Gita Overview Mumbai18.22-28 How the modes shape the doer and the deed

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So, currently we are discussing the action within three modes, how the Karmayogi by the knowledge that he has analyses how he is performing the actions. And we are going to discuss that there are six topics Gyanam, Geyam, Parigyata and then Karanam, Karmakartai. So, we discuss then we shorten those three into what we have first we have Gyana, then we will have Karta and Karma.
So, we will discuss these. So, Ekasmin, so this is characteristics of knowledge in the mode of ignorance. So, it is a little paradoxical phrase because ignorance means lack of knowledge.
So, how can you have knowledge in the mode of ignorance? Essentially, it refers to knowledge that keeps us ignorant of the higher truths of life. That is what we mean by knowledge in the mode of ignorance. So, knowledge that keeps us ignorant of the higher truths of life.
And in that we discuss what is the characteristic? Atattvaarthavad Alpamcha. Atattvaarthavad, that means there is no tattvaartha, there is no real truth in this knowledge. And it is Alpam, it is meagre.
So, Bhaktivinod Thakur in his song Vidyaravidasa says that most of modern education is Mohjanamiya Anitya Samsare Jiva Kekarai Gada. So, what is the first line? Vidyaragaura, no. Jadavidyayata Mayarvaibhava Tomarabhajane badha.
So, Jadavidya, Jadavidya is knowledge of the Jada tattva, of the materialism. Jadavidyayata Mayarvaibhava, it appears to be a great vaibhava, opulence, glory, but it is a illusory vaibhava because it does not actually increase one’s knowledge. Mayarvaibhava and Tomarabhajane badha.
What happens is that the more we think we know, the less we feel the need for God. And that is how Tomarabhajane badha. Say again, Mohjanamiya Anitya Samsare Jiva Kekarai Gada.
Mohjanamiya. It creates illusion and it makes us attached to this temporary mutual existence. So, that’s how it is.
Jiva Kekarai Gada. It makes a person into a fool. Tat Tamasam Udharakam.
Na saktam ahaitukam. Ahaitukam does not exactly mean that there is no hetu to it. Actually, the word hetu can mean cause in terms of what causes a particular person to do like we have ahaitukam.
That is unmotivated devotional service. But here it is not saying that those in Tamoguna are unmotivated. That is not the idea.
This ahaitukam refers to the point that they do not, these people do not look for ultimate happiness. They are satisfied with just a little bit of knowledge that enables them to control them. You remember we discussed earlier about how Socrates said, Socrates and Plato said that knowledge is virtue.
And what did Francis Bacon say? Knowledge is power. That is a clear shift of the conception of the purpose of knowledge from goodness to passion. And this slide has continued downwards.
So, Atatvarthavadalpamcham. That means I can get a huge amount of knowledge of a narrow fragment of reality. But as far as a complete holistic understanding is concerned, I do not get any clear understanding.
And there are many scientists also who have recognised that the scientific world or the scientific worldview does not at all deal with the things that we consider important as human beings, as conscious beings. So, there is a, in one of my articles, difference between understanding, this whole article on this theme on understanding the difference between science and scientism. So, there is this long quote by, yeah, Schrodinger.
Would someone like to read this quote? Have I discussed this earlier? It is a long quote, but I will just, you can read it and I will explain it. Who would like to read it? So, when we say that science is incomplete, that does not have an authenticity if scientists themselves admit it. And Schrodinger is a Nobel laureate.
He is not rejecting science, but he is contextualising science by telling what it gives and what it does not give. So, it is very deficient. Now, he first tells what are its strengths and then he tells its deficiencies.
Yes? It gives a lot of facts. Yeah. So, this is what, it gives facts.
Facts in terms of, okay, if I drop a stone from here, in how many seconds will it fall down on the ground? That kind of actual information it will give and whatever experiences we have in the world, it can put them in a consistent order. If I move a car at this speed, it will reach that much time. So, when aeroplanes move, they can have tremendous precision.
We start off at 3.8 from here and say in Kolkata, you will land at 4.29 or 4.59. So, precise they can have it. It can put our experience in a tremendously consistent order, magnificently consistent order. But, yes, so our external experiences, it can explain very nicely.
You can put in a good order, but ghastly silence, totally silent, all and sundry means everything, near to our heart, that really matters to us. What is that? They cannot tell us anything. Why doesn’t it tell anything about this? Because these are actually subjective experiences.
