Materialism makes material life joyless and pointless

[Congregation Program at Cincinnati, USA]

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Thank you very much for coming here today afternoon. Happy to be here with all of you.
And as I mentioned, I will speak on this topic of matters that matter more than matter. I will start with a quote, an incident from Einstein’s life. And then I will talk about how the Bhagavad Gita illumines the underlying issues.
So Einstein is reputed to have said that all that counts is not countable. And all that is countable doesn’t count. And this quote is attributed to different people also.
But the point is that since the advent of the scientific age, that is, since the time of Galileo and thereafter, there has been an obsession with numbers. In fact, if anything is mathematically countable, then it is considered tangible, it is considered real. And that which is not countable, basically at the start of the age of science, the science, it’s a little echo, isn’t it? Or is it OK? Are you able to hear? It’s OK.
Yeah. So science adopted a particular methodology for understanding the world around us. So if we look at the world around us, we see many features that are observable.
Among the observable features, some are measurable, some are not measurable. So for example, if I have this glass, its height, its length, its circumference, its radii, its mass, all these are measurable. And the scientific method deemed these as primary attributes.
And then there are other features which are also important. Say, for example, beauty, taste, fragrance, basically what in the Vedic philosophical context are called the five sense objects. So beauty, how do we quantify beauty? Even if there is a beauty contest where the world’s best beauty queens come and the world’s best beauty judges come, ultimately the judgement is subjective.
Why? Because beauty, although it is a universally attractive feature, it is not mathematically measurable. Similarly, if we have sweetness, we can taste a gulab jamun and say, this is sweet, this is not enough sweet. Now we can measure the quantity of sugar we have put in it.
But we can’t quantify sweetness per se. Or going on the other side, the whole of medical science is actually meant to deal with pain, minimise pain, to promote health. But pain itself can’t be quantified.
If somebody’s got a fracture, say it hurts. How much does it hurt? Can’t quantify. So there is much in our life which is not quantifiable.
And yet it is real. It is real. It matters to us.
Although it matters to us, we cannot accept its reality if we accept a rigidly materialistic worldview. A rigidly materialistic worldview holds that matter is all that exists. There is functional materialism and there is fanatical materialism.
Usually the word fanatical is associated with religions, say religious fanaticism. That means a religion says that this is the only way and only those who are following this are going to go to war. And anyone else is going to go to hell.
And some fanatical religions will say that not only are you going to go to hell, we will help you get there faster. So the idea is we usually associate the word fanatical with religions. But the fact is fanatical simply means if people think this is the only thing, there’s nothing else that exists.
So materialism can also become fanatical. When people assume that matter is all that exists and nothing else exists apart from matter. Now science adopted materialism or the more common word used in science is naturalism as a functioning methodology.
And as a methodology it is useful. That means science looks for material explanations for material phenomena. Say in the mediaeval ages in Europe there was the black plague.
So some people said the plague was caused by some evil spirits. Some people said the plague was caused by witches. Some people said the plague was caused by some hobgoblins or whatever.
Science says we don’t bother about these supernatural phenomena. We will try to find out in a quantifiable way, in a tangible way, what is the cause. And then they isolated germs.
And in its own way science has been phenomenally successful in explaining material phenomena by tracing them back to material causes. Now this as a methodology is perfectly fine. But the nature of the human mind is that whenever anything works, we tend to absolutise it.
It’s said that one who has a hammer sees everything as a nail. When you see the hammer, I can hammer things and this works and then nothing else seems to be. And if somebody is disturbed, we want to hammer that person also.
Now people cannot be hammered. So what happens, but a person who is a craftsman who has worked with a hammer and has seen how effective hammer is in pushing nails into the wall, the hammer has utility. But to think that the hammer can solve all problems, that is a mistake.
Similarly, what happens with the scientific approach is that it can get unwarrantedly extrapolated. And when it gets extrapolated in this way, it leads to counterproductive effects. So what is the counterproductive effect? That there is methodology and there is ideology.
Methodology is something which we use as a method for doing particular things. Ideology is something which we believe. So science uses the materialist or naturalist ideology.
That means look for material explanations for material phenomena. Now this does not in any way make any statement about whether anything non-material exists or doesn’t exist. It may exist, but that is not the scope of the study of science.
But when science started working more and more in terms of explaining things for us, in terms of helping us tap mechanisms by which we can get more and more control over the outer world, some people, especially people who are materialistic or who are atheistic, they started misappropriating science. And science is today a very prestigious body of knowledge. And anybody who can try to say that, okay, our ideas are scientific, they get a lot of prestige.
So atheists try to misappropriate the prestige of science and claim that atheism alone is scientific and theism is unscientific. Those who believe in God, they’re unscientific, they’re pre-scientific, they’re irrational, they’re foolish. Now if we consider, science is a tool for acquiring knowledge.
Science looks for material explanations for material phenomena. Now God by definition is non-material. The soul by definition is non-material.
And therefore, science by definition can’t say anything about these things. Now certain evidences within science may point towards the existence of God. Certain evidences, some people may infer they point away from the existence of God.
But whatever is the inference, it can never be a scientific inference. So science cannot make any statement about any spiritual reality. Because that is just not within the jurisdiction of science.
Why is that? Because science is a particular methodology. In our day-to-day life also, we use different methodologies for different purposes. Say a person is a cardiac specialist and they have very good devices for understanding what is going on in the heart of a person.
Is there some problem somewhere? Are all the veins, the arteries working properly? Is there any clogging of the arteries that has happened? Is there any future problem that is likely with the current condition? Suppose they’re the most sophisticated device for understanding the functioning of the heart of a person. Now if they want to form a relationship with someone, would they put that person under a heart scanner to decide, is this person a potential partner for me? Well, they might get the health status of the person. But they won’t get the compatibility from that.
So we intrinsically understand that for different purposes, different tools are required. So just as the best heart scanning device cannot tell us if somebody says, you know, I love you. Now we cannot scan the heart and find out whether they’re speaking the truth or not.
