Does seeking forgiveness for offending others free us from bad karma?
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
Hare Krishna. So today morning we're discussing on this pastime of Shiva's being offended by Daksha and they're facing the consequences. So Brahmaji is now guiding how to deal with the situation.
So I'll speak today on the topic of, does seeking forgiveness free us from karma? Or is it on getting forgiveness we become free from karma? So I was doing a seminar on forgiveness and justice in London and at that time this question came up and we had quite a interesting discussion. So I'll focus on three main points. First is that the principle of karma is an extension of the standard system of justice.
The second point will be that the important thing in karma is to understand its purpose rather than getting caught in its details. And last is understanding of karma should enhance our normal dealings, enhance our relationships, and should improve the way we connect with each other, not detract from that. So let's look at the first point.
Is it that, say, when we hurt someone, when we speak something, there are three possibilities. When we do something with the intention of hurting someone, second is that we do something where we are so caught in our own emotions that we don't even notice that somebody else is getting hurt by it. And then we realize, oh I hurt this person, I didn't want to do that.
And the third is that where we are angry with the person and we want them to feel pain but the magnitude of what we speak or do exceeds what we intended. And then we feel apologetic. So now if we consider various scenarios like this, say, if somebody hurt someone else and then we come to know I hurt that person.
So then what do we do? We try to, if we are cultured human beings, we try to seek forgiveness. Sometimes we seek forgiveness because we understand the action is wrong. And sometimes we seek forgiveness because the consequences of that action are troubling us.
It is that, not that if the action were wrong, okay, if I can get away with it, there's no problem. But if the consequences start troubling me, then I seek forgiveness. So if we see here in this particular situation, there is the consequences that are troubling people.
The devatas, they found that, devatas and the rishis, their whole sacrifice was devastated by the followers of Shiva. And Daksha had to pay an especially heavy price because he was the prime offender. But when Shiva's anger has thus been invoked and they're all suffering, so they've realized the gravity of what has happened.
So many times we don't realize that we have done something wrong or the magnitude of what we have done wrong till the consequences hit us. And it's only when the consequences hit, oh, I should not have done like this. And that time we try to make some change.
We try to avoid the consequences, maybe by seeking forgiveness. So now if we think about karma, what is the principle of karma? The principle of karma essentially is that there is a cause-effect correlation and we have a normal system of justice in the world. Say, if a person does something wrong, they will be punished for that.
And karma essentially is an extension of the system of justice beyond this birth. So the reactions that we may get right now, maybe for something coming from our previous lives and the actions that we may do right now, the reactions to them may come in a future life. So it extends beyond this.
Say, if somebody is going to a supermarket regularly and buying things on credit and if they have a reasonably good credit balance, then they may buy at the end of a month just some small thing which is just a dollar or so. And then they get the bill, which is $10,000. Hey, what happened? I just bought for $1, why are you giving me a bill of $10,000? So when the bill has come, the bill has come not just for what you bought just now.
If it's a credit system, whatever you bought throughout the month or whatever is the credit period, you get the bill for all of that. So sometimes like that, when we do karma or we get karma, there is a credit system over there. So what that person has bought right now, the bill for that is also there.
But when there is a credit system, the credit system extends that beyond that particular transaction. So if somebody on the other hand has got a credit saving, say in America if you buy a flight and then somehow you are not able to go for the flight, if you tell in advance, they don't give the money back usually, but they keep it as credit ratings for you. So in future if you want to buy a flight, the flight costs $300.
You just pay $50 and from the previous flight $250 will get added. So you pay $50 but you get a ticket worth $300. So similarly sometimes we do a small good and we get a big result.
And we may think, hey I am such a good person, I got such a good result. But the good result was not just because of what we did at that time. So either way, now we did do some good at that time.
We all have this experience sometimes. We do some small good and we get a lot of praise. Of course what we remember is sometimes we do a small mistake and we get a lot of criticism.
And that is what we remember most of the time. But either way, this, just like the credit system, is basically an extension of the normal payment system. It is not a distortion or subversion.
It is not completely unrelated to the normal payment system. So similarly, if we consider the system of karma, it is an extension of the normal system of justice. So in normal dealings, if we hurt someone, most of us, if we live in a little cultured societies, we don't go about doing physical aggression.
Most of the time the aggression that we have is verbal aggression. Where we speak or do certain things, which we are not literally going and beating someone, but our words fall like sticks on their hearts. Or sometimes our actions of neglect or actions of what are seen as partiality or bias, they go off and hurt others.
