Gita Overview Mumbai 18.18-21 The motivations and components of action

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Nithaya Gaur Prema Anandaya. Hare Krishna. So, we were discussing yesterday, the second part of the 18th chapter, the Jnana of the Karma Yogi, in which the Jnani understands, or the Karma Yogi with Jnana understands, that I am one of the factors of action, and that understanding keeps him free from bondage.
Now, Krishna will take this discussion to a higher level, another level, where he will discuss action in terms of its components. How do we perform actions? What are the factors involved? Now, action generally has two parts. There is knowledge acquisition, and then there is action execution.
So, in every activity that we do, there are Jnana Indriya, and there is Karma Indriya that is involved. So, for example, the door opened just now. So, from the Jnana Indriya, sudden stimuli occurred.
So, we looked around, and then we saw somebody new coming. Okay, somebody familiar is coming. That is not very interesting.
Now, let’s look, is the class interesting? So, our Jnana and Karma, basically, they are there in every action. We look in a particular direction, we look to get some Jnana, and depending on what we see, we do certain action. We may move away from that person, talk with that person, neglect that person, whatever.
So, there is Jnana and Karma that is involved in both. So, Krishna will talk about these two components of action in terms of the three modes. Gyanam Geyam Parignyata Gyanam Geyam Parignyata Trividha Karma Chodana Trividha Karma Chodana Karanam Karma Karteti Karanam Karma Karteti Trividha Karma Sangraha Trividha Karma Sangraha So, Gyanam Geyam Parignyata So, here, the words have specific meanings.
Karma Chodana Chodana means the motivation for action. So, like I give the example, Gyanam, what is the knowledge? Okay, somebody has come in. Geyam and Parignyata, what is the object of that knowledge? I should know how to respond to it.
Somebody is coming into the room, I should know how to respond. And in Parignyata is, I am the knower. So therefore, there is knowledge, there is the object of knowledge, the purpose of knowledge, and then there is the knower.
In the process of knowledge acquisition, there are these three factors. Generally speaking, if any of these three factors are not present, then the knowledge acquisition doesn’t take place. If I am asleep, then I, the conscious person, Karta, Gyan, Parignyata, I am not there.
So therefore, the knowledge acquisition cannot take place. If somebody comes in also, nothing will happen. Similarly, if, many times when we study, if we don’t have any objective for the study, then not much knowledge acquisition takes place.
As I said, we do random reading. But what am I looking for, I don’t know. Then, it doesn’t lead to much solid acquisition of knowledge.
So, knowledge involves these three things. I am reading a particular book, what is the purpose for which I am reading that book? I want to prepare for an exam, I want to give a class, I want to answer some questions. These purposes make our knowledge acquisition more focused, and more productive.
So, in any knowledge acquisition, there are these three factors. Gyanam, Ganyam, Parignyata. That is the actual knowledge that we acquire.
Okay, somebody has come into the room. Then Parignyata, I am the knower. And what is the purpose? Okay, if somebody is coming into the room that I am in, I should know why is that person coming.
Is the person going to attack me, or is this a friend who is coming in, or is he coming by mistake, what is it all? So now, these are the three components of the knowledge acquisition process. Now, along with the knowledge acquisition, there is action execution. In response to the knowledge that we acquire, we execute some action.
So, that is, there is a little technical part, and this is fundamental to understanding the remaining sections. That’s why all the remaining almost 22 verses are actually focused on a classification that derives from this 18th and 19th verse. So, first there is knowledge acquisition.
And in that there is knowledge, what is the second one? Remember? Purpose of knowledge, or objective of knowledge. And third is knower. So, what are the Sanskrit words? Gyanam, Geyam, Parigyam.
Yeah, good. So, where does the word Geya come earlier? Okay, that is just a word in a verse. Geya is a concept, which is analysed in the 13th chapter.
