Damodara Lila – Scientific, Philosophical, Theological and Devotional Analysis

Sunday feast class at Radha Gopinath Mandir, Mumbai

Chants Chants Chants Chants Chants Chants Chants Chants Chants Chants Chants Chants Chants Chants Chants There we see So for example If I look at a glass of water And say Its half full or half empty That is perception Negative perception or positive perception So if I am standing At the foot of a skyscraper Building Then I will feel myself As very tiny And if I am at that position Even if I think This building is small As compared to me Where I am That building is big But if I am in an aeroplane High above that skyscraper building From there That building will be small So this is From where I am seeing That is the perspective So what we are We will be discussing today is The Damodar Leela from different perspectives From different frames Of reference From different positions of observation Now the Damodar Leela comes In the First part of the 10th canto of Shimla Bhagavatam It is Roughly the 10th chapter Of the 10th canto Krishna is still a small child And There are many themes In the Damodar Leela And we will focus on Different themes While looking from different perspectives But one theme Which Is illustrated through Yashoda Mai's Not being able to tie Krishna Despite making Repeated efforts That represents The human Inability To tie God down To any mundane Conceptions Yashoda Mai could not tie Krishna Similarly we cannot tie Krishna Down to any mundane Conceptions That means we With our Our Our own mode of thinking We can Yashoda Mai could reach Krishna She could put a rope around Krishna But she could not tie him Similarly We with our own frame of thinking Can arrive at An understanding of Krishna To some level But we cannot understand Krishna fully Now we live in a world Where Science and technology have Tremendous influence That as compared to the world Which we lived in 200 or 300 Years ago or even 50 years ago The world has been Tremendously transformed Through science and technology And this transformation Has Led for many people To the idea that Science Can give us All kinds of knowledge So if something Is not told by science Then it doesn't exist So science Is many people thought to be As the only means to knowledge Actually This is not science This is scientism It is an ideology Which is extrapolated from science Now suppose A person goes for fishing And when that person goes For fishing The fisher person has got A net Which has Hole of say 10 mm by 10 mm Now If that net is cast Into the ocean No matter How long that net is cast Whether it is 1 hour or 100 hours or a million hours Still Any aquatic That is smaller Than the size of 10 mm by 10 mm That will not be caught Now this Does not mean That no beings Smaller than 10 mm by 10 mm size Exists in the ocean They exist but that net Cannot catch it Because that net has a particular Resolution A particular minimum size So science metaphorically speaking Cast a net To acquire knowledge Of the world around us Now When science casts a net To acquire knowledge Most Of the science today operates With a premise What is called as methodological naturalism That means science looks for Material explanations for material phenomena It looks for Material explanations So for example If somebody has got a disease Before the age of science Even the black plague was there At that time there were some Shamanists Those are nature worshippers and that kind of people So they thought that This plague is caused By some evil spirits coming in the peoples And they try to Exorcise those evil spirits So Science says no We will look for There is a disease in the body We will look for some material cause There is this germ in the body And that germ has caused the disease Now as far as The explanation goes It is potent When we look for material explanations For material phenomena Science gives answers to many questions But Science by its very Definition looks for material Explanations and that's why It does not make any comment about Any spiritual explanations Anything Non material science doesn't Comment about it at all So science is a tool for acquiring knowledge And some people try to Extrapolate from science To scientism Saying that ok Because science doesn't tell us anything about god Because science doesn't tell us anything about soul These things don't exist But that is like saying because my net Did not catch any fish smaller than 10mm Therefore No fish smaller than 10mm exists It's an invalid extrapolation And that is because The method is limited Now We may say ok If science does not tell us anything about Anything non material Does anything non material exist at all How do we know whether it exists or not So one of the fundamental Principles of the Bhagavatam In the third Canto in Kapila's teachings It is stated that The same object Is perceived Differently through different senses So for example if we have a pakoda The Bhagavatam doesn't give the example of pakoda I am giving the example So It is perceived through some Fragrance in the nose It is perceived through some texture By the touch It is perceived as a particular form By the eyes And it is perceived As taste by the tongue It is the same object Perceived differently Through the different senses Now there are some objects Which Do not have a particular texture So for example if we take Normal water Normal water usually Does not have any fragrance If you put some item Into some fragrant thing It may have some fragrance At least it does not have fragrance That is perceivable To our normal unaided Nose, olfactory sense So now If With our nose we try to perceive Whether a glass contains water or not Now I can smell the glass Of water for as long as I want I cannot come to any Definitive conclusion For that there is another way I have to use my tactile sense I find there is water I drink and some water comes on my lips I can taste it So the point is that Material explanations have a certain limitation Now if you look at the Damodar Leela The same thing which Kapila Talks about That the same object is perceived Differently through the different senses In the Bhagavatam When the Bhagavatam describes Krishna Leela In the 10th canto especially Krishna is the only avatar Who is talked about In every single canto of the Bhagavatam Right from the first canto till the 12th canto Of course he is most Emphatically Talked about in the 10th canto Now When Krishna is Damodar Leela is the 10th, 11th chapter Soon after that the 14th chapter is The 13th, 14th chapter is the Brahma Vimohan Leela Now Prabhupada Prabhupada translates Brahma Sometimes as the Cosmic Engineer He translates as Engineer And actually There is this Typological division which people say Okay Brahma is the creator, Vishnu is the maintainer And Shiva is the destroyer Yes at one level it is true But Brahma is not the Original creator He is the created creator He is the created creator Rochetam rochayamyam In the second canto Brahmaji when Arjuna asks him Whom are you Meditating on? The whole world adores you As the creator But you seem to be meditating on someone So on whom are you meditating? Who is the absolute truth? So Brahmaji says that actually I Offer obeisances to that Supreme energy Because of whose illusion I offer my obeisances to that Supreme lord because of whose illusionary Energy people think that I am the Creator So he says the idea that I am A creator is not the Absolute reality It is a conditional perception Brahma is the created creator Prabhupada calls him as the Engineer Now We see Brahma himself Gets bewildered When he sees the form of Krishna And then one of the things that he Says over there is That you know people may say That I know God But as far as I am Concerned I cannot know you Janati tattvam Bhagwan mahim no Nachanyam eko pichiram Vichinvan Janati tattvam Bhagwan mahim no That your tattva, your absolute Truth Nachanyam eko pichiram vichinvan If one tries to endeavour by one's own efforts One cannot come to know about God at all So the same Damodar Leela's theme Damodar Leela Is action and interaction between Krishna And his devotees But that same theme Just as Yashodamai could not tie Krishna Brahmaji could not Conceptually tie Krishna Brahmaji had this idea He is the person Who is the via media Between The Devatas and the Supreme Lord Whenever the Devatas find that there is a big disturbance In the cosmos, at that time the Devatas When they feel we cannot deal with it They go to Brahmaji and Brahmaji prays to Vishnu So Brahmaji has his Conception of the Supreme Being as Cosmic Sahasrashirshah purushah You know he offers his purushukta Prayers to the Supreme Lord Cosmic being In the 11th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita When Arjuna realises Oh that my friend Who was just sitting next to me in my chariot In front of my chariot, he is God Now Arjuna is there Krishna and Arjuna are there at one moment And in next moment suddenly In 11.8 Krishna tells Arjuna I will give the divine eyes And when he gives the divine eyes, suddenly Krishna disappears And then he sees He says I can't see any beginning I can't see any end, I don't see anything anywhere And then he asks Now suppose You know we are talking with someone And suddenly We are just talking and suddenly Some very unusual looking, very impressive looking Maybe very wealthily dressed Or very powerfully built Very unusual looking person comes over there You know we will usually ask the friend Please who is this But then Suppose we are talking with someone And one moment we just look here and we find Our friend has disappeared and someone else is standing over there Who is this So like that Krishna has disappeared And suddenly this Vishwaroopa is there So Arjuna Arjuna initially has an identity crisis Who am I But in the 11th chapter he has another identity crisis Who are you So he asks the Vishwaroopa I am asking you Who are you And then And then In 11.31 Arjuna asks In 11.32 Krishna answers That I am time, the destroyer of all the worlds And then after that Then Arjuna realises Oh this is the supreme lord This is the great Vishwaroopa He wants to offer obeisances But then You know if some respectable person Is there in front of us, he may offer obeisances Point you to that person or Point you to the left and offer obeisances But then Imagine If there is You know I have just been to Alachua in America There is a community filled with all Prabhupada disciples So if you offer obeisances Whom do you offer obeisances Everybody is a Prabhupada disciple 90% of the devotees are Prabhupada disciples So if you try to offer obeisances Everywhere there is somebody Who is worthy of offering obeisances So there the devotees They say if you try to offer obeisances You will not be able to get up only So Arjuna sees He wants to offer obeisances to Krishna And he says, where do I offer obeisances He says Namaha purasthah ratha pushti taste Namostu te sarvate vasarva He says I offer obeisances from the front I offer obeisances from the behind I offer obeisances from the right I offer obeisances from the left Namo namaste tu sahasra kutva Unashchibhuyo pinamo namaste That I offer obeisances again and again Hundreds of times So this, how inspiring Conception of God That is what is there in Brahmaji's mind So Brahma He is We are talking about Prabhupada calling Brahmaji The cosmic engineer So Brahmaji is observing He is of course a great Vaishnava But in certain pastimes He may act in a Not exactly a devotional way So just as Brahmaji gets completely bewildered Brahmaji tries to fit Krishna Into his own conception So God means he must