For example, I have discussed repeatedly how the whole of medical science is ultimately meant to promote health and remove pain. But in medical science, you cannot have something like a penometer, which can measure how much pain a person is going through, because these are subjective experiences. Now, in a computer, what does it mean? It says that you cannot tell about red and blue or bitter and sweet.
If I make a cover design, then if I put it in Photoshop or some other computer software, then it can tell, okay, the percentage of red is this much, the percentage of blue is this much, percentage of green is this much. But the computer cannot judge whether this design is good or not, whether it looks attractive or not. So, red and blue, in terms of its aesthetics, that science cannot tell anything about.
Similarly, if I take a gulab jamun and put it in some appropriate scientific metre, it can tell me how much sugar is there in it, how much water is there in it, what all is comfortable for a person. But it cannot tell, oh, this gulab jamun is delicious. It cannot experience that.
So, see, leave alone spirituality, even the sensory enjoyment that is there, science is blind to that. In the sense that science cannot quantify. Go ahead.
It knows nothing of. So, what are the silly answers he is referring to here? So, today morning in the Bhagavatam and Pranjal groups, I was telling about how they have this whole idea of, from faulty design, they infer, therefore, chance is a chance and natural selection are better explanations. But they are not.
So, at least Atheism over the last 10-15 years has become very militant. People 50 years ago, 60 years ago, science was intellectually respectable, but Atheists knew that apart from God, we just don’t have any explanation. And here Schrodinger is admitting that.
To instigate chance as the almighty mover of the universe is a silly answer. But these silly answers are being taken seriously because today people feel that the religious answers are very intellectually insufficient. They are unsophisticated.
They are simplistic. The idea that God created the universe in 7 days or the earth is 6000 years old. These notions which are there in the mainstream versions of the world, they seem so intellectually appalling that the chance seems to be a more respectable alternative.
But it doesn’t work out like that because chance is, as he says, a silly explanation. Now, some people may baulk at the idea that we are putting science as knowledge in the mode of ignorance. But the point here is not that all scientists have to be in the mode of ignorance.
The very fact that Schrodinger is thinking like this, it indicates that he has an evolved consciousness to some extent at least. And there are many scientists who are also more or less in the mode of goodness and striving for knowledge. But science as a whole has become a largely commercialised enterprise.
And it is controlled by factors of commerce to a large extent. All science requires funding and funding comes either from the military or the industry, consumer industry. So, because of that, the focus, the thrust of scientific knowledge has been towards utilitarianism, making things better for people’s self-gratification so that they can be exploited.
That’s why there is no tattva in this understanding. There is no foundational cause, which is addressed over here. Any questions about this? So, now, Gyanam Karma Chakarta.
First we talked about Gyan, now we will talk about Karma. That is which was 18. So, in the mode of ignorance, knowledge in the mode of passion, Prabhupada talks about various conceptions.
According to that knowledge, the bodies differ because of the development of different types of consciousness. Otherwise, there is no separate soul, which manifests consciousness. So, basically, there is pure materialism, materialistic monism, matter is all that exists, there is no separate source of consciousness and consciousness is just an emergent property of matter.
Although, that requires a far greater sense of magic, say that dead matter can suddenly become conscious. That’s one theory. So, then again, materialistic monism makes that matter itself to be ultimate and matter we see in so many forms and colours and shapes.
So, all of them become separate. Or else there are no individual souls, but there is an all-pervading soul which is full of knowledge and this body is a manifestation of temporary ignorance. So, Prabhupada basically talks about two kinds of Mayavada over here.
So, there is a big sky and a small sky. You know that standard example. So, inside a pot, there is a sky, outside the pot there is sky.
When you break the pot, the two skies merge. So, like that there is Brahman inside the body and Brahman outside the body. So, that’s the notion.
Now, it’s interesting that Prabhupada puts this knowledge in the mode of passion. Why? Although, in a sense, the perception of spirit, all-pervasive spirit is in the mode of goodness. One of the verse, the verse was, that is in the mode of goodness.
The mode of passion is referred to over here, because the Mayavadi conception of spirituality is not positive spirituality. It is just a negation of materialism. Isn’t it? Matter has form, therefore spirit should not have form.
Matter has qualities, so spirit should not have qualities. So, it is not a higher level of consciousness. Prabhupada explains that just by negating form, we will at best get formlessness.
But that doesn’t mean that we automatically get something that is spiritual. So, because the consciousness, so the Mayavadis may be claiming to be perceiving spirit and attaining spirit, but their thought process is still stuck with matter. Because they are not able to break free from materialist conceptions.
