Gita Study Pune 2013 – 12.12-20 – The last rung in the Gita’s downward ladder of love

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
shlokas shlokas shlokas shlokas shlokas continue with the other chapter so in the 12th chapter We will discuss the second section, which contains multiple levels of bhakti. So, 12.8 starts, fix the mind on Krishna.
And usually, we need Krishna. Otherwise, try to fix the mind on Krishna. Otherwise, work for Krishna.
If one can’t do that, then at least, sacrifice the fruits of work for some good cause. So, 12.8, 9, 10, 11. Now, we come to the 12th verse.
What is being said over here? A little silly, complex verse. Because we didn’t follow the linear hierarchy that has been going on in the previous verses. That’s what makes it a little complex.
Shreyo hy jnanam prasad, jnanam prasad, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam prasad, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam prasad, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyanam vishishthe, jnanadhyan The problem, first I’ll explain the problem, because then otherwise you won’t understand what is the problem, then you’ll wonder why the word is so complex. śreyo hi jñānam abhyāsa So, engage yourself in the cultivation of knowledge. śreyo hi jñānam abhyāsa So, abhyāsa is here, better than abhyāsa is jñāna.
Better than jñāna is jñāna. jñāna jñānam vishishthe. jñāna karmakalatyāgat chāntir nandana So, now, this hierarchy of śreyo hi jñānam, better than jñāna is dhāna is okay.
That is straightforward, jñāna yoga comes and dhāna yoga comes. So you can say better than jñāna is dhāna. But normally, vishkāṅkarma yoga, karmapalatyāga is below.
Jñāna comes higher than karmakalatyāga. So, why is karmapalatyāga put not only above jñāna, but it is also put above dhāna? And then, that is the main issue over here. What are the terms here? Abhyāsa, jñāna, dhāna.
So, karmapalatyāga is straightforward enough. But jñāna, dhāna and abhyāsa, what are they referring to? And the previous verse ended with karmapalatyāga only. So, now, let’s see what this means.
Now, what happens is, words, as we discussed earlier, their meanings are not frozen. Words have meanings according to context. Words have meaning according to the consciousness of the hearers also.
So, whatever past experiences are there, accordingly, people will conceive of the meanings. So, let us see how Kṛṣṇa Ācārya has explained. Actually, every ācārya has given a different meaning almost.
So, I will not go into all the ācāryas. I will focus only on all Gaudiya ācāryas, that is, Kṣetravartī Pāda and Naldevī Jñānaśī. Then we will look at Prabhupāda’s information.
So, as you know, you might have studied the nine chapters also. Kṛṣṇa Ācārya has this. Now, although he is a Rasik ācārya, often his rasa comes from analysis.
So, he does analysis in terms of categorising. This level, this level, this level, this level. So, like that he categorises.
So, here he describes that these verses are referring to different stages of bhakti. So, Smaranātmika, Mananātmika, these two are the levels of bhakti, which I talked about in 12.8. Now, Smaran is the faculty of the mind. Manan is the capacity of the mind.
Manan is more of contemplation. Although the word mana, manan contains mana, but manan is more of, it is conscious contemplation. Smaran is more like actual remembrance.
So, manan means there is serious thinking where one is applying one’s intelligence to the thinking. So, Smaranātmika bhakti and Mananātmika bhakti. So, what is this Smaranātmika? It is Mayeeva Manādhatsu.
12.8a is Smaranātmika. And Mananātmika is… How do you do page up with this computer? Okay. So, Mayeeva Manādhatsu and Mayibuddhin Niveshaya.
So, Mayibuddhin Niveshaya is Mananātmika bhakti. Mananātmika means that intelligence is fixed on Krishna. Now, actually, the mind getting fixed on Krishna, Shri Krishnamurti Pada explains, that is logical also, that is higher than the intelligence getting fixed on Krishna.
Why? Because often, intellectual conviction comes earlier, but redirection of the mind is slower. With my intelligence, I may understand, okay, there is no pleasure and sense gratification. But still, the mind keeps going in that direction.
So, if the mind changes its vritti, then we become very strongly situated. That means the mind doesn’t get attracted to things only. Then we are much, much more peaceful.
Therefore, the mind getting attracted to Krishna is higher than the intelligence being convinced that I should become attracted to Krishna. See, what happens is, the intelligence can tell us, this is the way, this is not the way. Do this, don’t do this.
But the intelligence alone doesn’t do things. It’s our mind which keeps doing things. And then we have to push the mind, okay, don’t do this, do this, do that.
The mind is often the more active among the two. The intelligence is supposed to be the decision maker, but the mind is activity, passionate energy, so the mind drags the intelligence along also, in various directions. So, if the mind becomes fixed on something, something positive, something devotional, then that is extremely auspicious.
So, the mind getting fixed is higher than the intelligence getting fixed. So, these are the two levels we talked about in the 8th verse, called Chakravarthi Parva. Then, below this is that we are trying to fix the mind on Krishna.
That is the Abhyasa Rupa that is talked about in 12.9. Abhyasa Rupa. So, here, when the intelligence is not fully convinced, it’s unconvinced a little bit, but with the intelligence in the mind, it’s struggling and trying to fix the mind. Now, in all these three, the essence of the practise is internal.
The intelligence takes the mind takes, but the intent takes the mind. Now, beyond that, there is external bhakti. So, external bhakti is Madarthakarma.
Madarthakarma is Krishna saying, work for me. So, serving Krishna with external senses, even if the mind is not on him. Many times, as I mentioned earlier, in answer to Guru Nanak Dev’s question, that we can easily do services, but often, the mind is going here and there.
It’s not really fixed on the object of service, Krishna. That is Madarthakarma. And according to him, Chakravarti Path’s reasoning here is that, actually, here, this whole chapter is about bhakti.
So, 12.11, he’s not referring just to sacrificing the fruits of birth. The whole chapter is about bhakti, even that is about bhakti. So, then Krishna is saying, in the present tense, sarva-karma-padakya-tasur-ipatnamah So, when he’s saying, You are not able to do my yoga.
That means, what he means, he says is, one is not able to do bhakti yoga. But then, he says, then still Krishna is saying, you should sacrifice the fruits of birth. So, because the whole context is bhakti, so he says, this sacrifice of birth, the fruits of birth, is not just ordinary sacrifice of the fruits of birth for world literal cause, but it is sacrifice of the fruits of birth for Krishna.
So, it is nishkama-karma-yoga offered to Krishna. Now, why is nishkama-karma-yoga offered to Krishna not the same as bhakti-yoga? Because, the mind is not so steadily fixed on Krishna. But I understand that Krishna is the ultimate guru.
So, the primary difference between nishkama-karma-yoga and bhakti-yoga, or between karma-yoga and bhakti-yoga, in general, is that in karma-yoga, one is attached to doing work according to one’s nature. Whereas in bhakti-yoga, one is ready to do whatever work one is told to do. So, in nishkama-karma-yoga also, if one is offering the fruits of that work to Krishna, then it is with an aggregate bhagwat arate nishkama-karma-yoga.
So, now there is no specific reference to bhagwat in 12-fold generality. According to the basic principle, sarva-karma-para-tyagam sarva-karma-param But, because the whole chapter is about bhakti-yoga, and there is a hierarchy going on over there. You see his analysis of the hierarchy.
This verse also refers to bhakti-yoga itself. Mental level. Trying to fix the mental level.
Correct. Now, in this, between mananatmika and abhyasurpa, in mananatmika, the intelligence is already fixed. Whereas in abhyasurpa, one is struggling.
One is struggling. So, abhyasurpa is moral of sadhaka stage. See, there is, if you see among the stages of bhakti, there is nishtha, anuchi, asati, bhava and prem.
Now, even before nishtha, there is anarthanivrtti has already happened. So, nishtha means there is strong conviction. That is, Krishna is the ultimate goal of life, bhakti is the best sadhana, and lust, anger, greed, all these anarthas have already gone.
But still, in this hierarchy, in this progression given by Rupa Goswami, nishtha is not equated with ruchi. That means one can have conviction that Krishna is the ultimate goal, but still, I may not have a natural or spontaneous attraction to Krishna. I may not really be getting a taste in terms of a very spontaneous deep taste, which is referred to in ruchi.
So, at the stage of nishtha, one is deeply convinced, but it is not that one is constantly experiencing taste. So, in a sense, in a broad sense, not in a technical sense, in a broad sense, this mannatmika is like nishthala, where one is fixed in terms of intellectual conviction, but still, the mind is not attracted to it. Whereas, ruchi means mind starts getting attracted, mind starts getting taste.
Chikravarti Bhatt describes in Madhuri Kadamani also, and I think Rupa Goswami also mentioned in the Gamsahamvitika, that at these stages, especially from the stage of ruchi onwards, just as for a conditioned soul, the conditioned soul may be doing any different kind of work, but suddenly the mind goes away from there to sensual definition. So, like that, from the ruchi stage onwards, the devotee may be doing some work in the world, but suddenly his mind goes to Krishna. Because the mind has developed an attraction to Krishna, which is ruchi.
So, it says, mannatmika, ruchi. From ruchi onwards, asakti bhava prema can also be there. So, whereas, in abhyasa rupa, it’s more or less, this is at the stage of anartha nirvikashti.
Now, this equation is approximate, it just gives a broader frame, a different framework to correlate with and understand this better. Correct. Yes.
So, how do we, so, Prabhupada is saying that those who cannot practise bhakti, they can do this, they can do sacrifice of the work to some material good cause. So, Prabhupada is saying this is referring to bhava-karpa-dish-kama-karma-yoga. How do you understand the reference? See, in general, every acharya has his own way of analysing the scripture.
And, there is a consistency within the flow of the analysis, and there is a consistency of the overall analysis with the siddhanta. But, the internal analysis will be quite different. Before we go into this, between the difference between Chakravarti Pada and Prabhupada, even more dramatic is the difference between the commentaries of Chakravarti Pada and Valdividya Bhushan.
