Don’t be attached to being detached
Hare Krishna! So, today morning, we're discussing from the Srimad Bhagavatam, 10th Canto, one of the very sweet chapters, the later part of the 10th Canto. Sanatana Goswami, in his Vaishnav Tosinitika, explains that, the Bhagavatam is not exactly chronological.
In the 40th chapter of the 10th Canto, out of the 90 chapters, the first 40 chapters are more or less chronological. Where Krishna is, Krishna's Vrindavan pastimes are described. Of course, it is a critical analysis and says that, this pastime comes before this, this pastime comes later.
But mostly, he says the Bhagavatam's first 40 chapters are chronological. And then from Dwarka, he goes, Krishna goes to Mathura, that's the next 10 chapters. And the next 5 chapters are his same, sorry, from Vrindavan to Mathura, and then to Dwarka.
So, 40 chapters in Vrindavan, 10 in Mathura, and then thereafter, it is Dwarka Leela. But till 55 chapters, the description is chronological. And then afterwards, it becomes more or inspirational.
So, he differentiates between Smriti and Smriti. Smriti is consciously cultivated remembrance, whereas Smriti is spontaneously occurring recollection. So, Smriti is what we as sadhakas need to cultivate.
And that was what Shukadeva Goswami was also doing. But as he describes more and more the pastimes of Krishna, he goes into ecstasy. And as he goes deeper and deeper into ecstasy, he leaves linear chronology behind.
And as his thoughts go in various directions, he describes the pastimes accordingly. So, for example, after describing Rukmini's marriage, immediately, instead of describing Krishna's marriage with other queens, the Shukadeva Goswami describes about the sons of Rukmini. And like that, it goes on.
So, now, here, if we see some of the chapters, this particular chapter of the Sudama Brahmin, this has it really happened exactly after the Kurukshetra war, before the Kurukshetra war. It is not going linearly over here. But essentially, the Bhagavatam is describing the Bhaktavatsanya, the very intimate affection the Lord has for his devotees.
And the previous verses have described how Sudama was in such great poverty that he was trembling and his wife was also initiated and weak. And she was also trembling in fear. So, it's significant that even 5000 years ago, before Kali Yuga had started, before all the degradation of this age had come in, even at that time, there could be a situation where a Brahmana did not get enough charity, even for survival.
Sometimes we tend to have a very monochrome vision of the past. Monochrome vision means we think that everyone in the past was a devotee. Actually, everyone was Krishna conscious in the past.
But actually, this is an impersonalist vision of history. Not that we are saying there is impersonalism, but throughout history, there are different kinds of people with different orientations and they have always lived. And Krishna himself is talking about his times.
When he says in 4.3 in the Bhagavad Gita that sakaleneha mata yoga nashtah parantapa So, he is saying that by the power of time, that original knowledge of dharma which I have taught, which I have taught long ago to the Sun God, he has mentioned that in 4.1. Now, he is saying that that is lost. 4.2 and 4.3. 4.2 he says this and 4.3 he says, now I will give this knowledge to you. That means the culture that is depicted in the Mahabharata or in the Bhagavatam at the time of Krishna is not necessarily the ideal culture.
Krishna is saying sakaleneha mata yoga nashtah by the power of time, it has declined. And therefore, for example, we have even at those times, there are sages who are impersonalists, there are sages who are proponents of the six systems of philosophy, there are even sceptics and atheists at all times. In fact, among all the classical languages, like Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, if we see the maximum number of atheistic books have been written in Sanskrit.
How is that? Because Buddhism and Jainism at one time were very intellectually dominant. And from the 5th century BC to 5th century AD, India was practically ruled by Buddhism and Jainism. And they wrote books in Sanskrit debunking the existence of God.
So, they were ideologically very different, but culturally they were quite similar. So, the point is that even at the time of Krishna, there could be a situation where a brahmana was not giving charity. At least even at Krishna's times, there was not necessarily a uniform brahmanical culture at all places.
So, we see that there is variety even at those times. Sometimes we say that this modern urban culture is bad and the rural culture traditionally eco-friendly living is good. Yes, that is true.
At the same time, the rural urban division was there even in the past. Vrindavan was a rural place. Mathura was an urban place.
The Bhagavatam describes cities. So, the principle is that there is variety everywhere in this world. And we have to see which aspects of those varieties are favourable for bhakti and which are unfavourable for bhakti.
अनु कुण्णे से संकल्को प्रति कुण्णे से वर्जिनम् Among the six elements of Sharanagati that are described by the Goswamis, the first two, the last four are emotions or dispositions. You know, have faith that Krishna will protect. Have the faith that Krishna is your maintainer.
Feel worthless without Krishna. Offer oneself to Krishna. Everything.
वो प्रेवानां प्रता आत्मो निक्षे परकार पंडि चर्मिदाचरणान। But the first, last four are dispositions which take time to cultivate. But the first two are actions. अनु कुण्णे से संकल्को प्रति कुण्णे से वर्जिनम् except that which is favourable and reject that which is unfavourable.
And this is the dynamic element of surrender. Now, we know that the quintessential example of surrender is Draupadi raising her hands up and saying, कृष्णा असेव में। Yes, that is surrender. And we see in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna calls upon Arjuna to surrender.
सर्वधर्मान् परित्तज्य मामेकं शरणं बच्य। Surrender to me. And Arjuna says in 18.73, yes, I do surrender. करिष्ये वचिनां तवां। But after surrendering, how does Arjuna surrender? It is not by raising his hands in helplessness.
