Narayan.

So basically the scholar had come and he asked Rupa Goswami to sign, Jaya Patra he signed it. But Jiva Goswami defeated him. And then he was not very pleased by that, Rupa Goswami.

So basically he said don't waste your time in this confrontation like this. This is not absolute principle, but the point is we shouldn't make even confrontation absolute principle. We have to see what takes us closer to Krishna and what takes others closer to Krishna.

So some people just love to argue and they argue for arguments sake. Then we just don't have to waste our time in that. So this is, argument can also increase illusion.

And that's why some people just go into comparative religion or comparative philosophy and they say this philosophy, this philosophy, this philosophy, this philosophy. And then basically what happens is that any philosophy you present to them, they can find out false in that philosophy. And it becomes a game for them.

It becomes a game in which there is no ultimate victory. Ravindra Swaroop Prabhu, he did his, he was a religious, he was a philosophy student earlier, before he was introduced to Krishna Consciousness. So he writes in one article that he studied philosophy and soon it became a game.

Any philosophy you present, you could find out false in it. And then he said that we started seeing our capacity to find false in a philosophy as a sign of our intelligence. And then he said as this was going on and on and on, at one particular point, it just struck me that actually I am being sceptical of everything except scepticism.

That means I am being sceptical. Scepticism means whatever you tell, you approach it with a platform of doubt and criticality. So any philosophy, I try to find false in it.

So I am being sceptical of every philosophy except scepticism. What does it mean? That means scepticism can tell me what is wrong. Scepticism will never tell me what is right.

By being sceptical, I will never know what is right. So being sceptical about scepticism means recognizing that scepticism has no truth revealing potency. It can tell me what is the problem.

It can tell me what is wrong. But it can never tell me what is right. So eventually I have to take a leap of faith.

If I don't take a leap of faith, if I am always sceptical, I may come to know all that is wrong. But I will never come to know what is right. That's why in the Bhagavatam also when it talks about this characteristic of knowledge, samshaya is talked about as one characteristic of knowledge or one characteristic of intelligence.

But it is only at one characteristic. It is not doubt is the sign of intelligence but it is not the only sign of intelligence. So doubt, a foolish person cannot doubt.

There are advertisements which are shown and people, gullible people just believe the advertisements. So they don't have the intelligence to doubt. So it requires intelligence to doubt.

But intelligence only function is not to doubt. We also have to choose intelligent faith afterwards. So if somebody is going into too argumentative mode, then they stay in illusion.

So when things become too heated in an argument, we can remember this verse or remember this verse translation, this verse mood and understand there are too much debates happening. Just don't take any sides in it. Just put it aside.

This is not really leading to any confusion. It is all going to cause Atma Moham. And sometimes even when debates are happening, it is said that when there are confrontation between sages and Vaishnavas, don't take sides.

That's what Chaitanya Bhagwat says. Why? Because there may be so many subtleties in those debates which we don't know about. And we may unnecessarily become judgmental and offensive.

So better not take sides. So now another, this is very important verse. I find this verse very inspiring personally.

अस्तिति नास्तिति च वस्तु निष्ठयो एकस्तयोर भिन्न विरुद्ध धर्मनो अवीक्षितं किंचन योग सांखयो समंपरं यानुकलं ब्रहत्त समंपरं यानुकलं ब्रहत्त So अस्तिति नास्तिति Basically there are two schools of thought. So Prabhupada initially talks about अस्तिक and नास्तिक. Theists and non-theists.

And later he talks about us personalists and impersonalists. But the broad principle is there are contradictory ideas. अस्ति, अस्ति can refer to God is a person.

God has personality. God has form. नास्ति, God is not a person.

God does not have a form. So contradictory ideas. अस्तिति, अस्तिति, नास्तिति चवस्तु निष्ठयोर, वस्तु, the substance, the object.

निष्ठयोर, निष्ठयोर means according to one's निष्ठा According to one's face, one will perceive things differently. Some people will say अस्ति, some people will say नास्ति. एकस्थयोर, there is one substance.

There is one reality. One thing is situated. भिन्न विरुद्धधर्मनो भिन्न is different, विरुद्ध is opposite.

So although there is one reality, different dharmas, different aspects, different natures of that reality may be perceived to the extent that even opposite may be perceived. एकस्थयोर भिन्न विरुद्धधर्मनो Of that one reality, different things may be perceived. अवेक्षितं किंचन योग सांक्ययोग An example is given.

अवेक्षितं, this will be known. किंचन, by some through yoga, by some through सांक्ययोग. So here, Vishwacharya Tarkhad takes yoga to refer to भक्ति योगा and he uses सांक्यय to refer to the path of ज्यान, the path of भक्ति and the path of ज्यान.

