“By destiny the quantity of our suffering is fixed” and “The more we become attached, the more we suffer.” How to reconcile these two statements?

From Chandan Pr

Question by Chandan Prabhu we say that the quantity of pleasure and pain that a person gets in a particular lifetime is fixed by destiny we also say that the more a person becomes attached to his objects, the more that person suffers so how do we reconcile that the quantity of suffering is fixed and the quantity of suffering increases answer Krishna Prabhupada has clearly explained in his scriptures that the Jiva’s free will can change certain things for example, by our karmic destiny we will be supposed to live for 60 years but somebody can commit suicide and end his life prematurely that means we do have some free will by which certain things can be changed so now, do we mean that we have changed destiny? we also have to understand that destiny is not necessarily entirely like a frozen catalogue it is more of a more of a pre-decided quantity not in terms of a measurable quantity but a broad understanding of the amount which is fixed so that now for the person who has become approached the remaining quantity of suffering may not come in the remaining 40 years that person was supposed to live in that physical body that’s possible or that person may get it more acutely, immediately and then afterwards he may get the next body whatever, that pattern may vary but surely our endeavour in this life, at least in this case can to some extent change not destiny, but the way the destiny unfolds that means that person was supposed to get a certain kind of suffering and pleasure in that particular physical body for 60 years but by destiny, that person ended his body at the age of 20 in the remaining 40 years, how the destiny would evolve will depend on the change circumstances so we can change the way destiny evolves that means in this life, I can cut down my lifetime if I want, so can I by my efforts, increase or decrease my suffering by doing some material not necessarily, by material we will rearrange, something which is supposed to come earlier will come later something which is supposed to come later might come earlier, if I try for pleasure I might be able to avoid suffering, that means suffering which is supposed to come now will come later pleasure that was supposed to come later will come now but similarly, if I act carelessly irresponsibly and do bad karma, then I might get some suffering now, so that means again the overall the general principle is that the quantity of suffering that we get in one lifetime is fixed but certain situations can change that especially with Jeeva, as I gave an example of suicide Jeeva can change certain karmic karmic patterns which are more or less outlined number of years going to be but in lesser cases say somebody somebody gets killed because the person doesn’t have sex the person is suffering now was that because of this life karma or that life karma previous life karma, well we can’t say because of this life karma previous life karma, what we do know is that every action brings reaction and in general the quantity of suffering and pleasure that we associate with the body is fixed, but everybody has exceptions and certain exceptions may work in certain extreme situations so in general when we say the more a person the more a person will suffer, that can be various levels, one of the biggest problems in understanding suffering is that suffering is not exactly a quantifiable entity so India loses a cricket match to Pakistan there are three people holding in India, one is a mad cricket fan completely maddened by cricket, another is an average cricket fan excited but not so mad and a third has a passing interest all three watch this cricket match but all three play under two different quantities of suffering so now objectively speaking you could say that the first person who was devastated by the match loss if he had not been so he would not have suffered so much so then was the suffering because of India losing to Pakistan because of some previous life or this life from the point of view of observation and inference and comparison among these three persons we could say that this life cultivated attachment so now has this life cultivated attachment given him some additional suffering the point is that to answer this question you need to understand that suffering for a broad understanding you might try to quantify it but if you want to go into integrities it is not exactly quantifiable not exactly quantifiable certainly there is a principle that for actions we get reactions and those reactions do have to be to some extent proportionate so it is quite possible that a person’s attachment in this life can lead to further suffering in this life so now that is to a large extent the attachment cultivated in this life itself and overall the quantity of suffering that a person is going to have is fixed and if the person is by his own karma increasing the suffering that he is going to get now that could either be from some other suffering that he was supposed to get and then what he is going to get, what is created by this then this will get carried over to the next life so in that sense we could say that overall the quantity of suffering doesn’t change so in general it wouldn’t change but in certain situations the soul can because he has free will that means as I said suicide is one very extreme example but the whole principle of Vedic culture is that Rampal is saying in the 14th chapter that to the extent people live in the mode of goodness to the extent they live in the mode of happiness to the extent they live in the mode of passion to the extent that there is reason in this life to speak of the next that does indicate that the statements which are given that the amount of suffering that they are going to get is fixed now we should see that as an absolutely absolute principle diverts from the broader Vedic philosophy from which it emerges it emerges