Detachment is not absence of emotion, it is absence of emotional dependence

[Talk at ISKCON, Brisbane, Australia] Video:

That, you know, say somebody, you have a computer and somebody. Hare Krishna. I'm grateful to be here in lotus feet of the Lordships today.

And I will speak on the topic of detachment is not absence of emotion. It is absence of emotional dependence. So people often feel that if I become spiritual, then I'll become detached.

And that I may not be able to perform ambitiously in life. I may not be able to relate with others. I may become hard hearted, uncaring.

So we will try to understand what is detachment. And we'll analyse this based on the relationship between Duryodhana, Dhritarashtra and Vidur. We'll talk about detachment and attachment.

And I'll speak three main points. And after each point, we'll have some time for reflections and questions. So you can hear and after about 10 minutes, when the reflection some point which struck you, which you like to carry home with you, which you might want to share with others, you can reflect that you can speak that and that we will make this a little more interactive.

So the three points I'll be speaking is that detach. First point is detachment looks like love, but it is the opposite. It works against love.

The second point I'll speak is that attachment looks like love, but it works against love. Second is detachment frees us to love authentically. And third is that bhakti takes us beyond attachment and detachment to commitment.

So let's look at these three points. The first point is that attachment looks like love, but it is, it is, it drains away love, it works against love. Now at the start of the Bhagavad Gita itself, there is the description of Dhritarashtra as his attachment to the Pandavas, to the Kauravas is seen.

So some of you may know this verse, you can recite after me. So Sanjaya is being asked by Dhritarashtra in the first verse of the first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, after everybody is assembled in the Kurukshetra war field, what did they do? But he uses Mamakaha and Pandava. So Mamakaha refers to my people, that is his own sons, the Kauravas and Pandava are the other party.

So now he was like the father figure, the patriarch for the whole, for the whole kingdom. The Pandavas did not have a father. So he was like their surrogate father and they revered him like a surrogate father.

But he is indicating his partiality over here. The Pandavas, Kauravas are my people and they are the opponents. Now we could say functionally, yes, the war was there and actually the war was between two parties and he would be more concerned about his sons than others.

That's understandable. But words have significance not just because of their literal meaning, but also in the overall context that they are spoken. And if you look at the overall Mahabharata, we see that time and time again Dhritarashtra in a very excessive way is partial towards Duryodhana.

Dhritarashtra is an example of attachment. In all relationships, affection is required. Now if we want to have any stable relationship, we need to care for the other person and the other person needs to care for us.

Only then the relationship can continue in a stable way. But when there is attachment, we don't care for the other person as much as we care for what the other person thinks about me. They are two subtle, but very significantly different things.

See one is caring, caring for the other person is important, but more important than when we care more for what the other person thinks about me, then for that person. That is when we are going into the zone of attachment. So I'll give an example to illustrate this.

That say, if a doctor is treating a patient and say the patient is a small child, and the doctor needs to give a dose, an injection to the child, the child may protest and say, No, I don't want. And the doctor may say that the the child may say the doctor is so cruel, you're hurting me. Now, obviously, the doctor doesn't want to hurt the child.

And at the same time, the doctor also doesn't want the child to think of the doctor badly. But at the same time, to care to care for the child, the doctor may have to stop caring so much for what the child thinks of. The child may demonise me thinking you're such a cruel person, you hurt me.

But if that's what you want to think about me, if this is what is required for you, I will do it. So of course, ideally speaking, we should care for both, we care for the person, and we care for what the other person thinks about us. But if what the other person thinks about us becomes the sole defining factor for what we do, then we go in the zone of attachment.

That means, we just want to make sure that the other person looks at me positively, thinks of me as a nice person. And if that is all that I am thinking about, then sometimes in love, some hard decisions have to be taken. Sometimes hard words have to be spoken.

Now, of course, this shouldn't become a licence for saying that, for being insensitive of what others are thinking. So the one extreme is insensitive, the other extreme is hypersensitive. So we want to be sensitive.

So we don't want to, just like a doctor won't casually go about cutting patients. But the doctor cannot have an aversion to say, seeing blood and seeing the child unhappy with, angry with it. Okay, that's what is required.

So Dhritarashtra had such an attachment. So affection means we care for the person. Attachment means we care more for what the person thinks of me than for that person.

So Dhritarashtra was not affectionate towards Duryodhana, he was attached to Duryodhana. And because of that attachment, he constantly bend to Duryodhana's crazy and horrible schemes. We could say to some extent in the Mahabharata, Duryodhana is like the active villain.

And Dhritarashtra is the passive villain. He is consenting, he is complicit, although he is not himself doing the villainous actions. But he is allowing Duryodhana to do that.

And because of that attachment, he ends up acting as the facilitator for Duryodhana's envy, for Duryodhana's animosity and for Duryodhana's evil actions. So envy is where we just feel unhappy or angry when we see somebody else succeeding. Animosity is where that envy translates further into action where we actively hate and want to loathe and pull down the person.

And evil actions are where we actually go about doing things. So when the Pandavas started becoming more popular in the kingdom and Duryodhana started feeling envious, I was the centre and now the Pandavas have become more popular. So he has made a scheme.

He will send them to the Varanavartha and there have a house where they will be burnt alive. And he said to Duryodhana, Dhritarashtra, sorry, let them send them there and maybe they will never come back. And Dhritarashtra understood what was in Duryodhana's mind.

But he went along with it. So whenever there is attachment, now we may sometimes understand what the other person is saying is wrong and it is bad. But we can't push them too much.

So he said, you know, I would try to persuade him. You have wealth, you have prosperity, you have power. The Pandavas also have that.

How does it make a difference to you? Enjoy your wealth, your power, your position. He just said, you don't care about me. Duryodhana's mentality is the classic mentality of an envious person.

He says, how can I be happy when my rival has more prosperity than me? So he would push and Dhritarashtra would cave in and just go along. So this is the point which I was making that love, that actually this looks like love, attachment looks like love, but it obstructs the flow of love. Love means we care for the other person, but we also care for the well-being of the other person.

And if that other person is going on a wrong track, sometimes we need to tell them, even if it may temporarily put us in their bad books. And if we don't do that, then what happens is we are not able to act in a truly loving way. And not only can we not do good for them, but actually we can't do good even for ourselves.

I speak often at mental health, I speak on spirituality and mental health quite often. So I was at a mental health care centre in New Jersey in America. I was talking with the mental health care providers.

