​Make your own destiny 2

​Seminar at ISKCON, Chowpatty

PPT

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna Our actions alone determine result or destiny alone determines result. These are two extremes.
And the Vedic, the Bhakti world view is not fatalistic saying that everything is controlled by destiny. But at the same time, it recognises that certain things are indeed controlled by destiny. So, today our focus will be understanding on, trying to understand how actually we have free will and how, when I talk about karma, karma is something which is in our hands.
So, how we have that capacity to choose the right course of action and how we can maximise that capacity. And in tomorrow’s class, we will discuss more about the practical ways in which we can make healthy choices, make wise choices. So, firstly, I will be discussing a few concepts initially.
Now, the word karma is often used in four different senses. The word karma is multivalent. Multivalent means it has many different meanings.
So, one meaning is action. What are you doing? What is your activity? In that sense, we may use the word karma. Another meaning of karma is reaction.
That means, oh, I must have done some bad karma in the past. Or my own karma is coming back to me. Here, when we say my karma is coming back to me, we are talking about the reaction to my karma is coming back to me.
So, the word karma is also used to refer to reaction. And then after that, a third meaning of karma is also the system of action-reaction. The law of karma is infallible.
Karma is inescapable. That means, whatever actions we do, they are going to have reactions inevitably and nobody can alter that. So, this is the usage of karma as the system of action-reaction.
Lastly, karma is also one kind of action wherein there are three broad types of action. There is karma, there is vikarma and there is akarma. So, karma is action that produces good reaction.
Vikarma is action that produces bad reaction. And akarma can mean inaction. But in this context, akarma also means action that produces no reaction.
So, there is a verse in the Bhagavad Gita which plays around with this word karma and it can be very complex to understand the meaning of that verse. Krishna says, One who sees karma in akarma and One who sees inaction in action. One who sees karma in akarma and akarma in karma.
Such a person is wise. Now, if you read this kind of verses, you will start thinking, I am not wise. What does this verse mean? To see karma in akarma and akarma in karma.
This verse is preceded. This is 4.17 in the Gita. 4.16 is This is 4.16. Another one is 4.17. Krishna says, This is 4.18. And then 4.18 is this one.
So, here Krishna is saying, it needs a wise person to know what is karma and what is akarma. Now, if you see, actually, if you think karma is action and akarma is inaction. If you think of that, then that does not require a wise person.
Even a child can say, whether somebody is moving or somebody is not moving. Somebody is acting or somebody is not acting. So, when Krishna uses the word karma and akarma, he is talking about it in a philosophical term.
Not simply, who is moving, who is not moving. That a child can also see. But a wise person can only understand what action produces reaction and what action does not produce reaction.
So, the word akarma can mean inaction. So, then the word is in the first quadrant. So, akarma will become the opposite of the karma in the first sense.
So, karma in the first sense is action. So, akarma as the opposite of the first sense is no action. Whereas, akarma can also mean action that produces no reaction.
So, then that is akarma in the second sense. So, the karma in the second sense when it is used, it is a reaction to our action. Akarma is action that produces no reaction.
So, the important point for us, we don’t need to go into the technicalities of all this. This is in the fourth chapter of the Vita. But for us, the important point to recognise is that we have the capacity to choose actions and secondly, we have the capacity to choose actions that will not produce future reactions.
Not produce future reactions means not produce any reaction that are karmically binding that will tie us to an unfavourable destiny in the future. So, going further, if we consider that, yeah, I have the capacity to do certain kinds of actions. So, where does this capacity come from? There are broadly, the Bhagavad Gita tells, there are three truths of existence.
They can be called as prakriti, purusha and purushottama or if you want to use it in a poetically alliterative way, they can be referred to by the three ja. There is the jagat, there is the jiva and there is jagdish. So, jagat is matter.
In terms of today’s philosophical parlance, jagat is matter jiva is consciousness and jagdish jagdish is the lord of the whole universe. That is the absolute truth. So, there are different schools of thought which consider only one of these elements in existence.
So, for example, right now, say, I am speaking. So, all these three factors the jiva, the jagat and the jagdish, all three come together and that’s how I am able to speak. So, for example, say, we know there was a former president of India once he was giving a speech and he just got a heart attack and he died while he was giving a speech it’s because of the heart attack.
So, what does that mean at that time? If we look at that particular action so, there is the body and the bodily tool. So, for example, right now, say, I am speaking. So, how am I able to speak? So, there is the bodily tool there is the throat, there is the larynx and the whole voice producing mechanism that is what is important.
That is essential. If I get a sore throat, I will not be able to speak. But, if say a person gets a sudden heart attack, the voice producing mechanism has not been impeded.
Heart attack basically damages the heart. So, somebody if the consciousness is not present in the body, the body itself may be there but the person will not be able to speak. So, in the simple act of speaking there are multiple factors involved.
I might just think I can just sit down, I may think I am such a clever person, I am such a fluent speaker I can speak whenever I want. But, actually there are multiple factors some of which are in our control, some of which are not in our control. So, if you want to speak fluently, it is in our capacity to practise speaking, to learn how to observe how fluent people speak to learn from them and to practise and therefore become more effective.
But that is one aspect of it. Along with that, we can all improve our fluency in speaking to some extent. But we have all a basic voice and that voice itself cannot be very radically changed.
We can speak in slightly different tones, slightly different volumes, we can make certain changes but our voicic voice remains the same. So, that is something again if you go back to the concept of destiny and free will we all have a certain kind of voice. It may be sweet, it may be a little raspy, it may be a little shrill, whatever it is, that is the kind of voice we all have.
But, with that voice what we speak, how we speak, that is within our control. We can change that. So, the Jagat doesn’t necessarily mean only the universe.
It means matter. And we have the body which is a particular component or a particular unit within the world over which we have some control. So, the kind of body that we have that is something which is determined by destiny.
But, along with that, so right now if I am speaking so, I have a particular desire to speak. When I have the desire to speak, how the desire to speak transforms into comprehensible sound is a very complex phenomenon. There are some softwares which can speak but speech replication in terms of simple information is basically just processing of information or sound.
But, in terms of conceptualising thoughts, expressing thoughts in coherent words, it’s all a very complex phenomenon. And, the way say, our throat muscles work in order to produce certain sounds. We don’t know that.
We just desire to speak and we are able to speak. We just speak. For example, nowadays we have researchers trying to produce artificial substitutes for various organs.
Say, if somebody gets fractured, then the hand can be replaced. Also, different limbs can be replaced. So, like that, a lot of people have digestive issues.
So, researchers thought, can we create a whole artificial digestive machine and put it in the body? So, they started it off and they found that actually, we will need not a machine but we need a factory. Not as a chain of complex chain of reactions and not as a factory, a factory that will run several miles long. So, all that, if we consider work as force into displacement, then they found that the amount of work that is required to digest one morsel of food and transform it into usable energy.
That food, that work, when we take the food inside, there are different kinds of motion that happen in our body and by that motion, the food moves down and the food gets transformed. Now, all this is not something that we do consciously. It’s all done below our conscious awareness and when all this happens, the amount of work that is required to digest one morsel of food is more than the amount of work that an average human being performs throughout the day.
We may think, I work so hard and I earn my living. Yes, we do work hard. But, what after we eat? We don’t know what we are doing, who is doing it.
The only time we remember our digestion is when it doesn’t work. Otherwise, we just take it for granted. So, God gives and forgives, we get and forget.
The point I am making here is, when we do our actions, there is some higher intelligence also in the background which is acting. So, there is matter and the material arrangements. If I am speaking, then my throat and the mechanism is there.
Then there is a consciousness which is there, which also is involved in action and beyond that, there is a supreme, absolute truth. There is the higher intelligence which is also acting. So, all these three, this Tattvatraya as the Upanishads call it, Tattvatraya, the three truths, they are all involved in whatever actions we perform.
So, now, there are different schools of thought which emphasise one of these elements. So, there is a school of thought called naturalism. Naturalism is not something which would about maybe preserving nature or love of nature.
It is not that. Naturalism is the idea, it is the ideology that there is nothing beyond, nothing existing in nature beyond the normal laws of nature. Laws of nature means the laws which are discovered by physics.
So, matter is alone considered to be the supreme reality. And whatever exists apart from matter, that is simply an epiphenomena that has somehow emerged from matter. So, modern science largely operates on the premise of naturalism wherein matter is the only thing that is said to be in existence and all phenomena are attempted to be explained in terms of matter.
Then there is the soul, there is a consciousness and there are some schools of thought which emphasise the human initiative alone. And humanism, humanity is one thing. To be humanitarian.
Humanitarian means to be compassionate, to be kind. That is good. But humanism is a particular ideology which enthrones humans as the central purpose of all of existence.