So at such times, if we consider karma as an extension of the normal system of justice, then in the normal system of justice, if we spoke something wrong to someone, and then if we seek forgiveness, then is it that that account will get settled? It is basically, if we broadly understand the principle of karma, the principle of karma is that we are meant to be accountable for our actions. And we take responsibility for our actions. If we do good, if we do bad, if we take responsibility for those actions, then that is the essential purpose of karma.
Sometimes, if we understand this principle, that karma is simply an extension of the normal system of accountability and justice, then we won't become paranoid. Paranoid means constantly fearful. So the principle of karma is, as I said, I'm going to the second point now here.
The first point I said is that karma is simply an extension of the normal system of justice. Any questions or comments about this till now? Extension means it goes beyond this life and before this life. So just like the actions from the past life may come in this life, and the actions from this life may give reaction in the next life.
So normally, a normal system of justice would be, okay, you did this at this time, you're going to get the reaction. But it's restricted to this lifetime. And in normal relationships also, there's accountability, which is in a restricted framework.
So karma is simply an extension of that. So the second point which I'll make is that karma is logical and ultimately benevolent. Karma is not diabolical or malevolent.
Sometimes, some people, even devotees, treat karma as if it is like a mysterious contagious disease. They'll just jump on you from somewhere. If you do this, if you do that, if you touch this, if you use that, if you do that, you'll get infected by karma.
Now, karma is not like, as I said, a contagious disease. And a mysterious contagious disease. You don't know how that disease is going to come.
Sometimes some diseases, we know the mechanisms and then we avoid. A few years ago, about 10-12 years ago, I had TB. So then for that time, I had become like a Jain sadhu.
Putting a cloth around my mouth so that no germs… So we know that the infection goes out from there. But some diseases, we do not know. So sometimes we may start thinking of karma like a mysterious disease.
Oh, if I drink from someone's bottle, I'll get their karma. Well, the principle over there is that we stick to our quota. But karma is not like an evil person waiting to catch you.
Hey, you did that? Now take this punishment. It's a matter of accountability for our actions. If you start thinking of karma as some kind of mysterious disease, in fact, we often think of karma as a very reasonable explanation for life's evils.
Why do bad things happen to good people? Because it is, okay, those people have done something bad in their previous life. But in the Western world, karma is considered, the whole idea of karma, at one level, it's accepted as mainstream. The word karma itself is quite well known.
It's my karma, people say. But in intellectual circles, because of various reasons, actually the doctrine of karma is considered to be primarily responsible for the extremely discriminatory caste system that is there in India. So karma has got quite a, and if it is not presented sensitively, it has got quite a bad name.
Not karma itself, but the way it is presented. What is the logic? The logic over there was that people who are born in lower castes, they had done some bad karma in their previous lives. That's why they are born in the lower castes.
And that's why they are meant to live in a poverty-stricken, a humiliating, a deprived life. And people who are born in higher castes, they have done some good karma in their previous lives. And that's why they are meant to live a life of privilege and power and prestige.
And so one of the driving ethos, driving ethics of today's age is social justice. Oh, there is so much discrimination in society and this should be corrected. So anybody who is seen as a victim of the past, they are given privileges, they are given support.
In India we have the reservation system, which has its own problems. But in the West what they call is affirmative action. Where somebody who has been deprived in the past is given greater facilities.
And social justice is a very big, big value in the Western world. One of the biggest rallies in the Western history was in Sydney. You can call, although Sydney is in the East, you call it a part of the Western world.
So there what had happened was when the Australians, or when the British came to Australia, Britain had this whole system that those who were criminals in Britain, whom they didn't want to kill, capital punishment, they send them to Australia. So British people have a very low estimate of, at least as they used to have in Australia, there are all the places where the criminals go. And conversely Australians, what they say, what about Britain? Oh, that is the place from which all criminals come.
That is the place from which all the criminals come. So there is a relative perception. But anyway, many of the early settlers who came from Britain, either from Britain to Australia or Europe to America, they often exterminated the natives.
And the natives who were living there had to live in, even now some of them have to live in reserve territories, as if they are like endangered animals. They would be kept in the preserve. So in Sydney there was a big rally, thousands of people.
So it is the world's biggest apology rally. And all these people were holding placards saying, we are sorry. So this was an apology rally to all the natives.
