Gita Study Mumbai 2012 – 06.08-14 Going from knowledge to realization

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
This is chapter 3. We discussed it 6.7 yesterday. We are going to start with 6.3. And we are currently going on the section which talks about moving from Arunakrishna to Arunakrishna. Right? Practising yoga sadhana.
So, Krishna is describing here. In the previous verse he described how the person has connected to Supersoul. When will a person connect to Supersoul? When such a person has actually conquered the mind.
So, we have talked about Jita Atma. So, he talked about a person who conquered the mind and he was equipoised. So, now he describes further the characteristics of a person who has conquered the mind.
So, he describes that Dhyan Vidyan Dhyan Vidyan When a person becomes yoga, then he has got both knowledge and realisation. So, 2 parts per 4. Primarily focused on this point. Let’s look at the full verse then we will focus on that.
Kutastho Vijitendriya So, this Kutastho is fixed. So, this Kutastho word will again come in chapter. And often the Mahabharata says that this is actually referred to Maruti.
But actually Kutastho actually refers to a bird who is situated on top of a tower. So, one is far far above everything else. Kutastho, well situated, high above everything else.
Vijitendriya, he conquered his senses. Such a person is well connected, well situated. But right in the start of the Bhagavad Gita we discussed about why only that’s called a Yoga Shastra.
And one reason is that the words Yoga, Yogi and its various Yukta come repeatedly in the Bhagavad Gita. In fact, that is one of the most repeated word in the Bhagavad Gita. So, in this whole chapter itself we will see that the word Yukta will come several times.
Maybe we can turn on the AC. Starting Sama Nostra Asma Kanchana. Such a person is equal in his vision of Sama.
Nostra Asma Kanchana, that is stones and gold. Equipoise towards everything material. So, let’s look at this verse.
Now Gyan and Nityan, what is the essential difference between the two? Theoretical knowledge and realised knowledge. Does anyone remember whether this phrase has come earlier in the Bhagavad Gita? It has come once in 3.39. It should have told us 3.41. So, it is describing there that how this material or material lust, it destroys both knowledge and realisation. So, remember in the issue we had discussed how the knowledge progress from Gyan to Nityan.
How can we draw a vertical arrow? So, by hearing, knowledge enters the ears. What I am putting in the bracket is the organ that is involved. Then when we contemplate, by contemplating the knowledge enters the head.
And then by applying those who come earlier and this is the same, so that everybody doesn’t come they disturb whenever the gate comes opening. Otherwise it is distracting for everyone. And in the other venue when the gate comes, there is coming behind.
But here, if we had a door, we can’t enter without any problem. Because the door is right in front of us. So, without electricity there, we can’t sit this side.
Only at last, it enters the heart. So, now after when it enters the head, it is called as Gyan. And when it enters the heart, it is called as Gyan.
And hearing through the ears, it enters it. Hearing enters into the ears. By contemplating it enters into the head.
So, if we don’t even contemplate, then actually we don’t even get Gyan. In the sense that just hearing, we don’t get any much understanding. So, Gyan means at least some level of understanding is there.
And finally when it enters into the heart, then it is called the Gyan. So, Krishna described that when will we become satisfied? When we apply the knowledge. When we apply to being at a theoretical level.
So, just like the Gyan is useful, it is useful for most people, it is quite it is indispensable. But the Gyan alone is not enough. Let’s look at this with some example now to make this point clear.
Come back to this slide once again. So, to understand the relationship of how Gyan and Vidyan both are important, spiritual knowledge is like a map. It is like a prescription.
It is like a recipe. And it is like a manual. So, in the map, the map is very useful.
It is indispensable when I am travelling. But just with the map, I don’t reach the destination. I have to have that knowledge but then I have to do something with that knowledge.
I have to apply that knowledge. Travel is the basis of that knowledge. Then, it will lead to it will take me to the destination.
Similarly, medical prescription is important. I need to know which medicines I have taken. But by memorising the prescription, I don’t get the cure or that kind of recipe.
I memorise the recipe of Gulab Jamun but I don’t get the taste of Gulab Jamun by that. Manual, if I have to operate a machine, say that make chapatis to a machine sometimes. So, I have a machine.
