Free will and God’s will 1 – God is the cause of all causes not all effects
Hare Krishna. I'm grateful to be here amongst all of you today. I'm sorry I got a little late in coming.
So the next three days I'll be taking a discussion on the topic of if God's will is supreme, how do we have free will? And I'll be taking this based on the character of Duryodhana, especially Duryodhana's defiance of Krishna's will when Krishna comes as the messenger of peace to petition an amicable resolution of the conflict between the Kauravas and the Pandavas. And at that time Duryodhana openly defies Krishna. So Krishna goes on a mission and apparently Krishna fails.
So if God's will is omnipotent, how can God's will fail? And how can an ordinary soul have the power to thwart God's will? So today I'll be talking about philosophically how are these two reconciled? How do we have free will and how is God's will still supreme? And tomorrow I'll talk in terms of karma. How does karma occur within the framework of God's will and free will? And last class, Sunday I'll talk about how bhakti plays its dynamics when we are reconciling human will with divine will. So the notion that there is a supreme being in control of all existence, this has been there across many theistic traditions all over the world.
And this notion has had several challenges. One challenge common is that we don't see God, so how do we know he exists? But another deeper challenge is that if God is supreme, then does that mean that we all are like puppets? That we are simply orchestrated by God and whatever we are doing, it is he who makes us do it. At one level, this idea may make it seem that yes, God is in control and whatever we are doing, it is he who is making us do it.
So we often say God is the supreme controller. Now yes, he is the supreme controller, does that necessarily mean that he is the only controller? No. Supreme means the topmost controller.
But the only controller means that he alone controls everything that happens. Now some people sometimes say that not even a blade of grass moves without God's will. If you consider the Bhagavad Gita, it says, Upadrashta Anumantarja.
In 13.23 it says, God is the overseer and the permitter. Now it's not saying that it is by his will that everything happens. It is by his sanction that everything happens.
So if we say that everything happens by God's will, that God is the only controller of everything, it might at one level seem to be glorifying God's absolute controllership. But it has several problematic implications. Does it mean, say that anything that anyone does, it is God making them do that? Say if a person commits suicide, is it that God wanted that person to commit suicide? And God made that person commit suicide? If a person does bad karma and then get karmic reaction for that, then is it God causing them to do the bad karma and then giving them the reactions? That would make God not compassionate but sadistic.
That God makes us do the activities which make us suffer and then he gives us the suffering for those activities. So it could be at a personal level sometimes people inflict distress on themselves. At an interpersonal level people inflict distress upon each other.
So now, is God the doer of all this? The Bhagavad Gita gives an example to illustrate God's supreme controllership. That is 9.6 in the Gita. यथा आकाश्यस्तितो नित्यम् वायु सर्वत्रगो महान् तथा सर्वाणि भूतानि मध्स्थानित्यो पधारया यथा आकाश्यस्तितो नित्यम् Just as in the sky, all the air is situated.
वायु सर्वत्रगो महान् Significant, Krishna uses two adjectives to describe Vayu. He doesn't use any adjective to describe Akash. Akash is the sky, Vayu is the air.
He says, महान्, it's great. And secondly he says, सर्वत्रगो, it can go everywhere. So if we envision the sky to be like an upside down bowl, then the air within it can move in various directions.
The bowl does not restrict the movement of the air, the bowl restricts the area of the movement of the air. So the area of the movement means, that the air can move up, down, left, right, but within a specific parameter. So similarly, मध्स्थानित्यो पधारया Krishna says, similarly, all living beings are situated in me.
So when he is talking about himself, he is comparing himself to the sky. So Krishna gives us free will. And our free will has certain scope.
The sky does not determine where the air moves, which direction it moves. So similarly, Krishna does not determine specifically what we do. We determine that.
It's our free will by which we choose. But our free will is not unlimited. Just as the air's movement area is not unlimited.
So we all have a finite free will with which we can do what we wish to do. And is this free will in defiance of God's will? No. This free will is in reliance of God's will.