As the central pivot of all of existence. That means whatever we want to do, we can do. That comes out to be the idea.
But, yes, we can do a lot of things. But as we discussed yesterday, there are certain things which are inherently not in our capacity naturally. So, for example, if we human beings, if we have a human body, we cannot fly like birds in the sky or we cannot swim in the water like aquatics.
So, there is the acknowledgement that there is Jagadish. Jagadish is the supreme being. And we recognise that there is a being beyond matter and consciousness.
Then that engenders devotion. So, devotion doesn’t mean that Jeeva and Jagad don’t exist. But they are subordinated and harmonised with Jagadish.
Moving forward. So, now a few more terms. There is spiritualism and there is spirituality.
So, spiritualism, spiritualism, the word is used to refer to things dealing with spirits. So, sometimes you may see some movies which talk about some ghosts coming up from somewhere or there may be some planchettes which talk about communication with departed beings. So, all that, the world of the eerie, all that comes in spiritualism.
So, spiritualism also, it talks basically about disembodied beings. So, we are embodied right now. We have a body.
But the soul can exist separate from the body also. So, when it exists without a gross body, that is basically called as ghostly existence. And there is a study of that non-material side of reality.
Non-physical side of reality, more specifically. That is called spiritualism. But spiritualism is not what the Bhagavad Gita talks about.
The Bhagavad Gita is primarily talking about spirituality. And it’s talking about something more specific form of spirituality, which I’ll come to. But spirituality is about the higher spiritual side of existence.
There is matter and there is spirit. Like earlier I talked about there is Jagat and there is Jeeva. So, Jeeva and Jagdish, both of them are spiritual.
Jagat is material. So, spirituality is that way of thinking and living that focusses on the higher side of reality. That is on the consciousness and the supreme consciousness.
So, now, with all this background, we will try to understand how we do or don’t have free will. So, there is destiny and there is determinism. See, the word determinism is sometimes mistaken with determination.
But actually, determinism is the opposite of determination. That means when people talk about deterministic reality. Deterministic reality means everything is predetermined.
That we actually don’t have free will. Determinism is a doctrine which says that there are certain factors which have already determined what is going to happen. So, in one sense, determinism is a kind of predestination.
And there are as modern scientists and modern thought systems try to study the human nature and try to understand what shapes human behaviour. So, there are different factors which were considered and one of them was people talk about genetic determinism. Genetic determinism means our genes have made us the way we are.
So, if I am short tempered, why am I short tempered? Oh, my genes are like that. If I am shy, why am I like that? My genes are like that. So, this is genetic determinism.
This is a belief system that the genes determine who we are. There are several problems with this. First of all, that there is something called as monozygotic twins.
Our genes are determined primarily by our parents and now there are some twins and when twins are born, at that time there are sometimes the one sperm unites with one egg and then a zygote is formed and then that zygote splits into two and then the twins are born eventually. Now, when this happens the two twins are genetically entirely identical. Otherwise, when bi-zygotic twins are there, that means two sperms unite with two eggs and therefore the two have slightly different genetic structure.
But, even when the twins have entirely identical genetic structure, even then the twins are distinct individuals with their own personality, with their own moods, with their own nature. So, we are not products of our genes alone. Now, our genes do shape our behaviour but they don’t determine our behaviour.
I’ll talk about the difference between shaping and determining. Shaping means it pushes us in particular directions but it doesn’t force us to act only in particular ways. So, what is a shaper when that is misconstrued to be a determiner? Then that leads to the destruction of our capacity for free will.
So, for example, if I’m sitting like this and see this chair tilts then I tend to fall on the ground but then I can hold somewhere and I can pull myself back. So, there is a force that is pushing me in one direction but then I can take shelter of other forces which can lighten me. So, like that, each of these factors they do play a role in our behaviour but they don’t determine our behaviour.
So, I’m here talking about not just destiny as a concept some kind of daiva, some unknown factor which makes wrong things happen in our life. I’m talking broadly in an inclusive sense about what is it that enables us to act and what is it that pushes us to act in certain particular ways. So, there is this idea of genetic determinism which is not correct and of course, genes they basically are known to correlate with certain structural patterns in our body.
There is no evidence that genes shape every kind of behaviour. So, for how genes will shape behaviour that itself is a question. But even if we say genes would but they do not entirely determine our behaviour.
They may shape. And after that there is psychic determinism. Psychic determinism means well, the kind of psychological impressions that I got in my formative years from my parents that has determined who I am.
So, say some children have very harsh judgemental parents then when they grow up then they also become harsh and judgemental. Some children have grown up in abusive families they may grow up and become abusive. This is the idea that the way we were brought up that determines our behaviour.
Now again the way we were brought up does shape our behaviour. But it doesn’t determine our behaviour. That’s why we can see that same person two people may be born two children in the same family grow up and they may just have entirely different ways of living and acting in future.
So, they were brought up by the same set of parents but they were different and it’s not just that they became different after they grew up. In childhood itself they may be significantly different. Then there is environmental determinism.
Environmental determinism means that we are shaped by our environment. So, people may generalise statements. People from this part of the world are like this.
People from that part of the world are like that. People from this state are like this. People from this caste are like that.
People from this community are like that. Now these kind of generalisations, the idea is maybe there is some people are like this then there is an idea that or maybe there is something wrong with these people and that’s why they behave like this. So, this is completely wrong.
There might be a particular cultural strand in particular groups of people or in particular kinds of association which prompts people to behave in particular ways. But it is not a sole determiner. It is not the sole determiner of behaviour.
So, there is environmental determinism means we are shaped by our association that the environment, the social environment that we are in, that shapes us. That does shape us but it does not determine us. And the key thing to understand this is we are products of our past not its prisoners.
Prisoners means we become like pre-programmed machines forced to act in particular ways. But it is not like that. We are products of our past.
Yes, I cannot deny that the way the kind of genes I have, the way my parents brought me up, the kind of association that I had in my childhood or in my youth, the kind of association I have now, all that shapes me. But that does not determine me. I still have free will.
And when we are talking about making our destiny, it centres on our capacity to tap our free will and to maximise our use of our free will. So now, here, we come to an interesting point about science. Science is a very remarkable way of looking at nature and trying to understand nature so that we can shape it to act in particular ways, to understand its secrets so that we can shape it in particular ways.
And those ways manifest as technology. But from science has grown an ideology called scientism. Scientism is not science.
Some of you have heard the word imperialism. Imperialism means when one person claims to be a king and then tries to control everyone else. That is called imperialism.
So science plus imperialism becomes scientific imperialism or it is called in short as scientism. Scientism is the idea that science alone can explain everything about everything. That science alone can explain everything about everything.
So now if this were true, suppose there were a famous brain scientist, brain researcher, brain scientist, brain surgeon and people have complex neurological problems and this brain scientist is able to diagnose them expertly through various kinds of scans and say this brain scientist comes back home and he finds his wife is upset with him and then he looks at her and says come let me do a brain scan to find out why you are upset. You tell him you go and scan where you lost your brain. So there is a side to our behaviour which is concerned with our emotions, which is concerned with our feelings and that cannot be found by brain scans alone.
That’s why Einstein, he talked about he said that we can talk about the ethical foundations of science but we cannot talk about the scientific foundations of ethics. That means, yes, there are nuclear weapons, there are weapons of mass destruction, they are produced by science, but how they are to be used, that is ethical foundations of science. Or if scientists, if they are to use their research, for what purpose do they use their research? That is we talk about ethical foundations of science, but what determines what is right and what is wrong? That is something which cannot be determined by science alone.
The Darwinian evolution theory says that we are all just selfish genes geared for survival. Now if we say yes, there is an aspect to us that is geared for survival. But if we look at the most ennobling actions, say a child is drowning in a river and then somebody else just dives into that river and risks one’s own life and gets the child out.
Or during the WTC, when the WTC crashed, Twin Towers crashed, at that time the firefighters went right into the Twin Towers and tried to rescue people from there. Now they knew they were risking their lives. And we don’t consider this as something wrong.
We do not consider it wrong, we don’t just consider it right, we consider it to be noble. Here we see not just survival of the fittest, we see actually sacrifice of the fittest. Sacrifice by the fittest for those who may not be so fit.
So that’s why we cannot talk about the sense of ethics. That is something which comes from our higher side. It cannot be determined simply by looking at human beings as products of matter functioning according to laws of matter.
In fact, the idea that this idea of scientism. So scientism is, as I said, it’s not science. It is a non-scientific claim that science can answer all questions.
Science itself does not make this claim. Science looks at a particular way of, science looks at reality and tries to find material explanations for material phenomena. But science doesn’t claim that it can answer all questions.
