Gita study Mumbai 2012- 02.26-38 Refuting materialism

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Discussion in the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita.
Here I found the concluding part of the second section. This question was 25. So, till now in the first section, Krishna discussed about how, or rather Bhagavad Gita discusses about how Arjuna gives further reasons for not fighting and then he surrenders.
And then after that, the Bhagavad Gita describes how Krishna starts the instruction. So, Krishna starts the instruction. He talks basically about there is no need for lamentation like the idea of compassion for the death of somebody.
You lament it because you are not the body, you are the soul. And now, till 22nd verse, Krishna has established how one is not the body and soul. Now, Krishna will take another attack.
He will argue in another way. नहीं नम्शोचितो महसी। नहीं नम्शोचितो महसी। अत्थव, अत्थव means other ones or चेनम्, if you entertain the soul, नित्यातम् is eternally born and नित्यम्वामन्यसेनितम्, it is always destroyed. तथाकितो महावाहो, even in that case, नहीं नम्शोचितो, you did not lament about it.
So, this is Krishna expressing the materialistic perspective. The materialistic perspective is primarily talked about in Hindu tradition by the Chahavahwadis. विणामिद्वार् उतम्भिवे, यावर् जीवे, सुखम्जीवे, बस्मी भूत्यस्ति देवस्य, उतम्भुनरार् मनिभवे.
So, this is the materialistic philosophy. So, actually the Hindu tradition had all these four things in common. And there was this fierce argumentation and invalid, illogical school of thought being defeated.
But they were there. So, Krishna is now checking whether Arjuna is subscribing to this kind of school of thought. And he said, even if he is subscribing to this kind of thought, then also, ultimately विद्धिजातमिद्धिसे, विद्धिजातमिद्धिसे, विद्धिजातमिद्धिसे, it is multi created, Right? It is not merely destroyed.
So, again Krishna used the word Ghreek. Not the word आतम इतलि एना क्षिव शारा बंगयतः बनव दाला So, yes, even at the mental point of view, life and death are inevitable. They just go on.
So, whether a person.. or a spiritualist.. ..the nature of reality is unchangeable to this world. And so if something is unchangeable, what is the point in lamentation? So we may wonder what does it mean? What is the exact argument over here? So they were actually different kinds of philosophers. Some of them were having some futuristic conceptions of something similar to Buddhism.
Some of them were famous. So all those are available in this Prabhupada course. So the Vedanta Sutra contains a refutation of Buddhism.
Now Buddhism, we know, is 2.5 thousand years old. So how can the Vedanta Sutra contain a refutation of Buddhism? It is not a refutation of Buddhism per se. It is a refutation of Buddhistic thought.
So Buddhistic thought predates Buddhism. Just like Mayavada predates Shankaracharya. Shankaracharya is a prominent proponent of Mayavada.
Similarly, Buddha was a prominent proponent of the Buddhist school of thought. He was sticking to that Buddhist tradition and rejecting the law of existence. And he popularised that school of thought so much that it became identified with him.
It is called Buddhism. The Vedanta Sutra does not specifically use the word Buddha. What it uses is the Buddhistic idea that Shankaracharya is a proponent of Buddhism.
So Krishna spoke to Bhagavad Gita long before Buddha appeared. But that school of thought was created even at that time. And the school of thought has been recreated.
In one sense, the many schools of thought that are there in human existence, they are also eternal in human existence. Why? The soul has come to this world to defy Krishna’s authority. And the defiance of Krishna’s authority happens at a gross level through sense gratification.
At a subtle level, it happens through intellectual speculation. So these different schools of thought that are there, they are the intellectual excuses for the soul to not surrender to Krishna. So all these schools of thought will be there a lot.
But the issues which are prominent. So in the Indian tradition, in the Vedic culture time, it was the Vedantic Siddhanta that the absolute truth is the person and he has eternal soul. That was prominent.
But other schools of thought were also prevalent. They had some small problems. They existed.
Not exactly prevalent, but they existed. But this was the broad understanding. People, if they want to believe something, Krishna doesn’t censor belief.
Krishna doesn’t censor belief. The soul has come here to believe whatever he wants to believe. So Krishna doesn’t censor belief.
But Krishna has representatives who ensure that these beliefs are not propagated so that ungodly people or undiscriminating people don’t get misled. So here Krishna is taking, using his materialistic school of thought and he is recruiting it. So now what is the point over here? Even on the material point of view, the body is temporary.
So the body is just a lump of chemicals. And from the point of view of the principle of conservation of energy, actually nothing is destroyed. So matter just keeps changing its forms.
So what they propose is that okay, there is a big amount of this body, this lump of chemicals. If the chemicals are destroyed, what is the big loss with it? So sometimes you tell the story of this Anand Gopal incident. I suppose, if your friend is driving a 10-lakh car, and you pass by and the car makes a big accident.
And the car is damaged and your friend is wounded. Who will you save first? So some people, just for the sake of argument, they say, I will save the car first. Because it is an argument.
Okay, if somebody argues, then fine. Let’s turn the argument. Suppose, you are driving a car and you meet with an accident.
Who would you want others to save? You or your car. The doctor will say, no, no, no, she saved me. So the idea is implicit.
That there is something within the body, when it is living, that makes it far more valuable than anything else. Than other things. So what is it that you have in the body? Actually, if we look at it from a chemical point of view, the chemicals are functioning in the living body.
But is it just the functionality of the chemicals that we have in the body? There is something implicit. There is something there which is valuable in the body. And if you take strictly from the strictly chemical point of view, if you consider that P is equal to P0 is 10.
Then P0 minus delta P and P0 plus delta P. Small time before, small time after. Actually, there is no implicit in the body. It’s not that at the moment of death, some chemicals come out of the body, so the person dies.