Valdividya Bhushan is directly a disciple of Chakravarti Pada. But, if you read Gita Bhushan, many of these explanations are quite different from Chakravarti Pada. And, as far as I have noticed, he doesn’t even refer once to Chakravarti Pada’s commentaries.
It’s almost as if Chakravarti Pada is not commented only. Now, how can a disciple do that? Prabhupada did not comment on Prabhupada Samhita because he said, Actually, that commentary is not of Bhakti Sanyasa Thakur. That is of Bhakti Vinod Thakur.
Bhakti Vinod Thakur had commented in Bengali on Brahma Samhita. And, one of Bhakti Sanyasa Thakur’s disciples, Nishikant Sanyal, translated it. And, that commentary is actually of Bhakti Vinod Thakur.
But, anyway, whatever it is, once it was published in Bhakti Sanyasa Thakur’s name, then it will continue to be published in Bhakti Sanyasa Thakur’s name. But, the point I am making is, Prabhupada gave that point of Maryadavati Krama. He did not comment on that.
But, it is not like an absolute standard. Bhakti Sanyasa Thakur commented on Chaitanya Charitamra. Prabhupada commented on Chaitanya Charitamra.
Prabhupada did not just try to translate Gaudiya Bhashya into English. Much of Prabhupada’s commentary is a translation of Chaitanya Charitamra’s commentary of Bhakti Sanyasa Thakur. But, still, he did not translate.
He actually wrote his own commentary. So, it is not wrong in principle to comment. But, the difference between Chakravarthi Pahad and Gandhavidya Bhishma’s commentaries is also because of their historical context.
Chakravarthi Pahad was at Vrindavan. And, he was basically showing how the scriptures can be relished from the Gaudiya perspective. He wrote a commentary on the Bhagavatam.
He wrote a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. And, unfortunately, he wrote a commentary on the Sisi also, which is lost. It is practically the only book in Bengali history, where the book is in Bengali and the commentary is in Sanskrit.
Normally, how it is, the original book is in Sanskrit and the commentary is in a vernacular language. But, basically, Chakravarthi Pahad, he was primarily a writer in Sanskrit. Most of his writings are in Sanskrit.
So, he wrote a commentary. But, that commentary, there are devotees who are searching for it right now. But, it is not found anywhere.
So, he was basically relishing Gaudiya Siddhant, Gaudiya Rasa. But, whereas, Baldevidya Bhushan, his situation was very different. He had the challenge of establishing Gaudiya Vaishnavism as a Sampradaya.
You know that, in Jaipur, he had to write a commentary on Vedanta Sutra. Now, for a Sampradaya to become established and authentic, the three Prasthantra have to be commented on. So, he has commented on the Upanishads, which is Smriti.
He commented on Vedanta Sutra. And, he also commented on the Bhagavad Gita, which is Smriti. So, because his focus was Siddhantic, he wanted to establish Gaudiya Siddhant.
So, that’s why he has given his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. And, from the Siddhantic point of view, he is focussing much more on Siddhanta. So, Baldevidya Bhushan, if you see, when he is going in the Vaishnavism, because he has a particular focus over there.
His purpose is to establish our Sampradaya philosophy in the broader Vedic tradition that are there. That’s why, almost throughout the whole Govinda Vastu, he doesn’t quote any Gauri Acharya. Not only Chakravarti Path, he doesn’t quote even Rupa Goswami, Jiva Goswami, Sandarbhas.
Because, those will not be considered authority by outside people. Outside people means his audience. His audience is the broader Vedic tradition.
And, in the broader Vedic tradition, if, for example, Dutta Karmapura has written a book refuting evolution. So, now if he is writing a book refuting evolution and he says, evolution is wrong because Prabhupada says it is wrong. Then, who is going to accept that? So, we have to present according to the Pramanas that are accepted by the audience to which we are targeting.
So, Vandevidya Bhushan’s audience is the broader Vedic tradition. And, that’s why, most of the time, he doesn’t quote any Acharyas. He doesn’t quote Ramamurthy also.
So, the Vedanta Sudra commentary is directly based on the Vedic tradition. So, he will quote various Upanishads. He will quote, sometimes he quotes Bhagavatam, sometimes he quotes Bhagavad Gita.
Mostly, he quotes the Upanishads. And, in Gita commentary also, he doesn’t quote Gaudiya Acharyas at all. And, even his quoting of Sandarbhas is practically nearly zero.
Because, his objective is very clear. So, that’s why, generally, if you want to understand Bhagavad Gita, some devotees, when they want to study Bhagavad Gita, they will take Bhagavad Gita, one verse, and they say, okay, let us see what is Acharyas. Let us see what is Acharyas.
Let us see what is Acharyas. And, you try to compile something. That is a good way, if you want to study, just to get material for a class.
But, if you want to understand Bhagavad Gita, then it is best to take one Acharyas commentary and read it as a flow. Read it from beginning to end. And, even when we are reading, it is best not to, if you are reading Sarasadarshani, it is not a very good idea to compare Sarasadarshani with Srimad Bhagavatam, Prabhupada’s commentary.
This is because of what Chakravarti Pada is trying to say. I will give you a simple example to understand why this is like that. Say, imagine now we have a new temple and old temple.
Now, you don’t have to imagine, we have it already. But, imagine. Assume, I don’t, that both places have the same verse classes only.
So, Bhagavatam class, they are trying this for the 50th anniversary of this month. In the Judaic tradition, we have a tradition that all the Jews from all over the world, whenever they have classes, it is all on the same verse. The same verse of the Hebrew Bible.
Everywhere, they will have the same verse. That’s how they coordinate internationally. This one is a little difficult because we have Prabhupada classes and we have guest speakers who speak on different verses.
But, it can create a lot of unification if it works out. But, the point is that, assume that there are two classes going on, on the same verse. And then, what some theory does is, in five minutes you hear this verse, in five minutes you hear this verse.
Five minutes you hear this class, five minutes you hear this class. So, you will not really understand things. The speaker is speaking.
The speaker is reading in a particular flow. So, say that, we read a little bit on this Acharya’s commentary, we read on this Acharya’s commentary, we read on this Acharya’s commentary, and we just keep oscillating like that. And, it doesn’t really give a proper understanding.
Acharya’s flow is going on. And, that’s why it’s best to study one Acharya’s commentary. And then, study the next Acharya’s commentary.
It’s not. So, anyway. So, now, I am going to further the specifics.
So, this is that. Yeah. Still, his commentary was different from mine.
But, not quoting doesn’t necessarily mean being different, right? No, but the concepts themselves are very different. Like, his audience was different. So, he may have to quote all of them.
Concepts, how did they differ? In the sense? Okay. How can the concepts be different? Prabhupada’s commentary is almost like, 100% is Prabhupada’s commentary. So, out of 100%, almost whatever Prabhupada has taken, it is like 35-40%.
I have not. So, 35-40% of Prabhupada has given. It’s a negative.
20-30% is from Ramanujan. And the remaining is from Prabhupada himself. So, now, there are many places where Prabhupada gives an understanding of things which is different from Bhakti Sahasrata.
Many places. He studied Bhakti Sahasrata, or his studies, especially Bhakti Sahasrata’s writings. Many places.
I mean, simple example. It can start from simple things. You know, Prabhupada put the altar where the latest Acharya is at the left.
And then you move upwards. In Gaudiya Amrit, if you go, the latest Acharya is at the right. And then it moves upward that way.
So, that is equal to the reverse. So, Prabhupada introduced law in a diverse way. Then Prabhupada introduced pictures in this.
There are no pictures in Bhakti Sahasrata. Generally, very rare. Rarely.
Rarely there are pictures or whatever. Rarely there are pictures. Then, like that, even from the Siddhantic point of view, there are some places where Prabhupada makes some differences.
Prabhupada does seem to say, not very clearly, that it comes to more Dhanyas. And he became a Grahastha afterwards. But Bhakti Sahasrata has not said that explicitly.
What he has said is Avadhuta. Now, Avadhuta is not an official Sanyasi. So, now whether Prabhupada has explicitly said that is slightly debatable.
But that is the general understanding. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is a Siddhanta. But, Sridhar Maharaj was very categorical about it.
Sridhar Maharaj is Prabhupada’s daughter. He is very categorical about it. So, he is very categorical that he was not a Sanyasi.
For a Sanyasi to give up Sanyas is, it would have been scandalous, even at that time. So, he was not a Sanyasi. So, there are places where an Acharya may give the central philosophical issues.
There are never differences. There are, on certain applications of things, there are substantial differences. On applications, there are a lot of differences.
So, the point here is, actually we will have to go into the analysis. So, the way he analyses things, Valdevi Devji analyses the Bhagavad Gita, he talks about three categories of Sadhakas. And then he says, this was referred to this category, this was referred to this category.
And that sort of analysis, Valdevi Devji, Chitrathipa doesn’t do. So, it’s a way of looking at things, which is substantially different. Not only not referring, but the way of looking is also quite different.
And that’s required for the audience. There is nothing, in principle, wrong from it, from that point of view, that it’s different. And, at the end of it, basically, Valdevi Devji established our Sampradaya methodology.
And that’s what was required. So, he takes the concept of Vishesha. Vishesha is a concept which Madhavacharya has introduced.
And there in the script, he could not exclusively. Vishesha is the concept which Madhavacharya used to explain the relationship between an object and its qualities. So, basically, it’s similar to Jiva Swamiji’s concept for achievement.
But, it’s slightly different. And through that, Valdevi Devji, by using that concept in his Gita commentary, he sort of built the bridge between Gaudiya Siddhanta and Madhavacharya Gautama Siddhanta. And he sort of connects the two theologically.
That’s what he means. So, coming to your specific point, Gaudiya Siddhanta. So, there can be differences among the Acharyas.