Now, I am in the manual of the machine, does it give me chapatis to eat? I need to have the manual but the manual has to be used. So, scriptural knowledge is important. Some people who have very simple minds, very uncomplicated simple minds and they have taken the right authority, even if they don’t have much knowledge, it won’t make much difference.
And you can just follow Gulab Jamun and you can go to the website. If a person follows a pure devotee, with closed eyes, he will not fall in the dangerous direction. But for most people, it is vital that they have knowledge in which language they will know what is right and what is wrong.
In a proper Vedic culture, where there are no unscrupulous people exploiting people’s pious sentiments, at that time, the simple faith would have been enough. But Shraddha Gopal did not just talk about simple faith. Gopal, if you see how many times did he quote Nagarjuna’s story and how many times did he analyse, he was not the body also.
He emphasises the body. He is not the body, but the soul. Prabhupada actually applied philosophy.
You see, the point is that philosophy is important. But then philosophy alone is not enough. Shraddha Gopal insisted that the devotee need to practise the Kalachakra Krishna Consciousness, chant Hare Krishna, dance in Keerti, meditate Prasad, follow the Gaurav Purusha.
So all this application is called communalization. So, Gnana, Vidyamana, Gita, Atma. So right now, all of us are not very truptavas.
We are atruptavas. We are constantly hankering. If we are not hankering for God’s gratification, then we are hankering for some recognition with the devotional service.
Oh, I am such a nice person. Absolutely. People should appreciate me for that.
So, recognition is a dream. Now, of course, when Shri Naroda appreciates us, that can also be an indication of Krishna that Krishna is accepting our service. Krishna is valuing our service.
So we can take it at that level also. But we don’t have to be hankering for that. If we are hankering for service to Krishna, we know that Krishna is watching us, Krishna is pleased.
Shri Naroda asked the Prabhupada, Prabhupada how do we know that you are pleased with us? Shri Prabhupada said that if you are following my instructions, I am pleased with you. We don’t need an external check for it. So Prabhupada’s instructions are quite clear.
So, gyan vitya nitya. So, when we get realisation that I am Sanchitananda, that I am actually a part and parcel of the all-embracing Supreme Lord, at that time, our connection with Krishna itself is misinterpreted. And this person becomes fixed.
He doesn’t have to succumb to the senses anymore. And Shri Prabhupada’s purport is quite eloquent over here. Prabhupada gives the Samdosh Trashtam Kanchana.
Prabhupada uses that to take a swipe at academic scholars. So, of course Shri Prabhupada starts with a very classic statement. Book knowledge without realisation is useless.
Prabhupada is very happy about it. At least there has to be an attempt to realise the knowledge. And Shri Prabhupada’s first section, Aam Aadhi, is a school that actually manages spontaneously.
You remember I discussed about the difference between knowledge, knowing God and knowing about God. So, in our theory, we know about God. We don’t know God.
We know God by developing a relationship. And Shri Prabhupada makes an interesting point. What will happen if a person is not getting a realisation? He says, by their academic knowledge, one can be easily deluded and confused by apparent contradictions.
By apparent contradictions. So, here Shri Prabhupada is addressing this purport to Jnanis. He is not talking so much in terms of oh, you will fall into some trap, you don’t know the laws of truth.
That was the reasoning that Sarvambharacharya used by Khenchak and Mahatma that you should study Shastra. Jnanis should study Vedanta Sutra because by that people will be able to understand that the sutra is a illusion. Shri Prabhupada is addressing a different audience.
He is talking about academic scholars only. So, he is not saying that if you don’t apply the knowledge, if you don’t practise you will fall down. That he is talking about elsewhere.
He is talking about a different pitfall. Remember, on the spiritual path, there are two main pitfalls. Desires and doubts.
So, desires are created by the mind. Doubts are created by the intelligence. And in general, desires trap the karmis.
Doubts trap the Jnanis. Of course, now we can say doubt is also a kind of desire. But you don’t have to go into a splitting analysis like that.
Doubts also are related to desire to defy Krishna. So, karmis are trapped by doubts. And Jnanis are trapped by desires.
The two main pitfalls. And that’s why we will see repeatedly Krishna will tell us Mani Arabhit Manobhuthir. So, why Manobhuthir? Because it should offer both the desire, it should sacrifice the desiring faculty and the doubting faculty for my sake.
Two obstacles. So, desires originate with the mind. So, they make the intelligence to entrap the Jnanis.
