Making our scriptural study relevant
3 questions:
- What did this mean in its original context?
- What is the context-independent principle here?
- How does that principle apply in my context?
The more specific something is, the less universal it seems – unless we climb up the ladder of abstraction
Two meanings of original – for subjective interpretation (eg abstract art), original = originating from me; for objective comprehension (eg road sign), original = as it meant originally
Context determined externally by tradition, culture, mood and logic
How Prabhupada made scripture relevant:
Eg. Translated Prahlad prayer – ears attracted to radio songs; Gita 15.06 – included electricity; happiness of Vaikuntha like ocean of LSD
Learn to see context – Don’t mistake what is in scripture with what scripture teaches.
Eg. Hiranyakashipu praises Brahma as Supreme
Eg. Papa-yonayah in Gita 9.32 as fourth category
Transcript
This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Today I’ll speak on how to make scriptural study relevant to our lives. Now, we all study scripture.
And often we may feel that this is not, how is this connected with me? So, I’ll speak various points, but the class will be centred on three questions, which we can ask, by which we can make scriptural study relevant. So, first I’ll tell the questions, then I’ll give various examples to illustrate. The first question is, suppose when I’m talking about scripture, we are talking about either a verse or a purport, which we are reading.
So, what is the meaning of this in its own context? What is the meaning of this in its own context? Context means the surrounding. You know, in school we had to give reference to the context. So, in its particular setting, what is the meaning of this in its own context? That’s the first question.
The second question is, what is the context-independent principle in this statement, or in this point? So, there is a specific point being made, that is in the context. But what is the context-independent principle in this particular verse or in this particular purport? And third is, what does that principle mean in my context? So, in its original context, what does the verse mean? What is the principle-independent of the context? And how does that principle apply in my context? Let me give an example to illustrate this. So, before I go to the example, let me just first start with the example, and I will give further technical points in this.
Suppose, we consider the Draupadi-Vasthaharan pastime. Now, in that, we understand that, the pastime itself can be understood at multiple levels. But at one level, Bhishma, Drona, they were also considered guilty, because maunam sammatilakshana.
That, if somebody is silent, then silence is also a sign of culpability. A person is to be blamed. If a person has the power and the initiative to correct a particular thing and doesn’t correct it, then that person is also considered culpable.
So, for example, especially in medical terms, it may be called as crime by negligence. A doctor is supposed to give a medicine, the doctor doesn’t give the medicine. The doctor may say, I did not kill the patient.
But by not giving the medicine, the doctor has actually done that. So, what is the point of that particular pastime? Say, Bhishma is not intervening over there, there, he did something wrong. The point is, in that particular statement, when he was a member of the royal assembly, not just of the royal assembly, a royal family, he had power and influence, he remained silent.
So, the meaning of this is, he should not have remained silent in that particular situation. Now, the context-independent principle is that, as I said, maunam sammatilakshana. So, in that particular situation, he should not have remained silent.
But the context-independent principle is that we should not be negligent in our responsibilities. If we are in a particular position, then we also have, with that position, certain responsibilities. And if we accept the position and neglect the responsibility, then we become culpable.
Actually, there are two aspects, especially in Kali Yuga, any leadership position we take, the leadership position is one thing. And what is more important is the contribution that one makes to the position. So, Krishna himself never took up the position of being the king of the Yadu dynasty.
But still, his contribution was that he acted as a protector of the Yadu dynasty. So, many times, people are very eager to take the position, but they are not very eager to do any contribution based on that position. So, the point is, the Thai context-independent principle is that if we accept a position, we should do the responsibility.
So then, what will be the specific application in my life? Okay, so, if I am acting as a preacher, then I should be able to speak the message properly. I should be able to study properly, I should be able to learn to speak properly, answer questions properly. So, if I become a preacher, then I take up some respect.
I accept a position where people may respect me, people may give me some honour. Now, that may gratify my ego. But along with that, I have to make a contribution.
So, if I just accept a position without making a contribution, then I also become culpable. So, this is a simple example that what does it mean in its own context, what is the context-independent principle, and how does that principle apply in my life. So, now, in logic, this is called a ladder of inference or a ladder of abstraction.
I’ll explain. Don’t get alarmed by the terms. They are very simple terms.
In general, if we just hear some details, if I tell you that from 1980 to 1985, the population of polar bears in Alaska decreased by 23%. What has this got to do with me? Why are you telling me this? So, generally speaking, if there are specific details, unless they are directly relevant to me, the details don’t interest us. So, sometimes what happens, if we are giving some seminars, we just quote a lot of statistics, then statistics, after a period of time, it bores people into what is going on, what is the point you are making through this.
So, details in and of themselves, they don’t necessarily add any meaning. So, if I want, now if I give this particular point, that the polar bear population decreased by 23% in 1980 to 1985. Therefore, the climate change was a problem that started in 1980 to 1985 itself.
And now, we are 30 years, 35 years ahead, the problem has become much bigger. And the problem has come to India also. So, what has happened now? From that specific detail, I have risen to a general principle.
The specific detail was, certain population of the plant, animals decreased. General principle is, the climate is becoming more and more hostile. And then, the specific application could be, say that, the plant population, the plants in our own gardens, they are dying out much faster than what they should normally.
And taking care of them requires more money, more effort, more energy. Oh, then that’s why I may need to put more energy or whatever. So, what has happened? I took a specific detail.
