Demons in krishna-lila 1 – How the metaphorical points to the transcendental and how Putana represents false guru

[Talk at ISKCON, Seattle, USA]

Hare Krishna.
Today we will discuss on the theme of the different demons in Krishna Leela and what they can teach us for dealing with the demonic forces inside our own lives and in the world around us. So let us begin with a verse from the Krishna Ashtotarshatnaam, which describes one of the demons that we will be discussing today. So, can you repeat? pūtanā jīvitahara jīvitahara sakata surabhanjana pūtanā jīvitahara sakata surabhanjana surabhanjana So what this means is pūtanā jīvitahara.
Lord Krishna, he stole away the life air of pūtanā and sakata asura, the card demon, bhanjana. He destroyed the card and through that he delivered the demon. I will talk about this class in three parts.
First I will talk about the point of how these demons are explained by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura. Then I will talk about the pastime of pūtanā. And then I will talk about how those lessons which Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has drawn from it apply in our life.
Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura lived at a time of great intellectual ferment in India. If you look at the history of India from a cultural and intellectual perspective, there was a traditional religion of India which encountered modernity, which is the western, not just culture, but the western way of thinking. And that intersection happened and led to what was called as the Bengali Renaissance.
It’s like there is a European Renaissance. Similarly, there is a Bengali Renaissance. And that led to the formation of what we call today as modern Hinduism.
So most of the ways of practising bhakti that are present today resulted or emerged from the intersection and the representation of the traditional way of practising religion that was redefined in the modern times or the start of the modern times in India. Normally, whenever we think of a tradition, sometimes we think of tradition as something that was there in the past and that’s continuing. Yes, that is true.
But tradition is never static because tradition is also living. And living tradition means that the tradition has to intersect with all the forces that are present in its contemporary situation. It’s like a simple example.
If we consider the language Sanskrit, it’s a traditional language. At the same time, if you look at the history of Sanskrit, Sanskrit, the way it was spoken in say 5th century AD is different from the way it was spoken in 10th century AD as is the 15th century. And now in the 20th century, whoever speaks it.
So, English language, we know it quite common. Maybe 100 years ago, people would use thee, thy, thou. Now, if somebody starts talking about using thee, thy, thou, ask them, which age are you from? Isn’t it? Why are you talking so strangely? So, basically, just as language, the language English or the language Sanskrit remain the same.
But at the same time, it changes. So, similarly, with respect to tradition, it remains the same and yet it changes. How does this happen? That the essence remains the same.
But the way that essence interacts with the world changes. And that implies that the message also has to be presented in an appropriate way. So, at the time of Bhaktivinod Thakur, with the idea of western rationality coming in to India, India was invaded by many people in the past.
Right from the 10th century, 10th, 11th century, there have been Islamic invaders. And before that, Alexander, so many other people were there. But till the time the British came to India, Indians did not feel intellectually challenged by the invaders.
The Islamic culture, politically they were more powerful than Indians. But Indians never felt intellectually challenged. But when the British came to India, they brought science.
They brought technology. And because of that, not just because of science and technology, but the products of the way of thinking, which is rationality. So, from that rational perspective, when people started examining religion, they started thinking, all these stories, which are there in our epics, which are there in our puranas and itihasas, are they for real? Are they mythology? And if they are just myths told for kids, then why should we believe them? Why are so many people believing them? So, it was in such an atmosphere that Bhaktivinod Thakur had to actually present Gaudiya Vishnu.
Bhaktivinod Thakur writes about himself, that he said, he was himself influenced, at least at the external level, by the western schools of thought. And he said that for us, before he was introduced to Krishnamakti, to its intellectual aspect, he said, for us, one book by a western philosopher, like Kant or Jung, was more valuable than the whole library of Vedic literature. That was the prevailing world view.
And Bhaktivinod Thakur was one among them. But then, as he read Chaitanya Charita Amrit especially, and he saw Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s profound devotion and his profound erudition, he felt that there is something very weak over there. And then, as he appreciated depths of Krishnamakti, he strove to present those depths in a contemporary way.
So, he wrote many books. One of his books was Krishna Samhita. In two books, he talks about what the demons in Krishna Lila represent and how they can be understood.
So, he talked about this in Chaitanya Shiksha Amrit also. Chaitanya Shiksha Amrit and Jaiva Dharma, these two are Bhaktivinod Thakur’s books of systematic theology. That means, he takes the principles of Krishnamakti and explains them one by one by one, systematically building the points in a beautiful, logical as well as scriptural way.
So, he says that each of these demons, there are broadly, we could say, three approaches with which Krishna Lila will look at. So, we could have mythological, historical and metaphorical. So, mythological means all the stories in the past.
They are just a product of people’s imaginations. So, myths are considered to be for children. Historical, this is what happened in the past.
This is how it is. Metaphorical is what people think, oh, this is for intellectual people. You hear everything, what does this mean? What does this mean? And so, there were the critics of the whole Bhakti tradition and of injunctual Indian religion, but especially Bhakti tradition which is considered very metaphorical, which is considered very sentimental.
And these are all mythological stories. How can your intellectual people believe in these? And somebody claims they are historical. There are so many fantastic elements in these stories.
How can they be historical? How can anyone lift a whole mountain? So, the only intelligible way of presenting these stories, at that time, there were people who were defenders of the Indian tradition also. So, they felt we have to explain this. We are not fools for cherishing these stories.
So, they felt that the only respectable way of defending these stories was in a metaphorical way. That actually all of these represent something. So, these stories are there, but don’t just look at the stories and think these are for children.
Everything in these stories represents something deeper. Now, this metaphorical way appears intellectual. And yes, looking at the symbolism of things can be intellectual.
But there is a problem. Because often when we talk about metaphorical, then it means actually all this may not be real. It simply represents something.
So, then everybody starts going deeper and starts thinking, now that we are looking at the literal thing, what does this represent? What is behind this? So, that was the school of thought. Just look at everything and look at what is behind it. And by that, even when we look at Krishna, we think what is behind Krishna.