It is by God's arrangement that he has given us free will. So God's absolute controllership is in the area of our free will. It is not in the free will itself.
So what do I mean by the area of free will is limited? Right now, we can do certain things and we can't do certain things. If we are souls in human bodies, we can't fly in the bird like a sky. We can't swim in the water like an aquatic.
So we, with the body that we have, have been given certain abilities, which we can do. But beyond that, there are many things which we can't do. Even within our human body, some of us can sing very well.
Some of us can speak very well. Some of us can manage very well. And some of us can't do those things so well.
So prakriti refers to the broad material nature. And kshetra refers to the field of control which each soul has within material nature. So for example, my kshetra, my field of control is my body.
Krishna uses the word kshetra and kshetra gyan in the 13th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. So I have control over my body and you have control over your body. Of course, we don't have absolute control.
Tomorrow if I get paralysis, I will not be able to move my hand up and down. So I don't have ultimate control but circumstantially I do have some control. But I don't have control over your body.
You don't have control over my body. So each soul has a particular area of control that has been given to it. And that is its kshetra.
Now within that kshetra, the soul can do whatever it wants. So right now, we have been given certain power of speech. We can use that power of speech to glorify Krishna.
We can use it to speak about mundane things. We can use it to blaspheme devotees. We can use it to just gossip.
Or we can just stay silent. So the power of speech is with us. But how we use it is something which we choose.
Now even with respect to power of speech, some people when they speak, they stutter and stammer. And they find it very difficult to make coherent sentences. Some people when they speak, it is like the flowing of Ganga.
They just speak so fluently. So now even with respect to speech, some people are great orators and they can move hundreds and thousands of people to action. So their speech is also a part of their kshetra.
So kshetra is the area of influence. It doesn't refer only to the physical body. It refers to whatever faculties we have by which we can control things.
We can influence things. So an ant has a very tiny kshetra. It can only move around and if somebody comes in its way, it can stink.
An elephant has a huge body. An elephant can knock down trees, toss away obstacles. It has been given a much bigger body and along with that bigger body, a bigger kshetra.
So this kshetra, this area of control is what each one of us has been given by our past karma. So similarly, going back to the Mahabharata, here the incident we are discussing is that Ekadha, at one time when the Rajasuya sacrifice was going on, so Duryodhana saw the influence, the affluence of Yudhishthira and he started, he started burning with agony, with envy. So now here what happened, he had his kshetra.
He was the heir and the prince of the Kuru kingdom and he considered Yudhishthira to be like his equal. He wanted to be the superior. So Yudhishthira now has greater kshetra than what I have.
His kingdom is bigger, his wealth is bigger, his prestige is bigger and thinking of this, he started becoming envious. So now, the word used here is Achyut Atmana. So Yudhishthira, he had all this, but he did not think it was his.
His life was devoted to Achyuta, his heart, his soul were devoted to Achyuta and similarly, his property was devoted to Achyuta. In fact, in the Mahabharata when the gambling match is about to take place, so Yudhishthira is extremely reluctant to gamble and the first reason he gives for not gambling is that he tells Duryodhana, why do you want to take away from me the wealth that is meant to serve the brahmanas? So he did not see the wealth as his own property meant for his enjoyment. He saw it as meant for the service of the brahmanas.
So he had that wealth. So we all have a free will and we have the arena in which to execute the free will and in that arena we have a certain level of influence. So that area of influence, the free will is an inherent and inalienable possession of the soul.
It is something which is eternally given to the soul by God. But the area over which the soul can exercise the free will changes and that change happens by karma. So for example, if we consider a citizen.
Every citizen in a kingdom has certain free will and along with this free will they also get certain rights. You can drive on the streets, you can get some facilities from the government, you can get healthcare, you can vote in the elections. So we could say free will is something intrinsic to the soul and the area over which to execute the free will is the external thing.
So we could say there is free will and there is freedom. Freedom is the capacity to execute the free will. Even slaves who existed in the past, I just came from America, so there is lot of slavery there all over the world practically.