13.13 to 18, is actually Krishna says, Geyam yathat pravakshami, Gyatva mokshase amritam. He says, I’ll speak about the Geya to you. So, there actually the Geya, the object of knowledge, in the 13th chapter is, to know the soul and the super soul, Supreme Lord.
Now, when I come to action execution, in action execution what is required? Karanam karma karteti. So, in this what is required, that is Karanam. Karanam karma karteti.
So, there are the senses for execution. So, if somebody is coming in the room, and there is a wire coming from here, and that person is about to slip on that wire, trip on the wire and fall. Watch out, there is a wire over there.
So, for me to speak that, I have to have the senses of action. The specific senses are involved. I may raise my hand to support the person, if the person is falling.
I may speak, if the person is not yet fallen, to warn the person. Senses for execution. That is Karanam.
Then, Karma, that is the action specific. And, Karteti. Karta is, the doer, the soul.
Sorry, this has become opposite over here. So, in each of these, in any action that we do, these are the components. So, Trividha karma sangraha.
Sangraha means, the action that we perform, is comprised of these three things. So, actually knowledge acquisition, creates the motive for action. Isn’t it? When I acquire the knowledge, that becomes the motive.
Why I am doing a particular action. And after that, I act. So, that’s why, Chodana and Sangraha.
So, here the motive for action is, Chodana. And then, Sangraha means, fine. Now, here when we talk about action composition, it is components of action.
Sangraha. Sangraha means what? Accumulation. Gantho ka sangraha mat karo.
Adhik. Like that. Sangraha.
So, now, let’s move forward and look at, what the next verses will say. Is this point clear about the two parts of action? And then, the sub-components? I don’t know, I used the word components, there below. So, I’ll use here.
You could just call this analysis of action. So, analysis of action, in this, this is there. So, I once gave a class on, Number Magic in the Bhagavad Gita.
So, I talked about, how it’s so significant that, 1.1, 2.2, 3.3, 4.4, like that, 5.5, 17.1, 18.1, each of these verses are so significant. And if you look at all these 18 verses, the essential themes of the Bhagavad Gita get covered. And every one of these verses is very meaningful.
Some of them you already know. 7.7, mattaha parataram naani, 1.1, dharmakshetra, kurukshetra, 15.15 is, mattahasmatir jnanam apohanam jivam, So, many of these are, as it is, we know them to be very important. 10.10 is, rudhami buddhiyogam tam yena mam upayanthite, So, 9.9 is, rudhasinavadasinam, I am, I am, neutral.
So, they are all very significant verses. So, 18 is also, the last part is, Krishna has given a very conceptual analysis, of action. Concept, fact analysis rather.
Now, let’s look at the next part. jnanam karmachakartacha, tridhaiva gunabhedataha, tochchate gunasankhyane, yathaava shrunutanyapi, So, last part is clear, shrunutanyapi, you are here. So, Krishna is giving a preface, to what he is going to speak later.
So, what is he going to speak now? Gunasankhyane, analysis based on the gunas, of what? Three things, jnanam karmachakartacha, tridhaiva gunabhedataha, So, he will classify the more, classify according to the more, three things, jnanam, karma, and karta. So, now, next verse, this will start. Now, let’s look at this back, and look at what are the, among these six components, which are, critical.
If you see here, parijnata, and karta, are the same. Isn’t it? Parijnata, and karta, are the same. The knower and the doer, are ultimately the same person.
So, the six, becomes reduced to five. Let’s, I’ll do this separately. So, out of the six components, first, the two have become, one is, parijnata, and, karta, have become one.
So, we have got five now. After this, what is the next one? Karanam, jnanam, karma, karta, jo. So, now, jnan, itself, is an independent component.
For example, when a person, sees a fire, in a, say, person, people are watching a movie, and people see a fire over there. So, now, what that fire will remind a person, it will vary, depending on person to person. Normally, it should alarm a person, oh, there is a fire in this over here.