Arjuna raises his bow in readiness to fight. So, surrender can have different modes in different situations. What is अनुगूल for us to go towards Krishna, that we accept.
What is प्रतिकूल, we reject. So, surrender is not necessary, not at all passivity. It is actually active.
But what kind of action will lead us to closer to Krishna? For that, we need to use our intelligence guided by Guru Sadhguru Shastra. So, in this particular pastime, there are many lessons which are being taught. One of course is how Krishna is so wonderfully वक्तवच्चन.
Another lesson is that at a subtler level, we should not be attached to being detached. We should not be attached to being detached. Normally, we think of relationships and things in this world in two terms, there is attachment and there is detachment.
Yes, both these are valid. But beyond attachment and detachment, there is commitment. And भक्ति is primarily about commitment.
भक्ति is not about attachment, भक्ति is not about detachment, it is about commitment. In the first six chapters of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna repeatedly talks about being detached, being equipoised, staying सुखे दुखे समे कृत्वाला भाला भावजया जयो, be equipoised among all ups and downs. But from 7.1 onwards, the mood and the focus of the Bhagavad Gita changes.
That is the भक्ति section starts in the Bhagavad Gita. And the very first verse of the seventh chapter is मैं आसक्तमनहा. So, Krishna shifts his focus from detachment from the world to attachment.
So, now, in this particular pastime or at this particular juncture, Sudama's wife has approached him and is requesting him that please, we don't have even the basic necessities of life. You have Krishna as your close friend, please go and approach him and ask him for some charity. And whatever objections Sudama might have, his wife is anticipating and addressing those objections.
And in this way, she is urging him to go to Krishna. So, here we will see how Sudama reluctantly goes and eventually when he goes and meets Krishna, he doesn't go actually to ask Krishna for help. He goes to Krishna just to have darshan of Krishna.
And Krishna profusely satisfies without even mentioning that I will be satisfied. So, this is an example of a transcendental give and take, where the person who needs that doesn't ask and the person who gives doesn't tell that I am giving this to you. So, there is such a mutual understanding between the two that the needs are understood and the needs are provided for without even being asked.
So, this is actually a very close relationship. Sometimes the two people are very close to each other, just glance at each other and just by glancing, the other person understands this is what they want me to do and then they do it. So, this requires a very close connection and that sort of proximity is demonstrated later in this pastime wherein Krishna, Sudama does not ask and Krishna provides without Sudama's asking.
Now, regarding the specific point of not being attached to being detached, it is described that Sudama, he was living simply and he had some sense of attachment to his renunciation, to his detachment. And he felt, oh, yes, I am such an austere Brahmin, I am living so simply. And Krishna by giving him opulence, freed him from that attachment to detachment.
Of course, for most of us, it is we have actually attachment that is a problem. For most of us, that kind of attachment we do not have as a problem. And we do need to hear about detachment because the Bhagavatam consistently talks about detachment so that we can not get entangled in this world.
At the same time, the teaching of attachment, sorry, teaching of detachment in a culture of non-commitment can breed irresponsibility. The Bhagavatam is spoken in a culture where people were responsible in their relationships. The family was integrated unit and within that family, the family attachments could stop a person from growing onwards towards Krishna.
In such a situation, to ensure that the person's consciousness keeps expanding, the talk of detachment is important. But in today's culture, where there is very little commitment in relationships, where people do not even form relationships in terms of taking any, many countries nowadays, if you meet a man or a woman, you do not ask, are you married or who is your husband or your wife? They say, he is my partner. So, or the other more politically correct word is, your significant other.
Significant other they use because the partner may not even be of the opposite sex. The partner may be of the same gender also. So, the point here is that actually today, there is very little, in many countries, the commitment in relationships is not there.
We are increasingly becoming a commitment-averse culture. And in a culture where people are averse to commitments, then if someone hears about detachment, then that detachment becomes a rationalisation for one's own irresponsibility. So, the way it is, is normally we all tend to be self-centred and selfish.
And when we form relationships, those relationships get us out of our self-centredness. Now, every relationship is an attack on the self-centred ego. Any relationship that we form, if I am just alone and I am self-centred, I will do whatever I want, whenever I want, however I want.
But if I have a relationship with someone, that in that relationship, I have to do the things which they want me to do. I have certain obligations in those relationships, and they force me to think of something other than myself. And in that way, every relationship helps our consciousness to grow outside of ourselves.
Now, it may well be that we may have relationships with those who are materialistic, who are non-demotional, or even anti-demotional. And in trying to pander to them, our consciousness may get degraded. We may be forced to do things which are unfavourable for our principles.
And this is what happened to Karna. Karna was relatively speaking a virtuous person, but by his attachment to Duryodhana, he not only became vicious, but at particular points in the Mahabharata, he acted more viciously than Duryodhana also. It was he who suggested that Draupadi be disrobed.
It was he who called Draupadi a prostitute. These are horrendous accusations and horrendous ideas to actually come up with. And to his credit, Karna regrets this later.
Twice when he is meeting with Krishna and later when he is meeting with Bhishma, he says it was because of the desire to please Duryodhana that I spoke and did those things. So, the point is that sometimes our relationships can bring out the worst within us. Especially if those whom we are attached to are of a lower moral level than us, and they want us to do things at their level, then the relationships can bring the lower side out of us.
But still the point is our relationships get us out of ourselves. And when we live in a commitment averse culture and people do not form relationships, then the self becomes like a black hole into which people sink into themselves. Now, people just, they become, oh, I am like this, I am like that, I am like that, whether it is positive or negative, people become self, not just self-centred, but self-obsessed and deeper and deeper one sinks into oneself.