Their idea is that matter is limited. Whenever there is any material form, that form limits the being who is in that form. And therefore, if we want to have an all-pervasive being, then that being should be free from form, free from limitations, and therefore it should be free from form.
The whole analysis is based on the conceptions that frame materialistic levels of consciousness. It’s just like, suppose you tell somebody, you know, please don’t think of a blue monkey. You never thought of a blue monkey till that day, but that day you can’t stop thinking of a blue monkey.
So, the Mayavadis, they sit down with the form, down with the matter, down with qualities, down with activities, down with colour, down with shapes. But then their whole spiritual conception is centred on negation. And in that sense, we can say it is at the material level of consciousness which differentiates.
They focus on differentiation in a negative sense by denying differentiation, but they are not exactly perceiving a spiritual reality. Well, it could be, but Prabhupada says there is no special individual or supreme soul. So, in general, if you look at the Vruta itself, Ramavada would be the previous words.
So, in general, if you remember, we have discussed that Prabhupada uses the Mayavad conception in a very broad generic sense. For example, Shankara’s Advaitavada is there, and what Swami Vivekananda’s Neo-Vedanta is there. So, actually, their conceptions are very different.
Shankaracharya never talked about, say, humanitarian work or Manoseya Madhoseva, like that, as Swami Vivekananda did. But actually, Prabhupada uses Mayavada as a generic term to refer to all of them. And we’ll have to look at Prabhupada’s context and statements in various contexts to understand what Prabhupada specifically refers to.
So, to a large extent, Ramavada would definitely come in the mode of goodness. It will not come in the mode of passion. So, the very fact that Prabhupada is classifying this in the mode of passion indicates that he’s not really referring to the spiritual conceptions that the Brahmavadis have.
So, he’s just referring to the reflex negative conceptions of spirit that come from excessive focus on material consciousness. Any further questions? So, let’s move now on to the next part. Yeah, definitely.
Okay, Brahmavadis have some conceptions, Mayavadis don’t have. Well, it will depend again on what kind of Mayavadis. Shankaracharya, we cannot say that he did not have spiritual conceptions.
But for many of the today’s, like pop psychology is there. Pop psychology means there’s no real psychological analysis. There’s some jugglery of scientific sounding, psychology circle sounding terms to juggle people’s thoughts.
So, much of today’s Mayavad is like that. So, there is a mathematical expression of Veda, Maya, Vedanta, one modern thinker. So, he says, the soul is like a circle who centres in your heart and circumference is everywhere.
God is like a circle whose centre is everywhere and circumference is lower. What does this mean? Actually, there’s no meaning to it. How do you visualise it? It’s just plain word jugglery, which has no meaning at all.
So, another Mayavadi says that, he was asked, what is God? Modern Mayavadi says, if you empty a room of everything, then what will remain is space. If you remove even the space from that room, then what remains is God. It’s such a negative based idea of God.
This is actually not even based on philosophy, just some superficial word jugglery. That’s all that there is to this. So, such knowledge is very much in the material modes only, below in passion.
Shankara’s Vedanta will be to some extent in the mode of goodness. Is Ramakrishna Mission’s theology based on Shankaracharya? Yes and no, in the sense that actually there is a huge amount of difference between the thoughts of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. Ramakrishna was a sort of mystic.
Ramakrishna Paramhansa, he used to worship in various ways and he’s claimed to have seen God, seen God through Islam and through Krishna worship, through Kali worship, through worshipping Jesus. He focused more on sort of mystical experiences about transcendence, whereas Swami Vivekananda was more of a nationalist, a spiritualist, but he was talking about social reform and social service. Ramakrishna Paramhansa did not at all actually go into any, not really into social activism at all.
So, there is a huge difference between the two. Now, as far as what Ramakrishna Mission teaches, that’s primarily based on Swami Vivekananda’s teachings and he tried to unify the various schools of thought. And what Gaudiya Vaishnavism explains is, Shankaracharya came and then he gave Advaita Vada.
Madhacharya came and gave Advaita Vada, which is higher and then after that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came and he gave Achaitya Veda, which is the highest. So, Ramakrishna Mission has got that hierarchy reversed. So, they say Chaitanya Mahaprabhu gave Bhakti, Bhakti, Bhakti.
So, Chaitanya, start with all that. Madhacharya gave something higher and Shankaracharya gave the highest. So, Chaitanya Path, Shankara Math.