From that specific detail, so, details are concrete. Principles, in general, are abstract. We cannot visualise principles very easily.
For example, if I say, anger is undesirable. It’s a principle. But then, if, now all of us, when we say anger is undesirable, each of us, we may get some image in our mind.
Now, maybe we had some relative who was very angry. Or maybe in some movies we saw some angry person. Or if we say, now, even in the scriptures we see, lust is destructive.
In the scriptures, there is an example of Ravana, how that lust destroyed him. So, there are specific details which are important. But specific details in and of themselves don’t make much sense unless from those specific details we come to some abstract principles.
Some universal principles. So, in general, the more specific something is, the less universal it is. Something when it becomes more, in general, this does not apply in the spiritual realm, I’ll come to that.
But, in general, the more specific something is. Say, for example, if, like, we say that, Krishna told Arjuna to fight a war against the Kauravas. This is a specific point.
There was a specific war which took place at a specific time. And in that, Krishna told Arjuna to fight. So, now, how relevant is it for us right now? Now, what makes the Bhagavad Gita so universal is not that Arjuna fought that particular war.
What makes the Bhagavad Gita universal is that in order to persuade Arjuna to fight the war, Krishna talked about context-independent universal truths. And the universal truth is that what is Dharma? In fact, you know, every scripture has a defining question. Every scripture.
So, for example, the Ramayana begins with the defining question, who is an ideal person? Balmiki asks Narada Muni. He gives a list of qualities and asks, is there any person who has all these qualities? And then Narada Muni says, there is this Ram. And then Ram’s story comes up.
The Bhagavad Gita’s defining question is, at one level, what is the duty of a person about to die? And at another level, what is the best religious prescription for all people? What is the essence of scriptures? The Mahabharata’s defining question is, what is Dharma? What is Dharma? That is the question that is persistently raised throughout the Mahabharata. In fact, the Mahabharata concludes with the declaration, Vyasa Devi is saying, thus, I am proclaiming to the whole world that Dharma always triumphs, but alas, people do not hear it. So, Dharma always triumphs.
So, the defining question of the Mahabharata is, what is Dharma? And that is also the question of the Bhagavad Gita. So, the specific detail of Arjuna fighting a war against Krishna is itself not of universal importance. It was important in that context because unrighteous people were ruling.
But what makes the Bhagavad Gita so universally appealing is the universal questions it answers. The questions and answers are basically about who am I and what am I meant to do in life. What am I meant to do in life? So, that question is answered in the Bhagavad Gita.
That is what makes it universal. Now, somebody may misapply the Bhagavad Gita and say that, the principle of the Bhagavad Gita and they say that, actually, anybody who attacks India, we should fight against them. In fact, if you look at the history of India, many of the independence leaders, when the British government would imprison them, they would be in jail, they would have nothing to do, they would write a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita.
In fact, that is how most political leaders, most of the political slash spiritual leaders, many of them are considered spiritualists also, they wrote commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita. And many of them in their forewords or introductions, they actually proudly say that, we did not refer to any of the traditional commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita. This is purely our contribution.
So, now, we may say, oh, these people are so creative. They have made their own contribution. So, now, creativity in some levels is appreciated.
But, suppose, see, there are two meanings of the word originality. Originality, just like if you go in the future and do PhD, then when you do PhD, it is expected that you make an original contribution to the human body of knowledge. That means you should present something which has not been presented before.
So, make some connections, give some insight, do some research and essentially make an original contribution. So, original in this sense means that which originates from you. That is original.
But, the word original also has another meaning. Original means as it was originally. So, for example, now, suppose there is some abstract art painting and somebody comes up and tries to imagine, what is this? Leonardo da Vinci made Mona Lisa smiling.
So, now, what does that smile mean? Why was she smiling? So, now different people can come and do their own different speculations and somebody may come up with some reason which is some original idea which nobody else has come up with. And in the field of art where things are subjective, an original contribution might be helpful. But, imagine somebody is going on a road and there are road signals and there are road signs.
There is a speed breaker here, there is a right turn here, there is a left turn here. And somebody decides, I will make an original interpretation of this. So, I mean, that means, here the original will mean what? It should be what the road makers intended to be.
That is what is desirable. If in the name of original, there is a left signal and I think, this means I have to go right. I just collide with a wall or I may just fall off into a valley.
So, the word original can mean both things. It can mean, original in the sense, what it originally meant. What the maker intended it to be.
And original can mean, that which originated in me. So, when there is objective truth to be known, if there is a painting, it is subjective. So, different people can interpret it differently.
But if there is a road map or a road sign, there is an objective meaning to it. When there is an objective meaning to be had, then which originality is required? The maker’s meaning. That is the originality that is required.
So, similarly, when there is scripture that is to be understood, at that time, we need to go to the scripture like a road map given by God. ग्यात्वाशास्त्रविधानोक्तम् कर्मकर्तुम् इहारशि तस्माद् शास्त्रम् प्रमाणम् ते At śāstra, therefore, you understand from śāstra, you understand pramāna, what is to be done, what is not to be done. कार्या कार्य वेवस्तितो 16.23, Krishna is telling this.
Understand what is kārya, what is akārya. ग्यात्वाशास्त्रविधानोक्तम् And as if to emphasise this further, it’s not just in abstract sense understand what is right and what is wrong. But after understanding ग्यात्वाशास्त्रविधानोक्तम् After understanding the word of scripture then कर्मकर्तुम् इहारशि Work accordingly.
