How to decide what to do

[Sunday feast class at ISKCON, Naperville, USA]

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Thank you Prabhupada. Hare Krishna. Hare Krishna.
Thank you very much for coming today evening. And today I will speak on a topic which is of relevance to all of us. That is, how do we know what is the right thing to do in life? That is the question of Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita.
And that is the question that drives the Mahabharata. So, Prithyamitam Dharmasambudh Chetah. Arjuna asked Krishna in 2.7, what is dharma? Now dharma is not just some religious code.
Dharma is actually the right thing to do. The action that keeps us in harmony with the nature of reality. The action that is harmonious with who we are and who we are meant to be.
So, now we all know that there are times in our life when we have to make decisions. At one level, at every moment we have to make decisions. So right now you’ve made a decision to come for this programme or not come for this programme.
Even when you’re sitting for this programme, you’ve made a decision whether to pay attention or not pay attention. So, now there are some decisions which are relatively easy to make. Some decisions are very difficult to make.
So there are, broadly speaking, you could say two kinds of confusions. There could be moral confusion and there’s ethical confusion. Sometimes moral and ethical are used in interchangeable sense.
But moral confusion is where path A is right and path B is wrong. But still we just don’t have the moral strength to do what is right. Whereas ethical confusion is where we don’t know what is right.
And, so we need to function in life, we often say that we need values. Now what do we mean by values? Actually values we talk about honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness or whatever. We can talk about these as values.
But what do we actually mean by values? See our values determine what we consider as valuable. What we consider as valuable is reflected by our values. So if somebody values say punctuality, and then if somebody comes late, then they’ll just not be able to be there on time.
I had gone for one place for a programme. I had one programme on Sunday and the next programme was after two hours. I had a meeting with one of the leaders over there and I left.
So the ETA was saying that it’ll take about one hour. And I was going to reach about five minutes late. So I was in anxiety.
And I called the preacher and I said that you know you please start kirtan and I’ll come. And I was in anxiety and they were remarkably cool. And then finally I reached at 5.30 and I rushed to the temple.
There was nobody there. I said what happened? He said we know preachers come late. So the programme was at 6.30 but we told you 5.30. So now if somebody is very time conscious, we’ll get very angry.
So how could you do like this? So our values reflect what is valuable for us. So now we all say that we need values. Which is true.
But we also need not just values. We need the right hierarchy of values. That means sometimes two values may come in conflict.
One value might be truthfulness. We should always seek the truth. Which is important.
So if somehow you say we have a friend who is being targeted by some violent people. Maybe some riot is going on and a friend comes to our house. Please save me.
I have a friend in our basement or somewhere. And then those rioters come and knock on the door. Is he there? So what should we do? What do you think we should do? We cannot tell the truth.
So I say I have the value of truthfulness. But the value of truthfulness is not enough. I need the right hierarchy of values.
Speaking truth is important. But preserving life is even more important. And the right hierarchy of values means that I value life more than preserving life, more than speaking the truth.
So when there is dharma sambho or dharma sambho as it happens in the Mahabharata, in the start of the Bhagavad Gita it is. What is the right hierarchy of values? So Arjuna is confused about that. And this is a very complicated question.
Because sometimes we may all have different roles to do in the start of the Bhagavad Gita. Arjuna has this question, dharma sambho bhajita, I want to know what is dharma. And Krishna answers by giving an elaborate philosophy and sometimes we feel where is the answer to the philosophy? Philosophy is actually helping us build a hierarchy of values.
And then through that hierarchy of values we can apply that to specific questions. So broadly speaking with respect to ethics, ethics is basically about what is the right thing to do, same question. There are two broad understandings of ethics.
That one is categorical ethics and the other is contextual ethics. Categorical ethics is that this is the category of right and that is the category of wrong. This is what we should do and this is what we should not do.
And we see in the Mahabharata, in fact the whole Mahabharata is actually evolution of characters from categorical ethics towards contextual ethics. We see two characters who are stuck with categorical ethics throughout and they don’t meet a very good end. Those are Karna and Vishnu.
Now Yudhisthira also starts with categorical ethics but then gradually he moves towards contextual ethics. So simple example, can I presume that everybody knows the basic story of the Mahabharata? I will mention the basic incidents wherever I am studying but I won’t go to the story at this point. So now see how categorical ethics would be utterly impractical or would be totally counterproductive.
So Yudhisthira is known to be very truthful. He is Dharmaraj. But the Pandavas have to live the terms of the exile.