Slaves also had free will but the slaves did not have freedom. They also had their dreams, their aspirations but the external capacity in which to execute that free will was restricted. Now that may be restricted by external force, say somebody is owned by someone else as a slave or it may be that somebody breaks a law and then they are put in jail.
The same person outside had a lot of freedom but inside the jail they have much lesser freedom. Even in the jail they still have free will. In the jail they can meet with other criminals and become more criminal or they can meet with some good people over there.
Sometimes they represent reform programmes in the jails and they can become more religious, more spiritual. They can come out or they may just take some courses for learning something and they have a good source of livelihood when they come out. I was at an interfaith conference in DC just a few months ago and there was a Baptist pastor who also spoke.
They all were speaking about how we came to God. So this pastor was saying that he was accused for a crime, he was framed and he had not done anything and because of that framing, 23 years he was in jail. And while he was in jail, there was some Christian organisation which offers support to these prisoners and then he actually studied law and learned law inside the jail.
And after extensively studying law, he found out the procedures by which he could have his case reinvestigated. And when the case was reopened, he was able to prove that he was framed. So after spending over two decades in the jail, he came out.
So that means somebody can go into the jail and just feel, I am not guilty, I am framed like this. But in the jail also, the freedom is restricted but the free will is still there. So all of us, now all of us always have free will.
Although the capacity over which to execute the free will may be limited. So somebody may be able to sing very nicely and they can, if they are serving Krishna, they can attract many many people to Krishna. But even if somebody can't sing nicely, they can still sing whatever way they can and they can still offer their devotion to Krishna.
So for us, our free will is something which we need to use properly. Now if we consider the famous verse from the Bhagavad Gita, पत्रं पुष्पं फलं दोयं योमे भक्त्या प्रयक्षति तदाहं भक्त्यो पहरतं अश्णामी प्रयतात्मनः So 9.26 in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says, even if somebody offers me a fruit, a flower, a leaf or some water, that person, if they offer it with devotion, I will accept it. Commentators explain over here that Krishna doesn't even use the plural over here.
He doesn't say फलानी, पत्रानी or पुष्पानी. He says even if you offer one leaf, one flower, one fruit, that is enough. So what is the point over here in our discussion? See that some people may not have the resources, they may not have the external freedom to offer a lot to Krishna.
So Krishna is concerned not so much with what are the externals that we are offering to him. The externals are the way which we express our internal intention. So if there is no external facility to offer much to Krishna, even if you offer a little to Krishna, he accepts it.
So our free will may be circumstantially restricted. Somebody might be in a, I was in the Middle East few months ago, and there we cannot do any public Sankirtan. All the devotional activities have to be done privately.
So then the freedom is restricted over there. But that does not mean the devotion is restricted. So the devotion can still flow within that curtailed situation also.
Now, just as we can, whatever little facility we have, whatever little external influence we have, we can use it to serve Krishna and move towards Krishna. So similarly, whatever little freedom we have, we can use it to defy Krishna also. And if somebody by their past karma has been given a huge amount of freedom, that means a huge amount of control over externals, then they can abuse their free will and they can cause a lot of damage.
They can destroy people. So if we consider, say, Hitler, one of the biggest destroyers of the last century. Now by his past karma, he was meant to have a huge Kshetra.
He was meant to have a significant area of influence externally. That was what he got by the past karma. But by his present karma, by the way he chose to act in this life, he used that external influence to dominate and destroy others.
So he abused his free will. And those who were victims of his terrible abuse of free will, it is not that God wanted that they be victimised. It is that those people were victimised because this person misused the free will.
So if we consider in the Ramayana, when Hanuman first sees Ravan in his opulence, first time Hanuman sees Ravan is at night, he is in Lanka, he is trying to go through the various chambers to find out where there is Sita. At that time he sees Ravan sleeping in bed and there is signs of revelry all around him. But the next day in the court, when Indrajith's Brahmastra imprisons Hanuman and Hanuman is dragged to the court.
