In scriptural study, be not just faithful but also purposeful

Bhagavatam class at ISKCON, Juhu

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hey. Today morning is the day one of the two pairs of Shri Prabhupada Maharaj, two doctors in India. And this pair is stressing one point, and this point comes after contrasting one of the previous words.
So I will focus on this contrast. This verse talks about how the wise person, Sudhiyo, he has an intelligence. Sudhiya is undergone good intelligence.
In the Gauri times, the author of the Koran, also called Al-Kameez, Al-Kameezha, that was to say, that Sudhiyo, those who have good intelligence, Viramanti Shabda, Shabda refers to the Vedic literature. Specifically, the Karmakhanda literature. I am going to also talk about this too, where it says, Shabda Ramma Adi Vadate.
In the 6th chapter, it talks about advanced yogi, Mooladhara Mahasaya, the yogi, Yatheya, Swamiji, Nityananda Swamiji, all those, Shabda Ramma Adi Vadate. In Shabda, it comes to, the Vedic sound, or Vedic literature. Now, the Vedic literature, advanced Gauri knowledge, within the Vedic, much of it, is about Karmakhanda.
Karmakhandans, doing religious activities, focussing on getting, winning medals. And this is definitely, a profession, about mediatism, across all borders of mediatism. But, it is itself, not in the advanced level, advanced level, spiritual level.
So, in Shabda, it stops there. And, the prior part of this verse, in the Vedic, Mooladhara, Nityananda, Mahasaya, there is a list of various kinds of meditations, like this list, the moon, the master of the moon, the mind, the bigger physical elements, which are there, the earth, water, fire, and Karmakhand. And all of these, these are all, actual subordinates of the Lord.
And they, are meant, to be identical. There is a reply to the verse, they are used to be servants. They are not, independent beings.
And that is why, the devotees, stop studying all these, things. So what is the connection between the first half and second half of the verse? The first half says that you are that. All these things are actually subordinate to you.
All these things are non-related, are not you. They are actually non-related, are not you. None of these devatas, they cannot understand you.
You are superior to them. And the second part says that therefore they stop studying the Vedas. And focus on those things.
The connection is implied in the first half and second half is that the Vedas talk about these things. The Vedas talk about Vimohana, they talk about Yudhana, they talk about many other forms of analysing this world to understand how it works. Now interestingly, the previous verse actually talks something opposite, not exactly opposite.
The first half says that you are a, you are a, you are Sai, you are Vimohana. So now that verse says that actually you are all these things. And this verse says actually none of these are you.
You are beyond all these things. So here we see this demonstration of the principle of achieving Vimohana. That occurs repeatedly in the Mahabharata.
That God is one in this creation. At the same time he is also different from us. And various schools of thought sometimes go to the extreme.
One school is extreme because there is one aspect. Other schools emphasise another aspect. And there is one who has no doubt.
We see in the Mahabharata, for 1980, they said, the wise person. So it says Vasudeva is everything. Now interestingly, all of a sudden he starts saying Vasudeva is everything.
The Bhagavad Gita also states, Mantrapati, knowing Vasudeva is everything, he surrendered to me. It is not that if Vasudeva is everything, then surrender to me. Although we understand Vasudeva is everything, the object of surrender is not everything.
The object of surrender is Vasudeva. So Prahladaraj tells before the emergence of Prahladaraj, that he is present everywhere. God is present everywhere.
In fact the question that goes before that is in philosophy itself. That Prahladaraj asked Prahladaraj, who is the source of God’s presence? At first thought, Prahladaraj’s answer might just seem audacious and cheap. He doesn’t give a straight answer.
Vishnu is the source of my strength. He says, the source of my strength is also the source of your strength. He is also the source of the one whom you consider as the source of your strength.
That is Brahma. Brahma has been the benediction to Hiranyakashipu before he became very strong. So why doesn’t Prahladaraj give a straight answer? He is actually saying that the source of my strength is also your strength.
So he is very strongly stating over there, that you don’t think that your strength comes from someone else. So the point in this is, so under my philosophy, the implication of this one is, God is not just the best of all beings. God is the basis of all being.
So if you think that God is just the best of all beings, you know okay, in a country there is a Minister of State, there is a Minister and there is a Prime Minister. But in a hierarchy, the Prime Minister is at the top. You may think that God is like that.
There are many leaders, there are many leaders, there are Hiranyakashipu, there are Ayyurveda, and there are just a few. You may think of everyone in a community of Hiranyakashipu. And in that identity, God is the best of all beings.
Why? For some analytical comparative purposes, this understanding is okay. But God is not just another being among beings. No, God is the source of all being.
Krishna says, nothing can exist without me. I am the root of all existence. So God is not just one being in the hierarchy of beings.
Yes, within existence he can manifest a lot. But God is the source of all being. No other being can exist without him.
So God exists in an entire human individual. He is not just one being hierarchy of all. Now the problem with the idea that there is a hierarchy of all and God exists at the top of that hierarchy.
The problem with that understanding is that this hierarchy can only be changed. No, today there is going to be a number one legislator. And tomorrow, if that legislator is deprived, we can call number one, number two, number three.
So if number one, number two, number three, they are all the same things. They are all in the same category of being. They are all individuals.