Whether they mean it or not. We cannot scan the brain and find out whether they mean it or not. So what it means is that actually there is a whole reality which we all function according to, which we all accept as real, but which is not within the scope of science.
Einstein, as I said, he explained that, you know, if this glass, if I drop, gravity can explain the fall of a glass. But gravity doesn’t explain people falling in love with each other. There’s something entirely different over there.
So actually, yes, now matters that matter more than matter. So first of all, we are discussing, is there something, some matter that is other than matter? Then we will discuss whether it matters. So is there something more than matter that really exists? So with the methodology of science, we can neither say whether something exists or something doesn’t exist, something non-material.
All that we can say is that this can be explained this way. And now if we consider a billiards game, suppose we had a camera on top of a billiards board, and then we saw a stick hitting a ball over here, and that ball moves and hits a ball over there, that ball hits a ball, moves the ball over there, and then that ball goes into the hole. Now the whole set by which the ball goes into the hole, the whole set of motions by which the ball goes into the hole, that can be explained in terms of the laws of physics.
Now this ball hit this ball at this angle with this velocity, with this momentum, and that’s how the chain of events happened and the ball went through the hole. Now this is the correct explanation. If we look at a camera which was just above the billiards board, this is how we would explain it.
Now if we took the camera further up, and we look not just at the billiards board, but we look beyond, and we recognise that holding that stick was a champion billiards player. You say, what made the ball go into the hole? Oh, it is a champion billiards player, expertly they shot and that’s how the ball went into the hole. Now which is the explanation? Did the ball go into the hole because of the laws of physics? Did it go into the hole because of the expertise of the player? Both, yeah.
So both. The two are not contradictory, they are complementary. So the expertise of the player is dependent on the practise, the talent, the concentration, the commitment by which that player, with which the player is playing.
And by that playing, the player has hit the ball. Along with that, now the player oneself may not even know the specific laws of physics by which the ball has gone into the hole. Say a cricket match is there, last ball is there, and you have to hit a sixer on the last ball.
Now the batsman doesn’t think at that time, no, okay, I have to move my arm with this force, then the ball will hit with that momentum. And then if it has this much momentum, it will fall on the boundary and will be caught. With less momentum, it will fall inside, with more momentum it will fall outside.
We don’t think in mathematical, the cricketer doesn’t think in mathematical terms. The cricketer just uses all the skill and the strength that is there to hit the ball. So that means that although these two we can say at one level are complementary, the skill of the player in hitting the ball and the laws of physics as explanation for why the ball went to a particular distance or why the ball went into a hole in billiards.
The point is that the laws of physics, we may or may not know them also. We just intuitively understand this is what I need to do. Once Prabhupada was going on a morning walk and Professor Benford and he said, Prabhupada asked Swami, so Swamiji, Prabhupada asked the professor, so what is the current scientific knowledge about the soil? Currently we have no scientific knowledge about the soil.
That means you have no scientific knowledge. Prabhupada said, no Swamiji, scientific knowledge is of a different category. We were walking through a garden, through a park, so Swamiji, with science we now have two big volumes of books that explain how this grass grows.
And Prabhupada said, the grass was growing even without your volumes being written. Now the point is not to minimise the effort of the scientists in writing those books. The point is that just as people were playing sports even before the laws of physics were discovered, even before we got a mathematical postulation for explaining how the ball went to that, for explaining how the ball went to that distance or how the ball went to the hole, the people were still playing different games.
So there is the innate functioning that we all do. We may not mathematically postulate or mathematically calculate, but we intuitively analyse and do things. So now this intuitive analysis can be enhanced sometimes by some mathematical analysis.
But the important thing is that the mathematical analysis, the mathematical explanation does not make the personal explanation redundant. Personal explanation means the laws of physics can explain how the ball went to the hole, but that does not mean that there is no expert player required. In fact, the laws of physics actually do not explain causes, they do not cause anything.
The laws of physics, what they do is, when a cause occurs, then they explain the correlation between the cause and the effect. When an event is done, then how B will unfold, that is what is described. So basically, the laws of physics, they are descriptive, they are not causative.
They describe patterns of events, they describe the connection between this event and that event in terms of mathematical laws and in that they are very precise. You know, say a bowler is bowling the last ball in a match and that bowler just bowls a full toss and a batsman hits for a six and the bowling team loses the match and the captain goes and asks, why did you bowl a full toss? He says, by the law of physics. It is not law of physics.
The law of physics does not explain why you bowl a full toss. The law of physics could explain why you bowl a full toss, why you bowl a bouncer, why you bowl a yorker, whatever it is. The law of physics can describe the force with which the bowler hit, flung the ball and where the ball hit.
So it can explain the pattern of connections between causes and effects. But the laws of physics are themselves not causal principles. I hope this point difference is clear.
Cause is something which is originating outside the laws of physics. After the cause originated, what effect will come? That will be described by the laws of physics. Now, if I hold this glass, I hold this cup and I drop it, the laws of physics can tell in how many seconds or how many milliseconds ball will fall, this bowl will fall.
But the laws of physics can’t explain, you know, why this bowl fell. You know, what made me raise this bowl up and made it fall? Now, when science is used to explain everything, or it is as atheists try to do, when they use science to explain everything, then that leads to the ideology known as scientism. Scientism is not science.
Scientism as a science is primarily a methodology. Scientism is an ideology that puts the hallow of omniscience around science, that claims that science can give us all knowledge about everything. And this is actually a profoundly unscientific ideology.
Einstein himself recognised the implications of scientism. He recognised that if there is nothing apart from matter existing, then we don’t have free will. Because when I drop this ball, it doesn’t have free will whether to fall or not.
It will simply act according to the laws of physics. Similarly, if there’s nothing to us except matter, then all our behaviour will be governed by the laws of physics. And yet, if all our behaviour is governed by the laws of physics, then that means there’s no free will.
If there is no free will, then there is no accountability, there’s no responsibility. So that would mean that the Nazis who killed millions of Jews, they cannot be held responsible for the murder of so many people. Einstein himself had to flee from Germany, take refuge in America.