And Krishna makes it even more emphatic in the next verse. Krishna in several cases in the Bhagavad Gita instructs by contrast. That means he says if you do this, this will happen.
If you do this, this will happen. So the next verse he says 16.24 यहशास्त्रविधिमुच्रुज्य वर्तथे कामकारतः नससिद्धिमवापनोति नसुखम्नपराम्गतिम् शास्त्रविधिमुच्रुज्य शास्त्रविधिमुच्रुज्य If somebody gives up śāstra, the person will get no success. Especially if the person acts out of selfishness.
Then they will not get happiness, will not get success, will not attain the supreme destination. So Krishna is making things very clear over here, that scripture is a manual for living and as a manual for living, we have to act according to what scripture is telling us. Now in general, we in human society act as per four broad direction, direction givers.
What are the four broad? There is tradition, there is culture, there is mood and there is logic. Tradition means, why are you doing this, oh we have always done it. So, for example, if you ask, in a marriage ceremony, why do the husband and wife go around in a, around a fire, well that’s our tradition, now tradition, whether it is based on scripture or not, that’s a different issue, but that’s what we have always done.
Or for example, we ask people, you know, in a birthday, you know, why do you blow this candle? What does it mean? Actually, when the birthday boy or birthday girl is blowing a candle, basically, you know, they are giving their Mahaprasad saliva to everyone, so, now why are they doing it? Oh, that’s what is done, everybody does that, you know, that’s how it has been done. So, actually, if you go back to history, it’s a mediaeval European myth or a legend that is, that the idea is that there are dark angels associated with every person. And so, when you blow a candle, that, that dark angel, that dark angel will die.
And so that when as many, so every year that you go ahead, a new dark angel is created and you blow a candle, the dark angel will die, so it’s a pure superstition. But, it has that, that superstition has become a tradition and we do it. So many times we do certain things because that is what we have always done.
So tradition is one parameter by which we decide what to do. Another is culture. So tradition, especially refers to in the past, we have always done it, whereas culture means everyone does it.
So at present, everyone does it, so I also do it. So for example, you know, students, they may come from their parents’ home to a hostel and in the hostel, they find that, okay, everybody is smoking, and they also start smoking, why? Because everyone does it. So it just becomes a culture and culture can be dangerously misleading.
Why? Because culture is not necessarily guided by truth or morality. No, that’s a culture often, especially the current culture is a vulture culture. Vulture culture means what? Just like a vulture, look, goes high, but looks down at carcasses, looks down at dead bodies which it can get for 80.
So it does not, even if it goes high, it doesn’t look for anything good. So like that, the culture, there may be phenomenal advances in science and technology and things like that, but ultimately, it is just used for eating, sleeping, mating, defending, not for much higher things. So in the culture, everybody does something, so people also do it.
Now that, now these are not necessarily wrong. Sometimes tradition may be right also, sometimes culture may be right also, but these are not necessarily reliable. The third is mood.
Why did you do that? I felt like doing it. I felt like doing it. So that means, so the first is the impetuses come from my past.
The second is the impetuses come from the present, but both of these are external. Mood is internal, but the impetuses come from my mind. So I felt like doing it.
So okay, why did you eat that ice cream? I felt like doing it. Why did you eat that ice cream? I felt like doing it. So now mood often is a very common reason with which people do impulsive things.
So now the problem with mood is, our mood is terribly fickle. The same thing that I like today, I may dislike tomorrow. Not only that, what I like now, after a few minutes, I may not like it.
And moreover, often what I like is not necessarily what is best for me. Why is that? Because our mind is often programmed in a wrong way. Now I have a text to speech reader.
That means that if I put some text in the computer, then it will read it out. So I use that because I don’t want to strain my eyes. So now in the text to speech reader, sometimes they have certain autocorrect functions.
So for example, if M O N comes over there, then the autocorrect feature is you should read it on Monday. So like the T U E comes, you should read it on Tuesday. So now what happens in that autocorrect feature is that when I write Sachitananda, it becomes Saturday Chitananda.
So what is happening here? Here the autocorrect is incorrect. There is an autocorrect, but it is actually doing incorrectly. So I may write Sachitananda.
So after I write Sachitananda, it makes a Saturday Chitananda, then I have to go back and correct it again. Don’t make it like this. So often the mind, because of its default programmes, does an incorrect autocorrect.
Does an incorrect autocorrect. That means what? Say, now, for example, we know that Prasad is Krishna’s mercy and Prasad is meant to be honoured. We want to take Prasad as a service to Krishna.
Of course, it can taste good and we can release that taste also, but we want to take Prasad as a service to Krishna. But then the mind has its own programme, food is meant for enjoyment. It just meant for enjoyment, enjoyment, enjoyment.
And then because of that, we tend to overeat. And then that leads to a lot of congestion. So at that time, I have a mood, let me eat more, let me eat more, let me eat more.
So even nutrition researchers, they say there is hunger and there is pseudo hunger. So what is the difference between hunger and pseudo hunger? Primarily two differences, untimeliness and selectiveness. So untimeliness means, say, at one level, the body is a machine and the food that we eat is like a fuel for the machine.
So suppose I have got a car and I fill the car with, say, 10 litres petrol and the car’s average is, say, 40 kilometres per hour or whatever. So then I expect the car to go for 400 kilometres, but then suddenly after 200 kilometres, it starts getting empty. I think something is wrong here.
