Gita Insights on Terrorism

Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
I welcome you to today’s talk on Gita Insights on Terrorism. I’ll be speaking this in three parts.
First, the philosophical understanding of how the Gita analyses the world. Second, we will discuss some practical socio-political realities and how they can be seen in the light of the Gita’s vision. And then we will look at practical responses based on the Gita’s insights for us in today’s world.
So the Bhagavad Gita is a book that is essentially a vyavahara shastra. It is meant for functioning in this world and for functioning in this world it gives us practical guidance of how we are meant to live. And its practicality can be seen especially from the point of how it is spoken on a battlefield.
In a war field when a person is about when a war is about to start there can be few situations more urgent than that situation. And in such a situation for a war for a book to be relevant requires us to requires it to be to connect whatever wisdom whatever philosophy it has with the practical realities. So the Bhagavad Gita draws on the Sankhya system of philosophy to analyse the world in three modes of material nature.
So that is goodness, passion and ignorance. These are the English translations for the Sanskrit words Sattva, Rajas and Tama. Sattva basically refers to existence.
It has many meanings. One meaning is existence and it refers to that state or condition of living in which people are steady. When things are maintained.
Then Rajas refers to that which causes change. That which especially brings about new things. And Tamas is often equated with darkness and it refers to that which destroys.
Now creation, maintenance and destruction are three features of existence itself. There is everything in our own body. New cells are being formed.
Many cells are being maintained and old cells are dying out. So creation, maintenance and destruction are constantly happening in this world. And when these happen the important thing is to recognise that they are happening.
There will be specific instruments through which they happen. But they are happening as normal functions of material nature. Now although the material world is temporary even while living in this temporary world we need some amount of stability to function.
Just as in a ship if people are moving the waves underneath the ship are moving and the ship is also going to move. But an expert captain ensures that the movement of the ship the restlessness and the turbulence in the ship is not too much. That it is steady enough for people to function.
Similarly although changes are going on in this world creation, maintenance and destruction are constantly happening that there is some amount of stability and bringing about that stability so that people can go about with their lives, doing their material responsibilities and pursuing their spiritual aspirations. To go around with this people need to be having some stability and dharma is what brings about that stability. Krishna himself descends to establish his dharma.
dharma samsthāpanārthāya sambhavāmi yuge yuge So dharma has various definitions from a transcendental perspective dharma is defined in the Bhagavatam as that which enables us to love God. That which enables one to develop pure love for God, unmotivated and uninterrupted. The Bhagavatam 1 to 6 states that is that is actually dharma, that is Bhagavat dharma.
Now why that is the ultimate that is the order that will bring means dharma essentially refers to the orderliness of things. The soul’s orderly state is to be in harmony with the Supreme Soul and Bhagavat dharma enables us to attain that harmony. Along with that there is dharma in this world and dharma which Krishna comes to establish is ultimately to pave the path for Bhagavat dharma but to create order in this world also by destroying the infidels destroying the miscreants as Prabhupada translates paritrāṇāya sādhunāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtāṁ dharma samsthāpanārthāya sambhavāmi yuge yuge In 4.8 Krishna states that he comes to protect the pious to destroy the impious and to establish dharma as he comes again and again so now if we see it is the responsibility of the kings especially to maintain dharma at a socio-political level and that’s why there are rāja rishi a rāja rishi in this 4th chapter of the Bhagavata where this verse about dharma establishment comes it tells before that evam paramparā prāptam evam rāja rishayo vidhu rāja rishi refers to those who are saintly kings and the rāja rishis need to do both they have to have spiritual vision that’s the rishi part and rāja part, they have to have political acumen, they have to have political expertise to know how to manage things at a practical level so the practical and the transcendental have to go together in the saintly kings rāja rishi literally translates as royal sieges, Shila Prabhupada often translates it as rāja rishi as saintly kings which would be rishi rāja, but either way the point is, there is the spiritual and the political or the martial or the administrative which are brought together together in one vision so normally it is the duty of the kshatriyas the administrators of the state to maintain dharma now one major difference between the kshatriyas of the past and the kshatriyas of today is, in the past the martial and the administrational functions were integrated the same kings who ruled on the throne also fought on the war fields today the heads of state, practically none of them have fought in the army they are primarily administrators and the martial soldiers, they are entirely different another issue is that today the principles of dharma are often difficult to discern who is right and who is wrong in fact, that was so in the past also dharmasiddhatvam nītam guhāyam the whole bhāgavatam the whole mahābhārata actually is a quest for understanding dharma different people at different times are striving to understand what is dharma, how they should act so now from the bhāgavatam’s