Part 3 – Markine Bhagavad Dharma talks Chaitanya Charan

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Vāñchākaṁ patarūbhyasya prapāsiṁ praiva ca patitānāṁ pāvalebhyo vaiṣṇavebhyo namo namaḥ yai śrī kṛṣṇa-caitanya prabhu nityānanda śrī advaita gadādhara vāsādi-gaura-bhakta-vṛndaḥ hare kṛṣṇa hare kṛṣṇa kṛṣṇa kṛṣṇa hare hare hare rāma hare rāma rāma rāma hare hare My dear Lord, please guide us all that we can learn the path of pure bhakti from the heart and example of your pure devotee. Hare Kṛṣṇa. Thank you very much for coming today and we continue our discussion on the song Markine bhāgavad-dharma and we will discuss this theme of what Prabhupāda is planning now.
So we have discussed broadly speaking each of these verses. We have divided the verses into three parts. So or rather two parts.
In the first verse we broadly discussed about how the Prabhupāda’s vision is a vision of his appreciation and gratitude. He’s seeing what facility may not be there but what he’s seeing the opportunity at least is there. So just to go down somewhere.
Where do you want to put it here? Then it should be here. So then after that, which mic is going for the audience here? This one or this one? No no one is for recording both are for audience only. Okay can everybody hear me? Okay thank you.
So first I talked about the appreciation of Prabhupāda that he’s saying and then after that he’s expressing his conviction that Kṛṣṇa must have some plan for me. But this conviction is not so much a matter of certainty. It’s more a matter of curiosity.
Yes Kṛṣṇa you must have some plan. And then after this he is giving his diagnosis. What is the problem? So if we will draw upon certain metaphors consistently.
So if you consider the metaphor of a doctor which you had referred to earlier. The doctor is going to some pandemic hit area, ultra red zone or something. So is there okay at least I got there.
I got the fortune to save people now. And then this confidence there must be some strategy. There is disaster everywhere.
They might just be going for a alcoholic drink outside and they may be this way devotee dancing in kirtan. They also start dancing and they experience something special. And they may even in their alcoholic stupor they may experience some spiritual ecstasy.
And then they may come back and say that I experienced just now. I want to experience it. And then they come and they start of bhakti.
So somebody can mean tamo guna, somebody can mean bhajo guna, somebody can mean sattva guna. From wherever they are they can get a glimpse of bhakti. In that sense they can start bhakti from anywhere.
However for sustaining bhakti, bhakti is not just a one-time experience. It’s about a regular relationship with Krishna. And for sustaining bhakti some amount of sattva guna is required.
Because sattva guna is what is associated maintaining or sustaining. So if somebody just wants to you know I want to go to temple whenever I feel good. I want I do kirtan whenever I feel good.
And sometimes I do it and I feel good. From any place they can go it. But if they want to develop a relationship with Krishna then that involves doing some sadhana.
That involves making some commitment and sticking to that. So that requires certain levels of sattva guna. And that’s why as devotees for example when we have our morning sadhana or we have certain rules that we are expected to follow.
The idea is this will get us to certain level of sattva. And then we can practise bhakti more easily. So when Shilpa Gopal went to America and we’ll talk about some of the incidents in his life as we move forward.
But initially when he went to America most of audience there which he encountered every part of the world has sattvic rajasic tamasic people. Every part of the world. Sometimes we reduce people based on a particular attribute.
Like we may say that somebody eats meat or somebody drinks alcohol therefore they’re tamasic. Not necessary. That particular behaviour is tamasic.
But a person may eat meat but otherwise they might be polite and kind and charitable and quite clean otherwise and orderly in their life. So yes that particular behaviour is tamasic but other behaviours in other aspects of their life sattvic also. So sattva rajasic tamas in many ways has nothing to do with spirituality directly.
Now we can have a tamasic east and you can have a sattvic atheist. So an atheist may actually be concerned about the environment an atheist may be concerned about about society and humanity. I think a religious person might be actually very narrow-minded and ill-tempered and violent.
So the modes are material in oneself. Now here one’s receptivity to spirituality. When Prabhupada went to America he’s seen that these people especially now he’s not encountered the counterculture till now.
Just based on what he has heard and what he’s observed what he knows he’s in this place the books of passion and ignorance are very prominent. And that’s why Vasudeva is Harukhi Nandi Sankarsan. Now Krishna kirtan in the sense of music and singing that everybody can appreciate.
At the same time if one has to understand the philosophy it’s interesting when the word kha is used in our tradition. It is not necessarily about past things. So I was in Canada and they had organised a Krishna katha programme.
I had done a three-day programme. One person came after our first class he says this was I wrote a Krishna katha programme there was no katha in this programme. So my classes tend to be little philosophical.
So often katha comes in just like to give an example sometimes. It’s not so much like classes katha centre. But when Prabhupada himself was not a much of a storyteller.