But when science is extended beyond its valid scope to say that science can answer all questions, then we have the non-scientific ideology called scientism. And scientism is a parasite which takes its credibility from science and makes claims which are extra-scientific. Which are non-scientific.
So, the President of America is a powerful person. And as the President, being a powerful person, the President of America is to be respected. But if somebody says, the President of America is the king of the world.
You say, no, the President of America is not the king of the world. Now you are insulting the President of America. No, that’s not an insult to the President of America.
That’s simply a statement of fact. So, science is a powerful way of acquiring knowledge. That’s like saying, the President of America is a powerful person.
But to say that science is the only way of acquiring all knowledge, that is not science, that is scientism. And now why are we talking about scientism over here? Because when we talk about right and wrong courses of action, all this falls in ethics. And science itself does not talk about these questions.
I’ll give you a graphic example to illustrate this point again. Now, most of you probably know that Einstein was a German and he was basically a Jew and he fled from Europe to come to America because of the Nazi persecution of the Jews. Now, he was probably the world’s greatest scientist of the last century.
And yet, he said if I just base my knowledge in science, then I would be forced to consider that I would be forced to accept that the Nazis who killed millions of people, they actually did nothing wrong. Why? Because if everybody is simply a programmed machine, then they were programmed to act in particular ways. So, they were programmed if we are simply products of matter.
And matter functions according to certain laws which are like our programming. Then all of us, we are simply programmed machines and we don’t hold a programmed machine morally responsible for certain actions. Say, for example, if I am working on my computer and suddenly there is some short circuit in the computer and suddenly my hand gets electric shock and I lose my hand because of that.
Now, if I lose my hand because of that, would I file a court case against the computer? I will not. Why? Because the computer is not a morally conscious agent capable of right or wrong choices. I may file a court case against the computer manufacturer.
You did not do proper tests. You designed this computer. So, the computer is a machine.
So, just as we don’t consider machines morally responsible, then if we all were simply machines and the implication of scientism is that we are nothing more than machines. Then there is no question of free will and there is no question of changing our destiny or shaping our destiny. No, we are simply programmed machines meant to be programmed and functioning according to our programmes in particular ways.
So, it is… Einstein himself said that there is something profoundly wrong with this idea that the Nazis who killed so many people, they were simply programmed machines and they were not morally responsible for their actions. No, he himself, he was the person who gave the idea for the man-atom project which eventually led to the development of the atom bomb which is bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and when he eventually saw the extent of the devastation that happened because of that, he was very remorseful. He said that I probably should not have sent that letter to the American president recommending that they do research for developing atom bombs.
But my fear was Einstein said that if the Allies don’t develop it, the Nazis may develop it before and that would be disastrous for the world. But later on, the Nazis went over close to actually developing nuclear weapons, atomic weapons at that time. But the point is, he considered himself responsible.
So, in our day-to-day conduct, we all consider each other responsible. Now, suppose I speak very harshly to someone and then somebody, my friend, my well-wisher comes to me and they say that hey, you shouldn’t have spoken like that. And I may say, hey, that person bugs me all the time.
That’s why I spoke like that. Now, here what is happening, here I may give a reason as an explanation for why I spoke like that. But still, even in such a small interaction, I accept the point that there is a right course of action, there is a proper way of behaving, there is an improper way of behaving.
And if I have behaved improperly, I am explaining why I may have behaved improperly. But the point is, we all accept that there is a proper and improper course of action. Different people may have different opinions of what is a proper course of action, what is an improper course of action.
But the idea that there is a proper and improper course of action, that That is something which is always there. And this is not determined only by, again, by survival. There are many factors apart from survival, there is culture, there is upbringing, there is the way of behaving, which involves values higher than survival.
So our free will is not an illusion. If we talk about materialism, the idea of materialism is actually very popular in today’s world. And people think, oh, this religion, all this tradition, they involve so many prohibitive rules.
Don’t do this, don’t do that, don’t do that. There is an atheist gag, atheist joke against Christianity. They say, the Bible begins with, in the beginning was the word and the word was God.
So the atheists make a gag of this and they say, in the beginning was the word and the word was no. And the word was no. That means they think that actually when there is a religion, there are so many rules, don’t do this, don’t do that, don’t do that, don’t do that.
And they think of religion as very negative and restrictive and prohibitive. So people think that all these religions, they are depriving us, they are taking away our freedom. And we want to be free.
We want to do what we want to do when we want to do it. So we should be free. That’s what people desire.
Now, if we see materialism, it seems to reject all restrictions and talk about freedom. Although they talk about freedom in practise, but materialism, it destroys the idea of freedom in principle. How is that? Because materialism implies that we are simply products of matter, functioning according to certain programmes.
So we don’t have any free will at all. That is the implication of materialism. So whoever is acting in whatever way, they are simply acting that way because they are programmed like that.
So in that sense, if we move away from a spiritual worldview, then we are left with very little capacity to shape our destiny. So now, how spirituality frees us to understand this? A simple way to understand the difference between what is destiny and what is free will is what happens to us is destiny. How we respond to it is free will.
What happens to us is destiny. But how we respond to it, that is free will. And what spirituality does is it helps us increase the distance, increase the gap between what happens to us and how we respond.
That means it increases our capacity to choose our response. So what does it mean that what happens to us and how we respond? Now, as devotees, we often fast on Ekadashi. So Ekadashi is we do not take particular food items such as grains.
Now, if a cat sees a rat on Ekadashi, cat can say, oh, today is Ekadashi, I should fast. Cat can’t think like that. Why? Because it is largely, its behaviour is largely a product of its instincts.
Okay, as soon as you say food, it is Mahaprasade Govindle. It doesn’t say that, it just acts on it and eats the food. So, what is happening here is there is a, there is what happens for the cat, the cat sees a food item in front of it and immediately the cat pounces and eats it.
So, for the cat, there is very little distance between what happens and how one responds. So, for example, the dawn of science, modern science as we know it, the dawn of science is said to be when Newton saw the fruit falling. And then he thought, how does this fruit fall? And he came up with the theory of gravity.
Yes, if there had been a monkey instead of Newton, the monkey had seen a fruit falling, simply picked it up, ate it and gone away. So, what happens to us and how we respond? This is not fixed. This is variable.
And increasing the distance between this so that we can make right choices, that is what spirituality enables us to do. So, when I talk about what happens to us, it does not necessarily have to refer to what happens externally to us. It can also refer to what happens internally to us.
What happens internally means that somebody has been in a war and they have seen gunfire, they have heard bomb blasts, they have heard cannons being shot. And when they hear the sound of some explosion, there are soldiers who come back from war and they have a post-traumatic stress disorder. So, whenever they hear some sort of shooting, they just have a hyperreaction to that.
So, now, when this hyperreaction happens at one level, such a hyperreaction is natural. Because what is happening internally, externally, let us say maybe somebody shoots someone or some sound which seems to be like a sound of a bullet or an explosion that comes, then that within triggers a certain memory, triggers the memory of the war. And then they may become paralysed, they may become fearful, they may get into the fight-or-flight response or whatever.
Now, when this happens, if they can consciously think, yeah, but I am not in the war right now, the danger of the war is not there right now. So, that action may stimulate certain emotion within us. But we do not have to react based on that emotion alone.
Now, our emotions and our actions can often become programmed. And this programming is subtle, but that programming does not take away our freedom. Programming does exist.
Programming does exist. But the programming does not, programming pushes us to act in particular ways. If we can counteract, we can counteract that and act in different ways.
So, what does that mean? I will give a few examples to illustrate this. Now, I am a writer. So, when I use a computer to write, I often for proofreading purposes, I use a text-to-speech software, which reads out what I have written.
And when it reads out, then I can check, oh, the spelling is wrong, the spelling is wrong and I can correct it. So, I had a text-to-speech software, which also had some autocorrect features in it. So, I added the soul is Sat Chit Anand.
So, I typed the soul is Sat Chit Anand and the software read it out, the soul is Saturday Chit Anand. So, the software changed Sat to Saturday. Now, I had typed it correctly, but the autocorrect made it incorrect.
So, here what has happened? The programming, which is meant to make the wrong right, made the right wrong. So, the programming is there, but I have the capacity to recheck it and I can correct it. So, that is why they say when you write, you can use autocorrect programmes or softwares for spellcheck.
Ultimately, the human element is required, the human element cannot be dispensed off entirely. So, there are like that there are programmes within us. And those programmes may prompt us to think or act in particular ways.
But we do not have to act according to those ways alone. We can choose different ways. There is a Russian psychologist Alexander Pavlov and he did some experiments on dogs and he talked about something called Pavlovian response.
So, there is a lot of different experiments, but I will talk about one aspect of those experiments, which again illustrate this principle of programming, after which we will talk about how we have the capacity to respond differently. So, normally, when we get a stimuli connected with food, say, if we see a delicious feast, then there is a natural biological response that our tongue starts watering. So, if I see some sweet, if I see some delicious food, my tongue will start watering.