perspective or from the bhagavata’s perspective primarily which morphs or grows into the bhāgavatam’s perspective from the bhagavata’s perspective the process of establishing dharma has both aspects the brahminical aspect of sharing spiritual knowledge and the kṣatriya aspect of doing practical things for maintaining law and order and both are considered dharma so kṣatriyas often have to use violence kṣatrāyate iti kṣatriya those who protect people from hurt they are called as kṣatriyas some people say that the Bhagavad Gita talked about war and today also there are terrorists who talk about war, they talk about jihad so in one sense people say that it’s similar isn’t it actually there is a huge amount of dissimilarity because the kṣatriyas fight war according to certain principles even when the Kurukshetra war took place that war never involved attacking civilians an area was allocated for the war that was the Kurukshetra area and there were only fighters, soldiers and warriors who were there who were attacked, even the helpers such as the other people who were there in the camp, the cooks, the cleaners and all the other people who would take care of the warriors when they returned at night none of them were considered to be attackable they were not meant to be attacked so kṣatriya warfare meant that the warriors fight each other when they are equal, when they are equipped and when they are alert when they are equal that means elephant warrior should not fight with a food soldier chariot warrior should not attack a food soldier a chariot warrior should fight with a chariot warrior so basically those who are on those who are having some vehicles they should fight with those who have vehicles and in this way the wars were fought between both of them when they are equal not only equal when they are equipped now if the opponent is not having a weapon at that time to attack is improper and if they are not alert then at that time also it’s not proper so equal, equipped and alert and if we see modern terrorism it is exactly the opposite it is there are people who are trained to fight, to kill and they are attacking civilians who are not equal to them, who are not equipped and who are not alert people are just going around in their normal course of lives and terrorists attack and kill them so this is barbarous the nearest that anything in the Mahabharata comes to what we could call modern terrorism is Ashwathama’s night massacre of the Pandava sons and the remaining Pandava soldiers on the 18th night and that Ashwathama’s massacre gets universal condemnation it is universally condemned by everyone it’s irreprehensible that is so far away from the standard way of fighting that when Ashwathama proposes it, his associates Krithavarman and Kripa they are so appalled that they can’t even speak any words what you are saying Kripa tells him is beyond contemplation what to speak of actions is give up such thoughts immediately unfortunately at that time Ashwathama is it goes ahead and executes those thoughts that is a whole different story but the point is it is irreprehensible completely opposed to Kshatriya standards so now sometimes destruction is needed for creation just like if you want to renovate a house then some walls some floors may need to be destroyed so that something better can be brought over there so destruction itself is not bad destruction when it is regulated for the purpose of creation then it is constructive, it is positive but when destruction is unwarranted, unregulated then it becomes wholly Tamoguna so the Kshatriyas when they fight violence that is for the purpose of establishing Dharma and they fight according to the principles of Dharma whereas modern terrorists when they fight it is simply Tamoguna it is simply primarily destruction for the sake of destruction destruction for the sake of attracting attention destruction for the sake of causing fear destruction for the sake of creating glamour for themselves among people who have similar Tamasic mentalities now we will come to the modern causes of terrorism so in today’s world much terrorism is associated with Islamic terrorism and this association draws strong emotional reactions from various parties now there are liberal defendants of Islam who say that terrorism has no religion and in fact there are some even Barack Obama was criticised for not using Islam to refer to ISIS which has in its own very name it says Islamic state but Obama was saying that this is not Islam and some people criticised him for that so there are the liberals who want to disconnect all terrorism from any religious cause and there are others who want to pin the blame for terrorism on one religion and that religious ideology so now both these are extremes and we need to of course see from today’s socio-political perspective but such socio-political perspectives have to be subordinated to to the spiritual perspective or the philosophical perspective so the primary philosophical perspective that Bhagavad Gita offers us is that of Satvaguna, Rajoguna, Tamoguna so terrorism is an act of Tamoguna Kshatriya violence is an act of Rajoguna there is destruction but that is for the purpose of doing something better and it is very regulated in terms of the principles according to which it is fought and that regulation is Satvaguna so Tamoguna wherever it is excessive that causes destruction and often wanton destruction at that so if we see Tamoguna is a feature of material existence but it has to be a regulated feature when it becomes unregulated then it causes unwarranted destruction and unwarranted destruction has been there throughout the world’s history so we see that at one level the way Hitler killed millions of Jews 6 million Jews and a total of 12 million people in the Holocaust itself that is horrendous Tamoguna that is terrorism even in the modern times now the idea of a suicide bomber causes great terror and not just terror among potential victims but the very idea that somebody will blow oneself up to kill some other people that itself