Go beyond the painkiller of karma-kanda or modern science to the curative medicine of bhakti

[Bhagavatam class at ISKCON, Alachua, USA]

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna! So this morning, we are discussing from the Srimad Bhagavatam, 11th canto, where Krishna is addressing the Yadus and asking them to go to Prabhas Chitra, receiving the blessings of all the senior devotees. And I can speak something on this section of the Bhagavatam. The Bhagavatam is coming towards its end in terms of the narrative of Krishna Leela over here.
The 10th and 11th cantos talk about Krishna Leela. And 10th canto talks primarily about Krishna Leela and 11th canto talks primarily about Krishna Shiksha. And the major part of the 11th canto is the Krishna Shiksha given by Krishna to Uddhava, the Uddhava Gita.
Prior to that, Krishna is telling the Yadus, now they have seen some inauspicious signs all around them. And he is telling them, let us go to Prabhas Chitra to counter this inauspiciousness. And for that purpose, he refers to the Puranic lore, the Puranic stories about the glory of Prabhas Chitra by which he encourages them to go to Prabhas Chitra.
So, in Krishna Leela, there is a very significant interplay of dharma, of we could say, aparadharma and paradharma. Aparadharma is we could say material religion and paradharma is transcendental religion. This contrast is especially highlighted towards the end of the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna says, Give up all varieties of religion, just surrender to me.
There are some Hindu scholars who cannot digest the idea how can God tell people to give up dharma. God has said, Krishna has said, that I come here to establish dharma. So, some of them, they say that actually over the generations when the Gita was being written down again and again, some people made a mistake in writing the Gita.
So, actually there has to be an a before Sarva Dharmaan. So, it is Sarva Adharmaan Parityajya Maam Ekam Sharanam. Actually, give up all adharma and surrender to me.
See, how can God tell us to give up dharma? But, actually speaking, if you look at the context of the Gita, Arjuna, for him, adharma was not an option only. Arjuna, his dilemma was, should I fight and do my Kshatriya Dharma or should I avoid fighting and do my Kula Dharma. Kula Dharma is protecting my dynasty.
So, for him, the two choices were of two different kinds of dharma. So, adharma was not an option for him. Krishna’s answer is, not that you give up dharma and become adharmic, rather, it says Maam Ekam Sharanam.
Adopt that dharma by which you can take shelter of me. So, Prabhupada says in a lecture, that as far as Sarva Dharmaan Parityajya was concerned, even the hippies were doing that. They had given up all duties.
Prabhupada says, I came and taught them how to do Maam Ekam Sharanam. How to surrender to Krishna. How to become devoted to Krishna, which is the Para Dharma.
So, Krishna tells Arjuna to take up Para Dharma, topmost dharma. But then, how does he take up the topmost dharma? It is not by giving up all worldly dharma. It is, Arjuna fights the war.
He is fighting. He is doing Kshatriya Dharma. So, the point of the Gita is not to necessarily reject the material for the spiritual.
Because Arjuna has to do something in this world. So, does he do Kshatriya Dharma or Kula Dharma? So, at the material level of consciousness, if Arjuna is going to choose, he says, is Kshatriya Dharma the right thing? Oh, my wife has been dishonoured. My brothers have been dispossessed.
I have to take action against the aggressors. I have to do Kshatriya Dharma. My citizens will be exploited.
I have to protect them. But then, no, no, the opposite side are my cousins. They are the children of my uncle.
My grandfather is there. How can I fight against them? It is my Kula Dharma to protect them. So, at this level, when Arjuna gets caught, should I do Kshatriya Dharma? Should I do Kula Dharma? So, the message of the Bhagavad Gita is that raise one’s consciousness to the spiritual level.
The Bhagavad Gita says, focus on how you can serve Krishna, how you can take shelter of Krishna. Make that the supreme criteria. And then in that context, taking shelter of Krishna is not just ethereal activity.
Just in the mind I am taking shelter. No, we have to do something practically in this world also. And in Arjuna’s context, for him to take shelter of Krishna was by doing his Kshatriya Dharma.
But he was not doing his Kshatriya Dharma as a Kshatriya. He was doing that Kshatriya Dharma as a devotee. So, a devotee does not necessarily reject the material for the spiritual.
A devotee accepts the spiritual and then chooses the material that serves the spiritual. So, chooses the material that serves the spiritual. And we see this again in the Ras Leela also.
At one level, when Krishna calls the Gopis, they rush out. And some people might say that it is for a woman to leave their home at night to go to some other man. That might be, that’s wrong.
But then after the whole Ras Leela gets over, at the end it is said that when the Gopis came back, their family members were not resentful because Yogmaya had created an illusion that the Gopis were there at home itself. So, what does this mean? That at one level, the Gopis are demonstrating through the Bhagavatam narrative, the Gopis are ready to give up everything for Krishna’s sake. But at the same time, Krishna is also making sure that social Dharma is preserved, that people are not disturbed.
So, in general, whenever there is education, especially there is education, we could say, spiritual education or preaching, that can be of three types. They are called as, it is called as polemic, apologetic and ironic. The words may be new, the concepts are very simple.
Polemic means what? I prove that you are wrong. So, my purpose is to prove that you are wrong. So, polemic preaching means we go on the offensive.
This is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong. Materialistic civilisation is like this, materialistic people are like that, like this, like that. All this is polemic.
The other kind of preaching is apologetic. Apologetic means I am not wrong, I am right. Some people say, you people, you believe in God, God is unscientific.
You believe in this idea of a soul, apologetic means we establish that what we are doing is right. Apologetic has nothing to do with apology, it is a different word. Apologetic simply means that to prove that I am right.
And the third is called as ironic. Ironic means that actually we both are right. So, there is some element of rightness in you also and there is some element of rightness in yours.
And let us try to find out which element may be required at different phases. And the Vedanta Sutra is actually, the third sutra is 4th sutra is Vedanta Sutra says enquire about spiritual truth. What is Brahma? Brahma is that from which everything comes.
The third is we can know from Shastra. But then, Shastra also teaches so many things. Samanyavaya, reconcile things.
The truth is to be understood through harmonisation, through reconciliation. So, for stability in any situation, there has to be reconciliation. Like a kingdom is there.
A kingdom is under attack, the kingdom will defend. Kingdom is in expansion mode, they will attack someone else. But for the kingdom to be stable, there has to be a clear demarcation.
And you have your territory, we have our territory. So, similarly, when we are practising Bhakti, we are trying to live a spiritual way in the material world. And the large, the mainstream civilisation is materialistic.
So, because of the materialistic civilisation, the materialistic education that is there, and the spiritual culture, there is a conflict between the two. And there are some areas of conflict where we point out how the materialistic ideas are wrong. There are some areas where the materialistic culture will say that you are wrong, then we will have to explain how we are right.
But overall, there has to be a balance. This is material, this is spiritual. And for functional purposes, we also have to use material things.
That with Vidya and with Avidya, together one can live fearlessly, one can go through the material existence. So, Avidya here refers not to ignorance, Avidya refers to material knowledge. So, by spiritual knowledge and by material knowledge, we can live together harmoniously in this world.
So, when we are especially cultivating, learning things, so, at that time, there is material knowledge that is given. In the scriptures, we get primarily spiritual knowledge. So, of course, there are not just clear-cut areas of jurisdiction, but there is a broad demarcation.
So, if we are clear what I am studying what for, then the conflict becomes substantially lower. So, I will explain what I mean by this. Once a group of ten children, they came to a, from a small town, they came to a city.
They wanted to go around and see the city. So, they decided the city has a big building. So, we will go and stay.
We want to stay in the biggest building. Then we will tell everyone we stayed in such a big building. So, they found there was a hotel that was a hundred story.
So, they went right to the hundred story, hundred floor and when they came back in the evening, they found, they found that actually there was no power in the hotel. That meant now they have to climb up hundred floors. So, one of them got an idea.
So, he said, let us tell stories to each other. He says, you know, I will tell one story and then you can tell another story. And like that, if all of us tell stories, each of us can tell stories for 10-10 levels and by the time we reach the 100th level, we will forget the burden because we will be entertained by the stories.
And all of them started telling stories, first person, first boy, second boy, first child, second child, third child. Like that they all started telling and some of them told a little longer stories. So, by the time they came to the 95th level, at that time the 9th person completed the story and then it all turned to the 10th person.
Tell your story. He says, no, I cannot tell my story. So, please tell.
He said, we all told. He says, no, my story is a tragedy. If I tell the story, it will break your heart.
He says, no, no, please tell. They are talking, they are climbing up also. Two and four, no, I will not tell.
