Gita Overview Mumbai 17.5-10 When austerities become demoniac

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna.
So, we continue with the 17th chapter. Yesterday, okay, some questions? Yeah, a little loudly. So, the question is about Mohammed.
Now, we can see saintly qualities outside the Vedic tradition also in say Jesus or in Francis, but Mohammed was a military conqueror and he married many queens, many wives and one of his wives, Fatima, was almost like a child when he married her. So, this doesn’t seem at all, Aisha, sorry, Aisha was. So, this doesn’t seem to be the characteristics of a saintly person.
As I told earlier that, we have to close that I think, that Mohammed combined the characteristics of a Brahmana and a Kshatriya. So, Jesus was primarily Brahmanic as was Saint Francis. Saint Francis was never an administrator.
In fact, Saint Francis was so much against any sort of administration that normally when the Franciscan order was formed to help people who wanted to follow in his footsteps. So, he insisted that the Franciscan preachers not have any certification from the church because normally anybody can claim to be a great God-intoxicated person. So, the tradition is that if anybody is an itinerant preacher who is being, who is representing the Catholic church, then they have a certification from the church.
But Saint Francis insisted that, you know, your devotion alone should be your certification. You don’t need anything else. And that actually led to a lot of persecution of his preachers because people couldn’t comprehend that they were not like the normal priests.
So, the point which I’m making here is that the Brahmanical value is often antithetical to administration, especially the saintly Brahmanical value. And if Jesus had not been followed by the preaching of the apostles and whether his preaching would have had much effect was questionable. So, what Chanakya could have achieved without Chandragupta is also questionable.
Of course, you can say the other way also. Chandragupta would not have achieved without Chanakya also. But the point is, we need both Brahmanical wisdom and Kshatriya organisation.
So, instead of comparing Mohammed with saints, it is better to compare Mohammed with saintly kings, Raja Rishis. You know, we may not see any Raja Rishi marrying a very young girl, but we do see Raja Rishis marrying many queens. And polygamy is accepted in all cultures, practically speaking.
Polygamy means one man marrying many wives. Technically, it’s called polyandry. Polygamy is to have many spouses.
So, polyandry is to have many husbands. Polygamy is to have many wives. So, Kshatriyas did have many wives and that doesn’t make them any less saintly, less spiritually minded.
So, the better framework to compare Mohammed is with Kshatriyas, Kshatriya kings who also were spiritually minded. And from that perspective, Kshatriya morality is also slightly different from the normal understanding of morality. In the sense that for the sake of a war, even the Pandavas were sometimes required to sacrifice ethics, although they tried to stick to it as much as possible.
But when the other side was unethical, they also had to resort to unethical things. So, with respect to Mohammed, there are two radically different perspectives. You know, India has had suffered much due to Islamic fundamentalism and that has shaped a view of Islam and of its founder as just militantly anti-religious, anti-Hindu, anti-Vedic and this view often sees them as bankrupt of any spiritual qualities.
But that is not the view that our Acharyas have given us. So, in general, we have the Pramanas, Pratyaksha, Anuman and Shabda. So, Pratyaksha, Anuman are valid, but they are not final.
Final Praman is the Shabda. So, in this case, if we don’t have a direct Shabda from the Vedic scriptures, but we do have the statements of Shri Prabhupada and Prabhupada consistently refers to Mohammed very positively. He refers to Mohammed more or less in the same breath as he refers to Jesus.
The Lord has sent many people for raising the God consciousness of people and he has sent Mohammed also, Prophet Mohammed. So, this did not stop Shri Prabhupada from acknowledging in Chetan Charitam, he does say that so many temples were desecrated and he calls Aurangzeb as the great Hindu hater. So, Prabhupada does report the facts, but Prabhupada doesn’t use those facts as a testimony to indict Islam as a whole.
So, in general, we have to be aware of the dangers of Islamic fanaticism, but it is the, I earlier talked about typology, we want to make sense of the world and for that purpose we try to create systems, typologies, analysis. So, often this is simplistic. Muslims are also a wide variety of it.
It’s not that everybody, every Muslim is a fanatic and the idea of simplistically painting all Muslims fanatics, it just is, it shows an ignorance of the complexity of human psychology. Now, the basic presumption that we as devotees should have is that Muslims are not Muslims, they are souls. So, if we see them more as Muslims and less as souls, that’s a problem.
