Chota Haridasa pastime: What it teaches & what it DOES NOT TEACH

Podcast: Video:

Today we are discussing the pastime of Chhota Haridas, which is one of the more disturbing pastimes, you could say, in the entire CC. So let's begin.

So that we will be skipping for now. But let's begin with this. So, in fact, we could say that this is probably, in some way, the most serious, the scariest pastime.

But I'll try to look at some broader lessons from it, try to understand it in context. And then, especially the theme today we'll be discussing is what do extreme examples in scripture teach? I was also planning to discuss about guilt and pseudo guilt, but that itself is a huge subject and we may not get to discuss it today because of time. But let us see.

So in the broader context, Mahaprabhu has now travelled to South India once, travelled to North India once. He's come back and he settled in Puri. And now he's decided he's going to travel no more.

So he's not going to travel anymore. So what is he going to do? He's going to now focus on going deeper and deeper within to do the practise of bhakti. So in this particular pastime, in one sense, the Chaitanya Charita Amrit is a little vague in describing what happens.

And there are other biographies of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu where many of these don't even mention this pastime. And as I mentioned in the beginning, there were 27 biographies written, out of which nine are available right now. And our acharyas have focused primarily on three of them, Chaitanya Charita Amrit, Chaitanya Bhagwat and Chaitanya Mangal.

There are a few others also. But our acharya is not primarily focused on those. And Chhota Haridas pastime is not prominent.

There's not much description of this pastime elsewhere. So therefore, the sources that we have are the particular pastime that's described here, Prabhupada's purports. And now both Bhakti Sahasrath Thakur and Bhakti Vinod Thakur have written commentaries on this.

And again, none of them go much into the details of exactly what happened. They focus more on describing or you could say explaining the rationale for Mahaprabhu's actions. And often even the explanation of their rationale is from their cultural context.

So Bhakti Vinod Thakur is speaking to Bhadraloka, who Bhadraloka, as we know, are the elite Bengali people who were educated by the British and were employed by the British and thought themselves, you could say, superior to the general uneducated superstitious people. And so in one sense, Bhakti Vinod Thakur's explanations are sometimes quite liberal because these people were already suspicious of this Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It's a beggar's religion.

It's impractical. It is a lot of misconceptions about Gaudiya Vaishnavism. And why those misconceptions? We will discuss that later in the Pradyumna Mishra pastime.

And Bhakti Vinod Thakur, he was, in one sense, primarily writing to his disciples. Now, he had a lot of sannyasi disciples and he did focus on high standards of renunciation. So his explanation is from that context.

Now, what do I mean by this context? That every acharya, when they write a commentary, the principles they teach are eternal. But at the same time, they are also addressing a particular audience. When they are addressing a particular audience, the explanation is directed toward that audience.

It's just like if somebody is giving a class to a particular audience, say, our Guru Maharaj or some other venerable spiritual teacher in our movement is giving a class, say, in America or in India or in Russia. Or, say, if somebody is giving a class in Russia and right now there's a war breaking out between Russia and Ukraine. So if they give a class at that time, they will often cater the philosophy from that perspective.

They'll have something to speak from that perspective. So what happens is, to some extent, Bhakti Sudhanshu Thakur's explanations, he had his sannyasi disciples and he wanted high standards for sannyasi disciples. So his explanations are, we could say, a bit conservative on the strict side.

So Bhakti Nath Thakur's explanation of this past time is a bit liberal. And Bhakti Sudhanshu Thakur's explanation is a bit conservative. So now, from our perspective in today's world, say, we are not trying to say, if we had to explain this past time to a new person, it will be extremely difficult.

You know, what exactly happened over here? That's why Chaitanya Charita Amar Prabhupada called it a postgraduate study in theology. So we are not trying to explain this to entirely new people, which is a very, very difficult past time to explain. And nor are most of us, in fact, none of us, I would say, are sannyasis.

So we are trying to see what lessons we can draw from this past time for us. So in that sense, I will draw some points from Bhakti Nath Thakur and Bhakti Sudhanshu Thakur, both, but because our context is different. So I'll be focussing on what we can learn.

And we will look at not just what Prabhupada's purports talk about, but also I'll talk about a few incidents from Prabhupada's life specifically, to address how misunderstanding or misapplication of the past time can have disastrous results. So with that background, let's look quickly at the past time. So Mahaprabhu was living in Puri, and over a period of time, many associates started coming and staying with him.

So we know that when he came first from Mayapur, he brought some associates with him. Gadadhar Pandit stayed with him. And if we visit Jagannath Puri, we have the place where Gadadhar Pandit stayed, still there.

And then his assistant Govinda came there, and he stayed. Mahaprabhu asked Ramananda Rai to come and stay there. Himself he asked.

Then we had Haridas Thakur coming and staying there. And one of the associates who also came and stayed there was Chota Haridas. So now Chota Haridas, Chota means, as you say, small.

Or as Prabhupada translates, Junior Haridas. So he was, we could say, the word Bada Haridas is not used generally, because it's Haridas Thakur, he's a normal person. He was actually older than Mahaprabhu also.

So Chota Haridas was a good singer, and he was also in the renounced order. Now there is no evidence actually that Haridas Thakur, the senior Haridas Thakur had ever taken sannyas, because he had been born in a Nitya family. So the official order of sannyas was difficult for him.

But everybody knew that he was an exalted person. But Chota Haridas, since that he was formally in the sannyas order, and at that time, the normal system was that most people, most people in the renounced orders, they would do Madhukari. Madhukari means they would go out and seek alms.

Seek alms from, generally from grahasthas, they are the people who have something. Now there was, Mahaprabhu was such a great sannyasi, that he didn't have to go out and seek alms. People would himself provide.

And in this case, Pratap Rudra was his patron. Sarvambhattacharya was the royal priest and royal advisor of Pratap Rudra, who was the king. So for him, they would provide everything.

So then, when Chota Haridas, when they would go for having Madhukari, quite often, when the, when the, those from the renounced order would go, it would happen that if they would go to the house of a person, at that time, the grahastha male might be out working, and only the female would be there. So we know that this is the exact strategy that Ravan used. But in the case of Ravan, he had deliberately arranged that Ram and Lakshman would not be there, so that Sita would be alone.

And he wanted to exploit her, abduct her first, and then exploit her. So when Chota Haridas went to the house, he was going as usual for, for alms, and he went to the house of Shikhi Mahiti. Shikhi Mahiti is also an associate of Mahaprabhu.

And when he went there, at that time, something inappropriate happened. Now, from the Chaitanya Chaitanya Amma's narrative, what it seems is that the extent of the inappropriateness is not clearly indicated. It seemed that there was inappropriate glancing or staring, but there could well have been more than that.

Generally, the, how should I put it, that many of the Eastern cultures, that you say broadly, if you look at the Puranic times, in the Puranas, the even great characters, if they do something wrong, it is openly described. Say Indira has many embarrassing incidents. Even Yudhishthir, he is Dharmaraj, but when he gambles Draupadi away, he gets completely swept away by the urge for gambling.