And there, I was giving a talk to them. And then one of them after the talk was telling me that when say somebody becomes an addict. So at that time, somebody becomes alcoholic.

So usually it is the male who becomes alcoholic and then the spouse has to gather, pick up the pieces every time after a bad episode. So they say that if somebody comes for an addiction recovery, alcoholism recovery, they say usually we need to not only treat the person, but you also need to treat their partner. And they have this phenomena called codependency.

Codependency is where the addict's partner unwittingly becomes a facilitator of the addiction of their partner. Because what happens, the addict, the alcoholic may just drink and throw up and make a mess of their lives. And then the somebody else comes and picks up the pieces each time.

And they may say, Oh, no, I don't want the world to know how bad the situation is. What will people think about us? They want to cover things up. And to some extent, we want to protect the person whom we care for.

But what happens sometimes, if the, it may be the partner, it may be the parent, it may be whoever, if they repeatedly keep picking up the pieces, then the addict doesn't experience the consequences of the addiction. And that makes them keep doing it again and again. So in a sense, now the alcoholic's partner may actually be very angered and frustrated and hurt by the addiction, troubled by that, tormented by the addiction.

And they want that person to give up the addiction. But unwittingly, they end up facilitating the addiction. So if there is attachment, then what happens is the addict overall, after sometime starts expecting the codependent to pick up the pieces and starts demanding that.

And if they don't do it, then they often send the other person a guilt trip. You know, I actually have this trouble in my life and you have this trouble, I'm just using this to cope. Can't you help me? And then if this person goes on a guilt trip at that time, oh, no, no, no, okay, I'll do it.

So what happens if there is emotional dependence? Emotional dependence means that we get our sense of emotional support and security from that person and that person alone. Then we can't tolerate that person thinking badly about us or speaking badly about us. And then actually, we end up, that person hurts us and we let them hurt us.

And then we end up hurting both. So attachment looks like love, but attachment comes in the way of actual love. Attachment stops us from doing what love would necessarily need to do.

When we care for a person, what the person thinks about us, more than we care for that person also. That is where attachment comes. So this was the first point.

Any reflections on this? Yes, please. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I agree with you.

It is. So it's a challenge to find the balance between not breaking the person by moving, if we are their support and we move away from them, they will break. But at the same time, we don't want to let them break us also.

So what do we do? It's every, what I could say that love always comes with limitations. Nowadays, there is an idea of free love. But free love, that phrase itself is an oxymoron.

Oxymoron is where two opposite words are brought together. And say like somebody says, that person is a brilliant fool. What do you mean? Either you are brilliant or you are foolish.

But brilliant fool means that person is maybe is intelligent, but they are using their intelligence for a foolish purpose. So brilliant fool is an oxymoron. So free love is an oxymoron.

Love by its very nature brings limitation. So just like say, two people enter into a committed relationship. So when they enter into a relationship, then maybe in the past, they would hang out with many other people, maybe flirt with them.

Now, if they are entering into a committed relationship, then they can't do that. So when there is love, love by its very nature brings limitations. So love, love is a bond.

But every bond comes with a boundary. If there is a bond without a boundary, that means if you, if there is a, if we connect with another person, then that means as a part of that relationship, there are some things which are not to be done. So now in different relationships, the boundaries may be slightly different.

So, but every loving relationship has to come with boundaries. And sometimes it may require some clarification, communication with the other person, sometimes introspection ourselves to decide what are the boundaries. But if there are no boundaries, then the bond cannot stay strong.

For the bond to be there, there have to be boundaries. Say, if the parents say that, I care for, they care for their children very much. But if both the parents are working, and they're never there for the child, then they may say, oh, we have a bond, we care for a lot for you, we are earning so much for you.

But if the parents are constantly travelling and the child is in daycare and nightcare, and constantly nobody is there with them. And if the couple decides to have a child, then forming that relationship means there are some boundaries. Maybe the way you travel around freely, go here, go there, you cannot do that.

So the, what the boundary is, that is what needs to be thought about. But in principle, for the bond to be real, there has to be a boundary. Otherwise, the bond cannot stay for long.

So now how do we decide the boundary? That is something which we have to ourselves think, pray, and clarify to the other person. So I was going to speak this in the next point, but I'll speak this here, that I was in America in one place, and there I was giving Sunday class, and there was one American gentleman, he was probably in his 60s, and there was a very small, like a five-year-old girl with him. So they were there, the girl was there for the class, and then he sat there, and I was talking with him afterwards.

So then he told me that she's my granddaughter. And he said that my daughter became a drug addict. And she became such a drug addict that, you know, I tried to help her as much as I could.

But at one time, she, she's saying separately, she broke into my house, and for her, for getting her drugs, she actually stole something like $15,000 from my house. It was practically a major part of my life for selling, she took away. She's not a very well-to-do person.

And not only that, she left her daughter alone in the home. And she did not even, there was no phone in their home, the daughter did not have a phone, and this four, three and three, three and a half-year-old girl, three-year-old at that time, she's all alone, and she became panicky, started crying. And she just went off to take drugs.

Somehow, this girl came out alone, she went to the neighbours, and then she called the neighbour, and then she called me from there, and I came. And when both happened, she stole from me, and then she neglected her child. At that time, I decided, enough is enough.

So he said, then I actually complained in the police about her. And then I fought, and now I've got custody of my granddaughter. And my daughter is in a re-addiction centre.

And she was so angry with me initially. She said, what kind of father are you? You are taking me away from my daughter, and you are sending me, actually complained to her, sending me, she was in the jail for a few days for robbery. Says, you're doing that to me? Says, now she's in the re-addiction centre, now she's slowly becoming sober.

She says, now, she's appreciating, she said that, that I was in a path to disaster. And you saved me. You have at least given me the facility to save myself.

So that's an extreme example. But I'd say sometimes, we may have to decide, what are the boundaries? And if this boundary is crossed, then enough is enough. Then we may have to take some assertive action.

So we don't have to do that as a knee-jerk reaction. You did this, and I'm going to do this now. But maybe communicate in advance.

This is a limit that cannot be crossed. And if that is crossed, then we may have to do the necessary at that time. So that actually brings me to the second point.

The first, what was the first point? Yes, it works against love. Thank you. So now I'll move to the second point.