That sort of thought came in. I used to write in India in various spiritual newspapers, spiritual columns in newspapers. So, there is the Times of India.
It has a speaking tree column. And that speaking tree column, they used to ask me to write for Jitmashtami. Because it’s about Krishna’s appearance.
So, once, in one such year, the editor, the chief editor, she wrote a mail to me and she said, can you write an article on Jitmashtami about why Krishna is black? And don’t tell the usual story stuff. Tell us something deeper. So, then I started enquiring, where does this idea come from? It’s a very specific question.
You could ask so many things about Krishna. Why am I asking the question, why is Krishna black? So, then I enquired and I found that there was one teacher who specialised in giving metaphorical explanations of things. And he said, that actually, why would anyone ever depict God in black? Black represents darkness.
It represents ignorance. So, why would anyone depict God in a black colour? He said, there’s a deep reason for this. Because, beyond the black form is the white light.
So, we should go beyond the form. The form indicates ignorance. Go beyond the form to the light.
The blackness of the depiction indicates that you have to go beyond the depiction to the light. And for most people, they say, hey, I never thought like that. That sounds very clever.
Most people would think like that. However, if you see the scriptures, they themselves never give any kind of explanation of this kind. And interestingly, what the scriptures say is Krishna is not just Shyam.
He is Shyamasundar. Now, Shyamasundar means that he’s dark and he’s beautiful. Now, what does this signify? Krishna’s dark complexion signifies, if at all there’s anything to signify in it.
So, I wrote an article about it. That people may have some cultural conceptions of what is attractive and what is not attractive. So, in certain cultural conceptions, the fair colour might be considered more attractive.
The dark colour might not be considered so attractive. But what the acharyas always stress, what the bhakti tradition stresses is that Krishna is transcendental. And transcendental means beyond any kind of cultural conceptions that might be there.
So, that means, when the bhakti tradition explains to us that Krishna is Shyama and he’s Shyamasundar. The significance of that is that his form is transcendental. His beauty is transcendental.
His beauty is sublime. It is spiritual. And when devotees behold the beautiful form of Krishna, they’re not looking for something beyond Krishna.
It is Krishna who is supremely attractive. And the transcendence of his attractiveness is depicted by his being Shyamasundar. Now, when these kind of metaphorical explanations are to be given, we have to be careful what is the conclusion being done through this.
So, at that time, in Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s time, the idea of giving metaphorical explanations was very trendy. That’s what is considered clever. So, if somebody has simply told a story, there were some people who would be attracted to it.
Those who would just like to hear traditional stories. Even today, there are some people who just like to hear the Bhagavata. Which is good.
It is also purifying. But some people who are more rational, more analytical, more intellectual, they want to know a little bit more. What does it all mean? So, what Bhaktivinoda Thakur does, when he gives his analysis of demons in Krishna Leela.
These are three levels. What are the three levels I said? Krishna Leela, have you understood? Metaphorical. Metaphorical, yes.
Thank you. So, now, certainly we don’t consider these mythological in the sense that they are imaginary. Historical.
It’s interesting, the word itihas. I’ll talk about historicity of the Krishna Leela later. But he takes these three and he explains that actually beyond these three is another level.
That is the transcendental. Transcendental means that there is another level of reality at which Krishna’s pastimes are happening. There is the material reality and there is the spiritual reality.
And Krishna’s pastimes happen at the transcendental level. And they take us to the transcendental level of reality. And in taking us to the transcendental level, what do they do? How do they do that? Take us to the transcendental level? So, it’s like, if somebody is to play a game, then we have to play that game better than them.
You are looking for a metaphorical explanation. You are looking for something deeper. I’ll take you deeper and I’ll take you deeper than deeper.
What does deeper than deeper mean? Yes, all these demons represent something. But even more than that, actually what the demons represent, if that representation is understood and applied, then that will take us to a higher level of reality. So, there is a deeper intellectual understanding.
That’s one thing. But there is a higher level of consciousness, which is another thing. This seems a little abstract.
What I mean by this is, Bhaktivinoda Thakur says, each of these demons in Krishna Leela, they represent an anartha in our heart. They represent a misgiving. They represent a misconception, a misdirection of our heart.
And when this misdirection is destroyed, when we hear that pastime of Krishna, by hearing that pastime, this misconception can be attacked and destroyed. And when this misconception is destroyed, at that time, our heart rises towards the transcendental. So, the metaphorical is not considered the deepest.
Rather, the metaphorical is considered the way to get transcendental. And in the transcendental, that is the highest. And in that way, what Bhaktivinoda Thakur is doing is, he is telling the intellectual people, the rational people, all these people just hear this story, they are sentimental.
And we are superior to them. So, he pats them on the back. Yes, you are superior, but there is something superior to this also.
And actually, that is the essence of bhakti. So, the essence of bhakti is to learn to love Krishna. And loving Krishna requires purification of the heart.
So, he says, okay, this is the story, this is what it represents. You can use your intelligence to understand, okay, this represents this. But, after you understand that this represents this, this demon represents this Anuradha in their heart.
But what after that? Actually, you have to destroy that demon. And for destroying that demon, you have to practise bhakti. And you practise bhakti, then you will rise to the transcendental level.
And thus, Bhaktivinoda Thakur actually expertly takes people from where they are and raises them upwards. So, when we are presenting Krishna Bhakti, it’s important that we meet people where they are. The whole mood of Vedic culture is from your place, at your pace, access the grace.
From your place, at your pace, access the grace. There is the divine grace, the divine mercy which is screaming down. But, not everybody is ready to take the full dose of the grace.