Does anyone know what were the terms of the exile for the Pandavas? What were they? They should live incognito for one year after 12 years of exile. Like they are going to live incognito and anybody asks Yudhisthira, who are you? Now if he speaks the truth at that time, it’s over. So at that point he just can’t speak the truth.
So speaking the truth is important but the context is such that speaking the truth will instantly defeat the purpose of what he is trying to do. So he has this categorical ethics. Initially he has this idea that Dhritarashtra is like a father figure for me and whatever Dhritarashtra says, I will do it.
And Dhritarashtra through Vidura calls him for a gambling match and Yudhisthira has no desire to gamble but he can’t refuse and then he is incited and his gamblers everything away. It’s a disastrous loss. So he has this virtue of being truthful which is very good but he recognises that that is not the only way to act all the time.
Now again, I am not licencing speaking lies. We don’t want to say that we can anytime for our convenience start speaking lies. That’s not the point.
The point is how all this is applied has to be done carefully. But I am giving you this as a simple example of how categorical ethics will not work. So even from a simple perspective say if I come into America and now I might be I am not but I might be spiritually realised and I may understand I am a soul and I belong to the spiritual world.
If they ask me what is my name? I am a soul. I cannot write that. From where did you come? From the spiritual world.
So even if that is my spiritual understanding I cannot write that. So we have there is there are multiple levels of reality also. It is a reality that we are all souls.
It is also a reality that we are citizens of a particular country. It is a reality that at present based on our body and when we are born we have particular name. We have particular skin colour.
So always we can’t change. So the point is speaking the truth is a virtue but we have to look at the context. So categorical ethics is this is the right thing and this is always the right thing.
Context doesn’t matter. Contextual ethics is yes we accept categories. This is right, this is wrong.
But between white and black there are shades of grey. And in those shades of grey is where most of our life is. Not most.
A significant part of our life is. And how we navigate that is important. So when scripture teaches us dharma it doesn’t simply give us law codes.
Do this, don’t do this, do this, don’t do this. There are some principles which are do’s and don’ts. But life is extremely complex.
And we can’t simply impose law codes on all situations without considering the situation. So let’s look at so Yudhisthira starts with categorical ethics. I’ll always obey my elders.
I’ll always speak the truth. But eventually when he sees that he’s put in a condition, situation incognito exile, he just can’t speak the truth. Otherwise again he will have to go to a lawyer.
So he’s put in a situation where he can’t speak the truth. When he finds his elders are manipulating him, exploiting him instead of protecting him. He’s never openly disrespectful towards Dhritarashtra.
But Dhritarashtra uses a very cunning strategy just before the Kurukshetra war was about to happen. He says, Oh Yudhisthira, everybody who is a grhastha has to renounce the world and eventually take vanaprastha. He says you are so fortunate that you want to become a grhastha.
Just stay in the forest. When he does this, what is called rationalise. Have you heard of a rationalise? What is the spelling of rationalise? R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L-L-I-E-S Rationalise.
When we rationalise we tell rational lies. So the lies that sound rational, now yes it is true that after grhastha one should be getting the retired order of life. But that philosophy is being used very cynically to deprive the Pandavas of their rights and to let them have their ill-gotten gains.
So Dhritarashtra is very firm and polite, very polite but still he is firm. And he says that we have not yet completed our duties to our ancestors. We have not yet begotten children to continue our lineage.
We have not yet performed our duty to the sages. There are various duties which we have to do and that is why we cannot take one person. To use his reasons.
But the point is at this stage that he doesn’t simply uncritically obeys elders. Now again I am not justifying rejecting or disrespecting one’s elders. And I don’t give this caveat repeatedly.
The point is that no value can be uncritically established as supreme value without considering context. So contextual ethics means we have to look at three things. What do we mean by context? Context means situation.
And what does the situation determine? Broadly speaking there is the particular action Now when we have contextual ethics that means we consider three things. Not just the content of the action what I am doing but the intent and also the consequence. The content intent and consequence.
What am I doing? Why am I doing it? And what will be the result of doing this? So all these three need to be considered. So I am speaking a lie when somebody is asking is your friend there at your house? No. So why am I saying this? So that I can save someone’s life.
So we have to consider intent and the consequence along with the content. And this is the evolution that the Mahabharata goes through. The leading characters of the Mahabharata go through.
And some people who are stuck with the idea of contextual categorical ethics they say the Pandavas also did wrong. They also did certain things wrong. But if you consider their purpose was virtues.
Their purpose was they were Dharmic they were virtues and they wanted to establish the root of virtue. So the world is not a ideal place. So we want to live according to ideals.