So, for example, now, which is 1.11 or 1.10? Aparya Aptam and Parya Aptam, where is that? 1.11 or 1.10? So, now, Arjuna is saying that, sorry, Duryodhana is saying that, ours, our soul is finite. It is limited. Aparya Aptam Tadasmakam Bhalam Bhishmavirakshitam So, Aparya Aptam means ours is limited.
Ours is immeasurable. Aparya Aptam there means Parya Aptam. It is not fixed, it is limited.
Now, the word Aparya Aptam, that A can emphasise or A can negate. Prefix A, like you have valuable and you have invaluable. You have correct and you have incorrect.
So, in as a prefix can emphasise invaluable or in as a prefix can negate as in correct, incorrect. Like that, Aparya Aptam can emphasise it is more than sufficient. It is limited.
Or, Aparya Aptam can mean it is insufficient. So, now, Shaldevi Devashree takes this to mean that our strength is immeasurable. It is more, it is abundant.
Prabhupada takes it to be that our strength is insufficient. Now, Prabhupada takes it to be immeasurable. Prabhupada follows Shaldevi Devashree.
So, now, how do we understand this difference? Actually speaking, generally, from the numerical strength point of view, the Kauravas strength was greater than Pandavas. And similarly, the Kauravas Bhishma was also far more experienced, far more seasoned, and skilled than him. So, it is interesting that when he is comparing also, you know, we see what is prominent in our mind.
So, although Hrishti King is the commander of the Pandavas, he does not say Hrishti Dina Abhiraksha And although Arjuna is the most formidable warrior, he does not say Arjuna Abhiraksha. For him, the greatest strength is Bhima. So, you know, for him the greatest strength is Bhima.
So, on this side, he is having his commander Bhishma, but on the other side, he is not taking any of them, Hrishti Dina or Arjuna, he is taking Bhima over them. So, now, but he is saying that Bhima’s strength is limited. Our strength under Bhishma is unlimited.
So, from the point of view of experience, as well as from the point of view of numerical strength, Bhishma was more formidable. But, here, Aparnyakam and Chakravarti Path goes into the heart of things. Emotions point of view, rasa point of view.
So, the strength of a warrior is determined not so much by the skill or the number of troops at his command, the strength of a warrior is determined by his spirit of fighting. And he knows that Bhishma doesn’t have a guardian. Bhima doesn’t want to fight against the Pandavas.
He loves the Pandavas and that’s why, he is actually a guardian of Bhishma. So, here, Chakravarti Path is talking about the spirit. Bhishma’s heart is on the fight, at least not as much as Duryodhana’s definitely.
So, Duryodhana wants every fibre of his being that he wants to kill the Pandavas. Bhishma wants to as much as possible avoid the Pandavas, but he is not ready to give up his duty. So, from that point of view, saying that his strength is inadequate.
So, the point is, there are different ways of looking at things. So, you will find many places where the Acharyas will give different explanations. So, why they give different explanations is different way of doing analysis, their way of looking at things.
In that way of looking, it works out in harmonics. Any questions further about this? Yeah, I can speak, I am hearing you. Yeah, so, Acharya has commented, then what? So, how you can understand Prabhupada is, like Prabhupada was writing Bhagavad Gita own commentary.
So, he kept like five, six Acharyas commentary. Yeah, see, so, Prabhupada was referring to different Acharyas commentary when writing his own commentary. But, my understanding is, Prabhupada has read the Acharyas, the Siddhanta, really, quite in detail.
So, Prabhupada will travel a lot, see, it’s not wrong to read different Acharyas commentary. For example, if I have read Acharyas commentary before, but if I have to give a class, it’s not that everything will be in my memory. So, at that time, I may read, okay, this Acharya says this, Acharya says this, Acharya says this, that’s fine.
But, if you want to study Siddhanta properly, that kind of study the radar of discussion only, right? The discussion is entirely focused on Bhakti Yoga only. So, it is the word Gyan and Dhyana are also to be understood in the context of Bhakti Yoga. So, it is Gyana, you see, Gyana is more of intellectual, whereas Dhyana, meditation is more of mental.
Mind gets fixed in Dhyana. So, he says this Dhyana is referring to Mananatmika Bhakti. So, 12.8, 12.9, 12.10, 12.11. So, now, 12.8 has these two levels, Mananatmika and Smaranatmika.
So, now what is he saying? Shreyo hi jnanam abhyasat. That means higher than this 12.9 of Abhyas Yoga is the Mananatmika Bhakti of 12.8. Then, Dhyana dhanam vishish. So, Dhyana, he says this is referring to the Smaranatmika Bhakti of 12.8. So, therefore, he says that better than Dhyana is Dhyana, better than Smaranatmika Bhakti is Smaranatmika Bhakti.
Now, Dhyana karmapalacharam. So, now this is interesting. If you see there is, in the first two lines, there is a comparative word there.
Shreya and Vishishti. Now, there are no such words in the next two lines. Shreyo hi jnanam abhyasat, Dhyana dhyanam vishishti.
Dhyanat karmapalachyagam. So, now the Dhyanat karmapalachyagam, this relation between the two can be in two ways. One is better than Dhyana is karmapalachyagam.
Or Dhyanat karmapalachyagam can also mean through Dhyana, karmapalachyagam image. So, it can be not a comparative relationship, it can be a causal relationship. Dhyan karmapalachyagam image.
So, what is the meaning of that? Dhyana refers to bhava bhakti. So, when one is absorbed in Krishna, then there is no desire for the fruits of work. The fruits of the work are bhukti and nitya.
So, when there is no desire for the fruits of work, at that time naturally there is karmapalachyagam. So, one is giving up the fruits of work. So, Dhyan, that means in C and D of this word, there is not a comparison, but there is a causal relationship.
Dhyana karmapalachyagam and then karmapalachyagam shantiranandam. That is very clear. That is not a comparative relationship.
That is a causal relationship. That tyaga leads to shanti. So, I hope the words comparative and causal is clear.
Causal means one leads to the other. So, I will repeat this once again. And if you do not understand, do not bother about it.
You know, you can hear this with the mood of Karmandeva Adhikara Singh. We will do our duty. If we do not understand, it does not matter.
Mahapalashyakaracharya. The problem in this 12.12, why I am repeating this is, if you do not understand the problem, you may not understand the solution. So, the problem in this verse is primarily why is karmapalachyagam considered to be higher than Dhyana and Dhyana.
That is the primary problem of 12.12. So, now Shri Ajay Thakur’s relation is that this whole chapter is about bhakti. So, therefore, all the terms have to be understood in terms of bhakti. And therefore, he correlates that the Dhyana and Dhyana of this.
Abhyas refers to Abhyas Yoga. This is talking about 12.9. Dhyana refers to the fixing of the intelligence in Krishna. That is 12.8b. That is Mananatmaka Bhakti.
And Dhyana refers to Smaranatmaka Bhakti. That is 12.8b. So, Shreyohi Dhyana Abhyasa means that better than Sadhana Bhakti, better than Abhyasa of fixing the mind of Krishna is fixing the intelligence in Krishna. That is Mayi Viddhi Nideshe.
That is Dhyana. Better than Dhyana is Dhyana. Better than fixing the intelligence of Krishna is fixing the mind of Krishna.
Mayi Viddhi Nideshe. And after this way of explaining Dhyana, then he says, it is not of a hierarchy, it is a progression. It is a horizontal causation.
It is moving forward. So, when one is in Dhyana, one is so absorbed in Krishna, one is so satisfied by that, that one becomes, one has no desire for anything else. So, Bhakti Mukti Siddhi is becoming Sakalaya Shanta, Krishna Mukti Nishtana, Akalaya Shanta.
Therefore, Dhyana, Karmapala Tyaga. That Karmapala Tyaga is a natural result when one is happy in Krishna’s service. One does not need any other results.
And when there is Karmapala Tyaga, one is automatically Shanta. So, in summary, Abhyasa is lower than Dhyana. It is lower than Dhyana.
But from Dhyana, it is not that Dhyana is lower than Tyaga, but rather Dhyana leads to Tyaga and Tyaga leads to Shanta. Question is that Bhagwat Arpit Nishkama Karniyoga, one can come to this stage easily. Which stage? He is not going to Manohar Apli Das Paramatma, but he can directly come to Bhagwat Arpit and then directly to Karmapala Tyaga and Shanti.
Krishna Bhakta Nishkama. Sarve Ashan. So, person who is in Nishkama Karniyoga, he is Bhagwat Arpit.
Bhagwat Arpit Nishkama Karniyoga. So, he can directly come to Bhava Bhakti. There is no reference to Bhagwat Arpit Bhakti in this analysis at all.
But Karmapala Tyaga is the same. No. Karmapala Tyaga is very different.
See, when he is talking about Bhava Bhakti, one automatically gives Karmapala. It is not a conscious renunciation of work. It is just a natural indifference towards the fruits of the work.
One doesn’t care only. Normally, Karmapala Tyaga means I care for it, but I give it up. It is like say, when we fast on Ekadashi.
We would like to eat, but we decide I will fast because I want to do some austerity or I want to get some payasthas or whatever. So, that is a conscious sacrifice only. Whereas, if we like to do something so much, it just gets absorbed in it, we forget about it.
So, in both cases, external point of view, there is Tyaga. But in one case, there is so much absorption that one forgets food. On the other hand, there is a conscious decision to give up food.
The two are different. So, he is not talking about a conscious decision to give up the fallow of karma. He is talking about an absorption at the Bhava Bhakti stage where one doesn’t care for the fruits of the work.
This example is completely absorbing the Seva. That also helps a person to cross over the stage of Sadhana Bhakti very easily. The problems of Sadhana Bhakti when a person is absorbed in the Seva.
He is attached to work, not very much conscious decision, but his absorption in work also helps him to cross the stages of Anantya Bhakti fast. Absorption in service also helps us to transcend the temptations. Definitely.
Actually, in a sense, there is this lower taste of sense enjoyment. There is a higher taste of Bhakti. But in between, when people practise Varanashram.