And Mohammed’s life, if you see from a Kshatriya’s perspective, certainly Mohammed’s life, you will not see much sadhana, like we call it saintliness, saintly sadhana, but that is generally none of the prophets in the Abrahamic tradition, they do any systematic sadhana to connect with God. And that is one of the challenges of the Abrahamic tradition that there is a revelation from top to bottom, but there is not a systematic process from which to rise from bottom to top. So, the prophets are also in general men of the world whom God bestows His grace upon.
And then that, their life gets transformed. Mohammed was born in a poor family and he lived a life of poverty and then he married a widow who was much older than him and that’s how his fortunes improved. And then at the age of 40, suddenly he got started getting revelations.
He was a pious person, but he was not a saint pursuing sadhana. So, that’s why we need to have the proper standards to compare with. So, we cannot compare him with a saint.
To compare him, he raised God consciousness and God consciousness can be raised by saints. It can also be raised by Rajarushi, saintly kings. And standard of saintly kings is entirely different from that of saints.
Now, if you look at how Arjuna was attracted to Subhadra and what all he did to get Subhadra, we would not normally think of Arjuna as a saint, at least from that pastime. Now, that doesn’t at all seem to reflect you would say that, okay, then look at Urvashi’s pastime and how he rejected Urvashi, that refers. But that is not so much a rejection of Nasundar, it is more of adherence to dharma.
Dharmic codes refer that he saw Urvashi as his mother. So, Kshatriyas in general have certain allowances because of the passion with nature they have and the entanglement with the world which they have to do as a service. So, with that standard, we can see that what Mohammed did was not necessarily non-saintly.
So, what was the destination of Prophet Mohammed? I have not read anything said by Prabhupada. In general, the interactions of our Acharyas with Islam have been limited. In Babusahab’s time, Islam was more or less in regression.
It was, Islam was the religion of the lower class of people, the Bhadraloka who interacted with the British government. They became the influential middle class and the middle upper class and they were mostly Hindus and the Muslims couldn’t sort of digest the idea that we were rulers of this country and now we have become third class citizens. First class were the Britishers, second class were the Bhadralokas.
So, Islam was in regression and that regression sort of expressed itself aggressively in terms of the communal right that led to the partition of the country. So, Shri Prabhupada also when he preached, the only Islamic country he went to was Iran once. So, there’s not much interaction between Shri Prabhupada also and Bhaktasaheb Thakur also because of the regression.
There are dialogues with western scholars, US Christian theologians but nothing with Islam and Bhaktasaheb Thakur also. As I said from that time onwards, Islam was more or less in regression. There are some hypothetical dialogues, non-historical dialogues in his novel Jaiva Dharma.
So, the statements are limited. That’s why we can’t say for sure but from general what Shri Prabhupada said is that he was, Prabhupada accepted the point that he was a messenger of God and in that sense, wherever he went was by the will of God and he would continue his service to God. So, Prabhupada has not said specifically that he descended from the spiritual world or that he retained by the spiritual world.
Certainly, to be a messenger of God is no ordinary thing and to that extent, it deserves our respect. In general, we shouldn’t let our, there are certain certain stories in apparently from some Puranas which seem to say that Mohammed was a reincarnation of the tripurasura. So, this is a weather that is true is strongly questionable because that has not been quoted by any of the Acharyas and Bhavishya Puran has many questionable things within it.
Bhavishya Puran also talks about Queen Victoria. Queen Victoria had nothing spiritual to her. So, there have been interpolations.
As I mentioned, yesterday we were talking about Bible getting interpolated. So, even Vedic scriptures have been interpolated but the point is the Vedic scriptures which have been central to the Vedic tradition, they have been preserved. The Rig Veda today as it is, is the same as it was at the time of Yaksha and Sayana, two classical commentators, 500, almost 7000 years ago.
Similarly, the Bhagwat and the Gita are also similar. So, as far as I know, Acharya has written a commentary on the Bhavishya Puran. In that sense, it was not considered so important, not even Acharya in terms of Vaishnavacharya but in general, he has not got any commentaries.
So, in that sense, it is possible, there is a serious possibility that it could have been interpolated. Any other questions? Any reference for? Okay. There it is stated, let us say, goodness, ignorance is Shiva, goodness, passion is Brahma, like that.
So, in general, firstly, this point about the three Puranas, the three kinds of deities accordingly, this is broadly understood in the Vedic culture. Like say, goodness, those who in goodness worship Vishnu and those who in passion worship Brahma, the explicit reference for this I have not seen anywhere. Prabhupada says that in his purports many places but he does not quote as far as I know any verse for that.