There may be a chemical damage, but that is gradual. That is gradual. So if we consider the chemical point of view, between P0 minus delta P and P0 plus delta P, then there is no difference.
The mass of the body doesn’t change, the chemical composition doesn’t change at the moment of death. But still, there is a distinct moment of death. So what is it that changes? The chemical constituents, they may vary over a period of time.
But there is a distinct moment of death. And that is actually something which is very difficult for modern science to define. So if the body has just a lump of chemicals in there, then it’s not a room for destruction.
And because there is room for destruction, what is the point of life if it’s just chemicals? But actually, nobody creates at least their own lives or the lives they love on the chemicals. And when people start treating it like that, then other people develop instead. So when Karl Marx wrote his Cosmonautics book, where he says how actually capitalism has started treating labour in a very mechanistic way.
So instead of treating labour as a human being, we have a hundred hands in our pantry. So then we are 50 and 1, we have a hundred hands. So this is something which people object to.
That means when human beings are objectified, when they are depersonified, when they are treated as common beings, even according to conventional morality, we find it is objectionary. So we understand that something is equal. Something equal to life.
And modern modernistic science, not all science is modernistic. For modernistic science, Karl Richardson has a prominent quote from modern science. So they have the idea that actually ultimately we are just the product of our genes.
There is no God, there is no soul, we are just the product of our genes. Now there are Indian scientists who propagate this and they say that actually you, your mind, your body, everything was created by your genes. Now if everything is created by our genes, then even our behaviour is created by our genes.
Isn’t it? Then they say actually atheism is false, you are atheists, you have become an atheist. They say that if you become an atheist, then you are enlightened. As long as you are an atheist, you are unenlightened.
But there is a serious paradox in this. If I am created by my genes, then my genes create not just my body, but my mind also. Then even my beliefs are created by my genes.
So then if everything is determined by my genes, then why are you going against my genes and then you are going to give up my reason and become an atheist. That’s what it is. I have a school of what is called determinism.
Determinism means everything, I am not talking about determination. Determinism means everything is determined. We can’t change.
So if we are just a product of our chemicals, then life becomes entirely determined. Because if I bring two chemicals together and ignite them, then the term is fixed. So if we look at life, life is non-deterministic.
Life is non-deterministic because we have different genes. And actually speaking, there is some difference in the genes of different people. That’s what causes the difference in behaviour.
Actually speaking, what do genes do? As I told you earlier, genes are like a substitute gods for atheists. But what do actually speaking genes do? In the body, when the cells are formed, certain proteins need to be formed. And for the formation of the proteins, the proteins have to be formed with the chemicals in a particular sequence.
So genes contain the code for the sequencing of those proteins. That is all. That is all that genes do.
Now whether the sequencing of code leads to… So sequencing of code, when I say leads to, somebody having a brownish pigment in the skin and somebody may have a blackish pigment. But beyond that, this sequencing of the genes, how it will determine whether somebody is irritable or whether somebody is jovial or whether somebody is short-tempered, or whether somebody is greedy or somebody is self-controlled. No, it is just a magic wand.
If there is any connection, it is just a connection of beliefs. If there is no considerable connection between say, if somebody has a particular gene code and that person liking sweet almonds more, what is the connection? There is no considerable connection there. So if we can just find, what we need to find, what scientists have found is, if it is genetic, genetics that determines our behaviour, then there are genes, there are twins, who have completely identical genetic code.
So there are twins of two types. I think I discussed this in Arjun’s class. So monozygotic and bilateral twins.
So when a monozygotic is born with the same name, it could be of similar kind. Still, there is a difference in behaviour. So from our observed reality, so if we were just chemicals and nothing more, then there are too many issues here, which are problematic.
First problem is, if we are just our genes, first problem is, why is there, why is there variety in behaviour? And especially even among people with identical genetic content. And then, why do we have, or how do we have free will, if everything about us is genetically determined? These are serious questions, which we cannot answer. Somebody would say, we don’t have free will on you.
But that is so complicated. And they can’t defend it. Because they say, if you don’t have free will, if I don’t have free will, then there is no point in any discussion, any transformation of opinion, any change in anything or anyone.
So obviously all of us have free will. How much free will we have, that may really depend on how much we are influenced by the models. The person who is influenced by the models, the freedom is much less.
And the person who is influenced by the models, the freedom is much more. So this is a widely prevalent idea of modern times. And it is basically, atheism masquerading as science.
Atheism masquerading as science. It is not science, it is atheism masquerading as science. And in general, as devotees, if we are preaching, we need to differentiate between science and materialistic science.
Now we have nothing against scientists per se. If we start with a scientist, then it will be a big issue. Because you are doing science, you are selling scientific products, you are doing technology, and then you are criticising science.
The point is that science has a jurisdiction. And if science goes beyond jurisdiction, then you have to point that out. For example, to say that the president of America is not the president of the world, that is not an insult to the president of America.
It is an objective statement of fact. Similarly, to say that science does not have a monopoly on all forms of knowledge, it is not an insult to science. It is an objective fact.
So when science oversteps its jurisdiction, then we have to point it out. And who is overstepping jurisdiction? Who is causing science to overstep its jurisdiction? It is people who have their own beliefs. It is atheists who want to misappropriate science for their purposes.
All scientists are not atheists. Most scientists are basically there to do their jobs. They want to earn their living, they want to get their prestige.
But there are some atheistic scientists who are out to use science to propagate their beliefs. So our criticism is not for science per se. It is for materialistic science which is pretending to be science.
Actually, it is not science. It is what is technically called a scientism. Scientism is the idea that science has a monopoly on knowledge.
And scientism itself is unscientific. Because there is no way to prove… How can science prove that science is wrongly related to knowledge? There is no way to prove that. So, anyway, this is relevant to us because this school of thought is often there.