And that's openly described. But as the mediaeval times started coming in, India, the Indian culture started becoming more of a face-saving culture. Face-saving culture means that in general, if something bad happens or something bad is done by someone, the details of the bad thing are not told publicly.

There is, if somebody is a respectable person, if somebody is, so if they have done something wrong, the general understanding was there is no need to broadcast it to everyone. Now, why did these changes happen? Generally, behaviour of people responds to the kind of society that they are in. So, in general, in the mediaeval times, mediaeval times means roughly from the 11th, 12th century onwards, till the 18th, 19th century, you could say, from the 19th century onwards, modern times started.

So, during the mediaeval times, with this face-saving culture, it's not just the Chaitanya Charita Amrit, but many other literature, whether they are Bhakti literature or they are general, even secular literature, sometimes the controversial, scandalous parts are not described very clearly. So, just to give an illustration of this, what I mean, that there is an incident, similarly, that there is one associate of Mahaprabhu, that is Damodar Pandit, and there is this young boy who comes and who has great affection for Mahaprabhu, and Mahaprabhu also shows great affection to that boy and has loving interactions with him, and then Damodar Pandit comes and says, Mahaprabhu shouldn't spend too much time with this boy. So, Chaitanya Charita's mood overall is that it's a bit presumptuous for Damodar Pandit to be instructing Mahaprabhu.

He says, what will people think if you behave like this? And they say, okay, this is just a small boy, there is interaction with him, what's the big deal about it? Showing affection to a boy? It's not that those mediaeval times, 16th century, is like modern times. In today's world, in America, if there is some stranger shows some affection to a boy, tomorrow that person may be accused of child abuse. So, there is paranoia.

It was not like that over there at all. So, what's wrong? Again, Chaitanya Charita Amrit doesn't make it very clear. It mentions that this boy's mother was a widow and Damodar Pandit says that people will talk about this.

So, then Mahaprabhu tells Damodar Pandit that you please go to Mayapur and stay there. The thing is Mahaprabhu in one sense punishes Damodar Pandit, but Mahaprabhu still takes his advice or his point he appreciates and he doesn't spend time with that boy so much afterwards. So, what's going on over here? So, we need to read other literature to understand the context.

So, the Kama Sutra as we know is a book which focusses on Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha. So, we have Dharma Shastras, we have Artha Shastras, we have Kama Shastras also and then we have Moksha Shastra. So, the Upanishads are generally considered to be Moksha Shastra.

The Vedas themselves are Dharma Shastras and say now Artha Shastra, Kautilya's Artha Shastra is the most famous among his Artha Shastras, but there are like that Kama Shastras also and Kama Sutra is one of the Kama Shastras. So, what happens in the Kama Sutra is that it's described that one of the ways in which if a person wants to have an inappropriate relationship with a woman is that that man shows a lot of affection to that woman's child, especially the male child and that is seen as a sign of sexual signalling, indication. Then it's almost like in today's world people may send some love letters or now SMS or Facebook, so many ways people can go about doing that.

So, this in Kama Sutra is in Kama Shastras, not just Kama Sutra, Kama Shastras, this is considered to be a form of sexual signalling and there is a, in a much more purer context, there is an indication of this in the Bhagavatam also. When Krishna comes to Dwarka, at that time everybody is there to welcome him and Uddhava and other members when they come up, Krishna offers respects to the elders, he hugs his equals and he offers blessings to his junior people. But in the public, his queens cannot come and hug him, they cannot afford their affection to him that way.

So, what do they do? All the queens send their sons and when Krishna, he tassels their hair, tassels the hair of his sons and he hugs them, the queens feel loved that way. Now, that's a cultured pure way between affection could apply for somebody who is seeking some inappropriate relationship. So, there are these, we could say there are these cultural specifics that may not be known to others.

So, broadly speaking, that yes, what Chaitanya Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says there's an inappropriate glance, but it could be that glance indicated a signalling of something more or it may not be. But one thing is clear that there was nothing, nothing physical that happened between the two of them, between and Shikhimaiti is also said to be not a young girl, she's supposed to be a, she's to be a mature lady. So, but then after this particular thing happens, so he collects his alms and now most of them would collect alms for themselves and they might also bring if they got some good alms, they might get it for a supplies for Mahaprabhu also for his stock.

Usually, they would not need that. But Mahaprabhu took his prasad and he said, I will not see Chhota Haridas anymore and don't bring him in my presence anymore. Chhota Haridas' stock, what happened? And then he also realises, oh okay, I'm being punished for this and he's completely broken.

He was a very good singer and he wanted to sing and please Mahaprabhu all the time. But unfortunately, he's not able to do that and he's heartbroken, devastated, he's very remorseful. So, then the associates of Mahaprabhu console him and they say, no, wait, wait, Mahaprabhu will be upset with you, but wait, things will be better.

They wait. Unfortunately, Mahaprabhu doesn't seem to be softening his attitude and then several of the senior Vaishnavas, some of them including one Paramanand Puri who is of the generation of the Guru of Mahaprabhu, even they go and try to request Mahaprabhu to forgive him and to accept him in his association. But Mahaprabhu says, if you insist on this, then you can have him in your association, but kindly excuse me, I will go and stay in Aral Nath.

Now, this we'll see is a repeated motif in the Anta Leela that when Mahaprabhu is very upset with something and he doesn't want to argue over there, he doesn't want to confront too much, he says, okay, I'll go and live in Aral Nath. Aral Nath is a nearby place where there is a temple of Vishnu. Devotees realise, okay, Mahaprabhu is not going to budge on this.

So, then they say that Chhota Haridas, don't worry, let's wait for some time. But Chhota Haridas is heartbroken and then he enters into the ocean over there and he ends his life. And when he ends his life and the devotees, they say he has disappeared and then they come to know what has actually happened.

They are heartbroken. Mahaprabhu is, they are also shocked at that time. Mahaprabhu remains grave.

Mahaprabhu remains grave and then after that, when Mahaprabhu is out on his walks, Mahaprabhu would every day, several times go to Jagannath temple for darshan and come back. At that time, they heard a ethereal, ethereal means a non-physical voice singing the glories of Krishna, the Mahamantra and the songs of Krishna for wherever Mahaprabhu is going for Mahaprabhu's pleasure. And Mahaprabhu smiles.

Mahaprabhu, at least he indicates his pleasure at that or at least he doesn't indicate his displeasure and the devotees understand that this is Chhota Haridas and he's singing for Mahaprabhu's pleasure. Now something that he, because he ended his life, he became a ghost. But we'll see how valid that particular incident is.

Now, this is the broad pastime. So let's look at what exactly is going on over here. From one perspective, it may say it's okay if there was a thing physical that happened, even if there was some inappropriate expression, inappropriate glance, even an inappropriate intention.