So, many of the mental problems that people face today, of course, mental problems is a complex subject and sometimes they may have some problems with brain structure imbalance or brain chemical imbalance. But to a large extent, many of the mental problems that we face are because we are living too much inside our head. We are living too much inside ourselves and a sense of commitment living for something bigger than ourselves that can help us get out of our head and get into the world.
Now, relationships in that sense, we are social creatures and we need relationships. Now, there are two extremes when we look at our worldly relationships, worldly relationships in terms of our family, our friends, especially the family relationships, one extreme is to think that they are all mundane and we should just reject them. I will come to that a little later.
But the other extreme is to think that they are itself my duty and these itself are spiritual and there is nothing more that I need to do in any of my relationships. All I need to do is just take care of my family, take care of this, take care of my children, take care of these things and that's all. If I have done that, I am already a very dharmic, safely person.
So, actually there is adharma, there is aparadharma and there is paradharma. Now, when Krishna says sarvadharman parityajyamame kam saranam vraja, you have all varieties of religion and surrender unto me. There is a Hindu commentator on the Gita, he says that this doesn't make any sense.
Krishna has come to establish dharma, dharma samsthapnatha yasambhavami yuga yuga, 4.8 years ago. So, why would Krishna now say sarvadharman parityajyamame kam saranam vraja? So, he says actually there is a recension error in the Gita. Recension means as over generations the book has been written down again and again, there is an error and he says actually the verse is sarvadharman parityajyamame kam saranam vraja.
So, Krishna is saying give up all adharma and surrender unto me. So, actually the level of the Gita at that level is very high and when Krishna says sarvadharman parityajyamame kam saranam vraja, what does he mean by that? Why is he saying sarvadharman parityajyamame kam saranam vraja? Prabhupada says in a lecture that the hippies had also done sarvadharman parityajyamame kam saranam vraja. They had given up their duty to their family, to their education, to their career, they had given up their job, they had given up their duty to their nation, but that had only taken them down to tamoguna.
The important thing is maam ekam saranam vraja, surrender to me, that is what is important. Now, to understand this point of sarvadharman parityajyam, we actually need to look at the Mahabharata. The Bhagavad Gita comes in the Bhishma parva of the Mahabharata.
The parva before that is the Udyog parva. The Udyog parva has two main activities. One is that the Pandavas are are trying for are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.
Hoping for the best, that is a normal strategy of any army for a war, they hope for the best, there will be no war, there can be peaceful cessation of hostilities. So, the Pandavas are trying for peace by various means. At the same time, they are also preparing for war by making allies.
So, at that time also, there is a similar discussion between Krishna and Yudhishthira. And basically, the dharma sankat that the Pandavas face consistently and even Arjuna also had that dharma sankat. He has his Kshatriya dharma and he has his Kula dharma.
The Kshatriya dharma is that as a Kshatriya, if anybody is an aggressor, he has to counter them. The Kula dharma is that as a member of a particular dynasty, we should protect the members of that dynasty. So, now, which dharma should he follow? If he follows Kshatriya dharma, he has to fight against the Kauravas.
If he follows Kula dharma, he should not fight against them. And that's why Bhagavad Gita is not a simple question of conversation or a simple question about whether I should fight or not. Arjuna, when he surrenders to Krishna, does not ask Krishna, should I fight? He says, pruchchami tvam dharma samudh chetah.
I ask you, what is dharma? Bhagavad Gita is not simply a book about, say, one warrior who lost his nerve before a war and another warrior told him to fight. It would not have had timeless relevance. The Bhagavad Gita is not a book of violence.
The Bhagavad Gita is not a book of silence. The Bhagavad Gita is a book of transcendence. Not violence, not silence, but transcendence.
And Krishna, when he answers Arjuna's question, sarva dharma parityajya maam ekam sharanam. Just surrender to me. That means, what is he saying here? If we see after that, what does Arjuna do? Arjuna lifts up his bow and fights.
So, basically, when Krishna says sarva dharma parityajya, he is not implying that give up all dharma literally and become adharmic. He is saying, focus on maam ekam sharanam. Focus on surrendering to me.
And for surrendering to me, whichever dharma is anukul, you accept that. So, in the case of Arjuna's situation, the Kshatriya dharma was anukul for maam ekam sharanam. And the Kula dharma was pratikul for maam ekam sharanam.
And that's why Arjuna accepted the Kshatriya dharma and fought the war. And he subordinated the Kula dharma, which would have required him to protect his relatives. So, essentially, even when we talk about para dharma, Krishna is telling Arjuna to accept para dharma.
But para dharma cannot be practised merely by the rejection of apara dharma or adharma. Adharma, of course, has to be rejected. But as long as we are in this world, we have to function in this world.
And we need some structure, we need some relationship, we need some role in this world. And whatever roles and responsibilities are favourable for our acting in this world, that is what we need to accept. So, in Arjuna's situation, his role as a Kshatriya was anukul for his sharanam.
And he accepted that. So, coming back to our point about relationships, that essentially, we want to develop our relationship with Krishna, which is we can say our vertical relationship. And we have our horizontal relationship with others.
So, now these are two dharmas. We have the para dharma or bhakti and we have the family dharma, we may have, which is with other members in society, other members in our family. So, in this situation, these two relationships, the ideal is when they are symbiotic.
Symbiotic means that actually our relationship with Krishna gives us inner satisfaction. And with that inner satisfaction, with that inner strength that we get, we can act more maturely, more and more being more understanding and more tolerant, more sensitive in our horizontal relationships. The primary difference between attachment and commitment is in terms of emotional dependence.
