Dhritarashtra character analysis

Dhritarashtra character analysis 1 – Attachment makes us stone-hearted

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=embed_video&v=2331374973758110

Dhritarashtra character analysis 2 – Do we need to lose everything before we lose our attachments?

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=embed_video&v=2332292923666315

Hare Krishna So, welcome back to the second session. And I know you have some questions. We will after each session, we will have some time for questions.

And maybe one of the last sessions, either today or tomorrow, we can devote fully to question-answers. But let us move forward with the session right now. And if you have some questions, please note them down so that we can discuss them in due course.

We will have time for question-answers probably in one session. One whole session tomorrow can be for question-answers. So, I discussed in the previous session about what makes us unconscious.

It is our mind which is meant to connect us with the outer world. But the mind makes us caught in thoughts which pop up within itself. And that makes us unconscious of important things or physical reality.

And we get caught in the mental level. When this happens, what particularly catches our attention? That may depend on the impressions within the mind which are of two types, instincts and impulses. So, we will use this framework of analysis to look at certain characters in the Mahabharata.

So, let us start with the character of Dhritarashtra. The word Dhritarashtra itself means Dhrita Rashtra. Rashtra is kingdom.

Dhrita is to hold. So, this name can have both a positive and a negative connotation. The negative connotation is one who is very attached to the kingdom.

One who holds on to the kingdom. So, in Indian politics, if some politician is very old and nearing retirement and still that politician wants to hold on to the post, the politicians are criticising. You are being like Dhritarashtra.

So, Dhritarashtra usually the word has the negative connotation. But that is not the only connotation. Why would anyone, any parent give a child a name with a negative connotation? So, Dhritarashtra also has a meaning that Dhrita Rashtra.

Dhrita means to sustain. So, one who sustains the kingdom. So, it can refer to one who holds on to the kingdom or one who holds the kingdom.

That means one who keeps the kingdom together. One who sustains the kingdom. So, both meanings are there.

Dhritarashtra we see that he is a person who is in many ways a tragic figure in the Mahabharata. He is born in a royal family but because of fate he ends up being blind. And for a Kshatriya everybody needs their body to function.

But Kshatriyas especially need a very well functioned body. Because they are guardians, martial guardians of society. They often have to fight.

So, when he is born blind it is decided that he can't become the next king. So, after that his younger brother Pandu is born and he becomes the king. So, normally the oldest son becomes the heir, becomes the next king.

So, Dhritarashtra at one level felt entitled to the kingdom. And at another level he felt he was deprived of the kingdom. So, because of this his life constantly goes on in vain desires.

Vain desires means desires which are just pointless. Desiring is a natural faculty of the human being. But our desires are not always in productive directions.

That means if something has happened in the past say we made a mistake or somebody did something. Now that has already happened. And that is over.

So, we can't do anything about it now. So, if we keep lamenting what has happened in the past that is a vain battle. The battle that is in front of us is the battle that we can fight.

But, if we keep lamenting over something that has happened in the past then that is a pointless battle. It's like fighting a battle that is already lost. Suppose, say, India fought with China in 1961 and India lost.

And if people, Indians start thinking, oh, we should have fought and we should have won we should have done like this, we should have done like that. Or sometimes say a cricket match is played and say India loses the cricket match. Oh, this batsman should have batted like this.

Should have bowled like this. This batsman should have come before. Well, it's over now.

That match is over. So, we can learn from the past that is very different from lamenting about the past and that is very different from living in the past. So, some battles are just over.

So, for Dhritarashtra, the fact that he couldn't be the king or at least not a full king the way a king was expected to be that was something which he just needed to accept. At one level, from this life's perspective, life is not fair to anyone. Life, we understand from a multi-life perspective, we all have done some karma because of which we get certain results.

From this life's perspective, life is just unfair. And we have to get used to it. So, sometimes we may fall sick for no apparent reason.

Sometimes some relationship misunderstanding may happen because of no apparent reason. Sometimes, we might just get fired. 10 people in the company get fired.

But which 10 out of 1000? It might just, why did 10 get fired? There might not be any specific logical reasons. It just happens. So, in many ways, life is not fair.

So, this is something which we just have to get used to. If one doesn't get used to that, then one keeps projecting desires which are, projecting desire is hoping, this will happen, this will happen, this will happen. No, it's not going to happen.

Just because one thing has gone wrong doesn't mean everything is going to go wrong. And it doesn't mean that we have to keep trying to set that right. Aditya Rashtra always had the desire, I want to be the king.

It's not a wrong desire. He was born in the royal dynasty. He was the eldest son.

But in that particular situation, that was not going to happen. And he was never disrespected or deprived. He was given all royal comforts.

But, because the desire was so strong within him, eventually, he thought that if I don't become the king, my son will become the king. And it seemed overall, as if his son was set to become the king. Because Pandu retired to the forest, and Pandu had a curse because of which, if he tried to beget children, he would die.

So, it is now thought that he will not have children. Therefore, Dhritarashtra's son will become the next king. But, Pandu, he did get the Pandavas through the gods.

And then, when Pandu passed away in the forest, at that time, the Pandavas came back. So, Dhritarashtra had been growing up Duryodhana with the hope that Duryodhana will become the next king. In fact, when Duryodhana was born, at that time, the Mahabharata described there were inauspicious signs everywhere.

When Krishna is born, Krishna appears in this world, at that time, the whole universe was auspicious. But, when Duryodhana was born, it said storms were happening, and then jackals were braying, and all kinds of inauspicious signs. And, in a sense, Dhritarashtra had 100 sons through some mystical means.

There is one foetus from which 100 were born. So, the difference in age between the 100 was not much. It was clear that he was going to have 100.

So, Vidura told him that, this son is going to be the cause of inauspiciousness for you. He says, give him up. Abandon him.