Something is wrong. If actually I fill properly 400 kilometres, that means that the fuel indicator itself is wrong. The fuel indicator is wrong.
So like that, what happens is, if you have taken one meal, and after that, and we have taken adequately enough to last till the next meal. But even before that, the hunger metre becomes active. So that untimely activation, that untimeliness is indicative that it is a pseudo hunger.
It is not hunger. And the second, even more reliable way of differentiating between hunger and pseudo hunger is selectiveness. If the body is hungry, it just needs sustenance.
If I am hungry for gulab jamun, then that is not hunger, that is pseudo hunger. Now, I’m not saying all this to say that we should not enjoy food. Actually, a large part of human culture and even spiritual culture, all the more, is that we should prepare food deliciously, offer it to Krishna and relish that food.
So that is definitely a part of human culture. We cannot just equate eating with, say, putting fuel in the fuel tank of a car. No, it is a part of human culture and a part of spiritual culture.
But still, the important point is that eating, if we let it guided only by pseudo hunger, then what will happen? It will harm us. We will overeat and we will get unnecessarily obese or we will get a variety of diseases or even it doesn’t happen if we overeat, often our senses go wild. So the point here is what? If we are guided by our mood, the mood means here I’m correlating with pseudo hunger, mind feels agitated, then we often get misled.
So the mood is also not a reliable guide for knowing how we should act. So hunger comes from the body, hunger comes from the depleted body, that’s where the hunger signal comes from. But the pseudo hunger signal comes from the agitated mind.
It doesn’t come from the body. So the untimeliness and the selectiveness is one way by which we can differentiate. But more important, the principle we are talking about is the mood.
The mood also is not very reliable. Beyond that, there is logic. Logic means, why do I do a particular thing? It makes sense.
Now among these four, logic is relatively speaking the best, relatively speaking. There are certain cases where tradition may be better also, culture may be better also. But logic, you know, we use our intelligence.
That means the decision to do a particular thing is coming internally, but not coming internally from my mind. It is coming from my intelligence. It is based on particular data and if the data itself is inadequate, then what makes logical sense at one particular time may turn out to be disastrous in another data set.
So for example, say somebody has got a heart problem and say that person is normally given a particular medicine to take for the heart problem. But then that medicine works. But if that person also has a lung problem, then that particular heart antibiotic may harm the lungs.
Now this is a medical thing. The point is that some medicine which is good in a particular situation, but if the patient has some other complication, that same medicine can turn to have serious harmful effects. That’s why these are called as contraindicative medicines.
That means if a person has a particular disease, it helps, but if the person also has an additional disease, then that same medicine harms. So the point is, the doctor with a particular knowledge may say that this makes sense. But beyond that, with a particular more knowledge, the doctor says this is horrible.
This happened with me when I was around 10 years old. The doctors took me for a surgery for my leg and somehow the doctor who had done my past checkup, I have a hole in my heart since my birth. The doctor did not know about that.
So just the main surgeon came, I was actually in the surgery, I was out to give anaesthesia and just before that, the doctor told, just look at my case report, he’s got VSD. We cannot do this surgery like this. You cannot give this person anaesthesia.
You give him anaesthesia once, you make him unconscious, he will never come back to consciousness. So for those who have VSD, they need a whole different special set of apparatus by which they can give special anaesthesia and they have special revival techniques and all that. So the point was, without the knowledge of the VSD, the particular procedure was standard procedure.
It made complete logical sense. But the moment you get the additional information that there is VSD, then what happens? The previous side does not only not make sense, it actually can be disastrous. So similarly, human logic is always limited and that’s why logic cannot be a final parameter for deciding what we should do or what we should not do.
So all these are useful, but the final authority has to be scripture. Scripture is what will finally tell us what we should do and what we should not do. And in some cases, scripture and either of these tradition or logic or mood or culture may agree and sometimes they may disagree.
So for example, now it’s interesting that in the West, becoming vegetarian or more specifically becoming vegan is becoming more and more fashionable and cool. So for devotees to actually or for people who become devotees to be vegetarian, it’s not considered anything odd. But still in India on the other hand, even now somehow to become non-vegetarian is considered to be more fashionable, more modern, more cool.
So what is happening in the West, the culture is agreeing with scripture. In India, the culture, mainstream culture is still disagreeing with scripture. So, that means that actually we need to know what scripture is saying and then we have to evaluate what our other sources of knowledge are saying and then accordingly we find out how we can act.
Now there is, it’s not necessary that each time we have to defy the culture itself. Like Prabhupada would also quote, do in Rome as Romans do. So for certain matters, for example, Prabhupada told if you are going for food distribution, you can be a shirt fan and go for distribution also.
Because that’s the dress that people can relate with, especially in the Western countries. Otherwise people think that, who is this person, looks like an alien. They just feel so alienated just because of the dress that they can’t see beyond it.
So it’s not that we completely reject or defy these other sources of knowledge. But we subordinate them to scripture and sometimes to serve the purpose of scripture, we may harmonise our actions with these sources of knowledge also. So for example, say, people, no matter what we say that moods are fickle, but still most people do act according to their feelings.
That’s why Prabhupada would say when people come to the temple, they should have a very soothing atmosphere in the temple. Darshan of the deity, the temple atmosphere, it should give people a very soothing experience. And then that will make them want to come again and again.
