Duryodhana character analysis 2 – If we don’t want help, even God can’t help
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna so welcome back to this session now in the second part of Dhritarashtra's character analysis in the first session I discussed about how are some people innately evil so we discussed how evil is not a category but it is an extreme degree and how Duryodhana's envy grew from his entitlement mentality and then as he started doing more and more demonic things they backfired he felt more and more insulted and he became more and more brazen by that so in this theme in this session I will talk about when can someone be helped and when can someone not be helped the theme we often hear this God helps those who help themselves the theme from Duryodhana's analysis we will take is that if someone doesn't want help even God can't help that means that if we see God is omnipotent but at the same time God has given each one of us freedom so I will not go linearly through the past time but after the Pandavas were exiled they went to the forest they stayed for 12 years in the forest one year in incognito exile and then again at the end of it there was another prosperity for Pandavas that they allied with the Matsya king and Abhimanyu their son was married to their daughter of the Matsya king Uttara and then Drupada also came they were there because Drupada was much more powerful than Matsya so Drupada sent his Brahmana as a messenger to Dhritarashtra saying that now the Pandavas have completed their term should return the kingdom to them so Dhritarashtra heard the whole message Brahmana spoke quite wisely and sternly and he said I will think about it and I will send Sanjay as my messenger and Sanjay went with the message Dhritarashtra was cunning he said that oh Pandava oh Yudhishtira anyone who is in grahastha life ultimately they have to retire they have to take vanaprastha you are already vanaprastha why do you want to become grahasthana just continue living you are already moving towards perfection so why do you want to fight a war with your own family members for a kingdom that eventually is temporary and has to be renounced so Yudhishthira sent a message back saying that I don't want to fight a war he says I am a grahastha and I have responsibility for my family for my for my citizens I am a Kshatriya I simply want to do Kshatriya dharma then when that message was neglected then the Pandavas knew that war was inevitable but Krishna himself went now this is an extraordinary gesture those who say that how can god incite someone to fight a war Arjuna was a peace loving person Krishna incited him to fight it is not like that we can't just look at the context of the Gita Krishna himself went as a peace messenger sometimes some people say that I have tried everything humanly possible to avoid this the Pandavas tried everything not just everything humanly possible they tried everything divinely possible god himself went now Krishna by all standards was a form even if the Kauravas did not accept Krishna as god but still he was a formidable warrior he had killed Kamsa he had killed so many other demons so now for Krishna to go as a messenger of peace is an extraordinary gesture say in India and Pakistan there is some conflict some tensions are there now India may send their minister of state or may send the army chief somebody like that but if the Indian prime minister himself goes as a peace envoy that's a big thing normally the top person never goes as a messenger but the fact that Krishna himself went as a messenger indicates that Krishna was ready to go to any length to try to avoid the war and when Krishna went Krishna tried everything firstly addressed Dhritarashtra and Dhritarashtra said that I agree with whatever you say I don't want a war but Dhritarashtra doesn't listen to me so please speak to Dhritarashtra and then Krishna used all strategies possible generally when there is negotiation between two people traditionally it is said that there are four strategies Sam, Dam, Bhe and Danda so Krishna used all of those four things it can be a whole long class in itself how Krishna reasoned with Duryodhana but I'll just make it very brief over here he said actually the Pandavas are your cousins he spoke to Dhritarashtra they treat you like your own father their own father and he said all of you are in the same Kuru dynasty if all of you can live together the Kuru dynasty will be undefeatable and you can take the Kuru province to extraordinary heights oh Duryodhana oh Dhritarashtra if the Pandavas are your allies nobody will ever threaten you so work together when that didn't work then he went even to the extent he says you want a kingdom you can have half the kingdom you can have more than half the kingdom Krishna even went to the extent saying that just give the five Pandavas five villages then Bhed Krishna he also addressed Dhanda he said if however you decide to fight know that nobody in the whole world can fight against the Pandavas what to speak of in the world even in the three worlds nobody can fight against Arjuna Arjuna long ago single handedly at Khandav defeated all the gods together and he offered the Khandav forest as a Ahuti to Agnadev then Arjuna over the years has performed many austerities he has got benedictions from the great devtas he has got weapons from them and as a service to Indra Indra sent him to fight against the Nivat Kavachas those were demons whom Indra could not defeat who had defeated the gods and Arjuna defeated them so Arjuna is so powerful that even an army of gods cannot defeat him even an army of demons cannot defeat him so Kauravas you have no chance and Bhima is waiting to take revenge for all that has happened and his fury will be unstoppable so use danda if you don't agree there will be devastation and then finally he said he turned to Duryodhana's brothers and he said that just because of one person's obstinacy will all of you enter into the jaws of death will all of you be the cause of the destruction of the Kuru dynasty just because Duryodhana is obstinate so Krishna created Duryodhana and Krishna's speech was so persuasive that Dushasana got up and he says he spoke to the whole assembly Duryodhana does not agree to Krishna's peace proposal let us arrest him tie him up and let us send him with Krishna let the Pandavas punish him and we will have peace Duryodhana heard this and got so angry and just got up and walked out of the assembly now all the 98 brothers were remaining they looked at Duryodhana they looked at Dushasana what to do what to do and one by one all of them followed Duryodhana and then Dushasana was left alone Dushasana looked at everyone everyone looking at him Dushasana was walked out and now Duryodhana was a politician so he was angry that Dushasana had spoken against him but at the same time he knew that he needed Dushasana in his ranks so as he was sitting with his brothers and talking he says Krishna is a very cunning person the way he speaks he can persuade everyone at that time feeling a little guilty and embarrassed Dushasana walked in isn't it Dushasana just see Krishna is so cunning that by his words he persuaded you also isn't it oh yeah yeah Krishna is very cunning so what happened he in the same level what he did he got Dushasana back on his side and he labelled Krishna as the bad guy rather than Dushasana having defected from his side so then when he had walked out Krishna turned to Dhritarashtra and said just see this impudent prince while he was being spoken to he is so insolent that he walked out so then Dhritarashtra he summoned Dhritarashtra to come back again and then Krishna again talked with him but Dhritarashtra was not ready to listen at all and then finally when Krishna started speaking in such a persuasive way that even Dhritarashtra's heart started changing at least Dhritarashtra started becoming a little more indecisive about what to do at that time Duryodhana unleashed another fiendish scheme that he had he had kept all his guards and generals and many many soldiers ready he said this Krishna is turning my own people against me arrest him and hundreds of soldiers started charging and from all the doors in their assembly charging towards Krishna