from the Vedic philosophy what is the Vedic philosophy teaching the Vedic philosophy teaches that we all of us are responsible for doing our duties and when we do our duties properly we grow by it so we grow means we create better prospects for ourselves in this life as well as in the next life so that’s why rather than absolutizing one principle we have to understand that this principle has to be balanced with other principles the standard example I give for this is that in the 10th canto Vasudeva’s study comes up that ultimately everybody has to die and if you are destined to die in a couple of weeks then you don’t endeavour to not sin but then Vasudeva does not turn around and argue that that Devaki is supposed to die in my end I will be the saviour of the whole world why does he do that? because he is not so much concerned about destiny as it was so he knows that it is his duty to protect his wife and that’s why he will do it do not blame destiny on the other hand Kamsa is deviating from his duty he has to protect women, he has to protect his sister he has to protect his sister at the time of marriage he is caught in 3 ways he is deviating from his duty and that’s why one needs to balance so Vasudeva doesn’t choose destiny to justify he doesn’t get into the whole analysis of if I try to stop Kamsa then the suffering will come some other way it is not a doctrine it is not a doctrine of it is not a doctrine of apathy and paralysis it is a doctrine of responsibility with awareness of the broader picture specifically what will happen in a particular situation in general the broad amount of karma that we get in this life has changed but in certain situations it can be changed it can be changed and again if I become attached to something and because of that I suffer that is something which I created in this life itself I could have avoided it so I don’t have to attribute it all to a previous life and I don’t have to say that I had to become attached I didn’t have to become attached say an Indian goes to America and America has Rugby as a prominent sport and an Indian becomes attached to Rugby in a local match over there the local team loses, he becomes heartbroken he didn’t have to do that, he chose to become attached so the whole principle where Ajahn Men became so degraded he suffered so much and he had to go to that prostitution parlor only he had become so attached to Supreme God so now was all that suffering which he went through at night to get to her was all that ordained by his past karma he buffeted by the storm and he was so close to a snake which he went through, no it was not it was something which he chose to do in his lifetime so if we become attached certainly we are suffering in life, therefore we should not become attached that’s one teaching, second teaching is that we shouldn’t over endeavor too much about our pleasure because the overall quantity is fixed in both these cases the central focus is karma if you try to shift the focus from karma to destiny we will end up in confusion all the Vedic scriptures or whatever the teachings about karma and destiny are they are essentially intended to help us to choose our duty properly if we shift from what we can know and do to that which we can’t know clearly and that which we can’t do much about we will end up confusing ourselves too much Krishna Jyotir told that the working of karma in details we can all know so all these instructions how do we reconcile these two instructions by understanding that both those instructions are meant to inspire us to stick to the path of duty so Vande Vidya we should use the example that some places scriptures say that I am and that is so, it’s not the truth some other places scriptures say example of a cutter cutting wood is given for that purpose he is cutting with the axe but it is you who is cutting similarly the soul acts through material nature so when these sort of statements are given in the scriptures the empathy and what the soul’s duty is see the soul is becoming intoxicated by the sense of controllership and is forgetting his duty at that time he is told you are not the doer you are the material nature of the doer on the other hand the scriptures say that you have to take responsibility it is for you to do the right action you have to decide now actually so that is for the soul to take up responsibility and make the right choices so both philosophical perspectives are ultimately meant to help the soul arrive at the right course of action so it is not that either side is absolute truth they are true but they are true as subsets of a broader true scriptural purpose so same way here also then the focus is on the mechanisms of material nature in the concept of destiny when you focus on the mechanism of material nature at that time the quantum of happiness and distress that we will get in this lifetime is fixed but then we are also sentient souls who choose to act in various ways and depending on how we act we get certain results certain reactions so those can come either in next life or they can come in this life also so now rather than getting into the intricacies of whether everything is fixed or everything is not fixed this will be life’s karma we reconcile the two by understanding the underlying purpose that is to inspire us to the path of duty so when the scriptures say that total quantity of our happiness and distress is fixed that is to inspire us to not give up the path of dharma for the sake of sense gratification similarly when the scriptures tell us that the more we become attached to sense gratification the more we will suffer that is also to inspire us to not give up the path of dharma for the sake of sense gratification so in this case it is best to focus on the ultimate purpose then we will know what is to be done because there are many scriptures which are as Krishna said they are complex for us to understand but the broad principle of what we need to do and how we need to reconcile that is clear in our social situation