Tell, I will not tell. They came to 99th, finally the 100th floor. This last person said, now I have to tell you my story.
He says, I have forgotten the key downstairs. I have forgotten the key downstairs. So, the whole purpose of climbing up is to go into the room and for that the key is essential.
But they got so caught up in entertaining each other or first thinking, oh, how difficult it is to climb up and finding a way to amuse themselves while climbing up, they have forgotten, they have to have the key with us. So, modern materialistic education is like climbing up the 100th floor without having the key. Without having the key.
So, what happens is that, yes, while living in the world, there are a lot of things to be done and just like the children actually climb up the 100th floor. There is no denying that they went up. So, similarly, today if we see in the world, especially most modern education is shaped by science and science has ascended substantially on the, we could say, the tower of knowledge.
We know a lot of things which say a few hundred years ago people did not know. So, there is no denying the fact that there is substantial, in some ways dramatic advancement of knowledge and this knowledge has resulted in some things. If you see originally Socrates and Plato, they were Greek philosophers and their idea was knowledge is virtue.
Knowledge is virtue means the purpose of knowledge is so that we can develop good qualities. But as science started progressing, one of the prominent thinkers who shaped the trajectory of science was Francis Bacon and he said, knowledge is power. So, the idea is knowledge is power means when we talk about virtue, virtue refers to changing ourselves internally so that we become better.
The idea of knowledge is power was that we try to control the outer world and the whole idea was nature out there is bad. See, traditionally, whether it is the east or the west, the understanding was nature is like a mother. But as through the progress of science and its result technology, people tried to control nature more and more and to some extent there was success, some extent there was failure.
So, the relationship with nature was to control. And there are thinkers, Francis Bacon himself and thinkers of his time, they said, actually nature is not a mother. She is a stepmother.
She is so cruel and she causes so much suffering to us. And in fact, one of the later thinkers, he said, actually nature is not even a stepmother. Nature is a whore.
If you don’t control her, she will cause havoc to everyone. And the way to control her is through technology, through the power of technology. So, the idea was when we say knowledge is power, the focus shifts entirely to controlling the external.
And, so today’s education, it practically offers very little guidance about how to control the inner world or what the ultimate purpose of life is. So, Werner Heisenberg, there is a conversation between Werner Heisenberg and Albert Einstein. Our modern western civilisation, it is like a magnificent ship.
It has fuel, it has facilities, it has comforts, it has crew. But, it has no map and no destination. It has no map and no destination.
It doesn’t know where it is to go and it doesn’t know how to go there. So, in terms of the ultimate purpose of life, there it is very difficult to get knowledge from the, from modern scientific education. So, basically three things are there, origin, value and purpose.
Purpose means, what am I supposed to ultimately achieve in life? Like going up the tree, up the building, what is the purpose of going up there? I am climbing up there for what? What is the ultimate purpose? So, that is not known. Value means, okay, what is right and what is wrong? What should not be done, what should not be done? There is very little education about that also. And origin, where did everything come from? That is not known.
So, now, here, why am I talking about all this in relationship with Prabhash’s, Krishna telling Arjuna to go, Krishna telling the Yadus to go to Prabhash? Actually, here we see a material, some material signs of disaster are coming. That there is some inauspiciousness coming and Krishna is telling them, okay, go here and do this. Take this bath over here, by which? He gives some stories, in the past also somebody was cursed, the moon was cursed and the curse was mitigated by bathing in Prabhash.
Similarly, we have been cursed, but we can also mitigate the curse by bathing in Prabhash. So, the idea is that there is, in the past, we started by talking about paradharma and aparadharma. Paradharma is spiritual, transcendental religion.
Aparadharma is material religion. So, material religion comprised of dharma-arthakama. The idea was, we all need some material facilities for living in this world and those material facilities, in the past, people got through their religion and by getting those material facilities, people would move forward in their lives.
In today’s world, Prabhupada writes also in the first canto, first, second purpose itself, that whereas in the past, people would get artha through dharma, people have now given up dharma and people are getting artha simply through industrial development, through socio-economic planning. I think that is the way to get artha. So, artha means financial growth.
So, in many ways, the purpose that was served by aparadharma, aparadharma is material religion, the purpose that was served by aparadharma in the past is served by modern science-based technology in today’s world. In the past, if somebody has a disease, then you go to a okay, chant some mantra or do some ritual by which the disease will go away. This is especially, science is often thought of as a very intellectual field.
It is, definitely intelligence is used in science. But if we see in terms of purpose, so if we see in the Vedic context, there is karma, there is jnana and there is bhakti. So, karma is, the way this is to be understood is that karma, the purpose is to, as karma romanticises the world means, oh, if you just adjust this, if you just adjust this, everything will be wonderful in life.
So, karma, karma kanda involves romanticising the world. Jnana kanda, jnana demonises the world. Everything is terrible over here, everything is temporary, everything is suffering, everything is illusion, just have to get out of here.
The process of bhakti goes beyond both of this, neither romanticising, nor demonising, but utilising. Bhakti doesn’t romanticise the world. Romanticise means, just make some adjustments, everything will become wonderful.
And, demonising means, actually this world is useless, everything is miserable. But we have to live in this world, for most of us we have to live in this world. Bhakti says, actually we have to use this world.
So, interestingly, that this idea, this world, romanticising the world means what? We think that this world is a place where we can become happy if we make some adjustments. So, in karma kanda, the adjustments that are thought of are religious adjustments. In today’s world, the adjustments that are thought of are technological adjustments.
Just bear up this technology, if you just make this a reality, if you just do this, then we’ll become happy. In fact, there is a whole field of scientific and technological development which is called as transhumanism. What is this transhumanism? The idea is, they say that humanity is faced with problems.
And we want to solve these problems. And it’s striking, the problems they talk about are, there is old age, there is disease, there is death, and there is birth. You have to solve these problems.
Of course, for them birth is, not literally birth in the middle existence, for them birth is birth control. They want to do abortion. But the point is, old age, disease, it is similar.
So the idea is that, the same problems are talked about, but the hope is, through technological advancement, we will solve these problems. But these problems cannot be solved because matter by nature itself is temporary. So, coming back to this section, how I am relating science with what Krishna is telling, scientific education or technology, with this, what Krishna is talking about over here is, that there is material and there is spiritual.
There is Aparavidya and there is Paravidya. There is Aparadharma and there is Paradharma. So, this combination is, in a rough sense, we could say, if a patient is very sick, the patient, is very sick and is in great pain.
Now for the patient to be cured, the patient needs a curative medicine, say a proper antibiotic, or a surgery, or whatever. The curative medicine is required. But the curative medicine, often takes time.
Time to heal. Now, while the curative medicine is being taken, at that time, for the patient to be able to cope with the pain, sometimes some painkillers are also given. So, the pain medicine is not the cure.
But sometimes it can give the person, the patients, to endure as the cure starts working. So, when we say, Vidyam cha vidyam cha ya sadvedo bhayamsah. Vishwa Upanishad says that, with material knowledge and with spiritual knowledge, one will go beyond material existence.
So, material knowledge is like the painkiller. Spiritual knowledge is like the actual medicine. So, the painkiller, if the pain is a lot, the painkiller is essential.
And, the painkiller will be essential. But by no means, even if it is necessary, is it sufficient. In some cases, it may not be necessary.
Some diseases of the pain might not be so much that a painkiller is required. But the whole point is, the painkiller is not important. The important thing is, take the medicine.
The medicine, the curative medicine, is what is going to cure the person. So now, the painkiller medicine part, to some extent in the past, was served by the functions of dharma, artha, kama. By the aparadharma that was there.
Whatever worldly needs are there, they are taken care of through the painkillers. And those very needs, today, are taken care of through science and technology. The immediate material needs that are there, that technology is taking care of that.
There can be two extremes. One is, that somebody thinks, oh, I take this painkiller, my pain goes away. So, the painkiller is all that I need.
Why should I take this medicine? So, if somebody does that, that is the idea where people do karma kanda and they think there is no need for Vedanta, there is no need for bhakti. Krishna talks about karma. Those who are addicted to karma kanda only, Krishna says that they are foolish, avipashchika.
They are like patients who take only the painkiller. Similarly, there are people who feel that, just through, people feel that, just through science and technological advancement, we will solve all problems. There is no need for God, there is no need for spirituality, that is one extreme which is an illusion.
Material things will not lead to any lasting solutions. The painkiller can never cure the disease. So, to think that the painkiller alone is enough is a mistake.
But on the other extreme, to think that I will take only the medicine and I will not touch the painkiller only. Well, that is not necessary. In some cases, where the disease is very painful, the painkiller may be needed.