The science of anthropology is based on this philosophy. What is the philosophy? That actually, ultimately, we have this matter and we have to research that what kind of matter was there. Now, in anthropology, people try to research fossils.
And they try to find out the history of the ancient world. Now, this itself is… the whole… Of course, anthropology is more the study of culture. And archaeology is the study of fossils.
Both of them are related in the past. But when they study fossils, the whole study of fossils are in Eurocentric degrees. So, Eurocentric degrees centred around Europe.
So, the founding assumption is that actually, people are buried and that’s why there are no fossils. But in the valid traditions, people are born. So, there will be no fossils.
So, therefore, it’s a very… It’s an endeavour based on presumptions which are not very soundly founded. So, that’s what Krishna says. Okay, why can we not lament? Even if we believe in all these things or even if one believes in no non-spiritual soul, Krishna explains that.
जातः सेभी वो उन्दुत्यों जातः सेभी वो उन्दुत्यों समाध परिशानि एहरते समाध परिशानि एहरते नारशि तुम आरशी नारशि तुम आरशी In Ramayana it is said that there is no greater destroyer of energy and revealer of fortune than grief there is no greater destroyer of energy and revealer of fortune than grief because if something has happened or something is unavoidable something has happened means already it has happened I can’t change it it has not happened but I can’t change it then lamenting over it simply wastes our energy it wastes our energy and therefore whatever opportunities we have for good fortune we lose that also there is no greater destroyer of energy and revealer of fortune than grief and lamentation नत्वं चोचि तुम आरशी नत्वं चोचि तुम आरशी this is the will of the lord so it is unavoidable what shall come out later now Krishna is continuing the same thing in the next verse he says अव्यत्तावी भूतावी अव्यत्तावी भूतावी यत्तमध्यानि भारता यत्तमध्यानि भारता अव्यत्तमिद्नानि देवा अव्यत्तमिद्नानि देवा कत्रकामपरिदेवना कत्रकामपरिदेवना so either way now he is saying that whether the person is existing whether it was in the soul or in the body either way that before the visible life that we see is out here is unmanifest for a short time it is unmanifest and after that it is unmanifest so either way this life is all that is visible to us and this life, this temple so Krishna has been Arjuna even if you think that okay I will not give Vishnu as Arjuna but still they are going to die you can’t avoid that so in trying to avoid the unavoidable why do you want to give up your duty because if you give up your duty what is going to happen? You are going to get back karma so if we can’t if something is unavoidable why waste time so either way materialistic or spiritualistic just a waste of time so in one sense we can apply this three stage thing to our dreams whatever we experience in our dream that is actually not manifest when we are awake then when we dream it becomes manifest and again when we don’t sleep again when we wake up it becomes unmanifest so when we are awake it is not there during the dream phase that particular thing becomes manifest to us and after that when we wake up that whole thing vanishes so like that our this existence also the Bhagavad Gita in the past times analysis explains but our this life is also like a dream before we are born our this life doesn’t exist during our lifespan this life exists and after we die life is finished so in one sense here Krishna is checkmating Arjuna the checkmate there is no other option that is called checkmate either this way or that way so if you believe in soul you don’t believe in soul either way why abandon your soul actually Krishna is lamenting after Yudhishthira has departed to the forest without informing him at that time Naraguni comes and Naraguni controls him and Naraguni is the same God he says whether you think the soul is different or the body is same as body whether you think there is the soul is same as God or different from God, either way there will be polemic so in this way he is making that means see in life there are two components to life there are beliefs and actions it is what we believe and how we act so life has these two components eventually Prabhupada met George Harrison and John Lennon and they are asking what is your philosophy John was a priest philosophy we don’t know philosophy we just live we just live that will be answer typical of most people but still even people who say we just live they also have some beliefs about life everybody has some beliefs so beliefs and actions so traditional beliefs are called as orthodoxy and traditional actions are called as orthopraxy praxy means practise means practise, action so ortho means traditional so now here what is Krishna doing, why is Krishna using a hypothetical argument like this even if you don’t believe in the soul Krishna is saying your actions should be justified however it is, whether you believe in the soul or not you should fight so in that sense at this level Krishna is emphasising praxy over doxy he is saying actions are more important whatever you believe, act fight it so Nimansal is saying whatever it is, we should fight it and he says even if Kamsa is thinking of Krishna he is still thinking of Krishna so emphasis on action now of course it is not the highest level of acting the highest level of acting would be with the right beliefs but even if one doesn’t have the right beliefs if one does the actions that is right, that has its benefits so therefore Krishna has to at least act right now in general for most people their beliefs are unexamined their beliefs are unexamined Kamsa is taking us on western thinkers you know white thinkers they say that unexamined life is not worth living unexamined life why am I doing what I am doing what is the purpose of life somebody is not asking this question unexamined life is not worth living so most people’s beliefs are unexamined that means they never really think am I the one who owns this world never really think is there a God is there not a God is there a life beyond this life or not they just go along with the herd mentality living the way everyone is living so and when people want to search out for some spiritual truth say actually why do I do this I don’t know if I will find the right path or not just live live simply without any philosophy but there is no living without any philosophy living without any philosophy means living by materialistic philosophy and as far as materialistic philosophy is concerned the result is guaranteed what is that, the result is a graveyard the result is the graveyard isn’t it now there is no possibility also of eternal life in materialistic philosophy but if there is spiritual philosophy actually there is possibility of eternal life so why not explore somebody may say oh if I explore I try some path and I find that path is wrong then I will be cheated then by not trying any path also you will be cheated by not trying any path also so we are trying the path of materialism and is materialism really making us constantly, effervescently happy no there is so much struggle and sometimes it doesn’t happen so in one sense this idea that ok I don’t bother about any I won’t get into spirituality medicine that is simply a form of intellectual laziness that leads to people cheating themselves