If you are not ready, that doesn’t mean you are deparied. From your place, okay, this is your understanding, you think you are superior, okay, we accept you are superior. But, there is something deeper than that also.
na buddhi-bhedam janayet ajnanam karma-sanginam joshyet sarva-karmani vidvanyukta-samacharanam Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, in the 3rd chapter, in the 26th verse, he says that when people have certain conceptions, don’t disturb them. na buddhi-bhedam janayet ajnanam karma-sanginam Even if they are ignorant, even if they are attached, joshyet sarva-karmani, from where they are, engage them. vidvanyukta-samacharanam This is how the wise person acts.
And it’s interesting, Prabhupada in the translation says, don’t disturb the minds of people, of less intelligent people. In the Sanskrit, if we see, there is no word mana over there. na buddhi-bhedam janayet buddhi is what? Intelligence.
So na buddhi-bhedam means don’t create holes in people’s intelligence. Don’t pierce, don’t disrupt people’s intelligence. So what does it mean, actually speaking? For many people who are at a particular conception of life, then their intelligence becomes centred around that conception.
So they may have formed that conception based on the mind. Oh, I like this. But once you like this, then you form a whole worldview around it, a whole conception around it, and it disturbs them.
So na buddhi-bhedam janayet that when people have used their intelligence to arrive at a particular mental conception, if you disrupt that conception, they will just not be able to digest it. So okay, from where they are, raise them upwards. So this symbolic or metaphorical explanation of Krishna Leela that is given by Bhaktivinoda Thakur is primarily for helping people who consider themselves to be intellectual to rise from the intellectual to the transcendental.
And to rise from the intellectual to transcendental, the process is practising Krishna Bhakti itself. So with this background, let’s look at some of the pastimes, some of the explanations of what Krishna Leela demons represent that Bhaktivinoda Thakur says. If we see Krishna’s pastimes, he is born in Mathura and then at night he is taken to Dwarka, sorry not Dwarka, to Vrindavan.
Actually Vrindavan can refer to one forest in Vrindavan, it can refer to the whole area of us. So technically Krishna is taken to Gokul. And when he goes there, who is the first demon who comes? Putana, yes.
Now, Putana, when she comes along, at that time, the back story is, Kamsa thinks that when the goddess tells him that your enemy Krishna is already born, he says, where can he be? I will find him. I will kill him. So therefore what he does is, he decides who is going to go and who is going to find and kill this child.
So he has these demons, Putana and Khechari. Khechari is actually Kha is sky, Chari is to move. The demons traditionally are called as Nishachara.
Ravan is called Nishachara. Nisha is night. Chara is to move.
Those who move in the night, they are the demons. She was a demon who could move in the sky. Now, she moved across and even among demons, there are specialists.
There are different people who do different kinds of jobs. So, for killing children, big demons, small child is no match for me. I don’t want to kill this child.
So, for killing children, they had got this whole class of demons, Khecharis. And what Putana would do, she would have a malicious way of killing children. And then she came to Vrindavan to Gokul.
At that time, she had some sense that things could get dangerous over here. So, she decided to mask herself. Actually, all of Putana is she is centred on masking her real identity.
So, she comes as a beautiful woman and her beauty is understood in two different ways. For her, beauty is simply a tool to deceive. Her beauty is simply a tool to deceive others, to make others do her bidding.
So, when she appears, when she appears in the forest, through the forest, she just appears in Vrindavan, just walking in. Now, she is so attractive, and all the Brajwasas are astounded to see her beauty. And Anandam Chappu is a book written by Kavi Karnapur and therein he describes the pastimes of Krishna and Vrindavan, elaborated further with correlations from different scriptures as well as his own artistic, as well as his devotional revelations and his artistic expression.
So, there he describes that how when the demons, when the Brajwasis, they see Krishna, they see Putana, she has assumed such a beautiful form and they start saying, actually, even the Apsaras of heaven, their beauty is no match to her. And instead of Urvashi and Rambha and all these Apsaras, their beauty is just nothing in comparison to this. And, they just are so astounded, so amazed to see her beauty, so attracted, just let her go.
Just let her go. And in Vrindavan, everything happens as per the arrangement of Yoga Maya. I’ll talk about Yoga Maya a little bit in the future class.
But essentially, Yoga Maya means, everybody acts in a way that is for the furthering of Krishna Nidha. Whatever is the essential pastime that is meant to happen, everybody is orchestrated in such a way that that essential pastime will happen. So, the Brajwasis are attracted fully to Krishna’s beauty.
They are pure devotees. So, they are not attracted in any way to the mundane beauty. But, in this particular pastime, for fulfilling Krishna’s purpose, it appears as if they are attracted.
So, they just get so attracted, they just lower all their defences because of that. Just like we have in the 8th canto of the Sivan Bhagavatam, the Mohini Murthy pastime. The demons who are fighting, they also give up their melicosity, their aggressiveness when they see Mohini Murthy.
So, that side of the beauty of Putana makes them lower their guards. So, in general, when we look at the world, we look at people, we first look at their externals. And later on, we may look at their internals.
And when we see somebody looking very well-dressed, very cultured looking, if somebody comes in with one eye closed, with a big beard, with dishevelled clothes, is this person some kind of lawbreaker? If somebody comes in a very elegant dress, no, this looks like a respectable person. So, usually the way we treat people begins with their externals. And that’s just natural.
So, by her externals, she gets everyone to lower their guards. So, first is the Prachivasis, the males. They all lower their guard because her beauty is so attractive.
Then she comes straight. Now, in Gokul, Nanda Maharaj’s house is right in the centre of Vrindavan. So, she walks straight through and nobody stops her.
And when she comes to the house of Nanda Maharaj, at that time, both the mothers are there. Who are the two mothers? Rohini and Yashoda. So, in childhood, Krishna and Valram were always together.
So, the two mothers were also together. At that time, both the mothers were at home. And yet, when she comes in, she looks so sweet, so attractive that just watch her.
Normally, if a mother is there and she has a baby at home, she would not let any other strange woman come and pick up her baby. But for Yashoda and Rohini, they feel that she is like the goddess of fortune. And will be fortunate for us if our child is blessed by her.