There when he sees Ravan sitting in his majesty on the imperial throne of Lanka, at that time the first thought that Hanuman has is, he is such a powerful person. If he had been devoted to God, if he had been virtuous, he could have done so much good for the world. So he saw this potential for goodness.
But he was also aware of the actuality of evil that he was doing. So as a devotee we see the potential for good in everyone. It is said that when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had not yet manifested his devotion as Nimai Pandit, he was just so scholarly.
So devotees were hankering, when will he become a devotee? What does that mean? That means he has been given enormous amount of intellectual ability. When will he use it for the service of the Lord? So the free will which we have, we are meant to offer it to Krishna. We are meant to harmonise it with Krishna's will.
And to the extent we do that, to that extent there is auspiciousness in our life. And not only auspiciousness in our own life, but auspiciousness in the lives of others. So now going back to the earlier point, that say Hitler killed so many people.
So was that God's will that all those people suffer in the concentration camps and die? Or is it that one human being has the power to cause so much suffering to another human being and God doesn't do anything to intervene? First thing is that God is not the cause of the evil in this world. We say sometimes Krishna is the cause of all causes. Yes, he is the cause of all causes, but he is not the cause of all effects.
He is the cause of all causes, not the cause of all effects. What does cause of all effects mean? Say if there is wilderness and certain vegetation grows over there because the rains fall. Now without the rains no vegetation will grow.
In that sense the rain is the cause of the growth of all vegetation. But the rain does not determine which specific vegetation grows where. That is determined by what kind of seeds are already there in the ground.
If grains have been sown, crops will come. If orchard is there, flower seeds are there, flowers will grow. If nothing is there, seeds are there, weeds will grow.
So the rain is not responsible for the specific kind of vegetation that grows. At particular place. Similarly, In the 5th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna analyses the various factors that determine how action takes place.
And there he says that I do not take responsibility for anyone's good actions or anyone's bad actions. Then why would anyone do bad? Their knowledge is covered over by ignorance. By this the living entity is bewildered.
And that's how the living entity acts in various ways. So, God is not the cause of the sufferings in this world. We could say he is the ultimate cause in the sense that without him nothing would exist.
But that does not mean, just as a thorny vegetation grows in a particular area and we are walking along and thorns pierce our legs. We can't blame the rains for that. So similarly, God is not responsible for the misuse of free will either by us or by others.
But then if we have our free will and others have their free will and each of us can do whatever we want. Then what is the role of God? How does he come into the picture? So, everything is not God's will or we can say everything is not God's plan. But everything is within God's plan.
What is the difference? Everything is not God's plan but everything is within God's plan. Say consider a school. Now the school is meant for students to get educated and to get promoted from one level to the next level.
But if a student doesn't study well and if a student fails, then there is a plan within the school even for that. There is a plan. Okay, if you fail in one subject, you can go to the next class, next level but you do this subject again.
If you have failed in four subjects, you stay in this class and do this whole course again. So, now here we can differ in the Bhishma pastime, the 9th chapter, the first canto of Srimad Bhagavatam. Bhishma says to Yudhishtira that actually everything, Prabhupada translates the Sanskrit there as everything is within Krishna's plan.
He doesn't say everything is Krishna's plan. To make this difference more clear, we could say there is a difference between a plan and a purpose. The school's purpose is not that the students fail.
The school's purpose is students study and get elevated to the next level. But if the students don't study, if the students fail, the school has a plan for them. The school's plan includes the students failing.
But Krishna's purpose is not that people misuse their free will. But if people misuse their free will, that is within Krishna's plan. Within Krishna's plan means, say if A and B are in a particular relationship.
Say Hitler and Jews were in a particular relationship. Hitler grew to power in a country in Germany where there are lot of Jews. So, now if Hitler started persecuting the Jews, at that time the persecution of the Jews is not the purpose of God.