Now, when we are attached to someone, we are emotionally dependent on that person. And because of that emotional dependence on that person, we just cannot tolerate the idea that that person may be displeased with me. And therefore, we do whatever it takes to please that person.
And that is what happened to Dhritarashtra in his relationship with Duryodhana. Duryodhana, he basically knew which buttons to press, so that he could just make Dhritarashtra dance according to his tunes. And Dhritarashtra, whatever he was not able to achieve, because of his being visually impaired, whatever he is not able to achieve, he wanted to vicariously achieve that through Duryodhana.
And for that purpose, he just could not tolerate the idea of displeasing Duryodhana. And that is why Duryodhana was able to manipulate him. So, when our basic sense of self-identity, our self-worth comes from someone else in a relationship, then we become emotionally dependent on them.
That itself means that we are emotionally dependent on them. And when we are emotionally dependent on them, then they can manipulate us, they can control us, they can make us do things which are not good for us, which are against our principles, which harm us and which may even harm them later. That is what happened.
Dhritarashtra's consenting to Duryodhana's atrocities eventually caused the destruction of Duryodhana himself. So, now the difference between attachment and commitment, as I said, is in terms of emotional dependence and lack of emotional dependence. So, a commitment essentially conveys the idea of conscious choosing, as this is a relationship I want to develop.
And therefore, I will act in a particular way in this relationship. So, commitment involves conscious choosing, whereas attachment is focused on emotional neediness. I cannot be without this person.
I need them and therefore, I will do whatever it takes. So, when there is commitment in the relationship, we will go, if it is required in a particular relationship, we will go out of our comfort zone. We may do things which we would normally not do to please the other person.
But that is a conscious choice. When we understand that okay, this is what they need and this is what I would like to do, but in every relationship, there has to be give and take. Sometimes we do something for others, sometimes others do something for us.
So, when there is commitment, then we may go out of our comfort zone and do things for others which you would normally not do. But that is a conscious choice. That is not because of emotional neediness.
And that is why we have a sense of control. Okay, this far I can go, beyond this I cannot go. And that way we can choose.
So, now, as I was saying that the vertical relationship and the horizontal relationship, the ideal situation is where they are symbiotic. So, when we get our nourishment from our relationship with Krishna, when we practise bhakti strongly, we are enriched within by bhakti practise, then our emotional neediness is fulfilled by Krishna. And then in whatever relationship we have with others, we are not emotionally dependent on them.
Even on devotees, we should be spiritually dependent. But when we are emotionally dependent on devotees, that means we just feel, oh, I have to be with them and they have to spend time with me. And then we become very, very demanding from devotees.
And we will find that when devotees are not able to give us that much time, as much as we want, then we will say, devotees do not care for me, nobody cares for me, nobody likes me, nobody appreciates me. It is not like that. It is not that people do not appreciate us, but everybody has limited time.
Everybody is a finite human being. And they may be very advanced devotees, but they also have 24 hours in a day. And they care for us.
But when we are emotionally dependent, we expect too much from others and that causes frustration. So, when we practise bhakti seriously, we get fulfilled in our relationship with Krishna. That does not mean we do not need other relationships, we almost need other relationships, but we are not emotionally dependent with those relationships.
Then we can act maturely in a reciprocal way in those relationships. Now, interesting, sometimes we try to separate our relationship into material and spiritual. Now, okay, this is a material relationship, this is a spiritual relationship.
Now, this is, this can sometimes be unhealthy. Because ultimately, we are conscious beings and the material spiritual separation is good so that we make sure that we give due time for spiritual activities. That if I start thinking everything that I do is spiritual, then what happens is nothing I do will be spiritual.
If I start claiming that, oh, my job is spiritual, my home is spiritual. Nowadays, there is a whole trend, people say, my office is spiritual. Now, the word spiritual is used by people to say, to refer to whatever makes them feel good.
So, they say my office is a very spiritual place. Now, why? Why is office spiritual? Because their home is like Kurukshetra for them. There are so many conflicts, misunderstandings, cold wars going on at home, people feel I go to office, things are much better, everything is organised, I perform, I get results, I get accolades.
So, just there, the evasion of a problematic situation is not spiritual. It can be, but it is not necessarily that we can simplistically call something and just feel good as spiritual. So, the ideal situation as I said is when our vertical relationship nourishes us and then we act maturely in our horizontal relationships.
Now, in our horizontal relationship also, we have a relationship with devotees and we get caring, we get nourishment, we get inspiration in those relationships and they also inspire us in our vertical relationship. So, when we associate with devotees who inspire us, that inspires us to practise bhakti more seriously. Now, association of devotees essentially means transfer of desires.
The essence of devotee association is the transfer of desire. If we associate with some devotees, we hear their classes or whatever, what should happen? The devotees are energised with the desire to serve Krishna and that energy of the desire to serve Krishna should come to us. Now, after Krishna spoke the Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna, Arjuna did not say wonderful lecture.
What did Arjuna say? Karishe Vachinam Tava, I will do your will. So, essentially what happened was, there is a transfer of desire. The essence of devotee association is transfer of desire.
The devotees have a great desire to serve Krishna and we get a similar desire by that association. So, I was talking about our horizontal relationships. Sometimes when we separate those horizontal relationships into material and spiritual.
Now, for analytical purposes, in terms of giving due time to our spiritual activities, this is good. We should separate, okay, this is material, this is spiritual. So, that we ensure, as I said, we give enough time to the spiritual.