and Krishna just laughed and suddenly Krishna's form expanded and he towered high above everyone from his eyes ears and nose sparks of fire and smoke started coming out all the gods appeared around him even the Pandavas appeared on his shoulders and as this fearsome vision was revealed to everyone all the soldiers they just beheld it something it was not seeable they fainted when Dhritarashtra heard that having seen that Krishna is revealing his universal form he requested Krishna Krishna please let me see his form Krishna gave him the eyes that person who had never seen he got to see Krishna's universal form and Dhritarashtra fell back in shock and as the whole attempt to arrest Krishna was completely foiled then Krishna again laughed and withdrew his form as Krishna had manifested his form storms started coming out outside stormy wind and trees were shaking violently all kinds of inauspicious signs were there everywhere Krishna's form was very fierce and fearsome but then Krishna withdrew his form and then he put his hand around Satyaki who was there with him and nonchalantly walked out of the assembly as if nothing had happened and then as Krishna turned he said that all of you have seen this insolent prince is not ready to listen to anyone therefore the war is inevitable and so is his death and then Krishna departed from the assembly so here Krishna went on a peace mission and Krishna failed so can God fail in doing something God is omnipotent how can God fail actually God is omnipotent but God by his omnipotence has given each one of us free will and corresponding to the free will he has given us Kshetra Kshetra is the area of influence so for example somebody is very wealthy then they have a huge area of influence with their wealth they can influence a lot of people somebody is has a lot of leadership qualities then they have a big area of influence so the free will is something which every one of us has the area over which we can exercise that free will that is called our Kshetra suppose you or I get angry we might just shout and hurt some people but say the president of America gets angry he has nuclear weapons on his buttons he can cause much more destruction so different people have different Kshetra area of influence so the free will is a innate property of the soul that is never taken away but by karma the area over which the free will can be exercised that varies if somebody has done some good karma in the past they may have a significant area over which they can exercise their free will and now how they exercise their free will is up to them and because by their karma they have been given that area for exercising their free will Krishna does not intervene so for example Hitler he was he was supposed by his past karma to become a powerful ruler a leader of poor people he had that ability he had that charisma and he became influential but then he used that influence to spin an ideology of hate and he caused the holocaust millions of people were killed by that so the free will it remains and when the person has the Kshetra in which to exercise the free will at that time God does not intervene so because Duryodhana had the Kshetra by his past karma he had the area of influence he was supposed to be a prince so he has his free will and in that free will body, we can walk, we can run, we can jog, we can do various things. So the body itself limits the scope of our free will.
So the example is given in the Bhagavad Gita in 9.6. यथा आकाश्यस्थितोनित्यम् वायु सर्वत्रगोमहान् तथा सर्वाणि भूतानि मज्ठानित्युपधार्यां Just as the mighty wind flows in the sky, similarly, all living beings move about within. So if you envision the sky to be like an upside down bowl, then the sky doesn't limit the movement of the air. The air can move left, right, top, bottom.
But what the sky limits is the area of movement. So if it's upside down bowl, within the bowl, the air can move whichever way it wants. But it cannot move outside the bowl.
So similarly, Krishna doesn't restrict people's free will. He restricts the scope of the free will. Now even the scope will change.
Somebody may, by karma, for 10 years, they may have a huge amount of power. After that, they may lose their power. So during that power that they have, they may misuse their free will.
And when they misuse their free will, some people may be victimised by that. So those who are victimised by that, it is not that God is causing that. We sometimes people say that everything that happens is Krishna's mercy.
Well, a devotee can see everything that happens is Krishna's mercy. But everything that happens in this world is not necessarily what Krishna wants to happen. It is what Krishna allows to happen.
There is a difference between God's will and God's sanction. Sanction means somebody wants to do it, God allows it. God's will means he wants it to happen.
So now if Draupadi is disrobed, Sita is abducted, you cannot tell Draupadi and Sita that all this is Krishna's mercy. It is a horrible thing. It has to be acknowledged.
It is horrible. Now why did it happen? Because Duryodhana misuses free will, because Ravana misuses free will. So basically when things happen in this world, there are three distinct factors.
There is God's will, there is free will and there is evil. God's will, free will and evil. So now evil is not like a third entity which exists.
But evil is the accumulation of our own past karma which becomes impressions within us. So nothing can happen without God's overall sanction. But everything that happens within God's sanction is not God's will.
So God's will is ultimately paramount. But by God's will he has given each of us free will. And if we misuse our free will repeatedly, then that becomes stored as an impression within us.
And when that impression becomes stored within us, then that prompts us to again and again do the same thing. So sometimes this question may come up, lust, anger, greed, are those just desires within us? Or are they actual things? Like if somebody says I am feeling angry, I am feeling greedy, I am feeling lusty. So is this just a feeling that comes up within us? Or is there something called lust, anger, greed? Separate from our feeling.
It is actually both. Remember I gave the example of a computer in which if somebody visits a site repeatedly, then that site becomes stored as a preference. So visiting Bollywood.com, that is a choice.
I have a desire to visit Bollywood.com, I may go and visit it. But then if it is somebody's computer that is already stored as a preference, then as soon as they type B, or if they don't type anything, the browser opens and the homepage is Bollywood.com. So that means lust, anger, greed, these are both desires that we have as well as dispositions that we have cultivated. And they are stored within us.
So that is why Krishna says where is lust situated? The senses in the mind and the intelligence, lust is situated. The same applies to anger, greed. So many people, they have this question that if somebody is an addict, is addiction simply a wrong choice or is it a disease? You are drinking, stop drinking.
You are smoking, stop smoking. You are taking drugs, stop smoking. Just have willpower.
Well yes, it is a matter of willpower, but it is not just a matter of willpower. Because after a particular point, when the conditioning becomes very deep rooted, then it becomes almost like a default choice. And then choosing anything else becomes almost impossible.
It's not entirely impossible, but it is almost impossible. So that's why when something is an addiction, the free will has become so conditioned to act in a particular way that that has become its default behaviour. And then to change it is not so easy.
So at one level, we may say that lust, anger, greed, just stop thinking about that thing. Stop thinking about it, just give it up. So if it is a mild disease, it can be given up.
But if it is a serious disease, say to explain this, suppose we have a little running nose or a little cold, little cough, just let time pass, you'll get healed. We all have some little discomfort. Sometimes we don't feel very good.
There's a little tiredness. Just take a little rest, you'll recover. But suppose somebody has coughing because they've got TB.