Should there be such an extreme punishment for this? There is one western commentator on Chaitanya, he's translated as Chaitanya Amutha, he says that Chaitanya's extraordinarily saintly character in his ecstatic devotion to the Lord is wonderful, but there is this one blot on his character that he was cruelly unforgiving. And that's why one of his associates had to end his life. This person was actually, otherwise he's very, very appreciative of Mahaprabhu and he's a Christian and he compares Mahaprabhu's ecstasies with Jesus' ecstasies or Jesus' spiritual experiences.

So then, Bhakti Sahasra Thakur and Bhakti Nath Thakur have anticipated this kind of criticism and they try to respond to it also. So in general, the first point is that these are not the kind of pastimes that are meant to be spoken to new people. There are esoteric pastimes of different kinds.

Just as we don't speak about Radha Krishna's intimate Rasila pastimes to new people, this is not a pastime we speak to new people because that is the kind of impression that comes up, that this is such an unforgiving attitude. But was Mahaprabhu really unforgiving and was that the point of this pastime? That if anybody commits wrong, then they will never be forgiven? Well, if that were the lesson, then why have a pastime like Jagai and Madai? Jagai and Madai, they had done far greater crimes. They had used force in their exploitation of people, including the exploitation of women and they were delivered by Mahaprabhu through Nityanand Prabhu.

So would Mahaprabhu do something like this for them? Why such a difference? So to think that this is simply an unforgiving nature, that's a terrible misunderstanding. So let's begin with a discussion of the overall pastime. So I'll take two broad themes over here.

And the first theme we'll discuss and then we'll stop and then we'll again have questions and then we'll again resume after that. So first point is, was his strictness excessive? Well, it can seem like that. So Mahaprabhu, he was setting a standard that was extraordinarily high.

And correspondingly, he also set a punishment that was extraordinarily high. Now what do I mean by a standard that was extraordinarily high? That we know that there are sannyasis in the other traditions also. There is Ramanujacharya, who is considered Yati Raj.

Yati is sannyasi and Raj is the king of sannyasis. Madhavacharya himself was also an annunciate. But if you look at their lives, they have not displayed this kind of strictness.

Yes, they were also strict sannyasis, but especially like this standard of strictness are not there. Now why is that? Because one reason of course, many reasons we could say, but one reason was the context. I'll explain what was the context.

So the standard that he was set was very high was that even when Mahaprabhu's female disciples would come to meet him, now Mahaprabhu never gave initiation to him. So generally in the Chetan Charita Amrit, when the word disciple is used, it is used in a very broad sense, that those who were inspired by him, those who were following him. Our parampara is more of a shiksha parampara.

There is no evidence that Mahaprabhu ever conducted a fire sacrifice, a yajna to initiate anyone. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is just no textual evidence for that.

But his female followers, when they would come, they would offer him respects from a distance. And there were some occasions when there was a violation of this rule and somebody who was very dear to Mahaprabhu, that person would come and say, this is my sister, or this is my so and so. And that was a, in one sense, a transgression of the usual etiquette, but Mahaprabhu didn't make a scene out of that.

And that Krishna's Kriyasu says is, that is how considerate Mahaprabhu was. So again, now, there is no evidence that Ramanacharya had his, it is not that he was freely mingling with women, but whether that he kept his female disciples at a strict distance, there is no evidence of that. So Mahaprabhu, in general, was setting a high standard of renunciation.

And then, therefore, if that is the standard of renunciation, then if there's anything wrong with that, anybody going off that, then there's a punishment also. And the punishment is also extraordinarily high. So in general, when there are extreme examples in scripture, so our response should not be extreme.

Our response needs to be balanced. So what do we mean by balanced response? So one extreme could be, we take them as absolute standards, and we replicate them literally. The other is that this can lead to disaster, and I'll explain why we take them as absolute standards.

The other is, we take them as absolutely, oh, they're just impractical. This is just a standard which Mahaprabhu was teaching for that time, and it's got nothing to do. Then what will happen is, if we do this, then we will miss out on the lessons to be taught.

So this screen will stop sharing. If you take them as impractical and give no further thought to them, then we'll miss out on valuable lessons. So there is something to learn for all of us over here, but we'll miss out on that.

So what is the balanced approach? So we strive to understand the principle conveyed through the example, and see how that principle applies today in our situation. So let's look at these three, and this is going to be the crux of our class today. Now, as I said, if there's literal replication of that, that will lead to disaster.

Why is that? So first of all, if we are authorities, we may not have that level of purity to inspire and purify others. Leave alone demand such standards of purity from others. And if we are subordinates, and if we beat ourselves down with guilt, we may beat ourselves down with guilt and destroy ourselves emotionally and sometimes physically.

And unfortunately, there have been many incidents like this. So Vishnujan Maharaj, we know, was one of the most dynamic preachers among Prabhupada's disciples. And he was adventurous, the kind of, he was the person who had practised in the religion of Maharaj, who's also known to be extremely adventurous in his outreach now.

So when a Mahaprabhu, when all of the sannyasis would every year be sannyasis and leaders, at that time, most of the leaders of sannyasis, or not all, the temple presidents were many grahasthas, many of them were grahasthas, they all used to come annually to Jagannath Puri, sorry, to Mayapur, for the Gaur Purnima festival. So at that time, in one morning walk, this pastime Chota Haridas came. And this devotee started, disciples started asking Prabhupada, this is, you know, so if Chota Haridas, this is what Mahaprabhu said, and he, when he committed, he ended his life, he committed suicide, then this Mahaprabhu felt that that was a fit punishment for his actions.

So then a disciple asked that, I'm paraphrasing the conversation, that so if one of your followers, one of your disciples falls down, what should they do? A sannyasi disciple falls down. Mahaprabhu has given the example that a sannyasi should end their life. And Vishnujan Maharaj heard it, and he fell back, aghast.

Now again, there are different narratives about what exactly happened. You know, what exactly was the extent of what inappropriate thing he had done, or what made him feel what he should do. But eventually, what happened, what ended up happening was that, that he felt that he had done something wrong.

And the only repentance for him was to end his life. So he just disappeared. Next morning, he did Mangal Aarti and he disappeared.

And nobody knew where he went. And some people thought that, oh, you're such a dynamic person, where did he go? Of course, that was a time when sometimes even leading devotees would suddenly depart. Has he fallen away? Or what has happened? Then later on, and some of the devotees went to Triveni.

And there, some of the local people told that, some time ago, there was a sannyasi. He was a western-bodied person, just like you had come. And he tied stones around his neck, and he entered Triveni, and he ended his life.

Now, it was a disaster for a moment. Now, after that, when Prabhupada heard about it, actually in that same conversation, what happened was, Prabhupada was, so Prabhupada, would you want your disciples to end their life like that? Prabhupada said, oh, that is Mahaprabhu. I cannot demand to stand with Mahaprabhu.

He says, I need all of you. I need all of you. And no matter what happens, always continue to serve Krishna.

So, Prabhupada was teaching what Mahaprabhu had done, but he didn't say that, that is what we have to do. And this actually illustrates, in no small way, in a tragic way, what can happen if we take one statement of Prabhupada out of context, and emphasise it, apply it to ourselves, or even apply it to others. Nowadays, this is a big problem with the internet available.