be a very giant Cosmic being And then he sees a small being A small child Who is playing And not only is he playing He is Actually when Brahmaji hears that Aghasur has killed Aghasur has been killed by Krishna Krishna he comes to see And when he comes to see at that time Now Brahmaji He sees Krishna playing And not only Krishna playing He sees Krishna actually Taking the remnants of his devotees Now Madhavangal has brought some chhaach And he is drinking it Madhavangal thinks that This chhaach is so delicious I want to drink all of it So he goes secretly and he wants to drink all of it But then Krishna sees Madhavangal has got some chhaach So he goes there and Madhavangal becomes panicky Now he drinks all of it Now if you drink too much water what happens Cheeks get swollen So Krishna runs up to him and Krishna Does like that And then the chhaach from his mouth comes out And it goes all over Krishna's body Krishna picks it up and starts drinking that And Brahmaji gets A massive cultural shock He says How is this possible God If he is God How can he How can he do this See this is The This is the problem with human reasoning What is the problem With human reasoning We think that God should fit our conceptions That If he is God How can he do this That means only if he does this Then he can be God So we consider our conceptions To be higher than God So similarly Now the problem With this kind of reasoning Is that God Delights in transcending our conceptions He may sometimes Act according to our conceptions But quite often Just when we think We have fit him into some bracket Suddenly he acts in a way which Befuddles us And so Brahmaji also Gets befuddled Just as scientists they think that sometimes That oh now we have got The explanation for everything Now we know why do the planets Move around in the sky Oh because of the law of gravity Now why are the electrons moving around That's because of the strong force and the weak force So as If you look at the literature At the start of the 20th century About 100-120 years ago Lord Kelvin made a famous statement That the biggest problem for future Generations of physicists Is going to be unemployment Because all The study of the universe has been done And they will just have to fill in all the details Fill in the details There is nothing, no work for them to do And just 20 He made this statement in 1895-1896 And just 20 years later What was Considered the foundation of physics Classical physics or Newtonian physics That lay completely shattered Because they found that The bodies which are out there in the space They don't follow Newton's laws They move at such a high speed That Newtonian physics doesn't work over there And similarly they found Small infinite Particles within the atom They also don't follow Newtonian physics So then other branches of knowledge Were developed, there was relativity physics that was developed And then there was Quantum physics that was developed And both seem to work But both are contradictory So now It's like if I say This particular cloth is red in colour So quantum physics says that this cloth Is red in colour and relativity Says it is blue in colour Now it's a very simple example But the two basically are contradictory And scientists were thinking that Now, by 1960-1970 That we will unify both these theories We will unify both these theories And there is a Nobel laureate scientist Steven Weinberg he said In 1980s he said In the last 20 years We have made enormous progress But The more we understand The more the problem Becomes bigger Sometimes people say that Oh by the science progress we will know everything Actually yes We know a lot But the more we know The more we realise how little we know In the past people when they were on the earth They would think okay there is this whole big sky And we see it, we learn about it But when People go out into the sky they understand When we go out into space We understand that there is such a huge universe That we are Just tiny within that So the more we come to know The more we realise How little we know So in one level our knowledge is expanding But when our knowledge expands Our knowledge of our lack of knowledge Also expands So Now in 2004 Stephen Hawking He had given his life To try to find out what they call as a Unified theory, grand unified theory Now their idea was To try to fit the whole universe Within one equation That's what they said, you will write an equation on your t-shirt That whole universe is explained within that But then in 2004 He said He gave up, of course when he gave up He put it in a very Many scientists are very good spin doctors Spin doctors means you know They speak things in such a way That you don't understand what they are saying So he said I am happy to announce That humanity's quest for knowledge Will never end Now what does this mean? That our quest for knowledge will never end means We will forever stay in ignorance Is that something to be happy about? So the point is That As in Damodarashtakam We say that That actually this universe Comes from the Udara of the Supreme Lord And even this universe Cannot be fit Into some simple mechanistic equations What to speak of the source Of that universe So just as Brahmaji realised I cannot put Krishna Into any conceptions Similarly in a science It may give us It can give us an understanding Of some aspects of reality And those aspects We may get phenomenal levels of Manipulation ability, control ability But that does not mean it provides Answers to everything We cannot fit Either the universe or the source of the universe Within any preconceived Pre-stereotype notions It's elusive So now Moving onwards to the philosophical Dimensions Of Damodar Leela The difference between philosophy And theology is that Philosophy is rational There are many differences But usually philosophy is rational Whereas theology is revelational Rational means Using our reasoning ability We can understand this or this Whereas revelational means we primarily Focus on the Knowledge coming from a higher source From revelation to understand So there are some traditions Which some religious traditions hold that God is unknowable That God Is unknowable God is so great That we cannot know him at all And This is how Often if you look at The various religious traditions of the world Many of these theistic traditions talk about God but they don't give Any positive knowledge about God Who God is, what he does And they try to justify This absence, this lack of knowledge By saying That God is Unknowable That God is Unknowable, why? Because he is infinite Because he is infinite So he is unknowable But this idea Comes from a misconception Now actually speaking Within Infinity also there are levels This is a little, now we are going to philosophy here This may seem like mathematics What I am going to discuss but it is not mathematics, it is philosophy Or it is philosophy of mathematics So Krishna talks about Om Poornamadaha Poornamidham The Isopanishad talks about how The supreme lord is complete This world is complete, whatever comes from the complete Is complete in itself Now If you see there is this concept of Infinity in mathematics We will talk about the concept of infinity in mathematics And then we will see how it applies In philosophy So now infinite basically God is The question which we are discussing here is So what many of these religious traditions argue is Because God is infinite so he is unknowable And therefore If any tradition claims to know God then that is a misunderstanding So if you try to Depict any form to God that is a misunderstanding But Does God's infinity Imply his unknowability Does it mean that because he is infinite So he is unknowable So first of all what does it mean That something is infinite So in mathematics there is a concept Of infinity So we have the set of all natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Like that all natural numbers This set is infinite Now if you consider The set of all odd numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 That is also infinite If I consider the set of all prime numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 Like that, that is also infinite Now all three are infinite But are all three of the same level of infinity Isn't it Now you may say infinite is infinite But still we intuitively understand The set of all odd numbers Is smaller than the set of all Natural numbers The set of all prime numbers Is smaller than the set of all Odd numbers So now we come to a question When does this set Become infinite When does the set become infinite You know 1, 3, Natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 At what point does it become infinite At 1 billion At 1 trillion At 1 gazillion At 1 whatever, whatever it is No Actually Actually Whatever number we put to something If we can put a number then it is not infinite Only when it goes Beyond conceptualisation Now putting a number To it is also conceptualising it Only when it goes beyond Then it becomes infinite So now This is the mathematical conception of infinity But this Is not the Philosophical or This is not the Conception of infinity as it is applied to god It is not that When god becomes So big that you can't conceive Of him at that time He becomes god Ok let me explain this It is not that Because He is infinite so he is god Rather Because he is god so he is Infinite It is not that because he is Infinite so he is god It is not that because Krishna manifested the Vishwaroopa He could not find any beginning Any end It is not that because Krishna manifested Vishwaroopa so he is god Even when Krishna was not manifesting the Vishwaroopa Still he was god So Even when Krishna is in The universe The universe is in Krishna Even when Krishna Is in the universe In the Damodar Lila Krishna as a small child He is just at one small location If we go to Karthik Vrindavan Yatra There is According to a tradition The place where the Damodar Lila is performed And there is still that Where the Lila is considered to have occurred So now That is if you consider from the longitudinal Latitudinal point of view Just one tiny place on earth So Krishna Was standing at one small place In one small village In one small country In one small planet Within one universe And even when Krishna is in the universe Still the universe Is in Krishna That means the point here is That God's infinitude Does not Make him unknowable Because God's infinitude Is not mathematical It is not that he has to be so big That we can't know him God's infinitude does not make him unknowable God's infinitude Makes him inexhaustible It makes him not unknowable But inexhaustible Inexhaustible means That we can discuss Krishna's glories And we can keep discussing them For all of eternity Because his glories Are infinite In the Chatur Shloki Bhagavad Gita In 10.8 10.8 to 10.11 Ramanacharya has described this Four verses of the Chatur Shloki Bhagavad Gita In the Chatur Shloki Bhagavad Gita There is a progression within it First the eighth verse Talks about the position All the four verses are about bhakti The eighth verse Talks about the position Of the object of bhakti That is the position of the bhaktas Of the object of bhakti That is Bhagavan The ninth verse Talks about the activities Of the devotees 10.11 And then the 10th and 11th verses Talks about The disposition Of the devotee And the disposition of the Lord So the position of the Lord The action of the devotee And the disposition of the Lord And the disposition of the devotee So the disposition of the devotee is that The devotee wants to serve the Lord constantly in a bhajitam priti purvakam.