That was Prabhupada’s life himself was an inspiring story. Probably one of the most inspiring stories in history. But Prabhupada himself was not elaborately tell past times.
So katha refers to in this subject of discussion. So discussion about Krishna. So Bhagavad Gita is also Krishna.
It is basically discussion about Krishna. So that discussion to appreciate that if somebody is too much in Rajoguna or Tamoguna they will not be able to appreciate it. So that Prabhupada is seeing as an obstacle.
We will later on see what Prabhupada is his diagnosis is people have no taste for Krishna. And later on his strategy will be what? He will people just hear Krishna like regularly. So he will come up with that after coming on the diagnosis the prescription the strategy for administering it.
He is going to come up soon. Just complete this point that about Rajas, Tamas and Sattva that the three gunas a person can start Bhakti from anywhere. Now we can also talk about the Varanas say now Kshatriyas or Vaishyas or Shudras.
Now as devotees we may say all of us are Vaishnavas. And that is true. At the same time we all have our particular nature.
That nature is used for Krishna’s service. But that particular nature that particular sobhav will be better. So is it that everybody has to become equally Sattvic to practise Bhakti? Is that everybody who comes to say Prabhupada’s mission or Krishna consciousness has to become a Brahmana.
A Brahmana of course not by birth we are talking about by Varana. Yes we have Brahmanisha. At the same time our sobhav might be in a particular way.
So the point is not so much to identify that this person is this Varana or this person is this Varana or this person is this Varana. That’s very difficult to identify. Sometimes people say oh for some people it’s very easy.
But quite often it happens that you may say one particular attribute of a person is a particular Varana but another attribute we say this is completely different. So the point here when Prabhupada is talking about Vajasthamakona, he is not bringing Varanashram over here. What he is saying is that wherever we are we need to get taped for this.
Prabhupada’s point analysis is not oh there is Varanashram is absent. That’s not his analysis over here. His analysis is because of the lower moods people will not have taste in Krishna.
People will not find joy in Krishna. So if you consider the Gita the concept of the modes is introduced right from the third chapter itself. The third chapter itself is introduced.
The first elaborate description comes in the 14th chapter where the whole chapter is about the moods. Now after that in the 17th chapter also it comes. And then after that in the 17th chapter Krishna talks about mainly four things.
He talks about aahar, anna. Then he talks about yajna, dana, tapa. These are the three modes.
Then after that in the 18th chapter it comes. In the 18th chapter Krishna talks about various things in the modes. He talks about karma.
He talks about karta. He talks about jnana. He talks about buddhi.
He talks about dhruti. In the last thing he talks about is shukha. In the 18th chapter the discussion of modes is from text 21 to text 39.
And the last thing 37, 38, 39 verses it talks about shukha in the three modes. Prarthvic shukha, rajasic shukha and pranasic shukha. So the whole analysis of the modes, it can go very technical.
But eventually it is if you understand which mode a person is situated in, you have to see where are they finding their happiness? Where is their happiness coming? So the problem comes is that when we are in rajoguna, tamoguna, we cannot find happiness in rajoguna. We might get some happiness, but quite often the happiness is more in krishnetara than in Krishna. Because if somebody comes, even if somebody does kirtan, remembrance of Krishna during kirtan will not give them as much happiness as applause they get after they have done kirtan.
Somebody is doing deity dressing. Now this is not to criticise. It is to contextualise.
There is a difference. Somebody does dressing of the deity, that dressing of the deity will not give them as much happiness as others praising them, oh you dress the deity so nicely. Now we all need some recognition, some encouraging in life.
That is natural. It is not wrong to seek that because we all want to know whether I am doing the service, whether it is of value or not. Whether it is appreciated or not.
Should I do more of this service? Should I do something else in life? That is okay. You can see that as appreciation which guides us. But if that becomes the sole basis, this is the most important thing.
Then it becomes a bit problematic. So, Prabhupada, so we could say the gunas, that the obstacle that the gunas create is they shape our conception of happiness. And when our conception of happiness is shaped in a particular way, so then it becomes very difficult.
So when Prabhupada came to America, he came to what is called as the counterculture. And in the counterculture, it is a remarkable phenomena in the history of America. Let us look at that.
The problem is that people don’t have taste for Krishna. And he is saying that Krishna, by your mercy, they may develop their taste. So, let us look at the two concepts in this.
This is translated as causeless. Now, this is not a causeless interruption. So, causeless does not mean, in one sense, there is no cause.
Many times when words are translated from one language to another language, a hai tu ki is translated causeless. So, it does not exactly mean no cause. One way to understand it is that the cause is too less.
Causeless means that whatever cause might be there for something is too less. Like some beggar comes and asks for some charity. Now, the beggar may ask earnestly, desperately.
But when the charity is given, then at that time, you cannot say the beggar is asking is what qualifies the person for the charity. So, one devotee showed me a cartoon once. He said, one person asked another person, can you lend me 500 rupees? The person was asked, thank you.