Second point is that detachment frees us to love authentically. So when we are detached, at one level, you could say that if you're detached, you're unfeeling, uncaring, hard-hearted. Yes, that could also be the connotation of the word detachment.

But that is not what we are talking about. When we have detachment, that means that we, our sense of self-worth and our sense of self-identity doesn't come from that person or that relationship alone. And I'll talk about spirituality later.

So how spirituality can give us a stabler sense of self-worth and self-identity by our connection with Krishna. But when we are detached, that doesn't mean we don't care for the other person. But we are not emotionally dependent on the other person.

Even if you think bad about me, that's not the end of the world for me. Naturally, if you think bad about me, I'm going to feel bad. I'm also going to feel hurt.

But it's not that my whole world is going to end. Some people are such that, I was in Dubai and I was talking, counselling one family, and they had this daughter, maybe past her teens. This daughter was telling me that my parents speak one harsh word to me and my whole day gets spoilt.

I just can't function. That word just keeps echoing in my head throughout the day. And it takes me days to recover from one word of criticism.

So then I talk with the parents and they said that she just has gone in a shell completely. She doesn't want to talk with us. She doesn't want to communicate with us at all.

So then I explained this concept to them that actually, you know, each of us has multiple relationships. But some relationships are like our defining relationships. And even a little disruption in that relationship can be devastating for us.

So if some relationship is a defining relationship for us, and if the other person doesn't understand how important that relationship is, the other person will just casually speak. Like this family had three children, and the other two children had much thicker skin. So even if you speak harshly, a little harshly, they just brush it off.

But this child just couldn't brush it off. So the other two children had their own social circle, their friends and other things. But this child was a little more introspective, a little more introvert.

So they didn't have so many relationships. So what happened was, I speak the same thing to other children, they don't get hurt, but she gets so overworked out. She freaks out because of this.

So what happens is that there has to be a certain amount of detachment. So we all want to have a tender heart. But we need to cover that tender heart with a thick skin.

If we don't have a thick skin, then so many people can hurt us in so many ways. So detachment, it frees us to love authentically means that detachment helps us to set boundaries. This is acceptable, this is unacceptable.

Now why it is unacceptable? You can tell that. I mean, not just unacceptable, but this is very disturbing for you. See, most people in close relationships don't go out of their way to hurt anyone else.

Unless that person is like evil and manipulative. But usually people don't want to hurt each other. They just incidentally hurt each other.

So if there is proper communication, then there can be the authentic flow of love. So detachment, when it is there, then it frees us to both set boundaries for the other person and set boundaries also for what we can accept. Now if somebody is, the parent is in that case, not even aware that their one small word was hurting their daughter so much.

They're just saying that why has she gone into a shell like this? So that you need to, you need to communicate that this is what the words and the parents had no intention that they want, they had no intention of hurting their daughter like that. But that was not happening eventually. So basically, that when we have some amount of detachment, that leads to, that gives us the capacity to speak what it takes to strengthen the relationship.

So strengthening the relationship means that we are getting hurt by something. Now, if we are getting hurt, we need to communicate that this is hurting me. And if somebody is doing something which is actually hurting, hurting them or is bad for them, we are able to communicate that.

So the example for this is Vidura. If we look at the relationship between Vidur and Duryodhana and Vidur and Dhritarashtra. So Vidur has repeatedly pointed out, both to Dhritarashtra and Duryodhana, that Duryodhana's ways would lead to destruction, that it would not only destroy Duryodhana, it would destroy the whole Kuru dynasty.

And Duryodhana found those words very unpalatable. And because he found those words very unpalatable, he always tried to stay away from Vidur. And he resented whatever little influence Vidur had on Dhritarashtra.

Now, Duryodhana, Dhritarashtra was in a sense caught between the two people. And he knew Vidur was wise. And he appreciated Vidur's words of wisdom.

But when Duryodhana started pressurising him, all those words would vanish. So words of wisdom are meant to act as light. Like they say, Om Gyanatimendasya, Gyananjanishalakaya.

From the darkness, we come to light. So knowledge is meant to act as light for us. And yes, if somebody is not in a judgemental way, you are wrong.

But in an objective way, what you are doing, this will lead to this. And therefore, this is something which you need to seriously think. Do you want to do this? So that, so wisdom is meant to act as like light.

But if wisdom comes and there is attachment, then wisdom acts not like light, but like lightning. Lightning illumines, but only for a few moments. And after that, again, it all goes back to the same old story.

So we see this most dramatically, or you could say traumatically also, dramatically and traumatically, in the gambling match. In that gambling match, things just went further and further and further. Okay, it is a gambling match, but then to put a stake, put all your wealth on stake.

That's terrible. I was in Las Vegas. And that is called, I think, the epithet, the Sin City.

Now, it's interesting that people in Las Vegas, the parents, right from their childhood, they teach their children about the dangers of gambling. And I was talking with, we have a small centre over there, the devotees, I said that, actually, among all of America, Las Vegas residents have the least rates of gambling. But people from all over the world come and gamble over there.

And people lose everything at once. So even if somebody wants to gamble, there has to be limits to it. But the problem is that once one gets involved in something like this, the limits are very difficult to maintain.

Nowadays, in the Western culture, drinking is quite a common activity. And they say that people say drink, but don't become drunk. That's the idea.

Now, it may be possible for some people to drink in a measured way. But it's like, go to the edge of the cliff, look down, but don't fall down. Then why go to the edge of the cliff? So it's like, it's a dangerous thing.

So in this gambling match, similarly, things went so far that Yudhishthir gambled his brothers, himself, his wife, everything. And Vidur was trying to get them to stop, stop, stop, stop. And he just not ready to stop.

And even when Krishna miraculously intervened, and when Duryodhana Dushasan and Karna had this ghastly scheme to disrobe Draupadi, Krishna miraculously intervened and had an endless rope cover her body. Even after that, Duryodhana did not give up his evil scheme. He said that Draupadi, she's become our slave now, take her to the inner chambers and make her clean our rooms.

And as Dushasan was dragging her again, at that time, Vidur spoke to him. Vidur had been repeatedly warning Dhritarashtra, but he said, Dhritarashtra, you had lit a sacrificial fire. And there were the rituals which every culture has.

So he had always kept that sacrificial fire lit. You keep enough fire, enough ghee, so 24 hours it would be lit. And he considered that like his, you could say, his way of worship.