causes revulsion but the idea of becoming terrorist bombers or suicide bombers that was started not with Islam that was started with LTT which had no religious background to its cause so it was primarily a geopolitical agitation LTT was a terrorist organisation was a militant organisation was an aggressive insurgent organisation in Sri Lanka now if we see from the spiritual perspective wherever Tamoguna is, Tamoguna will cause unwarranted violence and that Tamoguna can get can rationalise itself from various causes it may be from geographical causes it may be from economic causes it may be from even sociological scientific causes Hitler he thought that he was a great follower of Darwin and he thought that species are going to human races are also going to evolve and eventually eventually the most fit race among the human races is going to survive and he imagined that the Aryans he considered the Germans to be the original Aryans and he said they are the fittest race and they are going to survive and the Jews are the most unfit race and they are going to become extinct but I can help evolution on the way and I can help that by by empowering the Aryans, modern day Aryans the Germans, Nazi Germans specifically and destroying the Jews so of course social Darwinism as a theory has been discredited thereafter even in mainstream academy and science but the point is he did scientific rationalisation we don’t blame science and blame and try to reject science or abolish science because it was abused and abused so monstrously so now we consider causal link here that does Islam cause terrorism yes it does as I said ISIS is itself Islamic and Islamic ideology can be interpreted or misinterpreted to cause terrorist violence and it is being done now the causal to deny the causal link between Islam and terrorism is to turn a blind eye towards reality but what is also an equally blind eye is to say that Islam alone is the cause of terrorism so that means that if Islam itself were intrinsically a cause of terrorism then why is there upsurge in terrorism especially more in the last 50 or so years Islam has been around for 1500 years so every religion goes through different phases and at particular time the Tamasic phase in a particular religion can become more and when that becomes more that religion acts follows that religion act in brutal ways now if you consider the bible then even in the especially in the old testament there are statements that can be used to incite violence against others.
In the crusades that were fought they were of course they had a religious inspiration to them. The crusades were wars that were fought between the Christians and the Muslims and they were fought to try to reclaim Jerusalem which was the holy land for both of them so now there quite often the motivation was derived from Biblical religion from Biblical texts and now modern Biblical scholars have also analysed and shown how it is not the only application it can be misapplication of Biblical texts also. The point is that even the Bhagavad Gita itself can be used by some to rationalise violence so for example the the there is a Indian political writer he said that India’s biggest mistake after becoming independent was that it did not follow the Bhagavad Gita and his interpretation of following the Bhagavad Gita was that within minutes of the creation of Pakistan India should have attacked Pakistan and eliminated Pakistan, annexed Pakistan that would have been the application of Bhagavad Gita now we cannot translate the Bhagavad Gita’s call for war to Arjuna to today’s socio-political reality.
If we see the way Krishna talks to Arjuna to fight in 3.30 he says that mayi sarvani karmani sanyasya adhyatma cetasa nirashir nirmama bhutva yudhya svabhigatajvaraha so yudhya svabhigatajvaraha is a call for fighting but that call for fighting is based on what is he saying mayi sarvani karmani sanyasya offer the fruits of all your work to me sanyasya adhyatma cetasa have spiritual consciousness nirashir nirmama bhutva have no desire have no possessiveness yudhya svabhigatajvaraha. Now actually desire and possessiveness they are the primary motivations for war in today’s world. So the Bhagavad Gita is talking about a very different kind of war.
So the point is that I was talking about the causal link that can Islam cause war? Can Islamic ideology be used to rationalise and justify terrorism? Yes, it can be. Now can, we discussed that way, science can also be used to rationalise and cause war. Nationalism can also be used or abused to cause war, to cause violence, to justify brutal violence like terrorism.
And similarly in various religious texts also there are passages there are sections that can be used to justify war, aggression and even brutality. And sometimes it has happened in various religions. So to pin or to equate all terrorism with a particular religion is not only historically or factually correct, it is also not philosophically correct.
So what causes destruction is tamoguna. Now tamoguna can be incited by various causes. Now it is true factually speaking that the incidences of Islamic terrorism are far far greater than the terrorism or violence caused by other religions or other causes also.
So, I’ll conclude this talk briefly now. So I was saying that it is tamoguna which causes destruction and tamoguna can masquerade through various causes. Can appear through various causes.
Now if you consider Islamic history, yes it is true that Islam has led that Islam has been used in justification for lot of brutal violence. And why is that? Again from the Gita’s perspective, there are dual roles. In general, within the broad culture of the Gita, there is separation of power between brahmanas and kshatriyas.
The brahmanas had intellectual and spiritual power. The kshatriyas had martial and political power. And the people, both of them work together.
So the brahmanas, they brought about regulation. And the kshatriyas, they brought about protection. Protection involves destruction, protection involves maintenance also.