So he knew the Nazi horror was real. And to say that a person can kill, some people can kill thousands of people and say, I’m not responsible. Why? Because my brain is wired like that.
Or that’s what, that’s the way I am. That’s profoundly unsatisfactory. If that were reality, we would have no relationships, no accountability, no justice, no sustenance of justice at all.
So it’s not that, it’s curious even atheists, sometimes atheists say that actually we have no free will. They’ll write in their book, actually, because we are creatures of matter, we have no free will. But then they say, the challenge is, if you read this book, you lose your faith in God, and you will become an atheist.
What does it mean? If I have no free will, then how can I choose to give up atheism and become an atheist? Isn’t it? It’s a contradiction over there. You have no free will. But if you read this book, I challenge you, if you read this book, then you will give up your sentimental belief in God and you will become an enlightened atheist, enlightened double quotes.
And what does it mean? That means obviously, by choosing to read this book, I have first of all the choice whether to read this book or not. And that is that is itself my free will. What are the atheists doing? The challenge is you should read this book.
That means I have free will whether to read this book or not to read this book. And so they are asking us to exercise our free will to believe an ideology that says we have no free will. It’s profoundly self-contradictory and anti-intellectual.
So the point here is that actually material matter is important in our life. But material science is extremely powerful as a tool for understanding portions of reality. But when it is extrapolated to explain all of reality, then it becomes heavily problematic.
Heavily problematic because it doesn’t leave any room for free will. It doesn’t leave any room for emotions. It can’t explain beauty.
It can’t explain taste. It can’t explain anything spiritual, anything that things that really matter to us. So love, happiness, these are things which matter to us enormously.
And yet in the materialistic worldview, what are they? When a mother sees her baby, her child, she feels love for that baby. In the materialist worldview, that love is nothing more than the rush, the surge of certain chemicals in certain parts of the brain. Because those chemicals are surging in that part of the brain, that’s all that is to love.
Now there is some emotion that is experienced deep within and that expression of the emotion manifests as a surge of chemicals in the brain. It is not that the surge of chemicals in the brain is all that there is to the experience of love. Just like when I smile, and I smile, my face muscles become shaped in a particular way.
Now happiness is not just the face muscles shaped in a particular way. If it were that, all of us could get a machine for shaping our face muscles. We all would become happy.
Isn’t it? So yes, this is this moving of the face muscles in a particular way when we smile, that is the result of happiness. That is not happiness itself. Like that, yes, anything that we experience, as long as we are in a physical body, it will have some neural correlates.
Something will happen in the brain at that time. But that does not mean what is happening in the brain is all that there is. There is something much more happening over there.
So when we are trying to explore life’s spiritual side, what it means is that we understand that the material side has its importance. In fact, the material side is essential. But along with that, there is another side to our life.
Material things, no matter how much we achieve, they can never give lasting satisfaction. 14.1 in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says that when we become too materialistic and we are dominated by nature’s mode of passion, rajoguna, then lobha, greed, that becomes a characteristic. No matter how much we have, we are not satisfied.
Do new things. I want this, I want that, I want that. Never satisfied one has.
Karmanam asya mahaspruha, an insatiable desire. So, in the Mahabharata is the example of Duryodhana. Duryodhana was born by a quirk of fate, just a few, just some time after Yudhishthira.
And he felt that because of that quirk of fate, he was deprived of the kingdom. He felt he should have been the heir. And when the kingdom went to the Pandavas, he became relentlessly envious of the Pandavas.
But the Pandavas actually were entitled to the whole kingdom because their father had been the king. But the Pandavas agreed to a division when half of the kingdom was given to them and half was taken by Duryodhana. Duryodhana had tried so many things even before that.
He was barely a child in his early teens. At that time, he schemed to have Bhima poisoned. Actually, you can’t even imagine the amount of malice that must have been there for a child who at that time was barely 11 and 12.
For that child at that age to make a whole conspiracy to poison someone else. How much envy must have been there in him at that time. Then after that, he tried to conspire to have them burned alive.
And then after that, he eventually, when they survived and they got the hand of Draupadi, Draupadi was a very powerful king. So then the Kauravas decided to patch up and give them half the kingdom. But then when the Pandavas performed the Rajasuya Yajna and they became phenomenally prosperous, again Duryodhana’s envy became inflamed.
And then he challenged the Pandavas to a deceptive gambling match. And he stripped them of everything. And the Pandavas were exiled to the forest.
Now, even after this, now Duryodhana had his dream fulfilled. He had the full kingdom. The Pandavas were in the forest.
And yet he was not satisfied. He was not satisfied. He, see the nature of materialism is that no matter how much we have, we will not be satisfied.
He wanted more. Then Karna said, Karna saw that he was satisfied. Karna said, I will challenge all the kings of the world and I will make you, I will fight them and I will make you the monarch of the world.
He fought them and he became almost in a position similar to Yudhishtira’s. And yet he was not satisfied. Then he felt that, no, I want to flaunt my wealth before the Pandavas.
I saw once an advertisement of a car. It showed a young man riding a car and a young girl looking with adoring eyes at him. And behind is another young man glaring.
So, the advertisement said, buy this car and enjoy the envy in your neighbour’s eyes. So, it is such a, such a unfortunately low level of enjoyment. You know, it’s not, they are not even saying that buy this car and enjoy the car.
So, buy the car and enjoy the envy in your neighbour’s eyes. And what will happen then? Tomorrow, if that neighbour buys a better car than your car, then the neighbour will enjoy the envy in your eyes. So, there is no end to that.
So, what happened? Duryodhana had all his wealth, the wealth of the kingdom he had and yet he was not satisfied. So, he decided that he will go to the forest where the Pandavas were staying and he will flaunt his wealth in front of them. So, he took his horses, his chariots, his elephants, his royal treasury.
He took his queens, their maid servants and he went with all of them to the forest where the Pandavas were staying. And there was a river. On one side of the river, the Pandavas were staying and they were, Yudhishthir was a very dharmic king.