So, the problem is not taking the painkiller. The problem is taking only the painkiller. So, similarly, in whatever situation we are in, say today we are in the modern material world, at this time, for functioning here, technology is required.
Now, which painkiller a particular patient takes, if the painkiller is basically serving the purpose of alleviating the pain, then which painkiller the person is taking is not as important as whether the person is taking the medicine or not. As long as the person is taking the medicine and for that he is taking the medicine, for dealing with the pain, some painkiller is required. Whether from this company, that company, as long as it helps in dealing with the pain, that is good enough.
So, like that, for us as devotees, when we are trying to practise bhakti in this world, the most important thing is that we practise bhakti. We chant Hare Krishna and we grow spiritually. This is what will help us to achieve life’s ultimate goal.
This is what will help us to actually find happiness within. And while we are living in this world, we may need a painkiller. So, even if we take it as, even if we use scientific technology, the facilities provided by that, as long as we understand this is not a source of answers to ultimate questions.
The painkiller is not the cure for the disease. So, the whole methodology of science is that it doesn’t look for ultimate questions. Now, some scientists may extrapolate science beyond its jurisdiction and claim that science provides ultimate answers.
But science actually does not go towards ultimate questions at all. Science only looks at functional things. Okay, how does the world exist right now? How does the world function right now? I’ll conclude with one example of how science does not look for ultimate answers.
Science is not authorised to give ultimate answers. And, then we can have some question-answer discussion. Many of you may have read some mystery novels.
Now, if they find that in a particular room there is a person who has been murdered and have to find out who murdered that person. Okay, at 9 o’clock in the morning somebody went there this person was alive. 3 o’clock when somebody went there, he was dead.
Now, you look at the camera. Who all look at the camera at the door to see who all went inside the house. So, actually three people went inside.
One was a 5-year-old boy. He could not have he didn’t have enough strength to put the knife into the the person has been killed with a knife. He could not have put in the knife.
Then, there is a 75-year-old grandmother. She also could not have put the knife. Then, there is a 22-year-old butler, the attendant.
He also went inside. He must have killed. So, now, when investigators investigate like this and they conclude, okay, this butler must have killed this owner of the house.
Now, is it something that is proven? No, you cannot tell a murderer, you know, we want to prove that you murdered, so please come and murder in front of us once again. The crime cannot be replicated. And when some inference, so this is in all detective fiction, you know, in all kinds of investigation, it’s actually an inference.
And it’s an inference to the best explanation. That, it’s called IDEA. I’ll talk about how this applies to science.
It’s an inference to the best explanation. Okay, in this, this, he could not, the boy could not have done, the grandmother could not have done, therefore, this man must have done. But this inference is always a guesswork.
Because the investigators may not know that in that house itself, in the closet, there is a trap door. And that trap door goes out into the garden and there is an opening over there. And the murderer came in through that tunnel, through the trap door, killed, and went back again to the trap door.
So when we make any inference, the inference is made based on the available knowledge. And if there is something else involved, and if you don’t know that, the inference can be totally wrong. An innocent person can be punished.
So, what is the point of all this detective fiction? Example, the point is that in science, when it studies the world, so science normally, most of you in science, you do experiments. So when you do experiments, the idea is, okay, Newton saw a fruit falling. Last year, when I went to UK, I gave a talk in Cambridge University.
So they always took me by the tree where Newton said to have seen the fruit falling. It’s like a pilgrimage place for scientists. So, now, instead of Newton, if at that time a monkey had been sitting over there, what would the monkey have done? The monkey would just pick up the fruit, eaten it and gone its way.
Newton was intelligent. He asked, what made this fruit fall? And that’s how the theory of gravity came out. So the point is that with respect to theory of gravity, it’s about how this world functions.
We can do experiments and repeat things. most of the science works by repeated experiments, repeatable experiments. So this is the jurisdiction of science where it works quite well.
How the world functions right now in terms of laws, there are repeatable experiments possible. But when science starts enquiring about origins, where everything came from, how the universe came about, how life came about, there is no repeatable experiment over there. So normal science, when it functions, it uses the method of induction.
Induction means do the same experiment again and again and again and then repeat and therefore come to a theory. But when it comes to origins, science uses a different methodology. That is called the same method that investigators use for investigating a crime.
This was here, this was here, this was here, therefore this is how it came about. And so any scientific theory about origins, it is guess work. It is like an inference to best explanation.
And that’s why it is never as reliable as any other scientific theory. So the point is that whenever there is any conflict, we will see that the point is that if it we consider science simply as a tool for acquiring knowledge here. Then in the past we have seen Krishna telling people to do aparadharma.
You go and take a bath over here, by this the curse will go away. So similarly today people may use science and technology for dealing with some problems. But that is simply the painkiller.
The important thing is not whether we take a painkiller or not or which painkiller we take. The important thing is that we take the medicine. So is there a conflict between the painkiller and the medicine? Not necessarily.
The conflict can happen if people say painkiller only is enough and medicine is not required. Or people think take only the medicine, you are not allowed to take the painkiller. Then there is a conflict.
But if you understand, painkiller serves this purpose, the curative medicine serves that purpose. And then both can be harmonised. Similarly if you understand that I am practising spiritual life to grow spiritually, to learn to love Krishna, to become a better person.
A better person is the service of Krishna. Then, and for living in this world, for functioning in this world, I may use various things. In the past people may have used various, in the past people cured themselves through Ayurveda.
Now we may cure ourselves through Ayurveda. The point is that not how I cure my body, but the point is what I use my body for. So spiritual knowledge is primarily about the purpose, what we are using our body for.
And that purpose if we keep in mind, then the conflict can be substantially minimised. And we use material knowledge, whatever is available for the purpose of functioning in this world. And we use spiritual knowledge for going towards Krishna.
So the way I often put this is that, that science and technology, they can make things better. So science can make things better. Spirituality can make people better.
You know, to develop qualities, knowledge as virtue, not knowledge as power. That knowledge cannot come through science. Ultimately to develop virtues, the supreme virtue of love for Krishna, that will come only through the practise of bhakti.
So here Krishna is telling the other one, okay, you are facing this curse, go and do this. It will solve the problem. So at this level, if we see the Bhagavatam, will ultimately show that the solution is bhakti.
Parikshit Maharaj, he doesn’t resort in his situation to any material relief. Doesn’t try to counter curse, doesn’t try to defend, just take shelter of Krishna. But we see Arjuna, he decides to fight.
And for fighting, he uses the knowledge of dhanurvindya, the archery which he has used. So in different times, place, circumstances, we may choose to use material knowledge, we may choose not to use material knowledge. And which material knowledge we may choose to use, that may also vary.
But the important thing is our scriptural understanding determines the spiritual purpose of our life. And we focus on achieving that purpose. So I’ll summarise.
I talked here about the section of Krishna telling the Yadus to go to Prabhas to bathe so that they can counter the curse. So the countering curse with activity like bathing in a sacred river. That is basically a material solution to a material problem, dharmic material solution.
But since it’s aparadharma, it’s not paradharma. And I talked about how in the bhakti literature there is this, there is this dynamic interrelationship between aparadharma and paradharma. Krishna tells Arjuna sarvadharma and parityajya.
Give up all aparadharma and just surrender to me. But for surrendering, Arjuna has to adopt in this world when he is functioning some aparadharma. He adopts the aparadharma of Kshatriya.
But he doesn’t think of himself as a Kshatriya fighter. He thinks, understand that I am a soul doing Kshatriya activity right now in the service of Krishna. So the function that aparadharma served in the past, that is operating in this world, living in this world in a harmonious way, in many ways that function is today served through science and technology.
So, whereas in the past, in the east or the west, knowledge was seen as meant for virtue. The science and technology based ethos of knowledge focused on knowledge as power. So instead of controlling, instead of making ourselves better by controlling our inner emotions, inner drives, the whole purpose of education began controlling the external world so that we can enjoy better.
So although science involves intellectual aspects to it, but its purpose is very much materialistic to enjoy this world. So in that sense, science is not like jnana, it is more like karma. Karma romanticises the world.
We just adjust some things, we’ll become happy over it. Jnana demonises this world. This world is hopeless, get out of here.
Bhakti utilises the world. So science also is like romanticising the world. It is like karma.
I talked about transhumanism. It says through technological advancement we’ll solve problems like old age, disease, death and birth. And to understand the relationship between the aparavidya and paravidya, which is the metaphor of a person who is sick, the aparavidya, the material knowledge is like painkiller.
The spiritual knowledge is like a curative medicine. And both can be in harmony. So when there is preaching, it can be polemic, you are wrong, apologetic, I am right, ironic, you know, both of us have our points of rightness.