Just let time pass, you're not going to recover then. You need proper treatment. So the cough can be just circumstantial because there's some pollen in the grain or the cough may be because of some disease which is inside, some germs that are inside in a big quantity.
So then all cough is not the same. Some cough will go away just if you change the circumstance. Some cough may go away just if you take some rest.
Some cough may require a lot of treatment. So similarly, for some of us, some desire was just circumstantial. They arise, they're there for some time, circumstances change, the temptation goes away, it's over.
But for addicts, it's like a serious infection. And that cannot be changed simply by willpower. If somebody is coughing because of TB and somebody tells you to stop coughing, you'll be forced to cough.
Coughing is not a matter of willpower. Willpower is required. But willpower is required to take the medicine diligently.
And then the cure will happen. So similarly, when somebody becomes an addict, at that time, the impression has become so deep-rooted that that becomes like the default choice. And for them to say no is almost impossible.
Still, I say almost impossible, why? Because there is always free will. That means, let's say, if this is the urge that I get. When the urge comes, say somebody is an addict, they get the urge to drink.
They just can't give it up. They have to drink at that time. And then maybe one day later or two days later or one week later, again another urge comes.
Then also it's overwhelming. So when the urge comes, it may be impossible for them to give it up. So their free will with respect to resisting the urge is almost non-existent.
But they do have free will about what they do in between the urges. In between the urges, if they are trying to strengthen themselves, purify themselves, trying to build positive inner impressions, then over a period of time, those urges will become resistive. So even if we cannot resist, even if we cannot resist the urge when it comes, we don't have to lose hope.
Because we can still work in between the urges. So that's why there is always hope for everyone. So free will may some, in some moments, it may be completely overwhelmed.
But there are other moments when it is not that overwhelmed. But the nature of the mind is, it first beats us up. Say somebody is alcoholic, drink, drink, drink, drink.
It's unbearable, I have to drink. And then after that person is drunk, you fool, why did you drink? You are a fool, you are hopeless, you are useless. Beat the person up again.
Yeah, I'm hopeless, I'm useless. And then after some time, drink, drink, drink. So it just goes on.
So the mind is very cunning. Suppose we say we are living a normal, decent, law-abiding life. And a friend comes to us and says, you know, I have a plan to make quick money.
So what is that? Let us rob a bank. What? Hey, nothing doing. He says, no, no, I have a foolproof plan.
No problem at all. We'll rob the bank and we'll escape. No, no, no, no.
Now come, come, we'll do it. No, no, no. Now come, we can earn millions of dollars.
And somehow, the friend persuades us and we go along. And then we rob the bank and suddenly an alarm rings. And this friend runs away and we are caught.
And then we are caught and we are taken to the jail and we are taken to the court. And sitting as the judge is that very friend. You are a criminal and you are going to be punished.
You thief. Who do you think you are? So the mind is like that, friend. First, the mind only tells us, do this, do this, do this.
No problem. A little bit is okay. No problem.
I'll take care of everything. And then we do it and we get into the trouble and the same mind becomes a judge. You fool.
You're hopeless. You're useless. You deserve to be punished.
In this way, the mind makes a complete mess of our lives. So when the urge comes, it may be impossible to resist. But the remaining time, we don't have to listen to the mind.
Okay, this happened, it happened. Now, let me take shelter of Krishna. Let me try to remember Krishna.
If I do that, then during that time, we can work to purify ourselves. This reformation, I'll talk more about in a later class. But at this point, our theme is that when bad things happen, it is not that Krishna is doing those things.
It is people who are misusing their free will. And there is God's will, there is free will and there is evil. So evil is not some evil being like a Satan or a Shaitan.
Evil is simply the accumulated conditioning within us, which prompts us quite forcefully to keep doing wrong things. And when this happens, it is for us, it is very difficult to resist. So in the case of Duryodhana, he is a person who has his free will, but he uses his free will to defy God.
And Krishna, by going to the Kauravas as a peace messenger, why does he go there at all? Actually, the previous night when Krishna comes to the Hastinapur, he chooses to stay at Vidura's house. And Vidura is very resourceful. So he has already had his spies in various places.
And through his spies, he has come to know that there is a plan to arrest Krishna. For an honourable king like that to be arrested, that itself is a disgrace. Imagine, the Indian Prime Minister goes as a peace envoy to Pakistan and Pakistan arrests the Indian Prime Minister.
A war will break out. Immediately, it is an outrageous thing to do. So Vidura tells Krishna, it is in that same assembly that Draupadi had been dishonoured.
Although the plot to dishonour her was not successful, but still even the attempt of that plot itself was a dishonour. And Vidura cannot tolerate the thought that now his lord will be dishonoured in that same palace. He knows of course that Krishna is omnipotent, but still he is a devotee and as a devotee he has concern.
He says, Krishna, you know that Duryodhana is not going to listen. So why have you come to a petition for peace? So Krishna says, I also know that Duryodhana is not going to listen, but I want the world to know that the Pandavas tried everything possible to avoid the war. I don't want anyone to blame the Pandavas as having been the instigators of the war.
So Krishna himself takes the humble position of a peace messenger and not just a peace messenger, but a peace messenger who goes on a doomed mission of peace. And he accepts that because of his love for his devotees. And Duryodhana comes out here as a villainous character who just has no desire for any kind of reconciliation.
There are different ways of saying no. If somebody asks us to do something, there may be a no to a request. But it's not a no to a person.
Suppose we invite somebody to come for a programme and they say, actually I know I have got this, this, this because of which I can't come for the programme. So that's a no to the request. But if somebody says, even if I die, my corpse will never come to your programme.
Now that is not just no to a request, that is like a no to a person. It's like banging the door straight in the face. So when Krishna says to Duryodhana, just give five villages, what is Duryodhana's reply? I will not give enough land even to put the tip of a needle through.
This is not just a no to the request. This is a banging no to the person itself. I don't care for your words at all.
So when somebody is this insolent, then nobody can help them. God does not take away our free will. He gives us guidance to use our free will properly.
But if we don't use our free will properly, then even God can't help us. So Krishna's peace mission, which is a failed peace mission, is actually, it's a failure of the mission, but it is a triumph of devotion. Triumph of devotion which demonstrates not how devoted the Lord or the devotees are to the Lord, but how devoted the Lord is to his devotees.
That he is ready to do anything to do good for his devotees. And not just for his devotees, Krishna went as the well-wisher even of Duryodhana. So Krishna's going as a peace messenger demonstrates that God is the well-wisher of everyone, even of the demonic.