So, they see her in terms of her maternal beauty. She is so sweet. She looks so lovely.
And in front of them, she comes straight to Krishna. And she picks Krishna. Now, she knows.
She has the ability of changing her form. And she knows the power of the beauty of the form that she has assumed. So, she is not very surprised when the men let her go, even the women let her go.
But when she sees Krishna, at that time, she feels an apprehension. She feels an apprehension. This child looks scary.
Krishna is a small baby. But still, she feels a little scared. So, she is a demoness.
She has her own track record. She has killed so many children. She says, I am not going to chicken out.
I am going to go here. She feels that fear. But she pushes that fear down.
And she comes to Krishna. And as Krishna sees her, he closes his eyes. And he closes his eyes.
And she picks Krishna. And in front of everyone, she starts feeding Krishna. She starts offering her breast milk to Krishna.
And as she is offering the breast milk, Krishna, without opening his eyes, starts drinking the milk. And as he is drinking the milk, at that time, he starts pressing with his mouth more and more. And initially, she has planned in such a way that she has smeared terrible poison on the breasts.
And her plan is that this poison, as soon as it touches Krishna’s mouth, Krishna will die. And once he dies, then she will just escape from there. Her mission will be accomplished.
And normally, there are different kinds of poisons. There are some poisons which are fast acting. Some poisons are slow acting.
So, the poison which she has got is very fast acting. So, as soon as that poison enters the body, the idea is that the baby becomes weak. And the baby just lets go.
And falls down dead. But in the case of Krishna, as he sucks her breasts, the grip seems to become stronger and stronger and stronger. She is concerned.
She feels a little pain. This is a child. What can we do? And then, he feels even more pain.
And she says, Muncha, Muncha, let me go. She gets alarmed. What is this? But she is huge.
She is much older than Krishna. Krishna is just a small baby. Push Krishna away.
Krishna has such a tight grip. At this time, Krishna is so small that he has not even developed any teeth. So, actually, Krishna squeezes her just by his gums.
There are no teeth over there. But by that, he squeezes so tightly, she just can’t escape. And she just gets so scared, so alarmed.
She starts screaming. And he has to run away from there. Now, when she runs away, at that time, Krishna could easily have squeezed her life air out there itself.
But he decides not to do that. Why? Because he knows she is a huge demoness. As she falls in Vrindavan, she can cause havoc over there.
So, although he is squeezing the life air out of her, he does not do it in one moment. He lets her run. And right from the centre of Gokula, she runs all the way out.
And after she goes out, at that time, she goes out. As soon as she goes out of Vrindavan, then Krishna squeezes her so much that life air comes out. And life air comes out, she goes out.
Her soul goes out of her body. She falls down. A huge crash.
Dead. And all along, the Vrajavasis, they are shocked. Mother Yashoda and Nandama had joined the scene.
What happened? This woman came and picked up her baby and suddenly, she is running away. They are running after her, but she is running so fast. She is running for her life.
And then they saw this huge form falling down. And they see baby Krishna lying on her, flailing his hands and legs like a harmless baby. They are astounded.
So, this huge demoness, Krishna, has fallen dead. Krishna Bhagwan ki… Now, the story goes on further, but at this point, let’s look at what Bhaktanath Thakur says. He says that Putana represents false gurus.
Those who are misleading teachers. Now, teachers are meant to show us the right path. But teachers who take us along the wrong path, they are misleaders.
And that is what they represent. Now, how does he draw this inference? The point is that a mother or a nurse who is meant to feed the child. In traditional cultures, the idea was that the mother offers her breast milk to the child and if there are other women also who offer breast milk to the child, the child will become stronger by that.
So, that’s why Yashoda and Rohini, they allowed Putana in this beautiful form to offer her breast milk to Krishna. So, now, a mother or a nurse, she is meant to offer milk which nourishes the baby. Now, that very intimated, affectionate activity which is meant to provide life to the baby, that very activity is misused by Putana to kill the baby.
That means the external remains the same. There is a mother or a nurse and there is a baby. And normally the interaction between the nurse and the baby is, nurse is meant to nurse the baby.
So, nurse means offer her milk. But, instead of that, the external is the same but internal is not just absent but the internal is the opposite. So, this same dynamic is what happens when there are misleading teachers.
If there is a nurse who offers milk, there is somebody who offers nothing and there is a nurse who offers poison. So, to be in ignorance is to be bad. To be in ignorance and to claim to be in knowledge is worse.
To be in ignorance, to claim to be in knowledge and to call knowledge to be ignorance, that is even worse. There could be ignorance, ignorance square and ignorance cube. So, like that, there is somebody who teaches right, there is somebody who doesn’t teach anything and there is somebody who teaches wrong.
So, like that, what Putana does is she takes this very intimate and affectionate activity or the activity that bonds two human beings in one of the closest bonds of affection and love and she distorts it, perverts it for its entirely opposite purpose. Similarly, when there are self-interested people who become spiritual teachers and they actually use the respect, the reverence in fact, which people have for spiritual teachers and then they abuse it, they exploit people and that is, that means they are using this very reverential and sacred relationship between the seeker and the seer, between the teacher and the master and they are completely distorting it, perverting it. Just as the mother gives life to the child through her milk, similarly, the teacher, the spiritual master is meant to give life to the soul by giving spiritual wisdom.
But when people don’t do that, when some self-interested people, rather than giving proper spiritual knowledge, they teach non-spiritual knowledge. If somebody gives spiritual knowledge, that’s great. If somebody doesn’t give spiritual knowledge, I’m not saying nothing.
They consider themselves to be spiritualists but they actually destroy. They give something which will destroy people’s faith. And that is very unfortunate.
So the whole pastime centres on how everyone is taken in by the appearance. The prajvasis, the males and the females are all taken in by the appearance. But Krishna is not taken in by the appearance.
Actually, at one level, we could say it is the elders who are meant to be scrutinising, who are meant to be discerning. In many countries, there are rules made that you cannot have any advertisements for children below a particular age. Because those ads are there for very small children.