It is Hitler's own purpose and because he has been by past karma given certain Kshetra, so he does certain things. But that is, even that actions are within the plan of the Lord. Within the plan means, that this is a subject which I will explore more in tomorrow's session.
But that we all have done certain karma in the past for which we get certain reactions. And then certain people's misusing their free will becomes the instrument through which our own karma comes upon us. Now this does not in any way mean that what that person is doing is right.
What they are doing is grievously wrong. And then they will be punished for that. So, more than specifically the karma.
Okay, it's your own karma coming to me. More than that, even when distresses come in our life, God is there with us to help us face those distresses. So, Krishna is not the cause of the world's suffering.
He is the cure for the world's suffering. How he is, that I will be discussing in the Sunday's class elaborately. But everything is within the plan of Krishna.
That means, if somebody misuses their free will and hurts me, it is not that Krishna wanted me to be hurt. It is not that Krishna wanted me, wanted that person to act in that way. That person wanted to act that way and Krishna allowed them to act.
Because by their past karma they have that kshetra to act in a particular way. Now in the process when I get hurt, Krishna is not up there causing that hurt to me. Krishna is in here with me.
If I turn towards him, he can help me to tolerate and transcend that hurt. So, Krishna is the cure for the world's suffering. Not the cause of the world's suffering.
So, I will summarise and then we can have few questions. I spoke today about the topic of how, if God's will is supreme, then how do we have free will. I started by talking that God's, everything happens not by God's will but by God's sanction.
And to understand how God's will is supreme, but God is the supreme controller, that does not mean that he is the absolute controller of everything. It is not that everything that everyone is doing is orchestrated by God, is ordained by God. We have free, if that were so, then God would become a sadist who makes us do bad karma and makes us suffer the consequences of the bad karma.
So, the understanding is that God's will determines the overall framework or scope of our free will. But we determine how within that scope we use our free will. Just as the sky determines the area of the movement of the wind, but the wind is free to move whichever way it wants.
So, the sky for each one of us, the area over which we can move about, that is our Kshetra. That is our sphere of influence and that is determined by our past karma. So, I differentiate between free will and freedom.
Free will is something which the soul always has. But freedom is the external facility to execute that free will, exercise that free will, which will be shaped by situations. And by past karma, if somebody has a huge Kshetra, a huge area of influence, then they may abuse that to hurt themselves or hurt others.
When such dreadful actions are done, it is not that God is doing them or God wants them to happen. Krishna is the cause of all causes, not the cause of all effects. Just as the rain is the cause of the growth of all vegetation, but not the cause of which vegetation grows where.
So, when some people do some bad things, say when Duryodhana persecuted the Pandavas, or when Hitler persecuted the Jews, or some people may hurt us, it is not that Krishna wants us to suffer or Krishna wants them to act that way. Everything is not Krishna's plan, but everything is within Krishna's plan. Krishna's purpose is that we all use our free will properly and grow.
And Krishna looks only at how much are we trying to use our free will properly. He looks at our intention and even if there is a small area in which you can express that intention, Krishna is happy with that. Just as He is happy with our offering fruits and flowers also.
But He allows us to use our free will the way we want. And if because of the misuse of our own free will or misuse of others' free will, if we are having difficulties, we are in distress, it is not that Krishna is the cause of that distress. Krishna is the cure for that distress.
If we turn towards Him, He will help us to tolerate and transcend that distress. How this will happen, we will discuss in a future session. Are there any questions or comments? I was thinking, let's say, we pick our karma and look at it in small parts, or it is actually our karma, the result of our karma, that if we look at it in a certain time, in a certain way, in a certain quantity, in a certain quality, or basically how many people may we choose? Yeah, okay.
So, if, is our past karma which is going to come to us, is it fixed or can other people determine how it comes upon us? Well, first point is, karma is a very subtle subject, complicated. And I'll talk more about this tomorrow. But two main points, that the way things happen to us is determined not just by our past karma, it is also determined by our present karma.