And what is the disposition of the Lord? Tesham evanukampartham. The Lord gives mercy. So now in this four verses, Krishna states that those who know his position, they become buddha, buddha bhava samanvita, buddha, they become intelligent, not just intelligent, they become enlightened.

And yet in the next verse, 10.9, Krishna states that these enlightened devotees, what do they do? Bodhayantah parasparam. They are buddha and they do bodhayantah. They are enlightened and they enlighten each other.

And we wonder how does this mean? If they are enlightened, how do they enlighten each other? So actually Prabhupada explains that very beautifully. I started this class by talking about perspectives. So Prabhupada explains that Krishna is individual and we are individuals.

So every devotee relishes Krishna from an individual perspective. Every devotee relishes Krishna from an individual perspective. And when two devotees meet, at that time they relish how others are relishing Krishna from their perspectives.

And they are enlightened in the sense that their heart is devoted to Krishna. Each of them, their heart is devoted to Krishna. But then because every devotee is individual and Krishna reciprocates with every devotee.

So because of this, what happens is that every devotee reciprocates Krishna differently. Sorry, relishes Krishna differently. And when two devotees meet and discuss, they relish how the other devotee is relishing Krishna.

And thus the devotee's appreciation and relish of Krishna goes on increasing forever and ever and ever. So for example, in the Gopalachyam, it is described that when Krishna comes home in the evenings, at that time, Krishna and the whole of Vrindavan is just waiting. When will Krishna come back home? When the evening time comes, everybody is waiting with bated breath.

So in the Maharaja Nishodamayi, they come out of their house and they are looking towards the outskirts of the forest. And then they see a dust cloud rising. So they see a dust cloud rising because what they see is that the cows, their hooves, they raise a dust.

And they see the dust cloud rising. At that time they wonder, yes, Krishna is coming, Krishna is coming. And the gopis, the young gopis, they go up from their terraces to the balconies.

They get a glimpse of Krishna. And Krishna, in his own way, he tantalises his devotees. Everybody is waiting for him and he comes last.

Why does he come last? It's not that he wants to tantalise his devotees, that's one reason. But another reason is Krishna wants to make sure that every single calf that is there, no calf is lost. So Krishna is behind, all the cows are ahead.

And all the cows, they have their cowherd boys. But Krishna is behind all, looking, is there any calf that is missing? Is there any calf that is going off anywhere? And Krishna brings each one of these cows. Now, as Krishna enters, this pastime is described both in Gopal Champu and Anandavan Champu.

So, when Krishna, there is dust on Krishna's face. So, on seeing that same dust, different devotees in different rasas attribute that dust to different causes. That means, when Yashodamayi sees there is dust on Krishna's face, oh, Krishna must have rolled in the dust.

And Krishna fell down or whatever happened. Now, Krishna should take a bath. Then, when Gopas are there.

Now, some of the Gopas, there are cores in the house also. So, it's not all Gopas go out every day. So, when these Gopas, they see dust on Krishna's face, they wonder, you know, where did Krishna go? This dust is of this colour.

What game must have Krishna played today? What did I miss today? They think, and based on that, they try to infer. So, same dust is there, but they infer about it differently. And when the young Gopis are there, they think that when Krishna is going into the forest, you know, did he perform pastime with some Gopis over there? So, they look at the dust and along with their looking at the dust, they look at the, see if there are any traces of kumkum.

The Gopis wear kumkum and Krishna embraces the Gopis, some of the kumkum from their body comes on Krishna. So, the Gopis are looking, which Gopi did Krishna perform pastime with? So, the same action is there, but there is an entirely different perception based on one's own individual rasa. So, like that, the point is, philosophically, what the Damodar Lila, when Yashodamayi comes and tries to catch Krishna, and Krishna, he runs, he runs here, he runs there, and finally, she gets to catch him.

So, there are actually, if you see the Damodar Lila, there is Natya Shastra, I am now moving from the, so philosophical point of view is what? That God's, God's infinitude does not make him unknowable, it makes him inexhaustible. That philosophically, this God is infinite, that means we can know him and we can keep knowing him forever. We will never, his beauty, his sweetness, that will never get exhausted.

Now, from the philosophical, we move to the theological aspect. Theology as I said, it focusses more on God and focusses more on the revelational aspect of God. That means how God is revealed through the revealed texts.

So now, if we see, the Lila is an event that happened, Krishna performed this pastime. Now, it is also being talked about or depicted through various natakas, natak means dramas. Now, there is a book by Rupa Goswami called Natak Chandrika, and in Natak Chandrika, Rupa Goswami explains that in a nataka, in a drama, there can be three kinds of characters.

There can be historical characters, there can be non-historical characters, non-historical means those characters which the poet, which the devotee poet, he conceptualises for conveying certain things in the pastimes. And there can be, there can be a drama with historical characters, there can be a drama with non-historical characters, and there can be a drama with a combination of historical and non-historical characters. So now, in this case, so he says that the purpose of the drama is not primarily to depict fact.

The purpose of the drama is to evoke rasa. The purpose of the drama is not to reproduce or replicate fact. It is not that every single thing which scripture describes, it is not that every single thing happens in the exact same way.

If you look at the Ramayana or the Mahabharata or the Bhagavatam, when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, for example, goes on a South India tour, so he comes to Udupi and he meets the Tattvavadis over there. And the Tattvavadis, they don't know Bengali. So if Chaitanya Mahaprabhu discusses with them, they will be discussing in Sanskrit.

But when Krishnadas K.V. Goswami is writing a book, at that time, he is writing, reporting their conversation in Bengali. So it's not that when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu discusses with the Brahmanas, with the Tattvavadi Brahmanas, it's not that exactly same words were spoken. Because the language itself is different, so how can you have the exact same words? So same way, it's not necessary that every single thing in scripture is literally as it is.

The point of scripture is not just literal reproduction of events, replication of events. The point of scripture is the evocation of rasa. And this is all the more so when there is Natya.

So now if you look at the Damodar Leela, in Damodar Leela, there are four main action points. There are like action points, the whole drama, the whole Leela is filled with action. But if you analyse the novel, there are some, what do they call, dramatic high points, where suddenly the plot takes an unexpected turn.

So if you see, the first point is where Krishna, he steals butter. He is very peacefully drinking milk from his mother's breast, and suddenly the mother, Yashodamaya, puts him aside and she goes to take care of the pot of milk which is overflowing. And Krishna gets angry and he says, how dare she neglect me? He says, she has interrupted my drinking milk.