They are all in the same category of being. And within that hierarchy, there is interchangeability. Person above can come down, person below can go up.
But the God does not exist in the same category of being. He is the Krishna being. So he is the source of the strength of everyone.
So the underlying implication, again, for Dharmakrishna too is, he says, don’t see Vishnu as your enemy. Vishnu is not your enemy. Actually, your limit is your uncontrolled, indecisive mind.
So again, why this? Vishnu is not your enemy. But Vishnu doesn’t exist in the same category as you exist. Vishnu exists at a completely different level of existence.
So don’t see him as your enemy. And there is understanding that God is not the God. And a different way to take it.
This is important, especially when we want to understand God both as a person and as a concept. We need a personal understanding of God. He is not as a form.
He has threefold bending form. He is a being. But sometimes, in stressing the personal understanding, we may think that God is just this, and there is nothing more to God than this.
God is this, and God is more. God is not just a form. He is definitely manifested as a form.
He is not just that. He is the all-pervading supreme being. And here, it remains that that all-pervading aspect of God is emphasised when Ramana says that you are all-pervading.
You are avidhu. You are amrit. You are virat.
You are all-pervading. What does that mean? That is, everything has come from you. Everything exists because of you.
Everything is shattered in you. So God is, God has that aspect of being all-pervading, being all-pervading. And everything in itself is not given from you.
So to understand God in his words is to understand him in principle as a source of everything. And in person, as a source of all love, as a source of all loving relationships. Both aspects are important.
In the previous verse, it states that God is the, that you are all these elements. In this verse, it states actually none of these can understand you. Or you are beyond all these.
The point is, in the previous verse, the avidhu aspect was first. In this aspect, the virat aspect is first. So, this is then, Hiranyakrishnu asks, where is your Krishna? Krishna is everywhere.
Is he invisible? Yes, he is invisible to the world. Now after that, Hiranyakrishnu goes and smashes the pillar and Simhadevi watches from there. After that, once that is Prahalad’s world, then he, he is shown behind the Natsarudra and Simhadevi.
But after, Hiranyakrishnu is delivered, Prahalad does not go and guard the pillar. He goes and guards Natsarudra and Simhadevi. So Vishnu is present everywhere, but that doesn’t mean that everything is worshipped as a light.
The difference, Vishnu, the person, Lord Narayana, Krishna and Natsarudra, he is to be worshipped. It is not that the pillar is to be worshipped. We respect the pillar as the energy of the Lord.
The pillar is not to be worshipped. To this point, at night also, when he is standing on the pillar, every section of the Ganges is important. And Shraddha Prabhupada, who is strongly disapproved of people who do this, rush into the Ganges.
And they neglect everything else in the Bhagavatam. They say all is gone, we went and came back. So the whole Bhagavatam to me is Vishnu.
And all of Bhagavatam is important. At the same time, there is oneness with that Krishna for a great amount of time in the whole Bhagavatam. Still there is difference.
But every angle of the Bhagavatam is unique in its own self. It is where the Bhagavatam is revelation of the absolute truth. It moves upward, upward, upward.
It attains its culmination within the truth. And that is what the sage Shraddha Prabhupada who disapproved of people rushing into the Ganges. The sage Shraddha Prabhupada presented the Ganges to this Krishna.
And he told that the Krishna should be still alive. And of course, the Ganges of Ashram is not special. So the oneness aspect is there.
Everything in the Bhagavatam is connected to Krishna. And that is what everything in the Bhagavatam is about. At the same time, there is a difference in every angle of the Krishna.
So, in the third angle, fourth angle, in some analysis it is described. Third angle is Krishna. Fifth angle, fourth angle is Krishna.
Now, even if one doesn’t understand this, this is not a problem. We study it, and we submit it to the father. But we don’t have to get caught in that.
Even if we don’t understand, we can still advance in our religious service. And we can change religion if we understand its pastime, if we understand its position. And we develop our devotion.
So, understanding the 10th angle pastime is far more important than understanding the 10th angle position. We will get used to it. One can go for the scientific analysis.
But, it is not as important as the Bhagavatam. So, when we are studying the Bhagavatam, sometimes we get caught in certain things, and we do not know what they are. So, for example, if somebody comes from a scientific background, and they study the 10th angle of the Bhagavatam, it is not a problem.
Such huge dimensions, such big mountains, and so many places, how do we get stuck? How do we get caught? And when a person gets stuck in that, then they can’t move on. So, once Rupa Dodara asked this question, there is a description that Maharaja Ugrasing had some millions and millions of body parts. So, Rupa Dodara asked that, a devotee asked Rupa, Rupa is one of the scholars, and we tell them that Ugrasing had millions of body parts.
They laughed at this. They said, in Dwarka, where did millions of body parts stay? Where did they live? Where did they have their washrooms? How did they manage? Wasn’t there a population explosion there? Now, Prabhupada could have answered very easily. Prabhupada could have said, Krishna can do anything.
Krishna is Achyutisha. That is possible. But Rupa chose a completely different path over him.
Rupa says that, in all thousands of words in the Bhagavatam, was that the only thing you found about the scholars? He said, was it the only thing you found? So, these figures are not very important. Every, in every branch, the branch of knowledge which is there, there is a purpose. And that purpose has to be kept in mind.