But, actually, different people may perceive it differently. Take another example, if somebody sees a liquor bottle, person is in ignorance, the person, oh, so much enjoyment. And, a person in passion, he may get some sort of temptation, should I or should I not? A person in goodness, may say, yeah, this is useless.
This is illusion. This is entanglement. This is self-destruction.
So, the same object is seen, but the jnana that is acquired is different. So, jnana itself, is a different component. Now, if you see, jnana and jnana, so, after that, so, Krishna, what he does is, Krishna combines jnana and jnana into one, we will see.
They are not equal, but jnana and jnana, are combined into one. We will see, that, actually speaking, the jnana that we acquire, will depend on our objective. What do I want to do? And, my objective is determined by the modes.
So, in that sense, my knowledge acquisition, is very much related to my background vision, my background notion of what life is all about. you know, if, if, say, say, three boys come to a library, and, three, one is in goodness, one is in passion, one is ignorance. They come to a library, the boy in goodness, boy in ignorance thinks, where is a peaceful corner I can go to sleep? In who? The boy in passion thinks, who all girls are there over here? Isn’t it? And, the boy in goodness says, okay, which book do I want to read? Is that book available, or has somebody taken that book? So, they all three come to the same place only.
But, their response is different. So, why? So, because, their objective is different. So, the knowledge that they come to same library, but the knowledge they acquire also is different.
So, jnana and jnana are interconnected. Depending on what is my objective, accordingly I will acquire knowledge. So, in this way, the list of six becomes reduced to four.
Now, karana, karana is what? Senses. Senses are not in particular mode. Senses are used by us.
That’s why, Krishna, leaves out the senses. And then, what he does is, the last part is, in karma, there is, there is karanam, karma and karta. So, karanam, is basically, sort of, what shall we say, insentient.
The senses are insentient. So, the last component remains is, karma. So, how do I respond to it? So, these three, Krishna will now analyse, in the remaining verses.
So, first you will talk about jnana, then you will talk about karma, jnanam, karta, then you will talk about karma, and then you will talk about karta. So, is this clear? So, Krishna has basically analysed, action into six components, and then he has conflated, conflated means combined and reduced, six into three. And those three, he will analyse in three modes now.
Okay? Fine. Let’s move forward. sarva-bhuteshu yenaikam bhava-mauyaya-mikshate avibhaktam vibhakteshu tad jnanam viddhi-sattvikam So, Krishna starts with jnana, and first he describes, knowledge and goodness.
So, he starts with, sarva-bhuteshu yenaikam sarva-bhuteshu means all living beings, all of existence. ekam What is that oneness he says? bhava bhava is spirit, or nature, or mode of existence. bhava-mauyaya-m that is imperishable.
mikshate And, if that one is not so clear, one understands that one, and from that one, there is diversity. avibhaktam vibhakteshu So, actually the same phrase, avibhaktam vibhakteshu vibhaktam eva chastitam This is talked about in the 13th chapter. I think 16th or 17th verse, one of the verses.
There it is talking about a super soul. One super soul is present in different bodies. So here, the vision is not of the super soul, it is about a bhava, it is about a nature.
So, in goodness, a person perceives, there is some homogeneity, some unity, underlying all the diversity of this world. So, the pruthak bhava is the characteristic of passion. In passion, the vision of passion is basically fragmented.
I am Indian, you are American. I am male, you are female. I am dark, you are fair, whatever.
So, we keep seeing differences. And, passion leads to conflict eventually. So, when one goes beyond the external bodily differences, and one sees the underlying unity, that is a sign of goodness.
So, generally speaking, goodness in and of itself cannot give perception of the personal aspect of the spiritual reality. It gives us just the generic perception of spiritual reality. Generic perception of spirituality means brahman.
The brahman platform, one can start perceiving if one is properly situated in goodness. And, even we will see that people who are somewhat in goodness, even if they are not spiritually minded, they will try to see some kind of oneness. They will say, actually we are all human beings and we are part of one human family.