Then these kids, they don’t have any discerning ability. So, without a discerning ability, whatever they see, they will believe it. This toy is so good, I want this toy.
So, they feel that small children don’t have discerning ability. So, therefore, ads cannot be directed towards them. Should not be.
Now, of course, whether adults have discerning ability or not, that is also open to question. People get carried away by the ads also. But the point is that normally adults are expected to have more discerning ability than small children.
But here, all the adults were deceived but the newborn infant was not deceived. This infant remained undeceived and this infant actually exposed the deception of everyone. Deception to everyone.
That is Krishna’s transcendental expertise. Similarly for us, when we approach Krishna, when we stay devoted to Krishna, then Krishna guides us from within. Many people say that, okay, if I am practising a spiritual path, how do I know whether the path I am following is right or wrong? Whether the teacher I am following is right or wrong? Some people say that if there are so many false teachers, how do you know if they are true teachers? So, better don’t get into this business only.
Better stay away. That’s like saying, okay, I am sick, but there are so many people who claim to be doctors. They are quacks.
So, I won’t go to them. So, I don’t know how to find out a real doctor. So, I will not go to anyone.
But the result would be, I will simply stay sick. I will simply stay sick. So, just as Krishna helped, Krishna helped expose Putra to everyone.
He exposed her nature. He was not deceiving. Similarly, when we are approaching the spiritual path, we have to understand that we are not just putting faith in this person or that person.
We are putting faith in Krishna. In Krishna means, even if some people have shown you that they don’t have any understanding of Krishna, there is some higher reality. There is some higher reality that is guiding our lives.
Right now, when we are living, we are not living by our own efforts. Right now, we are breathing air, we drink water, we have the right temperature, we have heat, light. Our very existence depends on something beyond our existence.
There are hundreds of other factors which have to work out right for us to exist. So, there is something beyond us which is also arranging the factors for our existence. And that something, whatever name we give to it, that is actually what we are putting faith in.
You see, the word God has in mainstream culture become very uncool. There are popular movies, Star Wars series, and they will talk about the force. And they say, listen to the force.
Now, instead of that, they say, listen to God, all the theatre would have become empty. Isn’t it? Now, the idea of the force, there is something beyond, something which is higher, something which will empower you, something which will guide you. So, this is there in almost all literature.
Even a prominent atheist, he rejects God and he believes in evolution. He says, how evolution works, if you can’t understand that, that is not evolution’s problem, that is your problem. Evolution is far smarter than what you are.
This is exactly the same call for faith. If we can’t understand some philosophy, we say, we are small, Krishna is great. If we can’t understand, it’s not Krishna’s problem, it’s our problem.
So, basically, they simply replace God with something else. So, the point I am making here is that, if we just observe life a little bit around us, we will see that there is something beyond us, which maintains our existence. Suddenly, we have a significant role in maintaining our existence.
So, when we approach a spiritual path, we are not just putting faith in a particular teacher. If we think of spiritual journey as a horizontal journey, I am here, and this is one teacher, this is another teacher, this is another teacher, this is another teacher. Among these, how do I choose? Imagine if we came to a crossroad, and normally in some crossroads, there may be 2 roads over there, somewhere 3 may be there, somewhere 4 may be there.
Suppose we come to a place where there are 100 crossroads. Just looking at those crossroads only will get tired. Which one to choose? So, like that, there are so many options.
How do I choose anything? So, if we are looking at the spiritual journey simply as a horizontal journey, there are so many paths, I have to choose one, then we will get confused. But, if you understand that, spiritual journey is not a horizontal journey, it is a vertical journey. Vertical journey means that there is a higher intelligence that will guide my life.
So, with whatever little intelligence I have, I use that and make a choice. Once I make this choice, I move forward. If my choice is wrong, that will be revealed to me.
If my choice is right, that will be revealed to me. So, rather than asking whether the Guru is bona fide, we ask, am I bona fide? What does it mean, am I bona fide? Is my Guru genuine? Am I genuine means, what do I really want in my life? Do I want a Guru who shows me the way? Or, do I want a Guru who sanctions my way? Sanction my way means, you want a Guru who will pat us on the back? What you are doing is very good, continue it. If that’s what we want, that’s what we’ll get.
So, if we are genuinely seeking spiritual knowledge, then we will be guided. It says, Krishna remained undeceived. Similarly, we will also, by Krishna’s grace, even if we are deluded, we will become free from delusion.
Temporarily, we are taken in by Putana’s appearance, but Krishna revealed her true nature to them. Similarly, for us, our faith ultimately is not just in a particular teacher, it is in Krishna. And because Krishna tells us to put faith in teachers, Tad viddhi pranipatena praniprishnena sevaya.
Go to those souls, surrender to them, learn from them. So, therefore, when we are going to a teacher, we are not just putting faith in that teacher, we are putting faith in Krishna, who has created the system of teachers. And that way, by Krishna’s grace, we can become not only free from illusion, but we can be protected from the false Gurus, and we can come to the true Guru.
We can come to those who will take us to Krishna. Sri Prabhupada was such a Guru, and he brought millions and millions of people to Krishna’s lotus feet. And by his mercy, we also have an opportunity to take shelter of Krishna.
So, Krishna, through this pastime, represents how we can be saved, how he protected himself, he protected the Rajivasis. Although, Putana was so deceptive. The world has many deceptions, but Krishna can protect us all from such deceptions.
So, I’ll summarise. I spoke today about demons in Krishna Leela. A major part of the class was about what Bhaktivinoda Thakur says, that these demons represent something.
What is exactly going on over there? Bhaktivinoda Thakur was at a time of renaissance in India, where western rational thought made traditional Indian thought appear inferior, appear intellectually juvenile to many forward-looking Indians. And at that time, there were three approaches to looking at the pastimes of Krishna. First, mythological.
This is imagination. Tales for children. Historical.