And Vidur told him that sacrificial fire that you had lit, that has got extinguished. And when that happened, some people are so ritualistic that many times it happens, if you tell people there's a kirtan programme, people don't come. We say we have a yagya, oh people come to see the yagya.

So, people often have greater faith in rituals. And some people have a lot of, you could say, almost superstition. This is bad, that is bad.

And a woman being disrobed in a public assembly, that was not bad. But a sacrificial fire getting extinguished. Oh, this is very bad.

This is unbearable. That was his idea. And he said, enough is enough.

And then, he tried to appease Draupadi and he said, actually, I had called this gambling match just to test the skills in gambling. Sometimes some people lie so terribly that there are some lies which are believable. Some lies require the suspension of intelligence to believe.

And some lies are so unbelievable that you can't even suspend the intelligence. So, there is a degree of lies also. So, anyway, here, if he had called the gambling match to test the relative skills of the cousins, then why have Shakuni gambling instead of Duryodhana? Isn't it? So, if somebody else is gambling, how is it a test? But anyway, he spoke and he says, so things went so far and if Gandhari and I have ever done any good to you, please remember that and overlook the offences that my sons may have committed to you.

And he basically, one by one, asked for benedictions and gave them back everything that they had lost. Gave the kingdom back and everything. But after he went away, after they went away, Duryodhana came to him.

He says, so father, what have you done? You think that just by giving the kingdom back, you are going to reconcile things? He said that the Pandavas are never going to forget the way we have insulted them. He says, the only hope for us now is that they will soon attack us. The only thing we can do is disempower them and strengthen ourselves.

Otherwise, within a few days, they will attack us and they will destroy us. So, when he started painting this picture of how the Pandavas are vengeful and they are going to attack, he became very vulnerable. He said, what should we do? He called them back again for a gambling match.

He said, what? He said, no, that is the only way. So, actually Dhritarashtra gave everything back to the Pandavas, but again, he called them for a gambling match. And in that gambling match, that is the condition, if you lose, you go 13 years into exile, 12 years in forest and one year incognito.

So, this was an example of lightning, wisdom coming as lightning. He gave everything back. But once the attachment came, everything, the whole light disappeared.

Like lightning, it came and went and lightning, when it comes, it shocks, it jolts, it hits. So, my sacrificial fire has got extinguished. It was jolted.

But again in Dhritarashtra, Duryodhana started pressurising him. Darkness of attachment came upon him. And he went back to his own terrible ways of letting Duryodhana have his way.

So, when there is no detachment, we cannot love authentically. Vidur, on the other hand, always spoke strongly. And just before the Kurukshetra war, he spoke very strongly saying that if you don't stop Duryodhana, Duryodhana will cause the destruction of your dynasty.

At that time, Duryodhana went off the handle. And he said, this wicked person, he claims to be on our side, but he is the son of a maidservant. He claims to be on our side, but he works for our enemy.

Who invited him here? Get out of here and go with nothing except your breath. Now, traditional cultures are often quite hierarchical. Hierarchical means that elders, we always speak with deference.

And Vidur was in the generation of Duryodhana's father. For him to speak like this to Vidur was outrageous. And those words hurt him terribly.

But what hurt him even more was Dhritarashtra's silence. Dhritarashtra's silence. He said, enough is enough.

Now, sometimes the harshest words of our critics or our opponents don't hurt us as much as the silence of our friends. And we are accused and say, somebody accuses us of something terrible. And then somebody we expect, you speak something in support of me.

They don't speak that. That, that hurts us much more. We feel the opponent's words, they hurt us.

But that's what you expect from those who are opposed to us. But when those are our friends, they remain silent. Sometimes silence can speak more loudly than the loudest scream.

And this is what happened. So at that time, Vidur also decided, enough is enough. I'm not going to be a part of this anymore.

And just walked away. So this whole train wreck that was the Kuru dynasty, that was Duryodhan's scheme, because Vidur had the detachment, Vidur walked away from it. Vidur, because he was not dependent on what Dhritarashtra thought about me or what Duryodhan thought about me, he could speak the truth.

So he was able to love authentically because he had detachment. Similarly, in our lives, if we don't have detachment, then we may not be able to set the limits properly. And we may end up getting manipulated by others.

And actually, we see that Dhritarashtra thought I care so much for Duryodhan. But Duryodhan had very little respect for Dhritarashtra. Actually, when we become attached to someone, we may think I'm doing so much to care for him.

We may sacrifice millions of things. We sacrifice our own values, our ethics, our principles for the other person. But if we are attached to them, we will find that they don't respect us at all.

In fact, Duryodhan knew. He knew exactly what buttons to press to get Dhritarashtra to do his will. So when we are attached to someone, we actually, what to speak of getting their love, we don't even get their respect.

That person simply uses and abuses us. So to be abused by someone is not love. So I respect you too much to let you do this to me.

This is a very different way of putting it. So I love you so much that whatever you do, I'll accept it. That is not love.

I love you so much that acting like this is not good for you and not good for me. Therefore, I won't allow you to do this. So detachment enables us to love authentically.

That was the second point I just spoke. And I spoke this to the example of Vidura, how he took a stand. So any reflections on this? Okay.

Anyone else? Yes, please. So you talked about the example of how Vidura took on, but then you have the other two elders who didn't speak much. But we know that they are really not attached to Duryodhan, but.

Okay, yeah. Understood, okay. So the first reflection was also actually a question.

Are there any reflections? I'll address the question. But anything you found a striking point? You don't have to elaborate that. Just something which you felt you would like to carry home, reflect on, share with others.

I'll come to this. Any reflection? The point that you talked about in terms of defining boundaries between two persons who are very much in love with each other, but when they come across that the other person is not doing something which is either hurtful to the relationship or hurtful to them. To draw those boundaries and making them actually understand that's what they're doing, even though it might reduce the intimacy of that relationship.

Yeah, that's true. That is something that work on. It's not very easy sometimes.

Sometimes, most of the time, actually. Yeah, because in every relationship, we don't want to alienate the other person also. By the same time, we don't want to live tormented in the relationship.

So we have to speak to them, that's true. So now coming to the question of where the other Kuru elders attached because of which they stayed silent. It's a complicated question, and it could be answered at different levels.

At a transcendental level, we could say that people like Bhishma, Bhishma was a great devotee, and he was orchestrated by the Lord. That this whole pastime was orchestrated so that it is demonstrated that even when we have many protectors, we may end up with no protector except Krishna. And then Krishna is our only protector.