So there are occasions when we may need to be polemic or apologetic. But for sustainable practise of bhakti, we need to understand this ironic zone. Okay, this is the area where I use painkiller for controlling the medicine and the curative medicine is where I use for healing the medicine.
So like that for functioning in this world, we will need some material knowledge. Whether it is, say for example, Ayurveda for curing my body or whether it is allopathy. Whether it is some Vedic kind of knowledge or whether it is Vedic material knowledge or whether it is contemporary scientific knowledge.
If you understand its purpose is a painkiller, then that is good enough. You can use painkiller from any source. The problem comes when people think the painkiller alone is enough or the painkiller will cure the disease.
So when you start thinking that science and technology alone can give me all knowledge, it can solve all problems, that it can answer ultimate questions, then it becomes a problem. So I discussed through the example of this investigative fiction, that science, it can answer reliably through repeated experiments about how things work right now. When it comes to origins, it is very speculative.
It is like guesswork, inference to best explanation. That is why it is not very reliable. So the painkiller, if people think painkiller alone is enough, they are mistaken.
But while people understand the need to take the medicine, now whether they take a painkiller or they don’t take a painkiller or which painkiller do they take, that is not a big issue. So we can focus primarily on practising bhakti, which is the real medicine, and whatever material arrangements we make, we need, we make them and move on with our devotional life. So whichever painkiller works best for us, we take it so that we can focus on the medicine.
And to conclude the difference of jurisdiction is that this painkiller just controls the pain and the disease is healed by the medicine. Like that, technology can make things better in the external world to some extent. But it is spirituality which makes people better, which ultimately enables us to love Krishna and attain lasting happiness.
Thank you very much. Hare Krishna. Any comments, questions? Yes.
You mentioned also three things that I didn’t quite capture. One of the three was purpose. Yeah.
What were those three things? So what were the three things that science cannot tell us about? That’s origin, value and purpose. Origin means where I came from, where everything came from. That is something which is beyond the jurisdiction of science because the origin is not a repeatable thing.
It happened once. Value means values. Now what is right, what is wrong? So ethical decisions is something which science cannot tell us to do.
Science can tell us that okay, if there is an embryo in the womb, you put this medicine, the embryo will be killed. But whether to do that or not, that we have to know from somewhere else. So value.
Right and wrong. And purpose means what is the ultimate goal of life. Origin, value and purpose, that is something which science cannot tell us.
For that we need scripture. Okay. Okay.
Go ahead. Okay. Thank you.
One of the first reflections that I have. So for so many years I have always thought that it is not enough time in life. Life is often feels like it is too long, not too short.
And God loves me and the pain that I have to be able to have lasted my life. I have a question. It seems that society is trying to find what it means to keep the medicine going and to keep it working at the same time to keep the appropriate people to be able to hold out for the work or whatever it might take.
And I have a question. I have a the point is that there is nothing inherently transcendental about the practise of Ayurveda. The purpose can be transcendental, but the practise itself is not transcendental.
So there can be people who were taking non-veg as a part of Ayurvedic practise, recommending it and taking it. So it is not inherently spiritual. It is spiritualizable, but that way allopathy is also spiritualizable, in the sense that it can be used for a spiritual purpose.
So the problem comes when we, Siddhartha Prabhu writes in one of his articles that there is often in the field of science non-scientific extrapolation of scientific data. There is scientific data, but it is extrapolated beyond its jurisdiction. That means that, okay, science can tell me how things function over here right now.
But from that, when some scientists start saying that how the universe came about or whether God exists or not, this is completely non-scientific extrapolation of scientific data. Now some atheists may do it, or sometimes we may also do it in an unwitting way. Then I start thinking, this phone, it works so well.
I just press one, a few buttons, and I can talk with anyone, any part of the world. If this phone works so well, and this phone has been made by scientists, and scientists say everything came from a Big Bang, how can they be wrong? But the two, say the phone is working and everything coming from a Big Bang, these are two very different categories. Although both may be considered scientific, but they are very different levels of science.
So, if we ourselves do not make that mistake, we do not extrapolate the credibility of science derived from working in one area to other areas of science, then we will not fall into any misconception. So that way, some devotees may recommend or even insist on Ayurveda, and maybe based on their experiences, they may have had problems with allopathy and Ayurveda has helped them. So that is fine.
But for some other devotees, Ayurveda just takes too much time and it’s not working for them. They may take allopathy and that works for them. So this way, just as I give the example of Ayurveda and allopathy, it is something which is left to the individual.
Now if we are following a particular spiritual guide, a spiritual leader, and they have a particular vision, we can try to understand their vision and we can, if possible, harmonise with that purpose. But that’s not essential. So for example, there are some devotees, they think we should live away from the cities.
We should live very close to nature, harmoniously with nature. That is good. But is it essential? Some of us may feel it is essential and that feeling is perfectly valid.
But for some of us, if say we have lived in cities with all city comforts, and then we go to a village where, or a rural setting where there is no electricity, where there is no internet, we feel like a nightmare. I met one sannyasi, he was telling me that a sannyasi needs only two things. He needs prasad and Wi-Fi.
So, you know, even those who renounce the world, they need the technological gadgets. So what happens is, it is very difficult to live without these things. So, for those who can live without it, it is wonderful.
But those who can’t, we don’t have to mandate it. Bhakti doesn’t have to be made more difficult than it needs to be. It needs to be difficult in the sense that we have to give up sense gratification, we have to direct our heart towards Krishna.
The process of purification requires effort. But if somebody has lived in the city throughout their life, they are told, oh, you have to go and live in a village. That is not essential for practising bhakti.
If somebody is already fed up with living in a city and they want to go to a village, they welcome it and it is good to facilitate them. So, to tell them you have to live in a city, that may be making life difficult for them, unnecessarily difficult for them. So, the point of this whole discussion, of this class was that we needn’t make the practise of bhakti more difficult than what it needs to be for people.
On my website, people ask questions. So, one devotee scientist asked this question, he says that, you know, I am a scientist, I am a researcher and I see devotees criticise science so much. But he says, can’t I have a healthy respect for my profession while I am practising bhakti? So, then I showed a conversation of Prabhupada to him, where Prabhupada says, you know, we are not against the knowing spirit of science.
We are not against the exploring spirit of science. We are against the atheism. Now, science is not inherently atheistic.
It may be extrapolated to atheism. So, if somebody is doing scientific research, let them do that. They can do that.
But if they are thinking, by this we have proven God doesn’t exist, that’s wrong. We have issues with that. So, if we understand the jurisdiction properly, what I am doing for what purpose, then conflict can be minimised and bhakti doesn’t have to be made more difficult than it needs to be.
So, for somebody who has lived always studying science, teaching science, researching science, living science practically, if then we tell them you have to reject all science totally to practise bhakti. That’s not necessary. What has to be rejected is the idea that science can give us absolute knowledge.
If that idea is rejected and anybody who has seriously studied science, they know. There is a famous scientist who said that the more I study science, the less I trust scientific theories. There is John Wheeler who said, there are so many cosmological theories that come up.
John Wheeler is a physicist. So, he said, one of his students came to him. Sir, there are so many theories, this superstring theory, this theory, that theory.
How do I keep track of all these theories? He says, don’t worry. He says, cosmological theories are like a, they are like a bus. Like a bus, if you miss one, another one is soon coming.
So, that’s why you don’t need to aggravate the conflict. Does that answer your question? Thank you. Yes, please.
I find that scientists tend to be more introverted than they are religious people. Like I said, they tend to be more introverted. You can copy all these theories.
Okay. So, is it that when people enter more and more into science, they become more and more atheistic? There have been many surveys done about this. And overall, it has been found that among the scientific profession, there are the number of people who are believers and number of people who are non-believers.
It is more or less same, 50%. Stephen Jay Gould was a scientist. He said that science can be made compatible with belief in God, it can be made compatible with disbelief in God, both ways.
So, if that were not true, he says 50% of my colleagues would be crazy. See, science is a tool for acquiring knowledge. And it doesn’t look for ultimate questions.
And the problem comes when people don’t recognise the jurisdiction of science. So, when people think that through science, I can answer all questions, then it becomes a problem. But there are scientists themselves who recognise that actually science cannot answer all questions.
Science simply looks for material explanations for material phenomena. That is the essential methodology of science. We look for material explanations for material phenomena.
Now, whether there are some non-material phenomena or not, or there is a non-material explanation or not, that is simply beyond the jurisdiction of science. It is like, I will give an example to illustrate this. Suppose, somebody throws a fishing net into a pond to catch fish.