So therefore, I will interrupt her work. And therefore, ye thama prapadyanti. Krishna says that, so what he does is, he just, there are some butter pots over there, he just knocks the butter pot over there.

And then he says, no, he's still angry. He says, I should do something more. And then what he does is, he goes around and he takes the butter pots.

So normally how it is, there is some butter which is churned or which is to be churned or which is being churned. That is kept in pots which are on the ground. And the butter which has been well churned, it is kept high up in some ramparts.

So whatever pots are there which are about to be churned, Krishna just breaks them. And then he is still angry. So he says, what to do? So he breaks the butter and he breaks the pot, he eats the butter.

So first, he is just hungry. Krishna goes through different emotions. First he is just hungry.

My mother took away my milk. So then he says, I want to get food somewhere. So he just breaks the pot and he eats the butter.

But after he eats the butter, he is still angry. And then he says, I want to do something more. So then he goes and he climbs on this ukhal and he starts breaking the butter, butter pots which are there high up.

But then Krishna also loves butter. So Krishna doesn't want the butter to go waste. So he says, what to do? So then immediately there are the ever-present monkeys which are there.

So they all come. And then Krishna starts feeding butter to them. So now Krishna, this whole conception of God as a small baby, when, this is a conception which is just, because in India we have culturally grown up seeing pictures of Krishna, hearing Krishna Leela.

So we just take it for granted. But if we think of it from the perspective of those who were not culturally familiar with this conception of God as a child who performs pastimes, it's quite a strange conception. So when Europeans came to India for the first time and then they went to Vrindavan and then they saw, who is this attractive looking boy? They said, this is God.

God, what is he doing? He says, he is stealing butter. God, first of all God is some cosmic being high up in the sky and God is supposed to punish those who steal. God is not supposed to steal.

And even if you have to steal, there are so many things to steal, why steal butter of all things? They just, they got intellectually short-circuited. They just couldn't understand what is going on. So the first dramatic high point in this particularly lies that Krishna, he vents out his anger by breaking the pots and by distributing the butter.

And then Yashodamayi comes and starts, tries to catch him. Krishna jumps off the pot and starts running away. And he keeps running, keeps running, keeps running and Yashodamayi is chasing.

So as he is chasing him, Krishna is running away, running here, running there. Coming to Karnapur, in Anuradha and Champu, he describes why Yashodamayi is so upset. It's not just that Krishna has broken the pot.

It is not just that Krishna has fed the butter. Her anger is not that Krishna has wasted butter. Her anger, parents, they are always concerned about their children and their concern is not just about the present action.

It is also what the present action means for the future. You know, if a child does some mischievous activity, there are different kinds of mischievous activities also. There are some activities which are harmless, there are some activities which are very harmful.

So Yashodamayi, her concern is, you know, in Vrindavan, in materialistic society, one of the favourite pastimes. Now here I am using the word pastime, not in the point of leela, pastime literally in terms of one of the ways people do time pass. So one of the activities which people do, actually the word leela is not translatable into English.

Prabhupada uses the word pastime and what Prabhupada does many times is, when he translates words into English, he infuses a meaning into those words which was not there earlier. So he uses the word pastime, not in the sense that Krishna's pastime was used, the way it is used, we use it in the sense of leela. But often the pastime doesn't mean that Krishna is just passing his time.

Rather, pastime means, that Krishna is not obliged to do anything. And Krishna, out of his free will for playing, he does whatever he wants to do. So, I was saying that one of the activities which people do in materialistic society is, they try to do matchmaking.

Okay, this person, this man with this woman, this boy with this girl, and then try to push the two people together or they just make all these plans. So now, Yashodamayi, even when Krishna is a small child, she is thinking that if Krishna gets the reputation that he is a thief, then who will marry him? So, her concern is that Krishna should not get a reputation that he is a thief. And if he is disrupting things in the house, that is okay.

But if he starts disrupting things outside the house, that will create a big problem, that will become a big reputation issue. So, Krishna doesn't care for reputation. Krishna, he steals butter, he eats butter, and after eating butter, he feeds the butter to the monkeys, and the monkeys are also full.

And then, afterwards, the gopis come to catch Krishna. Krishna, you work so hard to make this butter. Why are you stealing the butter? You work so hard.

This butter, it is such that even the monkeys don't want to eat it. Even the monkeys don't want to eat it. So, Krishna has his own way in which he reciprocates rasa with the devotees.

So, here, we see that Nishadamayi, Kavi Karnapur explains, her concern is that what will people think of Krishna? And that's why when she catches Krishna, she decides that I must punish him. And the way she decides to punish him is by tying him up. And if you see, throughout this pastime, till now, Krishna has at no point manifested his divinity.

He is a small child who is hungry, and when he is hungry and his food is interrupted, he just throws a tantrum. And then, at this particular point, when Nishadamayi finally catches Krishna, at that point, she gets ukkal and she says, Krishna, this ukkal, both of you are partners in crime, so both of you will tie together. So then, she tries to tie him, and he just can't tie.

And Krishna, he is finite, not just finite, he is so tiny actually. But within that tininess, he is infinite. And within, so what is, why does Krishna, who is infinite, become finite? And suddenly he becomes infinite again.

You know, Krishna doesn't actually manifest an infinite form, but Krishna just, Nishadamayi is not able to tie him. And Krishna, if you see, there are some leelas in which Krishna actually manifests a huge form. You know, when he is with, when Trunavarta carries him, Krishna suddenly, you know, he increases his weight.

So, but in this particular form, pastime Krishna does not increase his form. Krishna remains in the same form, but still Nishadamayi is not able to tie him. So, he appears to be finite, but still he is infinite.

And then, Nishadamayi finally, we know that when two fingers are tied, when that effort gets exhausted, the devotee's endeavour and the Lord's mercy. Finally, by that Nishadamayi is able to tie Krishna. And finally when she ties Krishna, then the next level that Krishna does is, now he manifests his infinitude in another way.

He, first, he is in a finite dimension, yet he manifests as if there is infinite dimension, that the rope can't tie him. Now, the next is, he is in finite dimension, but he manifests infinite strength. That means, you know, a small child, he, you know, there is Nishadamayi Nandamaharaj, in Chaitanya Tamil it is described that sometimes Nishadamayi Nandamaharaj, they tell, Krishna, you please get that pot, or get that, then Krishna goes there.

And now he is a small child, and he has to pick up the pot. So now, this pot is so big. Sometimes the children, you know, before, sometimes children, when people play wrestling, you know, they just do like this, so that I have got big biceps, or I have got big muscles.

So Krishna, he goes there, and then when he has to pick up this big pot, he goes there, and he does like this, you know, he beats his biceps, he beats his thigh muscles, and he goes, and he picks it up, and he picks it up, and he stretches, and he strains, and he just can't, can't lift it. And he stretches and strains, and he can't lift it, and everybody, the Vrajvasis are there, they are all watching. And Krishna sees how everyone is watching.

Now, I should be able to lift it. And he is not able to lift it at all. And finally, what happens? Krishna says he can't lift it.

He drops, and he goes into his mother's lap, and he hides his face in her saree, and he, as if he doesn't want to show, that he is ashamed. He doesn't want to show his face. So, that same Krishna, who is not able to lift at all, lift anything at all, at that time, what happens? Now, this Krishna remains in the small tiny, same tiny form, but he pulls, and when he pulls, it's interesting that the ukhal falls first, and Krishna keeps pulling, and when he pulls, that ukhal falls in between, that grinding motor goes between the two trees.

These giant trees are there. And Krishna pulls, Krishna pulls, and what happens? It's interesting that the ropes don't break. When Krishna is pulling, he is pulling, he is tied, his belly is tied to the motor, and the motor is going between the trees.

So, what happens? The ropes doesn't break, but the trees break. And when the trees break, it creates a catastrophic sound, thunderous sound, and everybody from everywhere just comes running over there. See, what has happened? Now, this kind of sound in Vrindavan, they have heard only on a few occasions before, when Putana screeched and screamed when her life was being taken away, when Trnavart came, initially when Trnavart just came as a storm and took everything away, at that time, those terrible sounds were heard, everybody in Vrindavan just comes running, what has happened? And there, they see these giant trees have fallen, and Krishna is just playing over there.