You can just google, and what are the statements of Prabhupada about this particular topic? And we can find friends' statements of Prabhupada. And now, in what context is said, Prabhupada's statements, it could be about women, it could be about, it could be about a particular, about blacks, it could be about, about people with black, about various things. And you can take them out of context, and we can actually end up creating a negative picture of Prabhupada, taking negative action based on those statements.

So, this is very unfortunate. And Prabhupada was himself deeply saddened by what had happened. Prabhupada was extremely grave and morose for some time.

So, this is literal replication, which can lead to disaster. Now, this literal replication can go even further. There was one particular sanyasi, who was very fanatical about the principle of, now, this is, as I said, this is extreme, but even other principles could be applied in an extreme way.

So, there's one particular sanyasi who used to emphasise this principle of no illicit sex. And when his disciples would get married, you know, he would actually, after their marriage, after a few days, then he would come to me and ask them, you know, did you chant the proper number of rounds before you had your physical union? And it was extremely embarrassing kind of thing for the disciples. And quite often, sometimes, especially if somebody's young or somebody has strong cravings, it may not always be possible.

So, now, generally, the broad understanding in our movement is that, you know, that there is a standard, but we all will gradually move toward the standard. It is not anyone's business, and certainly not the spiritual master's business, to interrogate a disciple like that. Prabhupada never interrogated disciples like that.

And in fact, during his initiation lectures, what illicit sex means, Prabhupada gave different explanations. But one of my devotees, one of the Prabhupada's disciples has done exhaustive research. And during initiation lectures, when Prabhupada would talk about illicit sex, he would emphasise illicit sex as no sex outside marriage.

So, in one sense, the initiation promise is no sex outside marriage. And yes, there is a higher standard that is physical union only for procreation. That is something we aspire for.

But in this case, the sannyasi had this habit of interrogating. And he had a prominent brahmachari disciple who had been there with him, and he had heard his guru speak about this dozens and dozens and dozens of times. And then eventually, he was still young and he was, eventually, he felt the need to get married.

And then, on the night of the marriage, he united with his, he had physical union with his wife. And after that, he felt so guilty that on the same night, he ended up ending his life. Because of that alone, apparently.

And when his bride, she came to know, this is the wedding night, she says, okay, where's my husband? And she went to the next room and she saw that her husband hung himself and he was dead. And she went mad because of that. And then eventually, she had to be admitted to a mental asylum.

And unfortunately, she never came back to bhakti. She recovered and went back to her family, whatever. And then eventually, what happened was, this particular sannyasi himself, he lost his mental balance and he started, he went to the other extreme.

And eventually, he also fell away. So, now, why did this? So, this is a, it's one thing for a sannyasi. Now, even if we say that Mahaprabhu's instruction was for sannyasi, which also Prabhupada did not implement that way.

But why should the grahastha feel like this, that I have to end my life? So, this is a horrendous misapplication of this kind of pastimes. That's why I started with so much broad context, that literal application can lead to disaster. So, neither the authorities have that level of purity to demand, nor should the subordinates feel guilty about this in this way.

So, now, if you look at the broader scriptural examples, there are extreme examples which run both ways. What do I mean by run both ways? Now, there are not just disproportionate punishments for minor wrong actions, but there are also disproportionate rewards for minor right actions. We have Ajamil, who just chanted one name of Narayan unconsciously and was relieved of all sins because of that.

Now, would we do that to criminals or wrongdoers today? Well, it's a difficult question. So, now it happened that again, so, can we apply the scripture principles here? So, there is, there are devotees who are doing prison outreach. And often, there are many inspiring stories of how prisoners turn to bhakti and they become devotees, become very dedicated devotees.

There are amazing stories of that. And there are devotees, Chandramouli Maharaj has also written a book about, he's called it as Holy Jail. So, Holy Jail means how within the jail, somebody becomes pure by the practise of bhakti.

So, one such story of a devotee, of a person who was in a jail and how that person became devotee, that came to us in Bhakti Goddard. I'm one of the editors for Bhakti Goddard, both for the Indian and international, this is for the international edition. And it's quite an inspiring story about how this young man who was in jail, he became, he became a devotee, and then he became such a dedicated devotee, he was the one, he started sharing Krishna Bhakti with others in the jail.

And then we were going to print it. And at that time, our chief editor, and then he got a letter, this happened in South Africa. So, he got a letter from South African authorities, saying that please don't publish this story.

And then he forwarded the letter to us. So, what had happened was that, okay, this person in the jail had become a devotee. But what has happened many times in the jail stories, just is like, we don't talk much about why that person was in jail, that person was in jail, but still he became a devotee.

So, what had happened was this young man was in jail, because he had molested some girl. And that girl happened to be the daughter of a congregation devotee. So, now, he said that, some set of devotees, they said that, he has transformed now.

He has transformed now, he's become a wonderful devotee, he's preaching. So, we should not consider his past at all. But the other side, okay, that particular family is still a part of the community.

It's still a part of the community of devotees. And, you know, if that particular family and that particular girl, for that matter, is going to seen back to Godhead, the person who has molested her, portrayed as such a wonderful devotee, such a transformed person, you know, what would be the trauma they would go through? So, do we want to go through that? So, those who were the devotees who were preaching in the jail, they said, you know, this is, Ajamila is forgiven. So many people are forgiven completely, their past is wiped clean.

Okay, the past is wiped clean. But it's one thing to say that, okay, you can practise bhakti and you become a good devotee. But do we want to portray that person as such a model devotee for the whole world? Well, eventually, we decided not to publish that article.

And so, in that book, in the book about the holy jail and other places like that, that article is still available. But in the SCOAN's official magazine, we decided not to publish the article. Now, is it that we don't acknowledge the potency of bhakti? Of course, we do.

We're not saying that a person's past cannot be cleansed away. But there has to be context sensitivity, that what is the effect? Is it that we lack the faith in the potency of bhakti? Is it that we lack faith in the, that the devotees, the congregation devotee family, that they lack faith in the potency of bhakti? No, they have gone through a particular horrid experience. And we have to consider that.

So, the point is, scripture shows both extraordinary examples of forgiveness for just an unconscious chanting of the holy names. If you consider Jagai and Madai, Jagai and Madai, actually speaking, what do they do? They have done so many sins and they just, and they even attacked Nityanand Prabhu, but Mahaprabhu forgives them completely. But does it end over there? Madai actually repents and they build the Madai bridge and they actively seek repentance.

They try to seek repentance from all those people whom they offended. So, yes, at a spiritual level, both the giving forgiveness for wrongs or giving punishments for wrong, but they can, they can happen in extraordinary ways. But that doesn't mean we have, we replicate them literally.

It has to be done with great sensitivity. There was one, one particular spiritual master who, I mean, so there was one disciple of his, young, handsome, good looking, basically. And he, whatever, because of his past conditionings or something, he, he molested, this is one part of the world, and some of these will be shocking stories.