So, I have that purpose. Then we can get caught in trivial things. Like, we are studying, internationally, if we study a subject, there may be, there might be one concept.
Now, if you start studying science, if you start studying physics, if I start studying atom, now, the atom might be one job. Let me say, like, at the centre of physics. Or maybe in the centre of physics, let’s say, for example, Now, if I start computing the atom at that time, atomic physics itself, a whole branch of knowledge, where hundreds of papers are published every month.
Now, at that level, I don’t need to go to that level. You just understand basic fundamentals of atom. If I am interested in that, I will go and study that later.
But at that point, I don’t need to study. Just get a basic understanding and move on. Similarly, in the Bhagavatam, if you study the whole Bhagavatam, you don’t have to get caught in the sections of the Bhagavatam, you just need to understand.
All these kinds of questions or doubts, in the Bhagavatam, he is driving us towards the revelation of Vishnu within him. And that converse should be there in the Bhagavatam, when we study the Bhagavatam. So, for example, if you consider the analysis of Samadhi, broadly speaking, in the study of matter, there have been two broad ways of studying matter.
There is an elemental frame of matter and there is an atomic frame of matter. The elemental frame of matter is to divide matter into elements. This is one element, that is one element, that is one element.
And there is an atomic frame of matter, where you don’t see the elements. You see, okay, the elements are made of some fundamental material blocks, which are the atoms. Now, in both Western and Eastern studies, there have been these two systems of thought.
So, for example, now, I am discussing a very technical subject and I am just giving a very broad outline to make a broad philosophical point, that the elemental frame of matter is Samadhi. Samadhi is a place where something is there. But within the Vedic school of thought itself, there was another school of publication, which focused more on atomic analysis, where the fundamental building blocks are the atoms.
Now, if we go to the Vedic conception of atoms, that is actually different from the modern conception of atoms. But the point is that broadly speaking, both these frames of analysis were there in the Vedic. So, in Western intellectual history also, in the Greco-Roman system of thought, there was the elemental frame of matter that was strong.
But as modern science progressed, the elemental frame of matter was strong, and now the atomic frame of matter is what is primitive, where we look at matter and we divide it into its fundamental components. Now, this is the infinite philosophical degree. And we don’t have to get into this one or another lecture especially.
That this is just the ways of analysing matter. In fact, when we look at the discussion in the subtext of Krishnacharya Prabhupada, so when Krishna started Samhita, at that time, it never gets a question. That’s what Krishnacharya Prabhupada explains.
That in this particular analysis of Samhita, something could state that there are 24 elements. Something could analyse that there are 16 elements. Something could analyse that there are, say, 900 elements.
So, how is this analysis? So, Krishna responds by saying that actually, by analysing differently in different ways, the means exhibit their benefits. And I am pleased by such exhibition of benefits. So there are different forms of matter.
Something which is there out there can be analysed in different ways. And whichever form of analysis it is, we will use that. So, to give a more practical example, we have, say, for medical purposes, we have two different models for analysing matter, for analysing the body.
That is, say, Anupatini and Anubhiji. If you consider Ayurveda, that is the whole concept of heat in the body. Chakrami, the bodily fire.
And the Chakrami is considered as a heat in the body. Now, if you look at, there is no such thing as fire in the body. If there were fire in the body, the body would burn.
So, now, here, what is happening? There are two different degrees of analysis. When we talk about fire, the word fire is common in both. When we talk about Chakrama, and when we talk about the modern conception of fire.
One of the names of Vishnu is also known as Sakta. Sakta represents the seven different kinds of fire. So, fire is not just of one kind.
Fire is also of two kinds. And generally, the different kinds of fire are what is considered in modern consciousness. So, the point here is, these two are different.
Ayurveda and Ayurveda are two different degrees of Ayurveda in the world. And, it is not necessary that we, as devotees, have to stick to only one way of analysing it. It’s Prabhupada favoured Ayurveda.
But when there is an emergency, when some urgent things are required, even if I could help him, once he got a surgical correction on his body, then there would be some problem. So, Prabhupada did not insist that everybody who becomes a devotee has to practise Ayurveda. So, most pragmatic approach.
Pragmatic means you do whatever works. So, if Ayurveda works, fine. If Ayurveda works, fine.
If Ayurveda works, fine. The point is that we have to use the body in both ways. And whatever helps us to use the body in both ways.
We don’t have to get into technicalities or which is the right model of analysis. Is the Alapakhyar analysis right? What is Ayurveda analysis? Actually, what is called as right or wrong depends on the frame of observation. When things are perceived differently from different perspectives, you will see different things.
For example, if we have a book of maps of India. If you look at the map of India, the political map of India is different from the physical map. In the political map of India, you have, there is a Maharashtra, there is a Karnataka, there is a Karnataka, there is a Pradesh.
In the political map of India, you have states and the districts of India. But if you look at the physical or topographical map of India, we may not even see the division of Maharashtra and Pradesh. You see, okay, here there is the Vrindavan mountains, here there is the Yamuna river, here there is the Kodabali river.