So they will perceive differently. समम्परम् या अनुकुलम् बृहत् समम्परम् Actually there is one absolute truth, the same absolute truth. या अनुकुलम् बृहत् But people's consciousness is directed in different ways.

That absolute truth is very big and different aspects of that absolute truth may be highlighted. अनुकुलम् बृहत् So what this means is, that the same absolute truth may be perceived as personal by the भक्ताs and may be perceived as impersonal by the ज्यानis. And here, that absolute truth is the same one thing.

It's one object which is perceived in different ways. Sometimes, so Prabhupada's purport is also very nice over here. Prabhupada says there is sometimes a confrontation between personalist and impersonalist.

But actually both personalist and impersonalist are trying to perceive the same absolute truth. And Prabhupada says actually even the theists and the atheists are also actually aiming for the same reality. Sometimes we may just judgmentally condemn the atheists.

But even there are some people who have become atheists because of the bad image of religion that they have got. They may have seen hypocrisy in religion, they may have seen superstition in religion, they may have seen violence caused in the name of religion and that's why they have become atheists. But some atheists may also be intelligent people who may because of their whatever they have been exposed to, they have thought that atheism is the most sensible explanation.

But if they are also in a sincere spirit of enquiry, then eventually they will also be. So what is stressed over here is that that spirit of enquiry that attempt to know the higher reality, that is what is stressed over here. So you know Einstein, he has made, Einstein is considered the greatest scientist of last century and he is actually used both by theists and by atheists.

Atheists claim that he was an atheist and theists claim that he was a theist. So actually how it is? From his scientific study, he felt that there is an intelligence manifested in nature and he felt that there has to be some higher intelligence and that he called as God. So he didn't believe in a God who is manifested through the orderliness of nature.

So this is the nature, this is the origin of his theistic statement, of his statement where he accepts God. But when he was presented the conception of God as revealed in the Abrahamic religions, he felt this is a very parochial conception. This is a judgmental God who convinces people to hell.

He couldn't accept that idea. So the magnificence of God as he understood through science, he couldn't reconcile with the conception of God that he got from the Christian teachers, from the Abrahamic teachers of his times. Now Christianity also has a subtle, sophisticated conception of God but he was not exposed to that.

So the point is that both appropriate him for their purposes. So he accepted God but he did not accept the conception of God that he got from a particular tradition. So I was making this point that even if he has made atheistic statements, he was a thinker and he observed nature and he tried to come to certain conclusions through nature.

So we don't have to judgmentally dismiss even atheists. What to speak of impersonalism? So now there is a difference between impersonalism and Mayavad. As we say Brahmavad and Mayavad.

So impersonalism is a very integral part of the Vedic teachings. The Upanishads are filled with impersonalism. There is Bhakti in the Upanishads also.

But Bhakti comes towards the conclusion. The primary message in the Upanishads is impersonal. And we should never condemn impersonalism.

What is to be condemned that will be mentioned in the next verse. What is not right. But personalist and impersonalist both are approaching the same absolute truth.

So some focus on his personal aspect, some focus on his impersonal aspect. And both are transcendentalists. Both are seeking the reality beyond this world.

In that sense both are great souls. So they may not be Mahatmas in the sense of Bhakta. But we should not deride impersonalists because actually they have been able to see beyond the gross illusions of Maya.

They are looking for some reality beyond this world. And they have perceived one aspect of the absolute truth. So then he next states that okay if you say that there are different people who have different opinions.

Is it that in the previous verse, the connection of the previous verse and this verse is that. There are different people with different opinions and they are all, there is a diversity of opinions is because of illusion. Such contradictions and diversity of opinions is because of illusion.

Then somebody may say is it that all philosophies are wrong and there is no reality only. Everything is a product of illusion. He said no.

When people are philosophically searching for the absolute truth, they are aiming for the same absolute truth but they perceive different aspects of the absolute. And thus they get different understandings. So Bhaktivinod Thakur in Chaitanya Chakshanamruta states, it's a very elaborate section, I don't have time to go into that.

But he says that, he gives the example that there is one mountain peak. You know, different people may pursue that mountain peak from different directions. And they may see some vegetation on one side, they may see some stone on other side, they may see some soil on the other side or they may see different kinds of trees on different sides.

He says that same one absolute truth is being pursued. But when this is pursued from different vantage points, different aspects of an absolute truth will be seen. Just like the mountain peak will be seen differently from different directions.