So, the Vrajavasi is, there are multiple levels of reality. There is our normal sensory perception of reality, that beyond that, there is a divine perception of reality. Divine perception means, it is described in the Ramayana, Ramaharshan, who is the person who performs sacrifices, he tells Dashrath Maharaj, that when we perform sacrifices, the devatas come and accept the sacrifice, what we are offering.

But if they are very pleased, then when they come, they reveal themselves to us. So, otherwise they accept, but they don't reveal themselves. So, the devatas reveal themselves, and that is considered to be a special vision.

So, Nalakuvar and Manigreev, they are also, they are also residing at the level of devatas. So, when they start offering prayers, at that time, the Vrajavasis, normally speaking, they are not able to see them. Some of the Vrajavasis sometimes are able to see the devatas also, but usually they don't see this, because the Vrajavasis are at a different level of reality, and they offer prayers, and then, the mood of the prayer that they offer is, that Krishna, normally, when a person is tied, it requires someone who is not tied to liberate one who is tied.

If there are two prisoners, both of them are tied up, they can't free each other. They have to appeal to someone else who is tied. And they say, Krishna, you were free for so long, but during that time, you didn't free us.

But just now when you became tied, after you became tied, you freed us. So, how wonderful is it? So, actually what happens is, Krishna, he demonstrates that even when he is tied, still, he is not only supremely free, he is supremely capable of freeing everyone. And this, so Krishna, we are talking from the theological perspective, Krishna, even when he is a tiny form, he still remains God.

And he personally reciprocates with different devotees at different times. Now, from the devotional perspective, theological and devotional, the focus is slightly different. In theological, the focus is on God.

In devotional, it is on bhakti. So, now, the Gaudiya Vaishnavacharya has described that Radharani's love is the highest love among all the devotees. In fact, it is not that Radharani's love is the highest love, it is that Radharani's love is the source of the love of everyone for Krishna.

So, that means that whoever has any bhakti for Krishna, that bhakti actually comes from Srimati Radharani. So, from the point of view of Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Vallabhacharya, Rupa Goswami, all of them have given different definitions of bhakti. What does bhakti mean? So, Ramanujacharya is the oldest among the primary Vaishnavacharyas.

Ramanujacharya says that, this is a whole technical subject, I am just very briefly describing over here. He says that actually meditation on the Lord with affection, that is bhakti. Dhruvanusmruti says, no, it's constant remembrance of the Lord with affection is bhakti.

Madhvacharya says that meditation on the Lord with knowledge of His glories, that is bhakti. So, they all give different definitions of bhakti. But, what Rupa Goswami explains, based on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's teaching is, that bhakti is not just a mode of thinking.

It is not our remembrance, it's not our attitude, it's not our knowledge. Bhakti is actually a manifestation of Srimati Radharani. So, when we try to think about Krishna, some of us, we experience that sometimes when we chant Krishna's name, when we chant Hare Krishna, we may feel, oh, so blissful, so nice, I want to do this more and more.

And sometimes when we start chanting Hare Krishna, you know, sometimes we take the beads out. Has somebody changed this 108 to 1008 beads? You know, what is this happening? These beads are not getting over only. So, why does this happen like that? Sometimes we get taste, sometimes we don't get taste.

At one level, it is because of the moods. It is because we are affected by the lower moods. At another level, we understand that that taste which we get in bhakti, it is not because we are thinking about Krishna.

It is because when we think about Krishna, Radharani becomes pleased. And Radharani manifests a fraction of her infinite love for Krishna within our heart. And that's how we become captivated.

We become attracted towards Krishna. We feel enriched in bhakti. So, now, normally this pastime of Damodar Leela is centred on Yashoda and Krishna.

But why do we call it as Radha-Damodar? So, actually, Krishna, he has a very special sense of drama. So, for example, Krishna is performing the Kaliya Mardan Leela. So, at that time, Krishna allows himself to be initially caught in the coils of Kaliya.

And, Jalashaya Kaliya Mardanaya. Krishna jumps into the Jalashaya for defeating Kaliya. But then, suddenly, he gets caught by Kaliya.

And when the Vrajavasis hear this, so, Kavi Karanapur describes that, just as when Krishna plays his flute, the mobile becomes immobile and the immobile becomes mobile. Yamuna stops flowing. Because Yamuna doesn't want any sound to distract from the sound of Krishna's flute.

So, the mobile becomes immobile and the immobile becomes mobile. That means the stones start melting. Such is the sweetness of Krishna's flute.

So, similarly, when the Vrajavasis hear that Krishna is caught in the fangs of Kaliya, at that time, everybody in Vrindavan starts running towards Kaliya Kund. So, Kavi Karanapur says that even small children who have not even learned to walk, suddenly they learn to walk and they start running. And old people who are also not able to walk, they start running.

Everybody just runs towards Krishna. And they run and when they see Krishna caught in those formidable coils, it's almost as if they lose their life. They don't know what to do.

And now, Krishna just stays like that, as if paralysed within the coils. And now, Krishna seems to be paralysed there and the devotees are paralysed outside. And why does Krishna not do anything? So, actually, Krishna, he is Nataraj.

He is going to give the supreme dance performance. He is going to dance on the hoods of Kaliya. Normally, when we want to dance, you need a good floor for dancing.

If the floor is slippery, then, you know, we want to dance and we want to perform, but then we become a performance. Now, we will slip and fall and we will roll. So, Krishna is dancing on the hoods of Kaliya, which are as it is slippery and which are moving.

Krishna wants to give this dance performance, but he is waiting. Now, he wants to dance for Radharani's pleasure. And now, Radharani stays in Barasana.

So, for the news to go to Barasana and for people from Barasana to come, it takes time. So, Krishna stays in the coils of Kaliya till Radharani comes there. And as soon as Radharani comes, he says, now I will dance.

And then he starts dancing. So, similarly, in the Damodar Leela, Krishna, he is trying to tie. He is trying to tie.

He is trying to tie. And as he is trying to tie, the news spreads among all the Vrajivasis. Krishna has been caught and Krishna has been punished.

All the Vrajivasis come there to see. And all the Vrajivasis come there to see. Then, finally, from Barasana, Radharani also comes.

Radharani comes with her mother. Radharani, actually, at that time, she is not Radharani, she is Radha. Actually, the name Radharani is used in our Sampradaya first by Srila Prabhupada.

He is the person who uses the term Radharani. In fact, I have one of my friends in the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya. He says, you Hare Krishnas have got it all wrong.

He says, for Radha, you have double honorific. You have Srimati and Rani. But for Krishna, you have nothing.

No Sri, no Bhagwan, just Krishna. He is a Sriman Narayan. You never say Sri Krishna, Sriman Krishna, Bhagwan Krishna.

How is this? For Radha, you have this double honorific. So, actually, it is that, in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, Prabhupada wanted us to approach Krishna as a friend. He would just refer to Krishna as Krishna.

But there is the possibility that the relationship between Krishna and Radharani can be misunderstood. And to approach that relationship with due caution, Prabhupada, if you see the previous Acharyas, Vishnachakra Thakur when he uses, Bhagavatam doesn't mention Radharani. But Vishnachakra Thakur in his commentary simply uses Radha.

And Bhaktivinoda Thakur also uses Radha. Bhaktivinoda Thakur refers to her as Sri Radha. But Prabhupada uses Srimati Radharani.

This double honorific is meant to protect us from not ascribing mundane conceptions to the transcendental relationship between Radharani and Krishna. So, at this point, when Radha comes, she is just a small girl. She is just a small girl and when she comes, now when everybody is trying to assist Yashodamayi in tying Krishna, and everybody is trying to assist Yashodamayi in tying Krishna, and they get different ropes.

And now all the ropes in Gokula are exhausted. And finally, Yashodamayi, sorry, Yashodamayi is just exhausted, not knowing what to do. At that time, Radharani takes out her ribbon.

And she gives her ribbon to Krishna, to Yashodamayi. And Yashodamayi ties that ribbon. And as soon as he ties that ribbon, now Krishna says, now I am conquered.