And even in the forest, he was performing fire sacrifices, he was discussing philosophical subject matters with the sages and they were living there. And there, as they were living, Dhritarashtra knew that the Pandavas are enraged and he had cautioned Duryodhana. He said, you want to go to that part of the forest? Go there, but don’t go to where the Pandavas are staying.
Then you know the Pandavas are staying on the other side of the river? Don’t go on that side of the river. So, now Duryodhana’s whole purpose was to flaunt his wealth. So, he went to this side of the river, but he made sure that the Pandavas saw them.
And he saw them in regal pomp. And now he was just waiting to see, you know, the Pandavas looking miserable. But what happened at that time? Some Gandharvas, they were there and the Gandharvas told that, oh Duryodhana, this is our territory.
This is our territory and you cannot come. Duryodhana said, who are you? He said, I am the king of the world. Everything is my territory.
He said, you will be the king of the world, but this part is reserved for the higher beings and you cannot come here. We are bathing over here. Duryodhana was furious.
Actually, especially if we want to flaunt our authority before someone and that time somebody else comes and challenges our authority. It becomes unbearable. So, Duryodhana just lost intelligence.
Who are you Gandharvas? This is my authority. He says, if you dare to stop me, I will destroy you. Get out of here.
So, Gandharvas laughed and said, you are a human. Who are you to order us? We are celestials. And Duryodhana arrogantly just attacked them.
They started fighting, fighting, fighting and the celestials are far more powerful than humans and Duryodhana just couldn’t fight. And Karna came by his side, Dushasan came by his side, Shakuni came by his side and eventually Shakuni’s bow and arrow broke down and he just turned and fled. Karna got wounded and Karna also turned and fled.
Dushasan also kept fighting but he also fled. Duryodhana saw all this, he got furious. He said, how can I be defeated? I have come here to show my pomp and kept fighting, kept fighting.
He was so blinded by the anger which had come from frustrated fight and he did not realise that he was doomed and Gandharvas arrested him. And for him, the arrest was humiliating enough. But what was most humiliating was he could see the Pandavas on the other side of the river.
They saw him arrested and he felt so humiliated at that time. So eventually, one of the Kaurava soldiers, he ran over to the other side, he told. Gandharvas have arrested Duryodhana.
Please rescue him, please. So at that time, at Yudhishthira’s bidding, eventually the Pandavas came and Arjuna and Bhima came. Bhima was actually very angry.
And Bhima said, when they got the message, Bhima said, it seems at least some of the Gods are still favourable to us. Since so many adversities have happened in their life. It seems like the Gods are unfavourable.
He says, what we would have had to do at the end of our exile after great effort, defeat the Kauravas, that the Gods have done for us. Duryodhana deserves what he has got. Yudhishthira said, Yudhishthira is the elder brother.
Sometimes he acts like a brother, because he is the eldest brother, sometimes he acts like a father. So he says, so Bhima, oh child, do not speak like this. He said, you know, among us there will be differences.
They are 100, we are 5. But for the world, we are 105. He says, they have attacked the honour of the Kuru family. You should go and help them.
Bhima was still not ready. Now, Yudhishthira, he was dharmic, he was virtuous. But being virtuous does not mean being naïve.
Now, Yudhishthira was also diplomatic. So he knew what to say to whom. So he told Bhima, he knew that if he told Bhima, it is your duty to protect your cousin, he would not agree.
So he knew how to activate Bhima. He told him that, oh Bhima, today the person who has insulted us, who has dishonoured us, depends on us for his freedom. You know, what can give you more pleasure than having the person who hurt us be at your mercy.
Go and exhibit that mercy to him. Bhima said, yes, I will go. And then for Duryodhana, Bhima came and released his ropes.
Actually, Arjuna first fell and Bhima was just watching. So Bhima and Arjuna together, they fought, defeated the Gandharvas and they released Duryodhana. Duryodhana was released from the ropes, but he actually went deeper into his humiliation.
He was so frustrated that he said that. He just somehow, you know, he told Arjuna, thank you. He said, in future, if you ever want anything, please let me know.
I will offer something in return to you. This is honour speaking. I took you something.
He was so humiliated, in fact, that he decided that I am going to commit suicide now. I can’t live. He said, I am going to fast till death.
And he resolved. Shakuni came and spoke to him. Dushasan came and spoke to him.
Karna came and spoke to him. Nobody was able to pacify him. Somehow, eventually, many things happened by which he decided not to commit suicide.
But the thing is, they had his attempt to get pleasure at a materialistic level. His idea was, materialistic level, he tried to get pleasure by trying to flaunt his material prosperity on the Pandavas who were in material adversity. And that actually caused him misery.
He went there to cause misery to the Pandavas, but instead, ending up causing misery to himself. So, the Bhagavatam, it is said that, So, Prahlad Maharaj is praying to Lord Narasimhadev, my dear Lord, in this world, we are always trying to avoid the undesirable and attain the desirable. Asmat Priya Priya Viyog Sanyog.
That which is Priya, we want to have Sanyog with that. We want to get it. And that which is Apriya, we want Viyog with that.
That is undesirable, we want to avoid it. But unfortunately, many times, that which is undesirable, we get it. And that which is desirable, we can’t get it.
And therefore, the result is Shoka Agni. We are all burning in Shoka Agni, the fire of lamentation. And then, all species are burning like this.
And when we eventually get something, sometimes I just want to get this and I’ll be happy by getting this. But when we get it, sometimes the object that we get, that itself causes us misery. So, Duryodhana went to the forest thinking that, oh, I’m not feeling satisfied.
I want to flaunt my wealth before the Kauravas, before the Pandavas. And what happened? His attempt to do that caused him misery. And therefore, he says, now my intelligence has awakened.
And therefore, what is he saying? My dear Lord, O Supreme Being, I was wandering in this material existence, thinking, I will get this, I will avoid this, I’ll get this, I’ll avoid this. In this way, just wandering in material existence. He says, my dear Lord, now I don’t want to wander.