So the kshatriyas brought, the brahmanas brought balance to that. And whatever ideology, whatever religion, whatever thought system has spread in this world, it has been by this combination of brahmanas and kshatriyas. So Jesus was the brahmanical kind of person and Paul was somewhere like a kshatriya and later on there is a Roman emperor who took up the mantle.
And that’s how Christianity spread. Buddha, Buddhism was a fringe doctrine for many centuries till Ashoka took it up. He was a kshatriya.
He was influenced by a brahmanical monk of the Buddhist order. So this combination of brahmana and kshatriya leads to the spreading of any ideology or any thought system. Now in Islam, Muhammad was both.
He acted as the brahmana in the sense that he revealed the Quran and he acted as a kshatriya in the sense that he fought the war. Now subsequent generations of Muslim leaders have largely focused on the martial example of Muhammad far more than his intellectual or spiritual example. Now when people are fighting the war, the nature of real politics is that sometimes war principles are violated.
Unfortunately this happens even in the Mahabharata war. it is not that such a violation of war principles is not to be made into a principle in itself. unfortunately because subsequent generations of Muslim leaders have taken Muhammad’s martial example much more than his spiritual or intellectual example.
So as a society or as a group Islam as it exists today is very significantly a surge for political power. Individually there are many pious Muslims and those who try to say that all Muslims are terrorists. Factually also this is an absurd statement to make.
Today as per census every fourth person in the world is a Muslim. Now if all Muslims were violent, if all Muslims were terrorists, then the world would be hellish. So that’s definitely not to end.
There have been many Muslims who have practised Islam as an individual practise following namaz, giving charity and doing various things by which they have raised their consciousness. So there are pious Muslims and there have been some Muslims who have been saintly also individually. But collectively the leaders of Islam have quite often been more of those politically searching for power.
So rather than being a religion that is a spiritual search for truth, it has been a political search for power. And quite often the Quran’s teachings are subordinated and misappropriated for the purpose of rationalising this political search for power. And this political search for power, the often brutality is done in the form of terrorism.
Now there are Islamic intellectuals who strongly contest the interpretations of the Quran where terrorism is justified. But there are others who support it and quite often such intellectuals are propped up, are supported by the political leaders who want to manipulate gullible young men into becoming machines of death. So this is this mixing up of Kshatriya and Brahmana roles that and the emulation of the Kshatriya aspect far more than the Brahmana aspect is the cause of Islam becoming associated with terrorism quite a lot.
And ultimately we as spiritualists who want to practise Bhagavad Gita, we need to see that it is not any particular religion that is the cause. That it is Tamoguna that is the cause. And when there is branding of a particular religion, then we are actually philosophically uninformed.
Now we are practising what is called as Islamophobia. There has to be a healthy fear of things that cause danger and trouble. But there has to be not an irrational fear of everything associated with something.
It’s like when some people get a disease, then sometimes everybody in the family or the whole family is boycotted by people who think this whole disease might be infectious. That sort of thing is not necessary. We have to have educated vision to know what the disease is and what is needed to prevent the spreading of that disease and what is not needed for preventing the disease.
It’s not that everybody who is in the family of a diseased person have to be treated as untouchables, have to be rejected. No, that’s not needed. Similarly, we have to see that tamoguna is the cause and how tamoguna can increase and what causes tamoguna to increase, that has to be understood and that has to be countered.
So individually, when we practise spirituality, when we study the Bhagavad Gita, when we practise mantra meditation, we may feel as if what am I doing? There is so much problem in this world. What can I do for it? Actually, if we understand that tamoguna is ultimately the cause and if we raise ourselves towards sattva guna, if we raise ourselves beyond sattva towards shuddha sattva, towards the spiritual way of living, we are contributing in a small way towards countering the root cause that is the degradation of human consciousness. And last part is that they are and of course, so this is just the individual level.
As I said, it has to be combated at an individual level. We as individuals brahmanically need to work towards raising our own consciousness and sharing the spiritual knowledge that helps others to raise their consciousness. And secondarily we need to work towards having strong governmental and political mechanism needed to protect and to counter.
So military action is definitely needed where there is violence, there has to be violence in reaction. Bhagavad Gita justifies, certainly that may be necessary. But the Bhagavad Gita decides that is the last resort and that is definitely not the only solution.
So certainly terrorist, it’s not that peacekeeping measures alone are going to help. Terrorism has to be countered by military action. But military action alone is not the solution and that there has to be a redressal of grievances when there are problems and there has to be a addressing of the violations of law aggressively also in terms of what the Kshatriyas are supposed to do, what the Brahmanas are supposed to do.
So we as individuals the more we contribute to making the society to that extent we will be able to contribute towards countering terrorism. And the Gita’s insight in that sense is to look at things from their ultimate causes. Ultimate cause is the disconnection from spiritual consciousness.