What is the Varanashram basically? Brahmana does Brahmanical work. Kshatriya does Kshatriya work. So, that also gives, you could call it intermediate higher taste.
What do you mean by intermediate higher taste? It’s a material taste only, but it’s a civilised material taste. Civilised material taste means, see even in material life you will see that if somebody likes to do something, if somebody likes to, some people just like to write computer programmes or debug things or they make some photoshop designs or something. People forget lunch and forget everything else.
So, is there a taste higher? Well, as compared to food, it’s definitely higher. That’s how they are able to forget it. But it’s not higher in terms of inspiration.
So, the point here is, even material absorption can make a person forget material addictions and material temptations. Now, what we can absorb ourselves materially in, it’s physically Krishna. In the sense that we are absorbing ourselves as Krishna.
Then that becomes a, it doesn’t refer only a material taste, it becomes a material taste that is spiritualised or devotionalized. So, if we can absorb ourselves in any service for Krishna, then that’s wonderful. Even if we are not consciously living for Krishna, that will come gradually.
It will stay away from you. So, it does help definitely. Can we call it as a part of Sadhana Vakti? Can we call it as a part of Sadhana Vakti? Yes.
So, the word Sadhana Vakti can be used in a, if we are going to use it in a technical sense, then there might be some questions about it. Generally, the way Prabhupada used the word Sadhana Vakti, the way Prabhupada used the word Sankirtan for food distribution. Now, that was never used that way in the Gaudiya tradition before Prabhupada.
But it has been used, it’s fine. So, Sankirtan, Sadhana Vakti also, anything that helps us to get connected with Krishna, stay connected with Krishna, deepen our connection with Krishna, that is Sadhana Vakti. And Prabhupada writes in Anody, related to the spiritual master’s responsibility or initiative, to find out ways by which the disciples will take their mind on Krishna.
So, yena kena prakarane mana krishna yeshe, that is Krishna’s personal instruction. But how this is to be done, that will actually be cooperative effort of the disciple and the spiritual master will say, okay, this is a good instruction, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this, let him do this. So, I am hoping by all these most of you will be detached from the hopes of reading Acharya’s commentaries.
Not really, but don’t entertain romantic conceptions of reading Acharya’s commentaries. You know, studying Acharya’s commentaries is hard work. It’s not that, you know, every, every drop of Acharya’s commentaries, you take this and it’s like nectar, and you just swoon in ecstasy.
So it’s that kind of process. Acharya, they’re writing their commentaries and it’s hard work, and we have to do harder work to understand him. So, Shreya and Vishishti.
So here, Rudra Devji takes an entirely different path, and he says that, actually, it is better, not in the sense, like earlier in the first chapter, Krishna said, that Jnana Yoga is higher than Karma Yoga, but Karma Yoga is better for those who are unqualified. Similarly, he says, Shreya and Vishishti are referring to, better for those who are not qualified. So, he doesn’t take this like, everything is referred to Karma Yoga.
He says, what does Jnana refers to? Meditation. Jnana refers to self-knowledge. What does he say? Shreya to Jnanam Abhyasa, Jnana, Jnana, Vishishti.
So he just takes the linear sequence, and he says that, the Abhyas, here has got nothing to do with 12.9 of this. It is simply referring to the previous verse, 12.11, is Karma Yoga, is basically some kind of Karma Yoga. So, he says, for the unqualified, Shreya to Jnanam Abhyasa, Jnana, Jnana, Vishishti.
So here, Shreya to Jnanam Abhyasa, Jnana, Jnana, Vishishti. So you will have to start this from the last one. So, Karma Pala Tyagam.
So, better than Karma Pala Tyagam is Jnana. Better than Jnana is Jnana. And better than Jnana is Abhyasa.
Better in terms of what? Actually, in terms of the capacity to practise. So, if somebody is unqualified, so the unqualified person, this is basically ladder from the first 6 chapters of this book. No, you have to look at it from the bottom up, not from the top up.
You have to look at it from the bottom up. We are looking at it from the top down. This whole analysis is from bottom up.
So, basically what he is saying over here is, Shreya and Vishishti is better in terms of what is suitable for the sadhakas to practise if they don’t have the Adhikara. So, if you don’t have the Adhikara to practise, then Karma Yoga, then Jnana Yoga, then Vyana Yoga, then Bhakti Yoga, Sadhana Bhakti. It is a linear progression.
So, let’s not spend much time here. We will discuss questions later. Don’t worry.
So, now, Shri Prabhupada makes a very simple understanding, which is basically not so complex. He says that here the Abhyas, this goes one verse backwards. So, he is not referring to 12.11, he is referring to 12.10. So, let me use Shreyo Bhyana Abhyasa.
Abhyas is the 12.11. So, then after that, better than the Abhyasa is Vyana. Better than Vyana is Dhyana. And better than Dhyana is, so, this Karma Yoga refers to Karma Yoga offered to Krishna.
It is not just an offer of Dhyana. Karma Yoga is an offer to Krishna. So, it is Bhakti Yoga.
So, in that sense, again the hierarchy continues the same. This way, this whole linear progression is explained. Now, any further questions? I won’t go into this in more detail because we will, we will just have to analyse it more and more and it will just exhaust us.
So, I think if you just take Shri Prabhupada’s understanding, then good enough. So, now after describing the activities of a, after describing the activities of Bhakti, now he will describe the qualities of a Bhakti. So, he is the non-enemies friend of all living beings.
Now, one interesting thing in the Bhagavad Gita you will see is, that 11th chapter, 11.33 was Asmat Namah Kucheshwara Vasu, rise and fight. And 11.34 is also, that is it, we will win. But after that, throughout the whole Bhagavad Gita, there is no reference to Kali.
There is no reference to Kali. In fact, only in 18th chapter, in 18th verse, 17th verse, there is one reference is that if one kills also, if one is acting in proper knowledge, then even one who kills is not killed. That is it.
So, the Bhagavad Gita, if somebody says it is a book of violence, it is not. Now, from the context, the discussion has risen to a much, much higher level. And there is no reference now to fighting at all.
In fact, if you see that way, even that 11.33 reference also comes after the 6th chapter. Prior to that, the reference to fighting was only at the end of the 4th chapter. Where is the last verse of the Bhagavad Gita.
So, 4.42 was one reference to fighting. And after that is 11.33, 32, 33, 34 is reference to fighting. And after that, there is no reference to Kali.
So, the Bhagavad Gita is neither a book of violence nor of silence. It is a book of transcendence. You know, it is not specifically saying that we should do violence or we should just tolerate violence and be silent.
Talking about transcendence. Talking about transcendence, in specific historical context where the Bhagavad Gita was written, the way to transcendence was through violence. So, that is why violence is talked about.
So, violence is not transcendental at all. It is transcendence that is the primary message. So, that is why I am talking about this.
In Ishtaragya, it is mentioned that वे इश्टः सर्वःङ्कार अनुप्परविश्ट Remotely, the non-enemies play the role of enemies. The same was hinted at in 11.35 as विर्वैरः सर्वःङ्कार Don’t be cynical towards enemies. इन्दिधमों ले अहंकार Be without possessiveness.
Now, yesterday I mentioned this briefly, that the bhakti of the Bhagavad Gita is more internalised, intellectualised conception of bhakti. Bhakti that is described in the Bhagavad Gita is not the ecstatic dancing and singing that is of Gaudiya Vaishnavi. Even the bhakti that is described in the Bhagavad Gita is more in terms of detachment from material emotions than attachment to spiritual emotions.
Why? Again, it’s context specific. All these qualities of a bhakta, there is practically no reference to the bhakta’s qualities that he sings my glory, he chants my names, he pursues my deity. The qualities of a bhakta that are talked about over here are not like, say, सवाई मनः कृष्णपदारविन्दयोर अपंबरिज्ञाराज् where he is assigned a lotus feet, he touches the body of the Vaishnavas, he smells the flowers that are offered to the Devi.
That is not talked about over here. Why is that? Because in the Bhagavad Gita, the context is that material emotions were causing the breakdown of Arjuna. Emotional breakdown.
At the start of the first chapter. पर तुछ चरीरे में गान्डरोमा है से चाहिए, गान्डी वो संसत्य हस्ता, लोग चरप पर लगते है. His Gandhi was slipping from his hands.
His skin is burning. So when there is a breakdown of material emotions, for Arjuna to perform his bhakti, he has to make sure that his material emotions don’t come in the way. So, actually the focus of bhakti as described in the Bhagavad Gita is don’t let material emotions come in the way.
And that is why we see again and again, be attached, be in between, that is what we will be underlining here for all these qualities. It is a description of context, these are not exhaustive quality, they are important qualities, and they are the ultimate effect. It is by no means an exhaustive description, because of the context, Arjuna did not become overwhelmed by material emotions.
and whatever he left, he said Santushita he will give you in a cheque, so if the Atma or the person is satisfied, then he can give you an announcement and he will return it and then you can, so my Arpita will announce it, so all this is possible when I find the meanings of his teachings, this is what Santushita Devotee is very dear to me. Will you reply further? Yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
In all the Bhaya, Udmega, Harsha, Amarsha, in Harsha’s jubilation, Amarsha’s rejection, Amarsha’s rejection, so in jubilation and rejection, in fear and anxiety, he is equal, he is free from all these emotions because he is fixed in transcendence, he is fixed in Krishna. So, in a sense, the qualities that Krishna is describing over here are similar to the qualities that Krishna is describing. Right? Krishna is, in Sita Prajna, he does not say that, okay, such a person is dear to me, he just says that, such a person is Sita Prajna, such a person is Sita Prajna.
Here he says repeatedly, such a person is dear to me. That means, material emotions do not endear us to Krishna. When we have too many material emotions, we immediately become Krishna.