But we also have to recognise how people are. And sometimes even if our ideals are going to be exploited by others then we have to live for the ideals but we have to live in the real world for those ideals. So how to do that is always a challenge.
So now let’s put it this way. There are good people who sometimes do bad things. And there are good people who do good things there are bad people who do bad things.
And in between there are good people who do bad things and there are bad people who do good things. So now how do we decide somebody is good or bad? It’s not so easy. But broadly we would say that there is weakness and there is wickedness.
Weakness is something which we all have. Weakness means we all have anger or greed or lust or whatever and under the influence we come up with such force that we end up doing something wrong. But then after that we regret it.
I shouldn’t have done this. So we have intelligence I should not have done this. We have conscience.
Intelligence helps us rationally understand I shouldn’t have done this. Conscience makes us feel bad after we have done that. So those who have weakness they they recognise I have done wrong.
But those who have wickedness their conscience has become completely dead. They do bad and they don’t feel bad about doing bad. In fact they do bad and think just see how clever I am.
How much pain I am causing this person. And their intelligence doesn’t think about how to control their anger or lust or greed. Their intelligence becomes a servant of their lust, anger, greed and they use their intelligence to scheme to act in a way that they can be greedy they can be violent and they can get away with it.
So if you consider a spectrum weakness and wickedness so weakness is something which is reformable. Wickedness is also reformable. But wickedness at least the person needs to begin with a desire to reform.
Often people with wickedness have no desire to reform. Because they don’t think anything is wrong. So what Yudhisthira did say in the gambling match it was a at one level we could say Yudhisthira is transcendental he’s a pure devotee and everything is orchestrated by the lord.
That’s true but if we want to learn some ethical lessons for our behaviour for our then we can say that ok the action that Yudhisthira did over there was wrong. Now it is a grievous wrong. He was proved by the circumstances but he gambled everything away and Yudhisthira himself says and Draupadi is furious with him in the forest how could you gamble your brothers how could you gamble me? He says in the heat of the moment through gambling I got killed.
Now some people they say that oh you know if Yudhisthira also gambled then why can’t we gamble? Now if you see what scripture is teaching is a very different lesson. It is saying that if a person as virtuous as Yudhisthira if he gambles he gets into so much trouble. If we gamble then what will happen to us? So we see that here it was a moment of weakness and it was very cynically and very viciously exploited by Duryodhana and Shakuni and company so it led to terrible loss but he regretted and he didn’t do that again.
One of the things that Yudhisthira did in the forest was he learned gambling. We say already you got into so much trouble by gambling why did you learn gambling? But he knew that Duryodhana might challenge him for another gambling match and he wanted to be prepared for that. So he didn’t gamble for the gambling sake but he learned and he repented of his mistake and he tried to correct it.
So that’s weakness which was overcome. Now Duryodhana he represents not weakness but wickedness. Now he had he tried to poison the Pandavas he tried to poison Jima he tried to burn the Pandavas along with their mother then he defrauded the Pandavas he tried to dishonour their wife he did all this and at the end of it when after the Pandavas lived for 13 years as per the terms of the exile he was not ready to give anything back to them and he all the sages and elders were advising him don’t promise the Pandavas give them back and he said why are you blaming me after great introspection I don’t see anything wrong that I have done and he said if at all I have done anything wrong I am simply acting according to my nature so if anyone is to be blamed you blame the creator who gave me my nature now see our past it story so in India before the current government there was something similar there was one person who was in the Prime Minister’s office and the other person in power so now he would probably never have imagined that somebody like him would be the king and he felt obliged that I have to fight for the Kauravas for the Kuru king and thus in the Kuru battlefield he chose to stay on the side of the Kauravas also took a vow that he said oh Duryodhana you will have my eternal friendship you have given me the honour of being a king you accepted me in the rank of Kshatriyas and I did it at that time even Karna wouldn’t have imagined that Duryodhana would go to the extent that he did we don’t really come to know people in one or two encounters we live with ourselves and we don’t know ourselves sometimes we do something what did I do and then somebody else asks why did you do that and then we have to come up with some explanation because we ourselves don’t know why did I do that so everybody is complex so now when he came to know that Duryodhana was so vicious so we could say in this case that Karna he was a virtuous person he was charitable he was chivalrous he was he was a hero in many ways but he got in touch with Duryodhana when there is weakness and when there is conflict when there usually what happens is wickedness drags this down just like say students go to college I was in a university speaking recently and college ethics department came and talked with me that You know, we have a drug epidemic in America and there are drug peddlers.