it’s like a patient who is sick and he says oh if I go to a doctor and try a treatment and I present work it won’t happen then fine, if you present work you are going to be sick and you are going to die isn’t it like I told earlier when we are sick treatment may be optional but suffering is compulsive isn’t it, when we are sick treatment may be optional but suffering is compulsive so therefore having no philosophy is having fool’s philosophy what is fool’s philosophy, the unexamined philosophy of materialism that leads us inevitably to the graveyard but suffering is compulsive that means in material life as long as we are existing we will have to suffer inevitably we will have to face death, so why not why not explore where is the mosaic in it now after Arjuna gives all this who is going to put it on the stage Krishna already said with Achyut we should talk about it in so many ways that which are all indications so Krishna says yes it is difficult to understand and he explains how it is difficult to understand chanting chanting chanting chanting chanting chanting so here the common word is amazing so now he is talking about four categories of people some people they see the soul as amazing others they talk about the soul as amazing third is, they hear about the soul as amazing fourth is they hear but don’t understand so Krishna is talking about four levels of people first is those who are self-realised who see the soul when they see the soul they understand now next thing is the same soul is animating the giant body of a gigantic blue whale and the same soul is animating the body of the infinitesimal microbes the variety of ability it has that the soul animates is simply mind-boggling that’s amazing so once you see the soul and understand the same soul is there in different bodies it’s simply amazing and Anandamala non-text I was telling actually how the soul identifies with the body the soul and the body are entirely different they are entirely different, there is no commonality actually so he says he said if you want to understand this identification think that Radhe Shyam doesn’t identify himself as Palika Mataji but how does it happen? how does soul-soul identify with the body? that’s amazing then then some other people who are not realised yet but they speak they contemplate and as they contemplate on it it’s really amazing even the body of the soul so as they contemplate they speak about it they suddenly realise it’s amazing and there are others when they hear about the soul they are amazed oh there is a soul in the body I never knew about it something which I always wanted to know will it exist forever this is such a wonderful news and especially for somebody who is terminally sick or somebody who is level one in pasturing the news that there is a soul in the water brings such a amazing sense of sense of rejuvenation to life one gets a game of it and then there are some people who just can’t comprehend how can there be a soul in the body it’s impossible when the body is destroyed the person dies where is the soul? there is no soul so scientists tried to do some experiment in which they put a soul they put a dying person in a glass container and they try to observe whether when the person dies is there any crack in the container now actually whether there is a crack in the container or not there is a crack in the enclosure because the fundamental point is that the soul is non-material and the soul traditionally it will go through one of the holes of the body but it doesn’t have to go through one of the holes and it doesn’t even have to break the skull and go through the soul will just pass through between what is the soul passing through between things a ghost entering the room through what? whatever anecdotal incidents of ghosts are there ghosts don’t usually open doors or come through windows ghosts come from the centre so the soul can come intellectually through it can pass in or pass through without the body it can act as an obstacle so therefore this can’t comprehend where is the soul he used a very interesting analysis for this and he said say that in a sentence there is a subject, there is a verb and there is an object so he said this ashtyareva is a qualifier this qualifier ashtyareva can apply it can modify either the object that is the soul, it can modify the verb that is pashyati or the verb will change, pashyati was a being or it can modify the subject that is kashyati so now the analysis that we did it is talking about the soul some people hear about the soul as amazing some people see the soul as amazing so here the focus is on the soul Prabhupada translates it to say that ashtyareva modifies the object that is the soul now how will it modify the verb pashyati when it modifies the verb that means some people amazingly see the soul some people amazingly hear about the soul some people amazingly talk about the soul some people amazingly don’t believe in the soul that means here the action is amazing that somebody in this material world can see the soul that action feels amazing how can somebody who has got a body see the soul or in a grossly materialistic society how can somebody talk about the soul now I have seen the Hare Krishna explosion Prabhupada would say I am not my body so he said we thought that Prabhupada is not his body all of us are our body so it is so difficult to comprehend because for them either way if they believe in the traditional christian religion that also tells you are your body and if they believe in the modernism that also tells you are the body so how can somebody say I am not the body, that itself is amazing like that this aksh chalewat can modify the word and then he says they can modify the subject that means some amazing people see the soul they are so amazing some amazing people talk about the soul so in one sense this is slightly similar but the difference is that the focus is not on the aksh chalewat but on the person and some amazing people hear about the soul what does it mean very few people actually hear about the soul and then the last part is some amazing people disbelieve in the soul so even if you are not the body how can you disbelieve in the soul that’s amazing so this is amazing in the sense of amazing which Hirish Trivara uses when talking about how everybody is dying what people don’t see is what is more amazing than this so there, Hirish Trivara is saying what is more amazing than seeing that thousands of people are dying everyday but still there are many people who think that they are not dying so there Hirish Trivara is using the word aksh chalewat amazing, he is using it sarcastically in the sense of amazingly stupid so some amazingly stupid people don’t believe in the soul now Shri Aurobha makes some significant points in the purport, he says that actually speaking who cannot understand the soul those who have not done sufficient austerity men with a poor fund of knowledge and men who are not austere cannot understand the wonders of the inter-philatonic spark of spirit so two things they don’t have sufficient fund of knowledge that means they just don’t have the dhyan and who are not austere means they are not acting on the level of dhyan if people are engaging in self-realisation then the idea that I am not the body and soul just goes off in the background it doesn’t stick it doesn’t sink because if I act on the bodily level then I can’t