But that is widely understood. There are verses which, for example, Lord Shiva is telling in Skanda Purana to Kartikeya that whenever there is a conflict between Sattvic Puranas and Tamasic Puranas, then the Sattvic Puranas should be preferred, Shiva Puranas, Sattvic Puranas. Yes.
Yeah, that is natural. So, Madhavacharya explains that Krishna says whichever deity you want to worship, I will give you faith. So, how he gives faith? One is as a super soul in the heart, another is by directing them to the corresponding Puranas.
So, you cannot say that this deity is not very powerful but please worship. It will not work like that. If you want people to worship a particular deity, that deity has to be powerful.
That is inevitable in general. Yeah, so why does Shiva Purana say that not only Shiva is great but he is greater than Vishnu or Krishna also? Yeah, I get it. I understood the question.
The point is that the Vedic scriptures are state-specific. State-specific means according to our state of consciousness, they reciprocate. That is basically a principle of ye tamam prapadyante.
Now, as all people surrender to the higher world accordingly, that applies not only to Bhagavad Gita, that applies not only to Krishna, it applies to the Vedic literature in general. So, kalpataru means whatever we want, we can get in the Kalpataru. So, if I want evidence for the supremacy of Shiva, I will get that in the Vedic scriptures.
If I want evidence for the supremacy of Brahma, I can get even that. If I want evidence for whatever I seek, I can get that. If I want evidence for the supremacy of impersonal Brahma, I can get that also.
But if I want to know what is the conclusive teaching of the Vedic scriptures, then I have to look at what is their inner epistemology, what is their inner progression. So, if I want to justify my belief in the Vedic scriptures, the Vedic scriptures will act in the Kalpataru and they will give us whatever we want. So, that way, if we look at the Krishna in Bhagavatam, it is written by Vyasadeva in his maturity, after he has written all of the scriptures, including Shilpuran also.
And there he says that everything else is kaitava dharma. So, that is the first, that is one point about, the first point is they are yathama prapada. The second is, if you look at it, everything apart from Bhagavatam is kaitava dharma.
He does not use the word, he does not say it is false, it is kaitava dharma, cheating religion, it is a very strong word. Cheating and associating that with the religion is not ordinary. So, it is indicated that it is religion, it elevates, but it cheats as far as elevating to the highest religious concept.
So, it is not just a partial elevation which is left at that. That partial is presented as if it is the highest, that is what makes it cheating. Otherwise, there would have been no use to use, no need to use the word kaitava dharma.
What is cheating? Cheating idea is that, that what is not the highest is presented as if it was the highest. So, why is that done? That is a part of the Vedic plan to elevate people according to what their desires are. So, what their desires are means, that if they want to carry on with their conceptions, then they are allowed to carry on.
And Shiva Goswami in this Andharvas takes up several of the passages which seem to glorify Lord Shiva. And then he points out one of these, for example, Shiva Shastreshu, Shiva Shastreshu tad grahyam bhagavad shastra yogiyat paramo vishnu re vaikas tad jnanam mokshu sadhunam. Shastrana mirnaya stvesham tad anyam mohanayah.
He starts mentioning Karthikeya. Shiva Shastreshu tad grahyam. Grahyam means to accept.
Accept Shiva Shastra, bhagavad shastra yogiyat, bhagavad shastra means the shastra about Bhagwan, that is Bhagavatam. Paramo vishnu re vaikas, only one supreme is Vishnu. Tad jnanam mokshu sadhunam, that knowledge is the means to meet him.
Shastrana mirnaya stvesham, this is the conclusion of the Shastras. Tad anyam mohanayah. Whatever else is there is mohanayah, it is for the purpose of mohan.
Now Skanda Purana is not a Satyagraha Purana. It is a very important point. It is first from Skanda Purana, Lord Shiva is telling Karthikeya.
So, the point here is that Krishna is yathamaam prapadyumne. So, scriptures being a manifestation of his compassion are also yathamaam prapadyumne. And if we just take this court and battle against that court, if a person is objective, then it can come to the supremacy of Lord Shiva.
And the Vedic programme is that the person, wherever that person may be, that person should be elevated from there. And the idea that the person can be elevated to the highest level in one lifetime is revolutionary. The compassion and this underlying that is extraordinary.
And that is what we have got by the mercy of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Srila Prabhupada. So, when this, you see, this is so easy to get. Why do you have to go through all that? But it is not easy to get.
It is mercy that has made it easy to get. Otherwise even what are the words? Narayana parayana sudarlabha prashantatma koti ishvapi maham parikshit maharaja asmi shubhadeva Goswami. How Uttarasura is such a great devotee? Because even among the Munis, he is such a devotee, he is dedicated to Lord Vishnu, so great.