See, students, student life is stressful. There’s so much competition, there’s so much peer pressure, so many things are there. So students feel stressed.
So they have weaknesses. I just want some relief from stress. And there are people with weaknesses.
There are drug peddlers. Just looking for somebody with weakness. And they will give a free sample and then they will open the space.
So if weakness associates with wickedness, then usually weakness gets dragged down to wickedness. Now that’s what happened to Karna. So, Karna, he initially was very honourable.
And when Duryodhana was making various schemes against the Pandavas, he said, why do you do all this? Let’s call them to a fight. Defeat them and we will take the kingdom. In a fair fight.
Shakuni said, no, you are just a child. You don’t know politics. And Duryodhana was more influenced by Shakuni than by Karna.
And eventually it went so much that he, all of us, we need a place where we are accepted for who we are. And if that emotional need of being accepted is fulfilled by someone, we become very indebted to them. And sometimes gratitude is a good emotion.
But sometimes gratitude can blind us. And in this case, he also so desperately wanted a sense of belonging onto the cover of us that he actually ended up acting in wicked ways. In the gambling match, it was he who suggested, now that Draupadi has won, drag her into the assembly.
Make her one of the serving mates. That’s his role. This suggestion came to Karna.
And this is horrible. And of course, later Karna regrets it. He says, in order to please Duryodhana, I acted terribly in the assembly.
But what happened? He was not wicked, but he did act not just in wickedness, but wickedness at times. Now, eventually, when the war came, before that, Krishna came and told Karna that you are the LS Pandava and you can become the king. And you will have the king, you will have the honour that you want, and you will also have the sign of virtue.
But he operated based on categorical things. I have given my word to my friend Duryodhana. Even if I die, I will seek to do that.
But what was his friend doing? His friend was acting viciously. There might be some actions which are questionable, but trying to dishonour Draupadi, trying to defraud the Pandavas, there is no question about the wrongness of those actions. So by his categorical ethics, he refused Krishna’s offer.
And thus, he courted his own death. So Karna had a choice between the world of honour and the life of honour. Should I honour my word or should I live a life that is honourable by choosing Dharma? Unfortunately, operating on categorical ethics, he chose the world of honour.
Now, something similar happens, you could say, with Bhishma. But we see that Bhishma never degenerates to wickedness. Bhishma tries to oppose the heinous act of Draupadi in this room.
But at that time, he gets… Because Bhishma operates very much in a rule-bound kind of disconception of Dharma. So, Draupadi raises the question over there that… He says that… Draupadi raises the question that if Yudhishthir had gambled himself before, and he is not his own master, how can he be my master? How can he gamble? And then Bhishma says, Yes, because Yudhishthir, he gambled you. So, he says, wife belongs to the husband, husband belongs to the wife.
So, normally, wife belongs to the husband. But if the husband is not his own master, can the wife and husband gamble? Does the husband, anyone belong to the husband if he doesn’t belong to himself? He says, there are these two principles and they are confusing. So, I don’t know what is right.
So, he gets victimised here by what is called as Niyamagraha. Niyamagraha is getting caught in the letter of the law and forgetting the purpose of the law. Okay, whether a wife belongs to the husband or not.
The more important thing is that a woman should not be dishonoured. Forget the technicalities of the law. But he gets too caught in the technicalities.
So, we could say that he does commit himself a mistake on his part also. But it is more of passivity amidst wickedness rather than active wickedness. What Karuna does is active wickedness.
And another thing is that Krishna never approaches Bhishma. You come and fight on the side of the Kaurava, one of us. So, we could say that Bhishma also operates according to categorical ethics.
And from one perspective, because Bhishma remains silent, at least he is actively forcefully stopped, there is no need of Gopati. That’s why he has to face a bit painful end. His body pierces by so many arrows.
And it’s one thing to have the body pierced by arrows, but to stay like that for days upon days upon days, that’s extremely painful. So, that’s one understanding. So, here what we see is that he does get the consequence of his action.
But he is not somebody who is actively wicked. So, both of them operate on categorical ethics and they meet with a non-searchable end. They end up choosing the wrong party.
But at the same time, there is a higher understanding of this. Just like I said, I might give my identity that I am an Indian, but then there is a higher level of identity also. I am also so.
You can have various levels of identity. So, similarly, if you have a mainframe computer, like it’s a big central computer for a big organisation. Now, some people, those who are data entry operators, they just have access to some area of the computer where they just put in the data.
Somebody is a higher level officer, they have access to many more files in the computer. Somebody is a CEO, they may have access to everything in the computer. So, similarly, there is a concept of Adhikar.