really realise the spiritual level so if I am so absorbed watching a movie then I can’t be aware truly of what is happening around me similarly, if we are caught in the bodily reality, just like the movie then one cannot be really aware of the spiritual reality Shri Aurobha explains that if somehow or other one is able to understand the subject, then one’s life becomes successful so he says sometimes people want to forget about the soul but they go into misleading association where they are told that the soul is actually gone or something like that so even among people who are spiritually blind to get the right spiritual knowledge is very difficult so many people just use nonsensical ideas some people have the idea that the soul exists in the forehead it’s a very common organisation in India now what is their logic? it’s why the soul is in the forehead because all traditions nobody said that they put the teal up on their chest people put teal up only on their forehead that means their soul is in the forehead it’s such a naive logic it’s not logic at all so actually speaking from the point of view of the bodily functioning biologically speaking the heart and the brain are primary the heart and the brain are primary in general till maybe 40-50 years ago before CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation before the system came about when a person’s heart stops beating still you can try to revive him before that came on, generally speaking when a person’s heart stops beating then it’s considered dead even if a person’s heart is beating the person’s heart stops beating but if the blood is in the brain and not in time that means the blood circulation in the brain has not stopped completely actually what happens when a person gets a heart attack the blood flow to the brain stops and if the blood flow to the brain stops for even a few minutes that causes irreversible damage that causes death so as of now brain death is considered to be the most reliable symptom of death but either way whether it is brain death or heart death there is no role of forehead over there so it’s a completely absurd idea but so many people believe in it because they hear from the wrong sources somehow one can understand one will get it done one will make his life perfect and there are two ways one is that one does a great amount of penance and sacrifice and the other is one gets the one’s pure devotee then one can understand now Prashanthi is going to teach Dehi Nitya Mahadhyayam Dehe Sarvasya Bharata Dehe Sarvasya Bharata so Dehe Nityam of course Dehe is the body and to make it more clear Avadhyayam cannot be cured and Dehe Sarvasya Bharata where all the body is situated now if you look at the context it is in the same soul situated in all bodies so obviously individuality is different body is the same, right there are souls situated in different souls different souls situated in different bodies but the chair body is always situated it is avadhyayam and therefore for all living beings do not lament Ab Tom Choji Tomaro Si so here Krishna has completed the reputation of Arjuna’s first Arjuna the compassion, how can I kill Arjuna so he is not feeling therefore don’t lament about killing but the knowledge of Atma is theoretical how do we practically realise this knowledge or even if I accept that I am not the body I am the soul how do I act like I am still in the body sometimes some devotees in the yoga classes actually our life is just like a dream our life is just like a dream you know the idea of going to a job and getting a career and having a family and this and that all a dream and one day the dream will end and now this world is just a dream what should I do should I stop going to a job should I just abandon the family should I just stop that and getting a body although this life is like a dream actually speaking it is different from the sleeping dream because from this sleeping dream one can be quickly woken up but to wake up from this dream there is a process so when we say that this life is like a dream that doesn’t necessarily mean this life has to be rejected all that remains is we have to adopt a process by which to wake up from this dream so even if when I understand that I am not the body I am the soul I need a process to come to that platform and to come to that platform or during the time when I am coming to that platform I have to take care of my body first so the first level at which one can act the Atma Jnana is Karmakand Karmakand means one understands I am not the body I am the soul but one still thinks that ok but enjoyment is there pleasure is there, one thing I will go to the heavens and I will enjoy there so Krishna will now talk about the first application of Atma Jnana first application of Atma Jnana is you are not going to die, if you act like an Indian you go to heaven and enjoy then won’t fight this is going to counter Arjuna’s second argument that how will I enjoy I will enjoy, you will enjoy because you go to heaven so here is the first section seconds after starting so there is a preference so Narayana says Dharmaatiya Dharmatiya Dharmatiya so so Dharma so Dharma, your own description we consider now we come to means trembling I am I’m trembling, my limbs are dying out, I’m shivering. Let me come to democracy, Arjuna, you don’t deserve to learn it. You don’t have to tremble about it.
Why? Why do you torture your Anjana? Shreya is long term. So, for you, oh Arjuna, apart from, as far as Dharma is concerned, as far as Sundarma is concerned, apart from fighting, there’s nothing better for a Kshatriya. There’s a synonym for Kshatriya, fighting the war is the most glorious action.
Why? I’ll explain in the next verse. So now, what is this word, Dharma? Different people will have different sorts of Dharmas. Kshatriya, Vishya, they all have different sort of Dharmas.
And Prabhupada talks about the Dharma of Kshatriya is Kshatatrayate, which is the Kshatriya. One who protects people from hurt. And if a Kshatriya lays down his life as a battlefield, engaged, fighting the enemy, then he will attain a heavenly destination.
We’ll go into it. Prabhupada goes over sweetly words for that. It’s actually from the Yajnavalkya Swasthi.
Prabhupada says, read his law books. And then Prabhupada introduces over, point out, there’s material Swadharma, there’s spiritual Swadharma. Material Swadharma is our bodily activities.
And the spiritual Swadharma is our devotional activities. So, you know, many times people say that how is your Dharma taken to parents, is it nothing irresponsible, or you are in a hurry. So they have only the idea of material Dharma.
Material Swadharma. They don’t have any concept of spiritual Swadharma. And if you hear Vishal Prabhupada’s daily lectures, in all his over daily lectures, he’s basically talking about taking people from Aparadharma to Paradharma.
What is Aparadharma? Aparadharma is mundane religiosity. Mundane religiosity is that Dharma at the Kaamakshi. So levels of action.
Paradharma. So these are three normal levels of action. Paradharma would be spiritual responsibility.
Aparadharma is material responsibility. And Adharma is material irresponsibility. What do you mean by material responsibility? What is the spiritual responsibility? So now, as devotees, we certainly give up part of Adharma.
And we subordinate Aparadharma. Aparadharma is mundane religiosity. So we subordinate that.