Now, why is that? Because consciously or subconsciously, we have associated the stimuli of the coming from the food with good taste and eating. So, that is why our tongue starts producing saliva. So, our mouth starts watering at that time.
So, what they did in the experiment is, they got some dogs and these dogs, whenever they were to be fed, at that time, the researchers started ringing bells. So, whenever a bell would ring, that would be the time when the dog would get food. And over a period of time, they observed that normally, any creature, when it gets sight of food, it starts secreting saliva, the tongue starts becoming wet.
So, now, here there were two stimuli, there was the stimuli of the food and there was the stimuli of the bell and both of them were given together and the dogs would salivate at that time. Their tongues would start watering and after some time, they removed the food and kept only the bell. And when they kept the bell, as soon as the bell would ring, the dog would start salivating.
Now, actually, there is no need for the saliva at that time. But internally, within their mind, that programme had been formed that, oh, bell ringing means food is going to come. Food is going to come means I should have my saliva ready.
So, they would start salivating. This is all below the conscious level. So, like that, we all have formed certain programmes within us.
Now, we as human beings have the capacity for self-awareness. Awareness means the capacity to be observing what is around us and to know what is happening around us. So, awareness means to be aware.
That is called as the state of Jagruti. Now, it is human beings who have the capacity not just to be aware, but to be self-aware. Self-aware means I can not only look at the world around me, I can look at my own thoughts.
So, for example, I might just get angry and start shouting at someone. And then somebody turns, why are you getting so angry? What is there to be so worked up about? And then I try to explain, hey, that person spoke like that. Yeah, but why? Yeah, yeah, I remember.
I should not get so worked up. It is not like that. So, what happens when somebody asks me a question and I am forced to say, explain my action.
And for explaining my action, I have to think about my action. When I start thinking about my action, this is overreaction. So, that capacity to look not just at our actions, but to look at our thoughts, look at our emotions and to evaluate them, that is the capacity of self-awareness.
So, now, when I talk about destiny means what happens to us and free will is about how we respond to it. That means our destiny comes not only in terms of how externally events happen to us, our destiny comes also in terms of internally, how certain thoughts, certain patterns, certain emotions, certain inclinations may come within us. But we do not have to necessarily act according to those thoughts, emotions, inclinations.
We can choose to act differently. And that capacity is increased by spirituality. In Bhagavad Gita, point 21 and 22, Krishna talks about how we can become conscious of our consciousness.
We can become conscious of our consciousness. That means, well, different kinds of emotions, Prakasha, illumination, this clear thinking available. Pravati, this passion, I want to do this, I want to do that, I want to do that.
And moha, moha is delusion. So, Krishna is using this prakasha, pravati and moha to refer to three modes of material nature. The three modes are sattva guna, trajoguna and tamoguna.
And these three modes are subtle, subtle forces that shape the interaction between matter and consciousness. So, based on which mode influences us, we tend to think in particular ways. We need to respond in particular ways.
So, for example, it is said that the difference between the three modes can be summarised as, some people make things happen. Some people watch things happen. And some people wonder what happened.
So, in goodness, they make things happen. So, in passion, they watch, hey, this happened, that happened, that happened, what should I do, they just get worried, this is happening, that is happening. And some people just, what happened? Just completely, there is neither proper action nor proper analysis, nothing is there.
So, this is goodness, passion, ignorance. So, there are certain kind of thought patterns that we have. Krishna says, when these thought patterns come, rather than getting carried away by those thought patterns, observe the thought patterns.
prakasham cha pravattim cha moham eva cha pandava na dveshti sam pravattani na nivruttani kankshati When certain modes of thinking start coming, do not be resentful of them, do not get carried away by them, just observe them. Okay, now I am feeling irritable. Now, I am feeling this way.
The more we start observing our feelings, then we can understand that, okay, this feeling is warranted, this feeling is not all that warranted. And we can avoid overreactions. So, what happens to us is not necessarily in our control.
It is frequently not in our control. So, what happens can also be not just in our external events, but also in terms of internal thoughts and emotions coming to us. But we do have the capacity to choose whether we act according to those thoughts and emotions or we evaluate them and then choose appropriately.
So, everything inside me is not me. Everything inside me is not me. That means that there is I as a conscious being, as a soul, I am there inside.
But along with that, there is a lot of programming around that. And that programming is something which is peripheral to me. Sometimes the habits, the behavioural patterns may be positive, they may be healthy.
But sometimes they may not be healthy. So, the capacity to evaluate them and change them is what shapes our destiny. And how does spirituality increase the distance between these two? It is by making us aware of our higher side of existence.
This is basically a summary of what we have discussed till now. So, what determines our behaviour? There are these five broad factors. Our past karma, whatever we have done in our past lives, that shapes our swabhava, our innate nature, which we are born with.
And that, to some extent, can be called in today’s parlance as our genes. So, we all have a particular starting point in terms of our psychological and behavioural patterns that we come with. So, that is our starting point.
And that is significantly different for different people. That is one thing that shapes our behaviour. Second is our upbringing.
So, this is all actually related. We talk about genetic determinism, psychic determinism, and social determinism. The first three, these three are shapers of our behaviour.
So, our genes, our upbringing, our association, our environment, all these three shape our behaviour. But beyond that, we have freedom. We have the capacity to choose.
And that capacity is not determined, is not completely controlled by these three forces. These three are like prompts. They prompt me to go in particular directions.
But I have the capacity to choose. Just like say, if we are using a computer and we are searching something. So, if I usually search India.
And in the past, say, I am using Google to search something about India. So, as soon as I type IND, the Google autocomplete tries to compute it as India. But suppose I have travelled to Indonesia and I want to know something about Indonesia.
So, when I type IND, it will still compute as India. But then I have to make sure that I do not click India, rather I keep typing on towards Indonesia. So, because in the past I have clicked India repeatedly, so IND will get autocompleted as India.
But I do not have to go along with that autocomplete. I can change it. So, like that, so our past choices, my past Google choices determine what autocomplete options I get.
And it is relatively easier to go along with autocomplete options. When I have to type IND, then if I choose India, I just have to type one more key. Just press one more key.
When I type Indonesia, I may have to type some more keys. So, like that, when we have chosen particular patterns of action, to go along those patterns is relatively easier. But we do not necessarily have to go along to those patterns.
We can choose to act differently. And that capacity to act differently, that is our free will. And beyond our free will is God’s grace, is Krishna’s omnipotent mercy.
Now, what is Krishna’s mercy? We may think of mercy in various ways and some of it may be think in terms of explicitly religious ways. Say somebody comes to a temple and somebody says, oh, when I came to a temple, I saw that Gopinath was smiling at me. Yes, we might see Gopinath smiling at us and that is mercy if we have seen like that.
But that is not the only form of mercy that we should be looking for. Yes, we can have some mystical experiences. We may feel very, very blissful.
We may feel very good when we come to a temple. We feel peaceful. We look at the darshan and we feel very joyful.
All that is very good. But that alone is not God’s grace. Ultimately, Krishna’s mercy manifests as the inner transformational capacity in us.
So Krishna enables us to change ourselves. And so what happens is that there are certain past programmes which prompt us to behave in particular ways. And we do have the capacity to choose differently.
But when Krishna’s mercy comes into the picture, then the influence of the past programmes, that significantly seizes, that significantly decreases. And a whole new universe of options open for us. They not only open for us, but they become appealing for us.
DADAMI BUDDHI YOGAM TAM YENA MAM UPAYANTHITAY Krishna says, DADAMI BUDDHI YOGAM TAM I will give the intelligence by which you can come to me. This intelligence is actually what we need. Sometimes we find that we are having some problem and we are trying to solve that problem.
And the more we think about the problem, the more the problem seems to become bigger. Sometimes we have these boxing matches where two boxers are fighting. And suppose that two boxers are fighting at that time.
Now imagine one boxer has the capacity to, the more he fights, the bigger he becomes. And the two start off equally. But then as the fight goes on, the boxer seems to become bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger.
When this boxer becomes bigger and bigger, at that time, the whole fight will become unfair. The whole fight will become such that it will be impossible for this other boxer to win. Because the whole thing has become, this boxer is becoming bigger and bigger.
So like that sometimes when we are dealing with problems, as we keep thinking about the problem, thinking about the problem, the problem seems to become bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. And when the problem seems to become bigger and bigger and bigger, we start feeling, I can’t do this, I can’t do that, I can’t do that. I can’t do this, I can’t do that, I can’t do that.