Saying that the kind of discrimination that we did against you in the past, that we are sorry for that. Canada government also has issued a public apology and done a lot of measures to take care of the natives now. So the point I am making is, social justice is a very big value in today's world.
In fact, many people fancy themselves as they call it SJW. SJW is a social justice warrior. I am fighting for social justice.
So what people feel is that the caste system is strongly against the principle of social justice. You are by your past karma, so they lump karma with that. And they say because of karma the caste system is perpetuated.
And because of the caste system being perpetuated, social injustice happens. And there is a lot of propaganda of how the upper caste people were so so puritanical that they would let the lower caste people even die of thirst, but not let them drink water from their well or their tap. They would not let them touch food from their crops.
So the concept of purity, if it is not explained carefully, it can come off as very self-righteous. And it can come off as something very alienating. So now there are stories, God knows how true they are.
What has happened is, history is always a disputed territory. History is written by the winners usually. And whoever writes the history, Winston Churchill openly said, History will be very kind to me because I am going to write it.
And he wrote it in such a way that he portrayed, the Germans did a lot of bad things, no doubt, but he portrayed himself as a very good person through it. So there are stories which are probably written by Christian missionaries or whoever, they talk about how, not just one or two, dozens of stories are there, if you search about the caste system, they say how even a small three-year-old, four-year-old boy is thirsty and he goes to an upper caste well and drinks water. And the upper caste people are so brutal that they come and beat the boy till he dies.
Now whether this has ever happened or not, we don't know. But these are the kind of stories that are portrayed. And if you ask the upper caste people, they have bad karma.
We don't want to be contaminated by their bad karma. So when people give replies like this, what happens? Most people don't see the philosophy as it is. Most people see philosophy as it is applied by the practitioners of the philosophy.
And so because of this, the whole idea of karma, because of portrayals like this, karma has got quite a bad name. And karma has to be explained very carefully. In fact, there was a UK football coach, quite a successful coach, and he once said that people who are, there was something like, there was some physically challenged young person who wanted to play in his team.
And he said, you can play in football for the paraplegics, you cannot play in normal football. He said, no, but why are you disqualifying? I want to play. So in the course of that, he said that, you are physically handicapped because of your own past karma.
And that statement went on social media, and it became such a big thing that he had to immediately resign. He said, either you will be fired or you resign. So, there is an article, you have to read about it, karma kicks a football coach.
So what happens over here is, that their logic is, somebody is suffering right now, and on top of that, you dump guilt on them, by saying you are suffering because of your own past misdeeds. And he said that can be very psychologically damaging to people. Now, whether it is psychologically damaging or not, that is open to understanding, that is open to interpretation, it depends on how it is presented.
If it is presented as an explanation, or it is used as a tool to send somebody on a guilt trip. If it is presented objectively as an explanation, then it is not psychologically damaging. When I first understood the theory of karma, it helped me make a sense of a lot of things, including why I had got a physical handicap.
So it is not at all psychologically damaging, because it is just an objective logical explanation. But when it is presented as a tool to send people on a guilt trip, to demean people, to make people feel bad about themselves, then it can have problems. So here the point I am making is, that karma is logical.
So suppose somebody is very thirsty, and say that person is impure, and we give pure water from a particular source. It is a good activity. Normally there can be some separation between pure and impure, but if somebody is thirsty and dying, it is not that it is the greatest catastrophe in the world to give water at that time.
So karma should not block us from the normal system of decency, normal system of good conduct. Karma should deepen and enhance that. So coming back, this is the second point, that karma is not diabolical, it is logical.
It is meant, it is a simple objective cause-effect correlation. Any questions or comments about this? You can just speak, I will repeat it. The cause of our bad karma, or whatever we are suffering right now, the cause is unknown.
That creates a question. Yes? And like the previous section you said, it is extension. And also you can discuss with the lawyer and ask the judge.
So this facility is typically not where you are on your own. That's true. That's why the system of cosmic justice karma is extension, but it is much more complicated than that.
So this is a challenge for most people, to accept the principle of karma, because we don't know what actions we had done. So, the unawareness of the actions, and the unappealability of the reactions. These two differentiate the system of karmic justice from the normal system of justice.
Now, all of us have to choose what world view makes the most sense for us, and move on in life. So broadly speaking, we have three choices. One is that, if bad things happen to me, it's by chance.