So, one needs to go beyond both of these. In the context of the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna is talking about renouncement, person is actually on the stage of arvana. He has renounced the world.
At least people have renounced the world, not already renounced the world. So, he is not entrapped by gross material desires. So, then when we are addressing the objection at that level, then person will be entrapped by doubts.
So, there are apparent contradictions in scriptures. Now, why are there apparent contradictions? Because we discussed this briefly once that scriptures originate in experience. I mentioned this in my Brahmachari class.
So, scriptures originate in experience. That means what? Really? Is any of you can pause me for 4 minutes? Or 1 minute? Let me just discuss after I finish my talk. Scriptures originate in experience.
That means Vyasate, when he went to Trismani at the start of the Bhagavatam, before he composes the Bhagavatam, Sanjana, Sanjana, he went to Samhita, Pranamita, Maya, Jatapasha, Pashat, Pushan, Poonam, Maya, Jatapasha. So, when he went to Samadhi, he had a particular mystical experience, a divine vision. So, it can be called an experience or a vision.
So, there actually one gets a conception of reality as it is. Now, that vision, that reality because it’s spiritual, because it’s divine, because it’s connected with the infinite. The infinite cannot be expressed with the truths and the words of the finite world.
Truths are the words, the truths are the concepts. Concepts are the words of the finite world. When I experience something, for example, your simple experience, we are talking about this, for example, you have a divine vision, sometimes how does it happen? We have a very intense and relishable kheer.
How was the kheer? Now, ecstatic is one of the most overused words in devotees’ ashram. Ecstatic, we use it so many times that it doesn’t really convey much. But now, none of the words actually convey the experience.
So, it’s the words that are imperfect truths. And not only are the words imperfect truths themselves, even the experience. Conceptually, Prabhupada, when you asked me this question, Prabhupada was asked, now, Prabhupada, how is life? Prabhupada thought, it is like an ocean of elasticity.
Ocean of elasticity. I don’t know. I don’t know.
He asked me, actually, isn’t it an offence to offer a mundane interpretation of the holy name? He said, no, the offence is to the holy name. So, isn’t Prabhupada offering a mundane interpretation of the holy name over here? No. Actually, what is a mundane interpretation? Mundane interpretation means to say that the holy name is just mundane.
The essence of offence is to reduce the spiritual to the material. That is the essence of offence. So, now to say that the Hindi is made up of material elements, it’s not an offence.
But to say that the Hindi is material and the mundane part of the Hindi is material, that is an offence. So, what Prabhupada is saying, he is not saying that, oh, Vaibhav, that is an ocean of elasticity. It’s like an ocean of elasticity.
Uncertainly, it’s a imperfect terminology. It’s not a perfect terminology, but according to the politics level, some way we will represent it. So, the point which I’m making over here is the words and the concepts.
Analogy is basically the concept of the mind. Let me explain it to you. I compare this with this.
And then I express it to you. So, concepts are actually concepts are verbal concepts are mental tools and words are verbal tools. So, we need these for communicating.
If say, I have experienced something and I want to share it with you. If you go for a wonderful yatra and you come back, now if you have to tell me something, how it was, you’ll have to use words. And if you’ve comprehended yourself, you’ll have to use some conceptual to explain this.
So, the idea is that both of these, because they are drawn from the finite world, our concepts are drawn from the finite world and our words are drawn from the finite world. And, especially because our concepts and words, we have experience of them in connection to the finite world only. Therefore, they can never properly convey the vision of the experience.
And that’s why, when a vision is expressed through the infinite, is expressed through the finite, there will always be contradictions. Why? Because, a simple example would look like this. I would not explain.
This is actually my idea. So, changing one word will remove the mayavad from here. It cannot be fully expressed.
Surely, it can be expressed. But there is an anonymous point where the mayavad is there. You cannot express the absolute.
All the descriptions would be wrong. The description is valid. But it has not come to me.
So, it cannot be fully expressed. So now, a simple example to understand. Suppose, all of us have experience of colorblindness.
You know colorblindness? You cannot see certain colours. Now, if any of you have done painting, you mix two colours together. You get a third colour.
Any good example? You mix two colours together. You get a yellow mix or any other. Very dramatic colours.
White and black you say. Blue and yellow you see. Very expensive.