Leave him. You will still have many other sons. He says, no, he is my son.

How can I leave him? At one level, his reasoning is true. How can a parent abandon his son? But, at the same time, he is not just an ordinary parent. He is a king.

And, his son is going to become the next king. So, for him, it is he has to consider not just his attachment to his son, he has to consider his responsibility as a member of the royal family. And, that's why, the more the social positions that we are in, the more is expected from us.

We can't just act. If somebody is just a single person, I want to go here, I will go here. I want to watch that, I want to watch that.

I will do this, I will do that. If somebody is in the family, they think, okay, if I do this, what is going to affect on my partner, on my children? They have to think about other things. If somebody is in a bigger position, they have to think much more.

So, Dhritarashtra, he was, almost throughout his life, he was almost never conscious of his royal responsibilities. His consciousness was caught in his son. And, his son becoming the next king.

Because of that, he did not think about his other responsibilities. Like, earlier, I talked at a sensory level. From the different senses, different inputs keep coming in.

And, we have to know which to focus on. Now, when we are driving a car, at one point, in one sense, we have to focus on the road ahead. But, then we also have to be aware of what is going on way ahead.

If way ahead, the cars are showing, the rear light is becoming red, or the cars are slowing down, then we have to press the brake right now, so that we slow down. So, there is a focus on the immediate. But, we cannot just be aware only of the immediate.

There is, our consciousness is capable of being aware of multiple things. Now, there is, what you can say, primary awareness or foreground awareness. But, along with the foreground awareness, there is background awareness.

So, right now, say you are hearing what I am speaking, but then you may become conscious, you know, okay, this is too hot, or maybe this is too cold, maybe the way I am sitting is comfortable, it is not so comfortable. So, these are all thoughts that are there. And, they will be at the background of our awareness.

Sometimes, it becomes unbearably cold or unbearably hot, then we may have to take some action. So, just as we have something in the foreground and something in the background, similarly for us, in our day-to-day life, the same applies with respect to our various roles and our relationships. For Dhritarashtra, if you consider the windows, Dhritarashtra, for him, just the window of Duryodhana was all that was open on his inner skin.

And, all other windows were closed. They just pop up temporarily, but they would minimise. This would immediately, this would very soon dominate the inner skin.

So, he saw everything through the filter of Duryodhana's pleasure or displeasure. Duryodhana's gain or loss. It was not even his own gain, because he lost reputation, he lost standing by being so attached to his son.

But, he became desensitised to his royal responsibilities, even to his extended family responsibilities. When Pandu passed away, at that time, Dhritarashtra became like the surrogate father of the Pandavas. In extended families, that is how if some person passes away, the other family members take care of the children.

And, that's what the sages, when Pandu passed away in the forest, the sages told Kunti that now you should go back to the kingdom. And, because her sons were born in a mystical way, so, if some questions were raised about that, were they really Pandu's sons, the sages said, we will come with you. And, we will testify, because Pandu had consulted the sages before.

And, the sages had said, yes, you are a king, it is important for you to have sons. So, you can have sons through the gods. And, so, when they came back, at that time, the sages testified that these are actually Pandu's sons.

And, then, for them, there was no father. So, at one level, because the sages had testified, everybody accepted that these are Pandu's sons. But, intermittently, Duryodhana or somebody else would cast aspersions.

Are you really part of our dynasty? Not very often, but that aspersion would come intermittently. However, once they were accepted, more or less, that they are the sons of Pandu, and they are members of our dynasty, then it was Dhritarashtra's responsibility as the main father figure in their family to care for him. Bhishma was the grandfather.

And Bhishma practically became like a father for the Pandavas. Because Dhritarashtra was so lost in his own world, so attached to his son, that he just couldn't think of anything else. So, in one sense, if you look throughout the life, it was the Pandavas who offered Dhritarashtra more respect than Duryodhana.

But, Dhritarashtra was so attached that he was concerned only about the pleasure of Duryodhana, and he was not concerned what to speak of the pleasure, but even the survival of the Pandavas. This is how attachment blinds us. So the theme, when analysing the character of Duryodhana, of each character, I will have one theme.

While analysing the character of Dhritarashtra, the theme which I am taking is wrongdoing is not just the wrong that we do, it is also the right that we don't do. Wrongdoing is not just the wrong that we do, it is also the right that we don't do. So, in one sense, if a thief robs a bank, a thief is a wrongdoer.

But, if there is a security in charge, security person, police or someone who is there, and the police does nothing. Police may say, I did not rob the bank. You did not rob the bank, but you did not stop the bank from being robbed.

And, if an ordinary citizen doesn't stop, an ordinary citizen is not expected to. If they do, they are going beyond their duty, and they are serving the nation, serving the community. That's great.

But, a person who is a maintainer of the law, a security in charge, a security person, they have to act, that's their duty, that's what they are paid for, that's what is expected from them. So, if they don't do it, then that is also wrong. So, wrongdoing is not just the wrong that we do, but also the right that we don't do.

In the Dhruv Maharaj past time, it was Suruchi who actually did the wrong. She pushed Dhruva from the lap of his father, Uttanapad. So, she did the wrong.

Now, Uttanapad did not do anything. But, in not doing anything, he did a wrong. Because, his son expected his support, his son expected his protection.

And, in general, we all have different expectations from different people. So, the Pandavas understood, and everybody understood, the Pandavas and Kauravas would be natural rivals. They are of the same generation, more or less of the same age.

So, rivalry, and sometimes the rivalry can become escalated, that is natural. But, Dhritarashtra was supposed to be like a father figure. He was expected to be above this.

So, Duryodhana doing some wrong things, that is not right, but it is understandable, it is expected. They are rivals. But, Dhritarashtra consenting to that, Dhritarashtra never objecting to that, that is wrong.