And the fishing net has holes of 1 inch by 1 inch. Then, all fish that are smaller than the size of 1 inch by 1 inch, they will all slip out. Even if that person keeps the fishing net there for 1000 years, they will never catch a fish that is smaller than 1 inch by 1 inch in size.
So, similarly, science, it casts a net at the world, at the universe to catch knowledge. But the net that it casts, that net looks primarily for material explanations for material phenomena. So, non-material explanations slip out.
Now, whether the scientific net has to be materialistic or not, that is the issue of discussion, which can be done. But science should also be open minded, science should also look for non-material explanations. That is true.
And that is a different discussion. But the way science functions right now in the world, it looks for material explanations for material phenomena. Now, Srila Prabhupada was very critical when science started, when people started, people believed science’s answers to ultimate questions.
So, if people believe because of science there is no God, because of science there is no soul, Prabhupada would strongly criticise science for that. But as far as science itself is concerned inherently, that it does not, so, if one goes deeper into science, then I think it is Blaise Pascal who said that a little of science, a little drink of science takes one towards atheism, but immersions in science brings one back to God, brings one back to God. So, in that sense, it is possible if one does science and uncritically gets enamoured by science, adopts not just the scientific methodology, but the scientific worldview.
The methodology is to look for material explanations for material phenomena. But the worldview is to think that there is nothing non-material existing only. So, if one moves from the methodology to the worldview and uncritically accepts that worldview, then people will become atheistic.
But there have been many great scientists who have been atheistic, but most of the pioneers of modern science were atheistic. And even now there are atheistic scientists. So, the important thing is to not get enamoured by this worldview that science is offering us.
The methodology is something which we may use when it is necessary. Does that answer your question? Yes, sir. Q. If you make the statement that origin, purpose and value can’t be given by science, of course, that’s true.
But if you think, from the point of view that the word science here in Latin means to love. K. No, correct. Q. So, from that point of view, the so-called scientific community needs to be renamed.
K. Okay. Q. And then misleading, because it’s the grammatical community who is actually scientific. K. Yeah.
Q. They know that purpose, value and value. And as you were saying, by Bravo and by the people, it says that the so-called leaders are not actually leaders, they are impostors. So, I think, you know, from our point of view, it would be good if we could rename the so-called scientific community.
K. Yeah, good point. So, the word science means to know, whereas we see that science as it exists now, it does not use proper knowledge, knowledge about origin, value, purpose. So, shouldn’t we remain science as so-called science and spiritual, the devotees, they are the actual real scientists? Yes, that’s true.
In fact, there is increasingly a differentiation between science and scientism. Scientism is scientific imperialism. Science made into an ideology.
And scientism is the idea that science can give all knowledge and science alone can give all knowledge. So, basically, when science puts on a hallow of omniscience around it, and a hallow of omniscience, that science can do everything, that is scientism, that is not science. And the biggest problem, the fundamental problem is scientism.
That science can give us all knowledge. This proposition itself is unscientific. Because how can anyone, what is the scientific experiment to prove that science can give all knowledge? So, the point which I am making is, again, this is a nomenclature, Newton himself never called himself a scientist.
He used to call himself a natural theologian or natural philosopher. It was in the 18th century, towards the end of the 18th century that the word scientist started being used for the people who are researching into nature and its workings. So, yeah, it is not an accurate word.
And we can try to change the usage of the word also over a period of time. But sometimes words have some functional meanings. And trying to fight the usage of that word becomes a big battle in itself.
So, you may just use that word and point out the limitation. Actually, Prabhupada, he used the word avatar, he used the word incarnation. And the word incarnation, if you see it has a root karma, karma means flesh.
And the word incarnation was used originally for Jesus. Jesus is, there are Christian ideas, God descended as his son and God came in flesh. So, incarnation literally means to come in flesh.
That is how we have the word reincarnation, to come again in flesh. Now, Prabhupada used the word incarnation, but Prabhupada made it clear that actually Krishna does not come in a material body. So, there are terms and there are concepts.
Concepts are mental, terms are verbal. So, if you consider like there is a big suitcase and the suitcase is like the concept. The handle for moving the suitcase is the term.
So, terms gives a handle to the suitcase. To the suitcase there is a concept. Sometimes the same suitcase may have two, three different handles also.
And the important thing is that we may try to rename the term. That can be done. But the important thing is to understand, make sure that this handle is attached to this suitcase, this handle is not attached to that suitcase.
So, make sure what the concept underlying is being talked about. So, if you clarify the concept, then things will move onwards. Thank you.
This is a question from my son. Yes. How do we reconcile seeming contradictions between Shoka and Shuddhasa Pranayama? In other words, the difference between scientific observations, what is the difference between Shuddhasa and what we mean by the Shuddhasa Pranayama? Such as? Have you given an example? I don’t remember.
It’s not here. Okay. Yeah.
For example, you said that we are within this universe, right? This universe is encircled by a mountain. But there we’re seeing so many stars. And those stars are considered solid.
I got the point, yeah. So, how do we reconcile differences between, or contradictions between knowledge got from science and knowledge got from scripture? First of all, you know, even in science it is understood that actually what we call as scientific facts, they are actually seen within the context of a theory. So, what that means is that when we say something is scientific knowledge, it is knowledge within a particular framework, in a particular way of looking at things.
And in the 11th canto, when Uddhava Gita is being discussed, whereas the Sankhya section is discussed. So, you know, in Sankhya normally we analyse the material world into 24 elements. But there are other places where the material world is analysed into 12 elements.
Sometimes it is analysed into 16 elements. Sometimes it is analysed into 20 elements. And there in Chakravarthi Pada in one of his purports, in Uddhava Gita says that actually Krishna is pleased by the creativity of the sages in analysing this material world in different ways.
Analysing sometimes 24 elements, sometimes 16 elements. It’s pleased with the creativity. So, the point is this material world can be analysed in different ways.
So, science analyses the material world from one perspective and a scripture analyses the material world from a significantly different perspective. So, because of this, the perspective is being different, the way we see things will naturally be different. So, I gave an example of Ayurveda and allopathy itself earlier.
Ayurveda has the whole idea of Digestifier, of Kapha Vata Pitta. Allopathy does not have that concept. So, how does it work? It works because there are two different ways of looking at things.
Both work in their own ways. There are two different ways of looking at things. So, broadly I have, this will take a long time, but broadly the contradiction between science and scripture can be reconciled in three ways.
One is that science may be incorrect. The second is science may be incomplete. And the third is that the two come from different perspectives.
The two are looking from different perspectives. So, now which particular possibility applies? That we’ll have to see specifically. So, for example, you know, according to science, is sun the only source of, there are so many stars.
Are the stars planets? Are the stars also having their own source of light? So, now that is a matter of terminology. It’s a matter of semantics. And Siddhartha Prabhu explains in his Cosmography also that actually modern science considers that which gives warm source of light.
That has luminance. And that, but there can be different sources of light also. And Vishnu Sahasranam says that the Lord is a source of nine different sources of light.
So, we have to look at the exact term, exact concept and then we’ll find that actually what’s there seems contradictory. It is in many cases reconcilable. So, specifically which contradiction it is that we may have to check on time, place, circumstance.
The important thing is that if we understand the jurisdiction, many of these contradictions can be reconciled. So, on my website I have a full lecture on this topic. Are science and spirituality, are science and scripture at war with each other? So, there I analyse specific concepts and specific examples we can analyse.
But the broad principle is if we have a specific field, this is contradictory, we can consult those devotees who are learned in that field and take up the specific contradiction and see how it can be addressed. Yes, Madhuri? My question is thank you for your talk. I guess.
There is a term saying that there is just a light at the end. And my question is what is the internal experience of Bhakti in relation to karma, karmic, and Bhakti. I’m thinking sometimes I believe where I’m using you said Bhakti is about realising the service of Krishna.
So, sometimes I believe in myself and taking what I’m going to use maybe the ashram of marriage or some experience of emotional service as a paid cure. And if it doesn’t work as a paid cure according to my conception, then there is the feeling of terror it’s all misery and worry and I need to get out of here. So, my question is what is the proper understanding of the internal experience of Bhakti.
Yeah. So, when we want to progress towards Bhakti, we use various things for growing towards Bhakti. And what is the relationship of karma and jnana with Bhakti.
For example, somebody will say I only want to practise Bhakti. So, if say in the karma, the ashram of marriage. So, marriage is not working for me, it’s not working as a paid cure.
Anyway, it’s a paid cure only. Let me just give it up and let me practise Bhakti. So, yes.
So, now two different things. There is there is renunciation and there is frustration. So, what is the difference between the two? Renunciation means there is no desire to enjoy.