Three colours are radically different. So, let’s see this now. Suppose, somebody has never experienced yellow colour.
He has never seen yellow colour. And then you want to convey that it is yellow. What is it? What is it? It is blue, it is green and it is negative.
It is both blue and green and it is negative. What do you think? It is contradictory. No, it is not contradictory.
It is actually inconceivable. The difference between contradictory and inconceivable. That yellow is something which is beyond the experience of the particular person.
So now, if I want to convey the colour to the person, what will I do? Actually, it is both blue and green and it is neither blue nor green. How can it be? Either it is one or two or what? It is beyond that. So, the scripture is about the genetic experience.
And when one is practising spiritual life, when one starts to get vijan, then one slowly starts getting the experience. So, if somebody wants to say, how can you say that it is blue? It is both blue and green and neither blue nor green. You have to try the painting.
I try the painting, I take blue, I take green, I mix the two together. Sorry, blue and yellow. I take blue and yellow, then I will get green.
So, blue and yellow, I get green. So, I take blue, I take the other colour and I mix the two. Then I actually get green.
So, what happens? But, I want to understand. It is impossible. It is impossible.
That’s why, if you are not practising, you will be overwhelmed by apparent contradictions. This over there, this over there, this over here, this over there. But if you start practising, you start unifying.
There is a higher reality. There is a higher reality. And we start getting excuse the higher reality.
There is a higher perception also. So, green is both what? Blue and yellow and is neither. So, another example is in physics.
We have a photon is a particle and a wave and is neither. Actually, what is a photon? Nobody knows that. They say that some places it behaves like a wave, some places it behaves like a particle.
And at those places it moves that way. So, quantum physics has created its own version of a chimpanzee. There you go.
They say that. Actually, this is as if they were in the business. One of the students asked him.
He said, what does this actually mean? Shut up and calculate. Shut up and calculate. Don’t try to understand, just calculate.
The equations work, but the equations don’t make any sense. This is top-ranked to visualise or conceptualise. Top-ranked to conceptualise.
It’s just the equations. So, the point is that even in our finite mental experiences. One example is from our day-to-day experience.
Another example is from the world of science. We see that there is something which actually happens to only when one goes deep in something. Actually, how can one think if I try to visualise? It has to be either a wave or it has to be a particle.
How can it be both? You can’t conceive it. But if you do the equations, they work. Somehow, you must be able to do it.
I don’t know how, but the equations work. So, even in physics, one will understand it to some extent. Whatever, they will understand it.
But only when one tries to use the equation and makes it work. Otherwise, one doesn’t understand it. So, that’s why application is key.
Without application, one will be confused about their own conclusions. And because the academic scholars don’t apply generalisation, their study of scripture often becomes a catalogue of finding contradictions. This is a real study of contradictions.
Now, of course, at a level of reasoning, we can reconcile contradictions. And the Vedanta Sutra essentially is doing that. The Vedanta Sutra is reconciling that.
But ultimately, if the complete reconciliation happens, then it is meaningless. So, at that time, one becomes unsatisfied. Now, Prabhupada gives another example over here.
So, he is transcendental to this thought. So, he says, for a person, for him, mundane scholarship and mental scholarship education, which may be as good as good to others, are of no greater value than pebbles or stones. So, what is he doing? Prabhupada is actually taking that concept and applying it in the realm of mental science.
So, somebody has a PhD. Somehow, PhD is what? Perpetual utility deficiency. Perpetual utility deficiency.
So, somebody is very proud of the PhDs. Prabhupada would talk about Dr. Frog. Dr. Frog.
So, wasn’t it? Now, certainly, that can be called a study in their own way. They appreciate that they have completed the study. But they are missing out on the essential.
And when they don’t do that instantly to the authorities, then they create a mess. Therefore, Prabhupada says that mental scholarship is not of much value in understanding the subject. In terms of its experience and its transformation.
Now, in the previous verse, he talked about how a person has a good vision towards material objects. In the next verse, he talked about a good vision towards Suryodhita Yogasina. So, here, some of these could be voiced.
Towards the end, I have taken a picture of the next verse. 5.90 Finally who is a Buddha? He is Sama So again I am describing Sama Buddha is equally poised towards everything Such a person is Vrishishtate, he is special So Vrishishtate indicates that such a person is higher than the person described in the previous line. Vrishishtate, Vishesh He is special, he is better, higher Because to be equally poised towards three, it is possible It is easy.