So, the Pandavas treated Dhritarashtra like a father figure, but Dhritarashtra never treated them like sons. So, he became, because of his attachment to Duryodhana, he became desensitised. So, it all started, I will talk about Duryodhana's envy, and how it started when we talk about Duryodhana later.

But here, let's focus on this theme, that inner screen metaphor, that based on our attachments, we, our consciousnesses goes towards certain things, and other things, we become dead into them. We become blind into them. So, in the case of Dhritarashtra, the first direct nefarious plan that was made, was that, the Pandavas came to the kingdom.

This, because they were so courteous, polite, they started winning the hearts of the courtiers and the citizens. And Duryodhana started becoming more and more envious. So, then, Duryodhana said, send the Pandavas away.

He said, as long as the Pandavas are there, then, whatever I do, I cannot attract people. It's like, suppose there is a cricket team, in which one player is a superstar, the other player is also a star, but as long as the superstar is there, nobody pays attention to the star. So, if the superstar is not playing, then, the star, you know, okay, he also plays nicely.

He's doing well. He's taking our team to victory. So, the Pandavas had become like superstars.

So, he said, get them out. So, he said, but how can you send them? He said, no, you can send them to Varnavartha. He said, so that was, in that time, there were kingdoms, and in the kingdom, there were provinces.

So, some kingdoms, so, some provinces, they had their own administration, and the Pandavas would occasionally go, or the Kurus would occasionally visit there. Some, they would directly administer. Like, say, the capital city, or the main state, the government would directly administer, and other, there may be different states who administer.

So, he said, that in Varnavartha, there's going to be a big festival, and he sent the Pandavas there, and he says, Dhritarashtra said that, if they go there, how can I send them there just like that? They'll become suspicious of sending them away, and even if they go there, they'll come back. Dhritarashtra said, no, if they go there, they don't need to ever come back. And, he did not speak anything.

Now, Dhritarashtra was born in a Kshatriya dynasty, and Kshatriyas, they are, they live in an atmosphere of political intrigue. Now, where there is power, then, there are always the possibility of conspiracy, because of which someone may try to grab power. So, when Dhritarashtra said this, Dhritarashtra understood it.

The Pandavas may never come back. He didn't ever come back. That means, he understood the plan afoot to kill the Pandavas.

So, he did not try to stop Dhritarashtra. He just remained silent. And, not only did he remain silent, but, going beyond that, he participated in this.

He said, okay, for the next few days, I will ask some of the courtiers to speak in praise of the festival in Varanasi. And, as they keep speaking in praise, the Pandavas' curiosity will be aroused. And, once the curiosity is aroused, then, when I tell them to go, they will actually go.

So, Prabhupada writes in one purport that, we are meant to use our intelligence to control our enjoying mentality. But, our problem is, we are habituated to enjoying intelligently. That means, enjoying intelligently means, that we use our intelligence to find out how I can enjoy and how I can get away with it.

So, I saw one cartoon as the traffic cop had caught a person for speeding. He says, did you not see the speed limit? He said, I saw the speed limit. I just did not see you.

So, the idea is that, doing the wrong thing is not the problem. Getting caught while doing the wrong thing is the problem. So, if I can be clever enough to do the wrong and get away with it, then, there is no problem.

So, in this case, the intelligence gets used to do the wrong in such a way that it is covered up. So, Dhritarashtra participated in the conspiracy. He did not scheme to directly set the Pandavas to fire.

But, he participated in it. There is practically no occasion where Dhritarashtra put his foot down out of any concern for the Pandavas. So, how can it be that a person, even if there is an extended family, they are nephews.

They are his own. They are in a sense his own blood. His brother's blood, his own blood.

So, how can somebody get so desensitised? There is a plan to kill them. And, he goes along with that plan. So, exactly what was planned happened.

They glorified the Varanavat ceremony for some time. The festival that was going to be held. And then, he says, as representatives of our kingdom, of the Kurus, you can go, Pandavas can go there.

Now, this is a very enjoyable festival. You can go and enjoy. Now, Yudhishthir was very virtuous.

But, at the same time, he was not naive. Yudhishthir immediately got the question, if it is so enjoyable, then why is Duryodhana not being settled? Isn't it? So, he knew something must be fishy over here. Therefore, what he did was, but still, he said, Yudhishthir, he has his intelligence.

In traditional culture, generally the elders are to be obeyed. And, sometimes the elders may tell us to do something wrong. So, then, how to respond to that, that is a difficult situation.

But, in this case, he felt that, okay, if they want us to go, let me go. But, Vidura warned them. And, I am not going to go into the full story here.

I am going to focus on Dhritarashtra's character. So, I will talk two incidents in this session, and then we will talk two incidents in the next session. Then, I will again talk about Dhritarashtra a little bit more.

But, at this point, he consented to a scheme to kill his own nephews. Then, the Pandavas went to the forest. They survived.

They went to the Varanavar. They survived the fire. And, eventually, they got the hand of Draupadi.

Now, by getting the hand of Draupadi, they became allied with a very powerful kingdom. At that time, there were two main kingdoms. There was the Panchala kingdom and the Kuru kingdom.

Krishna was, of course, there in Dwaraka. But, Krishna did not, the Dwarkavasis did not focus so much on the local conflict issues so much. So, the two main kingdoms were Panchala and Kuru.

So, they were rivals, but at the same time, they were friends also. So, now, once the Pandavas were allied with Draupadi, then he knew, Dhritarashtra knew that the Pandavas would, even the Pandavas would not demand their rights. Drupada would demand the Pandavas' rights.

And, Drupada could not be rejected. Drupada is the same generation as Dhritarashtra and Drupada is also as powerful, nearly as powerful as the Pandavas. Now, along with this, also, when the Varnavat, the House of Lakh was burnt, at that time, the people in general already had become suspicious.