The degradation of human consciousness towards Tamoguna. And the solution is the elevation of human consciousness. Now in the elevation of human consciousness people who are, a large majority of people simply want to get on with their lives and live better lives.
And if anything helps them to do that, they accept it. So the elevation of human consciousness can be done by intellectual and spiritual means and at the same time there will be people who will not be willing to raise their consciousness. As we see even at the time of Krishna, the Kauravas were not ready to raise their consciousness.
And then they had to be martially dealt with. So martial action is also required but martial action has to be informed philosophically. Not just be a vindictive reaction against a particular group.
And informed philosophical vision can help us to both individually and collectively contribute towards countering the cause of terrorism. Counter the scourge of terrorism. Thank you.
So now here I’ll take some questions. Some people argue that if people can’t express themselves democratically, for example they can’t, if they can’t vote to change the government, they are justified in carrying out terrorism. What is your opinion? Yeah, there is the impulse to destroy that which we cannot change.
So all revolutions ultimately come when people feel frustrated with the existing systems. So much so that they feel that the existing system itself has to be destroyed. However, destruction is something far easier to do than reconstruction.
So quite often there might be some insurgent groups who destroy buildings, destroy government offices, destroy bridges and things like that. And if somehow or the other later they grab power, they may be in power for years and very little very little positive construction happens. So when we give in to the Tamasic impulse to destroy because we can’t change, then it is not just that we are destroying things, we are actually increasing the influence of Tamoguna on ourselves.
And that Tamoguna will not allow us the later on the freedom to act in higher modes. So that’s why it is not that violence itself has to be ruled out, but violence also has to be regulated. Irrational indiscriminate violence even against people who are not to be blamed, people who have done nothing wrong at a specific individual level that is what terrorists do that is completely Tamasic.
So yes, change requires, so change requires assertive action and sometimes it may require violence also. But if we give in to the impulse for violence indiscriminately, then we get caught in Tamoguna which traps us and which leads to leads to a trap where people can easily destroy but they don’t construct, they can’t construct. And that’s why wherever there are revolutions, there is an upsurge of expectation after the revolution, but quite often things don’t change much because the revolutionaries they get caught in the rejection mentality and rejection destruction mentality and when construction or rejuvenation comes up, they are not able to do that because Tamoguna has trapped them.
So Tamoguna as a practical measure can be used. We have to sleep, so we also have to destroy certain things. But that has to be done very much under revolution so that later on there can be reconstruction.
Okay, next question What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Yeah, at one level we could say this is subjective say a person who is fighting in Kashmir in India for independence of Kashmir or for protection against the protection of the Kashmiris. They may be considered by the Kashmiris to be a freedom fighter and Indians may label them as a terrorist. So once we go into various specific geopolitical causes the nomenclature is not important.
It is the conduct that is important. If innocent people are being targeted as a matter of vendetta, then such action is not worthy of a person who claims to fight for a principled cause. Today especially the western media highlights how India and the Indian army does some excesses in Kashmir.
But quite often while talking about this what is completely or largely neglected is that there have been Muslim insurgents who have been doing excesses against Hindu families over there. The whole in 1989 or so the whole thousands of Kashmiri pundits were either annihilated or were driven out of they had to flee from Kashmir. And a similar drive is to some small extent being attempted today wherever it is possible for the insurgents to do so.
So if we are going to call this as freedom fighting that people who have lived for generations in a particular place are forced to flee or they are killed. This is definitely not the cause of any principled action. It is brutal inhuman violence.
So the difference is in terms of the way one conducts oneself. If one is brutally indiscriminately targeting innocent people who are not directly involved in the cause that one is agitating for then that is not at all the action of any principled person. Terrorism as I said is defined by attacking civilians.
It is defined by attacking people who are not directly involved in warfare. That itself is vintage terrorism. Question How should one behave with non-religious people or people who are not Krishna consciousness? So actually even among the people who are not practising any kind of spirituality we also need to know that they can also be in goodness, passion or ignorance.
Sattva guna, Rajoguna, Tamoguna. And depending on the more that they are in they may be attracted to different things in their own lives. So when we are dealing with them we need to conduct ourselves in a way that we become a connecting link between them and Krishna.
So if we see that they are just non-spiritualist, we are seeing them partially. Even if they are non-spiritualist they are also souls who are parts of God. And they also need love for God as much as everyone else.
So by focussing not on their present conduct but focussing on their spiritual essence and the need of their spiritual essence we can act appropriately. Now we don’t have to necessarily push down any philosophy in our first interaction or even in our second or third interaction. We can, if we can, if people after interacting with devotees, with spiritualists feel that oh I met a nice person, this person is intelligent person and they are living some life of principles, that itself will create a Jnana Sukrti for them.