So the unclear things might be seen, but depending on what is the analysis, whether what is the topography is the analysis or the political division analysis, what will happen is, different things can happen. So the reality India is one, but its analysis in terms of frame of observation will be different. And somebody starts arguing, what is the political analysis? No, its physical analysis.
Both are different ways of analysis. And one doesn’t have to get obsessed with any political way of analysis, whichever is favourably based. So, if that is kind of what you are finding is very difficult to accept, then one doesn’t have to get caught.
It is a different way of looking at things. And to give you another example of this, how can we put it in positive terms? Say, suppose somebody has chocolate, and we make the chocolate into a fine powder. And then somebody has got coal, charcoal.
We make charcoal into a fine powder. Now we have black powder and we have white powder. Now we mix the two.
When we mix the two, we will have a grey powder. If I look at the grey powder in a microscope, I will not see any grey powder at all. I will see white particles.
I will see black particles. Now, what is it actually? Is it a grey powder or is it white particles and black particles? It depends on what scale you are observing. If I observe with the naked eye, I will see a grey powder.
If I see through a microscopic eye, I will see white particles. So, what the observed reality depends on the frame of eyes. It depends on where they are observing.
The point is, it is not a question of right or wrong. This is right and this is wrong. The point is of emphasis.
What Bhagavan Gandhi used towards stressing that by understanding this universal structure, one’s devotion on Krishna remains. And Krishnacharya Kapoor, again in his commentary explains that this is kind of cosmological description is given for those who like to meditate on the universe. For those who are meditating on the universe already, direct their meditation towards Krishna.
He liked to think about the universe. And think about the universe in a way that will direct your thoughts towards Krishna. So now, at that time when the Bhagavatam was spoken, the cosmology was understood in a particular way.
And what Shukla Goswami does is, he explains that cosmology in terms of devotion. So, now we don’t have to go and understand the whole cosmology or make our need to understand a big issue of omnipotence. I don’t have to get into these details.
Now, of course, if somebody has a special interest, somebody who has the capacity, has the guidance, they can go into these issues to understand this. We don’t have to get into that. All of us have to choose our guidance.
We have limited time, we have limited energy. And we have to choose how to study. It is said in Bhagavad Gita that there are so many scriptures and each letter in the scripture, each word in the scripture can be understood in different ways.
There are so many different ways of commenting and of explaining things. And we have very little time. there are so many different ways.
You sit down to study scripture, and suddenly it does not keep their head access, then suddenly there is a new news. And then you start checking the message. There are so many different scriptures.
So what? Therefore, focus on this. So, when we are studying scripture, there are two extremes. Some people may find that algorithm doesn’t work, they don’t want to read.
And we realise and we may demonise it. Or somebody else goes and says that there are so many exciting things, so many problems. If you take Ayurvedic treatment, at least you don’t have any problems.
No, both are the same. We accept, we don’t have to criticise Ayurveda. Yes, Ayurveda is good.
It is a traditional way of taking treatment. But it may not work for you. Ayurveda also requires so many kinds of lifestyle.
Ayurvedic treatment is not just treating the body or putting something in the brain or changing the lifestyle. That will not be possible for you. So, both extremes of making Ayurveda as important as Bhakti, and saying that if I don’t have taken Ayurveda, then you won’t have any issues.
So, one extreme is making everything as important as Ishwara or everything as important as Bhakti. That is an extreme which has to be avoided. And making Ayurveda as important as Bhakti, criticising it, that is wrong.
So, for example, if somebody says, this kind of problem, that’s all mycology. No, it’s not. It’s not mycology.
It is actually one origin. It is deeply from Ishwara. It is something you see from Ayurveda level of perception.
So, we don’t have to get obsessed over it. If you don’t understand this, how can I help you? Or if I want to see how the sound canal is working, can I lock it, send it out? No, don’t worry about it. At the same time, just because we don’t understand it, we don’t judge it in any way.
We have a respectful attitude towards the whole Bhagavatam. At the same time, while being respectful, we have a purpose in life. The purpose is, we want to be free from our notions.
We want to unpunish something or do something. That is favourable for our Bhakti, we accept that. And that is unfavourable, we criticise it.
So, I concluded one example of what I mean by accepting the favourable and rejecting the unfavourable by studying the Bhagavatam. So, continuing that earlier point of not being too obsessed with facts and figures. So, one said why do we have to talk about that so many wives? Similarly, in the 6th Chapter of Bhagavatam, it is said that Chitraketu has 10 million wives.
Now, is this figure of 10 million absolutely literal? Today’s Chitraketu has a numerical count. It can happen that it’s called 8 million wives present today. Now, what is 10 million in a literal count or is it indicated also? The Bhagavatam is a philosophical word but it’s also a poetic word.
And in poetry, there are, there is some, there is anutha, anutha is all nouns. And there are two kinds of anutha there. So, in Chetan Chetan he also said that there is, that in the great poet, they glorify Chitraketu and they in future they use various authors such as Apishore The Apishore is sometimes translated as exaggeration.
But actually the word in which you are exaggeration is not an appropriate translation because exaggeration means you are just blowing up the house and it has a negative connotation whereas Apishore is a positive connotation. It is beautiful. So, for example, if you talk about this negative connotation and positive connotation say in Hindi, so you will say somebody is thin and somebody is skinny.