That is their idea. So, they try to, in their own narrative, unify the various strands of thought by which they put Shankara, Advaita Vada as the highest. So, Dr. Radhakrishna also in his commentary on the Vedanta Sutra says, I consider Shankaracharya’s commentary to be normative and wherever other commentators give some alternative interpretation, I will explain that.
So, in general, their philosophy, they accept other schools of thought also, but they consider them subordinate. So, there are within the Ramakrishna Mission also many people who are Vaishnavas and they continue practising Vaishnavism within Ramakrishna Mission. So, because they say that is not contrary to the teachings of Vivekananda.
Because they say that, okay, you can practise that and you can make spiritual advancement. Although that may not be considered to be the highest, but they don’t stop that practise. So, the Ramacharya’s Bhagavad Gita is translated into English by one Swami Abhedananda and he was born as a Vaishnava and he continued practising Vaishnavism and his translation is quite faithful to Ramacharya’s translation, nothing wrong with it.
So, in that sense, they are not so sort of doctrinally rigid, but because in general, in their published doctrine, they consider Advaita Vata to be the highest. So, that is why that is the general perception that is there. But even within, is what has happened in India, people, most young people equate spirituality with Swami Vivekananda.
And anybody who has a little bit spiritual interest, they go over there. Then they just don’t know much about Swami Vivekananda’s philosophy. The only thing they know is that he spoke my dear brothers and sisters and he got a standing ovation and he stands in a very attractive, impressive pose and he is awake India and that sort of inspiration is Swami Vivekananda.
So, many people, even with the devotional sentiments, they join in Ramakrishna Mission because they feel that is a spiritual movement which is active also. So, it is not that they have some sort of indoctrination by which they force everybody to accept Advaita. As of now, it largely exists as a social activism movement.
So, doctrinal education is not very emphasised within their eyes. So, that is why there are people who may be Vaishnavas, may be continuous Vaishnavas also. That is why rather than branding people according to that particular institutional affiliation, we can see what is that person’s individual conceptions.
But that is just generally their idea. So, they move towards Advaita. So, he had that idea that he talked about western people, Swami Vivekananda said, what can you understand the love of the Gopis for Krishna? He said, that is so pure.
That is the highest expression of love. He says, you Christians, you only think of God as a father and master. But then he talked about these five rasas.
Talk about master, then you talk about as servant and master and then equate that with father and son. Then he talked, he knew about these five rasas. Then he talks about Zakira, Vatsalya, Madhuri rasa.
And he says, actually the you see what happens with all these five rasas, the intimacy increases more in you. Intimacy increases more in you. And the Gopis’ intimacy with Krishna is the highest, just one level before union.
So, he put the five rasas in hierarchy. Above that he puts union, sayujya mukti. The sayujya mukti is actually below all the five rasas.
So, one of the reasons why our acharyas have been so vehement in criticising is because they got all the hierarchy wrong. That which is the highest, they have made it the way it is. So, that is the mess that they have made.
Which ones? Okay, 20 and 21 are quoted by Mayavadis. Yes, you may say that in goodness there is, we see oneness, in passion, we see diversity. That is true.
But we will see very clearly in 18.54 and 18.55 where Krishna will talk about something higher than oneness. Brahma-bhuta-prasanna-atma-na-sochiti-na-kankshiti-sa-man-sarveshu-bhuteshu Then, mad-bhaktim labhate paraam, and bhaktya-ma-mati-janati-ya-vanya-sasmi-tattvatah. So, actually, brahma-bhuta-prasanna-atma, that is what he is talking about in 21.
And then, if that vision is not very clear, Krishna will make it very clear in the next two verses. Equality towards all things, equality towards all beings. After that, one gains parava, transcendental bhakti, and by that one understands Krishna.
That means the understanding of Krishna is above the conceptions of oneness, not below the conceptions of oneness. So, that is why this can be used by Mayavadis to justify that oneness is higher than diversity. That is true.
But then the Bhagavata also says that there is, you know, there are these two conceptions, there is unity in diversity, but the Vaishnava philosophy, there is also diversity in unity. And diversity in unity is higher when it is at the spiritual level. And that is what enables the reciprocation of prasas to take place.
Let us move forward. niyataṁ saṅgarahitaṁ niyataṁ saṅgarahitaṁ rāgadveṣa-tahakṛtam rāgadveṣa-tahakṛtam apalaprepsuṇākarma apalaprepsuṇākarma yat tat sāttvika-mucchate yat tat sāttvika-mucchate So, niyataṁ saṅgarahitaṁ. So, Krishna is more or less talking about the same thing which he talked about in the earlier part of this chapter, verses 1 to 12, about being detached from the fruits of the work.