Soudrape took shelter of Krishna, that's how it is demonstrated. So that's the ultimate level. But that's not the level at which the Mahabharata itself operates usually.

Occasionally, it goes to that level. Now, if you look at the analysis of the Mahabharata itself, each of the elders, Bhishma is a great devotee. But at the same time, in some ways, he is an example of Niyamagraha.

Niyamagraha is sticking to the letter of the law at the cost of the spirit of the law. So in this case, when Draupadi is dragged in the assembly, she says that was Yudhishthir his own master when he gambled me? If he had gambled himself away, how could he gamble me? So she says, she asks this question to the assembly and he demands, please answer. And she begs, she does not demand.

So then Bhishma, because Dhritarashtra remains silent and Bhishma feels it is his responsibility to answer. And he says that actually, a person who is not his own master, a person who is a slave, doesn't have any possessions. By the same time, the wife belongs to the husband.

Now, this belonging is not in the sense of a property or a possession. Because if you see, it's more in terms of cherishing. It's like the husband belongs to the wife, the wife belongs to the husband.

That's why if you see, if he had treated her just like a property, then he would have gambled her before he gambled himself. He gambled all his property before. Then he gambled himself and then he gambled her.

So it is not like an objectified kind of belonging property. It's in a sense of cherishing. So it's not in that.

But still, the idea is that the wife belongs to the husband. So he says, considering these two rules, I am confused. And therefore, I can't make a decision.

And you could say that, okay, this rule is there, this rule is here. But ultimately, the purpose of rules is to protect people. And if an honourable lady is being dishonoured, then forget technicalities of rules over there.

You have to intervene and stop that. So in some ways, he was, Bhishma acted like a literalist. And he would stick too much to the letter of the law and forget the spirit of the law.

And that's what happened with him also with his vow. He said, I have taken a vow that I will always protect the ruling Kuru head. But when the ruling Kuru head was working against the welfare of the Kuru dynasty, did he still have to stay on that side? For him, the word was unquestionable.

And that was what led to his imprudent actions at that time. Drona was a teacher. Sometimes Drona can be referred to as a spiritual master, but he's more like a martial teacher.

So he didn't really have that much of a say in the Kuru assembly. And because he was, at one level, dependent on the Kurus, he was their employee. So he couldn't very strongly take a stand against them.

He spoke, but there were some occasions when he spoke. But on this occasion, he also unfortunately stayed silent. And that was also the sins of commission and the sins of omission.

Sins of commission where we ourselves do something wrong, or we commission someone to do something wrong. The sins of omission means we don't do something. That is also a serious problem.

Wrongdoing is not just the wrong that we do. It is also the right that we don't do. And both of them eventually, Prabhupada says that they had to die in the Kurukshetra war because they remained silent.

So it was a, although they were exalted, they still made a serious error of judgement over there. And that sense the Mahabharata is a very real book. It doesn't paint even its heroes in spotless white.

Just even those who are glorious characters, they also have shades of grey within them. Does that answer your question? So let me move on to the third point now. So the first point I spoke was that attachment looks like love, but it works against love.

And second point was? Yeah, detachment frees us to love authentically. As a third point I'll include with this is that bhakti is not, bhakti takes us beyond attachment and detachment to commitment. So generally, we should think of relationships in two terms.

Either I'm attached or I'm detached. Detachment can be spoken about to a person only when that person has already had a certain level of responsibility and commitment. If say somebody, if a child doesn't study for the exams at all, the mother says, come on, study, it's an important exam.

Whatever happens, I'm detached. That is not detachment. That is irresponsibility.

So I was just hearing a lecture of Prabhupada recently and Prabhupada says at one place that actually, that to stay on in householder life till the end of your life is the grossest form of attachment. Now I was thinking, Prabhupada often uses rhetorical speech. Now in today's world, is this really the grossest form of attachment? I was at an interfaith programme in America and they were telling that marriage is breaking apart is a big problem.

So there's one pastor, he was telling that what they have started doing is that in their churches, they have started celebrating every five year anniversary of a marriage. So after 5th anniversary, 10th anniversary, 15th anniversary, 20th anniversary and he says by this, we are hoping that the marriages will stay on. So now in today's world, where people are not ready to take up responsibility, people are averse to commitment, people may just have, that is not the grossest type of attachment in today's world.

You could just have casual relationships and then just abandon people and just be, there can be so many grosser kind of relation, grosser kind of deviation that might be there, that people just use and abuse and abandon people also. So often our scripture speaks for people at a particular level to elevate them to a higher level. So Parikshit Maharaj was already at the level of dharma.

He's already a responsible householder and then from here, from there, okay, you do your worldly dharma but there's more to do also. It's not just that taking care of your family, getting your children married, getting them settled and your life is successful. No, that is, that has to be done but there's much more to be done also.

You have to connect with Krishna, you have to devote yourself to Krishna. So sometimes material responsibility is trivialised or can appear to be trivialised because our scripture is focussing on rising from material responsibility to spiritual responsibility. But we live in an age where people don't even take up material responsibility.

There are so many people who just don't even want to get married. Not that they're detached at all. They are very averse to commitment.

So aversion to commitment is not detachment. See, detachment is sattvic. Aversion to commitment is tamasic.

See, when there is detachment, that means that, okay, I don't want to enjoy this. I want something higher. Aversion to commitment means I want to enjoy this and I want to keep all the doors open.

So, it's not that I have any higher taste. I don't want to, at least in rajas, you know, there is, okay, I want to enjoy but through this. And tamas means that there is so infatuated with enjoyment that you can't even decide how to enjoy.

Just keep all the doors open and keep exploring everything. So, you know, sometimes when we speak a transcendental philosophy to people who are, Shastra speaks to people who are in goodness. But Prabhupada himself came from a very traditional culture and in traditional cultures, marriage was seen more as an obligation to be performed rather than something for pleasure.

Of course, everybody wanted pleasure from it. Everybody wanted to have a happy relationship. But there was a sense of duty, responsibility of commitment.

Obligation was there. Now, today, that sense of obligation is not there at all. If it doesn't work, just end it.

That's the idea. So, when Prabhupada came from that idea where traditionally marriages were arranged and Prabhupada did arrange marriages for his disciples and he was taken aback when they couldn't continue and they just started breaking up. Prabhupada said that this is not the business of a spiritual master.