You know I can become detached Say if I am offered a Zunda or I am offered a Rajpath It is easily possible If somebody is always finding positive and somebody is always appreciating and very kind and loving, equally poised towards both of them, that is much much more difficult So to be equally poised towards three is a little bit easier To be equally poised towards two is much more difficult So now this is actually described in various levels of Subrahmanyam is a very intimate place The word Subrahmanyam comes where? 5.29 Subrahmanyam, Krishna has said One understands Subrahmanyam because I don’t know I know that Krishna is the greatest Balmishya, that is Subrahmanyam So here see that all the words, Subrahmanyam is close, intimate Right, intimate Balmishya Mitra So Mitra is a formal friend There are Sanskrit words which have different connotations in this context Ari is enemy, is a neutral person Madhyastha is a mediator, so the difference between Dasi and Madhyastha is Dasi, ok you are saying this I don’t bother about you Madhyastha is, you are saying that is Let’s see how we can reconcile the words Mediation Seminars and mediation is so close actually So this is conducted by Swarnas So immediately try to bring the reconciling points together The way Shiva shows, neutral is Ok you say this, I won’t take any sides I have nothing to do with your differences You have your differences I have nothing to do with it Mediator means, I will try to bring both of you together I will act as a middle man by which your differences will dissolve So it has both are in the same position but both are not taking sides, but one is not involved in the dispute at all other is trying to dissolve the dispute you know Gratia, so Gratia is the envious, so basically now So in the first line actually Surya Mitra Vrindasena Madhyastha Dvesha Pandushu Dvesha is envious So Ari refers to one who is directly acting as envy Envious is more of Envy is more of action acting Dvesha may also become may become Ari Pandushu Pandushu is a brother brother, very close and then Sadhushu which is Bapu Sadhu is a saintly person Bapu is a sinful person So he has an equal voice towards all of these people The last two he is talking about generally Sadhu is virtuous Bapu is virtuous and vicious Sadhushu Bapu is sadhushu So Shatrughan talks fondly about people who are pretending to be spiritual people and in the sense of vicious So one time a person came to Swamiji Bhagavad Gita says Shrila is equally vicious towards everyone So of course everybody Pandita has some understanding But the context is wrong Bhagavad Gita says Shrila is equally vicious towards everyone Pandita has some understanding Bhagavad Gita says Then Bhagavad Gita is saying that actually you should have an equal vision towards a saintly person and a criminal Can you imagine doing these old books they are completely mistakes only So Bhagavad Gita says First you go on following the way, now you are fighting for the grass they have laid out Swamiji, I didn’t want to offend you I didn’t want to offend you Prabhupada said what do you want to criticise me you are criticising yasne He said how can you have an equal vision like that I said actually equal vision is not one’s who said that Uttamadhikari can have complete equal vision Madhyamadhikari has an equal vision What is equal vision? He says everyone equally has potential candidates for the same But that doesn’t mean that it is with everybody equally Madhyamadhikari has characteristic that different people can be equal differently depending on how that person is in the same equal space Satya or not Satya So But Swamiji you should not criticise others Actually Prabhupada said samadarshina is with respect to given knowledge It is not with respect to given knowledge You should be equalised with respect to given knowledge You give your knowledge to everyone But Satyoshya Upanishad if a criminal comes and starts giving moral talk will we take that seriously? Obviously not So but whether a person is voluptuous or vicious everybody can try to respect your knowledge But you don’t put everybody in the same level Samadarshina is with respect to what? Everybody has Everybody can become a candidate for the same position as you This was your knowledge And it is not that we have equality for everybody in a naive centripetal sense Equal vision is for what? Giving knowledge It’s for giving knowledge not receiving knowledge So this Mahatma Ramana said that Oh you cannot teach the Vedas to the low caste people Samadarshina said fine Vedas cannot be taught but the conclusion of the Vedas That can be taught That should be taught to everybody So Prabhupada said Why are you criticising so much? He says I am equal in vision because I am saying everybody can respect your knowledge He says I am going to America I want Africa Everywhere I can have spiritual knowledge He says my equal vision is that everybody can go to Krishna He says your equal vision is that nobody should understand what is real spiritual knowledge in the name of being equal and neutral and non-critical and everybody acts in fully and everybody equally goes to heaven He says that is your equality He says equality is not in respect to assuming that the ignorant and the knowledgeable are all at the same level and that there is no need to discriminate. Discrimination is very important So there is a difference between discrimination versus judgement What is the difference? Discrimination means facing what is beneficial Judgement means I put myself on a high pedestal platform high moral platform and I say if you are bad you are good. That we don’t know but surely we have to discriminate so when we are judging that means you are lazy, you are this you are that.