And we start feeling our capacity becoming so small that the problem limits us, but our perception of the problem limits us much more. So when we are facing with a problem, rather than thinking about how big the problem is, we need to divert our thoughts to something else. And meditation, especially in the end of Bhakti meditation, Mantra meditation, that takes our thoughts towards the supreme higher reality, that is Krishna.
So don’t tell God how big your problems are, tell your problems how big God is. Don’t tell your problem, don’t tell God, where are you, what are you doing, this problem, that problem, that problem, you are not doing anything for me. Yes, God will do things for us, but we need to be open to his guidance.
And that openness to his guidance is not possible when we are obsessed with the problem itself. So the problem may be in terms of some external circumstance that has come in our life, or the problem may be in terms of some unhealthy behavioural pattern with which we have, whatever the problem it is. We don’t have to become problem conscious, we need to be Krishna conscious.
And the more we become Krishna conscious, the more that awareness will free our capacity to act properly. So, free will transforms into freedom. I will conclude with this point.
Okay, I will discuss this tomorrow actually. But I will just briefly mention this, we have free will and then we have freedom. Free will is the capacity to choose.
In terms of, in principle, we have the capacity to choose. But freedom is the transformation of that inner capacity into constructive choices. And that is what we all need to have.
And that develops by the practise of spirituality. So how we develop the practise of spirituality, I will talk this more in tomorrow’s class. But by focussing on Krishna and focussing on the practise of bhakti, we create this distance between what happens and how we respond.
Because our actions are not determined only by what is happening. Because if you focus only on what is happening, then we think I have to respond to this. But we understand that there is a higher reality beyond whatever is happening right now in front of me.
Then that awareness of that higher reality modulates our response. And thereby we are able to choose wisely. In 18.58 in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says, If you become conscious of me, all obstacles, all problems, by my mercy, you will cross over those problems.
So whatever happens to us externally, that may be our destiny. But by Krishna’s mercy, we will be able to overcome that. We will be able to respond in the ways that enables us to go through those problems and to grow through those problems.
I will summarise. I started today by talking about how the different meanings of the word karma. We have basically discussed today’s theme was how we can make our destiny by understanding how we have free will and how we can tap our free will.
So I talked about the various meanings of the word karma. It can refer to action or reaction or the system of action reaction or the one kind of action that is pious action. And we discussed about how there is Tattvatraya.
Who is this thing that is, what is the thing that is acting? That is consciousness, that is Jeeva. And there is the matter around it, that is Jagdish. And beyond them all, there is the supreme, the matter around is Jagat.
And beyond that, there is the supreme consciousness, absolute truth, that is Jagdish. And we discussed if there is excessive emphasis on one of these factors, then that leads to certain schools of thought, which are incomplete, which is naturalism or humanism or whatever. And then we discussed the difference between spirituality and spiritualism.
That it’s not just some vague concept of some distant beings or whatever. That is not what spirituality is all about and spiritualism. Spiritualism, spirituality is focussing systematically on the non-material side and developing our capacity for responses with awareness of higher spiritual realities or realities higher than material.
So, there are shapers of our behaviour, but they are not the determiners of behaviour. Determinism is the idea that things are determined by factors which are beyond us. There are different kinds of determinism, that our genes did it, or our upbringing did it, or our environment did it.
But no, they can shape us, they don’t force us. We can counter-push and we can counter those influences. They are products, but not prisoners of our past.
Then we discussed about the idea that we are determined beings that comes from materialism, which stems from scientism. Scientism is the idea that science has the answers to all questions about everything. So, if a person is upset, we can’t go ask a brain scan to find out why they are upset.
And scientism is different from science. It is an extra-scientific ideology. It preys on science, drawing for itself the prestige that comes from science.
And we talked about science can have ethical foundations. Ethics does not have a scientific foundation. It transcends science.
So, if you just account it as scientific, scientific worldview, scientific, that is the adjective of scientism, scientific worldview, then we would have the idea that the Nazis, any kind of criminals around us, they are not responsible for their actions because they are simply programmed in particular ways. We have programming, but we have the capacity to change our programming. The capacity to be aware of what our programming is, to evaluate the programming and change it.
And we discussed examples of programming in terms of, say, the Sat Chit Anand, the Saturday Chit Anand, or the Pavlovian dog’s response of mistaking bell sound to be food stimuli, or Google autocomplete. But in these cases also, we as human beings have the capacity to choose. And materialism may seem to be very free, you know, you can enjoy whenever you want.
But actually, in principle, materialism takes away our capacity to choose our free will. Because we have no consciousness, we have no free will. They are simply products of matter meant to act according to our certain laws of matter.
That’s what we are. That’s what materialism says. But spirituality is actually freeing.
How? Because it enables us to recognise the distance between what happens to us, either externally or internally, which may be determined by destiny. But how we respond to it is determined by our free will. And that free will is maximised by the practise of spirituality, especially the practise of bhakti.
And what, in this connection we discussed, there are material elements which determine our action, and there are spiritual elements. The material elements are our past life karma, which comes as our subhava, our genetics. Then our upbringing, which also may be, it’s a material factor.
Our environment, that’s also a material factor. But beyond that, it’s our own free will. And beyond that is God’s grace.
So, Krishna’s mercy maximises our capacity to choose wisely. And thus, we can move forward towards healthier choices. Don’t tell, it’s like, when we are facing a problem, if you’re problem conscious, then our obsession with the problem empowers the problem to grow.
And then we put ourselves in an unequal fight, in which we will get crushed. Rather than focussing on the problem, we can focus on Krishna. And by that focus on Krishna, we get spiritually rejuvenated by His mercy, and we can make healthier choices that will enable us to grow.
So, what this means, how Krishna’s mercy empowers us, and how we can make wise choices, that we will discuss in tomorrow’s class. Any questions based either on today’s class or yesterday’s class? And if there are no questions based on today’s or yesterday’s, then? So, any general questions we’ll also do. Yes.
Yeah. Do we have a mic? Yeah, it is there. Krishna? Yeah.
Prabhuji, I want to ask about organ donation. Okay. How that thing should be.
Means, whether we are taking the karma of that other person, or? I just want to know about it. So, regarding organ donation, if we donate our organ to someone, are we taking that person’s karma? How should we behave in such situations? Actually, this is an elaborate subject in which there are multiple factors involved. Every action that we do, we have to recognise that there is always some interaction of karma that happens.
And that alone should not be the only factor which determines what we do. Say for example, if we just focus too much on karma, then we may lose awareness of what is our dharma, what is our duty. If a baby is crying and the mother says, Oh, the baby is crying because of her past karma.
It’s ridiculous. Isn’t it? The mother has to think, okay, what is my duty in this situation? So, yeah, when the baby is crying, I should comfort the baby. And if somebody slips and falls, Yeah, they slipped and fell because of their karma.
We would become very heartless by such an attitude. So, that is definitely not desirable. The principle of karma is not meant to make us heartless.
There is a natural human tendency to help others and that is not meant to be suppressed, that is meant to be channelised. Now the problem comes when this tendency to help others is restricted only to material help. And we don’t think of helping people in higher spiritual terms.
So, for example, Prabhupada would give the example that if a child is lost, if a billionaire’s child is lost and some person comes and offers the child some food, somebody else comes and offers some clothing, somebody else comes and offers some medicine, somebody else comes and offers some toys, all this is good. But if somebody comes and takes that billionaire’s child back to the father, that is the best service. So, the others are also trying to help according to their capacity but what they are offering is not the best.
So, like that when devotees share Krishna Bhakti with others, what they are doing is they are connecting the soul who is the beloved part of Krishna, connecting them back with Krishna. So, that is a form of help which is not being offered in today’s world by many people. And that’s why devotees focus primarily on offering that help.
Now while offering help in that way, there are other forms of help which can also be offered. Now how much one can offer that, how much, that will vary according to time and place. So, now suppose we give money to someone.
Before I was introduced to Krishna Consciousness, I was a part of a social welfare organisation and we used to go to underprivileged areas and we used to teach various school subjects. I was a part of an organisation that was doing that. So, one of my friends, I used to go to nearby slums and one of my friends used to go to nearby village and then we found that, when they went there, they found that the children, they were not educated properly, they were not able to study and understand the subjects.
We used to do that. But often the children in their houses, their parents, especially their father would be alcoholics and they would just wreak havoc with the finances and they would sometimes lose in that, they would be physically abusive and we realised that actually just offering the children some education, that’s only a very small part of the solution for them. So, then we also started offering some sort of education for helping these children to, the parents to get off alcohol and that helped to some extent.
But then the elections came up and then the local politician, the local political candidate, he came to that village with four trucks of alcohol, free for everyone. And not only the parents, but even the children took it. And it was just then, at that time, and I had my friend, both of us, now are we really helping people? So, then what we recognised, that was the time when we felt that we need to empower people, not just in terms of providing education or wealth or food or clothing, these are important, but equally more important is to empower people to change themselves.