Adhikar is level of authority. So, when we study a scripture, according to our Adhikar, we get a certain understanding of the scripture. So, at the level of ordinary analysis, Bhishma does act wrongly based on categorical ethics.
But there is a higher understanding. And that understanding is revealed in the Mahabharata. So, the Mahabharata gives this operational understanding.
And the Mahabharata says that actually Bhishma is a pure devotee. Now, if he is a pure devotee, why does he act wrongly? Why does he stay on the wrong side? That is because Krishna wants him to be there. And that’s why, as I said earlier, Krishna never goes to Bhishma to tell him to come and ponder on something.
Now, why would Krishna want Bhishma to be on the opposite side? Multiple reasons. One is that Krishna wants to demonstrate that even if a person as illustrious as Bhishma chooses the side of Adharma, he will fall. Dharma will win.
And Adharma will fall no matter who bypasses Adharma. Another thing is, Bhishma and Krishna have a very extraordinary relationship. It’s called virya-rasa.
Where Krishna wants to see Bhishma as an aggressor, fighting against him and his devotee. And there is an amazing incident when the same Krishna who has taken a vow not to raise any weapons, Bhishma is about to kill Arjuna. Now, Arjuna can’t fight wholeheartedly.
Arjuna feels that, this is my grandfather. He said, when I was a small child, I would come back to play in the fields and I would sit on his clothes and soil his clothes by my feet and then I would play with his beard and I would ask him, father, father and then I would fondle my hair and say, child, I am not your father. I am the father of your father.
So he said, how can I fight against this person? So, now, Arjuna is fighting half-heartedly and Bhishma is fighting wholeheartedly. Bhishma doesn’t want to hurt Arjuna. But Bhishma wants the world to know how much Krishna loves his devotees.
And thus, he wants to see what Krishna will do to protect his devotees. And with that devotional intention, as I talked about intent, content and consequence, so the content seems to be fighting against the Lord and his devotees. But intent, he wants the world to know how much the Lord loves his devotees.
And thus, he fights wholeheartedly. And he fights wholeheartedly, slowly, it becomes clear that Arjuna is going to get wounded. Arjuna may be killed also.
Krishna becomes pensive. And then Krishna looks around and he sees nearby a wheel. Now, on that battlefield, there were swords, there were bows and arrows, there were spears.
Why a wheel? Now, Krishna is so anxious that he sees that wheel and then reminds him of his own Sudarshan Chakra. And he just, at one level, he is on the chariot. At one moment, he is on the chariot.
Next moment, he has jumped off the chariot. Ran to the wheel and picked up the wheel. Normally, when people fight with swords, they are close to each other.
If you are fighting with arrows, there is some distance. So, there is some distance between Krishna, Arjuna and Bhishma. So, Krishna starts whirling the wheel and charging towards Bhishma.
And as soon as Bhishma sees Krishna charging, Bhishma puts down his bow. He says, Oh, Krishna, death at your hands in the perfection of my life. And Krishna is so angry, he says, you are the cause of this war.
If a king goes on the wrong track, it is the duty of the minister to stop him. Because you failed to stop Dhritarashtra, you are the cause of this war. So, I am just charging towards him.
And Bhishma says, I tried my best. But Dhritarashtra was so attached to you that he never listened to me. You are the best judge of things.
Now, when Arjuna sees this, Oh, Krishna has jumped off his chariot. Krishna is running. Arjuna is concerned not about his own life.
He is concerned about Krishna’s honour. Krishna has taken a vow that I will not raise a weapon. And although Chakradheera is not a weapon, but critics will say it is a weapon.
And you used it as a weapon. So then, he calls out to Krishna, Stop. I will fight.
I will kill Bhishma. Please don’t. You don’t raise weapons.
But Krishna is blinded. Krishna doesn’t hear at all. And then Arjuna jumps off his chariot and runs.
Now, Krishna has already got a head start. So now, Arjuna just runs like a flying tackle. And he catches Krishna’s foot from below.
And Krishna is running so fast that Krishna drags Arjuna along. And Arjuna finally says, Bhishma and Krishna just come very close to each other. Finally, Arjuna raises his heavy Kshatriya legs and bangs them on the ground.
He bangs them on the ground with such force that it creates a ditch in the feet. And his legs get stuck in the ditch. And now his legs are in the ditch and he is holding on to Krishna’s foot.
Krishna’s legs. And then Krishna comes to a grinding stop. At that time, Krishna says, Krishna, I will fight.