Frustration means there is inability to enjoy. So, now sometimes frustration can lead to renunciation. When you are unable to enjoy, just let me give up the whole thing.
But frustration alone is not renunciation. So, what will lead to renunciation is purification. And purification requires the practise of a process diligently.
So, if you say renunciation is here, frustration is here. Sometimes we may renounce the world simply because we are frustrated. Like in college preaching, sometimes there are boys whom we try to invite for programmes and they don’t come.
And they come very occasionally. And then one day the boy comes and says, I want to become a brahmachari. He says, what happened? You are not even coming for a programme and you want to become a brahmachari.
No, my girlfriend left me for some other boy. So, I decided to become a brahmachari now. Well, just your girlfriend leaving you doesn’t qualify you to become a brahmachari.
You have to have attraction to Krishna, commitment to Sir Krishna. Only then somebody can become a brahmachari. So, we may see frustration as an impetus for renunciation.
But that kind of renunciation will never last. For it to last, what is required is purification and the commitment to practise the process of purification. So, now in today’s world, so, going back a little further, that when I started by talking about the difference between renunciation and frustration is the unwillingness to enjoy is renunciation.
The inability to enjoy is frustration. So, today in today’s culture, many people are opposed to commitment of any kind. There is aversion to commitment.
And aversion to commitment is not detachment. See, basically, aversion to commitment means the mind has many proposals for enjoying. And I think that if I commit to one way of enjoying, then I lose the other ways of enjoying.
So, let me keep all options open. So, basically, we are having still a lot of faith in the mind’s promises of enjoyment. In fact, we have so much faith in the mind’s promises of enjoyment that we want to be open to all its promises.
So, whereas when there is detachment, we have lost faith in the mind’s promises of enjoyment. That’s why aversion to commitment and detachment are two very separate things. So, when we are going to practise bhakti in this world, the process of bhakti requires commitment.
And somebody who has made a habit of being averse to commitment, they will not be able to commit themselves to bhakti also. So, if a person enters into a relationship and has a use and throw attitude towards the relationship, you know, okay, ultimately I’m going to practise bhakti only. This relationship is not working, let me give it up.
But then, not working means what? Mind is finding it unpalatable. So, I want to give it up. What will you do tomorrow if the mind starts practising bhakti? Mind starts finding bhakti itself unpalatable.
We’ll give that up also. So, we cannot have, when we talk about a utilitarian attitude towards things, utilitarian attitude means that that which can be used in Krishna should be used in Krishna. But while it is being used, we have to commit ourselves to it.
We have to commit ourselves to it. We cannot just, the growth in spiritual life primarily comes through commitment. So, commitment we need for our sustained practise of bhakti.
And even if we are doing some service in this world, we need commitment in that service. So, grahasthashram requires commitment. And without that commitment, we develop a habit of aversion to commitment.
And that habit will hurt us terribly in our spiritual life also. So, especially serious activity or activity that involves serious commitment like marriage, it should be entered very thoughtfully and this should be entered not with the idea of, if it doesn’t work, I’ll give it up. No.
We have to actually, it is a very, it is a very, very extreme situation one may have to consider coming, giving it up or something. But you should not think, oh, that is a very easy, feasible option. It’s not like that.
It’s a very serious commitment, a dharmic commitment and it needs to be taken very, with great responsibility, with great maturity. So, the use and throw attitude, utilitarian attitude doesn’t mean that that which is sacred, bond of marriage is sacred. Just because we are practising bhakti doesn’t mean we can desacralise and trivialise that bond of marriage.
If we are entering into it, it has to be taken seriously. Does that address your question? Thank you. Yes, madam.
Do you have a question on this? No, I just don’t. So, when a devotee gives blessings to someone or a devotee prays for someone or fasts on Ekadashi for someone or decides to do some service and offer the results of that service to someone, what actually happens? So, does it actually work or what actually happens? See, there is karma kanda and there is bhakti. So, in karma kanda there is the possibility that you can do some particular ritual and pray that the result of this go to some other person.
So, we have in ninth kind of example that was it, who was it who gave his youth? Pura. Kuru. Yeah.
So, he gave his youth to his father. So, in some cases by some mystical means some material things can be transferred and that way the pious creeds or some dharmic activity can also be transferred. This is with respect to primarily a paradharma.
Now, with respect to paradharma, the whole point is that it is not quantifiable. That, okay, I chanted Hare Krishna 64 rounds today. Is it that, okay, by this I made this much advancement and Krishna from my consciousness, you please take this much attraction to you and give it to this person.
So, when we talk about, when we talk about, when we talk about spiritual growth, spiritual growth essentially means attraction towards Krishna and getting attracted towards Krishna is something which every individual has to choose. So, my practising bhakti will increase my attraction towards Krishna. My practising bhakti is not going to increase somebody else’s attraction towards Krishna directly.
And whatever purification I have made, it is not that the purification is transferable. So, if we have practised bhakti, we will get the purification. It is not that if I practise bhakti, the purification will not come to me.
The attraction to Krishna is going to come to me. But at the same time, our intent is appreciated by Krishna. And Krishna seeing our intent, seeing our selflessness, our selflessness, our purity, Krishna will increasingly facilitate that person to practise bhakti.
Krishna will increasingly facilitate that person that whatever obstacles are in their life, they can be removed. So, because bhakti is not quantifiable, because the results of bhakti are not quantifiable, so we cannot really say the results of bhakti are directly transferable also. But still, the principle is that Krishna is a person and he reciprocates with us as a person.
So, if we have the intention that Krishna, I am doing this extra devotional service so that this devotee can be benefited, then Krishna will definitely take that into account and Krishna will definitely ease things for that person. So, whether it is in terms of removing obstacles or it is in terms of giving inner wisdom, giving inner guidance, that may vary according to time, place and circumstance. So, our intent of offering the fruits of our doing a particular devotional activity for somebody else, that is very good.
That will definitely benefit, but it is not literally quantifiable. This activity, this much result will go to that person. Because bhakti itself is not quantifiable.
Does it address your question? Okay. Okay. Okay.
Now, when we take blessings from someone and we get blessings from someone, what is happening at that time? Yes, at a material level and at a spiritual level. At a material level, you could say at one level, it’s culture to seek blessings, but it’s not just culture. Now, those who have lived pious lives, at least in the past, you know, the Brahmins, they could give curses and the curses could have serious effects.
Similarly, when they gave blessings, the blessings also had effects. So now, in today’s world, the material powers of that kind are not accessible to people. So people cannot really curse and immediately bad things don’t necessarily happen.
And blessings also, immediately good things will not happen through blessings. But at a spiritual level, if a person, if a great soul blesses someone, then it is actually Krishna who is manifesting his blessings through them. So they have their purity, they have their bhakti, by which they are connected with Krishna.
And they are connected with Krishna and Krishna gives his mercy through various sources. So when we please a devotee and that devotee blesses us, then that devotee through that devotee acting as a channel, through that devotee’s prayerful good wishes for us, prayerful blessings for us, that devotee becomes a kandit by which Krishna’s mercy comes to us. So now we can say Krishna’s mercy can come from anywhere.
Yes, Krishna’s mercy can come from anywhere. But if we are not qualified, if we are not receptive, Krishna’s mercy may not come. But if a devotee is pleased with us, then through that devotee the mercy comes to us.
So ultimately, everything comes from Krishna. And when we please a devotee, then we open a channel for something from Krishna to come to us. So yasya prasada bhagavata prasada.
So it is bhagavata prasada that is coming from the spiritual master. But it is coming through the spiritual master’s mercy. And that principle can apply to other Vaishnavas also.
Does that address the question? Yes. Yes. So So in the in the people giving pious credits to God in the world and so forth.
Is that considered karmakanda? Okay. So giving pious credits of in the Gita Mahatma, is that karmakanda or is that bhakti? See, there is one thing that the primary point is the intent. In the Bhagavatam fourth canto, it is said that Hrithu Maharaj, when he was a king, he performed many of the karmakanda rituals.
Because as a king, he had to set an example for people and everybody could not practise bhakti. So he had to set an example of karmakanda and he performed karmakanda. But while doing that, he remembered Vishnu and he was praying to Vishnu.
He was seeing the demigods not as independent agents, he was seeing them as servants of Vishnu. So the activity might be karmakanda but the intent might be devotional. So as devotees, we don’t have to become very rigid in differentiating.
This is karmakanda, I will not do it. You could do karmakanda activities also with a devotional activity. And sometimes, the whole point is, sometimes people may be edified, people may be instructed by a devotee not doing karmakanda activity.