Of course, the demonic have to listen to reason. If they are not ready to listen to reason, then they will have to face action. God's love is unconditional.
That means whatever we do, he loves us. It's like the sun. Whether a person is pious or impious, sinful or virtuous, the sun gives rise to everyone.
But at the same time, we have to reciprocate. Unconditional love means that whatever we do, we are loved. Not that whatever we do is loved.
The two are different things. Unconditional love means whatever we do, we are loved. Even when Duryodhana was so insolent, so abusive, still Krishna allowed him enough to seek peace, to seek his well-being.
But still his actions were wrong. And those wrong actions, they deserve to be punished. Parents may love their child unconditionally.
If the child fails in the exam, if the child squanders away a lot of money, if the child becomes an addict, whatever, the parents love the child. But it's not that the parents love the child's addiction. The addiction is something which is bad and the child has to give up.
The child is squandering money. The parents don't love that. So unconditional love means whatever we do, we are loved.
Not that whatever we do is loved. So Krishna loves everyone, even those who are demonic. But his love for the demoniac is that he gives them opportunity to reform themselves.
But if they don't reform, then it isn't that Krishna stops loving them. But then Krishna's love comes in a different way. That love comes as the discipline, as the punishment.
And ultimately, Duryodhana had to get Krishna's love in that way. And finally, one by one everyone of the generals that he was so proud of, they fell before him. Everyone.
And finally, Duryodhana himself fell. He was beaten to death by Bhima's fierce blow. And even then he didn't accept his faults.
He kept blaming Krishna. Krishna, because you did this, you did that, you did that. That's how you are able to win the war on Pandavas.
He tries to accuse Krishna of fighting unfairly. Till the last moment, he does not give up his self-righteousness. In fact, when great sages come and tell him that stop doing your vicious activities, stop After great introspection, I don't see anything wrong in what I've done.
I did what I was meant to do. And he says, if at all anything wrong has been done, then I'm simply acting according to my nature. So blame the creator who gave me my nature.
Don't blame me. Now to blame the creator who gave me my nature, that's like saying that if a student fails in the exam, a multiple choice exam, don't blame me. Blame the teacher because the teacher gave all the wrong options over there.
Yeah, the teacher gave the wrong options, but the teacher is also given the knowledge about which is the right option. So we may say everybody has lust, anger, greed within them, but everybody also has free will. By that free will, we have to choose the right option.
So unfortunately, Duryodhana was never ready to own up that he was doing something wrong, that he needed to correct himself and thus that he couldn't didn't accept that and he had to be corrected by the force of weapons. He had to be brought down and that's when that saga of his story ended. It is a self-inflicted nightmare that Duryodhana brought upon himself because he held on to his envy and animosity towards the Pandavas for no real gain at all.
Because of his envy, he lost everything. He lost everything including whatever little virtue he might have, whatever respect he had, whatever property he had and ultimately his life itself. So I will summarise.
I spoke about the later half of Duryodhana's pastimes, Duryodhana character analysis and I talked about how Duryodhana rejected Krishna's peace proposal and Krishna tried Saam, Daam, Bhed and Nanda and template Dushasan was influenced but again Duryodhana won him over and Krishna tried everything, the Pandavas tried everything humanly and divinely possible. But Duryodhana was too adamant and there we discussed that even God can't help us if we don't want to help. So God's will is supreme but God gives us scope for our free will and that is our Kshetra based on our karma and he doesn't interfere with the Kshetra as long as we are meant to have that Kshetra by our past karma.
So within that Kshetra what we do is up to us and if we misuse our free will, we will get the consequences and if somebody gets hurt by our misuse of the free will, it is not God who is doing it. So the reason things happen in this world is, there is God's will, there is free will and evil. Evil is not some malicious being out there, evil is simply the accumulated impressions of our past bad choices.
So our cravings and desires, they are at one level just desires that we have but on another level they are impressions and when the impressions become overwhelming then they become an addiction and giving them up is not just a matter of free will. Just like there can be ordinary cough and there is cough because of a chronic disease, serious disease like TB. So the way to treat them is different.
So when the desire becomes very very deep rooted, then giving it up may require much more of a support system than simply the free will of the person and that therapy ultimately is the bhakti therapy but intermediately there may be other things which may also help the person and lastly I talked about how somebody may refuse a person, refuse a request and somebody may reject a person itself. Duryodhana's rejection of Krishna was like slamming the door in the face of the person. Krishna still, Krishna went there to show his love for the Pandavas that they should not be blamed and also to show his love for Duryodhana also.
Krishna loves even the demoniac but unconditional love means whatever we do, we are loved. Not that whatever we do is loved and lastly talked about how till the moment of death Duryodhana never accepted his fault. He kept finding fault with everyone else.
Ultimately he found fault with Krishna also. So if somebody remains so much in denial of their wrongdoing then they just can't be helped. Then ultimately it is only punishment that will be required for reforming them either in this life or in a future life.
Thank you very much. Are we done? So how does the scope of our free will increase? I didn't necessarily say it increases. I just say that the scope is determined by Krishna but based on how we use it, it changes.
Just like say in this life if somebody does punya, if somebody uses their free will properly to do dharma, then in their next life they may have heavenly prosperity and the free will or the scope to do enjoyable things will be much more. So in that sense we can say free will is like money. If we invest money properly, the money grows and then we can use more money.
So if we use our free will properly, then the scope for the proper use of free will will increase. It may not be immediate. It may be over a period of time.
But that we see even in this life. We may have had some bad habits and those bad habits may limit us. Nowadays most of the world abhors slavery.
Slavery is considered to be very bad. Yes, physical slavery is not there but there is psychological slavery, mental slavery that is there all over the world. Addiction is a form of mental slavery.
Alcoholics may go from one part of the world to another part of the world. But whichever part of the world they go, there is an invisible rope which will drag them to a bar. So there is a rope that is there.
So that is the slavery. And if somebody, so for all of us we have attachments. Attachment is also like a bondage.
So now if we start practising bhakti or if we start living a virtuous life, within the limitation that we have, if we start living a virtuous life, then gradually the virtue in our life will increase. And then the same person, say who had to drink once a day, may just start drinking once a week. The free will is, the scope for the free will has increased.
So somebody who is, you know, who is very weak and they can barely lift weights, they just lift weight for once or twice and they are completely drained out. But if they use their free will to lift that weight regularly, then they become stronger, their muscles become healthier and then they can lift bigger weights for longer time. So this is also one way you can understand that the scope of our free will can increase or decrease based on how we use it.