This is what happened long ago. And metaphorical. All this has some deeper meaning.
So, intellectual people thought that metaphorical is the approach to go. Now, yes, metaphorical can appeal to intellectuals, but sometimes by that, we might just reduce everything to symbols. So, instead of appreciating Krishna’s charms in their form, we try to screw out some meaning.
What does the dark represent? What does the black form represent? And people come up with their own ideas. So, what Bhaktivinoda Thakur did was, he patted the people who wanted metaphorical explanation on their back. He says, you are more intelligent.
But there is an even more intelligent state also. So, we talked about how the principle of Brahmavidic culture is that from your place, at your pace, access the grace. So, he says that, yes, the demons represent something.
You use your intelligence to understand what the demons represent. But then, Krishnaleela is not just to be seen metaphorically. It ultimately means experience transcendent.
And to rise to the transcendental level, you have to practise Bhakti. So, the demons represent something, but what they represent is what is meant to happen in our heart. So, these demons represent anarthas which are to be killed in our heart, and the killing of anarthas will happen by the practise of Krishna Bhakti.
Then I talked about the past time of Putana, who came and he used her appearance to deceive everyone. So, although she had an ugly heart, but by her beauty, she disarmed, lowered the guards of the men and lowered the guards of the women. And in Vrindavan, everybody acts by Yogamaya’s arrangement for furthering Krishna’s pastime.
So, the Brajwasis seem to be deluded, but they were simply acting by Krishna’s will. And finally, when Putana took Krishna in her lap, and she offered him milk, Krishna squeezed out her eye-wear. And through that, he exposed her true colours.
It allowed her to run out so that it would not cause any damage in Vrindavan. So, what does Krishna’s killing of Putana represent? The mother feeding the child, infant is the most intimate act of affection. To put poison there is a horrendous distortion.
So, similarly, Putana, if she represents false love, that means the relationship between the Guru and the disciples is of the most intimate reverence, most great reverence, and sanctity to distort that. Instead of giving the milk of spiritual wisdom, instead of giving the poison of just material, further material illusion, that is the Guru who is misleading. But just as Krishna exposed everyone, just as Krishna exposed Putana, similarly, if we take shelter of Krishna, then who is a right teacher and who is not, that will be revealed to us.
If we see the spiritual journey as a horizontal journey, one among many paths to choose, we will be bewildered and paralysed. But if the spiritual journey is a vertical journey, our very existence depends on something beyond our existence. So, that higher being sustaining our existence will also guide our spiritual journey.
So, we put our feet, using our God-fearing intelligence, in some spiritual path. If that is right, Krishna will reveal it to us. If that is not right, Krishna will reveal that to us also.
And rather than asking whether my Guru is genuine, we ask whether I am genuine. Do I want a Guru who will show me the way, or do I want a Guru who will sign the Shraddha? If we are genuine, then Krishna will surely guide us towards the genuine Guru who will take us ultimately to Him. Thank you very much.
Hare Krishna. Any questions or comments? Sometimes we also try to give explanation based on our understanding, like Bhaktivinoda Thakur is trying to do. Listening to what he said, we try to do this.
But sometimes, where do we draw the line? How far we can go? Extending the analogy. That’s true. So, when we try to give explanation using our understanding, where do we draw the line? Yes.
In general, the philosophy of Bhakti is like a rubber band. A rubber band is meant to be elastic. It is meant to be pulled.
At the same time, a rubber band cannot be endlessly elastic. You pull it beyond a particular point, it breaks. So, there is Siddhanta.
Siddhanta is the essential conclusion. There are two words in Sanskrit. There is Anuman and there is Vichar.
Anuman is speculation. Vichar is contemplation. Prabhupada differentiates between the two as mental speculation and philosophical speculation.
So, Anuman is where basically, if we consider, when we think, especially when we analyse, when we reason, there is a starting point, there is a concluding point and there is a path. So, when we do speculation, when we try to come up with our own explanations, when speculation becomes undesirable or unhealthy, is when the end point goes against scriptural conclusion. When the end point goes against the conclusion of scripture, that is where it becomes a problem.
So, for us, the process of thinking is meant to be such that we begin with scripture, we do our reasoning and we come back to scripture conclusion. That means, in philosophical speculation, we accept that the essential conclusion of Shastra is true. We don’t dispute the Siddhanta.
But, by accepting the Siddhanta, now, how is this true? For that, we use our reasoning. Now, I’ll give you a couple of examples for this. Say, Prabhupada was asked, once by a guru, what is the bliss of Vaikuntha like? Prabhupada replied, it is like an ocean of LSD.
Now, somebody would argue, where is it in Shastra? LSD is a drug, how can you compare the transcendental bliss of Vaikuntha to LSD? So, here, the point is not just to get it right. The point is to get it across. To get it across means to make things understandable.
So, the starting point is that the spiritual world is a place of happiness. That’s the scriptural message that is there. Now, for somebody who has no conceptions of anything spiritual, if you tell, what is the bliss of spiritual world like? Chintamani, Prakasad, Mahishukal, Vraksha, if you start describing all that, it doesn’t make any sense to me.
So, at that time, what do you have to do? Accept the spiritual world as a place of happiness. But, this is the statement of scripture. How does this scriptural declaration become something which is a personal comprehension for you? There is a scriptural declaration and there is a personal comprehension.
At the end of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna, I have understood what you are saying. So, Krishna’s message, Arjuna understands it. So, for this journey from the scriptural declaration to the personal comprehension, there has to be a reasoning that is required.
So, when the reasoning takes, when the personal conclusion, personal understanding, personal comprehension agrees with scriptural conclusion, then whatever goes in between is called as vichar. It is, we could say, philosophical speculation, philosophical reasoning. But when this starts from here, when it goes somewhere else entirely, then it becomes speculation.
So, the limit would be that if the siddhanta gets contradicted. As long as siddhanta is not contradicted, the explanations that are given are okay. We also have to be careful that we don’t, there are two extremes.