This should not be done. But sometimes a devotee not doing karmakanda activity can lead to so much anti-preaching. You know, suppose in a family somebody has passed away.
And there everybody is at that time doing some karmakanda activity. And after that there is some prasad offered over there. And a devotee says, I don’t take any prasad.
At that time people’s feelings may be terribly hurt over there. So Bhaktivinoda Thakur in Chaitanya Shikshamrut says that a devotee can participate in three kinds of festivals. A devotee is hard within practising vaishnava festivals.
But, this is apart from that, there can be general religious festivals and there can be general social festivals. These are the social festivals can be say, American Independence Day or whatever, Indian Independence Day. A devotee will have to go over there, sing the national anthem.
He can do that. It is not that we are thinking this is the ultimate goal of life. So like that Bhaktivinoda Thakur says that even if sometimes for the sake of people in general, a devotee has to participate in general religious festivals.
It’s not wrong for a devotee to do that. In fact, there is a whole in Sajjan Toshani, which is a magazine which he was running. At that time, there was an iconoclastic Hindu leader, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, who had strongly criticised the puja of Kali.
And Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote a whole essay defending the puja of Kali. And he said, of course, he doesn’t say it is transcendental. He says this is actually, it is a Vedic culture so inclusive that even for people who are in Tamil Nadu, there is a facility for elevating it.
He says this Swamiji, he unfortunately doesn’t understand the broadness of the Vedas. So he doesn’t say this is Tamil, it should be given up. He tries to clarify the misconception.
Okay, this is meant for a particular level of people. So we don’t have to see Karmakanda as always a competitor with Bhakti. There can be times when it is a competitor.
But there are times when the two can go together also. And sometimes by doing some activities, other than seeing as Karmakanda, we might be able to, we may do it with devotional intention. And by that we avoid a lot of unnecessary agitation of people.
And people can come closer to Krishna. So we have to be a little more careful in not rigidly discriminating. This is Karmakanda, this is Bhakti.
If the intent of Bhakti is there, then if totally mundane things can be spiritualizable, then why can’t something which is actually dharmic but has a proper adharma, that can also be spiritualised. Is that the question? Yes, Mataji? Yes. There was a Nanda Mataji has asked some questions over here.
In fact, that’s she who had asked for this whole question-answer session. So I’ll try to answer a couple of the questions here. So in the ninth canto there are many stories which actually are difficult to understand.
What is their purpose? Say for example, Brihaspati impregnating his sister-in-law, Dushyanta’s relationship with Shakuntala, Surya Shepa and the human sacrifice. What is the point of all these stories? There are three different ways of looking at this. One is that the Bhagavatam is both transcendental and chronological.
So it is transcendental in the sense that it is meant to help Parikshit Maharaj remember Krishna. But from the third canto onwards, roughly from third canto 11th-12th chapters, the Bhagavatam can also be read as the history of the universe within one day of Brahma. So the Bhagavatam of third canto to the seventh canto is Swayambhu Manu.
Then, after that, in the eighth canto, there is a quick rapid moving forwards and seven Manus are described over there. In a very short. And then, in the eighth canto onwards, till the end, it’s Vaivasat Manu that is described.
And currently, Vaivasat Manu is going on. So while this is happening, what the Bhagavatam does is, it is not describing exhaustively the history. It is describing not everything that happened in Swayambhu Manu’s life.
It is describing highlights. And usually, the highlights centre on the descent of the Lord. So, in Swayambhu Manu’s, he had a daughter named Devahuti.
And she had a son named Kapila. And then Kapila’s story goes into very long. Almost his teachings go for several chapters.
So essentially, the Bhagavatam is giving a chronology, but with a divine focus. And while describing that chronology, sometimes the Bhagavatam also refers to some other stories, in passing. Okay, in this Kalpa, this also happened, this also happened, this also happened.
So, it’s a linear narrative and sometimes, as a part of the linear narrative, some things are mentioned which are not the emphasis, but they are mentioned just to maintain the linearity of the narrative. In this Manu’s period, this, this, this happened and some stories are just mentioned quickly over there. That’s one point.
The second point is that some of these stories are meant to illustrate how even great souls can get deviated from the principles of Dharma. So, even a person like Brihaspati, who is a great sage, you know, he might also get carried away by passion. So, like that, the lower modes can influence anyone and everyone.
Even people who are considered very great, they can also be influenced. That is what is illustrated through these pastimes. And, a third understanding, especially the 9th canto, it is explained that the 9th canto just comes before the 10th canto.
And in the 10th canto, the transcendental pastimes of Radhakrishna are going to be talked about. And they are actually at one level, very similar to male-female interactions. But at another level, they are actually completely transcendental.
So, in order to ensure that people do not misunderstand Radhakrishna’s pastimes to be like mundane lust, the canto before the canto where those pastimes are described, that canto repeatedly describes the ravages caused by lust. So, there is Shaubari Muni’s story, there is Iyati’s story, there is Brihaspati’s story. The point of all these stories is that the mundane passions like lust especially, how much adharma they can cause and how cautious one has to be.
So, before entering into 10th canto, in the 9th canto, there is repeated warning that is given. That warning is there throughout in the Bhagavatam in one sense. But it is through stories and through very strong emphasis that is given in the 9th canto before the 10th canto Radhakrishna pastime that we are talking about.
So, in and of themselves, these pastimes may not seem very purposeful. But seen in the context, both the chronological context and the thematic context. The thematic context is to focus on Krishna Leela.
From that point of view, these pastimes serve a particular purpose. There are a few questions. Okay.
We say that we are not sectarian. We are non-sectarian. But then we also say that we should that devotees are not encouraged to hear from other sources.
Can’t they hear from other bona fide paramparas? If somebody wants to hear Chaitanya Leela. If somebody wants to hear Krishna Leela from other Vaishnava groups. They told you should not hear.
So, aren’t we being sectarian over here? I think there is a lot of history behind this question. So, I’ll talk about in principle first and I’ll talk about in practise. So, see in principle, a devotee’s mood is that we can learn from everywhere.
Chanakya Pandit also says that we can take gold even from a filthy place. So, what to speak of learning? Prabhupada himself quoted from Chanakya. And whether Chanakya was a Vaishnava exactly, you know, that is debatable.
Chanakya and Prabhupada did not take the, even if Chanakya was a Vaishnava, Prabhupada has not taken the Vaishnava teaching of Chanakya. Prabhupada has taken the largely the mundane teaching of Chanakya. The moral teachings basically.
So, Prabhupada himself gave an example and Prabhupada also would quote sometimes some English poets. He’d quote William Cowper and others, whatever he had heard. So, Prabhupada was not against taking knowledge from material sources.
What to speak of? They are completely mundane sources also. Now, the problem especially comes, see when we are taking knowledge from mundane sources, we know clearly this is material and this is spiritual. And we don’t ever see the material as a competitor to the spiritual.
I may quote something very brilliant from, say, Oscar Wilde. But I am not going to think that, oh, because Oscar Wilde has something so brilliant, I am going to make Oscar Wilde my guru. That, so, we can get material knowledge from material sources, but because there is a clear understanding of this knowledge in material, so, we don’t see that as a competitor, competitive source to spiritual knowledge.
We clearly understand that this is supplementary. But when we come to devotional knowledge, Vaishnav knowledge, what happens is, this knowledge is also about a spiritual subject. And because it is about a spiritual subject, in fact, it is the same subject which we want to study and we want to learn.
So, we may start comparing and it may become a competitor. Okay, see, in ISKCON, I am getting this. I am getting this Krishna.
But here, you know, I am getting more Rasik Krishna. Ultimately, my goal is Krishna only. So, if I am getting more Rasik Krishna, let me go over here.
And in that way, the point is not that when we are cautioned about learning bhakti, learning about bhakti insights from other bhakti sampradayas, the point is not that we are being sectarian. The point is that these can, in our vision, become competitors. And they become competitors to our faith.
They become competitors to our bhakti. And when that happens, then it can disrupt our bhakti. Because bhakti is not just a matter of learning.
It is a matter of loving. Loving is a matter of the heart. And we are establishing our relationship with Krishna through a particular channel.
Now, that relationship can be enhanced by learning from other channels also. But if there is not adequate amount of discrimination done, then we feel that the channel which I have got itself is defective or is deficient. And then we go somewhere else.
And because we think, okay, I am going towards the same goal. So what’s wrong? I am going towards that goal from somewhere else. But then the goal of loving Krishna, it’s not just a matter of information.
Okay, I know more about Krishna. It’s a move. It’s a relationship.