Please don’t break your vow. And then, at that time, Krishna comes to his external consciousness. Now, Krishna, we don’t see any other time.
I say, when Shishupala was there, Krishna just sent me to Sureshachakra from there itself. Now, Krishna then ran to Shishupala and Sureshachakra. Now, he could have hurled that wheel from here also.
But Krishna was so anxious for the protection of Arjuna that suppose you are shooting somebody from a distance, you might miss. So, you go close and shoot point blank. So, like that, he wants to make sure that I don’t miss Bhishma.
So, he goes right up to him. So, this is Bhishma’s devotional heart. And that is why, although he had this, all of us have particular natures and sometimes we can’t change our nature.
Somebody might be short-tempered and even after practising bhakti, they may remain short-tempered. Some people’s anger might be more circumstantial. Some people’s anger might be very deep-rooted.
So, they may be very serious devotees, but they will be serious angry devotees. Their anger will be for Krishna only. But still, it will be anger.
So, now, for some people, their anger is quite superficial. Their anger gets purified and goes away. So, we can’t just say, you get so angry, how can you be a devotee? Not like that.
If overall their life is devoted to Krishna, sometimes their anger comes up, we don’t take it that seriously. Of course, we are very cautious in dealing with them. But, the point is, that he had operated on categorical ethics because that’s how he used to think.
But that did not impede his devotion. And eventually, Krishna recognised his devotion. And that’s why, Krishna came to him.
So, if he had simply been an attached person who chose the wrong side because he operated on categorical ethics, then Krishna wouldn’t have brought Yudhisthira to Bhishma to give instruction to him. And Bhishma gives elaborate instructions. Although he is on the arrow bed, his consciousness is so elevated and Krishna blesses him with transcendental consciousness and he gives elaborate instructions.
The Shanti Parva and the Avishasan Parva are two big parvas in the Mahabharata where Bhishma’s instructions to Yudhisthira are given. Amazingly profound instructions So, the point is that Krishna recognises Bhishma’s devotion and he rewards Bhishma’s devotion. Just see how merciful Krishna is to his unflinching devotee that at the moment of death he has come to give his personal darshan to him.
And Bhishma has what is his perfect departure. So, Bhishma does make some wrong choices, we could say, at an operational level. Now, those wrong choices have consequences.
He fights on the wrong side and he has to die because of that. But Krishna doesn’t neglect Bhishma’s bhakti because of his wrong decisions. And Krishna does not in the name of bhakti neglect his wrong decisions also.
His wrong decisions have consequences. If somebody has diabetes and they have this gulab jamun prasad this is prasad. Yes, and you take prasad and you say, oh you get diabetic attack.
But this was prasad. Well, the rice was prasad. Isn’t it? So, we couldn’t take the rice but if I take gulab jamun, material actions will have material consequences.
So, we have to be aware of the material but we don’t have to keep our awareness only of the material. So, Bhishma is a devotee. Bhishma at one level operates according to ethical ethics but at another level he is devoted to Krishna.
Karna on the other hand, he rejects Krishna’s offer and he commits himself to the one who is doggedly opposed obstinately opposed to Krishna and Krishna’s devotees. And that’s why both of them operate according to categorical ethics. So, their stature is very different.
So, for all of us, what does this mean? We all want to function in the world in a way that we vote for Krishna and we help others vote for Krishna. And how do we do that? That requires maturity. Because maturity means we have certain rules which we want to follow which is important but more important than following the rules is keeping in mind the purpose of the rules and seeing through the situation, how can I move towards Krishna? How can I get this person to move towards Krishna? So, as devotees, we try to avoid food with onion garnish.
So, once the devotees in India, I’ve been invited to a person’s house and Prabhupada was also born in the house and there they saw that the food had been cooked with onion garnish. Now, what to do? Now, one of the devotees said to Prabhupada, Prabhupada, there is only onion in this food. Prabhupada said, there is no onion in this food.
He said, no Prabhupada, there is only onion in this food. Prabhupada said, there is no onion in this food. And finally this devotee he actually took some piece of onion and he showed it to Prabhupada, Prabhupada, there is only onion.
Prabhupada said, there is no onion in this food. Prabhupada was so grave. The devotee became silent after that.
And then, Prabhupada, after that they all took that food and then they came back and then Prabhupada told them, for a pious Indian family, if a sadhu comes to their house and honours food, that’s a very considered a very great thing. And if a sadhu goes away from their house without taking food, they consider that as a disaster. It was our mistake that we didn’t tell them clearly in advance that we don’t take food with onion and garlic.