We are placing ourselves on a high moral pedestal and we are judging so we don’t judge others so we discriminate. Remember when Prabhupada called people to be rascals that was one part of misleading that they were doing to others Prabhupada was personally warm with whenever he encountered the spiritual teachers they were in a mayavadi condition What is the classic example of this? Prabhupada was becoming warm with him He was staying with this yoga teacher Mishra and not only was Prabhupada warm and cordial with him Prabhupada was good for him Prabhupada was good for him and often he was disheartened. So Prabhupada at a personal level was warm so he was very strong about pointing out the philosophical flaws in that particular school of thought so we don’t judge we don’t discriminate In the traditional Vedic understanding Vedic mantras of power and their power in India is huge therefore they just like Ashwathama was not given to the Vedic Kshatriya knowledge cannot be given to lower castes so what is because mainly knowledge is spiritual otherwise it involves other material so now over the centuries as the Kali Yuga progressed it didn’t happen that their knowledge got monopolised but in traditional Vedic culture actually the janma and the guna would coincide largely when the brahmana and the brahmin unite together they will actually rise up and what we got from that India soon already has come to that so now in Kali Yuga because there is either the parents are following the culture properly, the parents are also offering the Dasa Narada Sadhya and so this competition is there and we cannot produce the qualities in which these are meant in Brahmin’s Chitrana Shukla so in the Vedic tradition it was not that for the sake of allowing everyone to become a brahmana, all castes had to be broken down because traditionally birth would happen in family so born in a Brahminical family you will become a Brahmin generally speaking otherwise this person is called a Vijayvarga but traditionally it was that the Vedas themselves were to be given to in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu out of reference to that particular tradition in many of the traditional accounts, the mantra starts from Hare Ram so Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Hare Krishna they will be a Brahminic object not the same mantra but because same is the Vedas of course Hare Krishna Mahaprabhu is also there in many traditional sources it is there in Ramayana Samhita it is there in the Yuga Vedas, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Vishakam it is there also in several other sources several sources I have put on my website that when we read Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Hare Krishna Mahaprabhu is also there but the commonly known form of the mantra was Hare Ram and people said the Brahmins said that the story is told in the Gaudiya Gaudiya tradition we don’t find the story in any of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s biographies as they exist but there are several biographies which are also there Murali Gupta’s Karcha so it’s not that the story is false it is well known in the tradition and the story that when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu started propagating Hare Krishna Mahaprabhu the Brahmins objected Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is not Jainist he is a Vedic man so they said ok fine then Chaitanya Mahaprabhu started the Hare Krishna and it was the same mantra so it was the same mantra as well known popular both mantras are well known but the Hare Ram mantra was more popular so Chaitanya Mahaprabhu started the Hare Krishna and he was the president of the following generation Mara Mara Mara Mara so it was to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in general Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not know about the Hindu traditions Narada Shravan said yes I will give you the holy name he did not say Narada Shravan Narada Shravan in the temple of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu it showed difference in the tradition in the Vedic tradition the Shudras did not talk in the Vedas not necessarily even if the culture was there the practise was there basically understand that we are not the Atma we are not the body and the soul we are the law of karma these were well known there are two different there is Shruti and Smriti and Smriti was popularly recited now even today even today in traditional India also if there is Bhagavad Gatha if there is Ram Gatha if there is Vishwa Gatha then it becomes a tradition even all castes come and hear so it is not when the Vedic tradition also Ram Gatha, Vishwa Gatha it is not there Shudras are not allowed for that there are Vedic rituals for example chanting of the mantras for that it can be allowed but the normal even in the Rig Veda there is a reference to Suryavas and Vedas they discuss here there are spiritual topics with the common people and among themselves so there are references to that in general there are also many scriptures we can use the word Vedas in a restricted sense to refer to the Shrutis the point is that public contributions they are available and apart from public contributions especially the fundamental spiritual pieces I am not a bodily