But, but the, I'm just illustrating the point that he, he tried to molest some devotee in the congregation. And then, then after that, and the court case went against him and things like that. It became long, it became quite a distasteful whole affair.

When he was told you cannot come to the temple, and then wrote to his spiritual master. And he said, our whole tradition is a tradition of forgiveness. Why am I not being forgiven for this? I'm sorry for it.

So, the spiritual master wrote back and told him that, that as, you know, I will all, I'll be your and I'll pray for you. But because of your grievous actions, I can no longer accept you as my disciple. Now, he didn't say I reject you as my disciples, I can no longer accept you as a disciple.

That means, you know, the, the rules that, that you cannot come to the temple, you cannot do this, that's for the safety of the community. So, can somebody claim, oh, the scripture tradition is a tradition of forgiveness, so I should be forgiven? Well, it's not that simple. These things have to be applied carefully.

So, both in terms of punishment and forgiveness, how things are to be applied, we have to be very, very careful about this. That's why literal replication of the scriptures can lead, literal replication of these particular pastimes can lead to disaster. On the other hand, what may happen is, somebody may deem this, oh, all this is just impractical.

Oh, this is just something extreme, it doesn't, has no relevance to us. But what happens is that, in general, in our lives, we all tend to justify and normalise our minor indestruction. Justify, it's no big deal.

Normalise means everyone does it. And we don't, we don't realise that they can snowball into huge catastrophes. Like a snowball starts like a small snow pebble at the top.

By the time it comes down, it has become a snow boulder. It can knock over a person, it can knock down a small house. So, therefore, extreme examples help in stopping us from potentially dangerous minor missteps.

Those missteps may be minor right now, but they can be potentially dangerous. And they can set off a chain of events, they can lead to a habit that may be overwhelming. So, that's why sometimes there are horror stories that are described.

Now, the horror stories may be rare possibilities, but sometimes the horror stories are highlighted to, to minimise their replication. So, for example, in the past, now it is not that common, but in the past, this was only two, three generations ago, and this happened in the West, not so much in India. But when electricity was introduced, they had like a mandatory regulation that what happens if you touch a live electric wire, that had to be depicted.

Either it was through audio, like somebody touches electric, either a live electric wire, which is open, or somebody touches a socket with wet hands, how a person can get electrified. So, whenever electricity will be installed in the house, at that time, there were not so much videos were not there. But in the early days, they would actually play out audio recordings of a person who's got a shock and is electrified and is screaming.

What a horrible thing to do. Nowadays, of course, electric sockets and everything are much safer. Generally, even if somebody touches with wet hands, not much problems are going to come.

But at that time, things were not so safe. And even now, touching sockets with wet hands could be dangerous. So, now we may touch it once, nothing may happen.

We touch it a second time, nothing may happen. But who knows, things can go wrong. So, it's best to, in one sense, have those horror stories in mind, that even this can happen.

Therefore, be careful. So, the point is, we can't just dismiss them as unrealistic, impractical, extreme. These examples themselves may be extreme.

But we need to know that there is a possibility of danger, and we should be cautious about it. So, what is the purpose of extreme examples? The purpose of extreme examples is, it is not to normalise the extreme standards. It is, that means, this is what it is, but it is to emphasise normal standards through extreme examples of the dangers of neglecting or flouting those standards.

So, you will see this difference over here. Not to normalise external standards, but to emphasise normal standards. So, through extreme examples.

So, for example, even the Ajamil pastime, on a positive note, we take. So, what is the lesson from that? Does it say, oh, you can do, you can do all kinds of sensual, even sinful activities till your death, but just at the time of death, chant Jail Narayana, and everything will be all right. That's never the lesson of that pastime.

The lesson from Ajamil's pastime is what? That how merciful is the holy name, that Ajamil chanted once, and even that too unconsciously. And by that, he was delivered from Pratyapasadamuchyata. He was delivered from the noose of Yamaraja, the Yamadutas.

And so, the conclusion is what? If you see what Shukadeva Goswami infers from this, and what Prabhupada explains in his purport, not his purport, what the previous satcharita was talking in their purport. So, if we do our normal sadhana, if we chant the holy names properly, then won't we be delivered? If we don't, if we do our sadhana properly, won't we be delivered? We will surely be. So, that's the lesson that is drawn from there.

So, it's not to normalise extreme standards. Just as it's not with the positive side also, that extraordinary examples of mercy, it's all same also from the negative side. So, they are meant to emphasise normal standards through extreme examples.

So, what can go wrong? That's what needs to be understood, so that we don't, we minimise the possibility of giving those things, even the small chance of happening. One of my friends in the airport security, or aeroplane security. So, they say that, you know, they go through such microscopic detail, you know, what all can go wrong when you're in an aeroplane and how to deal with that.

Sometimes we hear that some planes crashing and planes crashing make some scary news. But overall, if you look at the statistics, actually aeroplane travel is much safer than road travel. In road travel, many accidents happen, but accidents are commonplace.

And that's why they don't make big news, generally speaking, unless there is a major car pile with multiple accidents or there are some very significant people who die in that accident. But the point is that even every small possibility, okay, this happens, what can we do, this happens, what can we do? They try to deal with that. Why? Because we want to avoid that danger.

So, we could say that when we are trying to practise bhakti, it is like a spiritual air travel. Now, we are boarding a plane by which we are going to the spiritual world. So, we want to we want to avoid dangers.

That's what it's talking about, extreme examples. So, now, if you want to have a balanced approach, how do we go about having a balanced approach? So, broadly, three things. What did this example mean in its original context? That's the first point.

In the original context, what is the meaning of this example? Then, what is the universal principle conveyed through this example? So, if you consider, say, this is the particular incident, okay, this incident, what does it mean over here? Then, what is the universal principle independent of the context? And then that universal principle, which is up here, this is the original context. This is a, we could say, 16th century Bengal, when this particular pastime happened, what did it mean at that time? Then, what is the universal principle? And then, in the 21st century, so now we can say, what does it mean now? What does the universal principle apply in today's context? So, that's what we'll discuss one by one. So, what was the meaning in original context? So, at that time, Sahajiyism had already started creeping into India, especially in the Bengal-Orissa area.

It came through Buddhism and through Shaktism. So, Buddhism, of course, is the teachings of Buddha. And Shaktism is actually the worship of the god Shakti.

So, now what had happened was, Mahaprabhu wanted to protect Gaudiya Vaishnavism from this. Now, Buddha himself had renounced the world and he was quite vehement about his renunciation, about emphasising renunciation. In fact, initially, he even refused to have any female followers.

But only on the insistence of his disciples, he said that, no, if you exclude half of humanity, then how will they be delivered? So, then he agreed to that. But depending on different commentators of different commentators on Buddhism, some people say that it was reluctant somewhat. But anyway, he did that.