What do I want to do? Vadami Tavadasya Yogam. My dear Lord, I simply want to serve you. In your loving service lies lasting satisfaction.
So, instead of simply trying to avoid the undesirable or attain the desirable at the material level, what I want to do is serve you. If we learn to serve Krishna, then therein we can find lasting satisfaction. Why? Because we at our core are souls.
And the soul is longing for the whole. The soul is longing for lasting satisfaction. And Krishna, God, in His all-attractive manifestation, is the source of all happiness.
So, when we connect with Krishna, with loving devotion, we get connected with the source of all happiness. And therein, our longing for love, our longing for happiness, that can be fulfilled. And it does not mean, when you say matters, that matter more than matter.
That was our topic. That does not mean matter doesn’t matter. Matter also matters.
But material life is important for all of us. We have our job, we have families, we have bodily needs, which have to be fulfilled. But we don’t have to let materialism or materialistic conception define our material life.
The materialistic conception of material life is, you always have to be upwardly mobile. You know, wherever you have, get more, get more, get more, get more, get more. And then this never ends.
No matter how much we get, the problem is that there are many materially attractive things in this world. And all these attractive things, they, the Bhagavad Gita says, manifest a spark of Krishna’s all-attractiveness. It says that everything attractive in this world manifests a spark of Krishna’s all-attractiveness.
So that means that the attractiveness of the objects of this world is real. So a good house, it looks attractive. A good car looks attractive.
A good phone looks attractive. That attractiveness is real. But it is only a spark.
The spark can never give us the warmth that can come from the whole fire. The spark can never give us the light that can come from the whole sun. So the sparks can never satisfy our hearts longing for joy.
And that’s why when we get one spark, okay, I get this better house. I get this better gadget. I get this better thing.
Yes, there’s nothing wrong in getting these things. What is wrong is thinking these things will make me happy. Because no matter how attractive they look, no matter how much they are glamorised by the world, they’re all sparks.
And the spark can never play the role of the whole. So when we let the materialism define our conception of material life, then we think, okay, this particular thing which I don’t have, if I just get that, I’ll become happy. Just get that, I’ll become happy.
But this, this is an illusion. Because whatever we get, they’re just sparks. Now they may look very irresistibly attractive.
But once we get them, then another spark will start attracting us. That spark will not satisfy us. So when we talk about devotional life, bhakti yoga is not about rejecting material life and taking up spiritual life.
It means redefining material life so that it is in harmony with spiritual life. So in bhakti yoga, we understand that matter and spirit both come from God. That everything that exists is the energy of God.
Whatever makes this material existence, all these are Krishna’s energies. So we understand that matter also comes from Krishna. And if matter is appropriately used, matter can also take us towards Krishna.
So in material life, in materialism, we see our conception of material life is, I don’t have this, I don’t have this, I don’t have this, that’s why I’m not happy. If I get this, I’ll become happy. If I get this, I’ll become happy.
If I get this, I’ll become happy. But that is an illusion. In devotional life, the understanding is material life is important.
But what is its role? Material life, we need certain material things for our survival, for our existence. But material things are ultimately meant to be used in the service of the Lord. So material things can refer to wealth, it can refer to our talents, it can refer to our relationships, everything that we have.
When we engage in them in a mood of loving service, then even the material can help us to go towards the spiritual. Somebody has a good singing ability. Now, the throat which is singing it is material.
But that singing ability, if one thinks, oh, just by becoming an expert singer, I’ll become happy. Yes, that may give you some fame, that may give you some money, but that will not give happiness. What will give us happiness? If we use the singing ability to sing about Krishna, to connect with Krishna through that ability, then that will give us a lasting spiritual connection, that will give us lasting satisfaction.
So bhakti means we redefine material life, not reject material life, but redefine material life in a way that it becomes harmonious with our devotional growth. We act in material life in a way that helps us to go towards Krishna, to grow towards Krishna. So material life doesn’t have to be a competitor to spiritual life.
Material life and spiritual life can both move in harmony. When we see that both have a common purpose. In spiritual life, we engage directly in devotional activities.
Say, we do worship of the deities, we come to spiritual programmes like this, we chant the holy names. This is direct spiritual life. And when we talk about material life, rather than seeing it as something entirely separate, we see material life also as a means of serving the Lord.
That is, through our intention, through our dedication. Why are we doing it? We are doing it ultimately for the service of the Lord. So when we keep our eyes on matters that matter more than matter, ultimately what is that matter that matters more than matter? That is actually our relationship with Krishna, our consciousness.
Our consciousness is fixed on Krishna. Then even matter can be used in devotional service. And if we see in the Bhagavad Gita, I’ll conclude with this point.
In the Bhagavad Gita, when Arjuna fought a war, now the Bhagavad Gita gave Arjuna spiritual knowledge. That knowledge gave him a direction for life. What is he meant to do ultimately? After that, when he fought the shlokas of the Bhagavad Gita, he fought the war with the arrows.
And those arrows, shooting the arrows, he had learned throughout his life by his practise of archery. So what had happened was, his material skill of archery was used for a spiritual purpose. So the Bhagavad Gita itself does not give knowledge of archery.
That knowledge he had learned from elsewhere. So the material skill which he had, and he was excellent at his material skill, he used it for a spiritual purpose. So the Bhagavad Gita’s knowledge is actually meant to spiritualise our whole life.
And just as Arjuna was able to use everything spiritually, we all can learn to use everything spiritually. And when we do that, when we let our devotional intention define how we use material things, then at the material level, sometimes we will get success, sometimes we may not get success. If we are spiritually connected with Krishna, then even amidst failure, externally at the material level, we did not get success.
But because we are spiritually connected with Krishna, still we will be sheltered. And when we do get success, we will not become enamoured, we will not become inflated, rather we will become more grateful, more inspired to contribute, seeing that our efforts have manifested in a successful way. So whether failure or success, we will stay spiritually connected and we will grow spiritually.
In 12.14, the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says that my devotee is satisfied. But it doesn’t say that satisfied means the devotee does nothing, just sits and does nothing. The devotee endeavours with determination.