So, apalaprepsuṇā, do not be attached, saṅgarahitaṁ, apalaprepsuṇā, do not hanker for the fruits of work and be equipoised, rāgadveṣa-tahakṛtam. So, this kind of karma is in goodness. Then, yat tukāmepsuṇākarma yat tukāmepsuṇākarma sāhaṅkāreṇa-vāpunaḥ sāhaṅkāreṇa-vāpunaḥ kriyate bahulāyāsaṁ kriyate bahulāyāsaṁ tat tāṁ samudhārthaṁ tat tāṁ samudhārthaṁ Sorry, rāja samudhārthaṁ.
So, kriyate bahulāyāsaṁ Bahulā means great effort Right? So, yat tukāmepsuṇākarma kāmepsuṇā with apalaprepsuṇā was the word in the previous verse. Here is kāmepsuṇā Ipsuṇā is the aspiration or attachment or hankering So, here there is a hankering for the result When one is in passion, one actually puts in excessive endeavour disproportionate endeavour So, certainly one should ladies should not recommend laziness but at the same time, they should not recommend imbalance Now, modern society is such that See, the scriptures often talk about don’t be attached to the family Practise spiritual life So, actually there is first attachment to God Then there is attachment to If you don’t have people who are not attached to God they often become attached to family members and relatives and things like that But even attachment to people is somewhat higher than attachment to things So, today people are so attached to things that many times people they need to be told spend some time with your family members and Stephen Covey and people like that write in their books How many people regret at the time of death that they didn’t spend more time in their office They should have spent more time with their family members with their children Oh, it’s very true I should think like this Otherwise I regret at the time of death I didn’t express my love to my loved ones So, people need that because the whole culture is so materialistic that even for some kind of authentic love to be there we have to treat other people as people as individuals and it reciprocates with them But when I am too materially conscious I just think of people as objects for my pleasure and then I am just focussing on things So, I want awards, I want cash I want big bank balance, I want new car I want big bungalow and this happens for a long time People work extremely hard and very often people suffer a lot from stress The main reason for that stress is because they work in an imbalanced way So, the ethos of hard work being unbalanced work This is a modern disease In the Vedic times also people had to work hard sowing, harvesting, when people do farming that’s hard work and that sort of hard work is essential for livelihood So, it’s not discouraged hard work but the modern kind of hard work is largely unnatural and debilitating because the kind of hard work that people do often it doesn’t involve much physical exertion People take one software programme and just go deep into that and try to debug it and that’s what they may be required to do for a living But the whole idea is so diversed from nature right now kriyate bahulayasam bahulayasam means so much endeavours involved anubandham kshayam himsaam anapeksha cha paurusham anapeksha cha paurusham mohadarabhyate karma yat tat tamasam uchyate yat tat tamasam uchyate So, anubandham kshayam himsaam So, anubandham is actually one is very bound to certain conceptions and certain attachments kshaya is destruction, violence kshaya is destruction, himsa is violence The two are related So, often this is motivated. So, Prabhupada will give the example of say development of weapons of mass destruction So, they are really heavy industry.