So the principle is that people should come to the temple not just for the soothing atmosphere. They should come for taking darshan of the Lord and serving him and being blessed by him. But a soothing atmosphere, which is basically a mood, that enables them to follow scripture.
So it’s not that these have to be in conflict with each other, they can be harmonised. So now going back to our original point, we discussed about what a statement means in its original context, what is the context-independent principle and how it applies in today’s context. So now what happens is, when scripture is spoken, at that time also these things are there.
At that time also there is a culture, at that time also there is a tradition, at that time also people have moods, at that time also people use logic in their own way. And now, when we live, the culture, tradition, logic and mood are different. So for example, when scripture is originally spoken, at that time, science in itself did not have much influence.
At least science as we knew it, as we know it now, that did not exist only at that time. The word science itself was actually around in 18th century development. Newton never used the word scientist for himself, he called himself a natural philosopher.
So natural philosopher means, one who philosophically studies nature, to try to understand the behaviour of nature. So that particular way of studying was not there. That’s why, now for example, in scripture, the glory of God is talked about.
So now, Krishna says, in the 10th chapter, Arjuna asks Krishna, केशु केशु च भावेशु चिन्त्योसि भगवन्मया How can I remember you in material nature? केशु केशु च भावेशु How can I remember you in material nature? And what does Krishna reply? Krishna then talks about how, रुक्षानाम अश्वत्थानाम That I am, he gives this, this, this, examples he gives. That I am shark among fishes, मुरुगानाम सिभुगेन्द्रोहम I am the lion among the animals. And like that he gives many examples to talk about his vibhuti.
So the idea is, so now if we look at all those specific details, the specific details are important in that cultural context. Now if we start going too much into the detail, Okay, if Krishna says that, पित्रानाम अरेमास्जास्मी Among the Pitras I am Aryamma. Now first of all, who are the Pitras? Now the first question when we hear of Pitraloka is that, do all Pitras go to the same loka? Don’t they have their own karma? How do all Pitras go to the same loka? And then, so like that, now once there is an answer to that, actually Pitraloka basically is, that in general Vedic society was arranged in a particular culture, and most people would follow that culture.
So people who would do an average level of punya will go to Pitraloka. People who would do an extraordinary level of good karma, they would go to Svargaloka. People who would do very bad karma, would go to the lower planets.
So in general the idea was, that if a person has an average level of karma, he will go to Pitraloka. So it’s not that all ancestors have to go to Pitraloka, but generally most would go. But the point is, so many questions come in people’s mind, and they are not really relevant now.
So even if people understand, Okay, there is a Pitraloka, and there is a particular devata, Aryamma in charge. And Krishna says, I am Aryamma. What does it mean? So what happens is, the point of an example, is to make the concept relevant to people.
To make the concept intelligible to people. The point of an example, is to make a concept intelligible to people. Human knowledge progresses from the familiar to the unfamiliar.
I know something, and then what I don’t know, I connect with that. And that’s how the knowledge progresses. So now for example, if, today we say to people, Krishna is among the moons, or among the celestials, he is the moon.
Okay, that makes sense. Among the celestials, the moon looks the brightest. But if somebody is a little bit science-centric, the moon doesn’t give original light.
Stars give so much light. So much more light. So then, that particular example, may not strike people immediately.
Now of course, Krishna is not talking here, that I am the moon because I give out more light. He is simply talking about, what looks most attractive in the night sky. The principle which he will give at the end of the chapter is what? yad yad vibhuti mat sattvam shrima durjitameva vata tattva devabhagacchatvam mam tejyam shisambhava This is in 10.41. That which looks most attractive, you should remember that is the spark of my splendour.
So now, if you look at the 10th chapter of the Gita, we can go and analyse deeply, what it means in its original context. And that is helpful. But more important is, what is the principle, independent of that context.
The principle Krishna himself gives in 10.41. That whatever looks attractive, know that that reflects the spark of my splendour. A spark of my splendour. So then, how would that principle apply now? How would that principle apply now? So now, we can say, what are the things to which people are attracted today? And so, now, you know, there is the famous quote that cricket is the religion of India and Sachin Tendulkar is the God of India.
So now, one level we can say is that people are so foolish, they are making a human being into God. That’s true. But on another level, whatever attractiveness, that potency which Sachin Tendulkar has, where does that come from? That has come from Krishna.
Now his talent, it’s not his own. It has come from Krishna. So, if that same thing had to be applied in today’s context, among sports stars, I am Sachin Tendulkar Krishna.
In fact, Radhanath Maharaj, when he wrote his Journey Home book, several devotees were getting endorsements for that book. So one of the endorsements they got from Sourav Ganguly. He is a former Indian cricket captain.
So Maharaj asked him, who is this Sourav Ganguly? So once Maharaj at the airport was asked, what is your opinion on the cricket world cup? So now, at one level you could say that this is all nonsense. All maya and all this. Maharaj said, actually I come from a country where the only cricket that we knew was an insect that moves on the ground.
There is an insect called cricket also. So he said, but I love India very much. India has given me Krishna.
India has given me so much spiritual wisdom. And Indians love cricket. So I wish the Indian team all the best.
So again, the point here is what? So Maharaj, when he heard, Sourav Ganguly is a very famous cricketer, Maharaj said at that time that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, in order to gain respectability in society, he actually took sannyas from a Mayavadi sampradaya. That is actually completely anti-devotional at one level. Taking sannyas from Mayavadi sampradaya.
If Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had come now, he would have come as a cricketer. So the point is what? That which attracts people attention, we use that to attract people to Krishna. That which attracts people’s attention, we use that to attract people to Krishna.
So Krishna is illustrating that principle with certain contextual examples. And that is good. That is very relevant to his context.
But what we need to do is, we need to look at what is the context-independent principle and how that context-independent principle applies in today’s context. So when we understand that, then we can actually see the spiritual connection even in our cultural context. Otherwise, we cannot live in this world with our eyes closed.
We have to live in the world and we have to interact with the world. So, if we don’t understand the time-independent principles and we don’t understand their current applications, then we will only see the current culture in a very hostile way. It’s all maya.
It’s all illusions. All that is fine. But after all, I have to live in this culture.
I don’t want to violate my devotional principles. But at the same time, I cannot live with closed eyes. So, when we understand this, then we can see how Shastra can be connected with the world’s events also right now.
And how Shastra can be demonstrated, how I can see Shastric Truth being demonstrated in today’s world also. So, for example, the Bhagavad Gita states, now असत्यम् प्रतिष्ठं ते जगदाः रणीश्वरं अपरस्पर्व संभूतं किमन्यत् काम है तुकमेतां दृष्टिमश्टबे निष्टात्मानुआलपबुद्धया प्रभवन्ति उग्र कर्मान ख्षयाय जगतो हिता Krishna talks about atheism and materialism in 16.8 and 9. Those who don’t accept any God, they just live only for sense gratification. And when they live only for sense gratification, they destroy their soul and they destroy the world also.
So now, if we look at Baldev Devji’s commentary on this particular verse, he says that this particular thing किमन्यत् काम है तुकमेतां किमन्यत् काम है तुकमेतां it refers to primarily Charvakism and Black Tantra and things like that. Whatever were the forms of sense gratification available at that particular time. Now in today’s cultural context, the principle is once we reject God, then we embrace materialism.
So in the time when Bhagavad Gita was spoken, materialism may have been embraced in a particular way. Charvak’s philosophy was the prominent philosophy at that particular time. In today’s context, once God is rejected, materialism may be embraced, but in an entirely different way.
But the same thing happens. If you look at the modern history, basically the rejection of God started something before Darwin. But basically the idea was that God is no longer needed because the universe can work on its own.
And if we don’t need God in the universe, we don’t need God in nature, we don’t need God in human society also. So Sigmund Freud, असत्यमपतिष्ठम्ते that was talked about by the philosophers who said science is itself independent. That nature works on its own.
We don’t need God in nature. So now that is true. ओम् पूर्णमदा पूर्णमदम् So even this nature is complete.
So God does not have to constantly intervene to keep nature in control. But that does not mean that God is not required. There are two different things.
God is the maker of nature and God is the sustainer of nature. But God does not have to intervene on a moment to moment basis. He has made systems.
But the mistake of science was to think that the systems themselves are enough to explain everything. That there is nothing more required. Many of you may have seen this billiards game.
So now in a billiards game if you watch there are many, maybe several dozen balls and there are long sticks, long rods with which you hit the ball. Now if you look at it, say a player hits the ball and then this ball hits that ball and that ball hits that ball and that ball hits that ball and finally that ball goes into the hole. And the ball goes into the hole and the person gets some points.
So now if you just look only at the billiards board we will find that all the movements on the billiards board follow the laws of mechanics. This stick hit the ball at this angle with this velocity that ball hit that angle with that velocity and then that ball went into the hole. The whole thing could be described in terms of the laws of physics.
Laws of mechanics more specifically. So that is a description. It is a correct description.
But beyond that is the skill of the billiards player. The skill of the billiards player and the laws of mechanics they are not contradictory. They are complementary.
One does not falsify the other. The billiards player is skilful and the billiards player’s actions are also according to the laws of mechanics. The point which I am making is it is a little technical point but the point simply is that there are laws according to which nature works but beyond those laws is God.
So what happens is science is like a spectator or observer looking only at the billiards boards and does not look outside at all. Yeah, you see everything follows the laws of mechanics but there is a person who is wielding the billiards stick and that is how the ball is going into the hole. Similarly, mayadhyakshena prakriti Krishna is saying mayadhyakshena under my supervision things are happening.
So anyway the point which I am making is that I am saying how atheism leads to materialism and it leads to hedonism and it leads to destruction. So what happened? God was removed from nature. Once God was removed from nature then there was this especially Sigmund Freud was a prominent psychologist who came along and said actually this whole business of religion is pre-scientific myth.
He was in some way he was brilliant but in some ways he was a pervert. So what had happened was in his childhood in his boyhood he had a sexual attraction towards his mother and he extrapolated from that and he said that all people have sexual attraction for their parents. He said all boys have sexual attraction for their mothers and all girls have sexual attraction for their fathers and this according to his perverted logic is a natural sexual urge and because social morality suppresses it that’s why when children grow up they become psychologically problematic.
Now actually these problems had come only in that generation. For so many generations before that people had no problems and the problems came because people were becoming more and more sinful but somehow see anything that gives people reason to indulge moral sense gratification people will accept it. Immediately people will accept it.