Yogi means yoga means to connect with God. So the devotee connects with God, connects with Krishna through devotion and endeavours. But the endeavour is not driven by the conception, oh by getting these things I will become happy.
Rather the endeavour is driven by the understanding that by offering whatever I have in a mood of loving service to Krishna, that will connect me with Krishna and that connection will bring happiness. So I have talents, I have abilities, I will use them in a mood of loving service. Now that loving intention will always be fulfilled.
Krishna will accept our loving intention, we will become purified, we will become elevated. Sometimes that loving intention will manifest as an external result, sometimes it may not. But when that intention is there, that connection is there, we will be able to face the reversals of life with greater fortitude, greater maturity and the successes of life, they will not go to our head but they will energise our heart.
Yes, let me become more enthusiastic, let me connect more with Krishna, let me offer more to Krishna and that way we will become su-sukham kartumau gayam. The Bhagavad Gita says bhakti can make us su-sukham, it can make us joyful even in this world. I’ll summarise.
I talked about subject of matters that matter more than matter. I started with Einstein’s quote about all that counts is not countable and all that is countable doesn’t count. So we discussed how science, while trying to acquire knowledge of the world, split the world into measurable and non-measurable and focused on the measurable and came up with remarkable processing skills based on the measurable aspect.
But the non-measurable is also real. All our emotions, beauty, love, happiness, pain, all these are real for us but they are not mathematically quantifiable. So for one who has a hammer, everything seems like a nail.
So somehow some people started extrapolating from the explanatory power of science and they started thinking that science can explain everything. Science is a methodology which gives natural explanations for natural phenomena, material explanations for material phenomena. It doesn’t say anything about the non-material.
The non-material and the material can exist in parallel just as in a billiards game or in a cricket match. Why the ball went into a hole or why the ball went over a boundary can be explained in terms of laws of physics. It can also be explained in terms of the skill of the player.
Actually the laws of physics, they explain the correlation between cause and effect. But they don’t explain the origin of the cause. So science and spirituality in that sense are not contradictory but complementary.
And if the scientific worldview is extrapolated to explain all of reality, it becomes scientism. And scientism means no possibility for free will which would mean that there can be no justice, no relationship, no accountability which is a very incomplete view of life. The spiritual is real and in the spiritual, the senses that we are soul, the soul has an eternal loving relationship with God.
And when we talk about this loving relationship of God, devotional life, devotional life doesn’t mean giving up material life, rejecting material life, it means redefining material life. When materialism defines our material life, then we just keep choosing one thing, one thing, another thing, another thing and we are never satisfied. Like Duryodhana, although he succeeded in his schemes to have the Pandavas exiled, dishonoured, dispossessed, but still he was not satisfied.
And whatever he tried to do, he tried to humiliate the Pandavas and he himself was humiliated. So in material life we try to get the desirable and avoid the undesirable. And suppose we succeed in getting the desirables, but even the desirable causes distress.
The disease, the medicine for the disease becomes itself a source of greater distress. So rather than just chasing endlessly the material level for things, we see material life spiritually. That means we understand that whatever it is that attracts me in material life, its attractiveness is a spark of Krishna’s We accept it as real, but we don’t come under the illusion that this spark will satisfy me.
So we connect the spark, connect our energy for going towards the spark, direct it towards Krishna. So in spiritual life, in devotional life, we understand matter comes from Krishna and matter can also take us towards Krishna. So whatever abilities, whatever talents, whatever interests we have, just like Arjuna uses the archery for Krishna’s service, we can use our skills in a service to Krishna.
And when we have that loving intention of serving Krishna, then whether we get success or failure, the connection with Krishna will give us satisfaction. And if the external result doesn’t manifest, still we will have the inner fortitude to pass through it. And if external success manifests, then we will have gratitude and we will move on towards progressing in our life.
And that way, we can, by letting the devotional understanding of life define our material life, we can be happy, contented in our spiritual consciousness, even in this life. What to speak of the next? Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.
Yes, please. So how do we spiritualise our material activities when we don’t have so much intention or attraction to serve Krishna? We are more concerned about our own image or reputation. People should not think of us as irresponsible or as failures because of our spiritual practises.
See, there are various levels at which we can connect with Krishna. Broadly, there is fear, desire, beauty and love. So any way we connect with Krishna, that is auspicious.
And usually, we often start our spiritual life from not so pure inspiration, which is fine. Purity, it doesn’t have to be the starting point of bhakti. It is actually at a very advanced level.
We start with whatever, whatever it is that we have interest in. So say somebody likes to sing or they come and sing for Krishna. If you tell them, you know, cook for Krishna, clean vessels for Krishna, they are not interested in that.
They are not interested in singing. It’s fine. So their interest is, if you consider the circle of interest, their interest is singing only.
It’s fine. But somehow, they find an intersection point between their circle of interest and Krishna consciousness. And over a period of time, if they keep singing, they’ll start finding that actually, when I sing mundane songs, I don’t get that pleasure, which I get when I’m singing for Krishna.
And then that means that fulfilment that is coming, it is not just from singing, it is from Krishna. And then they will become more open to connecting with Krishna in other ways also. So the important thing is, it is wherever we are, we start connecting with Krishna from that point.
So even if it is at the starting point, when we are thinking that, oh, if while practising bhakti, if I become negligent about my material duties, then people will speak badly about me and speak badly about bhakti. That is actually not just the ego. That is the ego used in devotional service.
Because what does it mean, ego used in devotional service? That means that the desire for respect, if it inspires us to practise bhakti, that’s not unfavourable. That’s not necessarily the highest. And the highest is that whether people honour me or dishonour me, I’ll practise bhakti.
But any way we practise bhakti, that is auspicious. So at our level, we start connecting with Krishna. Rupa Goswami says that somehow or other, fix the mind on Krishna.
And actually, for a devotee to want a good reputation is not a wrong thing. Because people are attracted by reputation. And if a devotee has a good reputation, if a devotee is a good student, if a devotee is talented in a particular field, people are attracted to that and from that they become attracted to Krishna.