Nowadays the destructive potential is such that you can have an explosive device which just looks like a cell phone and that device can instead of exploding and sending fire which will boom, blow up things when it blows up, it just sends poison into the atmosphere and actually one small device like that when it blows up, it can send poison for almost a whole mile around one mile all around one mile circumference and everybody over there just inhale it and done what can you do actually when poison is just coming through the atmosphere and when it explodes poison just gets thrown off So, now the technology that was required to make it it certainly required brain but kshayam himsaam this sort of technology is based on destructive potential a lot anapeksha japaurusham So, anapeksha here is not it is not without any expectation anapeksha dashacharya dakshakrishna uses the character of a devotee in the 12th chapter but here anapeksha refers to that it is without adequate deliberation So, Prabhupada is self-sanctioned without considering one’s own abilities So, then a paurusham So, Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that paurusham rishu I am the ability in man anapeksha japaurusham means one does not consider whether I have the ability to do this particular it starts off without considering the whole idea is in the Vedic culture that there can be very powerful weapons of destruction also but they should be with responsibility Today the idea is people don’t people don’t want to consider whether I have the maturity I have the sense of responsibility to have certain things the whole current ethos in America for example say that anybody who has the money can purchase guns and keep guns with them So, what happens by this is that all of us have impulses that can go out of control and if we have access to destructive things then those uncontrolled impulses can ruin us so therefore the less access we have to destructive things the safer we are of course the police and the law enforcement should be good enough so that they provide protection to people but then when people have access to this people just go in a fit of rage over something and they take out a gun and shoot each other so anapeksha japaurusham means one doesn’t consider whether one has the adequate paurusham means ability, maturity this is not so much in terms of skills this is more in terms of qualities mohalarabhete so mohalarabhete means start the work without considering adequately the various factors involved yathak tamasamuchyate so here Krishna talks about karma in the mode of when you talk about karata in the three meanings upasango anahavadi dhrityutsaha tamasamanyitaha siddhya siddho nirvitaraha kartasatvika uchyate so muktasango anahavadi such a person is detached and Krishna had already talked about s nahankrutobhav so ahankara is there anahavadi ahankara and you remember dhrityutsaha tamasamanyitaha utsaha nishchayat so actually that nishchay is what makes things transcendent nishchay is faith utsaha is enthusiasm dhriti is determination so remember we discussed the table that when there is enthusiasm, there is determination and there is faith so if there is only enthusiasm but no sorry dhrityutsaha yeah how does Prabhupada translate it yeah dhrityutsaha tamasamanyitaha utsaha nishchayat dhairya nishchay is determination nishchay is no nishchay is faith over there utsaha nishchayat dhairya so dhairya is patience so dhriti is determination utsaha dhrityutsaha tamasamanyitaha that means there is enthusiasm and there is determination so actually the determination we can roughly equate it with patience in the sense that you have to sustain something for a long time for that we need to have patience also so krishna says when we have this both we have enthusiasm and it continues for a long time that is goodness actually in some ways goodness and ignorance look similar a person in goodness sits and thinks a person in ignorance sits and sleeps but both sit so in some ways they look similar so in passion there is a difference hyperactivity in goodness and ignorance activity is often lessened but the difference is the level of control over one’s thoughts see it’s like in goodness one has one focusses on thoughts then there is action in passion one is action first then thoughts afterwards and actually in ignorance one has no control either over thoughts or actions it’s like that that is completely out of control so in that sense then krishna talks about the action in the mode of sorry actor or performer in the mode of action ragi karma phala prepsur ragi karma phala prepsur luktho himsatma koshuchi luktho himsatma koshuchi harsha shoka anvitaha karta harsha shoka anvitaha karta rajasah parigirtitaha rajasah parigirtitaha so harsha shoka so harsha shoka is also the name of chitta ketu san and the idea is the pendulum or the sine wave of emotions sometimes harsha sometimes shoka samanvitaha anvitaha means imbued with permeated with dhrityutsaha samanvitaha anvitaha so ragi that has karma phala prepsur is wanting to do the work luktho koshuchi is unclean and himsatma has actually purpose ready to perform violence as such a person in the mode of action most people today we see they are in the mode of action that’s how they work in fact this sort of passion is even idealised when people say when a cricketer wins a cricket match and then they celebrate jubilantly and they win and they produce sounds that human throat cannot produce after victory and people think they are so happy on the other hand the other team is so devastated and they are heartbroken they are just in their head and falling on the ground people delighted in seeing this harsha on one side, shoka on the other side you see this especially in the game of tennis at the end of the championship one person jumps up and down other person sinks down the whole idea is people like to see this they think that this the vedic culture focusses on minimising the dualities don’t take the dualities too seriously the modern culture emphasises accentuating the dualities this person is the winner, this person