Can we transcend goodness without coming to goodness?
So if i think don't come to sattva mona can we go to shuddha sattva and Prabhupada said that he wanted to create a class of brahmins so how do we understand this? yeah the bhagvatam talks about bhakti in three modes in the third canto and in the eleventh canto and that is more in terms of the consciousness of the bhagvatam so there is within the practice of bhakti a transcendental side and there is a material side so the transcendental is more a matter of disposition whereas the material is more a matter of function that means there is business the business can be done in a very competitive way where one is trampling upon everyone else and destroying everyone else so that one becomes superior or business can also be done in a relatively simple, roundly way the activity of business itself is is pashy it's a vaishya activity but within vaishya also things can be done in different ways the vaishya profession can also be done with less with too much passion or lesser passion from all the groups and we will see this spectrum in every profession even if you say cricketers there are some cricketers who are very passionate some other cricketers are very calm this variety of personality we see in every field so now when we talk about the practice of bhakti there is sadhana bhakti this practice of sadhana bhakti brings us our overall disposition towards goodness and it will eventually take us towards darkness at the same time it will not change our nature so somebody has a vaishya nature that person can be a vaishya but that person will be a regulated vaishya when that part of the nature may remain as it is but the overall lifestyle will be like this if you see we count we count place of full person in a motor type category this is a goodness, this is a passion, this will be goodness krishna talks about determination in goodness he talks about intelligence in goodness he talks about knowledge in goodness so from lot of different people for whom certain things they may be goodness some people may have knowledge in goodness but their work may be passion for people their intelligence may be passion their religion may be goodness but now how it is, it's complex but to give a simple example to illustrate the subtlety of this is that generally we have heard that those who are in goodness worship krishna who are in passion worship whom brahman, those who are in ignorance worship shiva but krishna says in the bhagavad-gita in 17.4 he says that those who are in goodness worship devatas he says those who are in passion they worship the yakshas and yakshasas and ekam bhutaharam samitam ghosts and spirits they are worshiped by those who are in goodness so here krishna is saying that everyone worship, worship of the gods is in goodness but then we have heard that there is worship of the gods is usually within passion or ignorance so what is good about it we have to understand that to to accept the idea that there are some there is some higher being and i don't need to worship that higher being i need to appease that higher being to get my desires fulfilled that understanding itself requires some combination of goodness without having some goodness one will not even perceive that the higher being that i need to satisfy so that goodness is there within that goodness there can be goodness so we have that worship of shiva is in goodness ignorance worship of brahma is in goodness passion and worship of vishnu is in goodness goodness so there is a platform of goodness but within that also there is further divisions or for that example in general the animal body is said to be in goodness but then we also know that certain animals, cows are considered to be in goodness monkeys are in are lions and tigers and passion monkeys are in ignorance if all animals are in ignorance then how can cows be in goodness so the cow is in ignorance goodness the lion or tiger is in ignorance passion the monkey or the donkey is in ignorance ignorance so from one perspective the cow is much higher than the donkey but from another perspective both of them are in ignorance and that's why we have the bhagavatam sometimes it condemns donkeys and sometimes it puts cows in the same category as donkeys now where does that what is the last line of that goes the aim of gokhara which a person like a cow or a donkey so now when you say cow and monkey they're so radically different why are you putting both of them together the point is from the point of view of overall moods both of them are animal bodies so they are in goodness so the moods in that sense are subtle so with respect to our practice of the regulatory principles the practice of regulatory principles itself requires goodness without goodness you do not need to practice the regulatory principles and in general and the practice sadhana bhakti that will bring us above and goodness will take us to those transcendence but that need not necessarily change our nature in terms of our varanic subhava so in terms of our karaka we may still get into vaishya duty or satsanga duty or whatever duties we may have so we can come to goodness so this is the whole moods are subtle any this is called as taxonomy taxonomy is a system of classification so any system of taxonomy it does not translate in a clear way into a canon there are always grey areas so the important point is to recognize that we have to practice sadhana bhakti follow the regulatory principles somebody cannot say that oh i am a kshatriya, i am a vaishya so i cannot follow the regulatory principles i cannot chant the kriya that we have to do but there is an aspect of our life which as it is we don't live in a vipassana society so we are basically to do whatever profession we find this suitable whatever jobs we get whatever circumstances are suitable for us so that's fine just continue serving according to our nature and at our level of practice of bhakti the defining principle is yeda kriyanatakarayana nandana smriti somehow or other fix the mind of krishna and practice bhakti and as far as prabhupada said that he wanted ramanas yes he said that but then he also said he wanted to establish varanashram he said that was 50% of his mission so if we want if we want it to be balanced we will just have if a body just has a head what will the head do about it needs hands and legs to do something so we have to have eventually a complete body so not everybody in the movement will be a brahminic creature and for the movement to function people with other natures are also required that prabhupada said for a person to be a creature person has to be a brahmana brahmanical and kshatriya combined brahmanas will have knowledge kshatriyas will want to be in chain with society and they want both together good clear.