However, about a decade after Buddha departed from the world, there were some Buddhist teachers who started having dreams and they claimed to have either dreams or visions in which they said that actually what Buddha taught at that time was at that time for those people because they were not very advanced. But now you are more sophisticated people, so we have advanced teaching. And the advanced teaching is that actually you have to go beyond the world and the world's pleasures if you want to attain enlightenment.

But there are different ways to do that. One way is by renouncing all the world's pleasures. But another way is that indulge in those pleasures.

And through indulging in those pleasures, eventually, you will realise their futility and you will go beyond it. So, in one sense, they started teaching the opposite of what Buddha was teaching. And Shaktism, I will explain what it was.

We will discuss about Sahajiyaism in greater detail when we talk about a Pradyumna Mishra pastime. But Shaktism, in essence, held that Sahajiyaism was, let's see what it means. The general meaning of Sahajiyaism is it taking scriptural rules sahaj, it's like those rules are meant for our purification, our protection, it takes them cheaply or loosely, that is sahaj.

Now, the specific meaning is, it is a group of pseudo-religionists, pseudo means false religionists, who claimed that divine reciprocations were happening through human sexuality. That means, so if there were a Shiva Bhakta or Shakti Bhakta, male and female, if they would unite, they would do some rituals and they would physically unite. They would claim that actually it's not we who are uniting, it is Shiva and Shakti who are uniting through us.

And they would have their own scriptures and double codes to justify that. Now, this was completely rejected by the Vaishnavas. So, what happened was that this started from Shaktism, Shiva and Shakti were uniting and then it started creeping into Vaishnavism, specifically in Krishna Bhakti.

Why? Because, not so much in Vishnu Bhakti because there are not much descriptions in the intimate pastimes of Vishnu and Lakshmi, they are more in Aishwarya Bhava. But there are quite a few descriptions of the intimate pastimes of Radha and Krishna in the scriptures. So, that was imitated and this was creeping in that time and Mahaprabhu wanted to completely stamp that out.

Nothing doing about this. So, he wanted to avoid any even even a remote indication that he supported anything like this. That's why, who could be a greater Krishna Bhakta than Mahaprabhu, who is the founder of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and when he maintained a rigid distance, that means everybody, all his followers should do that.

Unfortunately, it did happen that within one or two generations, Sahajaism did creep into Vaishnavism, Gaudiya Vaishnavism also. But Mahaprabhu wanted to mark the boundaries. He wanted to protect very rigidly.

So, we will talk about Tantra a little later in the Pranam Nishtha pastime. So, in that context, what was happening was Mahaprabhu was setting a very strict standard to avoid Sahajaism creep into Vaishnavism, into Gaudiya Vaishnavism. So, that is the contextual explanation of that pastime.

Now, what is the time independent principle over here? Time independent principle means that, as I said, in that particular context, what does it mean? And then universally, what does it mean? So, male-female proximity, if not regulated, is dangerous and it can even be disastrous. So, now, this is not just something which our tradition is teaching. So, stories of disasters exist across history and geography and they exist even today's ultra-liberal world.

Even here in today's world, when people say, okay, just for the individuals to decide, no religion, no culture, no tradition should be regulating it. But even then, there are scandals that come up and there are people who, influential positions, sometimes they have to resign or at least they get into controversy. Just recently, I think one of the heads of CNN in America, he had to resign because, or he resigned because he had a relationship with one of his colleagues.

Again, it's only part of the story is known, but basically what is known is he resigned. The point is, Cupid can make anyone stupid and of course, not just stupid, it can be scandalously stupid. So, that is a principle that applies all the times and that is a principle that is valid.

So, now, sometimes even wars have been caused because of this. In the Greco-Roman tradition, there is a story which is quite similar to the story of Ramayana. This is the story of Helen of Troy.

Now, Helen of Troy was supposed to be so, Troy is the kingdom, Helen was the princess over there. So, it is said that Helen, she was so beautiful, her face was so beautiful and it is said about the face that set off a thousand ships. That means, just to win her, a prince from another kingdom, he launched a whole war and thousand ships went on war because of that and this is thousands of years ago.

Thousand ships was a big time, big thing at that time. So, the point is that people can lose all perspective and can do terrible things. So, that is a universal principle.

Now, how might that principle apply today? So, we could say that, as I said, I will skip some things over here. So, caution is always needed. Now, caution is always needed means that we may need to factor in circumstantial changes in human society that affect the specifics of gender interactions.

Specific of gender interactions means what? That how men and women interact with each other, there is some level of cultural difference and we cannot fanatically impose one standard on everyone. In the early days, I think 1966 or something like that, the several Prabhupada disciples have corroborated this past time. There was this quite well-educated, among the few well-educated people who was coming to the, coming to Prabhupada's programme in 1966 and she asked, used to ask very intelligent questions and then one day, after a very, after a very good question-answer session, she says, Swamiji, I'm so inspired, I'm so grateful, can I give you a hug? And Prabhupada looked at her and thought, why not? And now she, now Prabhupada didn't hug her, why would she hug Prabhupada? And that was that.

Now, there's no evidence that Prabhupada ever after, ever again after he did that and the devotees who tell this past time, they say that, you know that Prabhupada was so compassionate but Prabhupada never did that with any of his disciples. They wouldn't even think about it. That Prabhupada was quite strict that even if his female disciples who were like his grand, who were the ages of his granddaughter, he would not be alone in the room with them.

They would come to clean his room or even offer him prasad, somebody else would be there with him. So, in one sense, at that time, a new stage, Prabhupada felt that, oh, I don't want to, maybe this is expressing her affection that way, let me not say no, but Prabhupada never made it the norm. So, circumstantial changes may be necessary.

So, now what will be appropriate caution? That can vary from situation to situation. So, it can be based on cultural norms. So, for example, as a brahmachari, I was trained in the early days that when you talk with women, you don't look at their eyes, look away and talk.

So, okay, and what is the reason? That's considered disrespectful. Now, when I started going abroad, one of my senior godbrothers is a brahmachari. He told me that when he had first time gone abroad, and he had eye contact with women, and actually many of the especially western women, they had complained to our spiritual master that he treats us so impersonally.

He treats us so impersonally. Now, the whole point is how is respect shown? How respect feelings are to be there? So, even in India today, if we go to some traditional village, some more traditional place, quite often, in the moment, if they're talking with a man who's not their husband, they themselves have their, they have their gungat or some cloth around their head, and they themselves will not look at them. Then, actually, for the man to look at them and try to have eye contact with them is inappropriate.

So, at that time, if a man insists on having eye contact, that woman will feel disrespected. But in today's world, if a man does not have eye contact while talking, this is wrong. So, what may happen is, say professional standards is in today's world, when we are interacting with people, if there are some colleagues, then some, they may expect to shake hands and may be expected even from somebody who is in the renounced order.

And it's considered disrespectful if you don't do it. And some situations, we just say that in our tradition, we fold hands and they may accept it. In some traditions, they may not.

So, these are, we may have to be appropriately cautious. So, you know, desire is often not indiscriminate. That means, for some people, desire may, may be triggered or the mind may become agitated.