That life is like a lottery, and some people win the lottery, some people lose the lottery. So if a bad thing happens to me, it's just my bad luck. And this is a very disempowering way of living, where we just accept that, OK, anything can happen to anyone at any time, and there's no rhyme or reason to it.
And that is not the way we normally live. If something happens, we try to look for the cause. If somebody's got a fracture, we ask, what happened? So, the idea that things happen by chance is not the way we normally live.
And it's a very disempowering, insecurity-inducing kind of idea. The other option could be that, whoever is in charge has an agenda against us, is biased against us. That if bad things are happening to us, it is God who is making those bad things happen.
Now that is even more difficult to accept. How can we devote ourselves to a God who is arbitrary in causing any suffering to anyone? If these two are the only options we had, chance and God, and the Abrahamic religions, because they do not accept reincarnation, they have a vague sense of karma in the sense that, as you sow, so shall you reap. But they can't explain how karma happens, because so many times good people get bad things, and bad people get away with their bad actions.
So then their idea is that, OK, why do bad things happen? It's God's will. So if you have to choose between chance, arbitrary chance, and the word used is divine caprice. Caprice is whim.
So God's whims. Then most people would actually prefer atheism. How can I devote myself to a God who is arbitrary? But the understanding of karma and reincarnation opens a third option for us.
That there is a system of cosmic accountability, and karma is carried over from the past. And it does help us to make a sense of a lot of things. Why sometimes, as I said, good things also happen to us, despite our not doing that much good.
And if we are honest, whenever we have been successful in our lives, it is not just because of our effort. There are so many other things that fall in place, by which things work out. So karma, why make a big brouhaha? You and I are not knowing why we are suffering, for what we are suffering, when we don't even know for what we are getting good.
So karma in the overall sense works out in a, you could say, neutral or balanced way. Sometimes we get more good than we deserve, sometimes we get more bad than we deserve, from this life's perspective. So that's why, in general, the principle of karma is more for prescription than diagnosis.
Diagnosis means, oh, you did this because of which this happened. You did this because of which this happened. So karma is usually not used for diagnostic purpose.
Why are you in this condition? Oh, because you must have done this, this, this. No, that is not the way. In general, if you see, even in scripture, on practically no occasion that I have read, where somebody is suffering and somebody else comes and tells them, because of your karma you are suffering.
Nobody does that. Karma is, the person themselves may say, oh, I must have done some bad karma because of which I am suffering right now. But the thrust of karma is, we are accountable for our actions, so prescriptive means, let's choose our actions wisely right now.
Nobody, for example, when Draupadi is being dishonored, nobody tells her, you must have been a man in your previous life and you must have dishonored some woman, that's why you are being dishonored right now. No, nobody gives any kind of explanation like that. So, the idea is, karma used for diagnostic purposes can make us very, very judgmental.
Karma used for prescriptive purposes can help us stick to ethics, stick to proper conduct, even when there is opportunity for immorality externally. So, karma generally is meant for prescriptive purposes, not for diagnostic purposes. So, I'll conclude with the last point.
Actually, this question relates to the last point that I was going to make. The first point I made was that karma is an extension of the normal system of justice. Second point was that karma is meant to be logical, logical and not diabolical.
It's not like a mysterious contagious disease out to infect us at any moment. And the last point I said is that karma should enhance, the understanding of karma should improve the way we behave in this life, not detract from our normal good behavior. So, going back to the starting question which I had, is it that if we seek forgiveness, we get free from the karma, and it's only when we are given forgiveness that we get free from karma? If somebody says, oh, if only when you get forgiveness, then you may take a gun.
Forgive me. Now, if somebody takes a gun and threatens, forgive me, well, that person may say, I forgive you. But is it that just getting those words out of that person's mouth will magically free you from karma? It's not like that.
Ultimately, if we see Krishna as the super soul present in our hearts, and the purpose of karma is to guide us towards the right course of action, and to create within us a disposition that will choose the right course of action, so sometimes in particular situations, we may seek forgiveness sincerely, and we may get the forgiveness, and then that account is over. Sometimes we may seek forgiveness, but the other person may not give forgiveness. Then at that time, we can see if I can do something more to get the forgiveness, something more to get the relationship back on a more even keel, but sometimes that other person might be holding a grudge.
We did our part. We made a mistake. We sought forgiveness.
And from our part, we could say it's over. Because from the other side also it is said that we should not hold grudges. Just as we are told to seek forgiveness, others are also told to give forgiveness.