So what happens is that anyway people want to enjoy and somebody gives intellectual reason why you should enjoy then there is complete destruction. So basically total materialism came up in society and after that so it was not just intellectual rejection of God but what followed there after Sigmund Freud theories came in was was a total cultural rejection of religion one is the intellectual rejection of God that happened among some people among the intellectuals but once the religious morality was rejected in society at large, it’s a large scale cultural rejection of God that happened but the same hierarchy we see asatyam apratishtam te so science intellectually we can say there is no God there is no ultimate reality and then it ended with what other purpose is there for life then self gratification and then what has happened after that so many variety of sexually transmitted diseases so many divorces so many social collapses happening all over the world that Prabhavanti oogra karmana oogra karmana terrible karma is happening all over the world so that is all started with asatyam apratishtam te so again the point is that the same scriptural words may apply in a particular way in a particular context it may apply in an entirely different way in a different context but what to understand that you have to look at the particular context and look beyond the context to the principle and then come back and look again at the context which is there in our situation. I’ll give a few examples of how Prabhupada does this and what Prabhupada does sometimes outrages the mundane scholars so for example in the 7th canto when Prahlad Maharaj is saying he says oh my tongue is attracted in one direction my ears are attracted in another direction and this is attracted in that direction and in this way it’s like a husband is dragged by many wives like this I am being dragged so there Prabhupada writes that the ear is attracted to radio songs and Prabhupada doesn’t put this in the purport, he puts it in the translation only now somebody may say what nonsense, at Prahlad Maharaj’s time there were no radio songs so what is Prabhupada doing over here see Prabhupada is actually going up the ladder of abstraction and coming down also so in Prahlad Maharaj’s particular context there were society girls or there were different kind of people who might be singing and the ear is attracted to that song he is speaking this to in his prayers to Narasimhadev so in that cultural context there might be particular kind of songs which people are attracted to but the point is, the context indicator principle is that the ear is attracted to tempting seductive songs and now in Prabhupada’s time that was in the 1920s Prabhupada wrote in the 1940s, 1950s 1960s, so that was the time when the radio was very popular, TV had not yet come at that time so Prabhupada is giving that application in his context that the ear is attracted to radio songs now if Prabhupada would have written, he says the ear is attracted to smartphone songs all the music that comes on smartphone or whatever the eyes are attracted to all the dirty sites on the internet Prabhupada might write that because the important principle to understand is that we cannot restrict scripture only to its context if we limit scripture only to its context it will remain at best some entertainment something happened at some time Ram fought with Ravana Ram killed Ravana, good story but what is the relevance to understand the relevance we have to go from the context to the trans-contextual principle and then bring it down to today’s context so Prabhupada does this expertly in many many places so for example Prabhupada also does that when he says in 15.6 Krishna says that that spiritual world is not illuminated by the sun the moon or fire and Prabhupada adds electricity now you may say where is electricity there is a translation in the Sanskrit so the point again is that scripture is not a frozen text if scripture were a frozen text scripture would not have any living relevance to us scripture is not a frozen text it’s a living text and that’s why I wrote a Gita daily article the Gita lives through those who live the Gita the Gita lives how does the Gita continue to live through those who live the Gita so the principle point which Krishna is saying is sun, moon, fire so in that particular culture they were the prominent sources of illumination so they are the specific examples but the principle is that that particular abode does not require any external illumination when Prabhupada is speaking in a particular cultural context the sources of illumination are what electricity is the prominent source of illumination so Prabhupada is giving that same principle that the spiritual world does not require any artificial sources of illumination and he is giving the example of electricity as added thing so this is very important to see how scripture is living how if scripture is to guide us in our own life then we need to see its relevance and Prabhupada himself shows us the example of how to see the relevance of scripture in our lives and Prabhupada would say that actually when we study scripture the purpose is not just to Prabhupada I will conclude with this point Prabhupada would have sometimes two different approaches so for those who wanted to study scripture technically now he will give technical details in some places for example in the third canto when he is talking about Sankhya there is a lot of potential for scientific research in this particular area Prabhupada says that but if you go in the ninth chapter or the tenth chapter of the first canto when Krishna tenth chapter actually when Krishna is going from Hastinapur to Dwarka so at that time a particular path is given by which he goes and in certain areas certain geographical areas are described over he went from this area, this area, this area and Prabhupada writes in a purport over there that geologists may try to trace the exact path by which Krishna went from Hastinapur to Dwarka but that is an impossible task because the surface of the earth always keeps changing and they may do it if they want but as far as we are concerned we are satisfied that Krishna has reached Dwarka and he will continue his pastimes with his devotees so the important point is that scripture can give us knowledge about geography about cosmology, about this and that but that is not the primary contribution of scripture so the cultural context is important but that is not the primary point of the scripture what is important is the universal principle and Prabhupada is guiding us to focus on the universal principle and when we understand the universal principle and then we see how it relates with my life then the study of scripture will become very interesting and nourishing for us so for example so here what is the principle this is another point to understand the difference between the context and the essence so we shouldn’t mistake what is in scripture with what is the teaching of scripture we shouldn’t mistake what is in scripture with what is the teaching of scripture see everything that is in scripture is not the teaching of scripture why is that? because scripture is a particular context for example if you go to the 7th canto Hiranyakashipu when he is trying to please