is the loser so harsha shoka on the other side rajasaheb yes this is a good question I was expecting this question so Krishna is using the word himsa atmako so how does Prabhupada translate this atmako atmako atmako is actually this is not so much the word atmaka is used here this refers not so much to this refers more to violence towards one’s soul in terms of not understanding one’s spiritual identity it is not so much a physical violence that is being talked about so Prabhupada also uses the word envy so at their innermost they are committing they may or may not be physically violent but the point is they are being violent towards their souls if we see what Krishna uses the word not Krishna he uses the word atmaka Bhagavatam uses atma so that is also violence towards the soul killer of the soul but those people don’t necessarily have to be in the mode of killer of the soul people in the mode of action are also killer of the soul so himsa atmako here refers to more of violence towards one’s atma by having emotional actions that obfuscate that cover one’s spiritual identity clear yeah what does the word vritti mean well the essential root of vritti is the same as dharma it is to sustain so the idea is what can sustain one we can say it is patience, sometimes determination so fortitude the word essentially means patience when there is great difficulty at that time one perseveres on a person has a lot of suffering the person stays continuing on alternating and then continues that person has a lot of fortitude so the whole idea is the common essence of fortitude, patience and determination is the capacity to sustain and go on so that quality by which one sustains and perseveres, that is vritti now Harshishokam and after I will discuss the doer in the mode of vritti probably one of the most meaning packed verse of the Gita in a sense you know every word is describing so much over here ayuktah prakritah sthavdhah prakritah sthavdhah shathonaishkrutikolasah shathonaishkrutikolasah vishadi dirghasutricham vishadi dirghasutricham kartatamasaujjate kartatamasaujjate so it is describing eight characteristics of the person in the mode of ignorance so so ayuktah yuktah means regulated ayuktah means unregulated so actually according to psychologist there are two kinds of depression there is chronic depression and there is manic depression so chronic depression means that person is always I can’t do anything manic depression means that person is depressed at sometime and is maniacally enthusiastic at other times sometime that person feels I can’t do anything next moment the person feels that I can shake the whole world sometime the person is super active it’s like a manifold expanded version of bhogatyaag so that is the whole idea that person is not yuktah ayuktah prakritah means prakritah is materialistic yuktah prakritah so the person is a person in the mode of ignorance that person just can’t think of anything beyond matter at all completely caught in matter prakritah stavda in general the more knowledge we have the more respect we learn for things as well as other people but the more a person is in ignorance the more the person thinks I am right stavda that right is not based on any knowledge it is just imprudence it’s imprudence this is different from the goodness where there is attachment to opinions there is basically some reasoning some logic over there but here it’s just this is my stavda impudence so often the stavda is used in mahabharata to refer to Duryodhana stavda impudence then shato shato is what? cheating was Duryodhana’s guru charvak well not exactly guru his main counsel came from Shakuni and Shakuni at one time he brought a brahmin his name is starting from K Kanaka Kanika or Kanaka so this Kanika was in the mahabharata his role is elaborately analysed in the mahabharata he is mentioned but he is not talked about too much what is his name Kanaka or Kanika his idea was that there is no there is no use of any morality at all the whole thing only one reference in krishna dharma prose mahabharata so when Shakuni wanted to use all his fraudulent schemes against the Pandavas he knew that Dhritarashtra would not agree so what he did suggested that he seek advice from Shakuni’s brahmin friend Kanika he was an expert in statecraft and politics and Kanika told Dhritarashtra that he should feel no compunction about rooting out the enemies before they harm him and he should destroy them without hesitation by any means possible whatever means the means don’t matter at all you can use whatever you want to do that is Kanika so in a sense Dhritarashtra’s guru was Shakuni and Shakuni justified whatever he wanted to do with the help of Kanika’s rationalisation so there are means and there are ends so means means how I do something, ends is why I do something, what do I want to achieve excuse me excuse me so there are these three kinds of Nitis this is a relevant point over here Nitis does not necessarily mean morality, it just means codes so there is the teacher of the Devatas is who? Brihaspati so there is Brihaspati’s Niti then there is Shukracharya’s Niti and then there is Kanika’s Niti hmm fine so Brihaspati Shukracharya it’s called a Shukraniti Brihaspati Niti Shukracharya and then there is Kanika Kanika fine so if you have means and ends so he says according to Brihaspati, the means should be right and the ends should be right hmm so whatever we do, we should use the right means to gain the right ends according to Shukracharya the ends should be right the means can be wrong hmm and according to Kanika, neither matter yeah, what you want you get it, if that’s what you want don’t care whether it is right in the means, right in the ends, just do what you want to do so this is actually the various kinds of morality now the Mahabharata to some extent uses the logic of Shatoshathyam if the opponents are cunning, then you can also be cunning so in many places for example, the killing of Bhishma, Drona, the four maharathas Bhishma, Drona Bahlika and Karna and even Duryodhana also in all of them there is some kind of immorality