How small conflicts become big – Daksha pastime analysis 3 – Understanding the filters people bring to a relationship

[Bhagavatam class on Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.4.30 at ISKCON, Melbourne, Australia]

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Today morning we are continuing our discussion on the Daksha pastime and here, Brahma Dhrupcha, the identity and the quality of Daksha, the mismatch between them is being pointed out. And although he was a respectable person, he was not behaving in a respectable way, so much so that he did not even stop his daughter from ending her own life. Yesterday I talked about how when we are having a strong ego or a strong attachment, we become sensitised to the object of attachment and we become desensitised to everything else.
Because of this, Daksha, the small insult that he had, he just couldn’t see beyond that insult. Now, our world is actually shaped by our desires. Although all of us, is this volume going up and down? It’s okay.
All of you are able to hear? So, all of us, we may live in the same world, but we don’t experience the same world. Because we all experience it based on our desires. Our desires shape what we see, what we focus on and how we experience things.
So now, today I’ll talk from the perspective of Sati, that when we look at scriptural characters, we don’t so much focus on who was right and who was wrong, but we try to learn lessons that we can apply in our life without passing judgments about the absolute rightness or wrongness of their action. We can say in a particular context, what they did could have been done, something better could have been done. So, when Daksha and when Sati got married to Lord Shiva, at that time she became a devoted, beautiful wife and she gained appreciation for her husband.
Can you hear me? So, when Sati, she basically in every situation, we have multiple relationships and each relationship brings with it certain roles, certain expectations and sometimes different relationships pull us in different directions. So, for example, when say parents have one child and they get a second child and they are parents for both children, but earlier the first child used to get all the attention, now that attention is shared. So, now the first child may understand and may also share the affection for the second child, the first child may become a little bit jealous, why are my parents not paying attention to me? So, usually when we talk about our relationships, the relationships don’t exist in isolation and balancing the requirements of the dynamics of different relationships becomes difficult.
So, whenever we form a relationship, that relationship is not only with that person, we get related with all those who are related with that person and that relationship also affects all those who we are related with. So, it’s not just A relating with B, A’s relationship with B means A has a relationship with everyone related with B and A’s relationship with B also affects everyone related with A. So, we live in an interconnected and intertwined world and sometimes taking up one relationship may mean necessarily, knowingly or unknowingly may shift the terms of another relationship. So, as I said, a child who gets a brother or a sister, younger one, then the dynamics of the home change, the parents still love the first child, but the second child will get more attention, it’s a new baby and needs more attention.
So, we need to always learn to adjust ourselves according to the changing dynamics of the world. When we talk about changes in the world, we often talk in terms of okay, our health may go down, the weather may go down, our job, financial situation may go up and down. All that dynamic change is there and that change needs to be negotiated, but probably even more difficult to negotiate change is the change in the dynamics of relationships that happens when we form different relationships.
So, Sati had a particular relationship with her father when she was his daughter, but when she got married, now she formed a new relationship. Now, it was done, she acted according to her father’s will only, although at that time, her father’s will was guided by Brahma’s will, but then she formed a relationship and she committed to that relationship, but in the process, because Daksha had some resentment towards Shiva, so the dynamic of this relationship changed. So, the nature of the human mind, especially in the mode of Rajoguna, is to categorise.
So, in the mode of, Krishna talks about knowledge in the mode of goodness, in the mode of passion and in the mode of ignorance. In 18.20, 21 and 22, in 18.20 he says, he says, knowledge in the mode of goodness means, we see the commonality of all living beings. You see that everyone is essentially spiritual.
They are just the way I am essentially. So, we all may have our differences, but we see the commonality. I may be a South Indian, somebody else may be North Indian, I may be a Indian, somebody may be else be a Chinese, but essentially we are all souls.
So, that essential commonality beyond the diversity, seeing that is characteristic of knowledge in the mode of goodness. In the mode of passion, Krishna says that, in the mode of passion, we see people as being their bodies. So, we think that not only the people have different bodies, but their body is their essential nature.
So, we see only the diversity among people. And not, we do not see the diversity as a pleasant variety. We just see it as an irreducible difference.
So, okay, this person is here, this person is, I am a Hindu, this person is a Pakistani, is a Muslim. I am a, I am a Christian, this person is a Jew. So, I am a North Korean, this person is South Korean.
So, we have our differences and we consider those differences as fundamental and final. Differences are an undeniable reality in the world. But when we think them to be fundamental, this is what the person essentially is.
And final means that, that is the ultimate card for ultimate criteria for looking at people. So, then commonality or agreement becomes difficult. And worse still is knowledge in a mode of ignorance.
Krishna says, yathu kruchnavad ekasmin, karyesaktamahaitukam, atatvarthavad alpamcha, tattamasamudaharitam. He says, yathu kruchnavad ekasmin. Ekasmin is one thing.
We make one thing into everything. Kruchnavad ekasmin. When we make one thing into everything, karyesaktamahaitukam, we become attached to only one particular activity, one particular thing.
Ahaitukam. And there is no cause effect. There is no reasoning over this.