The principle of karma works both ways. So if we have done our part in seeking forgiveness, the other part doesn't do their part in giving forgiveness, then still from our side, we have done the right thing. So, in general, when we are dealing with each other, our focus should be on the right conduct, not on karmic calculations.
Because if we start getting into karmic calculations, or karmic analysis, we can become very desensitized. We can become very heartless. If we see somebody suffering.
Now, are they suffering because of their own past karma? Well, maybe. But our question should be, what is my dharma in this situation? If a thief robs a citizen, and the citizen goes to the king, and the king says, you are robbed because of your past karma. Well, then what are you doing sitting on the throne if everything is going to happen according to past karma? What right do you have to sit on the throne? You are sitting on the throne to establish dharma in this life.
And the rule of law is that a thief should be punished. Sometimes, philosophy can be used to rationalize irresponsibility. A king who tells a victim of a robbery, you are robbed because of your past karma.
The king is using philosophy to rationalize irresponsibility. And this is what I have seen across the world. Devotees get so frustrated when they have practical problems, and they are given philosophical answers.
Oh, you know, I am having this problem, I am having that problem. I am not able to work with this devotee. This service workload is too much.
Or this, this, this. I tell Krishna, everything will be alright. Well, that is the ultimate solution.
If chanting Hare Krishna was the ultimate solution, and that was the only solution, then why did Prabhupada establish a GVC? Why did Prabhupada have a management structure at all? If chanting Hare Krishna is going to solve all problems, it is going to solve all problems ultimately. But intermediately, we also have our responsibilities. So, if philosophy is used to rationalize irresponsibility, then people can become very alienated from philosophy and the proponents of the philosophy.
And if we say everything is happening by past karma, till what extreme do you go? If a baby is crying, should the mother think the baby is crying because of past karma? If somebody says yes, well, at least your mother did not think like that. That's why you are alive right now. Isn't it? So, the principle of karma is not… We shouldn't get so much caught in karmic calculations that our normal, decent, civilized, gentlemanly conduct is lost.
So, if we have hurt someone, or if somebody feels hurt because of our actions, even if we didn't want to hurt them, then seeking forgiveness is action in sattvam. It is a good thing to do. So, let's go ahead and do it.
So, in that sense, karma, we could see, is more like a compass. Karma should guide us in the right course of action. But if we get so caught in karmic analysis that we don't do the right course of action, then the purpose is defeated.
In this case, of course, we will see that Lord Shiva is an extremely powerful person. He is one of the cosmic administrators. And just as a person who has done a crime, and that person goes to a judge and is sincerely repentant, and then the judge may waive off the crime.
The judge may give amnesty, may give pardon. And like that, Lord Shiva will forgive, and that he is assured over here, he is Ashutosh, he will very easily forgive, and that's how you will be able to be freed from this particular difficulty that you are facing. So, the situation over here is of course exceptional because higher powers are involved.
But the principle over there is universal. And the principle is that if we knowingly or unknowingly hurt someone, offend someone, then we should sincerely seek forgiveness. The word is also, the word sincerely is there.
Without any mental reservation. So, ultimately whether we are forgiven or not, depends on how sincerely we repent the action, and how sincerely we try to avoid the action. We try to prevent doing it again.
So, karma, as I said, is ultimately, at one level it's neutral, this action, this reaction. But the ultimate purpose of karma, which is under Krishna, is benevolent. If somebody stops doing wrong actions, then karma is not out there to just punish the person for all the past wrongs, irrespective of how they are acting right now.
The purpose of karma is ultimately to take us towards Krishna. To prod us towards Krishna. And if our heart, if our head is all directed towards Krishna, then the Bhagavad Gita says, we will surely attain Krishna.
So, if we see karma as a compass meant to prompt us towards right actions, then we won't get caught in karmic analysis, but we will actually reinforce our determination to act responsibly and rightly. I'll summarize. I spoke on this theme of does seeking forgiveness free us from karma of offending others.
And I spoke three main points. The first point was that karma is an extension of the normal system of justice. Just as in the normal system of justice, certain actions give certain reactions, karma means that actions from a previous life may give reaction in this life, and actions from this life may give reaction in the next life.
It's like a credit system, where we are charged for more than what is the immediate purchase, charged for all our previous purchases also, and sometimes we may get more than what we have paid for, because our previous credits may carry over. So, the immediate system of cause and effect is not subverted or rejected, but it is extended. So, whatever is our broad understanding of right and wrong, that we have to continue and extend that.