Now, in Hindi somebody might translate as o dubla patla. Now, actually skinny means if you were, the word thin in Hindi, the word thin also has a negative connotation because it is just bone and skeleton. Very thin, very thin substantial.
Whereas slim has a positive connotation. Slim means it was attractively thin. Whereas slim or thin means unattractive.
The point is words have different connotations and slim is considered good thin is not considered good. So, similarly, a word translated as Apishore is is like slim. It has a positive connotation.
The word exaggeration in Hindi has a negative connotation. So, when Apishore thing is done, it serves a constructive purpose of emphasising the point. So, for example, Shiva’s Thakur, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Shiva’s Thakur that’s about pastime there.
But at the end of the pastime, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Shiva’s Thakur like even if the goddess of fortune starts begging and has to go from house to house to beg, still there will never be a shortage in your house. Ah! How can the goddess of fortune never start begging? She is the source of all fortune. She can never be reduced to begging.
The point here is not the literal hypothesis that the goddess of fortune starts begging. The point here is to give that example based on which God’s Thakur will never have to beg. So, the example is given for a particular purpose.
So, like that, this is not a self-contradictory statement. How can the goddess of fortune become poor? It’s not self-contradictory. Similarly, in the Bhagavatam, the point which is to look at the pastime is that a person cannot become happy with particular things.
That is the essential point of the pastime. Like, one is that, you know, he had so many powers, he had so many dreams, and still, he did not have a son. And so, it does not happen.
The point of the pastime is not that he had 10 years of birth. The point of the pastime is, despite having so many dreams, he did not have a son. And even after he got a son, he still did not have a son.
So, the point of the pastime is to look at the particular hopes. And that has to be true. Now, it is also said in that same pastime that after he got a son from one of his wives, he neglected the other one.
And that’s why the other one is very white and degraded. Now, if you consider like me, if he neglected his wife after he got a child from one wife, that means he is paying attention to all his other wives. Now, if he has 10 million wives, how exactly is he going to pay attention to 10 million wives? He will probably be able to get one wife in 10 years or 50 years.
You count it. Now, somebody might say, oh, Krishna can do anything. Yes, Krishna can do anything, but Krishna can do nothing.
There is no mention of this point that he is going to have an extraordinarily stiff forward budget to expand into millions of forms of income. The point here is when Prabhupada also, in one particular section, he says, Krishna gave him hundreds and thousands of wives. So, he makes it a pastime and hundreds and thousands of wives.
He does not look at the mathematical fact. He had hundreds of thousands of wives. Hundreds of thousands, hundreds of thousands.
He could have written hundreds of thousands of wives. So, the point here is that exact number is not important. He wanted to have children.
He wanted to have sons. He found that he had many wives. But the 10 million is not necessarily taken literally.
So, somebody finds it very difficult to accept. How can anyone have 10 million wives? If you don’t believe in that, you are a doubter. Samshayatma Vyasa.
The doubter will be disappointed. No, this is not the issue of being able to abridge. Somebody says, if it is like 10 million, fine.
If it is like 10 million, that’s all you want. That’s all you want. It’s fine.
If others can’t accept it, this is indicative of a large number. That is also fine. There is no need to make this into a big debate.
Because that is not the point of the pastime. The point of the pastime is to understand that the bigger things cannot be ignored. So, we have to be faithful, but at the same time, we have to be purposeful.
And being purposeful means doing that, so that we are more important in the lesson. So, once I was writing an article about how in the Ramayana, there is so many important lessons to be taught. So, I talked about the whole story of Vajrayana and Supriya and how they had a misunderstanding.
And because of the misunderstanding, they came from five different religions. And mortally, one of them had to die before that religion was born. So, I was talking about how relationships can be spoiled.
So, one devotee was written to me and he said, you should expect that this is not my teaching. That actually was Supriya and Vali arguing historically first. So, now, I said, yes.
I will write an article about that. I’m not going to get into that. When we are talking about values, we are talking about relationships.
If I start writing how can they be talking about how can they be talking about the human emotion. That’s not a question that is there in people’s mind. So, by bringing that often, sometimes what happens in trying to remove doubts which we think people may have, we give information that people don’t have and people don’t believe.
And so, quite often, for me, it is about Ramayana and Mahabharata. You know, I heard more misconceptions about Ramayana and Mahabharata after I came to Islam than what I had to do. So, on one side, we need to look at that and understand it.
But if people don’t have that, we don’t have to make that issue. For most people who are hearing the Ramayana, they don’t have that question how is Vali talking about him. How is Dajjal talking about him.
There is a whole philosophical explanation of how there were animals who were talking. But that is not the point. So, we don’t have to… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … I don’t get involved in this.
This is not how you are going to do it. I look at this from the standpoint of Krishna. And I develop feelings, I look at the practical aspects.
If some doubts, trouble is too much, you can consult senior devotees who are specialists in those areas and get those doubts clarified. But the doubts about certain aspects of the picture should not be made into a character flaw or should not be made into a deficiency of devotion. I should not be making it a big issue.
So neither those who are practising or those who are teaching about it, there has to be an emphasis on what you are doing. That emphasis on what you are doing has to be there for so many people. When Prabhupada has asked, how many of you have not studied the Bhagavad Gita? Prabhupada said, Krishna is all about it.