So he says Patanjali has seen that absolute truth from one direction. Plato has seen that absolute truth from another direction. From the east and the west.

But it's one absolute truth that is being pursued. So depending on the place from which we pursue, we will see it differently. So there is one absolute truth and that's what everyone is pursuing.

But does that mean that, so here Brahmavada or impersonalism is accepted also as a valid realization. But in the next verse, the idea of the jiva being one with the absolute, that is countered. Yo anugrahartham bhajatam padamulam.

Anamarupo bhagwananantah. Nama nirupanich janma karmabhir. Bhejesamayam paramah prasidatu.

So actually here it is said, he is actually offering a prayer to the lord. Prasidatu, may that lord be pleased with me. Yo anugrahartham bhajatam padamulam.

That lord who gives mercy to those who worship his lotus feet. He is especially merciful to his devotees. Anamarupo bhagwananantah.

So here there is a point, again in English it is called antithesis. Antithesis means two opposite ideas are brought together. So Anamarupo is said in one line and then Nama nirupanich janma karmabhir.

That lord in his impersonal manifestation, he has no name, he has no forms. In his personal manifestation, he has no material name, no material forms. When he comes in the material world, Nama nirupanich janma karmabhir.

He manifests in this world, he appears and does activities and he acquires various names. He manifests in various forms. Bhejesamayam paramah prasidatu.

Bhejesamayam means he manifests in this world and that lord who is transcendental, who is great, may he be merciful to me, may he be pleased with me. So from the previous verse he is talking about yoga and jnana, both are paths to approach the absolute truth. But here he is preferring the path of bhakti.

Daksha, he is saying that that lord who is merciful to his devotees, who manifests as the avataras in this world, performs pastimes, may he be merciful to me. The whole idea of mercy is the idea of bhakti. Because in the impersonal manifestation, there is nobody to give mercy.

So he is clearly choosing the path of bhakti over here. Now, yaha prakrita jnana pathai. So there is a jnana patha and there is a prakrita jnana patha.

Prakrita jnana patha means it is not the pure jnana marga. The pure jnana marga will help one to realize the impersonal aspect of the absolute truth. But the prakrita jnana patha, the impure jnana marga, that leads to the conception of oneness of the jiva with the absolute.

Yathashem dehagato vibhati. So in that one starts perceiving the lord in different ways. So Prabhupada talks about how the demigods are also the manifestations of the absolute truth.

But they are a lower level manifestation. They cannot take us to the absolute truth. They cannot take us to eternal destination.

So yathashem dehagato vibhati. Yathanila parthimashuto guna. So the example is given over here.

That there is wind, but wind when it goes to different areas, whatever is the fragrance of that area, the wind acquires that fragrance. Similarly, that absolute truth who is transcendental, depending on the consciousness of that people, he is perceived in different ways. Some may perceive him personally, some may perceive him as a devata, some may perceive him, there are people who may even make human beings into gods.

They make human beings into god and they worship them even as if it's god. So what is happening? Based on their consciousness they are perceiving things in a particular way. Their perception is not reality.

Because they are not actually perceiving the absolute truth at all. So by the pure jnana marga one perceives the absolute truth, perceives it in personal aspect. But by the impure jnana marga one comes with various misconceptions.

So, Ishvaro me kurta manoratham. That Ishvara, may he fulfill my desire. Kurta manoratham.

Manoratha is aspiration, desire. May he fulfill my desire. So, after offering all these prayers, he comes to him, after offering all these prayers which are primarily sampraya khanatmikas, glorifying the lord, then he expresses his personal desire and with this he concludes.

So, this is the last verse of the Hamsa Guhiya prayers. And afterward the chapter proceeds in terms of describing the event that happened over here. So, if we go over the whole prayers now, what is happening in the prayers? First he says that this lord is unknowable.

Then he says, actually it's important to know him because he is very close to us. He is our friend. We close in emotion, position and disposition both.

Then he says, why we can't know him? Because he is higher in the hierarchy than us. The hierarchy is described. And then how can he be known? When we become purified, then when the mind's obsession with matter stops, then the mind can perceive spiritual reality.

And in terms of the flow as given by Chakravarthipada, at that time I can perceive the impersonal aspect of the absolute truth. When one starts perceiving spiritual reality, one starts perceiving the impersonal aspect. And then after that it is described that that lord, he has this transcendental existence and he sustains this whole existence.

Yes, my earlier talk, we discussed that words. So, he sustains everything, he exists beyond everything also. And that lord, he is one lord, one absolute truth, but he is pursued in different ways.