So, how did he become such a great devotee? So, devotional service is there. And the Vedic scriptures have a programme for gradual elevation. So, Shiva Purana is a part of that programme of gradual elevation.
So, in general, those who are devoted to Lord Shiva, if they gradually become purified and elevated, either in this lifetime or the next lifetime, they will eventually rise to the worship of Lord Vishnu or Lord Krishna. In our Ikshobhya class, I remember we discussed about three people who were worshippers of the Devatas and they came to the worship of Lord Vishnu. I remember Vallabhacharya was the worshipper of Lord Shiva.
I asked Lord Shiva, what is the best? Give me that which is most dear to me. Then he was a worshipper of Lord Shiva and he elevated from the worship of Shiva to Vishnu. And then similarly, there is an example of Keshav Kashmiri was a worshipper of Saraswati and he became a worshipper of Vishnu, Krishna.
And there is an example of Chanditas who was a worshipper of Chandi, Kali. And then from her worship, he became a worshipper of Vishnu. So, there are references to this both in scripture as well as in contemporary, in recorded history also.
So, we have discussed this elaborately in our Ikshobhya class. I don’t think we can go back to the subject right now. So, Shastrana nirnayas tvayi shas.
In the Chaitanya Saraswati also there is a verse which the Namahapuram quotes that different people can go on debating about who is supreme. But if you study the scriptures holistically, one will conclude that Vishnu is supreme. So, here Krishna is going to answer Arjuna’s question.
But the previous verse, what was I saying? Previous verse was talking about these three modes, goodness, passion and ignorance, how people worship. So, now Krishna in a sense continues the Tamasic form of worship. And he says that there are some people who do Tamasic hostility also.
And he wants to very clearly differentiate between these Tamasic people and the people who we are going to talk about later. So, in a sense, this verse is a sort of backflash to the 16th chapter. 16th chapter talks about those people who defy scripture.
And that’s why you have shastra. That was the question. So, now they don’t accept shastra.
But they have some kind of faith. What happens to them? So, Krishna starts with the lowest among that category. Those who not only they don’t have faith, but they actually reject shastra.
So, he is telling that there they are ghoram. Ghoram is brutal or ugly. So, the example of this is people like Prakash.
They are doing worship where they are cutting off their own flesh to offer to Lord Shiva. Now, the purpose of this is not to so much please Shiva according to some form of worship. It is just to sort of emotionally blackmail him and get him to come.
That is the idea. The modern version of this is self-immolation. Self-immolation means you set yourself on fire.
So, that is what people do. Suicide is where generally suicide is generated in public, in private. You just close the door and maybe turn on the fan and hang yourself from the fan or something like that.
But when people want to attract attention to a cause and then they burn themselves in public, that is self-immolation. And Buddhists do that very often. Buddhists are the sort of pioneers of that because according to their religion, they cannot commit violence against anyone.
So, even if say the Chinese attack Tibet and have taken over Tibet and they are persecuting Buddhism in Tibet, they are religiously prohibited against taking arms. So, they say that they will not do violence against others, but they end up doing violence against themselves, which is also in a sense violence. So, Krishna is describing all the demoniac qualities that he had talked about earlier.
These demoniac people are filled with this. And what do they say? The word itself conveys harshness, bitterness. So, Krishna says, I am situated in their body and I suffer to see them suffering.
Krishna does not appreciate unnecessary torture of the body. Although I am there in their body, they are achetasaha, they don’t see me. maam chaivaantya shivayasthi kaan vidya asura nishchayaan, and they are definitely asura nishchayaan.
So, why is Krishna talking about these words over here? Generally, we will not think of somebody doing austerity, we demonise it, isn’t it? We normally would think of austerity as a religious activity, as a pious activity. And austerity requires some self-control also to be able to do it. But then if that is done with the defiance of scripture and with the intention of sort of gaining power by which one can further disrupt the social and spiritual order, then that is the characteristic of asuras.
We see in the Bhagavatam repeatedly, Hiranyakashipu or whichever demon, they all perform austerities and their purpose is demoniac. So, in the Ramayana, there is a story of Shambhuka. Shambhuka was a shudra who was doing austerity.
When he was doing the austerities, so Lord Ram, he was ruling and at that time a brahmin came to his palace and he started chastising Lord Ram and Lakshman. He said that, what kind of rulers are you? What has happened? He said that, my son has died. And when my son has died, he said that if the king is virtuous, then nothing disorderly should happen in that kingdom.