But once we have done that, we have time for our sadhana, we have time for satsangh, then on a day-to-day basis when we are acting, we should always be analysing, this is material, this is spiritual. Now, the focus should be on how I can serve. Every relationship is an opportunity for serving.
How can I serve in this relationship? That has to be the focus because if we get too much into the material-spiritual division, we can become very insensitive. And the point is, we are servants and we serve Krishna directly by practising bhakti, we serve Krishna directly by serving devotees. But even in our family, there is the material-spiritual is actually very subtle division.
There, if our family members are not devotees, their relationship with us may be material, but our relationship with them may be spiritual. That their relationship with us may be material because they just see us as my son, my husband, my wife or whatever. But our relationship with them can be spiritual.
And this is pointed to in the second canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, when Duryodhana speaks very harsh words to Vidura. And Vidura, feeling very pained by those harsh words, he leaves the palace. He keeps his bow at the door and just leaves the palace.
Now, it is interesting the Bhagavatam says at this point that Vidura saw the actions of the Lord. Vidura saw the hand of the Lord in this that Krishna arranged for him to become disentangled for this. He saw the hand of Krishna in the harsh interaction which Duryodhana had with him.
Now, Duryodhana was not acting according to any divine arrangement in the sense that he was not a surrendered devotee, he was acting according to Krishna's will. So, Duryodhana was acting under Mahabhaya. But within that action of Mahabhaya, Vidura saw the action of Yogamaya.
This is an arrangement by which I can go closer to Krishna. That means, Duryodhana was acting in that relationship in a material way. But Vidura saw that in a spiritual way.
The Acharyas explained that Vidura and Vibhishana were in similar situations, but they chose different courses of action. Vibhishana went over to side of Rama, whereas Vidura did not go to side of Krishna. Why is that? That is because Vidura was, because the main villain in the Ramayana was incorrigible, that was Ravana.
There was no chance of him being reformed. On the other hand, Vidura's close relationship was with Dhritarashtra and Dhritarashtra was not innately evil. He was circumstantially acting in evil ways.
And if Vidura had gone over to the Pandavas side, Vidura had been a party of those who killed Dhritarashtra's sons. Then Dhritarashtra would have become closed to Vidura. You were a part of those who killed my sons.
Because Vidura was not a part of that whole thing. So, when later Vidura came back, Dhritarashtra could hear from him. And Dhritarashtra heard from him and became detached.
And he was also able to attain life's perfection later. So, the point is, Dhritarashtra was acting in a material way in the relationship with Vidura. But Vidura acted in a spiritual way.
And the essence of acting in a spiritual way is, how can I best serve? How can I serve in this relationship? So, serve means we serve that person and we serve Krishna by our actions in that relationship. So, I will conclude with one example of how our relationship with Krishna can inspire us to in our horizontal relationships also. You sometimes say, if there is a cloth shop in which there is an attendant who is showing the clothes and there is a boss, there is a supervisor or the owner who is sitting at the cash counter and is observing all the attendants.
So, at that time, some customers are very picky. Now, some customers may come and they may see 100 clothes and they may not choose even one cloth. Now, they may open all the clothes, unwind them.
It is very irritating for the attendant. You wasted so much of my time. Now, if the attendant gets angry by that, attendant may say, you know, I did not make any sale.
I lost so much time. Attendant may get angry. But the attendant remembers that actually my salary is coming from my boss.
And my boss is observing not just whether I make a sale or not, my boss also observes how I behave. Some customers who are troublesome, the boss also knows they are troublesome. And then if my boss sees that I am still patient, I am still courteous, I am still cool, even amidst such provoking people.
And the boss will observe that, appreciate that, you are a cool headed person. So, the person may not make a sale over there. But the person may win the appreciation of the boss by proper conduct.
That is why in our relationship with anyone, there is always, it is not never just a relationship with one and the other. It is, I was in Melbourne recently. So, one devotee asked this question.
Then they said that, you know that, no, one devotee has told me that they do not like me. And if, what should I do in such a relationship? And they said that, and if they are present here, what would you like to tell them? So, I gave this one example. And I told them that, you know, as devotees, we have a relationship with others, but our relationship is not only with them.
Every relationship is also a relationship with Krishna. And how we act in that relationship, even if that is not a devotional relationship, how we act in that relationship can enable us to go closer to Krishna. And that is why, seen simply, this is material, this is spiritual, this is a little rudimentary way of looking.
The Madhyama Adhikari, the Kanishka Adhikari thinks, Krishna is present as a deity and nowhere else Krishna is there. That means wherever there is externally spiritual, that is spiritual. Wherever there is nothing spiritual, that is material.
But the Madhyama sees gradations. He says that, So, basically, that the Madhyama sees that, yes, I have to devote myself to Krishna, I have to befriend the devotees, I have to show compassion to the innocent and I have to stay away from the envious. What this means, this is not simply like a code of conduct, this is how you should behave.
That code of conduct is there, but more importantly, it stems from an expanded awareness of how our relationship with Krishna develops. My relationship with Krishna does not just develop by how nicely I bow down before the deities. It also develops by how well I conduct myself with devotees.
It also develops by how I deal with non-devotees. If some non-devotees, if we meet non-devotees and non-devotees just by an interaction with us, I met a nice person. Those Hare Krishna people are nice.
And that is beginning, that is giving them a Jnana Sukruti. And by helping them develop their relationship with Krishna, we are developing our relationship with Krishna. So, that is why every relationship, if we primarily make the commitment to relate with Krishna, then the other relationships are seen as ways for developing that relationship.