Atatvarthavad alpamcha. Atatvarthavad. There is no proper understanding of the truth.
It is knowledge, but it is meagre knowledge. Alpamcha. Tattamasamudaharitam.
That is knowledge in the mode of ignorance. So, when we look at only one aspect of someone and make that as everything about that person, then that is knowledge in the mode of ignorance. And this essentially is what we call in common parlance as prejudice.
Prejudice means that we have some experience with some person and we take that limited experience and make it and extend it, extrapolate it into a blanket generalisation. We have, say, one interaction with someone where that person is a little negligent or rude to us and we say, this person is so uncaring. This person is a boor.
This person is like this. So, when we make blanket generalisations like that, that is usually a characteristic of the mode of ignorance. Any category of people, sometimes the people from a particular area say, these people are foolish or these people are selfish.
These people are violent. When we make general categorisation like that, that is a blanket generalisation never works in life because people always have shades of grey. So, now in the case of Daksha, when Sati married Shiva, he started seeing her as different from him.
Now, leave alone spiritual commonality, they had a material commonality. She was his own daughter. But he saw her that she belongs now to that family.
So, this is our family, that is their family, that is Shiva’s family. And she is no longer a part of my group. She has now gone to that group.
So, when that sort of mentality comes in, then he started thinking, Sati, she was her own person. She was his own daughter. But he looked at only one aspect of her.
First of all, he had this material diversity, that family, they are different. And not only that, he took one aspect of her, that she is the wife of Shiva. And therefore, I will not care for him because I don’t care for Shiva.
Shiva didn’t care for me. So, I don’t care for Shiva. And because I don’t care for Shiva, I won’t care for Shiva’s wife also.
So, now here, we all perceive each other in terms of certain connections. We practically never perceive things in isolation. That means that whenever we meet someone, for us to make sense of the world, because the world is so complicated around us, so we try to fit things into categories.
So, for example, if you meet someone, okay, this person is a South Indian, this person is a Software Indian, this person is… So, depending on what purpose we may have, we may appropriately use that classification. So, we put things around us, we have a human need to categorise, an intellectual need to categorise, because otherwise the variety in the world is so great that it will overwhelm us. So, we need to categorise.
But we also need to know that this categorisation is porous, it is not watertight, that nobody actually fits into any particular category completely. So, in cartography, map making, a basic principle is that actually the map is not the territory. Now, in countries, if you see, say, the map of America, if you look at it, and many of the states are almost like square in their boundaries.
They are almost symmetrical shapes. But if we actually go over there, it is not that there is one clear line demarcating the states. Sometimes there is no clear line at all.
Okay, is this a part of this state or this part of this state? You do not know. So, in terms of conceptual analysis, we may have clear-cut demarcations. But any conceptual framework, when we translate it into reality, it is never that clear-cut.
And there are always border areas which may fall here or fall there. The point I am making here is, we all use some system of classification in our mind to make sense of the world around us. But if we make that the only basis of judging, this person, even among the devout community, this person is a disciple of this guru, this person is from this temple, this person is from this ashram, this person is from this background, this person is a part of this bhakti-lokshan.
These are functional designations that are required. But these functional designations, which we need for negotiating the world, we cannot allow them to completely captivate our vision. We need to understand this is functional, it is required for working in this world.
But the real person is beyond it. And the classification which is there, actually it is meant for bringing about cooperation, not for bringing about segregation or discrimination. Just like in Varanashram, there are four Varanas, Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra.
The purpose of this was not discrimination. So, Brahmanas can do this well, Kshatriyas can do this well, Vaishyas can do this well. So, let all of us cooperate.
So, classification is a functional requirement and functional requirement can help in cooperation, in proper functioning while we are in the world. But the same thing can lead to discrimination. So, when Sati approached Daksha, when the celebration was, when the sacrifice was there.
Now, when festivals, any kind of festival is not just a religious occasion, it is also a social occasion for many people. When there is Janmashtami, when there is God Purnima, these festivals, they are religious occasions. They are meant to be essentially spiritual occasions, where we come and hear about the Lord and learn about the Lord, become more devoted to the Lord.
But they are also social occasions. We get to meet each other, meet people, interact with them. So, this was the sacrifice when Daksha was performing, was a big social occasion at her father’s place.
And Sati naturally wanted to go there. Now, Daksha had not sent an invitation. So, Shiva told her, don’t go there, you have not been invited.
And now Shiva was, in this situation, much more objective. He said, you have not been invited, there is no need to go there. Now, Sati, she thought, yes, it’s my home.
I live over there, I grew up over there. I don’t need an invitation. Even if the invitation is not there, I can always go there.
So, at her level, she was identifying herself, in this situation, as the daughter of Daksha. So, that’s my home. Even if there is no invitation, she thought, even if it is, even if they have forgotten, or even if they have neglected, but still it’s my home, I can go anytime.
So, with that thought, she went there. So, she was seeing Daksha as her father, and she was seeing that as her home, her earlier home. But still, that was like a second home for her.