So we don’t have to flaunt our spirituality in front of others just to show them how spiritual we are. We can act in a way that they get a positive impression of Krishna and his devotees. And how much they will come closer to Krishna, that is up to them.
So if they have some questions we can try to answer in the most intelligible possible way. Not just give the right answer but give the right answer in the right way by which they get a proper understanding. And rather than judging non-devotees to be non-devotees, you can see them as essentially devotees who are covered by a non-devotional layer right now and we have the opportunity to behave in a way that their non-devotional covering can be removed and that they can come closer to Krishna.
If question, if terrorist call and remember Allah at the time of death or when they blow themselves, what happens to them after death? Actually there is God and there is one’s conception of God and the two are not the same. There is God who is revealed in scripture and there is different people who can have different conceptions of God. So quite often terrorists are brainwashed into believing in a particular God who is more a projection of their imagination than a revelation coming from scripture.
So a God who rewards brutal killers of innocent people with 84 virgins in Jannat or whatever they are brainwashed into believing, this is not the God of revelation. This is the God of human imagination. So when people may remember such a God, people may remember or may say Allah at that time but ultimately it is not that just calling Allah at the time of death is going to give one an exalted destination.
It is a lifelong cultivation of consciousness that is required. So if somebody has cultivated lifetime of tamoguna, has acted tamasik, even up to the moment of death, just chanting the name of Allah at the time of death is not going to make any major difference in people’s lives. So they are going to get, that may give some piety at the time of death but the overall consciousness that they have cultivated throughout their life, if that is tamasik, then they are going to get a tamasik destination irrespective of whatever they believe and irrespective of what name they chant at the time of death.
So question, Prabhupada said that poison snake should be killed. So can we say that terrorists are poison snakes and should be killed without being given lawyer? Should terrorists be given proper funeral as per their religion? Answer, there are two different things over here. That there are poison snakes who should be killed.
That’s something talked about in the Bhagavatam. Sarpapibhushchika modita hathya. So that sadhopi modita.
So basically that when a snake or scorpion is killed, even the saintly they rejoice. At the same time, if we are not saintly, we don’t have a right to kill anyone like that indiscriminately. And very often when we assume that somebody is a terrorist, it’s not that every terrorist is equally dark black.
Now some terrorists may be drafted unwittingly into a cause and then they just get entangled and they can’t come out. Some terrorists may be outright malevolent meant how to destroy everyone. So there has to be a due process of law followed for dealing with situations.
Now of course, if there is a war going on, at that time there may be shoot at sight orders. But in general to brand everyone who is associated with the terrorist organisation as a poison snake, that is quite often incomplete and incorrect vision and the due process of law needs to be followed for punishment of which, of course, may not necessarily apply when there are emergencies or when there are wars going on. And as far as giving proper funeral, that is something which will again vary according to time, place, circumstance.
We see that in the Ramayana, Lord Ram arranges for the proper funeral of Ravana also and Vibhishan is reluctant to perform the funeral rites of Ravana because he says this was such a wicked demon who abducted Sita. But Ram says that no, that the soul is ultimately pure and no resentment should be held against the soul. So at Ram’s instruction, Vibhishan does perform the funeral rites for Ravana also.
So question, why do we have so much difference in the message of God among different religions? Answer, there are three different aspects to this. There is, first is the difference in context, second is the difference in content and the third is difference in emphasis. So difference in context means that there is different times, different messengers of God give, they appear at different times and because of that they have to give message according to their context.
So the way, say, assembly of sages will be instructed may be very different from the way an assembly of warriors may be instructed or an assembly of merchants may be instructed. Even today if we see, our essential, if we have devotees who are giving talks, if they are giving talks to specific audiences, they may speak in different ways. So the context determines to a large extent how the content will be presented.
Even in the Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavatam we see significant difference. The Bhagavatam primarily focusses on renunciation because it is spoken to a person who is about to die, Parikshit Maharaj. So the consistent theme is renunciation, renunciation, renunciation, the glorification of renunciation.
The Bhagavad Gita on the other hand focusses primarily on action, action, action because the context is Krishna wants Arjuna to fight the war and renunciation itself is actually repeatedly disapproved in the Bhagavad Gita. So is it that renunciation is bad and action is good or renunciation is good and action is bad? No, the context is determining that. So similarly just as we see diversity in today’s world and we see diversity in the Vedic scriptures also between diversity that is caused by emphasis, by stress, sorry, by context.
Similarly there can be context where people may be in a very primitive, very low level of consciousness and accordingly the revelation may have to be given at a very preliminary level to them. That context is there. Even in content that sometimes it’s not that the full message is revealed.