Some relationships may be very unfavourable and we may have to keep a distance in them. But essentially, rather than seeing relationships as material or spiritual, we focus on how can I serve? How can I serve Krishna through this relationship? And that mood can help us to spiritualise our relationships. Even those relationships which are difficult or hostile for our bhakti, even then we can act in a more spiritual way by seeing that this is also an opportunity in which I can serve.
How we serve, that will vary from time, place to circumstance. Krishna says, those who serve Him sincerely, He will give them the intelligence for how to practise bhakti. So, here we will see that Sudama actually goes to Krishna at the bidding of his wife.
And when he goes to her, he has a spiritually nourishing interaction with him and his material needs are also taken care of. He is already a great devotee, but this whole pastime of Sudama going to Krishna and Krishna revealing his love, all that happens because Sudama's wife impels him to go to Krishna. Now, was her motivation material or was it spiritual? We see that she was concerned about maintaining her family, but she was also thinking about it in a spiritual way.
Krishna is Bhakta Vatsala. Krishna is Brahmanya. So, there is no need to rigidly differentiate between material and spiritual.
Focus on what is anukul to our bhakti, what is best for our service to Krishna and based on that, we act in our various relationships. Bhaktivinoda Upadhyaya says, Krishna das, ei vishwas, korele toh aara dukkha nahi. We just convince that I am going to serve Krishna.
Whatever situation I am in, whatever relationship I am in, whatever position I am in, I am going to serve Krishna. With that conviction, if we move, then we can steadily move onwards through whatever life sends our way. To summarise, I started by talking about how in this section, we see that even in Krishna's time, there could be Brahmanas who were poverty-stricken.
So, it was not that everything was hunky-dory in the past. There were dualities and there were places where dharma was not so prominent, even in the past. And in the specific past time, we discussed the topic of don't be attached to being detached.
So, we discussed about attachment, detachment and beyond that is commitment. So, normally, every relationship helps us to bring us out of ourselves. Otherwise, the self is like a black hole into which we may sink.
Now, if the relationships are with people who are non-devotional, anti-devotional, that may drag us down, that may bring the worst out of us, as happened with Karna. But essentially, relationships bring us out of ourselves. And when we act in bhakti, the primary focus is not on detachment, but it is on attachment.
We discussed that we relate with Krishna directly in our vertical relationship, but our relationship with Krishna also depends on how we relate with others. And if we are emotionally dependent, then we are attached. And then that makes us manipulable by others, as Dhritarashtra was manipulated by Duryodhana.
And how do we avoid emotional dependence? That is by focussing on our vertical relationship and getting inner nourishment and inner satisfaction by serious factors of bhakti. Then once our emotional need is primarily fulfilled therein, then we can act appropriately in our horizontal relationships. In our horizontal relationships, we should not just rigidly separate as material and spiritual.
Yes, we need to divide our life into material and spiritual so that we get adequate time for the spiritual, directly spiritual activities. But beyond that, our process, the process of bhakti is to spiritualise even the material. So, others may be relating with us in material relationship, but we can relate with them spiritually.
Dhritarashtra and Duryodhana saw Vidura materially, but Vidura related with them in a spiritual way. And the better we are in our horizontal relationship, sorry, in the vertical relationship, the better we can act, more maturely we can act in our horizontal relationships. Give the example of how a attendant in a cloth shop does not just see how the customer is behaving.
This is how I can best please my supervisor. Krishna is that supervisor who is present in our heart. And by acting with the intention of serving him, we can consistently find the best way to act without insensitivity, without a responsibility that we do not have to give up our material dharmas, but rather we spiritualise them according to what is favourable for our bhakti.
So, that understanding that favourable, what is favourable, that is the dynamic aspect of surrender. And that dynamism, if it animates our bhakti, then wherever we are, we can find out how to best serve Krishna and keep marching ahead. Thank you very much.
Any comments, corrections, questions? In this correction, the devotee asked me that okay, so when I am serving, let's say my mother, so then, am I serving Krishna? So, am I really serving mother or am I serving Krishna? So, then the reply he gave was that that's the beauty of Krishna consciousness, that serving Krishna does not have the cost of serving anybody else, because Krishna is, you know, everything is included within Krishna consciousness. Then, the offshoot of this, or the, you know, the national significance of this would be that mother seva, father seva, you know. So, hopefully we can sell these three points.
Okay. So, the question is, say, if I serve my mother, because I am a devotee of Krishna, then am I serving my mother or am I serving Krishna actually? See, we shouldn't be in a hyper-analytical mode. For example, right, we hear a joke in a class, and you shouldn't be, I feel, you shouldn't be thinking, should I, am I laughing for my sense gratification, or am I laughing for Krishna's pleasure? So, basically, act in the best way in which we can serve.
And the important point is that we do the right thing, and gradually the right motivation will come. So, what is the right motivation? Now, we say, Prabhupada said that Krishna wrote my books. I did not write my books, Krishna wrote the books.
Now, Krishna wrote Prabhupada's books, does that mean that Prabhupada did not write the books? Then Prabhupada could just have put Krishna's name as the author of the books. If Krishna has written the books, why has Prabhupada put his name? So, Krishna wrote the books through Prabhupada. So, Prabhupada's individuality, the Acharya's books are written by Krishna, but still, Prabhupada's individuality that comes in his books, Bhaktiswami Nathakam's individuality comes in his books, and Bhakti Nathakam's individuality comes in his books.