Brahma by offering prayers he glorifies Brahma as if he is the supreme lord only now Hiranyakashipu is not a Vaishnavacharya or Vaishnav Siddhanta isn’t it? he is simply flattering Brahma so that he will get some benedictions so those statements where he is saying you are the lord of the three modes you are the source of Brahma you are this, you are that they are not Vaishnav Siddhanta they are simply evidences of Hiranyakashipu’s expertise at flattering so what is in scripture is not necessarily the teaching of scripture we have to look at the context to understand so similarly now if you look at this particular verse Krishna is saying there are four categories here there are there are now actually I did a study of around 23 different previous Acharyas so now around it’s like 50-50% 50% of say this is is a fourth category that’s all these four actually come in Varanasi is a fourth category which is outside Varanasi so they all quote the same thing because they immediately, Prabhupada also quotes the verse in the purport Kiratunandapurinapalakasha so all those castes who are outside Varanasi so half of the Acharyas basically say Papayonaya is a fourth category now Prabhupada in his translation says, uses Papayonaya as a describer of these three people he says Papayonaya, who are the Papayonaya Striya, Vaishya and Tashudras but if we see in the purport Prabhupada also talks about Kiratunandapurinapalakasha and there are several lectures where Prabhupada says Striyas are not Papayonaya certainly Vaishyas are not Papayonaya, Vaishyas actually get Vijayadiksha, it’s like Brahmana, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas also get Vijayadiksha so Vaishyas are never considered to be Papayonaya so logically speaking if we see the Striya, Vaishya and Tashudra are not Papayonaya, Papayonaya is a fourth category, now Prabhupada himself gives one translation in his translation but in his lectures elsewhere he also gives a different position but the important point is whether we consider Striya, Vaishya, Tashudra are Papayonaya or we consider Papayonaya to be fourth category so as far as the Acharya’s verdict is more or less you could say they are tied some Acharya says this, some Acharya says this but the important point is there are many people especially now there is a lot of feminism coming up so feminists say that Bhagavad Gita calls women as sinful people therefore Bhagavad Gita is anti-women but the point is the emphasis of this verse is not Papayonaya the emphasis of this verse is what even if somebody is Papayonaya still they can also be elevated by bhakti the emphasis of this verse is that even if people are sinful they can also be elevated by bhakti so Krishna so what is in scripture is not a simple teaching of scripture Krishna is not saying that all these people are degraded in the cultural context of that time people may be considered degraded but even those people who are considered degraded can be elevated by the practise of bhakti and that is the glory of bhakti so this cultural context is very important to understand Prabhupada says in one lecture to the Americans he says all of you Janmaishwar Shuddha Shambhir Edhaman Madhah Puman that you have got you have got wealth, you have got beauty you have got intelligence you have got birth in illustrious country now you should just add Krishna now you may say that actually America is a Mlechha Desh and Janmai in America is a very Durbhagya Shalitik why is Prabhupada saying Janmai in America is very good isn’t it we could say that but actually in today’s cultural context being born in America is a very good thing at least in today’s cultural context America is relatively speaking a prosperous country and being born in America means people have material things very nicely taken care of so we cannot just absurdly or without considering the context apply one standard on that so in today’s context Prabhupada’s point is what if your material needs are taken care of now just focus on your spiritual needs if we don’t look at the context and just abstractedly apply or just arbitrarily apply cultural principles or cultural standards they don’t work recently there was this chess championship between Vishwanathan Anand and Magnus Carlsen so on one Hindu paper they posted a comment Vishwanathan Anand lost for the second time what a great misfortune a Brahmana lost to a Mlechha now actually speaking what has this got to do with it you know is it that a Brahmana is supposed to be better at chess than Mlechha you know that particular culture barometer has no relevance over here so Prabhupada is very pragmatic in today’s cultural context America is a relatively prosperous country so you have got your material things taken care of now practise bhakti so in this way Prabhupada brings scripture to life and he enables us all to actually understand and live scripture and thereby taste the conclusion of scripture that is the sweetness of Krishna that’s why we see this is the last example Prabhupada gives an example of when devotees asked him what is the joy of spiritual world so Prabhupada said it is like an ocean of LSD it is an ocean of LSD now where is this given in Shastra ocean of LSD you know scripture may say it is ocean of nectar ocean of somras but people will ask what is somras we don’t know only so what is Prabhupada doing it is like ocean of nectar scripture may say Prabhupada takes that statement and goes to general principle what is that it is enormous happiness and then that enormous happiness how to phrase it in contemporary terms it is ocean of LSD I want to go there so the point is get people inspired to practise bhakti Prabhupada was very expert in that and by understanding what he is doing we can also not only ourselves become attracted to Krishna but also inspire others to become attracted to Krishna so I will summarise what I discussed started by talking about how can we make scripture relevant in our life so three questions first is what does the statement mean in its own context what is the context independent principle and then what is the application in my context and then we discussed about the ladder of abstraction just specific details they don’t make sense much unless we take the abstract principles which are context independent which are universal I gave the example of decrease in polar bear population and then we discussed about what it means say climate change or whatever and then we discussed what determines the context so we discussed the four parameters which determine our decision making so tradition we have always done it culture everyone does it so these two are external prompts for us to do something and internally there is mood and logic and we discussed how these are fallible each of them and we need scripture but again scripture is also given in a particular historical context so we need to be able to translate from that context to our context and we discussed several examples example of radio music in Prahlad Marad books or the electricity in Bhagavad Gita or we discussed LSD as describing spiritual happiness the principle is when we look at scripture and don’t restrict scripture to just a particular set of statements spoken at a particular time but understand it as a living book meant for us to learn and live according to