Then, second point I said is, karma is not diabolical, it is logical. Karma is not like a mysterious contagious disease. So, the system of the karma has got a bad name, because it is being misused to perpetuate the discriminatory caste system, saying that people born in lower caste have done bad karma, and that's how they are meant to suffer in this life.
So, today's mood is of social justice, where if anybody is suffering any kind of deprivation or injustice, we should work to correct it. And the principle of karma, if not understood properly or applied properly, can seem to militate against social justice, and it can alienate a lot of people. So, rather than thinking that in every action, oh, if I give my water, if I take their water, I'll get karma, we should think that what is a conduct that is civilized, what is a conduct that is gentlemanly, what is a conduct that is helpful.
The system of karma differs from our normal system of justice because of the unawareness of what actions we are getting, what reactions, and the unappealability of the reactions. But ultimately, karma is the most reasonable explanation for the bad things happening in life. Either we can have arbitrary chance, or we can have an arbitrary God, or we can have a system of action-reaction, which we don't know exactly about.
Karma is more, karma is rarely if ever used for diagnostic purposes to point out what wrong actions people have done in the past, because of which they are getting present reaction. It is more used for prescriptive purposes to encourage us to act rightly. And the last point was that we should, that karma should enhance our normal good dealings with each other, not detract from it.
If a king starts thinking that a person has been robbed because of their past karma, and the king is himself doing bad karma by not doing his dharma right now. A mother who doesn't take care of her child thinking the child is crying because of past karma is being irresponsible. So philosophy can be abused to rationalize irresponsibility, and that can alienate a lot of people.
So if we understand that, ultimately, karma is like a compass which is meant to prompt us towards right actions. Then rather than getting caught in karmic calculations, we'll focus on the right actions, and that's how karma will help us to act more responsibly, more sensitively, and will help us to relate much better with each other. So, thank you very much.
Hare Krishna. Are there any questions or comments? Yes, please. One answer that you gave, you will give those questions about we don't know what happened, for what action.
Even considering the whole concept of the soul passing from one body to another body, even if there is a system where one's past actions in another body can be relayed to a person in this body, the identification with the current body is so strong, it will be practically impossible for him to relate to that same soul in a different body. It could be in a different gender, it could be in a different country. That would seem much more unjust than, you know, whom are you talking about? Who is this person who actually performed this activity for which you are punishing me now? Because the identification with the current body is so strong, that such a kind of justice would make absolutely no sense in one's… in one way, even if there is a way of… Yeah, it's a good point.
That it is that, because we identify so much with our present body, that even if we are revealed somehow what we did in the previous body, we would not be able to connect with that at all. Yeah, that is one major reason. See, each life is like a new… each body is like a new chapter in the soul's spiritual evolution.
And for that evolution, the past memories, the memories of a past life are usually an obstacle. And… So, getting a… getting a flashback of what we did in the past, you know, it could… To what extent do we go in that? Because so many things are happening constantly. So, if we start… If I slip and fall down, is it that I push somebody down in my previous life? And then I get to remember… I start remembering, oh, I did this at that time.
So, actually, it is… If we started remembering the cause-effect connection for every action, we would… we would live in basically like a perpetual flashback mode. We would not be able to function in life. We would just be caught in the past.
And this is what happens often to some people who hold grudges. It's just… A good memory can be a blessing, but a good memory can also be a curse. If that good… By that good memory, we keep remembering every small wrong that the person has done.
Ten years ago, at that time, you spoke like this to me. Fifteen years ago, you did this to me. Well, love doesn't keep a score of wrongs like that.
If we start doing that, then these people can't relate with anyone. They get so blocked. It's like the heaviest thing to hold is a grudge.
You just burden a person completely. Yeah, so that's one explanation why we can't… why we don't remember our past life actions. And… Also, it's complicated because as they say in justice, the devil is in the details.
That… You may say action A will lead to action B. Say, a murderer will be given capital punishment. That's the rule. But then you may have to have hundred exceptions to that.
What if the person who has committed murder has committed out of self-defense? Other person has committed aggression? What if there was a fight where both of them were fighting and accidentally this person killed someone? What if that person was about to rob, not kill, but independently kill? So, there are so many exceptions. So, once we start getting into the intricacies of justice, it's a very complicated system. And for us to understand the intricacies of karma, gahana, karma nugati, as we say, it's very, very difficult.