One is that we, I can come up with any explanation that I want. When that happens, then we become we become speculative. And sometimes we may know every explanation, every interpretation, every metaphor may have some unwanted connotations also, which we have to be careful about.
By the same time, if we start thinking that we will only stick to whatever explanations are given in the tradition. But then sometimes those terms itself may not be understandable to people. So, Prabhupada was the first person, as far as we see, if you look at Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Bhaktisanta Thakura’s work, Bhaktisanta Thakura’s work, that actually Prabhupada translated yajna as tax.
How do you explain yajna? Why should we perform yajna? He said that we are giving tax to the devatas. It’s a brilliant explanation. So, Prabhupada said that realisation means to present a message in a way that is interesting to the audience.
At the same time, no unscrupulous meaning is meant to be screwed out. So, it’s good if we are giving some meaning ourselves. Especially if we are giving some meaning in an official forum, maybe through a class or through writing, it’s good to have it reviewed by senior Vaishnavas.
So that we, while trying to give a contemporary explanation, we don’t end up doing something which takes us away from the spiritual future. Does this answer your question? So, continue tomorrow. Do you have a question? Do you have time? Okay, thank you.
My question is, you talked about people, and generally they say that they have a choice to eat the food that they want, right? So, if you are talking to a person who eats non-vegetarian food, and I’m a pure vegetarian, so I would like to always suggest that, hey, this is not good to kill someone and feed yourself, because you are human. You can do better than that. Animals can do that.
You can do better than that. But they say that, no, it’s my choice, because of the intellect that they do that. So, first of all, how do you make sure that you have a good answer to those people? And is it okay to tell it? Because, as you also mentioned that you said, buddhi vega kind of thing.
So, people say that they have their own choice, and they say, we want to eat meat, why would you stop me from eating it? So, should we tell them at all, and what is the best way to tell them? So, broadly speaking, there are three ways in which we can share spiritual knowledge. We can say it’s prescriptive, normative, or descriptive. Prescriptive means, you should do this, you should not do this.
Normative means, this is right, and this is wrong. And descriptive means, this is what I do, and this is why I do it. So, a descriptive mode of sharing, nobody has any problem with it.
If somebody asks us, why don’t you eat meat? We explain that. Then, okay, it makes sense to us. As soon as they say, you should not eat meat, that people feel is an intrusion in their space.
So, instead of doing that, if it is presented in a reasonable way, in a descriptive way, in a descriptive way, we can even make it a little more autobiographical. Actually, I also used to take meat earlier. But then I read this book, or I attended this class, I had this experience.
And then, oh, I decided I want to eat meat. So, what happens by that, we don’t make people feel guilty for doing a particular thing. Nor do we make them feel that they are foolish for doing something.
In today’s world, respecting people’s, it’s always, people have free will, and that has to be respected. In the end of the Bhagavad Gita also, Krishna says, do, deliberate, and then do as you desire. Krishna also respects people’s independence, but in today’s world, it’s even more so.
So, we can’t impose anything on anyone. That’s the whole principle of the post-modern ethos. In the post-modern world, nobody accepts any authority.
That’s the… The relativization of all authority is a single defining characteristic of post-modernism. So, therefore, in such a situation, the only thing that people accept is experience. If you have experienced something, if something works for you, tell me about it.
I want to know what works. And that’s why memoirs are so popular in today’s world. People want to learn about other people’s experiences.
So, I would say that if we don’t present in a judgemental way, if we don’t present it in an instructive way, we present it in an informative way, then, this is what I do, this is what I don’t do. We are opening the door for people. Okay, yeah, what you said makes sense.
Maybe I should also try it. But if instead of opening the door, we push them through it. It doesn’t work.
I was at a drug de-addiction conference recently. It was spirituality and how spirituality can help in countering drugs. So, one of the panel members was speaking this.
In some European countries, especially Portugal, they have decriminalised the possession of drugs. And all the money that they were using to try to stop people from consuming drugs, they used it to educate people about the harmful consequences of drugs. And the drug consumption has gone down substantially.
In today’s world, to police something, to instruct something, don’t do this. Because of the rebellious nature of today’s world, where no authority is accepted, as soon as something is forbidden, it becomes more fascinating. As soon as a book or a movie is banned, people want to watch it more, people want to read it more.
So, just in an informational way, people may take up at their own level. Thank you. What is the right answer? With respect to BGT? With respect to BGT? I have a website, spiritualscientist.com, where elaborately I have answered this question.
Essentially, I talk about four things. How your food can actually feed the world. How everything that we eat, it can not only nourish us, but how it can help the world.
So, H-E-L-P is the acronym. H is health. There are many, many studies to indicate that vegetarian food is much, much healthier than non-vegetarian food.
E is environment. The amount of environmental pollution that happens when we are manufacturing meat, because we have to maintain the livestock, and then there is the refuse that comes from there, and the whole water and everything that goes in processing the meat. So, all that can be seen.
The well-documented evidence is the environment. L is livestock. If you actually look at the distresses, the agony that animals go through, why do I have to cause so much pain to someone for this much amount of food? For a little pleasure.
The thinker who said that if slaughterhouses had glass walls, everybody would be vegetarian. So, livestock. And P is poverty.
Actually speaking, the Food and Agriculture Association of America has declared that even the Food and Agriculture Association of the world, it’s a UN body, has declared that if the world, even 10% of the world actually shifts over, 10% more than what it is, shifts over to a vegetarian diet, a large amount of land, which is currently being used to produce fodder for animals, could be used to produce grains for humans. And that could mitigate starvation. That could be used to feed the poor people.
So, normally, when land is used to make fodder for animals, then, on an average, the amount of land that is required to feed one non-vegetarian person, almost 7 vegetarian people can be fed in that. There’s a conversion loss that is there. Animals, when they eat fodder, most of it goes out of their body as the waste.