The king is living according to the laws of God, then the normal order of nature will be followed. The normal order of nature is the father dies before the son. He said, I have looked at my life and I have not disobeyed any scripture.
I have lived according to scripture. Therefore, the only reason that my son has died must be that something is wrong in the kingdom and for that you are responsible. So, when Lakshman heard this, Lakshman went and referred to Lord Ram.
Lord Ram told him that he had come with his son. So, Lord Ram told him, you attend to that brahmin and tell him and let his body, let the body of his son be preserved so that it will not get decayed. And then he went into this assembly where the sages were there, Narada Muni and other sages.
They had come there and he asked them. So, Narada Muni said that somebody in your kingdom is doing some severely anti-scriptural activity. So, therefore, because of that anti-scriptural activity, this has been the action.
So, you go and stop that anti-scriptural activity and then the brahmin’s son will come back to life. Then Lord Ram went and started searching in all the directions of the temple. He did not find anyone anywhere.
Finally, he came to the banks of a river and there he saw a person doing austerity by hanging upside down. And he looked quite powerful because of the austerity. He was almost looking like a falchion.
Then he asked him, who are you and why are you performing this austerity? What is your intention? So, he said, I am Shambhuka and I want to perform austerity by which I can go to Swarga and I can become Indra. And he said, I am born in the Shudra family. And Ramayana says that as soon as he knew that I am born in the Shudra family, Lord Ram took out his sword and cut off his head.
And it is said that as soon as Lord Ram cut off his head, this brahmin’s son came back. So, now this story may seem a little shocking for us. Why should somebody be killed for performing austerity? So, now when this is the story, these are the kind of stories which are used by Dalits to sort of say how the Brahminical culture persecuted the lower castes.
So, if we have to accept the story, we have to accept it in full or don’t accept it. So, the fact as it is told in the story is that there is this Brahmin who had died. The problem is that we are living in a particular culture.
Ramayana was spoken in a particular culture and cultural values can be tremendously different. So, if we neglect the cultural values and just compare what was done there with what is done here, it may seem radically out of place, but there are some underlying principles that are important. So, first of all, if we are going to say that particular killing of Lord Ram, killing by Lord Ram of Shudra is a justification for the persecution by Brahmins and kings of Shudras today or it is a reason why Shudras should protest against Vedic culture.
Then first of all, look at the full picture. Why only object to that? Today, if somebody came to the king and said my son has died and you are responsible for that, what would the king say? Go to the mental asylum, isn’t it? So, what does this point indicate? First of all, it indicates that there is some conception of a deeper order to nature, which we are completely unaware of and also that order was potent in the sense that when this Shambhuka was killed, this Brahmin’s son got revived. So, what does it indicate? That there are principles of orderliness which we do not know about.
So, when there is Dharma being followed, then the kingdom is administered by principles of Dharma and then there are subtler rules and subtle principles also work. So, if we want to find out fault with Lord Ram, then we should reject the whole story itself as mythological. Why should we accept only Shambhuka being killed and not accept the Brahmin’s son being killed and Brahmin’s son being revived? And if we accept this part also, the Brahmin’s son being killed and being revived, then we do understand the point that there is something which was right about it.
Because when a person is killed and somebody else is revived by that, that means there is some higher power, some higher principle by which this happened. So, if Lord Ram were just blatantly anti-lower caste, if that were his case, then why would he team up with the Vanaras? Why would he be so kind to Guha? So, it’s not that he was, there was no question of being just against lower caste for the sake of being against lower caste. The principle was the preservation of Dharma and there are certain principles which are to be followed by people who are in Dharma.
So, in traditional Varanashram, a Shudra, traditional Varanashram means Vedic Varanashram, a Shudra has to do his duties properly and by that he will eventually become a Vaishya, then he will become a Kshatriya, then he will become Brahmin in future lives and then he will become liberated gradually. Now, if somebody wants to not go through this gradual social evolution, then the path open for that person is the path of Bhakti. Even Shudra, the outcast can practise Bhakti and they can go directly back to God.
But if a Shudra wants to go to Swarga, there is a gradual progression for that. But when the Shudra refuses to do the Shudra duties and tries to use austerity to sort of gate crash into Swarga and to take over the position of Indra over there, then that mentality is essentially the same as the mentality of demons. So, now consider the story of Hiranyakashipu.
Now, assume that before Hiranyakashipu went to perform austerities. Now, we know in the Bhagavatam that Hiranyakashipu sent the demons to try to disrupt Vedic culture and the demons were going around and they were destroying Yagya sthalis and doing all that sort of atrocities. So, assume that they were not doing it and assume that we didn’t know in advance that Hiranyakashipu was a demon.