We are overwhelmed by material emotions, that doesn’t really please Krishna. Next time we become indifferent to material emotions and we become permeated with spiritual emotions, that means Krishna. Here Krishna says, okay, Krishna, Arjuna, you are getting overwhelmed like this, material emotions are not very pleasing to you.
Don’t get involved, don’t get affected by such emotions. Now, you know, how do we know that a particular emotion is material or spiritual? For example, now, all of us, we have decided to become brahmacharis. So, we detach ourselves from our parents.
Now, sometimes we still feel concerned that my parents should also become devotees. And the parents face some problem in their life, material life also. Then we feel, should I involve myself in it and try to solve the problem or should I just stay indifferent to it? So, is that emotion material or is it spiritual? You know, the important thing is not to go into analysis whether it is material or spiritual.
The important thing is to see what is uncool for our bhakti or is it uncool for their bhakti. If we are weak in our spiritual life and getting involved in family affairs is going to make us weaker, then we can decide that I don’t know, I won’t get involved. But if we feel that we are really strong and if by intervening we can get even closer to Krishna, then maybe we can get involved.
Of course, I am not talking about specific situations here. I am talking about broad principles. Now, we really can’t get into a very paralysed analysis mode of whether an emotion is material or spiritual.
Rather than thinking whether an emotion is material or spiritual, we should think whether it is uncool or practical. You know, if there is a joke in a class, am I laughing for my pleasure or Krishna’s pleasure? You know, I start thinking like that. You know, the speaker will think, you know, for whose pleasure am I speaking? So, Gaurav Guru was telling me this.
He came to Pune one time. One devotee was sitting right in front. Gaurav Guru makes a lot of jokes.
He said, this devotee throughout the class, he did not laugh on me. And I asked him, you know, did you not like the jokes? He said, jokes are sincerification. So, I said, Gaurav Guru was saying that my strategy is to give anaesthesia and then do surgery.
So, all the jokes are supposed to, people have their own distraction and scepticism and hierarchy. So, all the humour is going to be put on us to make them comfortable. And then, last part of the class will be comes out of subject.
Some sort of instruction will come along at the end. So, people are subject to those instructions at the end. So, there are different ways of preaching.
We should not be so much paranoid about materialistic emotions. We should focus more on, more on what is anupul to bhakti. Like this, when this World Cup was there couple of years ago, one and a half years ago.
So, India was in the finals. So, at that time they had a Radhanath Malar’s interview in the airport. So, actually there was another very popular Guru, Swami Parthasarathy.
He wrote a big article which was published half page on the, one of the, an important page of Times of India. And he visited us. Indian ticketers, stay cool.
That day he was talking from Bhagavad Gita, how avoid happiness and distress, success and failure. Stay cool, stay cool. So, this is the message of Bhagavad Gita for the Indian cricketers when they are going to face the World Cup finals.
So, now, okay, stay cool and stay equipoised is all fine. But the Bhagavad Gita is talking about a spiritual cause. It is not talking about a cause of a cricket match.
So, of course, Bhagavad Gita principles can be applied anyway. But they asked Radhanath Malar. So, you know, so, what are their comments about the upcoming cricket finals? Now somebody, you know, they can say that cricket is all Maya, it is all nonsense, it is Amoghoda, whatever, you can say all those things.
So, Radhanath said, you know, I come from America and the only cricket that I knew for most of my life was the cricket that makes noises. Please say it, but nonetheless. He said, you know, India has given me so much spiritual culture and spiritual life and Indians have given me so much spiritual life also.
So, if the Indians love cricket, then my best wishes are there for the Indians. So, the whole point is that every situation is not a situation where you have to bang philosophy down people’s throats. There are different situations where we just have to create some favourable perception of Krishna consciousness.
There are forums where philosophy is to be spoken. And there are forums where we just want to make sure that people get a positive perception of Krishna consciousness. So, all timely circumstances we have to present.
So, So, one way is, it doesn’t agitate people, people don’t get agitated by it. Then Krishna describes in So, One is not expecting the result. He is clean, he is expert.
So, again, the common thread is that He is not wanting any material endeavours. He is focused only on doing what is for Krishna’s wishes. He is a devotee, he is very dear to me.
So, So, So, one does not delight, one does not want anything, delight in something to happen. One will resent when something bad happens. And This person is Bhaktimaan.
This person is Bhaktimaan. He is very dear to me. Now, Actually, As devotees, should we not have emotions? Suppose some service works out very nicely.
We want to arrange a programme and the programme goes off very nicely. There should be no vishyati. Or if you try to do a programme, everything becomes chaotic.
There should be no vishyati, no lamentation, no bad feeling about the whole thing. Then, what do you think? Yeah. Desire not for one side but for Krishna.
He is happy because I can serve Krishna nicely. Unhappy because I couldn’t serve the Bhagavad Gita. Our emotions should be for Krishna, not for ourselves.
Actually, at that time it is very difficult to differentiate that. So, for whom are my emotions? So, again, the basic principle is Anupanishad. We are in the process of bhakti for the long haul.
We are not here just to do one project, or one camp, or one service. We want to battle bhakti in the long run. And from the long term perspective, one success or one failure, they are not in bhakti.
So, it is natural to have external emotions when we are trying to do something. And if we don’t do things, some of the things don’t work out properly. In a sense, our failure is also Krishna’s failure.
In a sense, not entirely. Suppose, you know, I am going to give a class, and I am not well prepared, or I forget, or I don’t answer questions properly, and I don’t have a solid figure. That is my failure.
But along with that, I am representing Krishna. So, it is also Krishna’s failure, in the same sense. It is not that Krishna has failed, but rather we have failed Krishna.
So, it is a reversal for Krishna’s sake also. So, at such times, the important thing is that we should still determine ourselves. Because, we see the example of Prabhupada himself.
You know, Prabhupada, how much he struggled, and how much from the middle point of view he failed. So, how do you make sense out of it? He tried to start a group of devotees in Bhadrasi. He tried to start a group of devotees in Bhadrasi.
And then, before that, he was helping religious or Buddhist communications. Then, he tried to do something in Mumbai. Actually, Prabhupada was in India first.
And, he was trying to preach in that locality. That didn’t work out. But, so many things go out in one.
Before that, he tried to do this family-Krishna conversation. He tried to raise family by devotees. But, they were not having that missionary thing.
He tried to engage them. But, they were not ready to help. So, now, there are so many situations where Prabhupada, from the middle point of view, did not get success.
But, all of Prabhupada’s mood was into his emotions. Into his emotions. So, now, it is not that Prabhupada did not feel emotions.
But, the emotions did not interrupt the service. See, the point here is not that we try to reduce mood like that. But, the point is that our service isn’t good.
So, we cannot do emotions. But, they have understood, okay, I tried to work very hard and this is service. But, if the service doesn’t succeed, what is going to happen after that? And, nothing is going to change in a dramatic way.
Like, those monastery-like countries, they are sadhaka. Ayya country is sadhana country. So, it is not that we try to suppress emotions.
When we succeed, naturally we feel the emotions. And, when we fail, naturally we feel the emotions. These emotions are natural.
It is not that we have to reject them entirely. So, the important point is that those emotions don’t take control of us. Those emotions don’t interrupt our practise.
The interruption can be in a positive or a negative way. If I succeed and I get so overwhelmed by emotions, and I become so jubilant, I become so excited, and then I become so infatuated or proud because of that, then I just forget about these emotions. And, then I become so rejected that I feel I am worthless.
It is going to a sort of self-pity mood, which is also not of much use. So, the key principle is our emotions should not interrupt our practise. So, in the Ramayana, there is this whole incident of how when Bharat comes, Lakshman first asks him to see for himself.
When Ram asks Lakshman, they are coming into the forest to request Ram to come back. Bharat is coming with the whole army. So, in Chitrakoot, Lord Ram hears that there is some lot of noise.
And, he says, who is that? And, he says, an army is coming. He says, who is the army? Look here and there. And, then he says, oh, this is Yudhya’s army.
And, Lakshman, Lakshman, where did Lakshman come from? And, he says, will tell Bharat to stay with me Lakshman says, I will tell Bharat to with me and you can go back and become the ruler. And, so, Lakshman becomes completely squelched. becomes completely silenced.
And, then later on when he sees Bharat’s devotion, he is very much touched by that. And, then afterwards, he comes and meets Ram and he says, I got angry so much that I don’t know what do. So, Lord Ram is the older one.
He looks at Lakshman and says, you are sentimental. So, Lakshman says, is it bad to be sentimental? Is it emotions are the ornament of life. But, our emotions should help us to perform dharma.
Not that our emotions make us do adharma. So, we choose emotions. We will get the that are pertinent to us.
So, for example, the brahmacharya, sometimes, the mind may get attracted to some particular So, at that time, one may have an emotion. Now, those emotions are particular. Therefore, we need those emotions.
On the other hand, you know, when we want to leave this emotion and we want to leave this emotion, we keep serving Krishna. That’s what I would do. The idea is, we select the emotions that we need and reject the emotions that drag us down enough.
So, we have to have emotions. That’s why the whole concept of Vaishnava relationships is because in relationships we experience emotions. So, Vaishnava relationships are important and in Vaishnava relationships, the emotions that we experience, they will lift us up.
You see this very sweetly in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu associates and reciprocates with all the devotees, glorifies them and sometimes chastises them and instructs them and raises them and that. So, we need emotions and we have to get the right emotional reciprocation. But, right means that which elevates us up.
Is this clear? Again, these qualities seem to be similar to what are described in 13th verse but there’s like more emphasis over it. So, So, means not that one fires arrows at that Mitra also nor does that mean that one embraces the Chaitanya. It means that one sees everyone spiritually and then one may have to act according to what is best in the situation for our spiritual well-being and for other spiritual well-being.
So, if the soul is present in the body in which the soul is acting against Krishna, then sending arrows at that soul is also for the necessary for that soul’s spiritual elevation. So, Samaha is not necessarily Samaha in terms of the way we reciprocate it. Samaha will be more in terms of the inner perception of those people in terms of their spiritual evolution.