But Daksha, for him, her identity was not my daughter. Her identity was, she is Shiva’s wife. So, actually, how we come to a relationship, or how we identify ourselves and approach a relationship, is often different, sometimes drastically different, from how another person approaches the relationship.
So, I may approach a relationship as a, you know, okay, I am trying to be a devotee, you are trying to be a devotee, let us serve Krishna together. But somebody else may say, okay, you know, I am this guru’s disciple, you are this guru’s disciple. So, I don’t want to work with you.
Now, I may say, I am just trying to be nice with you, why are you not reciprocating? Now, what happens is, we, in every interaction, there are certain expectations that we have. But when we have these interactions with expectations, we come with a particular framework, but the other person comes with a different framework. And these frameworks that we bring to our relationships, unless those frameworks are aligned, they cannot, two people can never look at the thing, two things, at the things in the same way.
But at least there has to be some alignment. As long as there is not that alignment, there will be constant disagreement. So, and that disagreement can cause distress, that can cause heartbreak also.
So, if I come in a relationship, I expect that this should, I will do this and you will do this. But somebody else comes in that relationship and says, why should we work together? I don’t feel I should do this. This is your problem, you take care of it.
So, then what happens in such a situation, it is not just the particular action that somebody is doing, or you are acting like this, I am acting like this. And there will be differences in that. But those differences cannot be resolved unless the fundamental, the framework that we are bringing in the relationship, that is matched in some way.
So, for Sati, she had a basic daughterly expectation. I am coming to my father’s home, my mother is there, my other family members are there. She expected a basic welcome over that.
I had a natural expectation from her. But from Daksha’s perspective, she was no longer his daughter. She was Shiva’s daughter.
And Shiva was the person who disrespected. Now, Sati was aware of the dynamics. She didn’t realise the intensity of the problem.
For people, see there are facts and there are feelings. And for people, their feelings are more important than the facts. So, the fact was, yes, she knew there was some tension between Shiva and Daksha.
So, it is interesting. Normally, when we talk about tensions, in India, there is a popular TV serial. What is that? Saas Bahu Ki Kahaniya.
Normally, the tension is between, say, the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law. So, here the tension is opposite. It is between the son-in-law and the father-in-law.
But the principle is the same. Actually, so, when, say, a man gets married, the mother may think that my relationship is, he is my son. And the wife thinks, he is my husband.
Now, the husband, the man whom does he identify with? Does he identify as the husband of this woman or the son of this woman? Now, both of them have their dynamics. And then, sometimes, the mother may feel, you know, you always take side of your wife. The wife may say, you always take side of your mother.
So, both of them are coming with their expectations. And when this is happening, we all come with our framework into relationships. And unless we identify the framework and we bring some alignment in the framework, there will be constant conflicts.
And not only conflicts will be there, people just, why do you think like that? Why do you speak like that? Why do you do like that? The other person’s actions will not make sense only to us. It is our framework is almost like our language. Suppose I come and speak here in a language which you do not understand.
And you speak in a language which I do not understand. Now, both of us are talking to each other, but both of us are talking past each other. I do not understand what you are doing and you do not understand what I am doing.
So, if the two languages are different, the lack of understanding is very easy to understand. At least, there is no, people are not understanding each other. But when it comes to the inner framework, the worldview or specific, not just the broad worldview, but the specific dynamic with which we are approaching the relationship.
Unless we understand that, people’s actions just won’t make sense. So, all of us have our human biases, human prejudices. And a part of growing up, a part of coming to sattva guna is to learn to outgrow these prejudices.
And in some situations, some people are just too biassed, too prejudiced. They just take one aspect of someone and they identify that person with that. You did this, so you are like this.
And then I hold on to that for the rest of their life. Now, when this happens, from Sati’s perspective, she just had natural daughterly expectation when she went to her father’s place. But Rakshan neglected her.
So, it was devastating for her. Frustration is a function of expectation. The more we have expectation from someone and a person does not live up to that expectation, we get frustrated.
If we go to a particular place and no one knows, we don’t know anyone there and no one knows us over there, then we will just go and test the pulse. And somebody talks nicely, we feel good. If nobody pays my attention, that’s okay.
Nobody will know me anyway. But if you go to a place where people know us, and we expect a warm welcome, and then we get a cold shoulder. What is going on here? We just can’t make sense about it.
So, our expectation is what causes our emotion in the first place. If I know someone and I know they are affectionate to me or I think they are affectionate to me, and then I come close to them, I expect a pat on my back. And instead I get a punch.
Hey, what happened? Or I get a slap. So, when we expect affection, and at that time we get anger, we get neglect, then that’s painful. Now, actually, in some situations, neglect can hurt more than anger.
At one level, when there is anger, there is at least some emotional investment. I expected you to do this, that’s why I’m angry with you. But neglect means, I just don’t care for you.
It’s almost as if you don’t exist. So, it is like, no, we have a, say we have a particular map of a particular country, or we have a particular geometrical shape, just cut out some part of it and throw it away. So, like that, when somebody neglects us, we feel as if they just cut us out of their lives.