So, Hiranyakashipu is going to the forest and performing austerity and if at that time somebody goes and oh you are performing austerity, kills him. Would that have been wrong necessarily? No, because Hiranyakashipu later on what happened, he became such a terrible demon and who caused so much devastation, Lord Vishnu had to appear and kill him. Now, Hiranyakashipu nobody did that because Indra was not potent enough at that time but Lord Ram was potent enough.
So, Lord Ram had the responsibility of protecting Dharma and that’s what he did. And Brahma generally doesn’t kill anyone. Brahmaastra is not the weapon of Brahma.
Brahmaji does not have any weapon only. That’s okay. Brahmaji could not have thrown that water.
If you go into the specifics in the past time, you know Hiranyakashipu Vijaya Vijaya and that all that was preparing for the glorification of Prahlad and the appearance of Lord Narasimhadev. So, there is a broader context. But my point is that from the external perspective, the austerities of Hiranyakashipu and the austerities of Shambhuka, there need not be any difference.
Both were motivated by ungodly purpose just as Hiranyakashipu wanted to take over Swarga, Shambhuka also wanted to take over Swarga. He wanted to attain Swarga and take over Swarga. So, in that sense, it is not so much an issue of somebody being a higher caste and lower caste.
The issue is somebody being godly and somebody being demonic. And there is a protection of the godly order of society from the demoniac disruption basis of society. So, people are definitely demoniac.
That means, those who use Tapobala to disrupt the dharmic order in society. So, they are torturing themselves, they are torturing me and they will create, when they get power, they will create suffering for others also. So, they are Asurans.
Similarly, Shiva and Bhasmasura avoided Lord Shiva not killed. In general, the demigods have dual roles. One is the administrator and the other is a devotee.
And as the administrator, they are sort of duty bound to satisfy their worshippers. That means, just like there are certain rules by which, there are certain rules where we say, for example, if you go to a shop and you want medicines, you pay the money, the shop has to give medicines. There are, even Rikshawala says, I will not go to a particular place.
According to many systems of religious regulation, that is not correct. If a Rikshawala is being paid, then he should go to that place. So, that way, the demigods in general, if worship is performed for them, then they are to some extent duty bound to give the results.
Now, that does not mean that they are, they do not have free will. They can use their free will and they can say that I will not give. But the principle of, say, sort of cosmic cooperation is that we give worship and the devatas give results.
And the purpose of this is, is ultimately meant to be conducive for liberation. The system of cosmic cooperation is, the demigods in general do not use their discriminatory power when they are satisfying their worships. So, why is that? That could be because of various reasons.
One is that, as it is said in the Bhagavatam, when somebody worships somebody, then that person may become a little bit infatuated by that worship. And for that time being, what Brahmaji says is, to Hiranyakashipu, what you have asked of me, what benedictions that you have asked are very difficult to me. But austerity for my sake will not go in vain.
Actually, this should be said only by the Supreme Lord. But when Brahmaji says that, austerity is that you have performed for my sake, will not go in vain. And in that sense, he is not, right, if you see that, the turn of events is a little curious over there.
In that 7th canto of Bhagavatam, studied carefully, the demigods, when Hiranyakashipu starts performing austerity, then the flame starts coming out of his head and starts heating up the whole universe. The demigods get troubled and they go to Brahmaji. And they tell Brahmaji that actually, this person’s intention is that he wants to disrupt, he wants to take over your position and he wants to disrupt the universal order.
And please do the needful. But when Brahmaji hears and he says, after hearing their petition only he goes down. But when he goes down and sees the extent of the austerity that Hiranyakashipu has performed, he sort of gets, he’s done all this for my sake.
He gets infatuated by that. He gets infatuated by that. And then that is the reason why Brahmaji started, Lord Narasimhadev chastised Brahmaji.
He said you don’t give benedictions like this. That means that the idea is, in general, the demigods follow sort of, it’s like a contract. But when there are demons who are known to be malevolent, then they should not be given benedictions.
But sometimes when the austerities are performed, that time the person may just get so caught up. The person for whom the austerities are performed, that person may become so infatuated that that person may lose, that person may lose the sense of discrimination. And that person, we just, it can, you see the demigods, the way they are portrayed in the Bhagavatam, they are not shown as perfect beings.
They are devotees. But they get influenced by emotions at particular times. So it can be actually very, if somebody starts doing austerities just to please us, it can be very intoxicating.