So, the point is that we all, there is, rather than fragmenting, trying to separate everything into too many analytical categories, that is actually in the mode of passion, knowledge in the mode of passion. So, primarily, we are meant to serve. And sometimes, we may feel that, oh, my mother has done so much for me, and we feel inspired to serve our mother.
And that time, our focus will on serving her, thinking how much she has done for me. But sometimes, it can happen in all relationships, that sometimes the other person may make too many demands, or the relationship may be refractious. And then we may not feel inspired to serve at that time.
So, that time, if you remember, I am serving Krishna. So, then at least you will be inspired to keep doing the right thing. So, we cannot, if we see our relationship as only one and two, then our relationship will become very dependent on what the other person is doing.
Our relationship cannot be independent of what they are doing, because there is reciprocation. But our relationship should not be only dependent on what they are doing. There is a higher principle of serving Krishna.
So, rather than, if we feel inspired, yes, this is my mother, and she has done so much for me, so I am serving her, or I am serving Krishna through her, whichever way it works out, the important thing is to do the right thing. And gradually, as we keep practising bhakti, rather than seeing this as separate. Now, when we say, is manoseva madhavseva, actually, there is a complex understanding over here.
Krishna thrice talks about sarvabhuta hite ratah in the Bhagavad Gita. And he talks about even impersonalism being sarvabhuta hite ratah. How? In 5.25, he talks about labante brahmandirvana vishayakshina kalmasa, chinna dvaidha aitha atmana sarvabhuta hite ratah.
Like that he talks about many times. So, the point is that when we see the absolute truth, we see the connectedness of the absolute truth with everything, and with everyone, and we serve them also. So, the problem is not that, is manoseva madhavseva? The problem is that when manoseva is seen as the only necessary way to do madhavseva, that the one extreme can be I do only manoseva and do not do any madhavseva at all.
That is, I just feed the poor and I think that is all I need to do. The other extreme is that I do only madhavseva and I do not care for manu at all. Then we become like bhajananandis.
Then we are not really sharing Krishna consciousness with others. So, we do manoseva through as a part of our madhavseva itself, we do manoseva. That is, we care for people and help them come closer to Krishna.
So, by the way we conduct ourselves, our relatives come closer to Krishna, then that is both manoseva and madhavseva combined together. So, the primary problem with manoseva is madhavseva logic is that manoseva is thought of as a substitute of madhavseva and not just substitute, they say the superior substitute. Because you can see God only in the temple, but we can see God in the poor people also.
Therefore, we are higher than you. That is a serious misunderstanding. So, manoseva is not a substitute for madhavseva.
But when we are rooted in the culture of madhavseva, then we can serve madhav by connecting the manav with the madhav. And that is the essence of preaching. Does that answer your question? Thank you.
Yes, sir. Most relationships, thank you, most relationships, they go through these different stages of attachment, detachment and then hopefully commitment. We can see people becoming attached to a spiritual leader or in some way or the other and then eventually they become detached again because of the time factor.
Where does the level of commitment come in? Like nowadays we see we have a lot of sympathisers from different groups and sections and they are in some way attached, but then again detachment comes because to arise actual commitment is not such an easy thing. Like you see, it's not a criteria how many people are watching something on the web or social media, but where does the level of commitment actually come in and how can we as practitioners increase that level of commitment in ourselves and in others? Because it's a very non-committal time that we are living in right now and thus trust is very weak and also taste is very less because commitment is a lacking factor. So, in our relationship with devotees also sometimes we go through attachment and detachment and then where does the commitment come in and how can we develop that commitment? See, our relationship with devotees, especially those devotees who say inspire us in our bhakti, that evolves more or less in a similar way like a child's relationship evolves with the parents.
The child is newborn, the child is completely dependent on the parents. So, for the children and the parents are practically like God. They can do no wrong, whatever they do is perfect and that's our initial attitude towards the devotees who have brought us to bhakti.
We are very reverential, very respectful. They think, oh, you are a pure devotee. You are the representative of Krishna for me.
Whatever you say, it is sakshaat paramatma speaking to you. We think like that and then when children get into teenage and adolescence, then they go to the other extreme. You know, rather than earlier they say my parents can do no wrong, then the adolescence, if my parents tell it, it must be wrong.
So, we go into rebellious phase and to some extent this is natural because as they grow up, as their intelligence develops to some extent, they also develop their own individuality and you know, parents also have flaws. But over a period of time, they should outgrow their adolescence and they understand, yes, my parents are not perfect, but nor are they ill-motivated, nor are they bad. No, they have done a lot for me and then there is a relationship that is based on reality, where there is gratitude, where there is acknowledgement of what they have done and there is also recognition that they are not perfect.
So, similarly, in our relationship with devotees, we initially think that, you know, maybe, as I said, that the devotees are perfect and then afterwards we start seeing faults with them. Then we start feeling, you know, nobody cares for me, everybody has their own agendas, then nobody is actually, there is no selfless attitude here and everybody is busy in their projects and then we start becoming very judgemental and we start becoming very negative of devotees. But as we move onwards, we start recognising that, yes, everybody is imperfect, even the devotees are guiding us, they also may have their limitations, but most devotees are not ill-intentioned.
They are not ill-intentioned. They desire to serve Krishna and they are serving Krishna to the best of their capacity and quite often, if we are honest, the best of their capacity is much, much more than what is the best of our capacity. So, we recognise what they are doing and we are grateful for them.
Another point in this is that, Rupa Goswami says in Bhakti Samhita that we need Sajatiya Aashe Bhagwat Bhakti Sangam. He says we need like-minded devotee association. And as we grow in bhakti and gradually we start understanding our own mind, that means we come to Sattva Guna and we start understanding our own nature.