And in the fourth canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam also, here itself, later on we will see, Dhruva, when he is neglected by his father. Now, his stepmother’s words did not hurt him as much as his father’s neglect. Although at one level, his stepmother was angry with him, or she spoke harsh words to him, because his expectation from his father was much more, and neglect actually shattered him.
The opposite of love is not hate. Quite often the opposite of love is neglect. Because often when we hate also, we are angry also, that is, there is some investment of emotion in it.
It is not necessarily that hate is better than apathy or neglect. But it’s just that, when there is hatred, that it is very easily seen. And sometimes when we are upset with someone, we shout at them.
Everybody knows that something is wrong over here. What’s going on? Why is this person shouting? So, there the tension in the relationship is very easily visible. But when there is neglect, there may not seem to be any action over there.
But that neglect, despite the absence of action, what happens is that also cuts, that also hurts. So, when we are neglectful, the result is that there are hatred or anger is like a sudden attack, like a sudden wound which cuts. But neglect is like a weapon that cuts slowly.
It keeps cutting, cutting, cutting. In the end result, the effect is the same. There is, sometimes you may get a, if you want to cut something down, you may get an electric saw and just cut a big tree down in 2-3 minutes.
Or you may get an axe and you may cut it. It may take an hour or 2 hours to cut it. Either way the result is the same.
So, anger is like the electric saw, sudden with explosion. But neglect is like that small gradual cutting. But the cutting is still happening.
So, now when this sort of thing starts happening, then when the expectation is there and the expectation is frustrated, that causes great pain. So, whenever we are approaching a relationship, we have to understand how the other person is approaching the relationship. So, when Shiva told her, don’t go there, at one level we could say that it was her attachment that made her go there.
But more than just attachment is one word that can cover a lot of emotions. So, we may just use the word attachment and there may be different kinds of attachments that are there. So, in her case, when she went to that situation, she went with a particular conception of the relationship.
But Daksha did not have that conception of the relationship. And that’s why initially when we approach a relationship, we need to spend time to understand with what conception people are approaching us. And unless their conception is addressed, then nothing else follows.
Whatever we do, they are filtering everything through their conception. So, when we try to share Krishna Bhakti with others, everybody whom we try to approach, they have certain conceptions of Krishna Bhakti, they have certain conceptions of Krishna Consciousness Movement. And they are filtering everything through that.
So, before we can communicate with anyone, we have to understand what filter they are processing through. And without understanding that filter, we will be communicating something, but what will go through that filter and what will stay back, we don’t know. And at the end of it, people may carry the message exactly opposite of what we wanted to say.
Now, it is said that when a speaker speaks, on an average, the audience gets about 20% of what the speaker speaks. Gets means they carry with it. 20% is also quite a lot, but broadly speaking.
But, it is only God knows which 20% they carry. So, in our normal interactions, we may clarify something. We may tell, okay, this, this, this, this.
We may tell 10 facts, and by telling those 10 facts which we feel are important, we speak something which is incidental. And that person just pounces on that, just like this. So, we understand that everybody is coming through with some filters.
And based on their filters, they catch on to certain things, and they just neglect certain things. See, filter basically means what it does. When we have water filter, it allows the water to go through, and it does not allow the impurities to go through.
So, similarly, we have a filter around us, and through that filter, certain points which we hear, they enter, and they create an impact. Other points, this is just not so important. We filter it out.
So, when we are communicating with others, unless we understand what filter they are wearing, what filter is around their consciousness, our communication can have an entirely opposite effect. When, we conclude that there was a war. Krishna had come to Duryodhana as a peace messenger, and Duryodhana had blatantly refused.
There are different kinds of refusals. If we invite someone for a programme, and say, you know, actually I have to go here, and that is why I cannot come. Now, sometimes that may be an authentic reason, sometimes that may just be an excuse.
But either way, there is saying no to a request or a proposal, and there is saying no to a person. We invite somebody for a programme, and that person says that, you know, even my corpse will not come to your programme. Somebody says like that.
That is not just a no to the invitation. That is no to the person. Isn’t it? So, when Duryodhana told Krishna, I will not give enough land even to put the tip of a needle through.
That is not just no to the proposal. That is a resonating no to the person. That is, I don’t care for you at all.
You have come here for a compromise. I am not interested even in the least compromise. So, Krishna had got that kind of, you could say, booming no over there.
But Krishna still accepted that. And then, on top of that, actually Duryodhana tried to arrest Krishna. Krishna showed his universal form and baffled his attempt.
The next morning, Krishna met Karna. And, when he met Karna, at that time, Krishna told him that you are Kunti’s son, and you are meant to be the king of the world. He says, reclaim your birthright, come on the side of Kunti’s sons, and you will become the king.
Krishna also told him, Krishna actually told him both courses of action. If you do this, you will get this. I told him, if you do this, he says, Duryodhana is a personification of you.
He is adharmic and he is going to die. And, if you stay on his side, you too will die. Now, Karna, he had respect for Krishna.