To empower people to change themselves so that they can break free from undesirable habits. And that is what spirituality offers us. So, our primary focus is when we connect with Krishna, we become free from the lower drives that drag us down.
And the more people become free like that, the more they can contribute constructively to their own future as well as to the future of others. So, there is, when there is no understanding of this higher spiritual help, at that time, any form of material help, that seems to be the only way we can help. That seems to be a very laudable way to help.
And anybody who says that we should not help materially, that can seem very heartless. So, now as far as helping materially is concerned, suppose the Bhagavad Gita talks about charity in three modes, in goodness, passion and ignorance. Normally, we would think that charity is very good.
But suppose a person is drunk, and a person comes out of a bar and he sees a beggar. And this person takes out a bottle and he goes, tu bhi kya yaad rakhega, yele peele. And now, that is charity.
But what kind of charity is that? Say, that person drinks that alcohol, and then goes and abuses the family after that. That is horrible, that is destructive charity. So, here is a simple example, when we talk about karma, we should not necessarily think in terms of very abstract terms.
Sometimes we may give people things with good intentions, but good intentions alone are not always good enough. So, we have to also help people to make wiser choices. So, charity in the mode of ignorance means, people are inclined to act in wrong ways, and we help them to act in wrong ways further.
So, that is undesirable. And the spiritual charity where we help people to connect with Krishna and to purify themselves of their lower urges, that is the best. So, just as giving alcohol to a person who is likely to be abusive, that can be actually dangerous.
Similarly, there is an understanding that, if we help people to do certain actions by our charity, and those actions are undesirable, then that is bad. So, for example, if we help people to, if we donate, say, eyes to people, and then the people abuse their eyes for certain things, then that, does that give us some karma? Yes, we empower them to do those things. So, then we will get some karmic reaction for that.
And that’s why every charity has to be done thoughtfully. This does not mean that we should not give organs. When we give organs to some people, they may abuse them.
And that is a factor which needs to be considered. But that is not the only factor that needs to be considered. Yes, people may also use their eyes for good purposes.
And if they use it for good purposes, then yes, as compared to a person who doesn’t have eyes, if they have eyes, that’s definitely very good. They can do so much more with that particular organ as compared to without that organ. So, now, should devotees give charity? Generally speaking, as devotees, the overall mood is, we don’t interfere inordinately with the process of nature.
The process of nature, we don’t interfere inordinately with those processes. Now, what does inordinate interference with processes mean? The process of nature, that can vary according to the circumstances. So, for example, say, if we are connected with a person who will be benefited by that organ donation.
And we know that person. We have a relationship with that person. And that donation is going to help that person not only do things properly, better in their lives, which they are not able to do because of the lack of organ.
And they are also connected with us. And later on, by their appreciation for what we have done or what someone connected with us has done, if they become more favourable towards spirituality and their chances of coming closer to spiritual truths increases, then that organ donation is favourable. And then in that situation, it can be done.
So, for example, devotees have a hospital where in that hospital certain organ donations are done. And then people have that whole process of organ donation in a spiritual atmosphere where their chances of not just becoming materially benefited but also becoming spiritually elevated, they are also there. So, in such situations, that organ donation is favourable.
So, rather than blanket statement about whether organ donation should be done or should not be done, the point is we all have to recognise that any form of material charity has to be thoughtfully done. And if we are empowering people, are we empowering people to do right things or are we empowering people to do undesirable things? We have to consider that. And overall, if it helps people to come closer to higher spiritual truths, then such charity is favourable.
And if it is not going to interfere with our own bodily behaviour of our own conduct, whatever it is, then that is not considered, that is favourable. Now, some people may have some individual sentiments. Traditionally, the body is, in some cultures, it is buried.
In some religious traditions, it is burnt, cremated. And some people may feel that the body should not be disfigured. Nothing should be changed in the body.
There should not be any removal of any parts of the body. That is a feeling that some people have. Then it should not be that understanding that this body was a gift given to me by God and I use this body and now this body has come from nature, it will go back to nature.
If that is the understanding that certain people have, that should not be considered as wrong. So, yes, if they feel, yes, nature gave me this body and now this body goes back to nature in whatever form it is. So, it will depend on individual circumstances and individual consciousness.
So, there are, in spirituality, there are principles and there are preferences. And to make matters of preference as matters of principle, that is fanaticism. So, matters of preference means that it is a matter of individual choice.
So, His Holiness Radhanath Maharaj was once asked that suppose we are writing, suppose we are studying scripture, we are studying Bhagavatam. If we are studying Bhagavatam, at that time, should we underline the Bhagavatam? Should we mark on the Bhagavatam? So, Bhagavatam is Shastra, it is Krishna. And how can we mark Krishna? How can we make any scratch on Krishna? It should be kept as it is.
Another devotee said, no, but, you know, if you underline Bhagavatam, you mark something, you highlight something, then it becomes so much easier to find that point later, to read it better. And then we can understand Bhagavatam better, we can serve Bhagavatam better by speaking on it more effectively. So, what should we do? So, Radhanath Maharaj replied that, yes, when we are treating Bhagavatam as a deity, and we consider Bhagavatam as a deity, and we don’t want to underline it, that’s fine, that’s one attitude.
It’s perfectly fine. Somebody else may think that Bhagavatam is a deity, and when I am underlining it, that is like decorating the deity. Which is also fine.
So, here, what is important is individual consciousness. So, the principle is that the Bhagavatam is to be served. One preference may be Bhagavatam is served just by keeping it as it is.
Another preference may be Bhagavatam is served by underlining. So, like that, devotee always wants to help others. And according to our capacity, we should always help others.
But the principle of helping is a principle. But the way in which help may be offered, that is a preference. And whether organs are to be donated or not, and how they are to be donated, or in which situations to donate, that is a preference that has to be determined by individual people according to their conscience and according to their circumstances, consulting our well-wishers, our spiritual guides, we can make that decision.
Does it answer your question? So, when we act, our actions happen under the three modes. And even when we act, ultimately everything is happening by Krishna’s will. So, sometimes when we act, that is also a reaction to our past actions.
So, in all this, where does our free will come in? Yes. The modes, we can consider them as a triplet which multiplies. There are three primary colours.
From those three primary colours, we can have a large number of colours. Like that there are three primary modes from which there are wide varieties of combinations of modes that we can have. So, now the modes present us choices.
But those choices are not compulsions. When we say we act under the modes, that does not mean that we have to act under a particular mode all the time. Krishna, in the 14th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, when he tells about the three modes, it’s like we could consider three modes as I have come till this point and now I have three courses of action.
Now, I have to go on one of those three courses. If we are practising Bhakti, we can say that is the fourth course of transcendence. But I have to go on one of those.
But which of those, that is up to me. So, that means the modes determine the gamut of our choices. The modes don’t determine our specific choice.
So, for example, sometimes if there is a multiple choice exam and sometimes within the multiple choice exam there is a typing mistake. So, then the right answer is not there only in the multiple choice. So, then I look at it, which is the capital of India? There is no Delhi only.
So, what do I do there? So, what has happened over here, the gamut of choices that is determined by the examiner. But then which choice the student makes, that is not determined by that five. Among the five there is choice.
So, the student may just say all five are wrong, the student may just add a choice, none of the above. So, the point is that the modes don’t determine our specific choice. The modes provide us a gamut of choices.
And within that gamut of choices, if we have repeatedly acted according to a particular mode, then a particular kind of action we may be more inclined to choose that. But we are not compelled to choose that. So, the capacity to choose always remains with us.
The extent of the choice that may vary. So, for example, even if somebody is a compulsive alcoholic, they say I can’t live without alcohol. But even within alcohol, they may decide, even if somebody says I can’t live without tea.
Okay, but even within tea, you can take tea which is heavy tea or light tea. Somebody says I can’t live without sugar, I want to take sweets. But even sweets, there are artificial sweeteners, there are natural sweeteners.
So, even when we talk about compulsion, even within the compulsion, there is choice. And based on how we choose, that compulsion increases or that compulsion decreases. So, the modes determine the scope of our choices.
But the specific choice is not determined by the modes. Now, as far as the reactions to our past are concerned, yes, the reactions can come internally as the modes. That means the kind of modes that we have and the kind of behavioural pushing that we get, they are also reactions to our past karma.
But along with that, the reactions of past karma may also come as a particular circumstances. So, for example, if I fall sick, then the ambit of my choice may be limited. You know, if I am so sick and if I have flu and I am weak, then I cannot go out of my room.
But what I do inside my room is still free. It’s up to me. I can just sulk and feel sorry for myself or I can just shout and become gripey and shout at everyone who comes near me.