And sometimes it may well happen that that one action may lead to multiple reactions. Or multiple actions may give one reaction. One big reaction may come as a concentration of multiple actions.
So, once we start getting into the diagnostic mode of which action caused what, it becomes very difficult. Even in medicine, broadly speaking, medical science understands that, okay, if you've got TB, you must have got some infection. But even the best doctor cannot really tell when you got that infection.
If I got malaria, when did the mosquito bite me? Well, it's very difficult to know. I say there are 25 mosquitoes in my house, which mosquito bit me? I can't know that. So, even in medical science, the focus, the diagnosis is there, but the diagnosis is not so much in the precise details.
It's more in the broad principles. Okay, this must have been caused by this. And let's take this treatment and get it cured.
So, we all need to have more of a functional attitude towards life than so much of a analytical attitude, especially with respect to karma. You know, we cannot get into karmic analysis and calculations too much. We are finite beings and we need to live with that, our finiteness.
So, humility in the intellectual domain means the willingness to acknowledge that I don't know and maybe I can't know. So, that humility is required when we study philosophy also. Maybe I can't know certain things.
Thank you. Yes, Puri? There is a story in the scripture that Mandakurushi, Vandakurushi, who did fall asleep or something. And then Yamaraja gave a rock.
It was a big punishment. So, he gave a curse to Yamaraja. He changed the law that till the 14 years of your age whatever you do, you will not get karma.
So, how to understand that? Till the 14 years of age, whatever body that person has got, it is because of his previous karma only. So, can he be exempt? He made some mistakes in his 14 years. In the Mandakurushi story, it is said that till 14 years, whatever actions you do, you are exempt.
Generally, my understanding is stories are meant to are meant to teach or demonstrate certain principles. But the stories themselves don't comprise lawfuls. What is told in a story need not necessarily be a universal law that applies at all times.
In scriptural stories, there is always an indicative aspect to it. Say, for example, let's take 2-3 examples here. When Yudhishthira came to know that Karna was his brother and Kunti told it to him after Karna had been killed, he felt very upset with her and he said that, I curse that no woman should be able to keep any secrets.
Now, is it true that no woman throughout her life can keep any secrets? Well, obviously, a lot of women keep secrets. You may say that women are a little more talkative and they may leak out secrets but not like that. It is said that most people who can't keep secrets, they tell others to keep their secrets.
And if they tell, I'll tell you a secret, don't tell anyone. So, keep this secret. Anyway, so my point is, you cannot generalize about a whole gender and say nobody can keep secrets.
So, we could say that that particular statement might be a broad indication of psychology. And is it that before that particular incident women were able to keep secrets and after that suddenly they lost all ability to keep secrets? It's not like that. So, in stories, there are certain lessons to be highlighted and certain points are made over there.
But, if you study law, there are certain based on certain it's, law is a two-way process. First, certain law codes are made and in court cases certain law codes are applied in particular ways. So, if a lawyer is supposed to defend, make a case or defend a client, then they not only code the law codes but they also code the precedence of the cases.
Now, sometimes the cases themselves become principles. The verdicts in the cases become principles. But, you can't apply the precedence of a particular case directly over here.
So, in my understanding scriptural stories, when they have certain statements like these, so, they are more indicative of a broader principle rather than the universal specifics they will apply. So, we can focus on the principle, not get caught in the specifics. The specifics, not saying the specifics are not true, the specifics can also apply.
But, whether the specifics apply at all times or not, generally that is not the mood of our Acharyas. Say, for example, in Ajamil pastime, Ajamil chants the name of Narayan at the end of his life and he is at least saved from the karmic consequences. He doesn't have to go to hell because of all the wrongdoing that he has done.
Now, does that mean that we all can also do all kinds of wrong and chant the name of Narayan at the time of death? That's not what Hirashukudegar Swami says or what Prabhupada says. The mood is, this is the magnitude of the Lord's mercy. Then, let's devote ourselves to a merciful Lord.
So, extraordinary incidents are meant to inspire us to follow the ordinary process of bhakti. Ordinary is a little derogatory word sometimes. Rather, the non-standard examples of mercy are meant to inspire us to follow the standard process for gaining mercy.
So, Prabhupada says, if Ajamil chanted once and got so much mercy, if we chant daily, if we chant consciously, will we not get the benefit? So, I would say that stories in general, whether it is the Pallashruti after the story or whether the declaration within the story, they are indicative of the principles. And we can focus on the principles, not on the details. Who's talking? Yes.