Not so much Krishna as God, but he respected Krishna as a formidable warrior. And, he said that, actually, I was taken care of by Radhe, by Adhiratha and Radhe. I have begotten children with them.
I have my whole family now. I cannot give all of them. He says, and Duryodhana has fought this war with his confidence in my ability.
He has given me honour throughout my life. He says, I cannot give him honour. If Kunti had really loved me, why did she not come to me before this? It is only because she loves Arjuna and she is afraid that I will kill Arjuna.
That’s why she came to me. Kunti had also come and Krishna had also come. He says, Arjuna and I cannot both live.
Either Arjuna will die or I will. And, he Karna was very reputation conscious because he had the calibre of a Kshatriya in many ways, but he was not respected as a Kshatriya. So, he thought a lot.
People will think that I gave up my friend Duryodhana and went over. People may call me an opportunist. And, so he said, I will not do this.
So, he saw Krishna. Now, Krishna, what was Krishna offering him? Krishna was offering him both virtue and prosperity together. Many times in this world, if you want dharma, we don’t get artha.
If you want artha, we don’t get dharma. But, Krishna was offering him both dharma and artha. You come on the side of virtue and you get a kingdom also.
But, his perspective was, he came into that relationship identifying himself as the son of Adhirata and Radha, which is fine enough. He could still have been their son. He saw that if I accept myself as Kunti’s son, I will be rejecting my parents.
But, that’s not necessary. Krishna himself had two sets of parents. He had Yashoda and Vasudeva and Devi.
It’s not that he rejected one set of parents to go to Adhirata. So, he identified himself as belonging to a group different from the Pandavas, which is fine enough, because the Pandavas had not connected with him before that. So, he had a particular identification.
But, his identification was not so much that I am the son of Adhirata and Radha. He thought that I am the son of, I am the friend of Duryodhana. That became his defining identity.
And he said, Duryodhana has done so much for me. How can I betray him now? How can I let him down now? So, it was not that he would have betrayed Duryodhana. Actually, Duryodhana had betrayed himself.
Duryodhana had, Karna was actually a reasonably virtuous person. He was very charitable. In many ways, he was virtuous.
But, as I said, he had some insecurity within him, because he was not accepted as a Kshatriya. So, he was insecure whether people will accept me as a Kshatriya or not. And to ban, we want to belong to a particular group.
So, we will do whatever it takes. Suppose, a student, a young student goes to college and they want to be called cool. And to belong to the cool crowd, they may drink, they may drug.
They don’t want to do it. They don’t like doing it. But, they may do it just because they want to feel that they belong.
They want to feel cool. So, like that, Karna was the person who actually suggested that Draupadi be disrobed. Here, they suggested that she be dragged into the assembly.
And twice afterwards, Karna regrets that. Here, he says to Krishna that I did this only because I wanted to please Duryodhana. And I regret it better.
Later on, Vishnu also tells the same thing. So, what happened over here for him was that he thought that I am the friend of Duryodhana. And I have to act according to that identity.
But, in that process, he distorted himself. He degraded himself. Yes, friendship is important.
But, what can we do in friendship? If one’s friend is going on the wrong track, one is meant to bring that friend back on the right track. Not that one go on the wrong track itself. Not worse still that one become more wrong than one’s friend.
Even Duryodhana had not thought of disrobing Draupadi. But, Karna thought about it. But, there is no evidence later that Duryodhana regrets what he did to Draupadi.
Duryodhana delighted in that. Karna did not delight in that. That moment he got carried away.
So, the point is that Krishna came to him. Krishna came to him as a God approaching the soul to come to the path of bhakti. Or we could say Krishna came as a friend of the Pandavas, come to the path of dharma.
But, Karna came with an entirely different paradigm. He identified himself as a friend of Duryodhana. And he felt as if he would be betrayed.
There was defection. One soldier going from one army to another army, that’s called defection. But, actually Krishna’s invitation was not for defection.
It was for redemption. Redemption means that Karna, if he had not got mixed up with the bad crowd, as we say, in today’s world. We don’t want our children to get mixed with the bad crowd.
So, Duryodhana was the personification of the bad crowd. Duryodhana and his brothers. So, if he had not got mixed with the bad crowd, Karna would have lived a dharmic life.
And Krishna was offering him that invitation. But, he neglected it. And the result was, Krishna said, Actually, Karna himself said, I had a dream in which I saw that Duryodhana was dressed in black and he was seated on a chariot, on a cart that was driven by donkeys.
And that cart was going downwards. And Yudhishthira was dressed in white and he was drawn by a chariot moving upwards. So, this is an omen which indicates that Duryodhana is going to die and Yudhishthira is going to win.
But, I cannot give up Duryodhana. So, this is where he came from a particular perspective. Krishna’s proposal made no sense to him.
So, similarly for us, when we are practising bhakti, I talked earlier about how in different relationships we come with particular frameworks. When we come to Krishna bhakti also, we come with our framework. And Krishna’s message sometimes makes sense to us, sometimes doesn’t make sense to us.