According to some partial message will be revealed and we have to look at the content. If you look at the Old Testament, the New Testament or the Quran there is very little philosophy in these. The Old Testament is primarily stories of the Jews as they met various adventures and misadventures in their search for the promised land.
The New Testament is primarily an account of the life of Jesus and subsequently the epistles, the letters of Paul. So neither of these have much philosophy per se. Now similarly the Quran is primarily a revelation that Muhammad had at different times in different places, in different circumstances and many years later it all was put together as a book.
So it is just unidirectional, unilateral insights that are given. So there is no discussion, there is no question answer, there is no elaborate philosophical exposition. I am not saying that Judaism, Christianity and Islam don’t have philosophy.
There are subsequent philosophers, thinkers who have derived philosophy based on whatever is given in these books and they have integrated with various existing thought systems to come up with their own philosophical systems. But the point is, the content will vary because none of these books, Old Testament, New Testament and Quran are spoken to people who are seriously seeking to philosophically understand life’s ultimate purpose. On the other hand if you see Bhagavatam and many of the Vedic texts, especially the Upanishads, they are spoken to, there are discussions between people who are dedicated to the transcendental purpose.
Transcending life’s purpose. So in that sense we have significant difference in content. So positive description of the spiritual world, positive description of God, positive deep philosophical analysis of things.
There is nothing like say the three modes of material nature. There is no typology like that for analysing the material world given in the scriptures of the other religions of the Abrahamic religions especially. And lastly, difference in emphasis.
So the difference in emphasis comes from the leaders who are teaching that particular book. So we see that the Bhagavata also has a context of war. But none of the great thing commented in the Bhagavata starting from Shankaracharya down to Ramanucharya to Vishwacharya to Vallabhidhyagoshi.
Although they lived at a time when there was Islamic aggression in India and still they did not focus on the martial context of the Gita and interpret the Gita as a call for martial aggression, martial retaliation against Islamic aggression. So that was not their stress at all. They focused on the universal devotional transcendental message of the Bhagavad Gita.
And that’s how the Bhagavata has been understood. So what will be stressed in a particular book depends on the leaders who are teaching that book and who are working towards administering or implementing the teaching of that book in their own society and their own lives. So because of these three things, so in Islam as I mentioned earlier in the class that the Kshatriya aspect of Muhammad’s life has been stressed by subsequent generation of Islamic leaders far more than the Brahmana aspect.
And that is why the martial teachings of the Quran are often highlighted and that’s what has been indoctrinated to people who eventually become terrorists and machines of death. So the differences come because the differences in message of God come because of difference of context, content and stress. Thank you.
So question sometimes devotees are very rigid and adamant in having people to take up to Krishna consciousness. How far is this to be approved? Yes, this is our movement will go through various phases and this is how every religious movement goes through. There is initially the vision, the mission of conversion where the idea of conversion is that if we consider a circle, there is a rigid dividing line between insiders and outsiders.
So those who are following particular principles according to a particular interpretation of those principles, according to a particular application of those principles, those who are doing specific practises, they are considered insiders and remaining people are considered outsiders. And outsiders are somehow pulled and pushed and dragged to try to become insiders. Otherwise, they become scorned.
So, it is best that this sort of thing it’s always going to happen in the initial stages. But eventually as we mature, as sattva guna comes more and more, we recognise that the broad Vedic vision is not like a rigid division of insider and outsider. Rather, raising consciousness of people which is our ultimate purpose that is to be envisioned as a set of concentric circles of expanding radii.
And different people will situate themselves at different locations within these concentric circles. So, there may be people who rigidly follow the principles of bhakti as given by Srila Prabhupada in terms of sixteen rounds and four regulative principles. But there may be others who chant a few rounds and who follow some of the principles, but they are inclined, they are favourable towards Krishna.
They have a culture of Krishna bhakti and they are ready to help in various ways. So, there may be people who are in general God conscious but they are not necessarily connected with any spiritual organisation. They are also congenial towards bhakti but they themselves don’t want to practise bhakti.
So, we don’t alienate such people. We have to recognise that even in the past when Satyuga was there, not everyone was ready for the commitment required for going back to the spiritual world in one lifetime. And the Vedic culture accommodates that.
That you can take this journey over many lifetimes also. And there will be different people who will want to take up spiritual progress at different paces. And we shouldn’t present spirituality as something like a digital logic.
You know, one or zero. You follow this, this, this, then you are going back to Godhead. If you are not following this, you are going to go to hell.
And we condemn them for that. No, it’s spiritual progress is more like an analogue ascension. Gradual heightening.
And different people will be at different levels. So, na buddhi vedam janayet agyanam karmasanginam, yoshayet sarva-karmani vidvan yukta samachara. Krishna says, don’t disturb people’s minds.