episode there is a law of karma how can I say something about karma how auspicious it is there is a very good Prabhupada Pandit has educated people that the literate villagers in India literate in India know that there is a law of karma and I am accountable so there is quite a movement in the Vedic tradition but the Vedic mantras are still not shared Vishruti wasn’t discussed in Sanskrit was Shruti discussed in Sanskrit was Sanskrit only by higher caste people we look at the Mahabharata Ramayana we see that in Ashwagandha’s speech it is also described sorry not Ashwagandha I am talking about Ekalavya Mahabharata the Ekalavya speech is also described in Sanskrit so certainly there might have been local variants but in the way the scriptures are recorded everybody seems to be talking in Sanskrit and the historical record if you go from empirical point of view that is very speculative and beyond 2.5 thousand years which is known for what happened but if you look at the scriptures everybody seems to be talking in Sanskrit but it is true that old centuries the historical record so this became popular because he wrote the Pali so he wrote some he talked in Sanskrit also he used Sanskrit and then there was and then when there was devotional renaissance in India and many many times in all these their final contributions led to the Vedic mantras so it’s possible that both ways there could have been Sanskrit as a conversational language also and there could have been more refined more evolved form of Sanskrit which was the terrible language which was used in the in the religious advertises but this was the use this is why everybody talking in Sanskrit so we can say from the at least from this account Sanskrit was well known now going to technicalities of Sanskrit it’s like say in English we can have English of a newspaper and we can have the English of say a refined writer like Shakespeare or somebody there is a difference in the quality of English isn’t it you see English will be that will be more or less incomprehensible than something like that so there is a difference in the quality of English so like that if you look at Sanskriti and English it’s the same Sanskrit language there is substantial difference between the quality of Sanskrit in fact when the British came to India and they wanted to learn Sanskrit they actually used Ramayana as a book for learning Sanskrit Ramayana and English of course but actually in Sanskrit there is a really big difference it’s really big so the point is that both have to do with Sanskrit Sanskrit level is substantially different so from the tradition itself we can say that there could have been two levels of Sanskrit one which was conversational and popular and other which was more of rich and reserved so now we are going to start describing the level that is to be achieved the vision that is to be achieved now we will start describing the poses Yashila Parigraha Yashila Parigraha so Yogi always is practising what is he practising? Situational seminar is a good place what he is practising is when he wakes up he becomes he controls his mind and he gives all possessions in this five verses basically there are ten verses from the 14 verses this will describe the Sadhana and Vashna so here Vishnu is the Upanishad Yama and Yama so we will come back to this in the next class Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Vishnu Naath Vishuddham Naath Samadhi Chaitra Vishuddham Deer skin Vishayas Deer skin is usually called Gipsalistic Deer skin Chaitra Vishuddham Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chaitra Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant Chant So, this is a very direct introduction to this.
So of course, here this yogi, he is internalising his meditations. First he starts his meditation by Sankaric Samasikam. But then as he starts internalising, he goes inward and starts meditating on Krishna.
So, he should hold, fix his mind on Krishna and meditate and speak on Krishna. So now, Prabhupada explains directly that one has to reflect on this bhakti. Chitravata Pariksha has said before that even the yogi wants to attain Brahman, for him the object of meditation has to be this person.
He has to be Krishna. So here, Krishna is actually directly relating to himself. Very explicitly.
If not as the ultimate goal of meditation, then it remains as an object of meditation. Now why the object of meditation? The object is not always with the goal. The object of meditation is not always with the goal of meditation.
This will be very clear in a minute. Knowledge, object of knowledge is not always with the goal of meditation. So object of knowledge is not always with the goal of meditation.
The object of meditation is not always with the goal of meditation. Don’t get confused about it. We will discuss it later.
But the point is, we cannot eliminate Krishna. He is equal to the path of yoga. Krishna is a very simple definition.
And here is the first reference in the chapter of yoga to Krishna directly in himself. So 6.14 is the first stage, 6.15, 6.14 will come. Then 6.30, 6.31, very explicitly.
And then lastly, 6.47, Krishna is the path of himself. If you try to see three phases, Krishna refers to himself in the Bhagavad Gita. In this section.
We will discuss that in a minute.