That’s because we are having our own framework. Now, we can’t get rid of our framework immediately, but at least we need to be open. If this message has guided millions of people for millennia, maybe there is some sense in it.
Even if it doesn’t make sense to me right now. So, we open ourselves. To the extent we learn to put aside our framework, we can’t get rid of it, but let’s try to put aside.
Let’s see what exactly Krishna is saying, what the shastras are saying. To the extent we put aside our framework and approach Krishna, to that extent our relationship with Krishna will become steady. Otherwise, if we come with our framework and evaluate even our bhakti through that framework, some things will make sense, some things won’t make sense.
And depending on how many things don’t make sense, our bhakti will stay very unstable or it may even get interrupted or stopped. So, the whole process of studying the philosophy is to revive and expand our framework. It’s not just to learn some facts and quote some shlokas.
It is to change our framework, at least for us to become aware that I have a filter and then to change that filter. To the extent we change the filter, to that extent we can see reality more and more clearly. To that extent, our perception starts matching with reality.
We can never see the full reality, but at least the mismatch between our perception and reality can become lesser and lesser. So, the more we practise bhakti and come to the mode of goodness, by practising bhakti, the more our, the filter remains, but the filter’s hold on us does not remain. We can say, okay, I’m feeling like this, I’m thinking like this, but this is because of my filter.
Let me try to look at things without the filter and let me try to see things. And as we become more and more spiritually steady, we can see, not necessarily through the filter, but see without the filter. And then we can see Krishna’s benevolence, we can see Krishna’s plan and our relationship with Krishna will become steady and firm, and our relationship with others who are related to Krishna will also become more effective.
It’s not necessary that every relationship will improve, because some relationships have their dynamics, some people have certain filters, they will not change. But we will learn how best to function with relationship and that way we will be able to move forward effectively in our life. As I said, Bhakti becomes joyful, how does it happen? It’s not just some joy streams into our heart, that is there.
It’s also, we learn to avoid unnecessary crashes while driving in life. We don’t go with unrealistic expectations and get frustration. We understand where people are coming from, and then we modulate our expectations.
And that’s how we can actually experience joy even during our life journey, by being rooted in our relationship with Krishna and by adjusting our other relationships based on the knowledge that we acquire from our connection with Krishna. So I’ll summarise. I spoke today about how we all come to a particular relationship with particular frameworks.
So Daksha, he was a Brahmana, but he did not act at all Brahmanically, neglected his daughter. So whenever we, in our life, we approach the world, because the world has so many things in it, we categorise it to make sense of it. Now in the mode of goodness, we see the essential commonality, essential spirituality of all living beings.
In the mode of passion, we see the differences as fundamental and final. In the mode of ignorance, we see only the differences. We see one thing and assume everything.
That is what the defining character of the person is. So in the mode of, when we approach a relationship and the other person approaches the relationship, the framework or the filter that we are bringing to the relationship is different. And unless this filter is understood, it will be like two people are talking in two different languages.
So when we form relationships, it doesn’t, it changes not only the new relationship form, but it causes changes in our many other relationships. So when Sati got married to Shiva, she still identified herself as the daughter of Daksha. But Daksha saw her as Shiva’s wife.
And she came with the expectation, this is my home. But Daksha saw that this is the wife of the person who is disrespected. And he completely tried to get back at Shiva.
He neglected her. So anger hurts, but neglect can hurt even more. And it hurts more because also it’s not visible.
It’s a slow cut. It cuts, but it’s a slow cut. Anger is like a sudden strong cut.
So Dhruva also neglected, he was devastated. Now when we are approaching people in any relationship, before we can develop the relationship, we have to understand the filter, what they are bringing to the relationship. Nobody can be free from the filter.
But once we understand the filter, we can bring about at least some working alignment. Otherwise there will be constant frictions in the relationship. And with respect to some people, they are just not likely to understand.
They are so attached to the filters, they are going to perceive in a particular way. In that time, just having the expectation itself will cause frustration. So Sati’s expectation that I should be received like a daughter in the family, that itself was an unrealistic expectation because Lakshya’s filter was too strong on him.
So in some cases when people just don’t deal properly with us, they have to understand their filter is preventing them from doing so. And we just need to keep a distance and not have unrealistic expectations. And I talked about lastly, how our filter can affect us in our relationship with Krishna also.
There can be saying no to a proposal, but there can be saying no to a person. Bang! Duryodhana did that to Krishna. But still, Krishna was accommodating and approach Karna.
He offered him Dharma and Artha both together. But he came from the filter. He identified himself not as his own individual, but as a friend of Duryodhana.
And he is an example of a good person who became bad because of bad association. Krishna was inviting him not to defection, but to redemption. To come back to the path of virtue which he would normally have followed.
Had he not followed the bad crowd. But he, because of his filter, could not appreciate Krishna and thus he quoted destruction. So when we are practising bhakti, we all come with our filters.
But through the study of the philosophy, through the purification that comes with the practise of bhakti, gradually we distance ourselves from the filter. And then we can see Krishna’s benevolence acting in our lives. And then our relationship with Krishna becomes stronger.