Why were the Pandavas sent away? And, they were sent away and they were burnt. So, they started blaming the royal family for this. And, when it was discovered that, okay, the Pandavas had married Draupadi, then Bhishma came to Dhritarashtra and Bhishma said, O king, Dhritarashtra had become temporarily the caretaker king after Pandu had abdicated the throne.

So, he said, O king, ever since the Pandavas have been burnt, the Pandavas are reputed to be burnt in the forest, in the fire, citizens are criticising us. They are blaming us for having killed Pandu's sons. I feel so ashamed that I cannot go out in public to show my face.

It is because of great fortune that the Pandavas are still alive. Now, O king, it is an opportunity for you to win back the trust of the Pandavas, to redeem the good name of the Kuru king. Call back the Pandavas and give them half of the kingdom.

Now, Dhritarashtra thought about this. He would have allowed nothing more than for his son to have the whole kingdom. Actually, the question was, his son deserved even half of the kingdom.

But now it is understood, half kingdom at least he can keep. But he just didn't want to get that kingdom at all. But then he realised what Bhishma was saying was true.

So, when he called back the Pandavas, he called them back not out of any affection. Not that, it's like, oh, we thought you had died, you are alive. Oh, you are still alive? It was that attitude.

So, he called them back and he pretended to be affectionate to them. But there is the letter of the law and there is the spirit of the law. So, in the letter of the law, okay, divide the kingdom into two.

He called the Pandavas back and he said, it's fortunate that you have won the hand of Draupadi. And now, it's fortunate that you have survived the forest. And I give you half the kingdom.

But half the kingdom that he gave was Khandava. The Khandava was a complete forested area. There was nothing over there.

It's like, suppose I have a parent and they have two children. And they have one bread. Half of the bread is rotten, half of the bread is good.

And you divide the bread into half. I'm giving both of you half. But one child, they give the fresh bread and the other half, they give the rotten bread.

Or if a patriarch in a family has two companies and one is flourishing and the other is almost bankrupt. He says, let's divide. You'll get one company, you'll get one company.

In terms of letter, both of them are given equal. But in terms of actuality, it's not at all equal at all. So, although he in word agreed to Bhishma's suggestion, in letter he agreed, but in spirit he didn't agree.

Somehow, the Pandavas worked in such a way that by Krishna's arrangement, Khandava Prastha became Indra Prastha. So, here also we see before that, this sense of fairness was no longer there. He was doing this for external show.

To show the king, I am fair. But actually, he was he had no affection left for the Pandavas. Sometimes some people say that if we become too attached, or if we become too detached, if we become too renounced, then we'll become hard-hearted, we'll become uncaring of our loved ones.

Yes, it is possible that sometimes detachment may lead to hard-heartedness. But a far more likely probability is that attachment will lead to hard-heartedness. When we become attached to something, all our emotions get concentrated in that one thing.

And then we become desensitised to everything else. So, attachment of Dhritarashtra to his son was such that he became desensitised and hard-hearted to his nephews. that's why it is more often than not attachment that will make us hard-hearted to everything apart from the object of attachment.

And probably his worst moment, Dhritarashtra's worst moment when he acted in the most nefariously by not acting was in the Kuru assembly, was in the gambling match. The Kauravas had tried various ways to try to destroy the Pandavas. But when that didn't work, they decided that we will conspire and seize the kingdom.

So, when Dhritarashtra sent Vidura to call the Pandavas for a gambling match. At that time, Vidura himself vehemently protested. He says, if the Pandavas and Kauravas gamble, already there are tensions between them.

If they gamble, they will surely fight. Yudhishthira also said, why should we gamble? He was very reluctant to gamble. And even when the gambling match actually took place, Dhritarashtra remained silent when the match was rigged.

The match was rigged because the normal rule of gambling is that whoever is gambling, they stake the money and they play, they roll the dice. It's like, say, two kids, they have some quarrel and they say, okay, let's have a boxing match. And the two kids come for boxing and when the actual boxing match starts, one kid instead of being there, brings Mike Tyson over.

He's going to fight on behalf of him. Now, that's completely unfair. The fight is between the two of them.

So, Shakuni was a gamester. He was, you could say, a professional gambler. So, now, Duryodhana said that, you know, I'll put the money, because Shakuni was not that wealthy.

The Pandavas and Kauravas were phenomenally wealthy. He said, I will stake the money and he will roll the dice. So, Yudhishthira said, that is against the rules of gambling.

But, he looked at Dhritharashtra and Dhritharashtra remained silent. And Duryodhana simply jeered the Dhritharashtra and said, if you are afraid to gamble, then there's no need to gamble. Now, for a Kshatriya to be accused of being afraid of something, that is an unbearable slur.

And he goaded him to fight. And then, as this fight went on and on, actually, the Pandavas lost everything. And then, Yudhishthira, throughout all, he was thinking, he was thinking that, I have my brothers, I have my wife, I have to take care of them.

I have lost everything. Somehow, I have to get it back. And he's taking one more thing, thinking that I'll get it all back.

And eventually, he staked Draupadi. And when Draupadi was lost, I'll talk about the psychology, which led to Draupadi being disrobed. What was the thinking of Duryodhana and Karna? I'll talk about it later.

And the ethics of this issue, we'll also talk in the next session. But here, when Draupadi was dragged into the assembly, and at that time, the attempt was made to dishonour her publicly by disrobing her. This was outrageous.

And for Dhritharashtra to remain silent at this time was unconscionable. Bhishma vehemently opposed it. But Dhritharashtra remained silent.

And even after Krishna miraculously intervened and protected Draupadi's chastity, still, Duryodhana did not give up his animosity. He said, somehow something happened, this plan didn't work, he said that Draupadi is our maid, now take her to our rooms and she will have to clean our rooms now. And Dushasan started dragging her there.