From this much amount of grains, maybe this much flesh will come out, which humans can eat. And those grains can be used for humans directly. So, there are many ways in which a vegetarian diet is actually very beneficial.
Okay? Thank you. Yes? Yeah, that explanation I 100% agree, but I just have a question. Like, for example, they made alcohol illegal.
Now, they’re probably, everybody’s almost like alcoholics, in Western societies, even Europe. Even worse, actually, London. But, whereas, in Gujarat, it’s very prohibitive, and very, very few people drink alcohol.
Okay. That’s a good point. So, alcohol was made legal, and everybody’s almost like alcoholics in India.
Not only in India, in Western societies. In Western societies, yeah. But in India, in Gujarat, alcohol was banned, and now people don’t take.
People take very little. It depends on the broad ethos of the times. I wouldn’t say that it is because of the legalisation of alcohol, that alcohol is widespread in the West.
Actually, there’s only a small time in American history when alcohol was banned. Otherwise, alcohol is just a part of Western culture. In fact, there is a person who has written a book that the taste of wine is the proof that God loves you.
So, actually, alcohol has never been banned in the Western culture. It has always been an integral part of Western culture. And whether banning it will help, it depends on what the overall nature of the culture is.
As I said, India has not yet become post-modern. India is modern. Some parts of India are still pre-modern also.
It’s not a value judgement, whether this is good and this is bad. It’s the objective reality. So, in the post-modern world, banning anything is simply inciting people, I want to do it.
Because, somehow, the history of Western culture is that wherever people have put faith in authority, that authority is betrayed. So, because of that, people just don’t have faith. But in India, traditionally, people still have faith in authority.
And because of their faith in authority, if somebody says, don’t do this, people tend to accept it. In the Western world, people don’t accept it. When the hippies were there at that time, it was, don’t trust anyone about authority.
It was their idea. So, that level of rebellion might not be there now, but it’s not, don’t trust anyone about authority, don’t trust anyone at all. It’s almost like that.
People are very sceptical. So, I’m not talking about… In the material world, the same shoe that fits one leg, bites another leg. Because different people’s legs are of different sizes.
So, we cannot have one remedy work for everyone. At the material world, even if spiritual purpose is to be served, but how that spiritual purpose is to be served, that has to be seen upon time, place, circumstances. So, I would say, in the pre-modern or modern times also, somebody’s authority says something, that has weight.
But in the post-modern times, people delight in rebelling against authority. That’s why different approaches are required at different times. Thank you.
Last question. Before I ask the question, let me share, like, regarding what you shared about the mental speculation as well as philosophical speculation. I think there was a similar question was asked in Surya Vilas Rao’s class, and the answer that we got was exactly what he gave.
So, what I want to share is that this is how we are following proper tradition of spreading the message as it is, actually. The answer was exactly what we got earlier. Someone from the audience also asked a question to Subhash too, that whatever you are concluding, how we can know, it’s not your own speculation.
So, my question was, more than a question, it was just a clarification. I was clear on, like, before Bhaktivinoda Thakur analysed Krishna’s pastime at the transcendental level, he said that it was at mythological, historical and metaphorical level. So, I was able to understand the aspect of being mythological or historical.
Metaphorical, how do you explain to, like, a kid? I myself, I know I have some understanding, but I am not fully clear. What is metaphorical analysis of pastimes? Okay, what is a metaphorical analysis of pastimes? Well, when I say, it was not before Bhaktivinoda Thakur, it was like that. It is that at that time, these pastimes are seen in different ways.
Now, the metaphorical analysis also has precedence. For example, even before Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Vishwanath Chaturthi Thakur has talked about how the six children of Devaki who were killed before, they represent six anarthas in our heart. Balram represents the guru.
And then, the anarthas are removed, the guru comes and clears the heart, and then Krishna appears in the heart. So, that has also been talked about before. But the important thing is that when we are talking about metaphorical interpretation, or metaphorical, in general, Prabhupada did not like the word interpretation.
So, we are a little cautious when we see the explanation. Metaphorical explanation of something. Literal explanation of something.
Historical explanation of something. Spiritual explanation of something. Now, that’s what we prefer, explanation to interpretation, in reference to the way Prabhupada saw the world.
So, Prabhupada generally used the word interpretation to mean speculative. Now, if we consider, metaphor is a very common tool. For example, we say the White House made an announcement.
The White House did not make the announcement. He said, okay, the house bakery announcement. So, it means that, okay, the authority was there in the White House, some spokesperson, somebody made an announcement.
But he said the White House made the announcement. So, in general, in our day-to-day conversations, replacing one thing with something else, that is said to represent that thing, that is common. In Hindi, we say, लातों के भूत बातों से ही मनते.
Now, try translating this into English. The ghosts of kicks don’t learn by words. Nothing will make sense.
So, now, when we say लातों के भूत, it just means that it’s a usage. So, we’re not talking about भूत in a literal ghost sense. Those who have to be taught by a strong action, they will not learn by words.
So, in general, our whole language is filled with metaphors. So, somebody says, he has got an upper hand now. Now, what does that mean? That actually comes from boxing.
The two people are wrestling, and one person has now got the upper hand on the other. We look at our language, it’s filled with… It will be difficult for us, but five minutes or ten minutes of talk, you will not be able to talk without metaphors. But some metaphors have become so deeply imprinted into us that we don’t even notice those metaphors.
I was in England, and I gave a class, it was a college programme, a lot of question and answer. And the devotee had organised the programme. After the programme, he came to me with a bright smile on his face.
He said, you killed it! What did I kill? Was I sitting on some ant or something? What did I do? Now, you killed it is actually a usage drawn from hunting. So, if an animal is running away, and somebody shoots, you killed it. It’s a complimentary statement.
But the literal meaning has completely gone out. Now, when I did not know that, what did I kill? So, actually, metaphors are just a part of life. So, now, similarly, when we take metaphorical explanation of Krishna Yuga, all that it means is that this is what it is, but this is also what it represents.
Does this answer your question? So, thank you very much.