Now the problem becomes when we seek only the reputation and not the devotion. Then it becomes without substance. But if we are pursuing quality activities, we are doing our duties and a positive reputation comes by that.
That can be used in Krishna’s service. In fact, Prabhupada actually did that when he was in India. Not many Indians were interested in hearing about it.
But he went to America and when Americans started practising bhakti and Prabhupada came back to India, the Indians came to his programme because this Swami has American disciples. People were interested. So what was Prabhupada doing? Prabhupada was using the reputation of America in the service of devotion, in the service of Krishna.
So in principle, whatever level we are at, we start connecting with Krishna. And whatever is favourable for connecting with Krishna, we accept that. Does that answer your question? If we surrender to Krishna because we are afraid that we will make wrong decisions if we don’t surrender or we feel that we will fall to sensuality, then so we say, I want to surrender to you, Krishna.
But we don’t mean it. Then what happens? Is it okay? See, actually, we shouldn’t think of material life and spiritual life like isolated compartments. That it is not in specific decisions, we could say, okay, this is material, this is spiritual.
But in our overall consciousness, the material and spiritual consciousness, it’s like our growth is on a continuum. It is analogue. It is not digital.
So you say, right now, I am speaking about Krishna. Now, is it that I am purely motivated only by the desire to please Krishna? If I had waited for that, I would have been waiting for the rest of eternity to start speaking about Krishna. You know, there’s a normal human desire, which is there always for some other things.
We may desire that, oh, if I sing about Krishna, if I speak about Krishna, people should say, you speak so nicely. But then over a period of time, we start seeing that, okay, I may speak so nicely, as I said earlier, I may speak nicely about mundane subjects, but that doesn’t connect me, that doesn’t satisfy me. So the important thing is to start connecting with Krishna.
So even if the intention is not pure, we start connecting with Krishna. And yes, it is true that if we are surrendered to Krishna, we’ll make wiser decisions. If we are not surrendered to Krishna, we’ll make short-sighted decisions.
So I would say that even if that is the motivation for surrendering to Krishna, that is fine. Krishna says in the Gita, that is 7.16 in the Gita, And then two verses later, he says that, that next verse he says that all of them are large-hearted. Now Sripad Ramanacharya in his commentary there explains that, why is Krishna talking about all people as magnanimous, udara, charitable.
He says, Krishna is so eager for bhakti, that even if somebody comes to him with a less than pure motive, Krishna says, please, at least you have come to me. At last you have come to me, after so many times. So Krishna is happy about that.
So in that sense, Krishna is happy, however way we connect with him. So when we are saying, oh, Krishna, I surrender to you. Now when we say, we shouldn’t think of surrender simply as like Draupadi raising her hands in surrender, which is fine.
That is one way of surrender. But Arjuna also says to Krishna, I surrender to you. Krishna says, Surrender to me.
And Arjuna says, I surrender to you. But Arjuna’s surrender is not by raising his hands up. Arjuna’s surrender is by picking up his bow, readiness to fight.
Sometimes surrender can manifest as helplessness. Sometimes surrender can manifest as readiness. So both are forms of surrender.
And at different times, we will surrender in different ways. So we may surrender to Krishna. And in that surrendered mood, we may wholeheartedly work.
I have to make the right decision. I have to do this. Surrender is not the, surrender doesn’t mean giving up.
Surrender means actually going up, connecting with Krishna and then doing whatever is appropriate for us. So if we think that I don’t have the intention to surrender, that means if we think that we still want material things to work out in a particular way, that doesn’t mean we are unsurrendered. What will mean if we are unsurrendered is, if we make our bhakti conditional to material things working out in a particular way.
If this doesn’t work out, I will stop practising bhakti. Not like that. We shouldn’t.
But sometimes certain material results, certain material factors are important for us. Krishna, I surrender to you. But I want this to work like this.
Now Prabhupada writes in a purport that a devotee desires but does not demand. So we can always desire. It’s not that surrender means we have to give up desires.
You can desire, you know, if I pass in this exam, then this can happen. If this works out, then this can happen. I feel this is favourable for my bhakti.
Therefore, I want this. So desiring is not a problem. But when you make it to demand and you start thinking, because this has not happened, therefore Krishna doesn’t love me and therefore I will not love Krishna.
Then that becomes a problem. So desiring is perfectly fine. And we shouldn’t think that just because we have some desire, that doesn’t mean we are surrendered.
Surrender essentially means that we accept whatever happens and continue serving Krishna. But that accepting whatever happens doesn’t mean that we don’t do our part. When I started public speaking, we had been given some guidelines.
So the last guideline was, depend on Krishna. In bracket, but only after you have prepared. So if I don’t prepare for a class and then I say I’m depending on Krishna, that is not surrender.
That is irresponsibility. So we have to do our part. And when things are beyond our control, then we accept Krishna.
Whatever is your will, I accept it. Does this answer your question? Thank you. Thank you.
Yes, please. So in the pattern, there is a fine line where we can see that there is a relationship between the matter and Krishna, which is a relationship between the matter and Krishna. Yeah.
So is there a fine line when matter takes us towards Krishna and matter takes us away from Krishna? In some situations the line is fine. Sometimes the line is quite clear. So basically, we could broadly divide material activities into pro-devotional, non-devotional and anti-devotional.
So some activities are directly anti-devotional. If we do them, they are immoral. They are against the principles of bhakti.
And we know them very well. So at the very least, we start with avoiding those activities. Now there are some activities which are just non-devotional.
Somebody has some hobbies, some interest. Somebody just likes some, say, watching the National Geographic documentary videos or whatever. That’s not directly devotional.
The devotional element can be seen in it. Or one can go towards anti-devotional also. But it’s not intrinsically against the principles of bhakti.
And then there is pro-devotional. It’s a singing ability. You can use it to sing for Krishna, musical interest.