Let us look beyond. So, sometimes in movies, when there are Hindu-Muslim riots, there is a hero may come along and he shows to people, this is the body of a Hindu, this is the body of a Muslim. Look, their blood is flowing.
Can you see any difference in the blood? So, the idea is that a person may not be able to see at the spiritual level, but there also the person says, why are you seeing all these differences? See something similar. So, that is some inclination towards goodness. That is not properly situated in goodness.
So, the idea is that in goodness, one tries to see commonalities, similarity. In passion, one sees differences. सर्वभूतेशु एनाई कम भावमं वेनिक्षिति So, Prabhupada would say that Socrates was to a large extent self-realised.
He was quite fearless even in the face of death because he knew that I am the soul. And he said that when his prosecutors threatened to kill him, to poison him, he said, you can’t even catch me, how can you kill me? So, and eventually he accepted the hemlock. Hemlock was the poison that was meant to kill.
He voluntarily accepted it. Nobody had to force it down his throat. So, the idea is that even people who are not connected with a spiritual tradition and who are not necessarily having a serious sadhana, just by intellectual analysis also one can pursue this unifying reality that underlies the diversity.
One may not clearly understand what is that reality but one understands that there is some kind of reality, you know. So, this is सत्तोगण. And this ज्यान itself can solve a lot of problems.
You know, in ISKCON, we talk about transcendence but most of the time there is so much differentiation between my guru and your guru, my temple and your temple, my department and your department. So, this is quite unfortunate. This sort of differentiation is based, you know, if we are differentiating my guru is greater than your guru, then we are not even in goodness.
We are simply, the greatness of my guru is just an instrument to prove my own greatness. My guru is great, therefore I am great. And therefore I am greater than you are greater because my guru is greater than your guru.
So, which is quite unfortunate. This is a mentality in the mode of passion. So, at the very level, at the very basic level, if we are in goodness, we will see that actually we are one family.
We are one family of Krishna devotees, one family of Prabhupada followers. We are one whole unit. So, the whole, if you know, the Kapila Dev talks about bhakti in three modes.
All the bhakti in principle is transcendental, but in practise, depending on the consciousness of the person, the person may practise bhakti in goodness, passion or ignorance. So, we may not be able to see everybody as a transcendentalist. We may not see everybody as a devotee.
You remember we discussed earlier that how a person can see the world differently depending on perception. So, for example, when a man sees a woman, the man can see a woman in different ways. When a man sees a woman, the primary vision may be as a sense object, as an object for sexual gratification.
But that is largely a vision in the mode of passion. As per modes or level of consciousness, you could say it like this. So now, when one is in the mode of passion, one will see as a, let’s put it here like this.
so actually, when there is mode of ignorance, at the very level, at the very basis, in the mode of passion, there is some perception of the factor of enjoyment. So, at that level, one at least, whenever there is some, when there is sex between people, when there is consensual, that is the mode of passion. But when there is violence and brutality, and there is rape, that is karma, which is filled with cruelty.
So, that is actually in the mode of ignorance. So, when there is violence with the sex, that is in the mode of ignorance. Beyond that, there is mode of goodness.
So, in a cultured society, women are seen as mothers. And, as devotees, we also try to have this cultured vision, where we try to see women as mothers. Now, actually, in a sense, these three are all material visions.
But, at a material level, we see them differently. And then beyond that, at transcendental level, there is, we see them as devotees. You know, we say Vaishnavis.
And, at a highest level, actually, we see them as Gopis, as meant for the enjoyment of Krishna. So, actually, this is a complete radical shift. We may be devotees, or potential devotees, we can say, whatever it may be.
Then, Okay. So, the highest vision will be… So, of course, all this doesn’t mean that we look at women and try to think of all these things. We avoid looking at women.
But, the idea over here is that whatever we see, how do we interpret? How do we pursue that? So, at a transcendental level, eventually, when we become preachers, then we find that women will come for our programme. They will attend classes also. Then, we have to see them not as women meant for our enjoyment.