Or I can try to become more introspective, I can read something. That choice is up to me. So, that’s why whatever reactions come to our past karma, again, they determine our external circumstances.
They may also determine our internal inclinations. But they don’t determine our behaviour per se. That is something which we still have the capacity to choose.
And that is, yes, everything is ultimately controlled by Krishna. But when we say everything is controlled by Krishna, that means that He sanctions. He does not force everything.
Upadrashta Anumantaj. He is the overseer and the permitter. He is not the compellor of everything.
This is most graphically seen when Krishna goes as a Shanti Doodh to Duryodhana. And here, we see that God fails. If God is omnipotent, then how can He fail in persuading Duryodhana? But this pastime is actually a testimony to God’s respect for human free will.
So, Krishna, rather than forcing Duryodhana to act in a particular way, Krishna appeals to the intelligence of Duryodhana. But Duryodhana doesn’t act according to his intelligence. So, then Krishna sanctions that.
The sanctioning means not necessarily wanting a particular course of action, but allowing a particular course of action. So, because we have been given free will, sometimes we may choose to act in ways which are undesirable. And sometimes Krishna may allow that.
So, our free will is always there with us. But based on the ways in which we have used our free will in the past, the extent of the free will may vary. So, if there is a horse which is tied to a pole.
Now, some horses who are known to be very violent, they may be tied with very tight ropes and the ropes themselves may be very short. Some horses which are known to be friendly, they may be tied with a long rope, they are allowed to move around. So, now, all the ropes that are there, they control the horse.
But within the circle, within the radius of that circle, the horses can do various things. Some horses can just strain and strain and strain and strain and then just injure their legs or injure their necks by that strain. Others, if there is some grass in that area, some food in that area, the others may eat that food over there.
So, to summarise it, whether it is God’s will or whether it is past karma, whether it is our moods, they determine the framework within which we have freedom. But they don’t take away our freedom. The framework of our freedom may be shaped by factors beyond our control.
But our freedom, our capacity to choose is still there. And when we make wise choices, the scope of our freedom increases. Does that answer your question? So, when Krishna says, when he is forced to act according to one’s nature, sabhavajena kaunteya nivaddhasvena karmana It is in AD.59 and AD.60 especially.
What does it mean? Yes, when we talk about nature, there are different things that are talked about. The word nature, it is also multivalent. So, one is our basic inclination.
Some people, for example, are introvert. Some people are extrovert. And this is basic nature.
Like that, there are different features of nature. Some people, if they are in a group, they will actually gel with others in the group. Some other people, they just want to be to themselves for some time.
This is nature and this cannot be changed. So, in the context of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says, Arjuna, you are a kshatriya. You have a nature to rule.
You have a nature to fight. You have a nature to administer. You are a martial guardian of society.
And if you become a pacifist, as are the intellectuals. Intellectuals don’t take up arms and fight. You become a brahmana.
That will not work for you. So, Krishna says to Arjuna that if you give up your nature of kshatriya and try to act artificially like a renunciate brahmana, that is not going to work. So, better act as a kshatriya, but act as a kshatriya in a dharmic way.
So, now, our nature is something which is the natural force within us. So, if we have to go against that force, that is quite difficult. And to some extent, we might be able to go, but we can’t go for long.
We can’t go much. But if that natural force can be channelled constructively, then that can help us to make positive contributions. We can use our talents, we can act according to our interests, and we can contribute optimally.
So, this is the understanding of nature. That we have certain psychophysical patterns of behaviour or inclinations, which we can channel constructively in our material and spiritual lives. And that we should channel.
Beyond this, there is also, when we talk about internally, Krishna talks about basically three broad kinds of, we could say, forces within us or kinds of emotions. There are material emotions which are anti-devotional, which are immoral or anti-devotional. Now, if somebody says, you know, as soon as I see something in a shop, it is natural for me to shoplift.
Now, this is not nature in the sense that Bhagwaja talks about. This is a part of the lower nature. So, this is within Kshatriya nature itself.
See, Kshatriyas have a nature to rule, to administer, to fight. But, if a Kshatriya starts fighting for no reason, then that will become like what we have, gundagardhi. You know, people just fighting for small, small things, for no reason at all.
That is undesirable. You see, the Bhagavad Gita is a whole deliberation why we should fight or not. The whole philosophy about it is discussed.
So, the nature to act in particular ways is there. But within that nature to act also, there is a lower side. So, that lower mode of acting is because of the lust, the anger, the greed, the envy, the pride, the illusion within us.
These are our inner enemies in whatever way we want to act. And that needs to be countered. So, if by nature we refer to our innate propensities to function in particular ways in this world, then that nature should be channelled.
We understand our nature and we channel it in our practise of bhakti, in our conduct in our life. But, if somebody talks about the forces that are driven by greed or lust or anger or whatever, then those need to be regulated. जही शत्रुं महा बाहो कामरूपं दुराजन् Krishna talks about the selfish desire.
We have to give that up. That is lower nature. So, when we talk about nature, it can refer to various things.
It can refer to our innate psychophysical nature which can be channelled. The lower nature in terms of selfish desires, that needs to be curbed. And the highest level, the nature means our spiritual nature.
We as souls are parts of Krishna and we are meant to love and serve Krishna. When we are completely purified, that loving and serving Krishna will be entirely natural to us. So, when Krishna talks about, when we talk about something which is natural, we may refer to it in terms of our selfish desires, of our self-centred nature, that has to be given up.
But, what can be of a psychophysical pattern of behaving, if that is usable in our life, then that should be utilised. So, that is what Krishna is talking about. Does it answer your question? You can speak, I’ll repeat it.
Mic doesn’t work. So, shouldn’t that be utilised in Krishna’s service? They should necessarily be utilised, what you can utilise, what you want to utilise and what you don’t want to utilise. Okay.
So, if we have certain talents, are we obliged to use them? There may be disturbance. For instance, if we have, may not reuse it. But, yeah, that is a very strong talent, part of a person’s nature.
Okay. So, if we have talent, should we use it or will it be favourable? Are we obliged to use it or is it not necessary to use it? And if we use it, can it become too strong a force in a person’s life? Yes, it’s possible. Now, here, sva-karmaṇātma-bhyarja siddhim vinditi mānavā.
In any point, Bhagavad Gita says, by your work, worship Him. So, that means, people translate it as work is worship. But that is not what the Bhagavad Gita is saying.
Sva-karmaṇātma-bhyarja, by your work, worship Him. So, when we say work is worship, then the donkey will become the greatest worshipper. Isn’t it? So, you shouldn’t think that whatever talents I have, whatever abilities I have, they themselves are automatically worship.
They are meant to be connected with Krishna. The ways in which they can be connected, that will vary from place to place, circumstances to circumstances. And then that connectedness is what we also should strive for.
Now, if somebody has musical ability, if they can use it, develop that ability, then they should develop it. So, we all may have various abilities. And some of us may have several abilities, all of which we may not be able to develop.
But some ability we have strongly, or we feel strongly inspired to develop that, we shouldn’t necessarily worry too much that, oh, because of this ability, I may go away from, I may just get too obsessed in that, and I may go away from Krishna or whatever. That fear is good. But that fear shouldn’t choke us.
Because we all need expression. We all need to express our individuality in various ways. And whatever we are good at, that is ultimately a gift from Krishna.
So, what we are is God’s gift to us. What we become is our gift to God. What we are is God’s gift to us.
What we become is our gift to God. But when we talk about what we become, it is not only in terms of one particular talent. Some people may just become brilliant musicians.
Pardon their whole conduct. They are abusive, they are self-centred, they are dismissive of everyone else. That is not all-round development.
So, even when we are developing a particular talent, we should not get so consumed in that, that we neglect developing other aspects. So, when we are developing a talent, we also need to remember that I am doing this for Krishna. This is Krishna’s gift to me and I am meant to use this in Krishna’s service.
And that’s why if we associate with spiritually-minded people, if we associate with devotees regularly, who remind us that our purpose is not just to become artists. Our purpose is not just to become musicians. Our purpose is to become devotees of Krishna.
And in that purpose, art or music may be a prominent way for us to connect with Krishna. So, then that balance can be established by having a proper association. So, this is focus and balance.
These are actually contrasting forces. Focus means I want to focus on one thing. And balance means there are many factors which are vectors in our life and I have to achieve a proper coordination between all of them.
So, any development of talent requires focus. But development of the full character, that requires balance. So, how much to focus on one thing and how much to also distribute our energies between developing that one thing and developing other things also.
So, when we do sadhana bhakti regularly, then we become connected with Krishna. And then if I am doing my sadhana bhakti well, after that when I sing or I practise music, that music, because my heart is offered to Krishna, then that music will also be offered to Krishna. But if I am not doing my sadhana bhakti well, then actually Krishna is not there in my heart, my own ego is there.