How does Yudhisthira get, when he is a devotee in his dharmaraj, he gets so captivated by gambling that he forgets all limits. That is the power of maya. And just how it can catch someone, we don't know.
The overall understanding is that, as I said, at a practical level, just that the fever was so great that he just got caught in it. Another understanding is that he was so anxious to gain back what he had lost. That is out of his selfless concern for others.
And at a transcendental level, we understand this is the arrangement of Krishna. So ultimately he is a great devotee and through whatever happens, whatever he does, it is an arrangement of the Lord for teaching some lesson. So generally when we look at characters in the epics, they have to be a little cautious.
We don't have to necessarily say that their actions are wrong because they can well be orchestrated by the Lord. It is just like say, if somebody becomes frustrated and they jump down from a 50-story building, then they will just break their bones and probably die. But if there is a movie superstar who is jumping from a 50-story building, that will be like a big stunt.
That will feature in a movie. That will become a big story. And even if they jump down, there is a safety net below which will protect them.
So similarly, with respect to great devotees, if you or I gamble, we will just ruin our lives. But if Vishnu Maharaj gambles, that becomes a part of the Mahabharata. Isn't it? And Krishna is there as a safety net to protect him.
So that's why we can't compare the actions of great souls or we can't analyse the actions of great souls through our ordinary ethical lens. What we can do is, we can use our ethical lens to understand how we should act or how we should not act. But we shouldn't use our ethical lens to judge those characters.
How could, you know, they must be a terrible person to do like that. No. They are orchestrated by the law at that time to do that.
Okay. Yes. Yes.
Yes. So there are conflicts within the family. Then in the Mahabharata, they fought against each other.
What should we do in today's situation? Broadly speaking, whenever we are in an unpleasant situation, we have three options. I call them as tolerate, mitigate or immigrate. It's like, say, if we are in a city, say if Sydney or somewhere is extremely cold, then what do I do? Okay, if my job is there, my family is there, I have to learn to tolerate it.
If I can't do that, if I am unbearable to tolerate, I have to mitigate it. Make sure that I have lots of warm clothes, I have heating in my home, heating in my car. Then I counteract it.
But if I can't, just immigrate to some other place. Go to some other place. So similarly, we'll see that actually the Pandavas also did all these three things.
Initially, for a long, long time, they tolerated. When Bhima was poisoned, Yudhishthira said it's a family issue, don't make a big deal out of it. Even when they were burnt, attempted to burn them alive, the Pandavas never blamed the Kauravas.
Just accepted that half of the kingdom went on. But eventually when Draupadi was dishonoured, a limit was crossed. And then even after that, when Duryodhana showed no sign of remorse or reformation, then the eventually when Krishna departed from the world, the Pandavas also renounced the kingdom.
They made Pariksit the king and they renounced, they immigrated. So all three options can be done in a mood of service. Or all three options can be done in a mood of resentment.
Or in a negative attitude. I may tolerate, but I am burning within. Tolerate, tolerate, tolerate.
One day I'll explore. Or we may mitigate, but the Pandavas did not fight so much to take revenge. If revenge had been their only motive, then they would have never even considered peace proposal.
The Pandavas fought not to take revenge, but to establish dharma. Sometimes mitigation may have to be done, but we don't have to make it an agenda against them. We don't have to make an agenda against someone else.
We just have to set the record straight and make sure that some wrongs are corrected. And immigration may also be done out of frustration. You know I worked so hard over here, this was so wonderful, but this person has come and made a mess of my life, I have to go away from here.
So if we do it in a negative attitude, then tolerance we will eventually explore. Mitigation will go out of proportion because we are revengeful. And even if we emigrate, still that resentment will be there.
We have gone away from that place, but our mind is still there in that place. And we are loathing and hating that person. But in a service attitude when we do it, we do it with an understanding that ultimately I am a soul, I am meant to serve Krishna.
And in this situation, what is the best way I can serve him? So it is actually purpose that provides perspective. What should be tolerated? What should be mitigated? And what should be emigrated from? How do I decide this? That depends on what is the purpose of my life. And how important is this situation in the bigger purpose of my life? Purpose provides perspective.
I did a similar retreat in Sydney. So there we had the same similar theme. So we had a skit performed over there.
I did not have time to plan anything like this over here. But anyway, so what we did is, if someone is going in a car and while in a train, sometimes in India we have these crowded locals. The bogie is for 50 people and there are 300 people in the bogie.
Everybody is packed against, squeezing everyone. Now suppose there is some bossy person and that person starts pushing us. We get angry.
How dare you push me? I will show you my strength. We push them back. And he pushes us back.
And he pushes them back. And then we get so caught in pushing each other that our station comes and goes and we are still pushing. So in that case, that's stupid.
So okay, if somebody wants to be bossy, just a few minutes or an hour or so, whatever. Okay, you have your space. I just move somewhere else.
Tolerate that. You get off at our station. But on the other hand, if somebody starts pushing us out of the train itself, then we can't tolerate.
Then we have to take a stand, we have to protest, we have to complain, whatever is required. So what determines our response is our purpose. Our purpose is to get to our destination.
And for getting to this destination, dealing with this issue, how important is it? So purpose provides perspective. Tolerance is not passivity. Tolerance is focus on the most important activity.
We all have limited time, energy and resources. So we need to focus those on the things that are most important to us. So tolerance means to keep small things small so that we can focus on the big things.
Tolerance means to keep small things small so that we can focus on the big things. But if the big thing itself is stopped, then tolerance will not work over there. Then we have to do something else.
So we can tolerate in a mood of service by focussing on the bigger purpose. We can mitigate in a mood of service by saying that this person has done wrong to me. Tomorrow they will do wrong to someone else.
And this will just go on. So I am not necessarily getting back at that person. But I am making sure that proper order is maintained.
So we may choose to fight. Or sometimes we may decide that this person, this boogie is a big boss. I will just go and stand in some other boogie.
So we say I have many more important things to do in this life. Tolerating it or mitigating it, both will require so much energy. Tolerating will choke me.
Mitigating will exhaust me. I don't want to get involved in this only. My life has many more important things to do.
So I will just move somewhere else. So all three options can be done in a mood of service. So when we face a conflict, we have to look at the bigger picture.
Focus on what is the purpose of our life. And then see what is the best way to deal with this conflict in a way that we can pursue that purpose properly. There is no one answer.