We have to see them as their souls, who are actually seeking Krishna. They are potential devotees. When they become devotees, then we see them as devotees, Vaishnavis.
They are meant for Krishna’s service. And then, at the highest level, we see them as transcendental, meant for Krishna’s enjoyment. So, Ramananda Rai, when he was decorating and massaging and preparing the women, as Devadas says, for the service of Jagannath, he was seeing them at what level? He was seeing them at the highest level, transcendental level.
The gopis, they are meant for Krishna’s enjoyment. Not only was he seeing them like that, he was seeing himself also as Vishaka. He was not seeing himself as Ramananda Rai.
Vishaka’s service is to decorate Radharani and prepare her for her pastimes with Krishna. So, in that sense, that vision is demonstrated to some extent in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s pastimes. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did that.
Let Ramananda Rai do that. And there was misunderstanding. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu clarified that.
Then Pradyumna Mishra, Pradyumna Mishra only? Pradyumna Mishra came and he sort of was bewildered. He was a brahmana. What is this Ramananda Rai doing? Chaitanya Mahaprabhu talked about him.
How glorious he is. But on the other hand, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is a sannyasi. So, he never did anything like this.
And one time he heard the Gopi Gita being sung. Not the Gopi Gita. The Jayadeva Goswami’s Gita, Govinda being sung.
And then he was so attracted by that song that he ran towards it. And as he was running, running, and then who was Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s servant? Govinda. So, Govinda ran with him.
Govinda was trying to stop. But Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was completely transcendental. Suddenly Govinda went right in front of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and screamed.
He said, he screamed. He said, it is a woman. And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu stopped as if he had turned to stone.
And he said, Govinda, you have saved my life today. He says, today, if I had touched this woman, I would have committed suicide. I would not have been able to live.
So, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu appreciated the transcendental vision of Ramachandra. But he treated women very respectfully as mothers. And he did not act transcendentally, especially with respect to the opposite sex.
Even when he was in his mystical trances, when he would be at a very elevated level of consciousness, still, he would show that among his male associates. As a sanyasi, he set a very strict example of how a sanyasi should deal with women. So, these are elevated levels of perception.
when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu went to America, he saw those boys and girls as potential devotees. And he encouraged them. And he helped them to become devotees.
So, in general, the culture, the Vaishnav, the upper part is the Vaishnav part, devotional part. And this is the Varanashram part. So, as a steady situation, the Varanashram is the steady platform.
And that’s why we have this whole culture of calling women as mothers. Now, there are some Matajis who object to the reference of Mataji. And their idea is that actually, we should not see each other as men and women.
And they say that women and men should all be called as Prabhus. So, now that is not generally what the Vedic standard is. So, their reasoning is that women calling other women as Matajis is a little odd.
So, that may be true. But men calling women as Prabhus, that is also not really Vedic culture. So, in reference to some Vaishnavi’s wishes, sometimes, we may do that.
Sometimes Radhan Maharaj when he is referring to some of his god sisters, he may refer to them as Prabhu. And sometimes, earlier he used to refer to them as Matajis and his Prabhu. Now I have seen him referring to them as Devi.
You know, so and so Devi, and so and so. So, that’s a non-controversial reference where you don’t endorse either side. So, the point is that there is this ongoing conflict which will always be there within a transcendental society that is also within the material world.
The transcendental vision and the material vision will be slightly different. So, the material point of view, if you see in the third canto, when when Swayambhu Manu is referring to Devahuti, you know, he refers to her as Amba. Amba is mother.
You know, he is his own daughter, but he is referring to her as mother. So, actually it is just in Vedic culture, a woman is referred to as a mother in many times and that doesn’t mean that there is any disrespect involved in that. Today, if a woman is referred to as a mother, she thinks, am I old enough to be a mother? They don’t want to be referred to as a mother.
So, one devotee was telling, he was going, he was in a petrol pump and he was just filling the petrol in the vehicle and there was some Mataji behind. And he said, she was again, he says, move ahead quickly. He says, so I said, okay Mataji.