I want to be so great. Then that music, instead of being an offering to Krishna, it becomes an offering to my own ego. I am so great, I will become so great.
And that is something which we have to guard against. But not developing the talent is not necessarily the way to avoiding the ego. When I think that, oh, if I develop this talent, then I will become proud.
So, I should not develop this talent. You know, this is a misunderstanding. Firstly, you may think I am being very humble, I will not develop this talent.
But to think that I will become proud is to assume that I am not proud right now. Isn’t it? So, actually we all have pride within us, but we may not have some reason to express that pride to others. So, if we have pride, we need to recognise that the cure for pride is not suppression of talent.
The cure for pride is purification of intent. It’s not suppression of talent, but purification of intent. So, when we purify our intent by practising bhakti, then whatever talents we have, we will be able to express them properly.
And then we will move onwards towards Krishna. Does it answer your question? Not a big disturbance to that person. Okay.
So, you astrological predictions imply that we don’t have free will, especially when, say, astrological predictions as given in Sanbhubhu Shastra, they very accurately determine certain things about our life. Yeah. Actually, our past karma does determine certain major landmarks in our life.
So, suppose, say, if I am going from here to Melbourne, and I board a flight to Melbourne. Once I board the flight to Melbourne, the trajectory is more or less fixed. And I can see, okay, I am here now, I have now come to Calcutta.
Now, I am coming to Bangkok. Now, I am coming to Singapore. So, that trajectory is more or less fixed.
And once I have boarded that flight, I can’t change the trajectory. At the same time, within that, when the plane is going along that trajectory, I have still choices. So, it may also be determined once I take a particular seat, who is going to sit next to me, that may also be fixed.
Who is sitting to my left, who is going to sit to my right, that may also be fixed. But within that, what I do, I still have free will. You know, I can be in a very argumentative mood, and I quarrel with the person next to me, I quarrel with the person next to me.
And then, or I may just, you know, become abusive and attack somebody, and then as soon as I come out of the flight, I am under arrest. Or I find that a person sitting next to me is a very influential businessman, and I come up with a business deal. And, you know, I have a lot of prospects ahead of me after I come out of the flight.
So, once I am in the flight, a large pattern of my life is fixed. Once I have boarded the flight. But still within that also, I have substantial freedom.
So, astrology can predict. So, basically, when we start on a life journey, it’s like, if we consider the body to be like a plane, we have ascended the plane. And at a very broad contour, the body is in a plane journey from birth, through youth, through middle age, through old age, ultimately to death.
That is the trajectory that is fixed. So, that trajectory to some extent can be told to astrology. So, things like, you know, just as if you go on a flight, they can tell us where are you going to go, who is going to be sitting next to you over here, who is going to be ahead of you, who is going to be behind you.
Those things are fixed. But still, what we do is not fixed. Now, within that also, sometimes we may say, I want to change my seat, I want to go from here and sit somewhere else.
Some amount of freedom is there. So, astrology does determine certain things in our life. And those who are accurate astrologers, they may be able to tell us about these things.
So, still, that does not mean everything is determined. So, for example, I have to take it again in very generic terms, if I am born in India, then a large percent of the people whom I am going to associate with are Indians. That is just fixed by my birth in India.
Now, I may emigrate to some other country, and then my people around me may change, but even there also, you know, I may want to associate with Indians, because that’s what I am familiar with, and I may form a group, and even then I will have a large number of Indians with me. I may interact with some other people also. So, it’s not necessary that the predetermination of certain things or the capacity to predetermine certain things necessarily implies that nothing is in our hands or everything is predetermined.
We do have freedom. And one challenge in dealing with astrology is to know in advance which factors which are predicted are right or which are wrong. We may not be able to know that based on how precise the astrologer is, how precise the particular kind of astrology is, and how much of an initiative we take in our own lives, especially if we start practising bhakti.
And often astrologers tell that that is also an important element which may change the astrological predictions to some extent. So, that’s why we don’t have to over-depend on astrology. First of all, in principle, astrology does not mean that we don’t have freedom.
It does mean that certain things in our life are determined and certain things are still valuable and choosable for us. And the other question about, say, if during marriages, if a couple wants to get married, how much should they rely on astrology for making choices? And sometimes some marriages may work out well even when the astrological charts, they are not consulted or they don’t match, still the marriage may work out well. So, how important is it to consult astrological charts? There are broadly three, we could say, there are three broad categories of knowledge.
Firstly, you can say there is paravidya and there is aparavidya. Paravidya is spiritual knowledge. That is knowledge of the soul, knowledge of God and how the soul and God can be connected.
That is spiritual, that is what the Bhagavad Gita primarily focusses on. That is what the Bhagavatam focusses on. Then there is aparavidya.
Aparavidya is non-transcendental or material knowledge. Now, material knowledge that is useful for living in this world and pursuing a goal beyond this world. Now, that material knowledge may be acquirable in different ways.
In material knowledge, everything is not fixed all the time. So, for example, Ayurveda is a particular form of medicine. That is a part of aparavidya.
And Ayurveda can help people get treated and cured. But it is not that when we start practising spirituality, everybody has to take only Ayurvedic medicine. And we cannot take any other form of medicine.
No, there are different forms of medicine. Whatever we feel inspired to take, whatever has worked for us, whatever we find that the teachers are trustworthy, we may take that form of medicine and basically we move onwards functionally. So, that means, with respect to the paravidya, that is essential for us to function in this world.
That is essential for us to pursue life’s ultimate goal. But as far as the aparavidya is concerned, how much we need to use it, how much we feel inspired to use it, that can vary according to time, place, circumstances. So, with respect to the use of astrology, a lot of factors come into the picture.
That, as I said, astrology can determine to a significant extent the broad natures of people. So, sometimes some people, astrology may tell that they are not really compatible. And when that is the case, those individuals, can they still have a, say, a happy marriage? It’s possible if they have a high level of tolerance.
That, yes, there are differences and those differences will cause conflicts. But our purpose is higher and we keep that in mind. So, it’s not that the astrology alone determines whether the marriage is going to be successful or not.
That is one factor, an important factor, which describes the overall compatibility of people in terms of their astrological charts. But even people who are overall compatible, if they don’t spend time with each other, if they harp too much on minor points of contention, then even their relationship may get spoiled. On the other hand, people, even if they are widely variant in their natures, as per astrology, but if they work on commonalities, they may still have proper marriages.
So, whether one should always go according to astrological charts, it depends primarily on one’s own understanding of life, one’s own understanding of astrology. If one has been brought up in a culture where one has a lot of faith in astrology and one knows astrologers in whom one has faith, just not just faith in astrology, but astrologers in whom one has faith, then one may consult astrologers and then govern one’s life choices according to astrologers’ guidance. But it is not that if one doesn’t have any faith in astrology, if people don’t have any faith in astrology and then they are prohibited from making some relationship just because astrological charts say no, then they may become too alienated from the whole body of higher knowledge just because of that particular mandatory, that particular insistence.
And then that may be detrimental for them. So, what should not be done is, astrology should not be used as a rationalisation for one’s own short-sighted choices. There is one devotee, Bataji, she has written a book How to Mess Your Life with Astrology.
And say, somebody is in a marriage which is unhappy. Then that person thinks that maybe we should break up this marriage. So, then they go to one astrologer and say, this is a good marriage, you can work.
Then they go to second astrologer. And like that you go to 25 astrologers till you find one astrologer who says, this marriage is not going to work. And then use that to break up the marriage.
So, what we are doing? We are not really relying on astrology. What we are doing is, we have our own impulses and we want to act on those impulses. And we use astrology to justify that.
So, you know, astrology is not a substitute for responsibility. We are ultimately responsible for our actions. And whatever actions we take, astrology can give us some guidance.
Okay, here you may have bigger incompatibility, so bigger challenges. Here you may have lesser challenges. Here these things work out well.
But it’s not that astrology indemnifies us from our own responsibility. And based on our understanding of taking up responsibility in relationships and based on our own faith in astrology, our own understanding of what life is, people can, if they feel it’s important, they should. It is good to consult astrologers.
But it is not good to impose astrology on people who do not have that faith. Because that can alienate them and later on they will use that to blame others. You know, you said like this, you said like that, you said like that.
So, if somebody has to consult astrology, then overall they need to have an understanding of astrology. Properly. Only when they have a proper understanding, not that they have to study astrology lifelong, but a basic understanding of how astrology works.
If they have an understanding, it should not be that astrology is used as a rationalisation for either doing what we want to do or not doing what we don’t want to do. We have to recognise that we have to take responsibility for our actions. And for guiding our actions, we can take astrology as one guide.
But it should not be the sole determiner and it does not absolve us of our responsibilities. Does it answer your question? Thank you very much.