Last question. Yes, which to talk, I think. Good or bad, like, if I'm physically handicapped, is this good or bad? It can be good because I will get a lot of reservations.
So, in reality, how to understand what is, like, post-event analysis, this is good or bad. Okay. Yeah.
So, what is good or what is bad? somebody has got, sorry? Ei bhal, ei mand, ei sab brahma. Yeah. So, you said that if somebody has got handicap, they may get reservations.
I know one devotee. He, when he was born, actually, his mother or his grandmother had his name changed so that he would belong to a lower caste, where he would get reservations. And I heard that it's not uncommon.
Many people do that. Just to get reservations, they try to change their caste. So, it's interesting if you see the verse, janma ishwari shivta shribhir, idhaman madhah pumana, ivarathya vidatum vaito amakhinchana gocharam.
That wealth, birth, aishwarya shivta, learning, and shribhir, beauty. These are four good things in life. So, Prabhupada, when giving lecture in America, he says, all of you, you know, you got birth in America, prosperous country.
And he said, you should use this good birth in a prosperous country to take to Krishna consciousness. Now, from one perspective, we may say that birth in Arya birth in Bharat Varsha is auspicious, and birth in places like say, which are places traditionally considered to be filled with people who are not following the Varna Ashram, like Shas, Yamanas, that is an auspicious. But in today's socio-economic reality, birth in America might be better.
In the sense that at least the physical needs are taken care of much more easily. So, I would say that these are, so, that example of Shri Prabhupada, where what we have, we use that and move on in life. So, again, what is good, what is bad, it is relative.
And it's best that, that's why acceptance can be a very great strength. Rather than analyzing that this is good or this is bad, this is what it is, let's move on with life. And sometimes we find that good can also come out of the bad.
And sometimes our weaknesses can become our strengths. So, sometimes life may break us, but sometimes the points where we break, that's where we become the strongest. People who have gone through some sufferings, sometimes they develop a great amount of empathy for those who have gone through those sufferings.
And they can help others. People who are, say, some people were, I was in America, I had an interfaith meeting and one of the most fiery creatures, the Christian preacher was actually, he said, I was a recovered alcoholic. And he said, Jesus saved me from alcoholism.
And now he is so, so fired up about his preaching. So, sometimes the hurts that we get in our life, they can, if we can recover from them, they can give us a mission for our life also. So, in that sense, good and bad can be considered to be relative, rather than obsessing too much on what bad has happened and just exulting in what good has happened.
Just be equipoised and move on with life. And make the best of what we have got. That's a very stoic and a very steady way of approaching life.
Having said that, now, at a philosophical perspective, that, is there anything good or bad? Is it simply manodharma? There are different perspectives, from the karma perspective, from the jnana perspective, from the bhakti perspective. From the jnana perspective, if you see, there is no good or bad, because ultimately this world itself is temporary, illusory, and we have to get out of this world. So, what is the difference between good and bad? From the karma perspective, there is definitely good and bad, and depending on the level of consciousness of a person, we have to present things.
A person who is in karma consciousness, cannot jump immediately to jnana consciousness. At that time, for them, if something bad has happened, we have to empathize with that bad. We have to emotionally support them.
When Arjuna's son Abhimanyu is killed, Krishna did not tell Arjuna that, oh, all good and bad is just a mental concoction. Your son has died, don't be sentimental about it. He did not do that.
Arjuna was not in karma consciousness, Arjuna was in bhakti consciousness, but still, at that time, it is a very great catastrophe that happened. So, when bad things happen, we have to see how best we can help someone. So, if somebody is of a more analytical, intellectual framework, then maybe just helping them understand that, okay, good and bad is relative, that's what may help them to stabilize and move on.
But if somebody is given to be of a more emotional nature, or what has happened is of great emotional weight to them, then at that time, telling them this is all illusory will simply alienate them. So, philosophy ultimately is meant to help people come closer to Krishna. And we have to see philosophy not just as like a one hammer that you have to bang on people, but philosophy is like an array of tools.
And sometimes a hammer, sometimes it may be like a goldsmith's hammer, sometimes it may be an ironsmith's hammer, sometimes it may be a scalpel, sometimes it may be a sphere. So, within the broad philosophy, what is the tool that can help the person right then? That is the tool we need to use. And that's how we will be able to ourselves stay mentally stable and help others also to become mentally stable when faced with life's dualities.
Thank you very much.