Rather, engage them according to what level is comfortable for them, without disturbing them. So, we should in our interactions with people, we need to present them the philosophical message in an appealing way and facilitate them in practising that message. And then how much they practise, we have to give them freedom.
If we try to impose, they go away and often they become anti. So, that is something which is very undesirable. Rather than having few people who become very rigidly practitioners and many who become hostile to us, we need to recognise that we will have a core group of serious practitioners and there we will have many other groups of people who will be favourable to us and practising at various degrees.
The Prabhupada did say that one moon is better than a thousand stars. But that does not mean that the star’s light has to be shut down. The stars are also giving light.
And the star’s light also has to be acknowledged. Similarly, people who are very committed and they are going to be the core members, but that does not mean everyone else has to be trivialised or demonised as non-devotees. No, there can be devotees who are not necessarily sadhakas according to a particular interpretation of sadhana or particular standard of sadhana.
There can be bhaktas who may not be sadhakas. And we have to appreciate their bhakti and we have to facilitate their bhakti according to what they can accept. So, we don’t antagonise people who can’t follow particular standards, but rather facilitate them to follow at whatever level they can.
And we give them spiritual knowledge that by which they can move onwards in their bhakti. Yes, well-wishers to have opportunity, abundant opportunity. In fact, we see Prabhupada himself, he had the standard of four Ayodhya principles and sixteen rounds for initiation.
But when he came to India, and this was very easily accepted by his western audience because they had especially the hippies, they had rejected mainstream culture at that time. And they wanted something which was revolutionary. But when Prabhupada came to India, India was a pious cult country, but not many Indians were ready for this level of commitment.
And what did Prabhupada do? You know, he offered them a very broad circle which was life membership. Life membership means no, literally no commitment in terms of practise, but a connection. A connection in terms of people feel that I am a life member of his, they give some financial contribution, they come to the temple sometime.
So our, so Prabhupada himself has set a very good example of offering connection without demanding excessively high commitment. We give people opportunities to connect with them at various levels according to what is comfortable for them and we encourage them to have higher and higher levels of commitment, but we don’t make the connection, make the availability of the connection conditional to a particular level of commitment. Now we provide them the facility to practise bhakti at whatever level they are.
And that way they will comfortably come, they will slowly but steadily come towards Krishna. Those who want to come rapidly, for them all facility is there. But those who can’t come that rapidly, they should not be alienated by being branded as non-devotees.
They are also devotees, they are also bhaktas, but they may not be sadhakas. And we need to facilitate them practise at whatever level it is. So, last question and then I’ll stop.
But if somebody has a guru, but as work in progress devotees, what happens to them at the time of death? Can the guru take them back to Godhead? Going back to Godhead is not just a matter of physical relocation. It’s a matter of emotional reorientation. Sometimes we have very simplistic idea, ok, the earth is here, this is here and spiritual world is here.
So, I just have to go from here to there. No, if we have not developed love for Krishna, even if we go to the spiritual world, we’ll feel very out of place there. Because everyone else is loving Krishna, everyone is interested in Krishna and we are not interested in Krishna.
So, what will we do there? We will feel out of place. Just like say, if we go to a cricket stadium, where everybody is mad for cricket and we have no interest in cricket. We will feel out of place.
So, going back to the spiritual world is not just a matter of physical relocation. It is a matter of emotional reorientation. Emotional reorientation means the emotions that are invested in the world right now, we have to reorient and invest those emotions in Krishna.
And a spiritual master is the primary inspiration and guide for us to do this emotional reorientation. Srila Prabhupada would say that we have to fly our own plane. That means each of us has to take our own responsibility for spiritual advancement.
Now, the spiritual master’s prayer, the spiritual master’s guidance, the spiritual master’s mercy, all of them can help us in doing this emotional reorientation. But that emotional reorientation is our choice. It is not something which the spiritual master can choose for us.
We have to choose Krishna and that choosing Krishna means that even if Krishna doesn’t become our only love in this life by our sadhana practise, Krishna should become our foremost love. We love other things in this world. It’s not that we can become completely apathetic towards everything else in the world.
But we have to slowly move towards making Krishna our most prominent love. We try to please Krishna, we try to serve Krishna and in that way, our emotions are invested in various things but they are most primarily invested in Krishna. And when we live in this way, then even if we are not entirely purified, we can attain Krishna.
And the spiritual master is meant to help us in doing this emotional reorientation. But this emotional reorientation is primarily our responsibility. So, thank you very much for your participation and attention and we hope to have similar sessions regularly in future and invite you to join them also in future.
And if you have any other feedback, any other questions, you can post here and I will answer in due course on the spiritualscientist.com Hare Krishna. Thank you very much.