Prabhupada withdrew himself from that. So, the point I am telling over here is through this various things is that if we speak about detachment to people who don't even have a sense of commitment, it backfires. If people have a sense of commitment, then detachment can help them to rise higher.

But if people don't have any sense of commitment, from the external perspective, detachment and aversion to commitment can look very similar. And somebody might be very averse to commitment, very irresponsible and they may think I am being detached. So, if we while talking about bhakti focus too much against attachment or too much for detachment, that can have a counterproductive effect.

Because if we speak too much about detachment and people are from an ethos where they have never had any responsibility, taken any responsibilities, then in the name of bhakti, instead of rising beyond sattva to chuddha sattva, they may sink into tamas. And they may avoid responsibility and think that bhakti is so nice. I, for many years I was doing college outreach.

I used to find that many times before the exam there is a preparatory leave, where students have no college and they just study. So, many of the students would fall in love with scripture just before their exam, in the preparatory leave. Throughout their semester, they would not study scripture, but in preparatory leave, they study hours and hours and not Prabhupada's purpose, just entertaining books like Ramayana and Mahabharata stories.

So, now was it that they were really loving scripture or was it that they were using scripture as a means to avoid doing their studies? Studying is difficult and if you use scripture, they would say oh ultimately this is mundane knowledge. Prabhupada said it is spiritual slaughterhouse. So, you have to actually push them.

I remember one boy, he said that just before he was, he was in a prominent college and he came to, just before his exams, we have about 10-15 days, he said actually all the studies are temporary. I want to drop out from my college. I want to join full time as a brahmachari.

I said no, you cannot do that. Just complete your studies and if you want to become a brahmachari also, it's a lifelong commitment and you need to have a degree. You need to have some work experience and then after, don't do this out of sentimental sense of detachment or renunciation.

So, once he went away and after that, he came back again. He said this is what I want to do. I said no, this is not good for you.

He said if you are not going to let me do it, I am going to some other devotee. And I have already talked with that devotee and he has said I can come and stay in their temple. And there he told me, just as when Bali Maharaj wanted to surrender to Vishnu and Shukracharya came in the way.

So, Bali Maharaj rejected Shukracharya. So, I reject you. So, I was just laughing at that.

So, he went away. He stayed in that temple for two, three months and then he came back. Maybe brahmachari afterwards.

He couldn't sustain it. Fortunately, we were able to get him back into his uni and he was able to continue. But the point is that when we are talking about bhakti, if you focus too much, speak too much against attachment or speak too much for detachment, it can have a counterproductive effect.

The essence of bhakti is commitment. It's commitment to Krishna and commitment to our service to Krishna. So, it may that service is of course, through our direct devotional service to our sadhana bhakti, through our doing our seva in the temple.

But that commitment is also through our roles and responsibilities in the world. It may be our career, it may be our family. If you see it as the essence of bhakti is commitment.

So, it's interesting that there is, you could say, I'll conclude with this point now, that there could be various things. As I said, aversion to commitment is tamasic. Attachment at a material level is rajasic.

Detachment is sattvic. Now, bhakti is beyond sattva. And there you could say there is attachment to Krishna.

Krishna says that is the goal 7.1 that we have to become make our mind attached to Krishna. But to make our attachment mind attached to Krishna is not going to happen overnight. And for that we require commitment.

So, it is by commitment, we will come to spiritual attachment. So, if we worry too much about attachment and detachment in our day to day lives, then we might either become, we might become too, we might go into tamas or we might stay in rajas. Tamas, if we just go in the name of detachment, we go towards aversion to commitment.

And rajas, if we stay, focus on attachment. But we focus on commitment. Commitment means Krishna, I am your servant.

Please guide me how I can serve you. So, in every role, every relationship, if you focus on how best can I serve Krishna in this situation, then we will be able to act responsibly in our spiritual relationships and in our material relationships also. So, if somebody, if a parent has a child who is not becoming a devotee, and now the parents, if they start seeing only through a devotional lens and they say that, oh, my child is not becoming a devotee and that is my failure as a parent.

Well, it is not necessarily like that. Every soul is an individual. Every soul is on their own spiritual journey.

And every soul will take to bhakti according to their peace. So, if we have done our part in presenting them bhakti as well as we could, and they will take it up their pace. So, if the child is becoming a responsible human being, is growing up, broadly speaking, to be a good human being, that is also a success of the parent.

Of course, the parents would love that the child become a devotee. But we have to see that things may be progressive. So, if the parents try to pressurise the child too much to become a devotee, and the child may practise bhakti for some time, but afterwards, the child may just recoil away once they get their freedom.

So, we would definitely like our children to become devotees. But commitment means, whether you become a devotee or not, don't become a devotee, how best can I serve you? How best can I help you? So, sometimes in some relationships, we have to serve even when the other person is not really practising bhakti. So, the essence of bhakti is service attitude.

So, sometimes when somebody is not becoming a devotee, and still we serve that person, then maybe by that also we make spiritual advancement, because our attitude is attitude of service. So, if we have that attitude of service, then our material responsibility and our spiritual responsibility can both go together. If we go too much in the direction of material responsibility without considering spiritual responsibility at all, that can be a problem because we can get infatuated and obsessed in that relationship.

But if we go too much in the direction of spiritual responsibility, neglect the material responsibility, then that can also lead to a problem. So, I was at a temple and there was a, I was talking with the spiritual master over there in that community, the leader of that community, and I was talking about this subject itself. He was giving his experience that there was a prominent congregation leader, and they were always, the husband and wife were always in the temple doing various services, and their child was acting out, being very naughty, complaining a lot, and the parents were quite disturbed by it.

And then he said, I talked with them, and then I talked with the child privately, and then I told the parents that actually, you are constantly here in the temple, and your child needs your time, your child needs your attention. He says, you can come to the temple, but you decide how much time you need to give to your child. Because all his naughtiness, all his acting out, it's basically a distorted call for attention.

He needs attention, he needs affection. And then I talked with that lady also, that counsellor, that couple. They said that actually for us, this was like a revelation.

We thought coming to the temple and practising bhakti, that's what our spiritual master would want us to do. I said, yes, that's definitely, but not at the cost of other things. So, there has to be a balance.

He said, now, then they found that the child became very mature and very nice, and things which had become very, almost like tensed and sore, things started maturing. So, things started becoming more balanced and more healthy, holistic. So, the idea is that if we have a sense of commitment, then we won't just be doing things which externally appear as bhakti.