And it is Radharani's love that compliments Yashodamayi's love. And then that compliments means to make complete. And then he is tied.

Radharani who is dear to you and you who are dear to Radharani. So this, from the devotional perspective, this Damodar Leela demonstrates the triumph of devotion over the object of devotion. The triumph of devotion over the object of devotion.

So Krishna is Ajit, but he becomes conquered by love. And that conquered by love means that he becomes forever available to the devotee who approaches him with love. I'll conclude with one point.

Krishna's love for us doesn't depend on who we are. Krishna's love for us depends on who he is. It's not that I may be a very fallen person.

Sometimes we think, oh, I am so fallen. Does Krishna care for me? Does Krishna love me? Krishna's love for us doesn't depend on who we are. Whoever we may be, Krishna loves us.

No matter how we may have committed many sins, many offences, doesn't matter. Krishna loves all of us. And so Krishna's love for us depends not on who we are.

It depends on who he is. He is Surudham Sarvabhoothanam. He is alwisher of all living beings.

He is known as Bhakta Vatsala, but the Bhagavatam refers to him repeatedly also as Krupana Vatsala. He is not just the lover of devotees, he is also the lover of the Krupanas. Those who, even those who don't love him, he loves them also.

But Krishna's love for us doesn't depend on who we are. But our experience of his love depends on who we are. That means the sun gives light to everyone.

The sun doesn't discriminate. This person is wealthy, this person is poor, this person is pious, this person is impious. The sun gives light to everyone.

But if I close my eyes, I can't see the sunlight. So my capacity to benefit from the sunlight depends on whether my eyes are open or not. Similarly, Krishna's love for us doesn't depend on who we are.

He loves us all the time. But our capacity to experience his love depends on who we are. To the extent our capacity develops, to that extent we start relishing his love more and more.

To the extent we start appreciating Krishna's love by connecting our devotional experiences with Krishna's love. So suppose we may hear all these fast times where you talk about Krishna's love. They are so wonderful.

But how does it relate with me? So actually, suppose there is a small baby. I mentioned this in the last class also. It's pertinent over here.

So suppose there is a small baby and the baby is trembling. And when the baby is trembling, the mother sees. Oh, this baby is trembling and the mother puts a blanket on the baby.

Now when the baby is very small, she may not even understand. There is a mother and that mother loves me and that mother has put a blanket. But as the baby starts growing, and even if her eyes are closed, when she starts feeling the comfort and the warmth of the blanket, she understands, oh, my mother must have put this blanket on me.

So as she grows up, she is able to connect the warmth of the blanket with the love of the mother. Similarly, when we practise bhakti, now we all come with different anxieties, different agitations, different passions, different kinds of desires. When we try to absorb ourselves in Krishna, chanting his name, taking darshan, singing kirtans, hearing katha, in whatever way we find, whatever way we can connect with Krishna, by such connection with Krishna, we experience relief.

We experience relief from anxiety, we experience relief from agitation. So that is like the mother putting a blanket, and the infant gets relief from the agitation. Now, anybody can actually come to the temple and feel it.

The atmosphere is different over here. I feel some relief over here. Anybody can come and participate in kirtans and feel some joy.

But people will come and people will go away. This is another feel-good experience. I go to some places, I feel good, here also I feel good.

So whereas the baby will grow up naturally, but our spiritual growth is not automatic. It has to be something which is collisional. We have to consciously strive for it.

So we have to, with the philosophy, we connect our spiritual experiences with Krishna's love. So when I chant Hare Krishna, why do I experience a joy? That joy is because at my level of experience, this is Krishna's love manifesting. And when we connect our spiritual experiences, whatever little spiritual experiences we have, with Krishna's love, by that gradually we start growing.

And the more we grow, then, it is like when our eyes are closed, we don't even know whether the sun exists or not. But when the eyes are open, then we understand the sun is the constant reality that is there. So like that, as we start developing our appreciation for Krishna, we start connecting our spiritual experiences with Krishna's love, our inner eyes open.

And as our inner eyes open, we start perceiving Krishna not just as a reality, but we see Krishna as realer than reality. Realer than reality means, this reality is there all around us. You know, I am sitting on this Vyasa Sun, all of you are sitting in this building, this is a reality.

But all this is a temporary reality. And beyond the temporary reality, is the eternal reality. And the topmost eternal reality is Krishna.

So, that reality is what we will realise. As it is said in the famous prayer, What this means is, it's not that the mother is God, the father is God. It doesn't literally mean that.

If it were literally to mean that, that the mother is God and the father is God, then, you know, the mother wants the child to become a doctor, the father wants the child to become an engineer. So which God should the child follow? Isn't it? So, this does not literally mean that the mother is God and the father is God. No.

Through the mother, through the father, through the brother, through the friend, through our knowledge, through our wealth, through all of these, we get certain protection, certain shelter, certain security. So, we need to understand that whatever protection, whatever shelter, whatever security I get through all these things, all of these are channels ultimately for Krishna giving it to me. So, So, thus we understand that all these are reality.

But Krishna is the supreme reality. He is realer than reality. And by meditating on the pastime, like the Damodar Pastime, we can gradually open our inner eye and learn to appreciate Krishna's love.

So, I'll summarise. I'll start by talking about how we'll be discussing Krishna's Damodar Leela from the scientific, philosophical, theological and devotional perspectives. So, perception is what we see, perspective is from where we see.

So, science casts a net, but what is smaller than the net size can't be seen. So, like that science cannot perceive anything which is beyond the material. And just as Brahmaji couldn't fit Krishna within a particular conception of what God should be, so science cannot fit even the universe within a particular set of equations or a particular theory.

It's too complex. Our quest for knowledge will never end, as Stephen Hawking said. So, God and his creations are that way not fathomable, reducible to any particular equations.

Then we discuss about God's infinitude. From the philosophical perspective, God's infinitude does not make him unknowable, it makes him inexhaustible. It is not that because he is infinite, so he is God.

Rather, because he is God, he is infinite. And whether he manifests a finite form or an infinite form, he still remains infinite. So God is not like a series of natural numbers, which when it becomes beyond conceivable number, only then it becomes infinite.

No, Krishna is always infinite. So even when Krishna is within the universe, still the universe is within Krishna. Then we discuss from the theological perspective that actually Krishna, the whole conception of Leela, Krishna individually manifests a relationship with different devotees.

And that purpose of Krishna manifesting different relationship with different devotees is to reciprocate love. And lastly from the devotional perspective, we discuss how Krishna, he demonstrates how he, the supreme unconquerable, is conquered by love. So, Shri Radha Mai, she is able to tie Krishna when her love is complemented by Shri Radha Rani's love.

Radha Rani offers her ribbon. And then the rope becomes adequate enough to tie Krishna. Krishna, his love for us doesn't depend on who we are.

He loves us however we are. His love is because of who he is. But our experience of his love depends on who we are.

We need to open our inner eyes. The baby needs to grow up and connect the comfort of the blanket with the mother's love. Similarly, we need to grow up and connect whatever spiritual experiences we have with Krishna's love.

And as we start making this connection more and more, then we will realise that Krishna is not just the reality, but he is realer than reality. Whatever realities are there at our current level of experience and whatever shelter we get from them, it is Krishna who is giving us shelter through all of them. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions? Hare Krishna. You did not discuss this question, but because you usually reply to certain controversial things, so I am asking you. So this Bhagavatam, one thing is that, whenever Bhagavatam describes any lady, Surya Goswami always describes the physical part of the lady.

Whereas it is not in the case of a man or a male. Even when the lady's mother leaves, whether it is Yasodamaya or something, so up till now I have not been able to understand what is the reason. Like even when this is being described, Damodar Leela, so Surya Goswami is describing the body, how the appearance of Yasodamaya is there.

So whenever the Bhagavatam describes the descriptions of characters, especially when it is describing females, it describes their bodily beauty. But it doesn't do this for males. Not necessarily that it doesn't describe for males.

In the Ramayana if we see, if there are certain people who have special appearances, then their form is described. For example, if there are some demons, their form is described, whether it is Vitrasur, or whether it is Tataka, or whether it is Ravana. Even Ram's form is also described.

But there is this point that Bhagavatam is scripture. Ramayana and Mahabharata, they are scripture. But they are scripture in the form of literature.