I know one devotee who was a Brahmachari, he was preaching and then some Mataji got attracted to him. Now Mataji is also a devotee. And she told him I want to marry you.
And he said, no I am a Brahmachari, I don’t come here. Then he stopped going to that programme and he stopped connecting with her. But then apparently she started fasting.
For six months he fasted and lost 10 kg weight. Now of course this happened in a community where there are not proper counsellors and all those things. What happened was this devotee got emotionally influenced and he married afterwards.
So austerity can become a tool for emotional blackmailing. Is it that when the offerings to the demigods are stopped, they become less powerful? There are two aspects to it. It’s not exactly that.
Sometimes some people say that demigods are dependent on nourishment. It’s not that demigods will starve if we don’t do sacrifices. In Kalyuga we are not doing sacrifices.
But demigods are not starving. The idea that the demigods will starve if people on earth don’t do sacrifices is like saying that if the Somalian government doesn’t pay taxes then America will become bankrupt. It’s an absurd idea.
But it is true that there is a system of cosmic cooperation. And in that the idea is the yajnas are performed and the yajnas do not so much nourish the devatas. Although in the 7th canto of Bhagavatam it is said like that.
All the demigods will become hungry and then will starve, they will become weak and then will kill. But Chitravarty Pahad explained that even in the Bhagavatam you have to see who is speaking that. So this is spoken by Hiranyakashyapu.
Hiranyakashyapu is not a Vaishnav Acharya teaching Siddhanta. He is simply trying to goad his demonic associates on to do their demonic activities. So that is not an absolute truth that is being spoken of.
It’s not that demigods starve because of this. But we will see in Govardhan Lila when Indra’s yajna is stopped. For Indra it’s not a crisis of food, it’s a crisis of ego.
So the idea is here there is swarga, here there is earth and when both have to adhere to the dharma, even swarga and swargavasis also have some dharma. So when the earthly beings adhere to their dharma and the heavenly beings adhere to their dharma, then their whole cosmic evam pravartam chakram naanuvartayati hai. This pravartam chakra that is there, Krishna talks about in 3.16. So when the human beings don’t perform the yajnas, then two things are happening.
At one level, those padivali yajnas are meant for the demigod. That means that is more for a propitiatory and propitiatory purposes of offering respect. It’s like say some sanyasi comes to our temple and then we may, you know, if the spiritual master is coming, we may offer garland and offer respect.
Now that garland is not offered, it is not that the sanyasi is going to starve. But that garland is an appropriate thing to do to offer respect and to offer worship. Some places aarti might also be done, some places feet might be washed.
So all that is appropriate and by that, that is the way that person should be respected and that is the way we make spiritual advancement. So similarly, within the codes of dharma, the people of earth have to respect the people of the, the administrators of the heavenly kingdom. And when they don’t do that, at one level, some sanyasi is not worshipped, that sanyasi is, that person is going to be very angry, why didn’t you worship? But even if he doesn’t become angry, it is we who lose because we have lost the opportunity for doing dharma and making advancement.
So Indra for him, the crisis was that people, his ego was affected. So the system of cosmic cooperation ensures that everybody does their dharma. So the dependence is not so much in a food sense, but in a sense, it is the sense that everybody has to adhere to dharma for the cycle to go on.
So Krishna will tell now, after he has described at the bottom of this trunk, now he will say that, okay, I will describe, if you want to understand what is the level of shraddha of a person, look at these four activities, ahara, yajna, tapa, tatha, dana. And when you look at these four activities, by seeing what kind of activities they are performing, which modes those activities are in, we can understand what is the level of their faith. We will start with ahara.
So satvikapriya, so you know, that means if we are in goodness, naturally we will like this. It is not that we have to deliberately choose certain things. It is our natural attraction will be to certain things and away from certain things.
So what are the characteristics of these four? First, he describes their effects. The effect is ayu, sattva, pala, arogya, sukha, priti, vivardhana. Very beautiful description.
Vivardhana means to increase. What all increases? Ayu, the lifespan increases. Then sattva, one’s existence, the quality of one’s life.
It gives strength, it gives health. So ayu, sattva, pala, arogya are physical effects. And mental effects are sukha, priti, vivardhana.
One feels happy and one feels affection. One feels satisfied. Sukha, priti, vivardhana.
And the characters are rasya, snivda, sthira, aradhya. So they have to be juicy, fatty, enduring, pleasing to the heart. Sundya.
So in general, anything can be offered. Anything, of course, means not non-vegetarian food. But any food can be offered to Krishna and that can be said to be prasad.