At that time, Vidura spoke to Dhritharashtra. And he told, O king, I can see unbearable inauspiciousness happening everywhere. And then he told him, at that time, all the kings would have their own fire.

Small fire, which is like a sacrificial fire, and they would keep oblations in that, that was considered to be auspicious. Like, say, some of us may have some incense sticks, which we keep burning in the house. Like that, they would have a sacrificial fire.

And Vidura told Dhritharashtra that this sacrificial fire, which you have kept lit throughout your life, that has got extinguished. When Dhritharashtra heard it, he became alarmed. He became alarmed and he said, what is this? Things have gone too far.

And then he tried to make up. He tried to make up, and what did he say? He said, actually, I had called this gambling match just to test your gambling skills. Well, if Dhritharashtra was not playing, how would the gambling skills be tested at all? Isn't it? It is like, he just speaks one lie after another, and then tries to cover up.

But he says, anyway, he says, O Draupadi, you have stuck to dharma, although you have been severely tested. You are glorious. Please ask for some benedictions.

And then Draupadi says that, you know, release Yudhisthira from slavery. And he says, yes, ask for something more. He says that, release all my husbands with their weapons.

I don't want anything more, because with their weapons, they can regain everything else. So, then he said, ask for something more. He says, no.

Now, a Kshatriya woman is said, it is said in ancient tradition that a Kshatriya woman should never ask for more than two benedictions. So, this is what I will ask for. He says, I am not satisfied.

I will give you everything back. And actually, everything the Pandavas had lost, Dhritharashtra gave it back. This was his one act of, you could say, virtue.

But it was not impelled by virtue, it was impelled by fear. But still, what happens, there is knowledge, which is like light. And there is knowledge, which is like lightning.

Lightning illuminates for a few moments, but as soon as lightning ends, everything becomes dark. So, for Dhritharashtra, this moment of virtue was like a lightning. It was there for a few moments, but after that, when the Pandavas went back with their kingdom, Dhritharashtra went to Shakuni and said, you know, the old man has spoiled everything.

We worked so hard. Shakuni told him, the Pandavas have become our enemies now. We have to go back.

So then, Dhritharashtra went to Dhritharashtra and said, Oh father, what have you done? The Pandavas have taken vows to kill all of us. You think they will forget the insults that have been done to their wives just because you have given the kingdom back? He said, they will not rest in peace unless they kill us. Bhima had taken a vow that I will break Duryodhana's thigh.

He had taken a vow that I will break Duryodhana's arm. So, all those fears were reminded. Now again, his moral sense, his ethical sense shall be activated at some point and again become obscured because of his attachment to Duryodhana.

Duryodhana is in danger. Duryodhana may be killed by Bhima. What to do? He says, call the Pandavas back.

Call the Pandavas back and after calling the Pandavas back, let us ask them for another gambling match. So now, what, another gambling match? This is the only way. With this gambling match, we can we can save ourselves.

And then, the Pandavas had gone he called them back for the gambling match. And this gambling match, the stakes were that whoever loses, will go to the forest. And predictably, Yudhishthira lost.

So, he allowed a terrible bad thing to happen. He undid it but he could not undo it because he re-did the whole thing. That is, the nature of attachment.

Even if sometimes our sense of right or wrong dawns for sometime but the attachment is so great that sense gets overshadowed. Sometimes, if somebody is very attached some people are alcoholic. When they are sober, they say, I have done terrible things.

I am going to give up this alcohol now. I have caused so much trouble to my family. I have done this, I have done that.

I am going to give it up. But, if that attachment to alcohol is so strong, after sometime, forget it. I won't do this.

Whatever it is. So, the attachment is something which will keep propositioning us. And, saying no one time is not enough.

One has to say no repeatedly. But, and, if that no is said because of some external pressure, the no will not last. If the no is said because of some internal determination, that is alone when it will last.

So, in his case, he acted against Duryodhana, Duryodhana's plan, when he gave the Pandavas their kingdom back. But, that was simply out of fear. The sacrificial fire has stopped.

What inauspiciousness will happen? Let me give the Pandavas their kingdom back. But then, when he was told, Oh, the Pandavas may kill your son. Kill Duryodhana.

They will take revenge. Then, again, what happened was, Duryodhana just resurfaced. Duryodhana's protection, Duryodhana's well-being.

And, he just gave up his moral sense completely. So, all the wrong he had done, he undid it. But, he redid it again.

So, if there is a change to happen, a change always has to happen inside out. Change cannot be outside in. We will talk about how in the next session, about how Dhritarashtra eventually changed.

Now, outside in means what? From outside some stimulus may come. And, we all need some outside stimulus. But, we cannot be dependent on the outside stimulus.

The outside stimulus has to be internalised. Only when it is internalised, then, we will be able to sustain the change. If the outside stimulus is the only stimulus, then, as soon as some other outside stimulus comes, we will be pressured by that.

So, we may all be inspired to change by something external, which is good. We all need inspiration. But, that inspiration has to be eventually internalised.

There is inspiration and there is dedication. in inspiration, generally, the feelings come before the actions. I feel like doing this.

Feelings come before the actions. That is inspiration. But, in dedication, the actions come before the feeling.

When I am dedicated to doing something, whether I feel like it or I don't feel like it, I am going to do it. So, in the case of Dhritarashtra, it was an external impetus. So, that made him do that for one moment, but not for long.

Because, he never internalised any concern for the Pandavas. He never internalised a sense of morality or fairness. And, that's how he again had the Pandavas call for a gambling match and the disaster happened there.

That was the time when, you could say, more or less, the Kauravas' fate was sealed. Actually, the Kauravas' fate was sealed when they tried to dishonour Draupadi itself. But, still, Dhritarashtra tried to undo it.

But, again, he did the same thing. Bhagavatam says, an elephant may go and bathe in a river, but then the elephant comes out and sprinkles dirt on its own body. So, similarly, if we are attached, we may give up some wrongdoing, but again, we do it again.