So, a particular kind of interaction may be okay for one person, another person finds it's very agitated. The personal vulnerability may also be required to be factored in. So, how exactly one keeps that distance, the forms may vary, but the principles remain.

So, that principle we need to follow and we need to apply it in a way that helps everyone to safely practise bhakti. So, that's the broad application. One point I'll quickly conclude with, that did, was Mahaprabhu actually harsh and did he really reject Chhota Haridas? Yeah, we could say that he was, he, as I said, he refused to see Chhota Haridas, he refused to even listen to elderly Vaishnavites like Paramanandpuri.

So, we could say he rejected him. But no, he actually didn't stop his associates from consoling and helping Chhota Haridas. And these associates, who are they? They are also pure devotees.

They are also exalted devotees. So, through his devotees, Mahaprabhu exhibited compassion towards him. His devotees, his pure devotee associates wouldn't do anything that would displease him.

So, as the acharya, he set the standard that this is what you should be doing, that this is what he would do. But that does not mean that he wanted others to do the same, others to do the same thing. There's compassion over there.

Then, so, he personally kind of Chhota Haridas, he was an acharya and that's what he did. But he also comforted Haridas Thakur through his associates to set an example of Vaishnav compassion, even for those who were deemed, who may be deemed fallen. So, this is subtle.

So, this is, I was in one community where I knew one devotee quite well and then he ran into some problems and some things happened and he was banned from that community. He did something which was highly inappropriate. So, then when I was visiting that place, I asked my spiritual master, you know, his case was well known, that he said that, you know, what should I do? Should I meet him? Should I not meet him? I would spend a good amount of time whenever I'd meet him.

So, he said that, you know, our relationships cannot be dictated. Now, I'm paraphrasing and this is what some other senior Prabhupada Sarvadas told me. He says, you know, our relationship, your relationship of friendship should not be based solely on what as an institution we needed to do to protect the broader community.

So, he says that, yes, on one side, we want to protect the community. So, what he did, there has to be some consequences for that. For another side, we want to also, we don't want to reject him.

We also want him to practise bhakti. So, he says that don't meet him in the temple. If there are some devotees who are sympathetic towards him, who understand or who are more understanding, maybe in that devotee's house, you can invite him, you can talk with him.

So, the point was that it is as a standard, some action may have to be taken. But we have human relationships, we have personal relationships, which is a spiritual component. And just because somebody has done something wrong, even if it's terribly wrong, that doesn't mean that it's like all friendships, all relationships, one to zero.

And that person, generally, when somebody comes to bhakti, often they give up everything from the world and come to bhakti. And if the whole devotee community gives them up, that would be horrible. Even if there's something wrong, we need to maintain some relationship with them.

Bhakticharu Maharaj, once when I had met him, he told, he mentioned to me that one of his projects was that many of Shri Prabhupada's disciples left the movement after Prabhupada departed because of various reasons. So, he said, now they're trying to, they have the database, locate all those disciples and invite them to come and stay in Mayapur. And he said, our hope is, we'll give them free staying and free prasad and they can spend the last days of their life in Mayapur.

So, other devotees are also working on that. So, many of them had some problems, they fell away in some sense, but there has to be compassion also. And another point is that Mahaprabhu is not unforgiving.

So, he committed suicide. Normally, if somebody commits suicide, that person just becomes a ghost. Now, did Chhota Haridas exactly become a ghost? Well, ghosts don't sing the holy names usually.

Ghost singing won't give pleasure to Mahaprabhu. He was not a miserable and miserly causing ghost. He got an elevated body in which he continued his devotion.

He still had the devotion, the desire to glorify Mahaprabhu. And he couldn't come in his physical body in the presence of Mahaprabhu and sing for Mahaprabhu's pleasure. But in his ethereal body, he did fulfil that desire.

So, it is, it is just like the demons who sometimes killed by Krishna are also delivered by him. So, Mahaprabhu's strict standards may have led to the ending of the body of Chhota Haridas. But that in no way destroyed his devotional desire.

In fact, the devotional desire was fulfilled and he was appropriately elevated. So, there are many nuances in this pastime. And overall, what we learn is that we all need to be cautious, but we don't have to be extremists.

So, I'll summarise and then we'll have some questions, if there are any. So, I mentioned primarily four points in today's class. The first point was I discussed about the and how we are going to cover it.

And Chhota Haridas pastime, we don't have much detail about that pastime. Because in the mediaeval times, Indian culture was a face-saving culture. So, the extent of the wrong, what it was, apart from the glance, what it was, it's very difficult for us to know.

And second point was that, was it extreme punishment? Well, yes and no. It was extreme, but the extreme is not meant to be made the norm. So, we discussed about the pendulum.

And in the pendulum, if we make it literal replication, it could be a disaster. We just dismiss it as impractical. And that could also lead to danger inviting laxity.

Therefore, we need to have balance. And how do we have the balance? By considering three questions. What does this mean in the original context? It meant that Mahaprabhu was taking a strong stand to protect Gaudiya Vaishnavism from Sahajiyaism.

It's one understanding. And what is the universal principle? That there is always danger in male-female interactions. And what is the contemporary application of that? We have to have appropriate caution when we deal.

Now, what is the appropriate caution? That may vary according to cultural, professional and personal contexts. And the last point was, was Mahaprabhu unforgiving? No. He himself might have been unforgiving, but that same Mahaprabhu acted in a different way through his associates to show compassion.

And Chhota Haridas, he didn't become simply a ghost who was punished for ending his life, but rather in an ethereal body, Mahaprabhu accommodated his desire to serve and to sing for his pleasure through that ethereal body. So, this is a nuanced pastime and we need a nuanced understanding to draw some lessons and apply from it. Thank you very much.

Hare Krishna. Are there any questions? I know we didn't have time for reflections today from the previous session, but I wanted to focus on this pastime. Are there any questions or comments? Okay.

Yes, Sundar Hari Prabhu. Thank you very much. Your class gave a very nice clarification on this pastime.

We are taking this pastime to an extreme level, but you explained that how this extreme level is to teach us to avoid the minor steps and dangers also. Thank you very much for the clarification. Sometimes in the office, we have to interact with the opposite sex, and sometimes they are young, beautiful also, and there is a lot of passage of time, like three months, four months we interact with them for our office work.

Initially, there may not be agitation, but over a period of time, it becomes agitation. So, how to handle all such incidents in the office? Yeah, it's tough. See, what happens is that what makes it tougher is that sometimes what they consider the appropriate behaviour is what we may consider inappropriate.

They may dress in a particular way, conduct themselves in a particular way, and there might be some kind of, generally it is not there, but there might be some kind of flirting also. People just behave sometimes in a way that may not be appropriate. So, it's a complex world.

In communist countries, when they, both in Europe and China, USSR and China, they had a rule that men and women would, everybody, when they would come to the factories or offices, everybody would wear uniforms, and no makeup was allowed, and because you are here simply as workers. So, that was one, but that's more or less considered extreme in today's world, and now in the West, in the West, there are rules, especially that some places say that, you know, we don't encourage workplace relationships, and we also, as a professional, we want to focus on work, and they have their dress codes and things like that, but sometimes that's considered an intrusion on people's individual rights. How can anybody impose a dress code? So, it's a complex world.