He is the real Krishna in your mind. So we need to focus through our spotlight on Krishna. And when we do that, Beyond the knowledge of Hinduism, what one will do is to focus in Krishna and that will march towards Hinduism.
I spoke here about how this verse says that the wise people go beyond the Vedas. And they see that everything material that is there in the Supreme Lord, which is taught in the Vedas, that the Supreme Lord is beyond it all. Therefore, we don’t study the Vedas, we focus on the Vedas themselves.
In the previous verse it was stated that actually all these things are also Vishnu. Why is this there? Because we discussed that this is the Vedas of the Vedas. So everything is one with Krishna.
At the same time, everything is not Krishna. Krishna does not govern everything. Krishna does not govern everything.
He governs everything. That is in the name of the Vedas. So at one level, in the philosophical principle, we need to understand that God is not the best of all beings.
God is the basis of all beings. He exists in a different category. At the same time, at a practical level, we have to focus on God.
We don’t have to focus on everything. We don’t have to analyse everything and understand everything. In scriptural study, there are many subjects.
So my classic question is, if you appear in the Mahabharata, there are many subjects. And we need to purposely and knowingly go to the heart of the Mahabharata and go to Krishna, then we will get it. And Brahmapada also cautioned against imagining Krishna in the Mahabharata.
He said, you can’t imagine Krishna in the Mahabharata. So if we get caught in the philosophical principle, if we get caught in some… I can’t understand this. I need to understand this.
Stop studying the Mahabharata. I want to stop studying the Mahabharata. We are letting small battles obstruct us from fighting the bigger battles.
So by being purposeful in our focus on Krishna, we can avoid the emphasis in doubt and distractions. So with respect to matter and material things, there are different degrees of analysing. I discuss elemental theory of matter and I come to theory of matter.
I discuss allopathy and ayurveda. So we don’t have to get into deep issues about philosophies and theories. So let’s just make an analysis.
Just like a physical map and a political map. Or just as grey powder might appear as white iron and black particles under a microscope. So whichever frame of analysis is favourable for us, we use that and do what we see.
And we focus on doing it in any conversation. And when there are facts and figures in scripture, the facts and figures are meaningful and complete and all. And that point is what we should focus on.
Because if there is a fact and figure of 10 million years, why is it difficult to understand? Then there is no need to make that into a big issue. Focus on the point and do what works before it’s too late. Scripture is a very complicated thing.
And if it does not have any focus on the essence, then you don’t have to do anything. That’s what Shri Avalokiteshvara did by presenting Krishna and interacting with the people. Now I have to concentrate on Shri Avalokiteshvara’s presentation by being focused in our study and my sharing this lecture.
Thank you very much. Are there any comments or questions? Please sit down. Yes.
So by understanding Shri Avalokiteshvara, how do we make sure that we don’t compromise? See the word compromise has a very negative connotation. Prabhupada said, I love a compromise. So if you think any compromise, compromise is something which is watering down things.
That’s the idea that we should have. But the fact is, there is one truth which is addressed or understood or spoken about when we sit down and read. So for example, Nityananda Goswami.
Our Acharyas comment on Nityananda Goswami and explain how to do the best possible. By the same time, when it comes to doing any kind of astrological predictions, the Acharyas don’t do Nityananda Goswami. Cosmology is described in the Mahabharata, in the Bhagavatam, in the Purana Cosmology.
And in the Jyotish Shastra, it is described calling for the point of view of the astrologer. And that cosmology is what is used for all kinds of Shri Avalokiteshvara. Even if the Acharyas don’t say, talk about Nityananda Goswami or Krishna Goswami or anything like that, they don’t use the Bhagavatam Cosmology to analyse our stars.
For all astrological purposes, it is not Cosmology. Jyotisha Cosmology is used. So they themselves don’t engage with the difference in this Cosmology between these two issues of the Cosmology into a bench.
They accept the Bhagavatam Cosmology and comment on it. But for functional purposes, they use the Jyotisha Cosmology. So, now, is this that using Jyotisha Cosmology? It’s not a compromise with respect to Bhagavatam Cosmology.
It is that you are using the Jyotisha Cosmology. And Jyotisha Cosmology is actually in many ways similar to Mohan Cosmology. Not exactly similar, but quite similar.
And Jyotisha Cosmology also works. Just like the Jyotisha Cosmology, you can learn it for centuries. Then you won’t be able to go to the Jyotishas.
Jyotishas are important in the astrological calculations for those who are concentrating on Jyotisha. So they are calculating Jyotishas. And they do calculate Jyotishas.
So today, using the modern scientific Cosmology, also scientists are going to calculate Jyotishas. And they are also going to calculate Cosmology. So this is a functional model.
And so, for functional purposes, today, there are no science textbooks. At least for our practical and analytical purposes, we don’t have any one. We use the modern scientific model.
Which is fine. But it’s just one model that we have. We need to go deep into science.
Science itself doesn’t talk about DNA. Science is a model of DNA. Science is actually making it clear what things really are.
Science is telling us how things function according to our conception. This is one model. So it’s not that when we are making things intelligible for ourselves and for others, it is not that we are compromising.