So we may do that to some extent or we may give it up completely. If we do it to some extent, then we say, let’s give it up completely. So the point is, what happens is, in India, because the spiritual aspect of religion has been largely downplayed, the spiritual aspect of religion has been downplayed.
So what is remaining is mostly the mundane aspect of religion. That means Dharma at the Kaam. So people think that Dharma means Aparadharma.
So many parents think that actually it is my religious duty to get my daughter married, to get my sons married, and then to see their grandsons and have their grandsons to be on my lap. And they actually think it is a religious duty. Even if it is suddenly if the parents get children, to help them to get settled properly is a duty.
But it is only duty at the level of Aparadharma. It is not the level of Paradharma. And we discussed in Adi Shukla how the taking care of the bodies of ones dependents is called imbalance.
So in that sense, there is nothing truly extraordinary or glorious about that. So now Krishna is talking right now, Krishna has not yet introduced the concept of Paradharma. He is talking about primarily Aparadharma.
And he is saying as per Aparadharma is concerned a Kshatriya, he must fight. And he is turning around all the argument and he is saying actually, you should be happy. Yatruchaya chokopannam Yatruchaya chokopannam Svarga dharma pavritam Svarga dharma pavritam Sukhi nakshatriya partha Sukhi nakshatriya partha Lamante yudham itrisham Lamante yudham itrisham Yatruchaya, Yatruchaya means by its own will, by the will of providence.
Chokopannam that you obtain Svarga dharma pavritam Actually, if you get a fight in a battle by its own accord and the heavens doors of heaven are opening for you. And for that, when that happens, a Kshatriya is very happy. Sukhi nakshatriya partha Rather than happy, so the Kshatriyas fight they are completely fearless because they know if I live, I will win.
If I die, I can have it. So they are fearless. You should be happy.
And then, so he says Krishna is drawing a contrast now. So here he is saying this is your duty. To do this duty, you will, you should be happy because you will get heavens.
A little contrast. Now, figuratively, what will happen? Atache tonimam dharinam Atache tomimam dharinam Sangramam nakarishasim Sangramam nakarishasim Tatha swadharamam kilutimcha Tatha swadharamam kilutimcha Itwapapam vapsisi Itwapapam vapsisi So, in one sense, this section from 31 to 38 is an elaboration of verses 3 and 4. What are the verses 3 and 4? They were, ah, what is that? Ashwagandha Mananam Tastvaakashyamalambidam Mishyamai Samupasthitam Klaipyam Maasmatama Partha Those two verses were there. Is it 2 and 3 or 3 and 4? Yeah, 2 and 3. So this is an elaboration of that.
Krishna is talking at that level itself. You will not attain Svarga. You will not attain, ah, you will get infamy.
As, there, what was he having? Asvar, Anarya Asvargyam Akirtikaram Arjuna So he is going to explain how is Asvargyam and the next verse he will talk how will be Akirtikaram. So, although Krishna is talking about the same thing, in between Krishna has actually established there it was just a pep talk. But, here he has established the knowledge of the soul.
So, you will, Tatha Swahitva Itwa means you will give up. You will give up your Swadharma. When you give up your Swadharma, two things will happen.
In this life, you will lose your purity. In next life, you will get Paap. So, therefore, if you don’t fight, you will suffer.
So, actually, if you see, ah, in 1.38 when Krishna was talking, when Arjuna was talking about 36, he says, ah, Paapamivashita Svanatvaita Anapai I have killed the aggressor. I have made Paap. And then he says, If I kill my Swachhna, how will I get Sukha? So, actually, Krishna is using the same two words.
Previous two words, Sukhina So, he is telling, actually, by fighting, you will get Sukha. And this word is Paapam, same word he is using. Actually, by not fighting, you will get Paap.
So, Krishna is turning around the Arjuna completely, one in the details. Arjuna is thinking, if I fight, I will get Paap, and I will get no Sukha. Krishna is telling Arjuna, if you don’t fight, you will get Paap, and you will get no Sukha.
He is turning around the Arjuna completely. This is a very long verse. But, of course, you are honoured.
This honour is worse than death. So, for a person, I don’t know, I don’t know, kathai shinde, aujayaam. Krishna is actually, in one sense, speaking Arjuna’s language.
Arjuna was teaching, that kula-dharma sanatana Oh, my eternal kula-dharma, Krishna is saying, eternally, your infamy will be sunk. Actually, nothing is eternal in this world. But, aujayaam, forever, people will talk about your infamy.
Remember, and therefore, for such a person, his infamy is worse than death. It’s worse than death. So, many people, especially, if they are very wealthy, or very famous, or very powerful, and suddenly, something happens, they lose their wealth, they lose their power, if you hound them, without the honour, without the respect, how are you going to do it? Prabhupada talked about Sri Ardas.
He was a very wealthy person, and he resigned from the government, he had to live a very mediocre life. He, I’ll give you a story, it’s a story I pass about, Sri Ardas, a very famous lawyer, Taranjan Das, and, to join, and he was earning a fabulous amount of money at that time. But, to join Gandhianam, for a very moment, he resigned from the government.
And, he resigned from the government, at that time, after that, he had to live a simple life, he did not have any carriage, he did not have any servants. And, he was not starving, he had a modest living. But, the downsizing of his scale of life, he just couldn’t take it.
There were a few months, he died mostly. So, actually speaking, he just couldn’t tolerate it. Prabhupada contrasted this with the Goswamis.
The Goswamis were fabulous, well, but they left it. What does it mean to die well in ecstasy? Prabhupada said, that actually, when we enjoy something, we need to get something higher. If we enjoy something and don’t get something higher, then it means zero.
So, for a year, Kshatriya, he had honour, he lost honour, and what did he get? He had nothing. So, it’s worse than death. It’s worse than death.
So, actually speaking, we are giving up sense of pleasure, but we are seeking something higher. And gradually, we are getting something higher. That’s how we can grow something lower.