All three options are fine if they are done in a mood of service. So generally it is good to, if it is a major decision, it is good to write things down, pray over it, maybe consult somebody who is senior, consult some devotees and then take a decision. Any other questions? Yes, please.
Can the mode of ignorance be used to serve Krishna? Yes, certainly. Ultimately, one activity in the mode of ignorance is sleeping. So if we don't sleep at the right time, we will sleep at the wrong time.
So sleeping can also be done in a mood of service to Krishna. This is the body which Krishna has given me. And this body needs rest.
युक्ता आहार विहारस्य युक्ता चेष्टस्य कर्मसु युक्ता स्वप्नाव बोधस्य योगों भवति दुखः Krishna says the practise of yoga will free us from misery, दुखः, but when? When we are regulated in our bodily activities. नात्य अश्णतस्तु योगोस्ति न चैकान्तम नश्णतः नात्य अश्णतस्तु योगोस्ति न चैकान्तम नश्णतः One who sleeps too much or sleeps too little, they cannot become yogis. So Prabhupada is attributed to a saying that if you sleep too much, you become lazy.
If you sleep too little, you become crazy. So we do need to sleep adequately. And what is adequate sleep? It will vary from person to person.
Sleep that enables us to be alert and active in the service of Krishna. Now devotees usually before sleeping, they do it in the mood of service by praying to Krishna. And maybe now chanting some mantras, maybe if we want to spiritualise our sleep also, we may chant some prayers before sleeping.
Then when we wake up, we offer our respects to Krishna and pray that we can engage the next day in Krishna's service. So that way, one activity in the mood of ignorance is sleeping. That can be used in Krishna's service.
Similarly, destruction is an activity in the mood of ignorance. Creation, maintenance and destruction. So destruction is sometimes required for the construction of something better.
So Hanuman is said to use anger in Krishna's service. He got angry and he burnt Lanka. And that is his devotion.
So he did destruction in the service of Krishna. You could say destruction is in the mood of passion and ignorance. But it is not because it was in the service of the Lord.
So the activity which is in the mood of ignorance, that is destruction, that can be done also in the mood of service to Krishna. So the moods themselves are not bad. The moods are just parts of material nature.
But the intention with which we do the activity in those moods, that determines our consciousness. Does that answer your question? Yes. Can you speak a little loudly? You are wondering about other religions.
From that point I end here. Okay. So other religions believe that say Allah is God or Jesus Christ is the Messiah.
So is that what we agree with? There are two different things over here. One is the principle that God is one. And that one God can manifest in different ways to different people.
Bhaktivinoda Thakur in the Chaitanya Shiksha Amrita says that revelation comes to different people according to their cultures, their language, their psychologies, their level of consciousness and a series of other factors. And the path to God is open to them accordingly. So one God can reveal himself to different people in different ways.
That principle we accept. Now beyond that when we look at specifics, it is not that all Muslims have the same conception of Allah. Even among Christians there are Catholics and there are Protestants.
And they all accept Jesus Christ as saviour. But still one of them Catholics have the idea of trinity. And the Protestants don't accept the concept of the trinity.
There are differences between them also. So if we look broadly speaking at some of the attributes of Krishna that are described in the Bhagavad Gita and some of the attributes of Yahweh that are described in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is a book which is accepted by Jews and the Christians also accept it but they consider the New Testament which is given by Bible, Jesus, to be more authoritative.
The Old Testament, the Muslims also accept it but they consider the Quran to be the final revelation. There are many similarities in the attributes of God that are described in the Bhagavad Gita and the Old Testament. The Old Testament says I am the Alpha and the Omega of all things.
Krishna says I am the beginning, the middle and the end of things. I am the letter A among all letters. So there are certain attributes of the One Supreme that are described in those religions and they are described in our tradition.
And these attributes are similar. The specifics of the revelation significantly vary. That means the specific revelation that God is a blueish black cowherd boy who plays the flute, that is not given in any other tradition.
So we understand that every religion has an exoteric aspect and an esoteric aspect. The exoteric is external. The esoteric is internal.
So the exoteric aspect refers to certain practises, certain ideologies. That is say Hindus worship God by holding hands. Muslims do it by raising their hands in namaz.
Christians do it by moving in mass. Now the intent is similar, offering worship to God. The way it is done, it is different.
So that means the esoteric aspect that we should offer respect to God is the same. The exoteric aspect of how it is done is different. In this case what is common and what is different is very easy to see.
In some other cases the similarities and differences may be much more difficult to see. So we understand that ultimately everybody is on a journey of consciousness. And different religions can become pathways for people to rise in their consciousness.
But not all religions in all their details are equal. And more importantly apart from the details of their original revelation, the way they are practised now also varies. So there is no need to get into too much specifics.
We accept that there is one God and there are many paths to that one God. The important thing is that we grow in love for God. If that is what is happening, we accept that.
And this is the path by which people are developing love for God. Prabhupada, some Christians consider Jesus to be God. Now Prabhupada considered that, Prabhupada quoted the Bible itself.
Jesus has very clearly said that I am not the father, I have been sent by the father. There is a devotee scholar, Stephen Rosen, Satyaraj Prabhu. He has written a book called, it is not exactly a book, it is a compilation.
Compilation which is titled, you mean that is in the Bible? That is the name of the book. There are many quotes in the Bible which are not known actually to Christians. There are many references where God is also telling you should not eat meat.
Live on plants or the related things. But those are not highlighted in their tradition. So the essential principles of all religions are the same.
Specific details often vary. Does that answer your question? Little loudly and clearly please. Now if there are specific statements in the Bible which seem to indicate that people can eat meat.
Well that, see meat eating is something which is there even in the Vedas. There are yajna which talk about sacrifices where meat is eaten. There will always be people who will eat meat.
The point is not that whether people can eat meat or not. The point is, is meat eating helpful for spiritual life? Is it conducive for a person who wants to grow spiritually? So, it is, so there is, firstly we are going to look at three levels. There is no injunction in the Bible which says that people have to eat meat.
That means, you see you can. But you don't have to. Now there are verses which do indicate that all creatures are creatures of God.
You should respect them. Now how do you respect them? Well not killing someone is the basic way of respecting them, isn't it? So if it is not necessary, why kill them? Second point is that there are people at different levels. So for a person at a particular level, just believing in God and following some regulation in life is good.
Even if they are eating meat, just teasing is a good step forward for them, accepting God. But if somebody wants to become devoted to God, then it is a different issue. So, say if a father has two sons.