So there is a rule. But the point of the rule is also to be considered. So, again I’m not, again giving a licence to eat food with onion and garlic.
That’s not the point. The point here is that we can’t simply impose rules on every situation. So Prabhupada says, yes we don’t take food with onion and garlic but there, if we are going to alienate people so much that they feel it’s a disaster for them, then better be careful.
Better be careful. Prabhupada gave very strongly categories. This is what we ought to do, this is what we should not do.
But Prabhupada did not operate based on categorical ethics. He operated based on contextual ethics. So what will bring this person closer to Krishna? That’s what he looked at and that’s what he focused on.
In a way, by way, intelligently he could bring people to Krishna. So once Prabhupada was invited to a akhara. It’s like akhara is a, you could say the Indian version of a gymnasium.
And there are people who are doing the physical bodybuilding and they had a picture of Hanuman. Now I was wondering, what did Prabhupada speak of? This is all bodily consciousness. No, Prabhupada said that all of you are building your body.
That’s very good. In a society, kshatriyas are needed. They are needed to protect society from wrongdoers.
And your idea is Hanuman? Do you know, Hanuman also chanted the name of Ram. So Prabhupada says, while you are doing your sit-ups or push-ups, Ram, Ram, Ram, Ram. So, Prabhupada appreciated what they were doing.
He didn’t say, what is this? You are simply building your body. He didn’t say that. He appreciated what they were doing and then elevated them to work.
They had to bring Krishna into them. So, when we are functioning in our life, we also, we first get education to know what is categorical ethics. If this is right, this is wrong.
It’s very important. But when we have to function in our life, we have to look at our intent. We have to look at the consequence of what we are going to do.
And then, we act accordingly. That way, we will move towards Krishna and we will take others towards Krishna. And even if sometimes we make some wrong choices, if our purpose is good, Krishna will give us the intelligence to understand, ok, this choice was not the best thing.
Change your course and move forward. So, we keep the purpose in mind and by that purpose, we can get guided from Krishna. Krishna will give us the intelligence by which we can come to Him.
So, I will summarise what I spoke today. I spoke on the topic of how do we know what is the right thing to do. And in that context, I started by talking about broadly how we talk about values.
Values reflect what is valuable for us. We all have to make decisions and some decisions are difficult because sometimes what is the right thing to do is difficult to know. When that happens, when moral crisis is, when one choice is moral, other is immoral.
Ethical crisis, both choices are right, but which is more right? So, we need not just the right values, but we need the right hierarchy of values. So, when Arjuna asks what is dharma, Krishna will give a simple answer because that answer would not be universal. Krishna gives a philosophy within which there is a hierarchy of values.
I explained. And then Arjuna can make wise choices. So, what is this I talked about? The two conceptions of ethics is categorical and contextual.
So, Mahabharata reflects how characters move from categorical to contextual ethics. Categorical ethics means this is right, this is wrong, and that’s all there is to it. Contextual means, yes, there are categories, but I also have to consider intent and consequence.
Yudhishthira starts with categorical ethics, but evolves towards contextual ethics. Bhishma and Karna stay with categorical ethics all the time. We talked about Yudhishthira’s gambling was a movement of weakness.
Duryodhana had not weakness, but wickedness. So, weakness needs to be overlooked, but wickedness needs to be countered. And sometimes bad people may do good things, that doesn’t make them good, and good people may do bad things, that doesn’t make them bad.
And in between the black and white and black, there are the shades of grey. So, Karna, he operated on categorical ethics and he ended up, he had some weakness that he was attached to Duryodhana. Duryodhana was wicked, and that made him act wickedly.
So, he actively instigated wickedness. Now, Bhishma also operated according to categorical ethics, and he got caught in technicalities in the Mahabharata. But he never actively became wicked.
So, his characters are completely higher, at a very higher level than Karna’s. All of them are extraordinary characters. So, at an operational level, Bhishma did make a wrong choice based on categorical ethics.
But at a spiritual level, just like I talked about a computer, you can see its functioning at various levels, as simply a data storage device, or as an information processing device, as a decision guiding device, depending on how much access you have to data and resources of the computer. So, at a higher level, Bhishma acted to please Krishna. How to please Krishna? By demonstrating that even if a person as lusty as him takes a side of Adharma, still he would fail.
Because Dharma will ultimately win. And also, by giving Krishna an experience of weariness, by fighting against him, by becoming an instrument for Krishna to demonstrate to the world how much Krishna loves his devotees, that Krishna is ready to break his world also for his devotees’ sake. And finally, Krishna rewarded Bhishma by giving his own darshan at the moment of his death and receiving instruction from him.