So, Prabhupada, he was Samaha in the sense that he saw everybody as potential devotees, whether they were Indians or Americans or Africans or Russians or whoever. He saw everybody as a servant of Krishna. And he tried to give Krishna consciousness to everybody.
But then Samaha is also telling give up material association. That means I’m equal points but that doesn’t mean I deal with everybody in the same way entirely. If people are having materialistic influence on me, then I have to give up the association.
Remember Madhyamani Kari is for the desi there is a break. So, if being equal poised is executed in different ways and different ways, he also has a communication with people. So, as devotees, we will get praise sometimes and we will get criticism sometimes.
And it happens with everyone. So, if you get too affected by praise or criticism, then Prabhupada himself, although he was successful, he was criticised. And sometimes my saviour was even his god brothers.
It is not you to get into. Prabhupada dealt with it as he could. So, don’t by So, the criticism can come from, will come from everyone.
In fact, the more successful you become, the more positive you become the target of praise. So, when that happens, actually, we have to learn to take our criticism away. That you idea here is that criticism is something that should be learned and improved.
Prabhupada, for example, when Sunti Muraji wrote to Prabhupada and saying that the devotee is in back to Godhead, had published a conversation with Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Vallabhbhai. And that conversation, in a sense, appears to be quite demeaning for Vallabhbhai. So Sunti Muraji was a follower of Pushpamala Vallabhbhai and she was quite upset about it.
Then when this was brought to Prabhupada’s attention, she wrote a letter to Prabhupada. Prabhupada wrote to the Back to Godhead editors saying that, Now, Back to Godhead is a magazine reaching out to people to elevate them spiritually. There is no need to stir unnecessary controversies in Back to Godhead.
We are not establishing, through Back to Godhead, the superiority of Gaudiya Siddhanta over Vallabhastu Krishna. That is not the purpose of Back to Godhead. If somebody wants to do that, there is a forum elsewhere for it.
So, Prabhupada was sensitive about it. There was a criticism of Prabhupada’s magazine, Back to Godhead. Prabhupada read it, and Prabhupada read that same page.
The whole point of Pradyumna’s testimony is that the devotee is fixed in Krishna’s service and he doesn’t let criticism or praise distract him from that service. He is in the service of Krishna. Whatever he gets, he satisfies.
And the last part is beautiful. Aniketam means the devotee has no home for himself. But his consciousness is found there.
His consciousness is fixed in Krishna. And actually, it is in the remembrance of Krishna and his decision is announced that he has a real home. The physical home will come and the physical home will go.
It will not last for long. The home at Krishna’s lotus feet will last forever. In fact, in Prabhupada, he translates 10.9, also very beautifully, Prabhupada translates Machitra as the thoughts of my devotees dwell in me.
Very poetic translation. Not that the devotees think of me, but the thoughts of my devotees dwell in me. Dwell in me, just like if you have a home.
Then, we may go out, but as soon as our work is done, we come back home. So like that, the devotee, for the sake of service, for the sake of practical necessity, may have to think of other things. But as soon as the thinking gets over, the devotees always come back to Krishna.
So like that, the devotee has found his home in Krishna’s lotus feet. Aniketam is Thirumati. And that is that, so, you know, devotee, instead Prabhupada left Vrindavan, he actually did not leave Vrindavan.
He carried Vrindavan. Sometimes, circumstances may take a devotee out of Vrindavan, but no circumstances can take Vrindavan out of a devotee. Circumstances can take devotee out of Vrindavan, but they cannot take Vrindavan out of a devotee.
So that is where the heart is. Heart is in Krishna’s service. Aniketam is Thirumati.
Consciousness is in Krishna. Sadhasa is a devotee. Maktaman is a devotee.
Now the last verse is, Krishna says, Now somebody may say, these are all very exalted qualities. If I can become dear to Krishna only when I have these qualities, then what is the hope for me? Right now I get angry over small, small things. I get upset by criticism.
I am quite possessive of things. So what is the hope for me? Krishna says, Actually, if you just practise Bhakti, still you are very dear to me. ye tu dharma amritamitam ye thoktam paryopasate sadbadhanamad dharma bhaktas te tvame priyaha ye tu dharma amritamitam So this dharma amritamitam, this is nectar.
Dharma which leads to amrita, which leads to nectar. This is Bhakti Yoga. ye thoktam paryopasate and tries to follow sadbadhanamad dharma which plays, making you the supreme god.
So one practises this, so a devotee is, te tvame priyaha, is very dear to me. So that means, if these qualities are important, then these qualities will also gradually develop the practise of Bhakti. But if one just practises Bhakti, all auspiciousness will come.
All results will come. So then, that faith of the devotee is also very dear to me. Significance of the chapter of Bhakti Yoga starts and ends with Shraddha.
Starting of course, 11.1 is Arjuna’s question. Krishna’s statement in 11.2 is having Shraddha. shraddhaya paryopeta te me pramana sadbadhanamad dharma bhaktas te tvame priyaha So, that means, faith is the womb of devotion.
I may not have devotion right now, but if I have faith, gradually devotion will emerge from that faith. Because when I have faith, then I will be able to see things positively. And by that, the devotion will gradually emerge.
And this is also, you know, not just in the sense of the Bhagavad Gita. I am talking about Shraddha as the Again, Shraddha, he says, is the first stage of Bhakti also, 9th stage of Bhakti. Shraddha, Adal Shraddha, Tata Shraddha, Sahu Shraddha.
So, that way also it is the, and in 12.20 also there is Shraddha. So, it begins and ends with Shraddha. So, now, is faith a matter of choice or a matter of grace? For example, you know, when I say I have to have faith.
So, is it a matter of choice or is it a matter of grace? In one of my Bhakti Gaudita, in one of my articles, which I have put in a small book, I and my companion, there is this one full article on this topic. So, actually, Shraddha is both. Shraddha is a matter of choice in terms like, there are certain activities which will build our faith.
And we can choose to do those activities. So, when we choose to do those activities, that is, Shraddha is a matter of choice. We choose faith-boosting activities.
So, for example, when we have doubts, we can suppress the doubts or we can find out some devotee who can answer those doubts. Or we can read some specific books which address those issues. Then the doubts will go away.
Otherwise, if we just let the doubts stay. Some doubts are just incidental. They don’t matter much to us.
Even if we let them bother, it doesn’t matter. But some doubts start eating into us. Then we have to address those doubts.
So, choose faith-boosting activities. By that, faith will increase. Faith is also a matter of grace.
Because we may get divine experiences that stabilise our faith. And these experiences cannot be legislated. Let me say, let’s take VSA.
We are preaching to college students. And then we have Utkarsh camp. So, we take them to Mayapur, Aurobindo and somewhere where a lot of devotee association is there.
Now, there at that particular point, just they are coming and asking questions, getting questions answered, that boosts their faith. So, for them, choosing to come there is an act of faith. When they choose, then their faith will develop.
But along with that, certain people, certain darshans, certain moments with some devotees, Krishna may awaken some spiritual emotions in their heart. And that may give them a very strong faith. And that is a matter of grace.
So, it is both. We cannot wait. We cannot wait for the grace to come.
We keep doing activities that will boost our faith. And over a period of time, Krishna will also bestow his grace. No.
This is 1.1 point. 1.2.12, I think. No.
There Prabhupada translates Shraddha as the seriously inquisitive sage. It’s a very English translation of it. Prabhupada translates Shraddha as Shraddha is, Prabhupada translates as the seriously inquisitive sage.
That means, that you know, if I have, I may not have faith that there is God. Or that Krishna is God. But if, at least I am seriously inquisitive, then I will read the books which talk about this.
I will go spend my time asking questions. I will seriously study the subject. If somebody is dismissing things, I don’t believe in this, it’s all bogus, it’s all false.
Then that is not serious inquisitiveness at all. So, we cannot, we cannot, you know, force ourselves to have faith in things. Nor can we force others to have faith.
But, we can be seriously inquisitive. If there are questions troubling us, then we should take up the responsibility of finding out the answers. And that often means asking the right devotee.
You know, sometimes, you also have to know whom to ask questions. Because, you know, different devotees are of different natures. And, I know one devotee, you know, he used to ask questions.
And when he would ask questions, the authorities would tell him, you know, you are such a dry gyani. Stop asking these questions. You cannot do that if a person is intellectually orientated.
That’s the way the person is. So, we have to facilitate the person come to bhakti the way that person is. Then, now that, you know, certain devotees, they have a tendency to take questions as a sign of doubt.
The questions are a sign of doubt, but asking the questions is a sign of faith. Isn’t it? So, what do we want? If people have doubts, do they just bury the doubts within them and they get buried because of the doubts in the future? Or, do they ask the questions? Asking the question itself is a sign of faith. I feel that question can be answered by someone.
So that, sometimes, we may get irritated by some devotees’ questions. And then, if that person is really just not understanding the answers or accepting the answers, then we can direct them to somebody else who can give the answers. And it may, it is not necessarily a reflection on our inability to answer questions.
It may be just that Krishna can answer the questions through somebody else. Somebody phrases things in a particular way that the questions get answered. Therefore, if people have questions, or if we have questions, we may have to find out.
Especially, as we become more advanced, or not advanced, as we become more serious in our practise of bhakti, our questions may also become more specific. And it is not that everybody can answer those questions. You know, I have 4-5 devotees.
If I have questions on science, I will ask one devotee. If I have questions on Bhagavatam, I will ask one devotee. If I ask on Gaudiya Siddhanta, I have one more devotee who can ask questions.
If I have questions on broad Vedic culture, there is some other devotee. So, you know, I have my own answer. I have answered 1000 questions on my website.
It is not that I have all the answers. I have contacts who will provide me the answers. And of course, sometimes you have to pursue them.
They may not know the answers. Generally, when I get questions, I classify them into 4 categories. And then I answer accordingly.