Prabhupada writes in the introduction of Nectar of Instruction, that as we come to the mode of goodness, then everything about how to advance will be revealed from within. That essentially means we start understanding our own nature, not nature necessarily in terms of Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, but basically what is our Raag, what is our likes, what are dislikes, what inspires us, what is it that causes us irritation. And then as we start understanding our own nature, we will naturally look for that devotee association which is like-minded.
So, it may not necessarily be true that the devotees who inspire us initially in bhakti, they may have the same like-mindedness that we have. So, now one way of looking at it is that we should just surrender to our senior devotees and we just do what they are telling us to do. If they can do that, that is fine.
But if we cannot do that, if our natures are very different, then we take the blessings, take the sanction of our senior devotee and we get a primary devotional nourishment from those devotees who are like-minded. Prabhupada has given us a house in which the whole world can live. So, that means there are devotees of many different dispositions.
And as long as we are broadly engaged in the service of Krishna, we find a like-minded devotee association and we continue on in practising bhakti. So, rather than again, as I said, you do not see that relationship with the devotee as only the relationship with that devotee. That means that it is the same Krishna who inspired me earlier through one Vaishnava, is now inspiring me through another Vaishnava.
So, rather than seeing that, so neither of those devotees, the devotees who were guiding us earlier, they also should mature. They should not think that, oh, this person has become an upstart, has rejected me now, has become a deviant and gone somewhere else. No, they should know that it is Krishna who acted through me, inspired me.
And now that same Krishna may inspire them through someone else. So, if we see the Krishna connection, because we know that those devotees inspired me, those devotees did a lot for me, we have gratitude for those devotees. By the same time, all of us, we have to find the best way in which we can serve Krishna lifelong.
And that is, throughout our life, we need someone else to keep pushing us, keep pushing us, keep pushing us. Then we will not be able to make very tangible advancement in Bhakti, because we will be too dependent on other's pushes. Yes, we always need devotee association, we always need to be pushed to some extent.
Prabhupada gives an example about this pushing. He says that, suppose, sometimes in India, a car does not start. So, then people come around and start pushing the car.
They all push the car and the car starts. Now, inside the person is trying to turn on, to get the car to turn on and move, and outside people are pushing. And then the car moves.
But suppose, the person inside the car goes to sleep. Then the outside people will say, why should I push? Or worse still, the outside people are pushing and the person is pressing the brake inside. So, like that, devotees push us, but we also have to push ourselves.
If we actively counter push, then how long a devotee is going to keep pushing us. So, in some relationships, if we do not feel inspired in that particular relationship within Bhakti, if we are always dependent on others pushing us, we have to, to some extent, get some inspiration in our own life so that we can serve Krishna. And within that inspiration, we get inspiration from other devotees who are doing that similar service.
So, the important thing is that we do not disrespect or reject those devotees who have helped us earlier. But it is also natural that as we grow in our spiritual life, the same devotees who inspired it in a particular way, they may not inspire us later. That is just the way they grow, we grow, but we are grateful for what they have done for us.
And we, with, we, it should not be that we reject them, we still respect them, we are still grateful to them. But we need to see where, how is Krishna inspiring me? And how can I keep serving Krishna? So, the element of commitment is primarily in our service to Krishna. And those who are assisting us in our service to Krishna, especially our spiritual master, we take the blessings of the spiritual master, at least we are working under the guidance of the spiritual master in a broad sense.
But there is also the element of taking one's own initiative in bhakti. We have to follow the instructions. But while following instructions, we also have to understand how I can best serve.
And that way, within the movement itself, we can find a service which you can do sustainably. So, I do not know, did I answer your question? Yes. You can speak.
Yes, thank you. Especially, like the point about initiative, it is a very crucial issue because to be a loyal and obedient follower of Paramahara, working in an institution like Ishtar, and at the same time, taking initiative may sometimes seem like an apparent contradiction, where people tend to become either spiritual entrepreneurs, or they become very ambitious for their own project, as you mentioned earlier, or they just wait for the institution to tell them what to do. And maybe the solution is somewhere in the middle, the balance between the two paradigms.
So, where is that level of maturity coming into play? Yeah. So, how do we balance between say, waiting for instructions and taking initiative? It is primarily a matter of introspection and consultation. We, at least in the initial years of our life, we do what we are told to do.
And while doing that, we observe ourselves. This, I am good at, I am good at doing this. This, I am quite comfortable, I am quite confident.
So, basically, guna, karma, vibhagasha, when we say, chaturvaline mayasushin guna, karma, vibhagasha, guna and karma determine our, guna and karma we could say is basically, guna is our internal comfort in doing something, karma is external competency doing that thing. So, we feel comfortable in doing it and we are good at doing it. If those two things are there, then we understand this is what I am good at.
So, that introspection we need to do. And then if you feel inspired to serve in a particular way, consult with senior devotees and by that consultation, we understand. This is what I should be doing.
Thank you very much. Granthraj kumar bhagavatam ki. Jai.
Shila prabhupada ki. Jai. Jaur bhakta vrinda ki.
Jai. Jai jaur prema. Thank you.
Happy to do some service. You are here today? Yes, sir. Maybe after lunch, can we meet? All right.
Sure. I am in Govinda's tower, room number 14. 14.
When was the last time you have come here? What time? Around 1.30. 1.30. Into 15? 1 or 1.30? 1.30, 1.15 after lunch basically. 1.15. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
Very good.