And literature is expected to conform to certain rules, certain standards. That means, just like Prabhupada, he gave a pure transcendental message. But Prabhupada told his editors, fix the language.

So Prabhupada gave a message, but the message has to conform to certain rules of language. So like that, the Bhagavatam or the Ramayana or the Mahabharata, they are Kavya. And Kavya has to conform to certain rules.

And one of the rules of Kavya is that Kavya should describe Shringar. Shringar, generic meaning is beauty, but it specifically refers to the beauty of the female form. So now, even within the beauty of the female form, there are various kinds.

There is, in a general sense, there is, how do I put it? There are Sanskrit words, but I will focus on the English equivalents, so that will be clear. First of all, there is romantic, there is erotic, and there is pornographic. So all descriptions of female beauty are not of the same level.

So for example, when there is romantic description, whether it is at a mundane level or at the transcendental level, so at that time, the description of the hero and the heroine, at that time, their beauty is described. So there, if you see, the focus is not on evoking any sexual emotion. So that is primarily artistic.

Whereas if you go to the other extreme of the pendulum, where we have pornographic, where the purpose is simply evoking lust. In most of the pornographic movies, there is practically no storyline. There is no purpose in that except to evoke lust.

So there is romantic, which is like one extreme. There is pornographic, which is the other extreme. And erotic is somewhere in between.

Erotic, where there is a little more description of the female beauty than in romantic. But again, the purpose is more artistic. So all depictions, all descriptions, if you see, there are many South Indian temples also, if you see, on the temple walls, even Jagannath temple, there are depictions of certain female forms.

Now that is not considered to be anything objectionable. Because the scripture, so the first point I made is, this is for artistic purposes. The scripture has to conform, is a kavya, and a kavya has to conform to certain standards.

So one of them is, it has to describe shangar. And second point is that, sometimes the scripture focusses on a particular purpose. So for example, when heavens and the apsaras in heaven are to be described.

So at that time, as a part of the description, about how beautiful the heavens are. So at that time, the beauty of the apsaras is also described. And in the temples, when it is there, the idea of the depiction in the temples is, that when the soul goes to the spiritual world, the soul has to go through the heavens.

So the soul is not to be distracted by what one sees in the heavens, but the soul goes straight to the spiritual world. So like that, there are usually, many of the traditional temples, they have seven gates, or seven levels of doors. So, and thus, seven levels refer to the seven levels of reality, seven heavens, and seven higher planetary systems, and then beyond that is the transcendental.

So these depictions are there. The idea is that the soul should not get distracted by what is written in the walls, but should not get distracted by what is in the heavens, but go beyond the heavens, towards the sanctum sanctorum, towards Vaikuntha, where the Lord exists. So either to depict the cosmos, or to conform to the standards of Kavya, such descriptions may sometimes come within scripture.

So now, it is not necessary, Prabhupada, his approach was pragmatic. When he was asked that, if we read the Rasa Leela, or we just read some pastimes within the tenth canto, where if we feel agitated, what should we do? So Prabhupada said that, if you feel agitated, don't read it. So the idea is that there is, with respect to, especially with respect to the Gopis, or Krishna's consorts, so we know the Bhagavad Gita tells us, that this world is like an upside down tree.

So it's like an upside down tree means, that if there is a mango in the original, then there will be a reflection in the image, which is reflected. So, for the pure devotee, if you see the Ras Panchadhyay, that describes Krishna's pastimes with the Gopis, and surprisingly, that pastime concludes by saying that one who hears this will become free from lust. So, how is it that by hearing about some male-female activities, one will become free from lust? So the point is, that Krishna's activities with the Gopis are like the original mango.

The activities of, say, some movie stars or some characters in novels that we may see, they are like the reflected mango. So now what happens is, that, till now, we are not intellectually convinced, and we are not adequately devotionally purified to understand that that is the reality and this is the reflection. So what happens is, even when we see the reality, it reminds us of the reflection.

So, in contrast, we have Rupa Goswami, he says, O Lord, you know, He says, just as a young man's mind is attracted to a young woman, or a young woman's mind is attracted to a young man, similarly, let my mind become attracted to you. So what this means is, he is observing this attraction between a young man and a young woman. So he is seeing the reflection and he is remembering the reality.

Because he is convinced, this is the reflection, that is the reality. But, as long as we are not adequately convinced, as long as we are not adequately purified, then what happens is, the reality also reminds us of the reflection. Instead of the reflection reminding us of the reality.

So at our level, what we do is, we certainly, we cannot, we cannot, you know, look at the, even if we look at the reality, we can focus on the Baal Leela, the Sapkha Leela, and that reality will elevate us. And as we become more and more purified, then we will understand that reality, the Madhur Leela reality is of a different category. And we will not be agitated by that.

Rather, that will free us from the agitation caused by the mundane pastimes over here. Does it answer your question? Yes, true. Where is the mic? Yeah.

Yes, please. Hare Krishna. As you said, that word Leela is translated by Prabhupada into English as a pastime.

Similarly, so many Indian words, so many Indian words are there, which cannot be translated in English. In that perspective, how can you translate the word Virah in English? Separation. And secondly, we have said that we are not qualified.

In Hindi, it is translated as Hamari Aukat Nahi Hai. But in Hindi, word Aukat has a negative perspective, and qualification has a positive perspective. So would you like to comment on this? So the question is that, are some words not translatable? Yes.

So firstly, every translation is an interpretation. Every translation. Because it is not just about spiritual concepts.

It is in any language. Whether it is, for example, in Western intellectual history, that the Germanic sagas, the Iliad, Odyssey, those are written in Latin, Roman, whichever languages they are written in. Now, if we try to understand them, every translation, no translation can actually be a precise translation.

No matter who does it. So, this applies even to material concepts. Even to subjects which are material.

What to speak of for subjects that are transcendental. So, now what do we do with this? If the words are not translatable, then words are actually handles for concepts. Concepts are in the mind.

Concepts are intellectual. Words are verbal. So if I have to carry a suitcase, and sometimes if you are carrying a suitcase, and the strap or the handle of the suitcase breaks, then how do you carry it? You have to pick up the whole thing.

It becomes very difficult to carry. But the strap or the handle makes the suitcase easy to carry. So that suitcase is like the concept.

And the term that we use is like the handle. So, the handle is not the suitcase. Similarly, the term is not the concept.

But the term gives us access to the concept. So now, what happens is, if we say certain words are not translatable at all, then people have no access. So what Srila Prabhupada's policy was, that even if certain handles are imperfect, sometimes a suitcase breaks, a suitcase handle breaks, then you just strap something, put some sort of rope around it and drag it along.

So it's not a precise translation. It's not a very good handle, but it works. So like that, Srila Prabhupada, many of the concepts which were there in the Vedic literature, in the Bhakti tradition, the concepts themselves were very difficult to understand.

And if the concepts are unfamiliar and the terms are also unfamiliar, then it becomes like unfamiliarity squared. Unfamiliarity squared. People get scared.

What is going on? So, rather than intimidating people with unfamiliar concepts and unfamiliar terms, Prabhupada used familiar terms for unfamiliar concepts. Even if those familiar terms were not precise. And then gradually, Prabhupada would clarify.

So for example, Prabhupada translated avatar as incarnation. Now, incarnation actually has the root karna. Karna means flesh.

So incarnation, the word comes from the Christian tradition where God is supposed to have sent his son, and his son is some way divine, so Jesus is considered to be an incarnation. So Jesus came in flesh and he was crucified. So now, according to Bhakti philosophy, according to Bhagavad Gita, it's very clear that Krishna does not come in flesh.

So Prabhupada used the word incarnation, but then he clarified that Krishna does not come in a material form. So Prabhupada, as a matter of strategy while writing his books, he used familiar handles for unfamiliar concepts, familiar terms. And then he clarified that we should not, he also gave some special clarification to explain what those concepts are, and how they have different connotations.

So yes, now, especially when things are translated into other languages, sometimes the translations, especially in the early days, were not done by devotees. So in vernacular languages, in Hindi or in Marathi, or in any other vernacular language, if the translation is not done by devotees, it does create a problem. So initially the mood was that just have the books translated and have the message available.