First is, the answer that I know immediately. I just answer them. Others are, answers which I have to sort of think and put a proper flow of thought so that it answers.
Third is, the answers for which I have to do research. And fourth is, if my research is not going to help, I have to consult some other devotees. So then, I may meet some devotee friends maybe once a year also, once in 6 months, even sometimes 2-3 years.
So I have my own list of questions which I have kept. When I meet this devotee, right now, in my computer, I have 500-600 questions which are unanswered. And, you know, those are not the questions which trouble me.
Because I want to know the answers to those questions. So, whenever I meet the right devotee, I’ll ask those questions. And you find out after some time that some devotees, they don’t like the asking of questions.
Then don’t ask them the questions. If my need is to get the question answered, but some other devotee is more in the matter of relishing Katha, or just they have different friends who have different needs. Then we have to understand whom to ask.
And get the answers accordingly. So, that way, the important point is we should not in any way speak or act in a way that disturbs others. So, some people, for them, the questions are of serious matter.
And our inability to confront the questions, they may see that as a lack of intellectual integrity. You know, sometimes some people ask, I had this experience, I asked some devotee, one senior devotee some questions. And then those questions were serious questions.
So, that devotee’s reply was, One who has implicit faith in the spiritual master, all questions are answered. And if you have questions like this, that means you don’t have implicit faith in the spiritual master. Well, fine.
Okay, I agree that I don’t have implicit faith. What can I do? What should I do? You have to tell me what should I do. So, this sort of attitude can alienate people sometimes.
So, if people, you know, what happens is, people who have a lot of questions, they may take time to become devotees. When they become devotees, they will become very powerful devotees. And if they have answered the questions, they have got their questions answered, they will answer the questions of many other people also, in future.
So, cultivating this kind of people is not possible for everyone. And then, it is, we may find it, generally speaking, you know, in an institution, especially in a preaching institution also, the focus is more on results, not necessarily material results. Results is in terms of people who start chanting, start practising rosal seva, start rendering seva.
If people ask me too many questions, still they will say. These people are just, eh, they forget them. So, now, that’s also may be practically required in some situations.
Because some people, they just take too much time. But, in principle, as devotees, our movement should be able to create forums, where this kind of people should also be addressed. You know, in the Catholic Church, they have a forum called the Jesuits.
The Jesuits are the intellectuals among the Catholics. So, what they do is, wherever they are having their outreach programmes, and they find some people are very intellectual, then they connect them with the Jesuit ones. So, the Jesuits are very scholarly.
And, you know, the normal father, normal brother can become a father in four years. You know, that way, you join as a brother, then you become a pastor. But Jesuit fathers sometimes take 13, 14, 15 years.
Very learned. So, then what they do is, when there are intellectuals, intellectually orientated candidates, seekers, then they connect them with the Jesuits. And that way, the Jesuits, they create a sort of tradition of learning.
And that continues on. So, as of now, in ISKCON, we don’t have it. One of Bhakti Samar Malak’s plans is that we should have an ISKCON think tank.
ISKCON think tank means that we should have a forum of devotees who act as resources for the rest of the devotee community. And that way, the rest of the devotee community has questions. So, Gopi Paranath was doing that to some extent.
When people were asking questions, he was providing answers. So, that is important for us. We provide material, we provide resources, and those who are intellectuals, it is really facilitated over there.
So, when we are having our devotees coming up, if they have questions, their questions need to be addressed. And we may not be able to address them, we can direct them to devotees who can address them. Sometimes those devotees may also be busy.
And then, we may just have to, we may not be able to cultivate those folks, those people. In principle, we shouldn’t necessarily see presence of questions as a disqualification. Even if the questions are a little bit irritating, whatever.
So, there can be a sign of serious inquisitiveness. Any questions about this? Faith is a function of doubt. So, but, as we Faith is a function of doubt.
In the sense, like, it’s a function of intelligence. Faith is, I mean, in the sense, what I used as a Faith and doubt has an interrelation. So, how this as we said that they can park the doubts and faith can go on increasing.
What I want to understand is like whether doubt function has to be counted in order to faith reach to the topmost or doubt can be there and faith goes on increasing simultaneously. How these two go together? So, does doubt have to become zero for faith to grow? Or do we just park doubts, put doubt aside and let the faith grow? So, one aspect of intelligence is to recognise what is central and recognise what is central. So, the central aspect of our spiritual life is the practise of sadhanam.
So, doubts about the direct practise of sadhanam they can be related. For example, the potency of the holy name, the authority of the holy name, the authority of the heart of the holy name, the sanctity of the deities. These are central.
So, this faith is damaged immediately. But, there are peripheral aspects. Peripheral aspects can be in the scripture also.
Did man go to the moon or not? Now, frankly speaking, I did not respond to tell people man did not go to the moon. Actually, somehow, some devotees have the idea that confrontation is a virtue. It is not always a virtue.
So, Prabhupada himself did not take the absolute position that man did not go to the moon. Man may have gone to the moon. Prabhupada’s point was that that is not such a thing to be excited about.
Even if you have gone to the moon, what are you going to do? You are going to sleep late and depend on your wife. So, there is no need to take the position that man did not go to the moon. Suppose somebody says that I can’t believe man did not go to the moon.
If you can’t believe, you will go to hell. Not believing the Mahabhagavad Gita Siddha Paramacharya, who is the deliverer of Kali Yuga. We don’t have to take the institutional position.
These are peripheral missions. These are peripheral missions. So, it is a matter.
So, we don’t have to accentuate the missions that are not actually true to human tradition. So, we have to understand what are peripheral missions. I don’t know whether we are trying to talk about cosmology.
Cosmology, actually within the Bhagavatam, it is a tool for meditation and dharma. Start and end of the 5th canto, it is described that ultimately we have to by understanding this cosmology, one’s mind will become fixed on the issue. This has been brought.
The purpose of the cosmology discussion is to fix the mind on the issue. So, if by studying that cosmology, somebody’s mind is getting agitated, then how is it possible that there can be thousand mile mountains, and there can be sugar oceans or honey ocean or whatever. It is not really possible.
We understand that there is higher level of perception by which things can be possible. But if we can’t understand it, we don’t have to meet them in the same issue. The point is to fix the mind on Krishna.
Actually, the Bhagavatam cosmology, the description is not very detailed over there. I have done analysis from 15th chapter, 25th chapter of the books of cosmology. But actually within that, cosmological details are very few.
Most of them are like prayers of Yama Guru Parsi, prayers of this, prayers of that, and who is residing over there. So, geographical or cosmological details are very, very few there. So, trying to construct a planetarium using 5th century cosmology information is almost like trying to construct a map of America by reading Leena Murthy.
You know, in Leena Murthy, there is a discussion Prabhupada went there, Prabhupada went there, there is a discussion in New York City also, and then in San Francisco also, Los Angeles also. But describing the cartography of America is not the purpose of Leena Murthy. Isn’t it? Similarly, describing the universe is not the purpose of Bhagavata.
By understanding the universe, we can keep the mind visible. So, if one is not able to do that, he will lack a soul. So, one very important thing is to help people understand the difference between the central and the peripheral.
Once you help them understand the difference, for ourselves also, once you understand what is peripheral. Peripheral doesn’t mean it is unimportant in the sense that it is of no importance. But it is a lot of central importance.
So, you put the peripheral aside, and then focus on the central. And by the practise of bhakti, one becomes purified. One gets one gets experience of how bhakti can help us to tolerate, how bhakti can help us to transcend.
And that is what is saksha. So, we can’t expect the doubting faculty to become zero. In some people it may happen, in some people it may not happen.
Isn’t that? Actually, some people may have doubting faculty zero because their thinking faculty is zero. Not in the sense of a negative sense. Not in the sense of a negative sense that they are not thoughtful.
But you know, that capacity for intellectual enquiry, they don’t have that intellectual enquiry. So then, is that necessarily a virtue? And in some ways, they are not troubled by doubts. But then in other ways, they may not be able to become very effective teachers.
They may not be able to address people’s doubts also. So, we should be able to practise the processes of bhakti enthusiastically. And by that, we give more and more realisations.
I’m a realised individual. And that stabilises our practise of bhakti more and more. And their intellectual aspects, if they are troubling us too much, we should be in touch with those devotees who answer those questions.
But, there are doubts which are not so simple. We can put them aside. Cosmology, constructing the planetary is something which those who are specialised in that will do.
But similarly, there are things like that which are not very central to our philosophy. So, that doesn’t mean we disbelieve them. It’s just that we understand that understanding this will require investment of intellectual energy that I’m not prepared to do right.
I’m not in a position to do that. Then, I’ll say, put the doubts in the past now. And then if you get right, put them in the present.
Yes. Maybe, in 12th chapter, last shloka, 20th shloka, where it is mentioned, though you follow the imperishable path of devotional service, and you completely engage themselves with faith, making me the supreme goal, are very very dear to me. Also, in your concluding session you told today, sadhaka just have to practise his Krishna consciousness.
But at the same time, we are also observed that sadhaka have struck to some his habits and they are dragging him down. So, is there some hope for such kind of sadhaka? And how he can become dear to the supreme lord? Sadhaka has some habits that drag them down. Then what is the hope? The hope is to destroy habits that drag them down.
That means, what happens is, even in the process of bhakti, we should not be too conscious of our weaknesses. We have weaknesses, and we have to be aware of them so that we don’t get ourselves in trouble because of those. But we should also be aware of what are our strengths? What are the things that I like in Krishna consciousness? What are the things that make me happy? What are the things that make me strong? We focus on doing that.
So, we will all have negatives and positives. If we are worried, if we are completely ignorant of the negatives, then we will walk into traps and we will fall down. But if we are too bothered with the negatives, we will stay very fearful.
We cannot really be Krishna conscious. But, if we are aware so that we are very conscious of our negatives, if we look at our positives, we will try to go there. We will try to do them more and more.