Because, we give up simply because of some external impetus, not because of internal intention. So, how that intention is internalised in Dhritarashtra's case and how we may be able to internalise in our situation, we will discuss in our next session. I will summarise here and we can have some questions.

So, I talked about how Dhritarashtra and in this, I talked about how wrongdoing is not just the wrong that we do, it is also the right that we don't do. And Dhritarashtra, he was so attached to Duryodhana that although right from birth, Dhritarashtra, Duryodhana was inauspicious. He could have had 99 sons, but he wanted this one son.

And because of that, he brought disaster on the whole Kuru dynasty. So, when Duryodhana made, although he was meant to be like a father figure, but the attachment to Duryodhana so filled his mind that it left no space for concern for the Pandavas. Or to speak of parental concern, it is not even human concern.

Let them be killed. And he remained silent. So, when Kauravas made a plan, Duryodhana made a plan to burn the Pandavas alive, he just went along with it.

And even when he gave the Pandavas the kingdom back, half of the kingdom, he did it in the letter but not in spirit. That's why he gave them a completely barren part of the kingdom. And eventually, even when he did call, give the gambling match, he allowed the Pandavas, he gave the Pandavas back what they had lost, but that was also just because of the fear of inauspiciousness.

When the fear of Duryodhana came in, then, Duryodhana's well-being, again, he went back and undid the whole thing. So, when we become attached to something or someone, that object of attachment gets power to control us. And then, even if we do the right thing, we'll do it only as long as it doesn't threaten the object of attachment.

And, even our knowledge that we get, even the resolutions that we make, they'll only be temporary. Like light, not light, but like lightning. So, if we are to change, then, sometimes, external pressure may begin the process of changing, giving up attachment.

But, unless we internalise, make it our own intention, it will not be sustained. So, that applies not just to giving up something wrong, but taking up something right. So, inspiration is when we feel like I should do it.

And the feelings come, and the actions follow thereafter. Feelings come first, actions follow thereafter. But, dedication means even if the feeling is not there, first the action will be there, and then the feeling will come eventually.

So, Yatrastra demonstrates how attachment can completely desensitise a person so that they become brutally inhuman towards others, or at least they allow inhuman actions towards others to go on. And how he changed, we'll discuss in our next session. So, any questions? Either about this session or about the previous session? I think you can speak.

It's not a very big… Mic can come, but even if the mic doesn't come, I'll repeat the question. Okay. In devotional service, how can inspiration and dedication help us? In general, it is that we all have to… We all need inspiration.

That means, we all have to find out maybe particular activities in bhakti which we can also connect with at an emotional level, which we like. Say, we like to hear the classes of a particular devotee, or we like to read a particular book. We worship the deities, but we may like a particular dress of the deities.

We may like particular deities. And that means, when we say we like, it simply means that our thoughts and our emotions flow in that direction very easily. When we like something, we don't have to put an effort to do it.

I like it, I will naturally do it. So, even bhakti, if we consider bhakti to be like a big circle, there'll be some activities in bhakti which we like to do. And we need to find those out.

And we do them regularly so that we have that… our emotions are also working for us within bhakti. But at the same time, we cannot do only those activities. We also have to do other things.

So, the other thing that we need to do, at that time, we may not feel like doing it. Some of us may like kirtans, but we may not like japa. Some of us may like katha, but we may not like philosophy.

Some of us may like deity worship, but we may not like some other service. But then we have to see, if this is also a part of my bhakti, then I should be ready to do it. And when there are things which we don't like to do, or we don't like in a sense, not that we dislike them, but we just don't like them so much, then we need dedication at that time.

So, in general in our life, beyond bhakti also, there are some things which we like to do and some things which we don't like to do. So, if we do only the things which we like to do, we will not be responsible. Because sometimes responsibility requires us to do things which we don't like.

But at the same time, if we have too many things which we don't like to do, then we will just feel burdened. Our emotions will be constantly working against us, they will be tormenting us and we will feel choked. So, we need to get strength from certain activities which we like to do and then use that strength to do the activities that we don't like to do.

So, if we manage this balance, then we will be able to persevere. And over a period of… So, we find out what is it that inspires me. And at one level, we can be looking for inspiration.

Okay, this really inspires me, I want to do this. So, if we like a particular dress of the deities and we keep those pictures in our phone, we look at those deities, pray to those deities, our emotions, our bhav, bhakti bhav naturally comes when we look at those deities dressed in that way or decorated in that way or those particular deities. That's nice.

But that doesn't mean if there are other deities, we will not even look at them. We will not go to them. We will.

We will offer our respects, we will offer our worship. So, we need inspiration, but we also need dedication. And the balance of both will bring steadiness in our bhakti.

We can't rely only on dedication. But we can't rely only on inspiration there. Because our feelings are not always reliable.

There is a famous author, he was asked, do you write only when you are inspired or do you write every day? So, he said, I write only when I am inspired and I make sure that I am inspired every morning at 9 o'clock. So, what he meant is that we can't just rely on inspiration arbitrarily. We have a schedule, start writing and the author starts writing and sometimes ideas come, sometimes ideas don't come.

But gradually, keep writing, one gets into the flow sooner or later. But if one doesn't write at all, one will not be a writer at all. So, they say that if you just keep waiting for inspiration, I am a writer, so I write a little bit of writing.

If you keep waiting for inspiration, you are not a writer, you are a waiter. Similarly, whatever activity which we know we need to do in life, we can't be simply waiters. We have to start doing it.

Any other questions? Yes, please. So, the question is that we see that Prabhupada also talks about Dhritarashtra's attachment and he also talks about Arjuna being soft hearted. Now, you will see that in the first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Prabhupada speaks about Arjuna quite positive.