Again, I talked about attachment earlier. Attachment means we care more for what people think about us than about the people. Sometimes in bhakti, we want to appear to be a great devotee.

It's constantly in the temple, constantly there for all programmes. Now, please don't interpret it to say that don't come for programmes. Not at all.

Not at all. It's wonderful to get as much association as possible. But we shouldn't reduce bhakti down only to these things.

That yes, this is bhakti. Bhakti is also commitment. So, commitment means sometimes if it is required that some family responsibility, some other responsibility requires us to be there, then we can do it in a mode of service.

This is also a service to Krishna. Our heart can be there with association, but if we put our heart at that point in that service, and that way we'll find that we will grow holistically. And when we have that sense of commitment, then we will be able to ourselves grow, help others grow, and help our broad community grow.

So, the essence of devotion is commitment. And by that commitment, even if externally it appears as if we are not jumping in ecstasy, but if there is commitment, by that commitment, purification will come. And by that purification, gradually a steady, authentic attachment to Krishna will manifest.

And that is what will elevate us and liberate us ultimately. So, I'll summarise what I spoke today. I spoke on the topic of detachment is not absence of emotion.

It is not hard-heartedness. It is absence of emotional dependence. And in that I spoke three broad points.

Anyone remember the first point? The attachment. What is it? Yeah, it looks like, thank you. It looks like love, but comes in the way of love.

I spoke about Dhritarashtra being manipulated by Duryodhana and not being able to act according to his principles. So, to care more for what the other person thinks about us than to care for the person. That is attachment.

Like a doctor not wanting the child to feel bad about themselves and so not giving the necessary dose. And here I talked also about how when we are attached, then at that time we let, we actually facilitate the other person's weaknesses and wrongdoing. So, in addiction, I talked about codependency, where the addict is protected from bearing the consequence of their addiction by their partner and that makes things worse for them.

So, attachment not only hurts us, but also hurts the person to whom we are attached to. And the second point was, anyone remember? Yeah, detachment frees us to love authentically. So, in that I talked about Vidur, how he always spoke constantly to war.

I also spoke that example of how that, when that girl became so addicted that she stole from her father and she endangered her child, then she had to be, her father had to take strong action over there. And that is what has helped her to come off the train wreck and Vidur also did that, when things went far. So, love means there is a bond, but every bond comes with boundaries.

And detachment helps us to speak out, to first of all speak to point the boundaries and speak out when those boundaries are being transgressed. And the last point was, bhakti is commitment, not about attachment or detachment, but commitment. I talked about in today's world, where people have no sense of commitment at all, people are averse to commitment.

So, if we talk about detachment, undiscerningly, that can have a counterproductive effect. So, detachment is where we do not want to enjoy the material things. That is sattvic, we are looking for something higher.

Whereas, aversion to commitment is tamasic, where we are thinking of, there is so much to enjoy, we cannot choose, so we want to keep all the doors open. So, rather than worrying too much about whether I am detached or I am attached, we can focus more on whether I am committed. Committed means how best can I serve Krishna in this situation.

And if we have that attitude, then we will find that in every situation, we will be able to act in a way that is the best, best for us, best for others. So, commitment to Krishna means that we do not reduce Krishna bhakti down to just some specific activities. Yes, there are specific activities, very important, and we need to do them in a committed way.

But along with that, we can re-envision all our responsibilities also as a way we can serve Krishna. A student who does not want to study academic books before exam and wants to study the scriptural story books, that is not attachment to Krishna. That is simply aversion to commitment to one's responsibility.

So, commitment would be, if I am a student, I have to study properly. So, when we have that commitment, then we will grow holistically and will enable others to grow holistically. And by commitment to Krishna, we will develop attachment to Krishna.

That is how eventually we will become elevated and liberated. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

So, any questions or comments? One question. Yes. Do we have books, Guru? So, I have written a few books, especially the book on the Ramayana, which is the latest book, Wisdom from Ramayana.

So, we will just be putting up something outside. If any of you want, you can have a look. Yes, Guru.

Is there such a thing as emotional dependency on the spiritual master? Okay. Can there be emotional dependency on the spiritual master? I would say there should be spiritual dependency. Emotional dependency can be a problem.

Spiritual dependency means we understand that whatever spiritual knowledge we have, whether we get it directly from the spiritual master or from someone else, it's by the mercy of the spiritual master. Whatever ability we have to do service, it is by the mercy of Krishna manifesting through our spiritual master. So, that in essence, spiritual dependency is good.

But emotional dependency means we can't live without the personal time and attention of our spiritual master. And the way our movement is so big, and we have so few spiritual masters, sometimes it may be almost impossible from the spiritual master's perspective to actually, even if they want to, to give personal attention to all the disciples, or even to many of the disciples. So, if we are emotionally dependent, then that can make our spiritual life very unstable.

So, Prabhupada talks of vapu and vayu. So, I would say, to want a physical association with the spiritual master, to want the time and attention, that could go towards emotional dependence. Naturally, we want it.

The Prabhupada says in one purport that we desire, he says about the darshan of the Lord, a devotee desires the darshan of the Lord, but doesn't demand the darshan. And I would say the same applies to our, to the personal association of the spiritual master. Naturally, we desire it, look forward to it, we cherish it, if we get it.

But we don't demand it. Dependency means not only it's a demand, it's like a, it's, yeah, it's a tantrum if we don't get it. It's almost like a demand that has to be fulfilled.

Because it's a demanding demand. So, that emotional dependence on the spiritual master is not healthy. It is, first of all, it is not shastrically sound also, because shastra also doesn't depict the disciple having constant personal association with the spiritual master all the time.

And more importantly, that in today's world, functionally, it's not going to be fulfilled. So, it's best to be spiritually dependent, but be emotionally resilient, not dependent. Thank you.

Yes. Either way, how much time should we go on? Let me know. Maybe one or two more questions.

Yes. Sometimes we may feel that we are not as bad as Dhritarashtra or Duryodhana. So, we feel there is no drastic step needed.

Yes, I would say drastic steps are not usually needed. But some steps are needed. So, there is a spectrum.

I am having this retreat on burn anger before anger burns you from tomorrow. I'll speak elaborately on this topic that there is weakness and there is wickedness. So, weakness is where a person has some defect within them and it pops up.

So, there is anger. If a person has anger issues, they just yell and they just speak abusively also at times. That's bad.