We can play musical instruments for Krishna. So there are, in material life, we can broadly categorise first of all pro-devotional, non-devotional, anti-devotional. And then within that, whichever we are doing, if we become so obsessed with that, that we start doing it at the expense of our Krishna bhakti, then it becomes a competitor to Krishna.
We want it to be a cooperator in our Krishna bhakti. If I get so obsessed with singing that I’m just singing constantly and I don’t do any other spiritual activity, and even my singing, I’ll get into mundane things in that, then it can become a problem. So when we become obsessed with something, then it distracts us from the practises of bhakti, then it becomes a problem.
But if you’re not becoming obsessed, which means we are keeping a sense of perspective and doing our best in that particular material activity, it’s fine. And also with respect to using material things in Krishna’s service, different people have different needs. It’s like, say, all of us have different appetites.
Now for me, say, for somebody, three chapatis may be enough. For somebody, they may need six chapatis. Somebody else may need four chapatis, whatever it is.
So now the key thing is not that, oh, I have to come down to three chapatis or I have to go to six chapatis. The point is that I should feel nourished. So like that, all of us may have different levels of material needs.
So Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, one who eats too much or eats too little, such a person cannot be a yogi. In 6.16 he says that, one who eats too much or eats too little, such a person cannot be a yogi. Now what is happening over here? When we eat too little, then the body’s need is not satisfied.
And then when the body’s basic need of food is not satisfied, even if I try to practise bhakti, I try to think of Krishna, I cannot think of Krishna. So when it is too little, then the food becomes a competitor to Krishna. I cannot focus on Krishna.
But when it becomes too much, I’m constantly thinking, you know, when will I get something to eat? When will I get something to eat? When will I get something to eat? Then also that obsession, again food has become a competitor to Krishna. So when it is appropriate, then food is a biological necessity. We eat it.
If it is well cooked, we get pleasure eating it. But it doesn’t become a competitor to Krishna. So basically, we have to take care that we don’t let the material side of our life, whatever material skill that we are using, it become a competitor to Krishna.
If something material is important for us and if we just say no, no, no, no, then that craving, that dissatisfaction, it torments us so much that even when we are practising bhakti, we can’t practise it. On the other hand, we become so obsessed with it, again that becomes a problem. So over a period of time, we ourselves understand the balance.
So firstly, we start with those activities that are clearly non-devotional and give them up. And with respect to other activities, we learn by experience how to draw that line, so that it becomes a cooperator in our Krishna bhakti, not a competitor to our Krishna bhakti. Does this answer your question? Thank you.
Yes. So if we have the fear of say, losing our relatives or our friends, how can we overcome that fear? Fear is a natural reaction to uncertainty and danger. And fear is also protective.
You know, if a child is looking out of a window, peering out, and the child is fearless, the mother will become fearful. Isn’t it? It’s a dangerous thing. Actually, when we look down from a high height, we ourselves feel fear.
So fear is desirable. What is not desirable is fearfulness. The difference, fear is an emotion.
Just as we have, say, I was sitting on this chair, and there’s a nail on this chair, and the nail pierces my body, I’m getting it. That pain protects me from further pain. So just as that pain is a protector for the body, fear is a protector also at the psychological level.
So fear warns us about the presence of danger. And that sense, it protects us. But when we move from fear to fearfulness, fearfulness means we are full of fear, constantly fearing only.
Then that is where it becomes a problem. So how do we avoid this, differentiate? So if there is danger, there has to be concern. If I’m driving on a stormy day, on slippery roads, amidst rain, and I start driving at super fast speed, I should be fearful.
There can be accidents. Let me drive slowly. But if while I’m driving on a normal road, I constantly start thinking, what if an accident happens? What if this happens? What if that happens? What if that happens? What if my brake fails? What if my tyre comes off? What if the opposite driver is a drunkard? I’ll become paranoid by that.
So now, we need to use our intelligence to differentiate between possibility and probability. Possibility, anything is possible. Right now, while I’m sitting, the roof can cave in and we all can die.
It’s possible. But is it probable? No, the house has stayed for, many such houses are there. The house has been there for a long time.
And houses don’t cave in. They’re well constructed. So it’s not probable.
So we use our intelligence to separate possibility from probability. If we start worrying about every single possibility, we’ll not be able to do anything. What do you speak of doing anything? We’ll not be able to do nothing also.
Because I’m doing nothing. I’m sitting here doing nothing. But even the roof can fall at that time.
So if there is a probability, then I have to take care of it. So if, say, as I said, if I’m driving on a slippery road on a stormy night, then there’s a probability of an accident. So I have to be more careful at that time.
So there’s a difference between fear and fearfulness that we can understand with our intelligence. And we can deal with fears that are probable and avoid those that are just possible because anything is possible. And the best way to do this is actually to connect with Krishna.
Krishna is our eternal shelter. No matter whatever happens, everything in this world may go away. When nothing is left, God is left with us.
He’s there in our hearts. He will never leave us. He’ll never abandon us.
The more we are connected with Krishna, the more we get inner security. The more we have that security, the more we can face external uncertainty with maturity. So the fear of, you know, we want our loved ones to be with us.
But we have to understand that whatever love we are getting from whoever, ultimately it is God who is expressing His love through them. You are my mother, you are my father, you are my brother, you are my friend, you are my wealth, you are my knowledge, you are my everything. This doesn’t mean that we start worshipping our brother as a God or something like that.
What it means is, whatever we get from anyone, ultimately it is God who is giving us that. Now when a mother offers a newborn baby her breast milk, there is practically no other act of such intimate love. And the mother is caring for the baby that way.
At the same time, the mother did not do anything special to manufacture the breast milk at that. The same God who sent a child into her womb, when that child comes out of her womb, that same God arranges for milk in her breast. So the point is, we understand that whatever love we are getting from whoever, we are grateful to them for that.
At the same time, we understand all that love is ultimately coming from Krishna. And when we connect with Krishna, our need for love, our need for shelter, our need for security, that becomes supremely fulfilled. So by deepening our devotional connection and by using our intelligence to differentiate between possibility and probability, we can respond to fears but not become fearful.
Does that answer your question?