So, Vyadhanam Paratam Vyadhanam Paratam Om Shantekam Maharajah Om Shantekam Maharajah Nesham Chitram Bahumatho Nesham Chitram Bahumatho Udvayasya Silaham Udvayasya Silaham So, Arjuna asked, how will I get infinite? Actually, I am acting in a compassionate way. I am giving up the sense of pleasure because I don’t want to kill my relatives. I am actually renouncing the kingdom.
How will I get infinite? So, nobody will think like this about you. People will think, Vyadhanam Paratam You ran away out of fear. You ran away out of fear.
all the Maharathas, so here, Krishna is playing on Arjuna’s sense of policy. All these Maharathas also will think, they will think you have become coward. And, they will think, Esham Chitram Bahumatho You have got a big opinion about you.
Udvayasya Silaham Let me renounce it. So, in this way, they will minimise you and that will be intolerable for you. Avachivalam Shivagiri Avachivalam Shivagiri Vatishyam Chitavahitam Vatishyam Chitavahitam Vimala Krishnam Samadhyam They will all criticise your capacity, they will criticise your talent, abilities.
They are unspeakable words they will speak. And what can be more miserable for you than that Arjuna? Krishna gives you rhetorical language and basically he is speaking entirely in the karma content of it. What can be more miserable for you? What is that in Hindi movies they say? What is that? To cut the nose is worse than death? Anyway, no need to remember Hindi dialogues, forget it or whatever it is.
The idea is that they feel that to lose one’s honour, it is better to die than to lose one’s honour. He is talking like that, there is nothing worse than that. And then Krishna will draw conclusions about it.
You will have no options. It is very simple. Athova, if you die, Pramtsi nisvaranam.
Jitvava, Mokshasevanam. Even you get this. So now, the situation which Arjuna had thought was loose loose, Krishna is saying yes, then both ways you are going to go.
That is how Arjuna is such an expert speaker and knowledge can change our perspective completely. Knowledge can change our perspective completely. Therefore, arise Arjuna.
Quite determined. In one sense, you can say Bhagavad Gita is over already. So that is the instruction of Arjuna.
Quite. But, Krishna also wants to give higher instructions to Arjuna and Arjuna doesn’t appear convinced. So, Valdemita actually explains and Prabhupada also explains in various places that the whole illusion of Arjuna was created by the Lord.
So that the world could be instructed. And that’s why although Krishna has completed his instruction at one level, Krishna has not given the highest knowledge. And because he has not given the highest knowledge, so Krishna continues the instruction.
And now here, we will see something dramatically confusing. You look at this verse. This verse is pure profit-loss calculations.
And they are both very unique. Suddenly, the next verse Krishna will tell, no more profit-loss thinking. So, Chharna is saying, Sukhe, Dukhe, Laba, Laba, Jaya.
In 3D reality, there is only happiness, distress, gain-loss and victory-defeat. In all these, Sameer, Abhi, you promised. And fight.
Just now you told me, okay, profit-loss, what is your meaning? I don’t know, you told me in this point. How is it possible? What is happening now? Of course, Krishna is now indicating that he is going to address another argument. One argument of Arjuna was that, if I fight, I will get sinful reactions.
So, Krishna is going to tell him that, how did I become free from bondage? So, he is now going to talk about Karma Yoga. So, Karma Khanda, it involves doing Punya. But even the Punya involves getting out of the cycle of birth and death.
It is only Karma Yoga that begins the process of becoming unbound, becoming liberated. So, Krishna is now going to talk to Arjuna of not a heavenly destination, but an eternal destination. If the soul is eternal, the soul deserves not just a higher destination, which is also temporary, but an eternal destination.
So, Krishna is taking that discussion to a higher level. Now, Arjuna is in confusion. Just now, he told me to sit down in a proper place.
I said, no proper place. What’s happening? Then, now Krishna gives up. He has finished telling about his ego.
Next, what he talks about is the flow. So, till now, I have spoken a song. I have spoken a song.
Now, I will speak about Yoga. When you add the Kutti in this way, you become free from the bondage of Karma. So, in the previous lecture, I said, you won’t get past.
You will not get past, but it’s only going to be more. So, if you don’t get past, you will get Kutti. He said, now I will talk about something which will liberate you from Kutti.
So, now, here there are some important points. This is one of the longest purports of this chapter and also quite a technical purport. So, now, see, one characteristic which makes the Bhagavad Gita confusing is it uses multivalent words.
Multivalent means having many meanings. Same words have many meanings. So, let us see.
In this word, Krishna has introduced some new word, Sankhya. This is another word, Yoga. Krishna has introduced four new words here.
In the Bhagavad Gita, there is no explicit definition of the law of karma. level of karma. And you remember earlier I told you how the word karma can have 4 meanings.
Do you remember those 4 meanings? It can mean action, it can mean reaction, it can mean system of action-reaction or it can mean the pious action within the category of action. Karma or karmavikarma. So it can mean these 4 things.
That we will be discussing again when we come to the words of karmanya, karmaya, parshya. So the word karma is also suitable in that sense. Now the word Sankhya, if you know, Sankhya is one school, one system of philosophy.
In India there are systems of philosophy, there is one system of philosophy. Similarly yoga is one system of philosophy. Who has founded yoga? Patanjali.
Patanjali Who has founded a system of philosophy called Sankhya? Kavita. These two are systems of philosophy. But Krishna does not refer to them as systems of philosophy.
Till now I have spoken Sankhya to you. Actually Krishna has always spoken Atmagya. And Sankhya is what? Actually analysis of material elements.
Mahabharata talks about 3 kinds of Sankhya. So it says that 24 Sankhya, 25 Sankhya, 26 Sankhya. What is that 24 Sankhya means? It is a spiritualistic Sankhya.