She got angry. I said, do you see Mataji? He says, I don’t see Pitaji. So, actually it is very unfortunate that that which is an object, that which is actually a term of respect, you know, it is seen as an insult.
Because the idea is that if somebody starts calling you as a mother, that means you have become old and now you are no longer a sexually attractive person. But the idea that one should always be considered to be sexually attractive, that is an ideal which can never be sustained. You know, how long can a person stay sexually attractive? Even if a person wants to, a person cannot be very sexually attractive for many years.
So, it is the forcible, if one tries to develop something to become attractive in the eyes of the world, nature forcibly takes it away. And to add sort of insult to injury, not only does one lose that, but every year a new batch of people comes who replaces you. So, what happens is that I may be attractive one year, but the next year there is another batch, younger batch who comes and becomes attractive.
this is not just females, even males, if their sense of identity comes just from their sexual attractiveness, then that is going to be always a very unstable and destabilising basis for our identity. As it is unstable, when we lose it becomes completely destabilising. So, in the mode of goodness, we perceive women as mothers.
And the idea is, we may not be, seeing women as mothers may not necessarily be a transcendental vision, but there is some kind of ekatva, that all women should be treated as mothers. There is that oneness over there. So, the idea of treating women as mothers doesn’t have the difference here, this woman is more beautiful, this woman is less beautiful.
So, it’s not. Every, all women in a culture society should be seen as matravat paradareshu. So, all women who are spouses of somebody else, wives of somebody else, they are seen as mothers.
So, this is not necessarily a transcendental vision, but the idea of oneness is, can be seen only in goodness. Okay. So, any questions about this? Yeah.
Yeah. Why is it that some people in the mode of goodness are not receptive to Krishna consciousness? Krishna talks about it in the 14th chapter of Nyanadevastri mode, that goodness also links to attachments. So, sukha and jnana.
So, sukha means one feels comfortable. I’m happy here. I have my knowledge, I have my ideas and jnana means one thing I know better.
So, I know better. So, there is these two notions. Generally speaking, each mode brings its own attachments.
Generally, the mode of passion, the attachment is sense enjoyment. The mode of goodness, what is the attachment to? Knowledge means exactly what? Yeah, sukha is that. In goodness, one becomes attached to one’s opinions.
The characteristic of goodness is, I have my intelligence, I have my knowledge and I gain this understanding and I prove that I am right. So, in general, there is a very strong attachment to goodness, attachment to one’s own opinions. Ultimately, our knowledge is expressed through our opinions.
So, attachment to knowledge is expressed through our attachment to opinions. So, and that’s we see the transcendence of Prabhupada. Prabhupada, the attachment to nationalism is not undesirable.
It is at least higher than just sensual attachment or family attachment. But when he met Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Bhaktivinoda Thakur defeated him, he was happy and he told it, my spiritual master defeated me. He told it very happily.
So, in general, in goodness, we acquire certain conceptions and those conceptions may also be from the material perspective noble, laudable at their level. But if one becomes too attached to them, then that leads to problems. humanism, humanism is very popular nowadays.
Humanism means we are all human beings together, we should have a human spirit, we should have a commonality of the human race. But often this humanism is militantly secular, secular humanism. Religion is also one thing that fragments humanity into various groups and therefore we should avoid religion.
Then we can have a united human platform. But the problem with the secular humanism is there is no ultimate meaning to life. We are all human beings but then all human beings have to die, all human beings have to suffer old age, disease.
So sometimes it may also be that our spirituality may diminish our humanity. That will be unfortunate when it happens. Our spirituality diminishes our humanity.
Our spirituality should enhance our humanity. Enhance our humanity means, see if a person is a beggar and when a beggar comes to us, and suppose sometimes beggars are in a really bad condition, their hands and legs may be broken and they may be starving and then at that time some upcoming devotee is there and that devotee says, nobody wants to give some money to that beggar and he says, you will get bound by karma if you give money to him. You know, such a statement, even if it is philosophically correct, it appears very insensitive at that particular time.