And one son just barely scrapes through the exam and gets 40% marks. And the other is among the best grades, gets 80% marks. And today both have come back with the results.
And both have got 60%. So the child who is at 40%, the father will say, well done. And the other one, what have you done? Now the marks are the same, but the level, the capacity is different.
So for somebody who is godless and materialistic, say godless, materialistic and meat eating, for that person to just at least believe in God and continue eating meat, is better than being godless and materialistic. On the other hand, somebody who is not just a theistic person, but who wants to devote their life to God. So they are like at the 80% level.
For them to eat meat is not good. So we have to see what is given in a certain text according to the level of the people. And what is conducive for people to evolve upwards from where they are.
Does that answer your question? Any other questions? Yes, please. So how does the theory of evolution fit in with the worldview of the Vedic literature? It is quite a different question from what we are discussing right now. This question requires going a little bit more into fundamentals.
Broadly speaking, there are mechanisms which govern this world. And there are certain things beyond the mechanisms. The mechanism like the laws of nature, say laws of physics, I explained yesterday.
The laws of physics can explain the correlation between cause and effect. But the laws of physics where they themselves come from, that is something which physics itself cannot answer, science cannot answer that. So now some laws in physics, in science, are you could say reasonably demonstrated.
So all science is not born equal. What does that mean? That science which relates with things as they are right now, that is something which can be repeatedly experimented with. So in science there are broadly three ways of understanding things.
They call it deductive, inductive and abductive. Inductive means it is a theory which is a given truth. 3 plus 5 is 8. The square root of 4 is 2. Just they are given principles.
Inductive means we do many many experiments. And based on the pattern found in the experiments, we come up with a particular theory. And then we do further experiments.
If they confirm the theory, then we say this theory is a law. So most of the successes of science which have transformed the world today have come from the inductive method. Now inductive itself is not guaranteed to be true.
Because some future experiment may prove a current finding to be wrong or at least incomplete. But when science starts oscillating about origins, about what happened long long ago, then it actually cannot use the inductive method. How the universe came about, how the life came about, these are not repeatable event that can be seen within, which can be replicated in a laboratory.
So for this, scientists use what is called as abductive method. Abductive means that it is, it is another name for it, inference to the best explanation. We look at the evidence available right now and then analyse which would be the best explanation for this.
So it is almost like solving a investigative mystery. Say in this room, this person was found dead with a knife in his chest. And he was alive at 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
9 o'clock when somebody went to meet him, he was dead. In between who all went into the room? You have a camera. And you find there is a 5 year old boy who went there.
And there was a 68 year old granny who went there. And neither of them had the strength to put the knife. There was a 23 year old butler who also went there.
He must be the suspect. Now that may be true, but it may not be also. We cannot in investigation fiction tell the, in investigation, we cannot tell the criminal, please come and do the crime again and we will catch you on camera.
So similarly, with respect to ancient history, science cannot do any tangible experiments which necessarily replicate the exact conditions. So it is inference to best explanation. And the butler being the criminal might be the best explanation.
Till somebody investigates further and finds actually, in this house, this door with the camera is not the only entry. Under the cupboard there is a trap door. And that trap door leads to a secret passageway.
And the murderer had come in from there. So if we get more information, the whole paradigm itself can change. So in general, science knowledge about origins is very tentative.
That is why scientific theories about the origins tend to change. This John Wheeler is an astrophysicist. He was asked this question by one of his students.
Sir, there are so many theories about the origin of the universe. How do I keep track of them? So he replied, if you miss a bus, a girl or a cosmological theory, don't run after it. Because in a few minutes another one is coming.
So, this is not a criticism of science. This is just a fact. Sometimes we equate scientific theories which are derived from abduction with theories which are derived from induction.
And we say, you know, science works. I put a phone, I dial a phone call and the phone goes. You know, we can see cricket matches playing so far away.
We can get so much information about so many things. How can you criticise scientific theory? How can it be wrong? Well, this scientific theory is very different from this in the methodology by which it is acquired. It is learnt.
So, in the material world, there may be some mechanisms by which certain things happen. A theory of evolution could be one of the mechanisms. But the mechanism itself is quite heavily debated.
And more importantly, even if there was a mechanism, that does not in itself prove that there is nothing beyond the mechanism. So, what scientists have evidence for can be called as microevolution. Microevolution means, we can see under the laboratory, say, microbes mutate, germs change forms, say, AIDS is very difficult to cure because the AIDS virus keeps changing.
So, adaptation is a proven fact. That is well known. But evolution, what it requires is not just change within species, but change across species.
Will an HIV virus change and become a TB virus? Well, that has not happened. So, but evolution requires that. So, the evidence for that is questionable.
So, what happens is, scientists give evidence for microevolution, which can be observed. And from that, they extrapolate to the evolution of all the species, which is questionable at best. And even if we do not get into the specifics of evolution, ultimately there is foundationally the origin of consciousness.
Evolution of consciousness is a big, big question mark. Nobody has answers to that. Just a whole set of theories, but no substance of those theories.
That's why we don't have to necessarily see science and scripture as being in conflict with each other. We understand that if you consider scriptural knowledge to be like a vast body, we come to scripture primarily to learn how to love Krishna, how to grow spiritually. When Parikshit Maharaj is about to die in seven days, at that time, he is not specifically interested in which species came how, or how the cosmology is working.
He has not come to Parikshit Maharaj to get a PhD in cosmology or archaeology. No, he has come to Parikshit Maharaj to learn how to love Krishna. So, that should be the thrust of our study of scripture also.
So, if you consider scriptural knowledge to be like a big circle, within that there will be some aspect which agrees with modern science. Say, for example, third canto there is a description of embryology, how the embryo develops in various states. That's quite remarkable and prescient from the perspective of modern science, that somebody thousands of years ago could know how the embryo develops.
Some part agrees with modern science. Some part disagrees with modern science. And a major part of scripture transcends modern science.
So, that there is a spiritual world in which there is a supreme consciousness who plays a flute. Science can neither prune nor disperse. It is beyond the scope of science.
So, our thrust should be on this aspect, that which transcends science. And from a practising point of view, that's what matters most to us. So, the part which agrees with science, we may speak about it, so that some people can develop faith in the part which transcends science.
And that part which disagrees with science, we have to find out what is the exact nature of the disagreement and how that disagreement can be understood. And then eventually we have to move on to the transcendental part. Prabhupada does that in the first canto, when Krishna travels from Hastinapur to Dwaraka.