But as our movement is expanding, and we are having more and more devotees, they are all now making the translations more and more accurate. So I am not talking about English now, I am talking about other languages. So yes, patrata is not translated, qualification will be more like patrata, it is not avkad.

That is not a precise translation. So I also had experiences, I used to write articles in newspapers, and I wrote an article on Prabhupada, and then there was one Hindi newspaper person, he liked the article, he wanted to translate it in Hindi. He said, I will translate it.

Then he translated it and published it, and he said that, Is tarah se Swami Prabhupada panche mahabhoot mein lean ho gaye. So when he was talking about the disappearance of Prabhupada, I read Prabhupada disappeared. So now he did not know what he meant, he translated disappeared as panche mahabhoot mein lean ho gaye.

So I told him, you cannot translate like this. Because for them disappearance means what, somebody is there and he disappears. It is a magic act.

They don't understand. So that's why the translation has to be done properly. So if there are some issues like this, if you find them translation inappropriate, you can contact the, here you can contact our Hindi BTG department, or you can contact the BBT in Juhu, can get a letter for correspondence also.

They will gratefully appreciate that, and they will modify those translations if they are required. But in general, this brings us to an important point, that the books are to be understood in the context of the living tradition. If we try to understand a book, separated from the living tradition, we will not be able to understand it.

As Prabhupada said, the book Bhagwat and the person Bhagwat. So if there are some misunderstandings, which come because of the unfamiliar concepts, or the imprecise translations, then when we are also connected with the living tradition, then those misconceptions can be clarified and rectified. Does it answer your question? Krishna left for Mathura, and after that, what happened to Radha? And there is nothing known about Krishna and Radha after that.

Very little, I don't know. But it is a mystery. So what happened to Radharani after Krishna left for Mathura? Krishna demonstrated the supreme love of the topmost devotees in Vrindavan.

And then he left Vrindavan to perform mostly administrative duties as a Kshatriya king. So in the Gopal Champu, which is a book written by Jiva Goswami, he draws from various sources, from the various Puranas, Padma Puran, Vishnu Puran, Hari Vamsa, and then he describes what happened to the Gopis. So Krishna left Vrindavan, he had promised them, I will come back.

And the Gopis were constantly, all the Vrajvasis were actually waiting, when will Krishna come back? So Krishna was told by the Yadus, that you have killed Kamsa, but Kamsa's allies will be there, who will want to attack us, so you have to protect us. So then Krishna decided to stay over there. And then after that, in order to protect the Vrajvasis, because whenever invaders would come, those invaders would pass by Vrindavan, because Vrindavan was close to Mathura.

Krishna said, if I am in Mathura, I can protect Mathura, but I can't protect Vrindavan. So Krishna, he took the Mathuravasis to Dwarka. And that was not just to protect the Mathuravasis, that was actually to protect the Vrajvasis.

Because then, the Mathuravasis are the target, the Yadus are the target, and they are far away from Vrindavan, and nobody will come to Vrindavan. And then, Krishna, later on, when he killed the various demons he was supposed to kill, he killed Dantavakra. That fight between Dantavakra and Krishna happened in the Mathura area.

And at that time, after killing Dantavakra, Krishna put aside his weapons. And he said, now I will no longer fight. I will not fight anymore.

And then he came to Vrindavan. And when he returned to Vrindavan, there was a joyous reunion between all the Vrajvasis and Krishna. And in fact, at that time, Krishna and the Gopis, they married to each other.

It was a brilliant celebration that happened. And after that, Krishna, he… So, when he killed Dantavakra and he came back, he stayed in Vrindavan for a short time, and the Vrajvasis told him, Krishna, you cannot go now. We will not be able to live without you.

So then that Krishna expanded into two. And Krishna and Balram, the expanded Krishna and Balram, they went on to Dwaraka and they performed their pastimes there. Whereas this Krishna, who had come back to Vrindavan, after performing the… after performing the Vibhaha Samskara, after marrying the Gopis, then Krishna and all the Vrajvasis ascended on a giant chariot.

It was a huge chariot. They ascended on the chariot and the chariot came towards Jamuna. And when it came towards Jamuna, then it just sped off.

And the observers thought that they had all entered into Jamuna, who saw them. But those with transcendental vision saw that the chariot sped off and went to Vaikuntha, to Goloka. So at that time, Krishna, after demonstrating his pastimes with the Gopis, with the Vrajvasis, and then demonstrating their love in Viraha by being away for some time, and then demonstrating the summit of their love through reunion, that reunion was the climax of his pastimes.

And after that, that Vrindavan Krishna, with the Vrajvasis, went back to the spiritual world. Yashodamayi, Radharani and all the Vrajvasis went back there. And there was another expansion of Krishna, who went back to Dwarka and he continued the pastimes over there.

Yes. Hare Krishna. Prabhuji, Chaturmasya being going on, can you please explain why different items are prohibited in different months? What is the reason behind? So, Chaturmasya, why are there different items which are which are restricted? There are universal principles and then there are cultural specifics.

So there are universal principles that we need to understand. The universal principle is the principle of austerity. That is, that by regulating certain items, by regulating our diet in some way, just like on Ekadashi, we don't take certain items.

There can be various reasons. So there may be some stories about how grain, there is some sin in it and all that. That is specifics.

But the universal principle is that by regulating our food, by doing that kind of austerity, we develop some discipline. And by that austerity, and the discipline required for that, that inspires us to direct our focus towards Krishna. And in that way, we can intensify our bhakti.

So, more important than the specifics is the universal principle. Universal principle is the principle of the austerity through regulation. What may be regulated, that will vary.

We don't have to go too much into the technicalities of the regulations. But generically speaking, if we see, the dietary prescriptions that are there within the Vedic culture, many of them are associated with Ayurveda. We see Ayurveda means that there is a traditional form of medicine, which Ayurveda is not transcendental.

It is also material branch of knowledge. But it is material which can be used for transcendental purposes, by keeping our health proper. So within the cycles, it is described that if we move progressively, that there is the first month, we have, what is prohibited? Anyone knows? Green leafy vegetables.

Second month? Okay. Third month? Milk. Fourth month? Purad Dal.

Purad Dal. Okay. Yeah.

So now, the purpose of this is broadly specific. It is that usually when the rainy season starts, and at the start of the rainy season, when the shark, the green leafy vegetables start growing, at that time, those green leafy vegetables, because there is, the rains are coming, because of the, because of the rains flowing, there is often soil and dirt, which is mixed with the shark. So, that time, because of that, that may not be healthy at that time.

So there are certain cultural specifics which are there. So, the point is that it is primarily from a health perspective. Similarly, according to, now in Ayurveda also there are different, Ayurveda is not just one tradition.

Within Ayurveda also there are different experts, and there are different experts who have, there is Charaka, there is Sushruta, and they have their own strands. So like that, according to certain strands of Ayurveda, there are certain items which are considered not very healthy at particular times. So, after the, the first month, when the green leafy vegetables are just growing, and there is a lot of sedimentation that is happening because of the erosion of the soil, and the flow of the water, everywhere, so that is considered unhealthy.

Same way with respect to curd. When in that particular atmosphere, the curd is made, in that particular season, the curd is not considered very healthy. So this is, and the same applies to milk.

The cows eat the grass, if the grass is not very, if the grass and the green leafy things are not very healthy, and then after that the milk comes, that milk is not considered healthy. So it's primarily from the health perspective. So, in Urad Dal, that Dal which you take, there is fermentation that happens.

And the fermentation in that particular season is not considered healthy. So the specifics, with respect to cultural specifics, we follow them because they are given in the tradition. And as far as possible, whatever specific reason the tradition has given us, we accept them.

But rather than getting too caught in the specifics, we understand the principle. Even within the Vaishnava traditions also, we will see that sometimes, there are different items that are prescribed. As, for example, the Ekadhi standards, within the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, may be different from the Sri Vaishnava tradition.

Certain items which may be not recommended by the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, they may be allowed by the Sri Vaishnava tradition. Some items which they may not allow, which we may. So the cultural specifics, they vary.

So we understand, with our intelligence, whatever is explained within the tradition, and what is prescribed by the tradition, we accept that. But the more important point is the universal principle of purification through regulation. One last question? Thank you very much.