At that particular time, the best is, our spirituality should enhance our humanity. That can become very alienating for many people. They feel that, ultimately, what is the use of all your ideology if you don’t even exhibit basic human sensitivity, basic human compassion.
So, we may be at fault if else has to be implemented in that way. And that is sometimes a problem because if we become a little too fanatical, then that can, in the practise of spirituality, if that, we may, in the gyana level, we may lose our humanity. So, how we may lose our humanity in the gyana level? For example, somebody in some family, some loved one has passed away and then they are lamenting at that time.
And then, you’re not the body, you’re the soul, don’t be illusion, don’t lament like this. Now, there may be a forum for telling that, but first, we have to express sympathy, we have to express condolences, show that we share in their grief, and then we can talk about further things. For example, when there was this, when these seven devotees had passed away, there was this memorial which was held.
The whole emphasis was on how wonderful they were and how we are suffering from their loss. And all the devotees who came over there, many of them became immensely inspired by that. At that point, they did not need the knowledge that you are not the body or the soul.
That’s not the forum for telling that. So, it’s important for us to present philosophy in a way that brings people closer to Krishna, not take them away from Krishna. So, when the people are themselves attached to their opinions and they are not receptive to Krishna, then the fault is there if they are un-receptive.
On the other hand, if our practise of spirituality is diminishing our humanity instead of enhancing our humanity, then the fault is ours. Yes? Yeah. So, if somebody has been passed in the mode of goodness in the past, and then comes to Krishna consciousness, then that person has a particular vision of how things should be done.
Yes. In general, ISKCON has always going to have a certain level of irreducible individuality. All of us are individuals and everybody is going to be irreducible.
So, you are in an institution, you have to follow one of the things. Lead or follow or get out of the way. So, if a particular person has a vision that this is how we should do things, then fine.
Go ahead and do that. A person can start his own centre. It can start in a small way.
So, if you go to every temple, temple has its particular mood. Say, Pune is stricter than Mumbai. one reason is that primarily, Radheshampu comes from a very cultured family and he wanted to have particular standards over there.
Now, that is all within the ambit of what Radheshampu wanted also. There can be things which are stricter. It is not that one is right and another is wrong.
It is that there are different levels of devotees who have to be accommodated in different places. So, every leader will have that freedom. So, in general, if we are in a project where we are followers, then we should cooperate with the vision of the leader as much as possible.
Then we can have constructive discussion and clarification of why certain things really militate against our sensibilities. Then we can avoid them. It is not that we have to go and find fault with everyone else.
We can avoid pizza prasad and later on when we become temple president we can avoid pizza prasad in the temple. The point here is that we will always have this diversity and if it is within the ambit of Vedic culture, there is nothing wrong in it. So, during Srila Prabhupada’s time also there were two districts, San Francisco and New York.
So, the whole mood in New York was stricter and San Francisco was sort of more linear. And in San Francisco they were doing more big things. were doing big things that way.
But then the strictness of the standards and morning programme, avoiding of food outside, all that was not so strict over there. And eventually later on the temple that became the leader in America was neither San Francisco nor New York but the western headquarters. So, ultimately, if one has a particular conceptions, they are not wrong.
What is wrong is that we should not impose them on others. But if we are given scope to do a particular project, we can do that in cooperation under the guidance of our authorities and then the people who like that kind of standards will come to us. And those who find the standards more strict will go elsewhere.
I know devotees in Pune who find Mumbai standards more comfortable. I find some devotees in Mumbai who feel that they would be happier in Pune. So, this could be because of nature or this could just be the grass is green on the other side.
It is always possible that way. The point is that this is perfectly understandable and it is compatible with Krishna consciousness. The only thing that is not compatible is imposing it on others who don’t want it.
that clear? Any further questions? So, let’s move forward. We’ll try to complete this three categories of Vedic knowledge. So, it was Ekatvena, now it is Pruthakvena, differentiation.