He is so soft hearted, he is so thoughtful, he is thinking before acting, he is very fit for enlightenment. And in the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Prabhupada starts saying that he is in tears. Tears are a sign of ignorance, they are a sign of material attachment.

And everybody in this material world is suffering from skin disease. And we have to give up the skin disease. So, it's almost like a complete change of tone.

So, the idea is Acharya has explained that the first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita is meant to convey how Arjuna is fit for enlightenment. The first chapter demonstrates Arjuna's qualification for enlightenment. That he is a person who is thoughtful.

Although his thoughts may not be going in the right direction at that time. He may be giving wrong reasons but at least he is considering the consequences of his actions before acting. So, in that sense, it is considered to be he is thoughtful and thus he is ready for enlightenment.

But in the second chapter, once the process of enlightenment begins, you say, okay, your current understanding is wrong. It's just like before a student enters a school. I have said there is an Ivy League or top university somewhere.

Then, there are exams. The student clears the exams. Oh, you are qualified to come to the school.

But then, once the student comes to that school, the student is going to start at the bottom rank in that school. Because the student just entered into that school. So, then you say, okay, you don't think you know too much.

I will start from the basics. Krishna is starting from the basics like that for Arjuna. So, when we look at great characters such as the Pandavas or the associates of the Lord, we don't have to go too much into who is right and who is wrong.

We focus more on what is to be learned. Sometimes, soft-heartedness can also be a weakness if that makes us too sentimental. But if soft-heartedness helps us to be sensitive to others, it's one thing to have sentiments, which is good.

It's another thing to be sentimental. To be sentimental means to be driven by sentiments alone. To have sentiments means to know that, okay, people also have emotions and I have to consider their emotions.

I also have emotions. I have to consider my emotions. So, to not consider emotions is wrong.

Because we are all emotional creatures. But to consider only emotions and nothing else, that is also wrong. Say a doctor is going to do surgery.

The patient is going to have some pain. The small child is going to be afraid, be fearful, be in pain. But the doctor has to be aware of that.

And the doctor may speak some words to pacify the child, to comfort the child, maybe give some toffees, give some toys. Make sure that the child feels good. This doctor is a nice person.

So, the doctor has to consider the feelings of the child and allay those feelings as much as possible. But at the same time, the doctor cannot say, the child is so scared, I will not do the surgery. How can I cause pain to the child? If the surgery is required, it has to be done.

But just because the surgery has to be done, that doesn't mean the doctor doesn't care about the feelings at all. So, even when surgery is to be done, doctors usually give anaesthesia, give some pain medicine after the surgery. So, they consider the effect on the patient also.

So, that way, we should be soft hearted so that we are aware of the emotional side of the situation. But we should not be so soft hearted as to be sentimental. That means to be driven only by the emotions.

Does that answer your question? Yes. To be completely unemotional is not good and to be only emotional is also not good. Any other questions or comments? Yes.

In the last session, the soul has essentially left you. Is the soul dormant right now? Who sanctions the free will? Actually, the soul is dormant in one particular sense. And that is, the soul is not spiritually active.

I give the example of the video game. A child watching a video playing a video game or watching a horror movie. The child's consciousness is completely caught in whatever is going on on that screen.

And the child is not aware of anything else. Now, this does not mean that the child is not doing anything. The child is clicking this button.

Let this car go this way. Let this weapon go this way. Let this go here.

Let this go there. The child is active in the video game. But the child is not active in the physical world.

So, like that, the soul from the spiritual perspective is inactive. But, within this world of body and mind, the soul is active. So, without the soul accepting the option, the mind may propose, but it is the soul who accepts the proposal.

So, the mind, we could say, is the generator of the ideas. The intelligence is the evaluator of ideas. But it is the soul that is the selector.

So, the mind will say, why not do this? Why not eat this? Why not watch this? Why not go here? The intelligence will say, this is too expensive. I don't have time for this. But sometimes the intelligence will say, let's go there.

The intelligence, that means the mind's voice is one thing, intelligence voice is another thing, but it is the soul who chooses what to hear. That's why the soul is vital. And without the soul, nothing will happen.

But the soul, I wouldn't say the soul is a sanctioner. The sanctioning is the role of the super-soul. The soul is the selector.

The soul gives the final decision. This is what I want to do, this is what I don't want to do. Now, whether the soul will be able to do it or not, even if somebody decides, I want to drink, the desire comes within, why not drink? The intelligence says, no, no, no, one drink will mean one too many.

We'll relapse. No, no, it'll be only one. I'm going to drink now.

Okay, let's drink. So, the mind said, let's drink. The intelligence said, no.

The soul said, let's drink. Now, they may go along and when they go along at that time, there may be a traffic jam and they may not get to the bar. They may not be able to drink.

So, whether, even if the soul desires to do something, decides to do something, whether the soul is able to do that or not, that depends on many other factors. And those factors are sanctioned by the super-soul. So, the super-soul is the sanctioner, the soul is the selector.

Okay? Thank you. Yes? Okay. So, if we pray very sincerely to Krishna that we become freed from some conditionings, so will he help? See, Krishna certainly listens to our prayer and Krishna certainly helps.

But exactly how he helps, that will vary. Because, if we look at it from a more psychological perspective, the mind is a reality of its own. The body is a reality of its own.

So, if I have a fracture, I pray to Krishna, Krishna, please heal this fracture. Will Krishna do that? In principle, Krishna can do anything. In practise, a devotee doesn't demand from Krishna to perform some miracles for him.

The normal way is, if you've got a fracture, do an operation or dredge the arm and let the body heal on its own. So, we don't expect Krishna to interfere with the process of nature. Similarly, with respect to our conditionings, just as the fracture is a physical reality, the impressions on the mind are also a reality, although subtle reality.

So, now, will they change automatically by the practise of bhakti or by a prayer to Krishna? It depends. Many devotees have the experience that they start chanting Hare Krishna and many of the bad habits fall away. It does happen.