So, say, normally I eat food and I get energy. But sometimes I eat food and I don't get energy. That's because, say, by my past karma, I have got some digestive block in my stomach.
So, that means, normally, say, if I am walking along the road and I slip and fall, and I didn't notice that there was a banana peel over there, my falling, is that because of past karma or because of present karma? Well, definitely present karma is involved. If I had been watchful, I would not have slipped and fallen over there. But is it the present karma alone that is involved? Now, imagine that if there is some water spilled and three people are walking by, all three slip and fall.
But one of them, they are walking near some pole or handle and they hold it and they steady themselves. The other one, they have nothing to hold, they fall and they injure themselves a little bit. The third one, they fall and there is a big pointed iron bar behind and that pierces their head.
So, now, why this difference? So, we will see in our life that sometimes we may make some mistake, but the mistake may have very little consequence, some consequence or huge consequence. And sometimes the consequence may be disproportionate to the amount of mistake that we have committed. So, this, that means, the present karma, the present mistake is simply… So, for a person who just slips and doesn't fall much, okay, there is indiscretion and not much consequence.
But for somebody who makes one mistake, like sometimes we say, you know, he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. So, that means that actually that action was the instrument by which the past karma was meant to come. But it does not mean that everything is already it.
We may, by our carelessness, aggravate things. So, our past karma may be meant to come upon us, but we needn't think that karma is simply like a frozen, it's not like a big mass of stone which is going to fall on us. It's not exactly like that.
Karma is also reciprocal. The very act in this world. Some people might be, by karma, meant to be very sickly.
Some people, you know, they eat, they just eat a little bit here and there, their health gets spoiled, their body balloons out and they just become miserable. Some other people, they treat their tongue like a conveyor belt. They eat anything and everything and nothing happens to them.
So, what does it mean? That means by past karma, some people were meant to have a sickly body and a small indiscretion that leads to a lot of trouble. But some people are meant to have a very healthy body. And there, no matter if they eat indiscreetly, it doesn't have any consequence.
So, the key thing is that we should try our best to act as wisely as possible. And others, and in our interactions also, we should try to act as wisely, as sensitively, as respectfully as possible with others. So, I haven't seen anywhere in scripture, when a person is suffering, they are told by others, you are suffering your own karma.
When Draupadi is dishonoured, nobody tells her that you are suffering your own bad karma. Nobody does that. When Sita is kidnapped, nobody tells her.
It must have been your own bad karma because of which you are kidnapped. Because the important thing in Vedic culture is not what is someone's past karma, the important thing is what is someone's present dharma. What is their present dharma? So, now we could say Sita committed a mistake by going out of the Lakshman Rekha and that's how Ravana was able to kidnap her.
Okay, but it was a minor mistake. I didn't know he would come in the garb of a saintly person. So, now her stepping out of that safe zone, you cannot say that alone was responsible for her abduction.
And Ram did not hold her responsible for that. So, Ravana misused his free will and what happened? Ram considered what is my dharma. Ram did not consider, oh, Sita was abducted, it was her own karma.
No, he considered, okay, whatever has happened, what is my dharma? My dharma as a husband is to protect her. So, he fought against her. So, the important thing is if we start getting into what is whose karma, we can become very judgemental.
We should focus on what is our dharma right now. So, what is it that I am meant to do? At one level we say that we are born with our life spans fixed. That our number of breaths we are going to take is fixed.
But the same tradition in which this statement is found also has a whole body of knowledge called Ayurveda. And the very literal meaning of Ayurveda is the knowledge that helps us to increase Ayu. Ayu is life span.
So, if our life span is ordered, then how can any medicine increase the life span? So, things are not that simple. So, the point is that Ayurveda gives us practises by which we can enhance the quality of our life, by which we can promote health and well-being. And whether that specifically promotes longevity or not, that's a different question.
When practising Ayurveda, when practising Ayurveda, practising medicine or practising any regimen for health, our focus should be on this body is given to me by God. How best can I use this body? And how best can I maintain this body? So, at that time, we don't think, oh, it is my past karma. If you start thinking everything is past karma, then why should we take any medicine at all? The disease that we have got is by past karma.