But in general, food also has its moods. And although at one level all food becomes transcendental when it is offered to Krishna, still at the same time, at a material level, it will have material effects. If I may offer sweets to Krishna and that becomes prasadam.
But if I have got diabetes, just because the sweet that I’m taking is a prasad, that doesn’t mean that it won’t aggravate my diabetes, isn’t it? So the transcendental effect of the prasad will be at the transcendental level. But the material side of prasad will affect at the material level. That’s why in general, even in prasad, it’s best to eat food that is atma.
And generally, we don’t go about when you get food that is atma or rajasic or tamasic. We don’t have to go about doing that. But over a period of time, we can ourselves see that certain kinds of food, they will see the next one is atma.
It might create too much heat, might create too much passion. It might ignite our desires or it may make us lazy. So if we observe that, then we can, as a matter of plan, minimise or avoid those foods.
Srila Prabhupada writes that in sumptuous food, the food should be good quality. Sumptuous food can be occasional, on festivals or on feast days. But normal food should be nutritious, more than sumptuous.
Then, now you see the Sanskrit is such a language that there is a figure of speech called Annamotopoeia. That means the sound of the words reflects their content. So if you hear the sound of this verse, even if it doesn’t know the meaning, it’s very sweet.
The same with the next verse. So it’s like the sound itself is jari. So that is the beauty of Sanskrit language.
So in the previous verse, Krishna described first the effects and then the characteristics. Now he describes both the characteristics and then the effects. In general, when you speak, when you speak or write, the last part of the sentence has the biggest impact.
Generally, in writing, it is said that whatever you want to linger in the mind of the reader, that you should put last. So then it stays on. So in the first part, Krishna, in this part, Krishna wants to emphasise that actually this food will have this, this, this effect.
So Dukha is, we feel miserable. Shoka is lamentation and Amaya is disease. So all these are the result.
And Kattu, bitter, sour, salty, ati ushna, very hot, pungent, dry and burning. All these are the foods. So I think your imagination is active enough to correlate what this food refers to.
So there are some places where the purport is best left unspoken. So let’s go to the next one. So earlier you had said rasya.
Rasya means filled with rasa. But here, gatarasam, the rasa has all gone away. That means, you know, actually after cooking for a long time, long time has passed.
Kuti parishitam chaiyat. So kuti means bad smelling. Like you have the word, what is the putrid in English? That is the pus that comes out.
So it’s all of them have the same root. Parishitam chaiyat. Ushitam parishitam, it’s decomposed.
Uchishtam apichamedhyam. Uchishtam means that is left by others. And amedhyam, actually amedhya is untouchable.
All these are foods. Bhojanam tamasat priyam. Sri Prabhupada explains in the purport, that what is the purpose of food? It is to increase the duration of life, purify the mind and aid bodily strength.
And then he adds, that is the only purpose. Enjoyment is not the purpose. That is the implication over there.
So the purpose of life is to increase the duration. Now we may wonder, what do you mean by increasing the duration? Actually, ayurveda, veda of knowledge of ayu, of increasing ayu. So we know that, in a sense, our life is distinct.
How long we are going to live in a particular body. So how can ayu sattva bala rogya sukha preeti vardhana? How can ayu be increased? Actually, the number of breaths that we are going to take is fixed. But within that, depending on how we live, if we live in passion, we will live fast.
And naturally, we will live short. And beyond that also, we have some amount of volition. Somebody can end that person, a person can end his or her life by committing suicide.
So the whole principle of ayurveda is that there are certain things unavoidable in people’s lives. But there is much that is avoidable based on this life’s actions. So that’s why the right choice of food can actually increase ayu.
Vishal Prabhupada talks about this even in the Purport of the Bhagavatam. What is the verse? About how can you guys so terrible? First Canto verse. Prabhupada writes over there, the duration of lifespan is increased because of irregular habits and overindulgence.
Life is shortened not so much because of insufficiency, but because of irregular habits. This is the verse. 1.10. Prabhupada makes this point here.
So the purpose of food is to increase the life. And he says the duration of life is shortened, not so much because of insufficient food, but because of irregular habits. And by keeping regular habits and eating simple food, any man can maintain himself.
Over-eating, over-sensitivity, over-dependence on others’ mercy, and artificial standards of living sap the very vitality of human energy. Therefore, the duration of life is shortened. So now going back to this.
We will continue about aahara we discussed now. And you can read this Purport of Vishal Prabhupada. He gives a lot of practical instructions.
And we will continue about the remaining aspects in the evening class. Thank you very much.