At one level, it is the potency of the chanting. It is the potency of Krishna bhakti. But at another level, it could be some other thing also.

It means, rather than saying it is another thing, for some people, some other things may be going on. I know a devotee who has been practising bhakti for 25 years. I just can't give up smoking.

He said, now, is it that chanting is not working? Can we really say that the devotee is not sincere in chanting? Well, it is very difficult to say who is sincere and who is not sincere. We can't go into anyone's heart to make a statement about anyone's sincerity. But what we can say is that all of us have certain habits and those habits serve certain needs.

Let's consider, say, drinking. Now, some people are social drinkers. It is not that they themselves are very fond of drinking.

It is just that they feel that drinking is essential to belong to the social group I am in. Everybody else drinks and I am the odd person out. So, I drink.

But then, if their social circle changes, their drinking stops. Because for them, drinking was not a need of theirs. It was just a social, circumstantial need.

But, say, for somebody, drinking is their escape away from distress or stress. As soon as they feel stressed or distressed, they drink and feel good. Now, if they come to bhakti, at that time, in bhakti also, there is stress.

Sometimes, in bhakti also, there is distress. Now, unless they find a healthier way to deal with that stress or distress, they find an escape way, say, within bhakti. Not exactly an escape way.

It is a way to gain relief. Maybe through intense chanting, through absorption, kirtan, or whatever it is. Unless they find a healthier way to serve that need, the need is relief.

And that need is a healthy need. It is a normal, human need. So, often, our bad habits, our cravings are simply unhealthy expressions of healthy needs.

They are unhealthy expressions. Drinking is an unhealthy activity. But, a healthy need is a need for relief.

It is a normal, human need. So, now, when that unhealthy expression is artificially curbed by willpower, don't do it. But, the healthy need is there and unless that need is addressed, that unhealthy expression will come back again.

Sometimes, when a habit is very deep-rooted within us, we have to check, what need of mine is this habit serving? And, how can I serve that need in a healthier way? So, sometimes, when we pray to Krishna, Krishna says, please free me from this conditioning. Yes, that prayer is good, but if it doesn't seem to be working, and we are still falling prey to the conditioning, that doesn't mean that Krishna is not helping. Krishna may help us by giving us the intelligence to understand, to understand ourselves better through that habit.

Okay, what is my need? So, if we go deeper and prospect and understand our need, and then we address that need in a healthy way, the intelligence to address that need in a healthy way, that is also coming from Krishna. And, once we use that gift of Krishna, then the gift that we want, freedom from that habit, freedom from that conditioning, that will come. Sometimes, Krishna may not give us, say, I am very hungry, and I want food.

Now, somebody may not give me food, somebody may give me the ingredients. And then, I said, I want a chapati, I have given you flour, but I didn't get chapati. You got a flour, you make the chapati now.

So, sometimes, we ask for chapati, but Krishna may give us flour. That means, we ask Krishna, please free me from this conditioning. But, Krishna may give us the intelligence to understand what is happening with us, why is this conditioning there for us.

And, that is like giving the flour. So, then we have to use our intelligence to cook with the flour and make the chapati. So, we have to use the intelligence to serve our need in a healthy way.

And, once we do that, then, we may, we will become free from that habit. Or, sometimes, it may be that, Krishna may allow that conditioning to go on for some time, because, through that, we may learn humility. We may think that, even when we are practising bhakti, we may think, you know, if I apply my willpower, whatever I decide, I can do it.

I have this conditioning, I have now decided, I am going to give it up. So, bhakti is very subtle, because, sometimes, we may give up some conditioning, but that may make us proud. And, in a sense, if we consider, there is the war, we could say, there is the battle against temptation.

And, there is the war for devotion. The battle against temptation is one battle within the bigger war for devotion. Our purpose is not just to give up the bad things, become free from temptations, give up bad habits.

Our purpose, ultimately, is to love Krishna. So, if I am fighting a particular battle against temptation, you know, I want to give this up. I may win that battle, but, if that makes me proud, I think, I am so self-controlled, I have such willpower, then, basically, the implication is, why do I need Krishna? Then, I am losing in the war for devotion.

If somebody decides, I am going to fast nirjal or ekadashi, great determination, they fast. But then, while fasting, they go to the kitchen and see, who is eating what? This person is so attached. This person sends gratifier.

This person is glutton. Then, their body is fasting, but their ego is feasting. Laughter So, if that is happening, then, they may win the battle against temptation by succeeding in the fast.

But they will lose the war for devotion because they have not gone closer to Krishna by that. So, sometimes, if the conditioning stays on and doesn't go away, Krishna may want us to learn humility through this. I am not that self-controlled a person.

So, then, we take a humble position and try to keep practising bhakti with that conditioning. No conditioning can stop us from practising bhakti. In bhakti, we may be unqualified, but we are never disqualified.

We may be unqualified. I have fallen like this, I have fallen like that, I have this conditioning, I have that conditioning. But Krishna never says because you have conditioning, you can't practise bhakti.

Whatever be our situation, we can still keep practising bhakti. So, then, having the humility to accept, I can't give up this conditioning right now. Despite my efforts, it is still there.

But even if I can't give it up, I will keep practising bhakti. So, that requires humility. Because sometimes, we may practise bhakti and we may want to have a get some prestige in a devotional circle through the practise of bhakti.

Just see how renounced I am. Just see how self-controlled I am. We may not get that prestige, but still we may get the devotion if we can cultivate the humility.

So, yes, Krishna does help us when we pray to him, but his help may come in various ways. And that's why we have to be open to see in what way Krishna is helping us. So, thank you very much.

If you have any other questions, we will continue in our future sessions. So, Krishna Prabhupada Ki Jai. Hare Krishna.

Thank you.