And when people get too much into technicalities of philosophy, then they are actually coming under Atma Mohan. They are being deluded by the lord's energy. So, he is to be known by the pure heart.

But instead of cultivating purity of the heart, people just argue at the intellectual level. And they come up with different philosophies and they can't know the lord. But does that mean if there are all different philosophies, does that mean that there is no absolute truth, everybody has just their own opinion and there is no ultimate reality? No.

There is an ultimate reality. And different people perceive differently based on their nishtha, based on their level of faith, their level of consciousness, they perceive differently. And there it's mentioned that the yoga and sankhya, they pursue the bhakti marga, jnana marga, they pursue the personal and impersonal aspects of the absolute truth.

And he says, I want to approach the person and therefore, he glorifies the path of bhakti and he says, my lord, please have mercy on me. And he concludes that, yes, I want to pursue the lord in this particular manifestation. But there are other different people, depending on their level of consciousness, they may conceive of different things as the absolute.

And it is the lord who reciprocates with them accordingly. So, this is an overall prayer by which he pleases the lord and we will see later that the lord reveals himself to them by that. So, I wanted to complete this section because this is one set of verses which is one unit of thought.

And so, I will not be, I am planning to come once a month, but I will not be coming for the next two months because I am going abroad. So, I will come back on October 27th. So, I doubt whether I will come in October.

Probably I will come in November. I want to complete this flow of thoughts. So, it is a little, I think, heavy, all this philosophy.

Thank you for bearing with me. Do you have time for any one question? That's a long question. I think it's already 8.25. Can we discuss it next time? I think it's an important question.

It will require time. Small question. Yes, go on.

They are teaching the person, but probably, what about the… Is this a small question? It will be a big question actually. Just, what is the distinction between people who are not following bona fide organization? Even if they are teaching the person. So, if some organization is teaching a person, but they are not teaching bona fide properly, what is the destination of people? Basically, the destination is not determined by affiliation.

Affiliation is any particular organization. Destination is determined by consciousness. So, broadly speaking, there is atma guna, rajoguna, tamoguna.

And dharma itself has various understandings. From the spiritual perspective, dharma is that which helps one to develop love of God. From the material perspective, dharma is that action which increases sattva and decreases rajas and tamas.

Sattva is basically order. Dharma is rajas is expansion and tamas is destruction. So, actually, there is this Jaimini Sutra, Vedana Sutra which begins with Athato Brahma Jikyas.

The Jaimini Sutra which begins with Athato Dharma Jikyas. And it gives many definitions of dharma over there. So, one of the important definitions of dharma is that which increases sattva.

So, if any way of living is enabling people to rise more towards goodness and decrease rajas and tamas, that is also dharma at one level. It may not be para dharma. It is dharma at one level.

So, other organizations, by following them, people are even learning some principles of piety. They are following some kind of regulation. They are getting elevated.

They are also following dharma at some level. Now, in this, where something is not exactly scriptural, that Krishna addresses in the 17th chapter when Arjuna asks, you know, and Krishna answers basically by analyzing things in terms of three modes. And he says you look at their aaha, look at their yajna, look at their dana, look at their tapa.

And then based on that we can infer their destination. So, the point of the verse is that rather than just looking at the affiliation of people, we look at their lifestyle. We look at the kind of mode they are living in and based on that their destination will be.

So, if they are living sattvik to some extent, coming to goodness, that is good. And that is elevating them to some extent. So, whether they will attain Brahman liberation, they have to become actually purified of material attachments.

Brahman liberation also is a very exalted state. If they have material attachment, they will not attain that. There is not just a clear scriptural conception of Brahman that is required.

But even purification is required. So, there is siddhanta and there is acharya. So, there is siddhanta and there is sadhacharya.

No? So, sometimes we condemn people because they don't have the right siddhanta. But sometimes condemn organizations which do not have the right siddhanta. But those organizations may also be promoting sadhacharya to some extent.

So, that way we can appreciate. Siddhanta is important, sadhacharya is also important. Siddhanta should lead to transformation to sadhacharya.

So, if some people are getting promoted in sadhacharya by certain organizations, we appreciate that. So, if they are not teaching the right siddhanta, we can try to, if the people are receptive, give them the right siddhanta. But we don't have to be dismissive towards anyone.

If the sattva guna is being elevated, sattva guna is being increased in people, if sadhacharya is being created, we appreciate that. And if they don't have a proper siddhantic understanding, not even of the personal aspect, not even of the impersonal aspect, still there will be some elevation of consciousness that will happen. Eliberation is a very lofty goal.

That will not happen unless they are very purified mental attachments. But some elevation will definitely happen. Thank you very much.