Now, the problem with that is also imposing strict dress codes, is that the work culture is becoming, the workload is often becoming very demanding, and generally, at least in the Western world, what people have found is that almost 70 percent of the people who get married, now again, this is 70, it's in America, so it may not be the same everywhere, 70 percent of the people who get married, they find their partners in the workplace, because most people just, they're so busy with their work and their life, that they have very little time otherwise to explore a relationship, to develop a relationship. Orange marriages as a concept is not there in the Western world at all. So, there is some protest against avoiding that kind of relationships also.

So, for people, the workplace also becomes a place for exploring relationships. So, overall, the point is that how the genders are to interact with each other, there have to be some rules governing it. So, even in ultra-liberal times, one of the things is consent.

Consent is absolutely important, without which you cannot have interactions. That's understood. So, currently, the Indian government is even, in Indian courts, there is this whole case come up, where even a husband cannot have a relationship, a physical relationship with a woman, with his wife, without her consent.

And if that is done, even that could be called as physical violation, and that could be legally culpable. That can open a whole Pandora's box, because how do we actually define that? It's complex. So, my point is that we live in a very historically unprecedented time, that in general, what we talk as in the Western, it's not even Western.

Because even in the West, about 100 years ago, the interaction between genders were quite regulated. They're quite regulated. In fact, there is a written by a Britisher who came to India, this is about maybe 1820, 1880 or 1890, that time.

So, he wrote, and he had come to Bengal, and this is a Britisher, and he's writing, you know, these Bengali women have no sense of decency. And when they come out in public, they don't cover their ankles. So, ankles, they said that their idea that, their idea is that if a woman is showing her legs and ankles, that indicates that she has no sense of decency.

Now, that is a clearly imposing a British standard on India. Because Britain is a cold country. And everybody covers their feet, people wear socks.

Now, in India, if everybody starts wearing socks, it's expensive. It's a hot country, you get sweat. It's just not practical.

So, nobody wears. But the point was, they were considered Bengali women lose because they were not covering their ankles when they're coming in public. So, we can't call this Western culture.

This is just, you could say modern or postmodern culture, where there are free interactions, or not actually free, there are, nobody knows what the rules are. So, generally, the best way is that we try to have a professional demeanour, so that we don't, no, we can be, we can be polite. But, you know, let's not prolong any interactions more than necessary, be professional.

And people also understand that more or less. And you have to pray to Krishna and minimise things. So, generally speaking, if we have something to fill our mind with, that means something spiritual, something which absorbs us, and then the mind starts getting agitated, we turn toward that, and we fill our mind with that, then it's easier.

So, it's, we don't have to be too hard on ourselves, because it's a tough time. And Krishna is an understanding God. So, that's, those are my three points, I would say that no one knows how to regulate that in today's world, because it's just a historically unprecedented times.

And we don't have to be too hard with ourselves, but try to have something to fill Krishna, fill our minds with Krishna, and try to have, try to keep the interactions professional and polite. Yeah, replace lower pleasure with higher pleasure. Yes, thank you.

Bro, just like, can I ask something, bro? Yeah. Is there any question by anyone else before we finish? You can have the question. Okay.

Okay. Yes, we'll come back to you soon. Yes, Subudhi Madhav Prabhu.

Yeah, Hare Krishna. So, after listening the Ajamila's pastimes, means one may question that if it is simply to glorify the holy name, that what power, what power or what potency the one name of the Lord Narayan is, then one may think, so what is there for me to take out of this? What is the, what is the lesson for me to take out of this? So, is it that apart from glorification of the holy name, there is a warning signal that even though you are practising Brahmana, if you are exposing yourself to obscenity, you may fall down, or there is some higher principle apart from this? Of course, that is a very much a lesson. The Hayatavishya and Pamsa is probably illustrated in the most, you could say, scary way in that particular pastime.

So, that is also, multiple lessons can be there. I was focussing on the redemptive aspect. There is that, that one can be purified and transformed, that aspect is very much there.

So, that is where we can, we can stop over there. But there could be different lessons from different aspects of the pastime. So, but the specific forgiveness aspect is not meant to be a licence that everybody can go around and do the same thing, nothing will happen.

Okay. Okay, last question. So, we have Sundari, you had one more question, we will stop with that.

Yes, I asked you to unmute. Okay. Bro, like, when we hear this pastime, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is setting up, setting a nice, like, high standard.

And, you know, bro, like, at least I do not have any standard in this, like, so, like, in my own situation, what is expected from me, like, what is, like, expected from me, like, how should I understand these things, bro? Yeah, it is, we all are at a particular level in our spiritual journey, in our particular, you could say, challenges in this domain. So, we just try one step forward from where we are. Okay, this is where I am at.

I do not, I do not want to go down from here. I will take one step forward. So, that is how it works.

There, in one sense, in spiritual life, there are stars and there are stairs. The stars are high, high up. And the stairs are, they show one step forward, one step forward, one step forward.

The wonderful thing is that if you just keep taking these one steps forward, you may say, these stars, these steps, how are they going to take the stars? But actually, Krishna has the potency that if he just sees that we are taking the steps up consistently, he will raise us up to the stars. That will happen by his mercy. So, we have, we need to just leave that part to him.

From the journey from the stars to the stairs, how it will happen, we do not know. But we just keep taking the steps, what we can from our level, at the stars, and eventually, he will lift up, he will bridge the gap between the staircase and the stars eventually. Okay.

Oh, is it like that? Unless and until I'm free from this desire, I will not go back home, back to Godhead? Is it like that? I don't know. Well, frankly, I mean, I just wouldn't like to make a comment about going back to Godhead. The Prabhupada has made multiple statements.

Sometime he said that even if you have one desire to eat a gulab jamun, you won't go back to Godhead. The Prabhupada also said that you just hold on to my dhoti, I'll take you to back to Godhead. Just follow the rules of bhakti and what he has given, he will take us back to Godhead.

Now, there are cases of some of Prabhupada's disciples who actually gave up the practise of bhakti for some time, but their end was very glorious. Many of them seem to have some vision of Prabhupada. Prabhupada, you came to me, you came for me, Prabhupada, they say.

So even when somebody didn't follow even the fundamental rules of bhakti, even they seem to have been elevated. So I don't think we need to, at this stage, worry so much about that aspect so much. In general, focus on trying to strengthen our desire to serve Krishna.

So if we can, at the very least, make our desire for Krishna stronger than our desire for everything else, that itself will show Krishna that we want to come to and eventually we will get there. Thank you very much. Which shloka, Deepika, you were mentioning, which shloka am I talking about? Dhyayato vishayan pumsah, that's 261, that's 262-263 in the Bhagavad Gita, 2.6263. That's what the Ajāmila pastime refers to.

Thank you very much.