And a relationship is a commitment. So because the relationship involves a commitment, and we have got our relationship from Shila Prabhupada. Our relationship with Krishna through the mercy of Shila Prabhupada, through the guidance that Shila Prabhupada has given us.
So therefore, if devotees start feeling that, oh, Shila Prabhupada and what he has given in his books, what he has given through his followers, actually that’s not enough. And to love Krishna, I have to go somewhere else. Then when that becomes not just a competitor to our service to Shila Prabhupada and service to Krishna Shila Prabhupada, it actually becomes a substitute.
We start thinking, oh, I can do this and I can practise bhakti also. And in that way, what happens is, in bhakti, we often say the means and the ends are the same. We practise the process of loving Krishna so that we can practise it lovingly forever.
So the relationship also has to be endured. And when that relationship, we trivialise it, then it becomes a problem. So it is not that the knowledge from other bhakti sampradayas that is banned or that is, it is definitely not sinful.
It is not something which we can say is bad. The point is that it can create a disturbance in the faithfulness of our heart. And that faithfulness has to be avoided.
So if that purpose is clear, then a devotee can learn from other sources. it is Bhaktisanshul Thakur, he actually published biographies of all the four Vaishnavacharyas. And he taught things over there.
He taught about their lives also. So what would be best is, and that is also happening in our movement gradually, that those devotees who are very devoted to Prabhupada and they understand the mood of Sri Prabhupada and they study the various bhakti literature, whether it is previous acharyas or other bhakti saints from other traditions or whatever and then they present things in a way that is harmonious with the understanding that Sri Prabhupada is giving. Then that can enrich our bhakti also, that can enhance our bhakti without creating disturbance in our faithfulness.
Sri Prabhupada himself in the first canto of Bhagavatam, in the first chapter itself, he gives a list of many commentators of the Bhagavatam, whom he says serious students should study. And interestingly, he doesn’t even restrict himself to Gaudiya Vaishnava commentators. He talks about other Vaishnava commentators also.
So Prabhupada definitely wanted us to enrich our bhakti with the wisdom of the whole tradition, of the whole living tradition that is there. But we have to do it in a way that does not disturb our fidelity. So that balance has to be carefully sought.
And in the past, not understanding this, there are devotees who have trivialised their connection with Sri Prabhupada for various reasons. And then they thought that they become in a sense the sanctity of the relationship in bhakti, it is not just whom we are developing a relationship with that is important, it is through whom we are developing the relationship that is also important. It is not that our relationship has to be only through him.
We can have other saints also inspire us, other bhakti saints also, but we have to have our central fidelity. So that has not been understood and there has been a problem. So there has been to some extent extra precaution.
Just like, you know, if a mother had a bad experience that her child had been kidnapped and the child somehow comes back and the mother tells the child you cannot go out of this house only. You never can go out alone. If you have to go out, go out with some adult.
Now it is not that every step outside is filled with danger. But the mother’s reaction is understandable because there has been great danger for the child. So we don’t have to absolutise the principle of not hearing from other Vaishya sampradayas and say that what they are teaching is wrong.
But nor do we have to demonise it and say that, you know, it is so sectarian, it is so narrow-minded. There has to be proper understanding based on both the philosophical principle as well as the practical historical context. Thank you.
Okay, last question. The other day you cited two different distinctions. One was preference should be made with the principle.
Central and peripheral that distinction and descriptive and prescriptive. Now in regards to the topic of validity and rigidity and applying Krishna consciousness according to time and circumstance, which one of these could be used as a check and balance to discern what elements could be related and adapted and what elements related and which one it is. Okay, yeah.
Okay, yeah. So while understanding Shastra, I talked about three things. There is principle and there is preference, there is central and there is peripheral and then there is prescriptive and descriptive.
So while adjusting, while there is fluidity in the tradition, there is adjustment according to time, place and circumstance. So which of these criteria can be applied or are there other criteria? I just gave three frames of looking at things. There can be others also.
Now with respect to principle and preference, one simple thing is did Shrila Prabhupada himself adjust things at different places? If he adjusted, he did things in a particular way here, different way there. Then we can understand that’s a preference. For example, while doing distribution, should devotees wear dhoti kurta or should they wear civil clothes? It’s a preference.
Prabhupada is okay for both. Now, if Prabhupada himself has adjusted some things, then it’s a preference. We can clearly see that.
And whether something is central or peripheral, then we can see whether that is what if Prabhupada has said something, is that what he has said repeatedly or is that what is also being said by Sadhu and Shastra? Prabhupada said Guru, Sadhu, Shastra. That is the hermeneutic. So, now Prabhupada made many statements on various issues.
Prabhupada would, on the morning conversation, sometimes he would comment on political issues, sometimes on social issues, sometimes he would speak about certain leaders, certain other spiritual leaders or other political leaders. Now, we will not find anything about that in Shastra. We will not find about that in Sadhu.
These are incidental comments. In fact, there is a letter of Shri Prabhupada to one disciple. Disciple asks him that at that time none of Prabhupada’s lectures had been transcribed.
And this devotee asked Shri Prabhupada, Prabhupada, in order to understand your message better, I want to transcribe all your lectures. And surprisingly, Prabhupada says that will be prayas. It’s too much endeavour.
It’s not necessary. Whatever I want to teach, I have given in my books. You study my books, you will understand everything.
And the point is not that Prabhupada did not want lectures to be transcribed. The point is Prabhupada’s central message is given in his books. So, in his lectures and what to speak of in his conversations.
So, in his conversations, we may find many controversial things which may not be there in Sadhu or in Shastra. So, if something is likely to be very, if something is becoming controversial, or something is very sensitive, which is going to alienate a lot of people, and we see, okay, Prabhupada said this, but is this said in Shastra? Is it said by Sadhus? If it is not, then we can say that. Yes, Prabhupada said it, so there is value to it.
But there may not be absolute value to it. Now, we have example in Shastra that in Shastra itself, that sometimes even what Krishna speaks is not considered authoritative. What is that example? In the Govardhan Leela, Krishna speaks Karma Mimamsa.
So, we have an example of the absolute truth speaking. And our Acharya says the absolute truth is not speaking the absolute truth. So, context is so important to understand anything.
There is central, there is peripheral. So, that actually means the third point also. There is prescriptive and there is descriptive.
So, Bhakti Maldividya Munshan in his Govinda Bhashya, he says that that like in English, there is an imperative tense. Imperative tense means go and do this. So, he says scriptural statements in the imperative are instructions.
So, Bhakti Maldividya Munshan says that whenever there are scriptural statements in the imperative, Sarva Dharman Parityaja Mam Ekam Sharanam Rajyam. This is an imperative statement. Whereas, Dehinosmi Nithadehe Kaumaram Yamanam Jara.
This is an informative statement. Now, I can draw some instructions from this also. Okay, my body changes, I should not be disturbed.
So, we can draw instructions from all statements, from many statements of scripture. But they themselves may not be directly instructive. So, for example, the 11th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, it’s Vishwaroopadarshan.
It’s primarily descriptive. What is the instruction in that? There is one verse which Krishna says, Therefore Arjuna fight. Therefore arise and fight.
That is an instruction. That is an imperative. But otherwise most of it is descriptive.
So, instructive and prescriptive are the same things. So, broadly speaking, if we see the scriptural context, something is said in the sense that you should do it. Then that is prescriptive.
But when it is not in that mood that you should do it, and also when you say you should do it, we also have to see in what context scripture is saying it. Is it that it is a universal instruction for everyone? For example, in the 2nd canto, it is mentioned, for this problem you can worship this devata, for this problem you can worship this devata, for this problem you can worship this devata. You can say it’s prescriptive.
But in the Bhagavatam itself, it’s giving us a higher prescriptive. It is saying, worship Krishna. So, even when there is something which is directly instructive, whether it is instructive for all times or not, that is something which has to be carefully considered.
So, that’s why we need to understand shastra through those who have lived the shastra. Those who have lived the shastra, those who are living the shastra. So, we can talk personally.
So, thank you very much. Shri Prabhupada ki Gaur Bhakta Vrindaki Gaur Premanandi So, actually I wanted to thank at the end of the class, but somehow the class went to the long question and answers and I could not translate. So, I want to thank all the devotees here and especially Mukhyamata ji and the whole team of devotees who are taking care of this extraordinary project.
I think there is no parallel to this in the whole world. And I am grateful for the opportunity to come and serve over here. And if during my classes or anywhere else, I will speak if I come to any opportunities, I will speak your agreements, I will speak your blessings.
I feel that every year when I come to America, I start from a large one, so I get the blessings of all the senior devotees over here and then I can go and try to speak about the rest of it as well. Thank you very much. Please accept my humble greetings.