So, we can go further and say that everybody is suffering because of their past karma only. Say, when a baby is crying, the mother may say the baby is crying because of her past karma. So, should the mother not fondle the baby, not take care of the baby? Now, we would become extremely hard-hearted and even monstrous if we start looking at past karma.
Our focus always should be on what is my present dharma. And if, say, Hitler did atrocities to the Jews, when somebody is a victim, it is not right for us to say it is their karma. Now, as a philosophical reflection, they themselves may think, you know, I must have done something bad because of which this has happened.
But others, they should be there to help rectify it. And if talking about karma helps in dealing with the situation, it's okay. But our purpose is to help others.
And if knowledge helps, if the knowledge of karma helps, that's fine. But most important is we have to give the knowledge of Krishna shelter. Even amidst this difficulty, Krishna is there and you can take shelter of Him.
So, we have to always focus on what is our dharma, not what is anyone's karma. So, if our dharma we do rightly, then as you rightly said, sometimes a huge karmic reaction may be going to come upon us. So, I fall, I'm walking carefully, and I slip but I don't fall much.
And I was meant to get some injury, but I may get that injury as as ten different scratches on my body at ten different times. And that may not trouble me as much as one crippling injury that immobilises me for some time. So, we should always focus on how I can act as prudently as possible.
Okay. Thank you. So, I'm not sure, should we go on? Okay.
Yes. Yeah. Okay.
So, how do the modes of nature affect the exercising of our free will? As I said, we always have free will but the freedom, the external arena over which we execute our free will, that changes. And the modes are also a part of the external arena. When I talk about the external, usually we think about the physical.
Say, if somebody is in jail, we say they don't have much freedom. But there could be a physical prison and there could be a psychological prison. Say, somebody who is addicted to something, they may physically appear free or go there, do anything.
But they are in a psychological jail. And, I think it was Oscar Wilde who said, giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the whole world. I have done it over a hundred times.
So, I gave it up but it didn't give me up. It kept coming back. So, basically, when somebody is addicted, they are in a psychological jail.
And the modes are the agents through which the psychological jails, bars or shackles are administered. So, in principle, all of us go through the three modes. Even when we are very advanced, still the lower modes may influence us.
But we can resist their influence. But for somebody who is not having any transcendence, then they may just be pushed around by their modes here and there and everywhere. So, the way the modes influence us, we can't really change that much.
Of course, by practising bhakti, we can purify ourselves. But, that will take some time. However, what we can do is, we, if you look at our life, there are some times when we are in goodness, sometimes in passion, sometimes in ignorance.
Now, relatively speaking, we are in passion for much more time than we are in goodness. But, we, we may not have the free will to prevent passion and ignorance from influencing us. But, we do have the free will of when we act how.
That means, if I have some major decision to take, I can take that decision impulsively when I am in the mode of passion or I can take it when, just frustration, just do something. I can do it in the mode of ignorance or I can think and do it carefully in the mode of goodness. Say, if I have a conflict with someone, then, I might feel angry, I might feel resentful, I might feel vengeful and now, I can't just wish away those feelings.
They are there. But, I can choose whether I confront that person when I am in passion or ignorance or I confront that person when I am in goodness. So, I am angry and I just go out and lash out at that person.
That will only make things worse. Now, based on the mode that I am in, the magnitude of the anger will vary within me. Some people, they get angry and they just give others a silent treatment.
I will just not talk with you. Some people, they get angry and they may take a gun to shoot someone else. So, the anger has come upon both of them.
But, the way they express it is different. That is determined by their past impressions in the mind. That is determined by the kind of modes they have cultivated.
But still, they can choose. I am angry right now and of course, from the external perspective, taking up a gun and shooting someone is far more dangerous than just not talking with someone. But, neither actually resolves the issue.