So, for us, when we are trying to practise in our lives, we first get the education to understand categorical ethics. But then, like Shri Prabhupada was sensitive to context, he also acted in a way that not simply applying rules rigidly in life, but seeing the purpose of the rules, which is for ourselves to go towards Krishna, and to help others move towards Krishna, and then acting accordingly. Thank you very much.
Hare Krishna. Are there any questions? I have a question. My question is, you know, you talked about two kinds of ethics.
So, when Durga was insulted, you were supposed to confront her, they sat down and Durga, so why did you not move from categorical context to active context? See, when Durga stepped and fell, at that time the Pandavas remained silent. Okay. Yes.
So, it’s generally, there are different levels. Normally, if we see somebody slipping and falling, we would immediately run and help them, pick them up, or help them in whatever way we can. But, if somebody is already very puffed up and proud, and then that person slips and falls, then what happens? There’s a part of us which is annoyed because of their arrogance, and when a puffed up person falls, it is just, okay.
That’s what you do. Now, that’s not what, now when everybody started laughing, it was not with a malicious intent. It was just innocent.
And Yudhishthira said, don’t laugh. And then immediately he ordered his attendants to take some towels for him to dry. But in that time, yes, they did laugh, but it was not with a malicious intent.
And anyway, even if it was, even if we agree for argument’s sake, okay, it was a mistake. But you have to have a sense of proportion. When we slip and fall down, and somebody laughs at us, and as a revenge for that, you dishonour an honourable lady by disrobing her, there’s no sense of proportion.
Even if somebody has done something wrong, and you want to get back at them. Justice means that the retribution is in proportion to the wrongdoing, not in proportion to the anger that is felt about the wrongdoing. So, it was innocent, it was just circumstantial, and even if it was a mistake, what you did in response was horrendous, completely disproportionate.
It was a mistake like that. When I I get caught in the world, I try to think that world, marvellous things are around, yes, it should be marvellous, moving, it is how you form a reality world. There is comedy, there’s humour, there’s everything.
So when I see that, and I see my work, that if somebody really ignores My responsibility is either to assist or absorb the product. Whenever we do this, we do the power. The product that works, right? Or my daughter.
Okay. Because that’s it. That’s the only reason why there are reports that don’t work.
Okay. That’s the only reason. And we should say also this, that in power, the character of the report is very important.
Okay. Just let me understand. Is this a comment or is this a question? What is that? Is this a comment or is it a question? It is a comment.
I am talking about my personal belief in this. So, reporting is very important because in our lives, we have a wife, we have a daughter, we have a mother, we have a son. And so, we have seen over a period of time, if you see, go back to 10,000 years back, or whatever it is, there’s always just a conflict.
Guess what? There’s a lot of us who get raped. You see, everyone. Is that right? So, the thing is that, I think it describes as important, but I think it fails to have its weakness.
It’s hard for me to understand. Okay. Let’s come to that one moment and we’ll finish that.
So, yeah. So, was it weakness for the Pandavas when their wife was being dishonoured to stay castle over there? Yeah, that’s how Drupada properly felt about it. She felt very much let down by them.
But it was Yudhishtira’s sense of self-restraint at that time. He felt that, I have been, I’m bound to them. So, it’s also a complex situation because if he has sold himself, they are his masters, he can’t oppose them.
So, it was the viciousness of Duryodhana to do that. It was the horrifying passivity of the Kshatriyas over there to not oppose that forcefully. And of course, it was the error of Yudhishtira to have gambled in the first place.
But rather than seeing that as a failure, we see that even that Yudhishtira and the Pandavas were very tolerant. And even after that, Duryodhana kept provoking. So, if somebody is that incorrigible, then they have to be exemplarily punished.
And that’s what happened eventually. You can talk with me after the class now. So, thank you very much.
Hare Krishna. I have written a few books, just like I talked on the Ramayana. Sorry, I talked on Mahabharata.
This is a book on the Ramayana, Wisdom from the Ramayana on Life and Relationships. So, 20 instances from the Ramayana told and analysed to draw various life lessons. When bad people do bad things, how do we act? And why was Sita sent away even after she was won back by Rama in the war? Questions that have been answered.
There’s also a book on Gita Wisdom through quotes, I guess. Spokesperson statements, quotable statements during the class. Weakness can be forgiven, wickedness can’t be forgiven.
So, things like that. You’ll see quotes inspired by the Bhagavad Gita, 65 quotes. And there are several other books also.
If any of you want, you can have them outside. Thank you. Hare Krishna.