It is that we are just following the way that is shown. Of recognising the things that we are used to being recognised. Just as, at that time, in the past, the Purani Cosmology and the Jyotisha Cosmology, both were co-existing without being brought into understandable context.
Today, the Purani Cosmology and all Cosmologies, they can co-exist without being brought into understandable context. So where we will end up compromising is if we start saying that the Purani Cosmology stops. And this is true for all Cosmologies.
And if we start as a denigrating, criticising critic groups, then that will become a problem. But we don’t do the same thing. Out of respect, when we sit there to check whether the disease is indelible or not, whether it is not practical, then we can speak.
If it’s not, then what’s the practical evidence that the disease is indelible or not? Does it answer your question? Do you have a question? Question from the audience. What that means is that if we find that I want to do one thing and I want to graduate as well, what that means is that my intention is to make a prediction about being that good Cosmologist. So what I do is associate with those devotees who have strong conviction.
And also try to do services in association. So if we are in association then you need to be distracted. You need to be distracted.
Now how much can you take this time? There is a question. You are reminded. So usually in the mind process as long as you start writing and associating with the devotees helps us to become good Cosmologists.
And it’s not associating. It’s not just a matter of probability. It is a matter of intentional activity.
In terms of intention, we have to find some purpose within the ground of Cosmology. Some purpose about which we are focused. Yes, I want to do this.
I want to understand the world. I want to learn Cosmology. So I want to learn this basically.
Find some purpose which inspires and use that purpose for purpose. Once the purpose is inspired I cannot commit myself very strongly to everything. Let’s commit to one thing and from that commitment I can grow towards other things.
So find out what that inspires and makes you do. Focus on that. Write your instructions.
Can you talk about God? God is a person. God is a person. God is a person because the more we try to understand God as a person it is non-verbal.
If you talk about God as a person it is non-verbal. The more we try to understand God as a person the more difficult it is to understand God as a person. One of the examples is Adam and Adam’s son He was born with two parents I feel it’s a very important issue.
And even in the past, I have seen a lot of cases of the gopis are telling people that the gopis are not going to harm you. They are very, very lucky because they don’t have to put a lot of effort in nature. They feel that that has to be covered.
So the question is like, my understanding is that how we can keep our total attention on the person that we are supposed to care for. Since they are not like us, how do we balance it? It’s important to God as a principle. And the attraction and devotion to God as a principle depends on how we balance it.
Again, the principle is as important as the principle as a person. What is favourable, we accept. So, in general, the principle is important.
So, it’s like in the daytime also, stars are there in the sky. It becomes the stars because the sun is so bright. But, although the sun is bright, the stars are there.
And in the sunset, the stars are not seen. So like that, there is the madhurya, the intimacy of love of the gopis of the stars better than the sun in their consciousness. And because of that, the stars of spiritual truth, of philosophical truth, of Krishna’s position, they are not prominent in their consciousness.
They are aware, they know it, but that’s not what their consciousness focusses on. So for the gopis, they have come to the level where the sun of prema is already arising in the sky of their heart. So for us, we have seen the dark night of the sun.
The sun has not arisen yet. And for us, the dark, right now, is the star. If it’s completely dark, the stars show the way.
So for us, the stars are philosophical truth. That’s why when we study the Bhagavad Gita, we understand the philosophy. And then we move towards Krishna’s pastimes.
So, we don’t consciously neglect any aspect of Krishna. But, if we find that the pastime is more inspiring, not just inspiring in terms of what is life we live every day, but inspiring in terms of increasing our devotion towards Krishna, we can focus on the pastimes. We study the philosophy, and we will find out that actually the philosophy is connected to Krishna.
Siddhanta, when you get up, you say, I don’t know how to do this. You are not able to do this. You are not able to do this.
You can teach me how to do this. Don’t be lazy. Say, this is karma.
Because, now that you are Siddhanta, what actually should you do? So the reconciliation of Krishna as a principle, Krishna as a person, is that Krishna as a person is the practical root of everything. At the same time, If we don’t understand Krishna as a philosophical principle, as the absolute truth, then we may think that Krishna is just one attractive thing among many attractive things. So Krishna is not only attractive, and the problem is whether outside.
But, when you actually understand Krishna as a source of all these yajnas, you not only understand Krishna as a source of all these yajnas, but Krishna is completely attractive in this world. And when this path comes in touch, then you are not getting anywhere. So when you understand his philosophy, then you won’t get attracted to his path.
You will get attracted to him. So, the philosophical understanding, it is not necessary that it will take us away from our devotion. It can actually enhance our devotion.
So, there is a mental attraction to Krishna. There is an intellectual attraction to Krishna. And there is a spiritual attraction to Krishna.
Mental attraction, I don’t necessarily mean that it’s bad. Mental attraction means, say, somebody calls up a rohnikand and asks, You know, whenever I go to Ramnathap, I feel very nice. I like Ramnathap.
I feel bhakti for Ramnathap. So, he says that, and I said, I am not a rohnikand, I am not a bhakti. I said that, this is only just a few years that you have been practising bhakti.
I said, it’s possible, but it’s not necessary. So, he had been born and brought up in a place where from childhood he was living Ramnathap. So, because he had heard Ramnathap, he was attracted to Ramnathap.