involved absolute strict point of view, there is immorality but if you look at broad context, it cannot be really called as immorality because those people have done far greater immorality and they were always the instigators, the starters of immorality so the idea is that for good ends bad means can sometimes be used but it should not become a rationalisation that I will do this all the time but it has to be done very very careful but at least the ends should be good but Kanika says even the ends did not be dharmic, the means did not be dharmic actually the ultimate dharma is self success and self preservation there is no dharma higher than that so for that whatever one wants to do, one can do that so actually for Duryodhana his guru was Shakuni and Shakuni had his own ideas and he used Kanika to get, to justify his ideas so Charvaka is just mentioned only once in the Mahabharata and after Duryodhana is coronated at that time not Duryodhana, after Yudhishtira is coronated when he is being welcomed by the Brahmins, at that time Charvaka is a demon friend of Duryodhana, he takes the form of a Brahmin and he says that Yudhishthira, your greed for the kingdom has been the cause of all this bloodshed and all these Brahmins disapprove and condemn you and they have selected me as their spokesperson for expressing that condemnation when he speaks so vehemently Yudhishthira is already disconsolate because of all the bloodshed that he has seen, anything he has caused he becomes completely grief struck he says yes, what you are saying is right I will forsake the kingdom and I will go into the forest and as soon as this exchange happens, all the Brahmins say alas, alas this is not our opinion, he is not our spokesperson, they look at him and by their mystic vision they see, he says you are not a Brahmin, you are the demon Charvaka and they just by their glance, they reduce him to ashes over there and he gets killed so he is not exactly mentioned as a guru he is mentioned as a friend who sometimes gives counsel but he is considered to be a demoniac person in the Mahabharata at least that is what is mentioned in that incident so I don’t know whether it is mentioned earlier the word Charvaka is like a generic name this Charvaka was not necessarily the founder of the school of Charvaka that school of thought was going on before also and there might have been a Charvaka like we have talked about Charvaka Muni so just like Janaka Janaka is the name of there are many kings who had the name Janaka so Janaka which is mentioned in the Bhagavatam in the Bhagavad Gita is also the father of Satadeva so like that Charvaka also this name has been there for many centuries so later on many times if a person was an influential proponent of the Charvaka school of thought, he was also called as Charvaka like that so let’s quickly complete this so Vishadi so Naishtutika what is Naishtutika Prabhupada is expert in insulting others so it is sarcastic and then the sarcasm, sometimes if it is meant for a purpose of educating others, that might be good but sometimes it is taunting just for the sake of hurting, that is the mode of ignorance speech should as I said we should use build bridges not build walls Alasaha so first three talk about activities, I was talking about chronic and manic depression so first are about manic activity the whole idea is act in a destructive, detrimental way and the remaining is don’t act on it Alasaha is lazy Vishadi Vishadi is always lamenting, always rejected Vishadi is always very unlucky that sort of idea lastly, Dirgh Sutri now actually the word Sutra means short continence like Vedanta Sutra Dirgh Sutra means very long so Prabhupada writes that what can be done in one day, it will take a year to do that anything which can be done in an hour, they drag on for years Dirgh Sutri so so actually many times there are some things which you don’t like to do and we drag our feet on it what is the meaning of dragging our feet sometimes mother has to take a child to the doctor for some medicine or something child doesn’t want to go, what child does is puts his feet on the ground and doesn’t want to go then the mother has to drag along so the feet get dragged along sometimes we drag our feet about such things so actually if you want to live either, there are only two ways to live either you like what you do or do what you like but if we we have to develop some sort of liking for what we do, how can we develop that it’s not that we can always do what we like do what we like or like what we do so Rajasthan Valnashram means what people are largely given the concept that you have to do what you like so according to their nature but all of us, sometime or other, we will be faced in a situation where we have to do what we don’t like to do so at that time, somehow by our intellectual analysis by understanding how this is important for me and how this will be useful for my growth, for my survival whatever, we have to develop some liking for it if we are very resentful of what we are doing it will simply trouble us it will simply torment ourselves we will not be able to do it also and we will trouble others others will have to keep pushing, do it, do it and then we will make ourselves miserable and we will make others miserable and Dhirgasutri comes because we don’t put mind over matter we don’t think really, do I have to do it if I have to do it, let me do it, I am encouraging it if I don’t want to do it, just let me be frying and tell I don’t want to do it in general, that might be seen as a lack of submissiveness and we should avoid it but if really we feel we can’t do something it’s very bad to say that I will do it and not do it because that makes life very troublesome for others so Dhirgasutri they drag their feet on this so therefore this is Karta Tamasa Ujjate now after this Krishna will talk about Buddhi, Dhruti and then he will talk about Sukha they are further factors of action that we will discuss in the future, thank you very much Shreemad Bhagavad Gita ki Jai Shreemad Bhagavad Gita ki Jai Gaur Bhakt Vrindavan ki Jai Gaur Prem