In that way, we will be able to make spiritual advance, gain spiritual realisations, and gradually overcome the negatives. Generally speaking, overcoming our bad habits may take time. But till that, we don’t have to stay at the mercy of the negative.
We all play to those bad habits. We can just sort of fill our life with positives. And that’s why, discovering what are the things that make me Krishna conscious is very important.
You know, it is to some extent, we say that bhakti means that I should do the service that I do and I am told to do it. That’s horrendous. But bhakti is not only about surrendering.
Bhakti is also about initiating. Taking initiative. Prabhupada writes, I think, in Mantra 4 Abhishopanishad, that all of us have some energy, some initiative.
We should do that, take up that energy and initiate to become Krishna conscious. That means that keeping myself engaged in devotional service and making spiritual advancement is ultimately my responsibility. Therefore, if I find that there are certain things I can do well, and by doing those, I can grow, then I should do those things.
It’s not necessarily that I reject, I refuse doing what my spiritual master has told me, what my father has told me. But we also have time. You know, so that the time where our mind goes to mind things, sensual things, we can use that to do things which we like to do, devotional service.
So basically, spiritual advancement begins when we take responsibility for our sensual advancement. So, I have my weaknesses, I have my strengths, this is what I am right now. But with this way I am, I have to take responsibility for my weaknesses.
And getting to overcome my weaknesses is not my spiritual master’s, not my counsellor’s problem, and it is not something which I can get rid of overnight. But with that, I have to keep mine. So how can I keep me engaged? That way, if we take up that initiative and responsibility, then we will also find out ways by which we will keep ourselves engaged.
Now, as devotees, we don’t want to be materially ambitious in terms of, I want to do this and I want to do that. But still, we have to be enterprising. You know, what are the ways in which I can say, shh, go and do it.
And then we discover that sometimes, as our movement becomes bigger and bigger, you know, the spiritual master or the authority may not have time to look at each devotee and think of the growth of each devotee. So that devotee has to take up responsibility. These are the things which I like to do.
See, in general, within an institution, a person can grow in three ways. Within an institution, a person can grow in three ways. One is that you just surrender to some senior devotee and do whatever that senior devotee has to do.
And then, by that senior devotee’s blessings and guidance and empowerment, they will grow very rapidly. That’s one way to do it. But that is not the only way to do it.
Second could be that, you know, we do something which some senior devotee wants us to do. But along with that, we also have some inspiration for doing something. And if we have blessings for doing that, then some of our services, we are doing just what we are told to do.
Some of our services, we are doing what we feel inspired by. We feel inspired is not necessarily physical. We are taking the blessings and the guidance of senior devotees for doing it.
Some devotees may feel inspired, say, to do some sort of rural community development or rural preaching. Some devotees may feel inspired for Buddhist tradition. Even if that is not the temple’s focus, if I feel inspired and it is within the broad vision of what Prabhupada is doing, that’s fine.
The third way could be, this is not in the early stages of our spiritual life, no, we just have a vision that drives us completely, and we take that up and develop that into our life. So, that is something which will take many years in our spiritual life. But that’s also something which we can do.
If you look at all the gurus in a school, they have their own distinctive moods of how they are preaching. They have spent maybe several decades to come to that. But if you see, every devotee who is successful in a school, not necessarily in material sense, but in an overall sense, that devotee has brought his own understanding of how he wants to serve society.
And that understanding was not something which was given by the authorities. It was there, by their own inspiration, by their own introspection, they tell, this is what I would like you to do. So, we cannot, we should not imagine that every single idea that comes in our mind, this is my vision of my contribution to Prabhupada.
It will take years for that to emerge. But the point is, we should be ourselves taking stock of our own experiences in Krishna consciousness to find out what are the things that we like to do. What are the things not like in a material sense, but like in the sense that they inspire us spiritually, we get absorbed in them, and we are able to do them well for Krishna’s sake.
Any other questions? Last question. Usually, regarding these questions, in progress in Bhakti, often times we see that we are advised that our questions should be more applicational. Like if we have an analytical edge over the thing, so more to draw implementation lesson or something like that.
So, is it really so? And like in addition to this, like when we study a scripture, is it that there is a way to study it? Like certain scriptures, we shouldn’t analyse them, rather look for lessons. And for certain scriptures, it’s very much required that there we should do the analysis. So often times, like in my observation, I have seen that if you reverse the things where you are not supposed to analyse, you analyse, then it’s like a little discouraging in terms of those answers to those questions and all.
Like I want to know about this, how to go about this application versus analysis. So, is scripture study meant for analysis or is it primarily meant for application? Application is important, no doubt. It is centrally important, because transformation will happen by application.
And Bhagavad Gita, the Bhagavatam are ultimately ideas for action. But then, our previous chairs have given us examples of analysis. We have an analysis, and if we have an intellectual faculty, we have to use it in Krishna’s service.
So, it will not allow us to stay at peace. Because, to some extent, it’s like Vanasura’s thousand arms, he has to do something with it. He adds those arms, he wants somebody to fight.
So if I have an intellectual propensity, I have to use it. Then I have to find out a forum by which I can use it. For some devotees, it may be writing.
Some devotees, it may be more of educational classes. Or some for devotees, it may be more of deep Shastra study. So, it will vary.
What forum we can find, we can’t say right now for that. We have to let the years pass and see Krishna’s plan unfold for that. But in general, if the intellectual propensity, intuitions are there, suppressing them is not a solution.
At least not for the long run. For some time, we may have to do that. But in the long run, there are dissatisfactions of different kinds.
In general, it is the nature of the mind to keep on dissatisfying whatever we do. We always find, this is not right, this is not right, this is not right. But there are some kinds of dissatisfaction which stay constantly.
Then, that indicates, there is a deep incompatibility. Or if not incompatibility, there is an inadequacy. Things are not adequate.
Then we have to find out where there is a need that can be addressed. So, it is very important that we have a social right-mindedness. That means, if our mental mind is analytical, then we should have the guidance and social devotees are also of an analytical brain of mind.
Ideally speaking, there has to be also some individuality to guide. Otherwise, all of us will do analysis and we will just pool our doubts together and all of us will drown in doubts. It should happen.
So, when we are discussing also, the discussion should be such that, you know, we are not just, if we are sharing our doubts, it is to dissolve the doubts. It is not to dump our doubts on others. So, this has to be done very carefully.
And in the sense, it is something natural. See, intellectual service is one service. Managing service is another service.
For example, now you are doing management. In your management project, there will be so many problems. It is not that you are going to discuss all the management problems with everybody else.
Problems are there and they are real. You have to be delicate. But if you find the right devotees to consult, you will deal with the problems.
Similarly, intellectual service is another service. Every service will have its problems. So, intellectual service, one of the main problems is resolving complex philosophical, theological issues for which there are no quick answers.
So now, these doubts that are there, these questions that are there, they are basically problems that are typical of that field. And if we are going to do service in that field, we have to deal with those problems. Those problems are not relevant for other devotees because that is not their primary service.
See, for most devotees, philosophy is one part of them. Okay, it is something you study, it is something you speak. But for some devotees, philosophy may be their central sustenance.
That is what, without philosophy there is nothing else which you might find on this. Almost like that. So, if we are in that category, or near that category, we need that kind of association.
And accordingly, we will involve that association. So, it is good to make sure that we are also thinking of applying the philosophy, but we cannot close the analytical mind entirely. Different devotees have different approaches to this.
I will just take two points over here and I will end with this. So, Ranjit Sourav told me that basically that the academic or the analytical way of study and the devotional way of study, they are two different self-contained worlds. Both have their merits and demerits.
And we cannot straddle the two worlds very easily. I cannot put one leg here and one leg there. So, if I am going to be in the devotional world, he was in the academic world earlier, then he came to the devotional world.
My primary understanding is that I have to practise for the sake of purification and transformation. And what will lead to that should be my central focus of my study. So now, with that in mind, let us say the Bhagavad Gita 5th Kind of Cosmology, that is not what is going to primarily lead to transformation.
Or for that matter, dating of the scriptures, or whether certain texts are original or they are interpolated, all these things, sexuality, sexual integrity, sexual analysis, these are not what are important. They do not lead to transformation and purification. So, if I am going to be in the devotional world, then I have to make sure that this is my focus.
And there are other issues which need to be resolved. And there are other people who will resolve it. So, if I interact with that kind of, read that kind of literature, get that kind of doubts, that will only impede me.
If I have a strong urge to do that, I can place myself in that field and then do the service accordingly also. But, once we decide to play a game, we have to play according to the rules of the game. As devotees, one of our primary categories is that we begin with the presumption of the foundation, premise of faith in Guru Sahib Ji Mahasaya.
And within that premise, we can have room for doubts. And the second part is that in general, over a period of time, we need to develop some intellectual taste which steadily nourishes us. When that happens, then the doubts that come, they will come and even if they stay, they will not eat us up.
Because basically, our intellect needs something to churn. So, if we have something satisfying intellectually to churn, then it won’t churn on the doubts. So, memorising verses, I mean, as I said, you know, I have this.
Manas not I, thousand of us. I told one devotee, I am a dry jnani, because he won’t be so proud. Jnanis are much more advanced.
Anyway, I probably told that. So, I have found the way that what I do is, I memorise verses, I memorise verse numbers, I memorise chapter numbers. Now, I may become proud by that.
But I know I am doing it to keep myself intellectually engaged. I have found ways, within the devotional life, I like to not only memorise verses, I memorise sequence of verses. Then it gives a framework for all.
So, now, for others, it is so much hard work. But for me, it’s enjoyable work. So, you know, you have to find out some way of getting intellectual taste in a safe zone between the two.
So, that if I have something intellectual to munch on, then the doubts will not be munching on me, and I won’t be munching on the doubts. So, what that will be? Very good difference as a person. In that, it may take time also to find that.
But, finding that, will bring a great sensitivity and acceptance. Thank you very much. We will continue with the 13th chapter tomorrow.