One sees everything as different. So, actually what one sees is that different living beings have different natures. Bhuteshu is living beings.
So, Bhuta is beings, Bhava is nature. So, different living beings have different natures. So, for example, now this could be just at a sheer bodily level, as I said earlier, man, woman, male, female, but this could also be at a more intellectual level.
That means now, in the Bible, there is a reference to the soul. But this concept of soul is not very systematically analysed. In both the Bible and the Quran, the word soul is often used not to refer to a higher dimensional entity.
That means there’s a higher dimensional being. I don’t want to make this more complicated, but you must have become familiar with my language now. ontological means that which exists.
Ontological. But in the Bible, soul is often used as a reference to a metaphorical reference to our non-material essence. So the soul is not treated as a separate entity.
And one of the prominent theologians in the Christian tradition, Thomas Aquinas, he came up with the idea that there are three different kinds of souls. So his idea was that in humans have it’s called as rational souls, animals have sensual souls and plants have what he called as vegetative souls. So what was the idea? He felt that there is a huge amount of difference between humans, plants and animals.
So to our normal vision, we cannot see emotions in plants. We can see emotions in animals. But still you can’t deny that plants have life.
Plants grow, plants reproduce, plants give fruits and flowers. So he said that there has to be a soul where there is life. But that soul is of a diminished level of consciousness that is going to be categorised as a vegetative soul.
And in animals, they have emotions. So because of these emotions, he categorised that they must be having a higher soul which is called a sensual soul. And beyond that, his idea was that humans alone use the word rationality in terms of metaphysical thinking.
Humans alone can do this kind said humans must be having a higher category of soul, a higher kind of soul, which enables them to do this kind of thinking. So this was the vision. And by this logic, they infer that therefore animals can also be killed for eating.
Because animals don’t have a soul like humans. So that’s which they can pursue. You see, the animals cry.
Animals scream. When you kill, when we are killed, animals cry, animals scream. And one Christian priest argued to Prabhupada that actually they are animals.
They are different from human beings. So Prabhupada said that if a human being and look at a human being who will be slaughtered. Actually, both the reactions will be exactly similar.
So here, because philosophically they don’t accept the idea of one common soul, Prabhupada talked about ekatva in a way that they can pursue. So we see these characteristics, presence of emotions, and the presence of the frantic struggle for survival based on and feverish dissipation of all the energies to try to survive. Now the Vedic understanding is that these three differences are there.
But the differences are because the degree of covering on the soul is different. So this is referred to in which verse in the Bhagavad Gita? In 3.38. That verse is there. difference among species is not due to different souls, but due to different degrees of covering on similar souls.
This is 3.38. So Pratak Bhava is very common in a passionate world because it’s very natural for people to just see in terms of differences. And unfortunately this happens even in traditional culture also. Varanashram, as I said, you remember we discussed Varanashram was not just for discrimination, but also for cooperation.
So the idea was create a sense of commonality. Varanashram provides people with a bigger family. But if the practitioners are in passion, then they will not focus on cooperation, they will focus on discrimination.
Rather than saying we are all Brahmana, they say they are Ashudras. And discrimination will result. So, actually, Ekatva and Pruthakva, they in a sense go together.
In the sense that at a material level we can see Pruthakva. But at a material level also we can see Ekatva. So the purpose of Varanashram is, so, if Varanashram are in goodness, it will lead to cooperation.
Because you can see Ekatva. And if they are in passion, it will lead to discrimination. And that is what unfortunately happened traditionally in Indian society.
That because the people were largely in passion, even the Brahmins were in passion, they were attached to their worldly goods. And they did not see the Shudras, the souls who are also potentially spiritual. They saw them as lower caste people.
So that is why the whole discrimination of Varanashram came about from Varanashram. So we will continue in the evening class talking about the knowledge in the mode of ignorance. Thank you very much.