And then our other relationships will become more functionally effective. We will understand how to act in this relationship and how to function. Thank you very much.
Hare Krishna. Are there any questions or comments? It seems like selfish to leave Duryodhana at that time. Would it have been selfish for Karna to leave Duryodhana at that time? Aren’t people sometimes obligated by the circumstances or by their moods to act in particular ways? The same Bhagavad Gita which says prakriti kriyamanani, we all act according to prakriti, kartaham iti maniyate, one who thinks and the doer, that is mudha, is foolish.
But then the same Bhagavad Gita is also telling later that, oh Arjuna, now deliberate and decide what you want to do. Vimrish shankar asheke na yathe chitta kuru. This is 3.27 what you quoted.
This is 18.63. Now do as you desire. Krishna is telling now you have to be the doer. Now decide how you want to do.
Krishna is not saying that being a doer is an illusion. And then 10 verses later Arjuna says, karishye vachanam tava. I will do your will.
Karishye, that means I am the doer and I will do this. So the illusion is not to think I am the doer. The illusion is to think I am the only doer.
tatraivam sati kartaram, atmanam kevalam tuya, pashyatya akruta buddhitvan, na sa pashyati durmati hi. In I think 18.16 Krishna says that one who thinks that I alone am the doer is an illusion. And then he gives the five factors of action.
Adhishtanam tatha karta karanam jipa tagila, vimidhah shivta ksheshtha, daivam sevartha pachyamam. He says that the field of action, the body, the mind, the soul, the senses, the endeavour and the super soul, they all determine the results of action. So the point here is that we definitely have a responsibility to choose.
And sometimes circumstances may push us to act in particular ways. They push, but they don’t force. We have choice.
I will be pushed to act in a particular way, but I can push back. Now depending on how I have acted, my capacity to push back may be restricted. An alcoholic, tell them, give up drinking alcohol.
Alcoholic, make them, ok, you drink five times in a day, drink three times in a day, drink four times in a day. Based on how we have used our freedom, our free will, capacity to use our free will becomes lesser or more. But we always have free will.
So no one can say that I was forced by my circumstances to do this. Circumstances pushed me and I went along with it. That’s one way of looking at it.
Now yes, sometimes it may be that circumstances just leave us with no choice. That’s a different situation. But that was not the situation with Karna.
For Karna, was it unethical to leave Duryodhana? You could say yes. But you have to look at, yes, Duryodhana had been his friend throughout. And how can you leave him right now? But you have to look at the broader context.
Duryodhana was a friend, but what kind of friend was he? He was a person who had tried to publicly dishonour, honourably. He was a person who had tried to burn other people alive, tried to poison others. So to give a provocative example, suppose say in a poor country like say Afghanistan or Pakistan, there is some poor starving child and there is a group of terrorists who rescue that child and provide that child what he needs, feeds him, takes care of him.
Now he is grateful that they saved his life, that they gave, took care of him. But when that child grows up and then sees that these people are actually killing innocent people in hundreds and thousands, then does it mean that because they took care of me in my childhood, now I should approve of what they are doing? I also have to do that? No, it doesn’t necessarily. Gratitude is meant to be, gratitude is very important.
But ultimately gratitude is not a supreme virtue. Dharma is a supreme virtue. So gratitude should help us to become more dharmic.
But if our gratitude makes us do something adharmic, something that is terribly destructive to others, then the problem comes when we take any virtue and make it a supreme virtue. Certainly for Durdhana the choice was not easy. But it was not that coming to Krishna’s side was just opportunism and coming to Krishna, staying on Durdhana’s side was ethical.
No, Durdhana himself was the personification of adharma. So staying on that side was not dharmic. So it’s like a person who was, a child who was saved by terrorists, but then the child doesn’t think that, shouldn’t think that now it is my duty to become a terrorist and help the terrorists.
No, child has to, at a particular time, use one’s intelligence. So yes, Karna had said that I’ll be your friend. But does that mean that Karna, Durdhana, whatever he does, he has to be a friend in that? So initially Karna was, Karna opposed Durdhana.
When Durdhana made some schemes, Karna said why do you do all this? Let’s challenge them for a fight, we’ll defeat them. So Shakuni said no, no, we cannot defeat them. So eventually Karna stopped opposing and Karna started suggesting further.
Let’s do this, let’s do this. Since Karna again suggested that when Abhimanyu was wreaking havoc, he said we’ll find some way to stop him and we cannot stop him in a fair fight. So ask Drona what to do.
And then Drona suggested that six of us can attack together. And Karna was one of the six who attacked. So the point is that he became adharmic.
So we could see there is, from the circumstance, yes, leaving one’s friend in the time of danger because one gets an opportunity to do something better, that’s like opportunism. But if that friend is on the wrong track, then what do you do? So he had a choice, I wrote an article on this, it’s on my website. He had a choice between word of honour and life of honour.
His word of honour was, I have promised Duryodhana I will be your friend. He sticks to that. But then what happened because of that? He lived a life of dishonour.