At that time the path which he has taken is described. He went to this city, this city, this city, and he finally came. So, Prabhupada says in the purport that geologists may try to trace the exact path that Krishna took.
But he says that is very difficult because the surface of the earth keeps changing. As far as we are concerned, we are simply satisfied that Krishna has now come to Dwaraka and is going to perform pastimes in the Dwarkavasis. So, that is the thrust.
So, we have to be saargrani, focus on the essence. Does that answer your question? Yes, that is okay. So, actually if our children are learning science in schools, see we do not have to highlight the conflict.
If there are some specific issues of conflict, we can address them on an issue by issue basis. And as far as men coming from monkeys is concerned, that is not the theory of evolution. That is a common misunderstanding over theory of evolution.
What evolution theory says is, there were primates who were called ape men and from them both men and monkeys evolved. Now, somebody can say this is just a convenient way of denying the fact, explaining that how monkeys and humans are still there. But if we are addressing a particular theory, we have to know the theory properly.
So, if there are specific issues, I have a website called the spiritual scientist, where I have addressed the theory of evolution more. And there are some other areas of controversy like Vedic cosmology is there, the moon mission is there. So, each of these can be addressed specifically.
And even if children in school hear these theories, it is just information for them. There are so many things they hear. How much of it is going to really shape their character? This is one more theory that they learn.
Unless we highlight the conflict, it just moves on. And over a period of time, if somebody is more scientifically inclined, we have devotees who have written books, which explain how to reconcile science and spirituality or how to address their conflicts. So, those kind of books can also be referred to if somebody is specifically interested in that.
Yeah, it's true. You talked about Krishna's omnipotence and why he still fell in devotion as a peace messenger. If he actually did fail, you answered the question.
Similar to that, I have a question. In his Vrindavan leela, does Krishna actually forget that he is God? If he actually forgets he is God, then what kind of a God is he? So, in Vrindavan leela, does Krishna forget that he is God? And if he forgets, then how can he be God? Yeah, it's a good question. I can use a metaphor to understand this.
See, Krishna in Vrindavan is interested primarily in reciprocating love. And the whole of Vrindavan is arranged in such a way that whatever is required for reciprocating love, that is arranged over there. So, for God, if his Godhood comes in the way of reciprocating love, then that awareness of his Godhood is subordinated for both devotees and for him.
That means that Yashodamayi, she is worried if Krishna does not eat food, in time he will fall sick. Now, if she thinks Krishna is God, he is providing me also food, how can she have any anxiety for feeding him? So, her maternal affection cannot be there. The Gopas are playing with Krishna and they think, oh, this is the supreme duty.
How can I push? How can I do anything with him? Krishna can't have fun of playing with him. So, the Vrajavasis, they also have knowledge of Krishna's Godhood and Krishna obviously has that knowledge. But that is not in the foreground.
It's like, even in the daytime, the stars are there in the sky. But the sunlight is so bright, the stars are no longer seen. So, in Vrindavan, the Prema is so prominent, it is like the sun.
And the Jnana is like the stars. So, Aishwarya Jnana, it is not there, it is there, but it is not prominent. And this applies both to the Vrajavasis and to Krishna.
So, Krishna knows that he is God, but that knowledge is not in his foreground. Krishna Leela is like a play. It's like, you could say, a drama that is performed for pleasure.
So, sometimes, a father may play with a child. Let's play a boxing match. And the child puts one punch, the father falls, Oh, I am defeated, I am defeated.
The father is not defeated. But just for having fun, the father does like that. So, Krishna plays like that.
However, for the father to truly enjoy the drama, the more the father enters into the drama, the more he will enjoy it. More he will enjoy it. Similarly, for Krishna, there is an energy which induces this divine illusion, you could say, where the awareness of Krishna's Godhood goes into the background.
That energy is called Yogamaya. The word Yogamaya itself is strange. It is an example of what is in English called an oxymoron.
Oxymoron means two opposite words are brought together. Somebody says, that was brilliantly stupid. He says, what? So, that was brilliantly stupid.
So, it is said, suicide is an act of courageous cowardice. So, it requires courage to end one's life. Many times people say, okay, I am going to end my life.
And then go and they lie down on a railway track. And they hear the railway coming, they get up and go away next time. So, it requires courage to end one's life.
But if one is ending one's life because one is frustrated with the problems of life, then that is cowardice. So, it is an act of courageous cowardice. So, when two opposite ideas are brought together, that is called an oxymoron.
So, similarly, Yoga and Maya. Maya is that which makes us forget Krishna. Maya is that which disconnects us from Krishna.
But Yoga is that which connects us with Krishna. So, what is this thing called Yoga Maya? So, Yoga Maya is the illusion that connects us deeper with Krishna. Normally, illusion disconnects us from Krishna.
But Yoga Maya is the illusion that deepens our connection with Krishna. By forgetting Krishna's godhood, we become more attracted to him. Because he is my friend, he is my child, he is my lover.
And similarly, Krishna also becomes more attracted to his devotees. So, if you consider, extend the drama metaphor further, say in a drama, there are actors. And all the actors are acting.
And everybody can enjoy the drama to the extent all the actors enter into the mood of the drama. However, all the actors are acting according to the direction of a director. So, all the Vrajvasis are like the characters in a drama.
Krishna is the hero. And Yoga Maya is like the director. So, everybody acts according to Yoga Maya's direction for the reciprocation of love.
However, the director also directs according to a script, which is written by a script writer. So, in Krishna Leela, Krishna is the actor, Yoga Maya is the director, but Krishna is also the script writer. So, Krishna forgets his godhood, if you are at all going to use the word forget, he forgets his godhood according to his own plan.
That's why at one moment in Damodar Leela, he is scared and running away from Mother Yashoda in fear, oh Mother Yashoda will beat me with the stick. And he is crying when she is tying him up. But at the next moment, he remembers, oh, these trees are actually Nalakuvara Mani's grave, and my devotee Narada Muni had promised that I will deliver them.
So, now it's my time to deliver them. So, at one moment, by Yoga Maya, Krishna is actually thinking I am a child and is running in fear. But next moment, when he wants to have another Leela, immediately that awareness of his godhood comes back.
So, Krishna never forgets his godhood, in the sense that we may forget. But rather, Krishna's awareness of his godhood is subordinated to his Leela, subordinate to the purpose of his Leela. So, if the purpose of his Leela requires him to manifest his godhood, he manifests it.
But if it doesn't require, then it's not manifested. So, we'll stop here. Thank you very much.
After 15 minutes or 10 minutes?