But, either way, they are angry. Okay, I am really angry now. But now, I will not do anything about this.
I will not confront them at this time. I will just walk away from them. And later when I come in goodness, then I can calmly reflect and then I can confront them and I can try to have a discussion which leads to a resolution.
So, the point I am making is that the modes determine how we will be pushed to act. And that we cannot change so easily. But, we can choose when we do our major actions.
We can choose that when I am in passion or ignorance, I will not take my major decisions. I will postpone them so that I can take them in goodness. And then those same decisions will be taken more responsibly, more intelligently and hopefully with more productivity.
So, the modes, they induce certain emotions within us. And those emotions are difficult for us to wish away. Almost impossible to wish away.
But, we can choose whether we act on those emotions immediately or we, okay, acknowledge the emotions but defer action. And if you could defer action for some time and then act in goodness, then we can actually act much more responsibly. Does it answer your question? Okay.
So, thank you. Anyone else? There was a question behind. Okay.
Do any of the Matajis have questions? Yes, one last question. Yeah. I just want to ask this.
Why do modes have a lost age or have a lost age if we see God most intend to do bad things? Okay, good question. So, people with say bad, inclination to use their free will bad in a negative way, destructive way, they seem to have a huge influence. Well, not necessarily.
There are, the world is still going on. And if you see world is going on, life is going on, people are in distress, people are dying, but there are people also using their free will properly. And that's how things are going on.
But sometimes what gets highlighted is the negative use of free will. Recently one devotee sent me an abstract from an article which is based on a book. That book is a thesis that is written by an atheist who says life has never been as good as it is now.
And he gives various statistics of how murderous dictators and terrible diseases and all those were much more in the past and that book makes a point that in today's world because we are so interconnected that actually if anything bad happens in any part of the world immediately we come to know about it. And because bad news is in a sense sensational. So that's what gets highlighted, that's what dominates our consciousness.
So at one level what that book says and what he is saying is true. It's not that in the past the world is what it is. Relatively speaking we might make some argument this way or that way.
But it is not that the past was idyllic and wonderful. This world is a place of distress always. I was in South America and there were the Aztecs and the Incas.
There were civilisations of 2000 years old. And the Spanish came and in two years that time there were no nuclear weapons but in two years something like 1529 to 1531 the whole Inca civilisation was destroyed. Thousands and thousands and thousands of people killed.
So in the past also atrocious things have happened. It's just the way of the world. It's a harsh place.
So going back, so my point is that even good people are there and people do good things also. Just like say I was in Washington DC since what happens is because of religion people are inspired to do many good things. Many people are charitable, many people are virtuous.
But these are not newsworthy. But if somebody in the name of religion becomes a suicide bomber and blows up. Now a million people may become charitable because of their religion and ten people may become suicide bombers.
But the million people becoming charitable is not going to come in the news. The ten people being murderers will come in the news. So that's the one perspective.
The second is that it is not that necessarily people with past with bad karmic inclinations have greater Kshetra. It is also that when we have greater Kshetra we tend to give in to our lower side. It's a power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If you see Marxism the intention was actually very good in one sense. They wanted everybody to be equal, everybody to be having resources, everybody to be happy. But when Stalin and Lenin got power actually the Marxist government China and Russia, USSR they killed seven times more people than the number of victims in First World War and Second World War combined together.
They killed their own citizens. Those who they felt were opposing them. So what happened? They might have an agenda that everybody should be equal.
But millions were stripped of their life itself. So if people do not have proper spiritual training or at least sattvic training mode of goodness training then when they get resources in this life they may get those resources by their past karma but their tendency is to become corrupted and to abuse those resources. That's why having good karma from the past life is a blessing but a far more important blessing is having the association environment by which we get the inspiration, the training to use what we have properly.
When that is not there then people tend to misuse their freedom. And that's how we can say influential people end up doing bad things. It's not that bad people get influence.
Rather people might be good or bad but they get influence and then they become corrupted. And then influential people end up doing bad things. So thank you very much.