Now, it is good that he is attracted to some form of Ramnathap. But this, this attraction, which is from the impressions in the mind from childhood, it is, in any way that you are attracted to Krishna, that is good. But the mental attraction is not necessarily a spiritual attraction.
The swaroopa of the soul is not an activity. So, when we have that, when our mind feels attracted towards a particular Krishna, we take that as an opportunity. And we accept that, but we don’t stress on hearing.
So, there is an intellectual attraction towards Krishna. With our intelligence, the energy for Krishna is the absolute truth. That chunyam kundalit sarvam govindam vrindavan.
As an emotion, that will come in an advanced stage. But as an intellectual conviction, up in the substantial level of Krishna, that comes in the study of the person. So, that intellectual attraction is more like a conviction.
Even if my mind is attracted to other things, I need to focus on Krishna. So, the problem with a mental attraction is that, mental attraction to Krishna is that, the focus is not on Krishna. The focus is on the mind.
Because this feels good, so I do this. But if I want something else, I feel good, I start doing that also. Sometimes people may cry.
They may see Ramayana and they, you know, how Jatai, Jatai is like a martyrdom. How he sacrifices his life in the service of all the great deities. And the Ramayana gets over and the market price starts.
And they finally say that there are four days, one of them is zero. And they start shedding tears at that time. So, what is happening? Here, there is emotion.
But you don’t see this emotion. It is good that they are shedding tears while reading the Ramayana. But it is not, this is a spiritual emotion.
So, it is, it is an emotion which can be favourable for one day. But we need to have a balance. Whatever emotion we may be attracted to or describe a person as wonderful.
But we also need to develop some sort of a reason or conviction. And gradually, as we study the Ramayana, we will come to the level of spiritual attraction. Any questions? Thank you.
You want to ask something? I am not able to understand what you are saying. Can you explain to me what you are saying? Can you explain to me what you are saying? In Bhagavad Gita, it is said, Why do we need to read the Puranas? Why can’t we read the verses? Yes. That way we can say, I can read the verses.
Why do I need to attend the classes? I can understand a few verses. See, the Puranas are meant to aid our understanding. And the Acharyas have written the Puranas.
They are all people to aid us. So, that portion of helping us understand, that is what the Puranas say. And some people like to study scripture not so much for the purpose of studying.
They may study it simply or they may just recite scripture out of some sense of religious piety. Some people like to recite Bhagavad Gita. Which is good.
Definitely reciting Bhagavad Gita is good. But quite often, people recite Bhagavad Gita without their life, without really understanding the Gita, without really living in the Gita. So, then what has happened, that is just a part of religious culture.
It is not a spiritual transformation that is happening by the contact of the Gita. So, that transformation happens when there is intellectual competition. And so we see, the verses have been used in the scriptures.
And we see the commentaries have helped us understand the scriptures. And if we study the scriptures without any commentaries, the amount of understanding that we get is pretty high. So, in epistemology, epistemology is knowledge about acquiring knowledge.
That is the branch of knowledge. What it says is, what we can do depends on what we do. What we can do depends on what we do.
You know, say somebody says, I think they will say, why are you reading so much? And a doctor comes and says, hey, you have got anaemia. Now, what is happening? Somebody who does not know about medical malady says, you have got anaemia in your mind. Somebody else says, whiteness is a symptom of anaemia.
So, the point is, what we can do depends on what we do. So, if we just study scriptures ourselves, what we can know is very limited. We are just not able to connect with it.
How do we connect with it? What is our mind doing? What do I do with this knowledge? So, by studying the Acharya’s commentaries, we can actually, we can understand the scripture. So, we should see the Acharya’s commentaries as their gifts to us to aid in our understanding. And, of course, the focus should be on understanding the scripture.
So, in some cases, from one Acharya’s commentary, we can understand something. In other cases, we can understand something from another Acharya’s commentary. That is all fine.
So, the point is, you keep the understanding of the scripture. And then, study the scripture, not just for the sake of, oh, I will cite a scripture, or I will have a comment. No.
I want to understand when the Acharya’s commentaries are invaluable and often an indispensable aid for understanding. That’s it. What’s the question? How can we put faith in Acharya’s commentaries? Yes, that is, by looking at the large scriptures, teachings, and by looking at their own lives, we will see that they are living, they are walking their path.
What scripture is teaching, they are living. And, they are living that, and they are inspiring others to live that. So, it is, it may not be, if it’s an issue of faith, then, you know, the scripture is the word of God, but I don’t know what Acharya is telling us.
If that is the issue that you are struggling on in your study, then, what we can do is, we can look upon the Acharyas, upon their lives, and then that will inspire us, how can we get a good impression. And we will see that they have no vested agendas. They have no vested interests.
They have no vested interests. In their experience, the scripture, it’s not that they want to, they want to be, you know, write a best seller book, and earn money, and build a financial environment. Most of the Acharyas are renowned sages.
And, they have nothing to do with it. They don’t, they don’t speak to the world. They want to share.
So, by looking at their life, their character, their development, we can develop deep, deep faith in ourselves. So, maybe we haven’t got, you know, half of the second class going down, and at that time, we can keep the questions, and we will discuss them. I don’t know, if that’s a possibility.
Please, keep up the good work. Thank you. Thank you.