It is a thing spiritual. 25 Sankhya is mayavar Sankhya. There is only one koksha there.
And 26 Sankhya is Vaishnava Sankhya. Actually there is. Beyond that there is matter and spirit soul and super soul.
This is technical. But Krishna is using the word Sankhya not in the terms of system of philosophy. He is using it in terms of analysis of matter and spirit.
Krishna is imagining that I have done this analysis now. And Krishna uses the word Yoga. He is not again using Yoga in terms of system of philosophy.
He is using Yoga as a form of practise by which one can gain realisation of Atma. How do we sort of strike through? Right click. Good.
This is wrong. It is not in the system of philosophy. It is also not correct.
The whole meaning of the word Karma. So Krishna is using it in terms of purely action. Now the word Buddhi can refer to two different things.
The word Buddhi can refer to the particular material element which is there amongst other material elements. And the word Buddhi can refer to a faculty of intelligence. Now in one sense at a functional level both are same.
At a functional level seeing happens through the eye. But still eye and seeing are not the same. Seeing is the action and eye is the organ through which action happens.
So intelligence is the faculty through which people act independently. Or intelligence is the faculty through which intelligence acts. This is a little confusing.
The point is see intelligence is evident through actions. This action is intuitive. This action is foolish.
That means intelligence is a form of behaviour, a form of thought process. It is a form of action at that level. But that intelligence is executed through an element.
So Buddhi can refer to the element or Buddhi can refer to the faculty. Is the difference clear? So now here Krishna is referring to the faculty not the Buddha. So now if we do the Srila Prabhupada’s purport with this background in mind, Srila Prabhupada seems to at first say something contradictory.
Now where is this? Before I explain this to Srila Prabhupada’s purport. As I said Sankhya is of three types. So one is the Bhagwat Sankhya that is called as the 26th Sankhya.
Then there is the Mayavadi Sankhya. So in general among these two this is not a very popular one. This is not so much well known.
So now Prabhupada calls this as there is an atheistic Kapila who has propagated this. And then there is Devahuti Uttarakapila. So when the devotees first published the book Teaching the Lord Kapila, Prabhupada himself designed the idea behind it, how the cosmic should be made, what should be written.
So when they made it, the teachings of Lord Kapila, the son of Devahuti. So when the devotees heard it and the Ramakrishna told it to Prabhupada. He says Prabhupada, this sounds like a joke.
Because this is a culture and we don’t know about the connection with somebody. So for western people they don’t know who is Kapila, they don’t know who is Devahuti. So why put the son of Devahuti there? For example, if you enter and say, the teachings of Prabhupada himself, the son of Kamala.
What is this? What to do with it? So in that time they just thought, I don’t know about this feeling. This seems like a joke. This seems like some sort of sarcasm or something like that.
It’s a self-deprecating sort of statement. Prabhupada said, keep it as it is. Keep it as it is.
Why? Because Prabhupada knew what he was doing. Because as of now in the world, most of the Sankhya that they know is the atheistic Sankhya. So Rasa Vastu and the Bhagavad Gita, Mr. Pradhan Juhu and Bhagavad Gita.
Is there any way of introducing the Bhagavad Sankhya paradigm in modern science? And introducing it to the world. But most people don’t know about it. So now if you look at Prabhupada’s purport to the Bhagavad Gita, first of all he makes it very clear that there is no reference to atheistic Sankhya.
And then he says, okay, I’ll just read the purport. So Prabhupada puts up one Sankhya. In that he describes in detail, he goes, Prabhupada’s Sankhya refers to, now the body and soul.
This Sankhya has nothing to do with Sankhya, it is also an atheistic Sankhya. And then he says, there is a real Sankhya propagated by Papindeya. But even that has got nothing to do with this.
And then he says, Sankhya has nothing to do with this, which is a Sankhya in them. He says, it has nothing to do, nor does the philosophy have any currency. Real Sankhya philosophy is described by Dr. Pradhan Juhu and Bhagavad Gita, but even that Sankhya has nothing to do with the current one.
Here Sankhya means analogy with this Sankhya. So unless you understand the context, you might get a little confused. Now see, now Prabhupada says, first of all, that Sankhya has got nothing to do with this.
But then suddenly what he says over here, therefore, Lord Krishna’s Sankhya and Lord Kapila’s Sankhya as described by Bhagavad Gita are one and the same. Just now what did he say? That it has got nothing to do. And now he is saying, both are the same.
So what does Prabhupada mean by this? So, Prabhupada is talking about things in different levels. One is at the level of analytical content, the other is at the level of conclusive purpose. At the level of analytical content, the two Sankhyas are different.
So, we will put it, Krishna’s Sankhya and Kapila’s Sankhya, different at the level of ultimate purpose. Because if you look at Krishna’s Sankhya, it largely culminates with bhakti. And if you look at Kapila’s Sankhya, then also he culminates by teaching us how to practise bhakti.
So in that sense, we have to, if sometimes we see a contradiction with Prabhupada’s purpose, we have to go to the broader philosophical context to understand it. Prabhupada’s writing over there is thoughtful. It is not even contradictory statements.
But it actually conveys some deep points to a single contradiction. And in the last sentence of this purpose, it is very interesting. Prabhupada says, Bhakti-yoga is therefore the transcendental quality of the work that we perform.
Bhakti-yoga is not the work that we perform, it is the transcendental quality of the work that we do. It is the consciousness which does the work. So chanting itself we can say bhakti-yoga, but the essence of bhakti-yoga is not chanting.
The chanting is the transcendental consciousness, the transcendental quality of the work that we perform. So thank you very much. We will continue tomorrow.
We have come to the transition. We have completed three sections of the Bhagavad Gita now. Tomorrow on Monday.
Tomorrow on Monday. Thank you very much.