Because he was on the side of those who were living dishonourably. What Krishna offered him was a life of honour. He would have had to give up a word.
But then he would have lived on the side of dharma. So circumstances put us sometimes in difficult choices. But then we have to use our intelligence and make the best choice in that situation.
Yes? Okay. Yeah. So sometimes we may fail to live up to somebody’s expectations because of our own nature or our own limitations.
And then that disheartens us and we stop doing even what we can do. So how can we accept ourselves? Yes. Our expectations are meant to inspire us.
The expectations that others have from us, they are meant to inspire us. Not to burden us. Our expectations should help us to bring out our best.
But if the expectation becomes like a big burden crushing us. Oh I have to do this, I can’t do this. Then that is counterproductive for us.
We all would like to improve. But improvement also is gradual. It’s incremental.
Say if I can lift 10 kg weight. If somebody says you should lift 25 kg weight. I will get crushed under that.
But just because I can’t lift 25 kg doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t lift 10 kg also. I can lift 10 kg then I can move towards 11 kg. I can move towards 12 kg.
So what we have to do is that we need to not let others’ expectations become the sole basis of our self-conception. How others think of us does affect us. No doubt about it.
Oh this person thinks I am lazy. Am I really lazy? When others apply some label on us that does affect us. But we can’t let one or two people’s conceptions alone determine our self-conception.
So okay from their perspective I am a weakling. They are saying you can’t lift 25 kg you are useless. Okay but I can’t lift 25 kg.
But that doesn’t mean I can’t lift anything. I can lift 10 kg. So let me lift what I can.
So when others’ expectations start creating negative emotions within us then we have to create some distance in the relationship. I won’t take your experience so seriously. Sometimes some people’s expectations can create positive emotions.
Oh you trust me? Yeah I will do this. I will do my best to do it. So we have to see ultimately it is I who have to live with myself.
It is I who have to deal with my body, mind and soul. Which I have. So acceptance is also the basis for transformation.
Even if I want to improve I have to begin with where I am. Suppose say I wanted to go to a particular place. And I took a wrong turn and went to some other place.
I am calling someone. You fool I told you to take a straight turn. Why did you take that turn? And he is just chastising us on the phone.
No I took a wrong turn. Okay you took a wrong turn now take a right turn and come back. And if they are simply lambasting us at that time you just have to switch off the phone.
Ask someone else how can I come back on the right track? So yes we may go off track but just because we have gone off track doesn’t mean that we are condemned to stay off track. And if somebody is simply castigating us for going off track then help me to come back on track. Okay I made a mistake but let me come back on track.
So if others intervention is causing disruption it is not leading to any assistance then we have to cut off that contact. So we have to know that ultimately our defining identity is that we are servants of Krishna. And Krishna has provided us what we need for our ongoing spiritual evolution.
For a particular material situation it may be that we don’t have what it takes to deal with that situation. But the real purpose of that material situation is not just to deal with that situation. It is to evolve spiritually through that situation.
So what do we need for that? Krishna has provided us that. And if we have to accept ourselves it comes by making sure that our first identity is I am a servant of Krishna. If our identity comes too much from somebody else I am this person’s son.
I am this person’s spouse. I am this person’s brother. Then what they think of us will affect us too much.
We want to take in what others think about us take that into consideration. But we don’t want any person’s conception to become our self-conception. Our self-conception is I am a servant of Krishna.
And this is what I have. These are the resources I have. These are the capacities I have.
With these I will try to serve. And then gradually we can improve. Did I answer your question? If we have self-expectation what can we do? Again we have to be realistic.
So it is said that if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a monkey sorry to climb a tree judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree then the fish will have a lifelong inferiority complex. So sometimes even when we say our expectations they are also actually simply reflections of what the world considers successful. What the world considers glamorous.
So our expectations may be there. It is good to have expectations but you have to see the effect. The effect should be that it should encourage me not discourage me.
If it is discouraging me just put it aside and develop a new set of paradigm expectations. What can I do right now? And this is where I am. From this is where I can move forward.
The only way we can ever do anything constructive is first make peace with ourselves. Unless I accept who I am making peace does not mean that I want to stay how I am. Staying how I am is a rationalisation of self-justification.
But self-acceptance is different from self-justification. This is where I am at right now. And from here I can improve.
If I am on the wrong road I have to accept I am on the wrong road from there I can come on the right road. But if I don’t accept I am on the wrong road if I stay in denial how will I ever do the right thing? So even if we are not able to live up to our expectations then we have to see that these expectations I will come to them gradually. Let me have a realistic set of expectations right now.
So that way by focussing on both our present reality and our potential to go to a better reality. If we focus only on the present we will get depressed oh I am so far off I am good for nothing. But if we focus only on the potential then we go into utopia.
We think I am like that but I am not like that right now. So we have to see the present and see the potential and then find a path from the present to the potential. Thank you very much.
Shri Antara, Shri Madbhagavatam Ki Shri Prabhupada Ki Kaur Bhakta Vindhya Ki Jai Kaur Prabhupada Ki Jai