But afterwards, they are genuinely apologetic and they are really good human beings. So, then that is, it's a weakness. So, weakness basically makes us hot-headed.

But wickedness makes us cold-blooded. Where in weakness, the urge, the defect within, the anartha, it knocks aside our intelligence and makes us do wrong. But in wickedness, the anartha takes over the intelligence.

And then that person schemes to hurt the other person in the most hurting way and to hurt the other person in a way such as, in such a way that they can cover their tracks. So, and they celebrate how clever I am. You know, I did this.

So, wickedness is where the person's intelligence is taken over. The person's conscience has become dead-end. And if that is there, generally in most people it is not there.

For somebody to be wicked is like diabolical, more than wanting to kill the Pandavas. It's extreme. But where there is wickedness, then there has to be, to give forgiveness to those who have wickedness is foolishness.

Forgiveness doesn't work over there. Because they will see simply that forgiveness is a sign of weakness. We just can't do anything.

So, some strong action is required. That's why the Kurukshetra War had to be fought. So, I would say that we, so weakness and wickedness are on the same spectrum.

If you consider a slippery slope, weakness is somewhere at the top, wickedness is somewhere at the bottom. And we, most of us in our relationship won't be at the level of weakness. So, at the wickedness.

But sometimes we may be at the level of weakness and somebody who is at the level of wickedness may manipulate us. So, you could say Duryodhana was at the level of wickedness, Dhritarashtra was at the level of wickedness. But because of that attachment, he also got pulled towards the wickedness.

So, we have to see. In Satvaguna, when we are, say, we have done some scripture study, we have done some good chanting, some good kirtan, we are calm, in a calm frame of mind. That's the time when we can think about the boundaries.

For my own behaviour and for others' behaviour also. And so, if certain boundaries are being transgressed, then we have to be concerned. By us also or by others also.

So, what the boundary should be, we should be able to have a clear head to think about that. And usually that requires in Satvaguna, some amount of prayer, some amount of introspection, maybe consultation with someone whom we are close to also. Then we can set the boundaries and then we can decide.

Does that answer your question? Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Anyone else? Any comments? Yes, please.

You mentioned that spectrum. In the Gita, Krishna says that there is the divine and the demoniac, the natures. And I was talking to a friend who came to Vipassana, but then he left and joined the movement of Mother Tara's life.

And there they have, he was telling me they have a very interesting view that you are either divine or demoniac. And if that's set, and there's no, what they've got to do is demoniac, you can't become purified no matter how much suddenly you leave. It's just your nature and you will carry on that way.

That's all you need in that case. Yeah. There's some specific liberation for those, and then there's the divine.

Yes, that's true. So, how to understand it? Krishna says that there are two. Okay, yeah.

Krishna says there are two natures, divine and demoniac. In Sampradaya they say that this demonic nature is not changeable. If you are divine, you are divine, otherwise you are demoniac.

That's how you will be throughout. I say in every tradition there is something which is contextual and something which is eternal. So to take that which is contextual and make it central or eternal, that is being fanatic.

So let's start with our own tradition. In the Chaitanya Charita Amrit, Krishnaswami says that anybody who accepts, who worships Krishna but doesn't accept Chaitanya Mahapuram as God, that person is condemned. Now, is that really true? That person is somebody say from the great Sampradayas, very devoted.

Are they condemned? No. See, this is more of a statement to express intense devotion. It is not a statement to establish a categorical spiritual truth.

So we have to appreciate the mood of the statement also. That's why there is scripture speaks in different tones at different times. Sometimes scripture speaks like a teacher, sometimes scripture speaks like a friend, sometimes scripture speaks like a lover and there are different tones.

So we have to understand that. So similarly, if we see Madhvacharya, his particular mission was specifically to very strongly refute Mayavada. And in that context, he has very strongly refuted Mayavada and also condemned those who propagate or even follow this path of, you could say, offensive impersonalism.

Not just impersonalism, but impersonalism which is offensive to God, saying that God's form is illusion. And we need to go beyond God's form. So then, in that context, to highlight the gravity of such ideas, he takes this category of, not just divine and demoniac, they actually have three categories, they call it.

They say that there are some people who are mukti yogya, some people are samsari and some souls are narak yogya. Those who will go to hell, those who will always stay in material existence and those who are worthy of liberation. And basically, he largely classifies those who are Mayavadis as narak yogya.

So I would say that that particular idea is more of a contextual point made for emphasis. Although some people consider it central with that tradition and we don't want to go about debating with them about their traditions, teachings. But overall, if you see the Gita, it's quite clear that anybody can be reformed by the path of bhakti.

Apichet suduracharo, even in some ways a terrible wrong, that 9.31 and before that in 4th chapter 4.36, apichetasi papebhyasarvebhyapapakrutamaha. The Bhagavatam is also very kirathunandrapulandapulakasha. Even people who are very, very low born, they can also be elevated.

So the central teachings of bhakti is that bhakti can elevate anyone and everyone. So it's something which I would say, we just put it in a category of difference, which is, which is a contextual statement. But it has been somehow some people elevated to a central level.

Having said that, not everybody can be reformed in this life only. So sometimes if somebody is demoniac and in this life, no matter what you do, they are going to stay demonic. Krishna himself could not reform Duryodhana.

Krishna had a Shanti Gita. So at one level, we have to have faith in the potency of bhakti. But at the same time, we cannot be starry eyed about facing reality in the world.

So some people may not just be ready in this lifetime. And in that sense, we may say that we can just plant some seeds or sometimes even that, they may get angry with that. So we just have to keep a distance from them.

There are people who are envious and the nectar of instruction and bhakti on Takavasya, just keep a distance from them. So we could take it in that direction that some people, not nitya sansar, not necessarily eternal. When we use the word nitya, sometimes it is not always in literal sense.

It's eternal. The word nitya can be eternal, but it can be so long as to appear eternal. Narake niyatam vaso bhavati ittya nishushuruma.

Arjuna says in the first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, I have heard that those who destroy the family traditions, they will live forever in hell. Now there he is saying that forever means no paap, no sin has consequences that are forever. It's finite.

Maybe huge, but it's finite. But it can appear so long from our perspective that it is almost forever. So we could use that sense of nitya in that sense that some people are so demonic that in this life, it's almost impossible for them to be redeemed.

And when they will be redeemed, that may also take a long, long time.