What do you mean thank you? Thank you for believing that I could have 500 rupees to lend to you. So, generally, when we seek something from someone, we believe that that person is capable of giving it to us. That implicit assumption is there.
But asking, it’s like one thing is we do a job and ask for a salary. Okay, I’ve done this much work, I expect this much salary. But when somebody is asking, it’s requesting, it’s begging, then we may arrange various material factors.
But none of those factors necessarily bind Krishna to give the mercy. So, do our actions matter? Yes, they do matter. So, how sincerely we do our sadhana.
Now, Prabhupada is saying Krishna, your kripa is ahaituki. But Prabhupada, we’ll see the future verses. He is not saying, okay, I’ll sit passively.
Whenever your ahaituki kripa comes, then everything will work out. Now, he is himself going to do something. So, our efforts in many ways are to show Krishna that I want your mercy, Krishna.
But at the same time, while we are doing our efforts, it’s important to remember that our efforts alone don’t result in mercy. So, sometimes there is an understanding of mercy becomes very extreme. Whenever Krishna gives mercy, some people say that, you know, why don’t you come to the temple? He says, you know, jab bhagwan ki kripa hogi tab aayegi.
So, whenever Krishna gives mercy, jab bhagwan gulayegi tab aayegi. So, once Prabhupada says in a lecture, Krishna has called 5000 years ago. So, the idea is that when you talk about mercy, mercy can be at multiple levels, like just getting the opportunity to know about Krishna, that mercy.
Becoming interested in Krishna, that is mercy. So, if you want to understand the mercy, we can go to the point of from adav shraddha, sadhu sangha bhajana kriya. Now, we go forward.
So, just having some shraddha, that is also mercy. Getting some sadhu sangha is also mercy. Starting bhajana kriya, that is also mercy.
Now, getting to the, finding anarthana nritya, that is also mercy. And like that, we can go to bhava and prema. Each of these is mercy.
Now, we could say that when we are doing bhajana kriya, it is mostly our endeavour. Yes, it is true. It is our endeavour, but get the opportunity, get the support to do that, to be able to become consistent with that.
For all that, mercy is required. So, at this stage, when Prabhupada is speaking, Krishna, you please have your mercy. Please have mercy on me.
This aharit krpa. That does not mean that it is, our endeavour is not important. It is important, but not sufficient.
Like in maths, you may have this, we have this kind of necessary, but not sufficient. So, I won’t use the word necessary over here, because Krishna can, mercy can come upon someone without them doing anything at all. But that is the initial dose of mercy.
Eventually, they have to do something to reciprocate. So, it is important that our endeavour be there. But it is not necessary, it is not that this is sufficient.
So, this concept of mercy, let us look at it from two perspectives, that it is we humans, our human, we humans can earn it. And so, humans, let us put it this way, human endeavour, our human endeavour, it is all important. It is all important.
So, sometimes it is that God helps those who help themselves. That is true. But the point is that God can help those who don’t help themselves also.
Isn’t it? Duryodhana was not helping himself in any way. Duryodhana was doing nothing to help himself. Still Krishna went to help him.
So, Krishna can give our human endeavour to God help those who help themselves, does not mean that those who are not ready to help themselves, God will not help them. Eventually, so this is initial drop of mercy like rajas, tamas, sattva, tamas, anywhere a person is, Krishna’s mercy can come to them. So, our mercy, our effort, it is not that it is what will make Krishna happy.
So, it is all important or the human endeavour is not important at all. It has no importance or zero importance. In between, as I said, it is important.
Now, that human endeavour can come in many different ways, important, but not sufficient. Now, when you talk about the human endeavour, it can refer to the endeavour of the seeker. It can also refer to the endeavour of the seer.
Now, in this verse, in explaining this verse, Prabhupada would often say that it is our responsibility to make others bhagyawan, that we give the opportunity for Krishna. So, when we do, when you have done such beautiful Ratha Yatra festivals, when we go out and try to preach, we try to introduce others to Krishna. What are we doing? We are giving people the opportunity to become bhagyawan.
If they take it or they don’t take it, that’s up to them. So, it is their endeavour is also there, our endeavour is also there. And gradually by this, eventually they will come to Krishna.
So, Prabhupada is here talking about the ahetu ki kripa by which people will develop taste. Now, that does not, we see future verses what he says, I am going to speak Krishna Katha and the mercy that Prabhupada is asking is that you make my words understandable to me. So, Prabhupada is going to do his part, but he is going to speak the message of Krishna, but whether that message of Krishna is going to enter into other parts, that is going to depend on Krishna.
So, he is going to ask for the mercy in a very specific way. So, ahetu ki kripa does not mean that we don’t do anything. We understand that what we are doing is important, but it is never sufficient.
So, this understanding also aligns with another verse, the important verse in 411 in the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna talks about reciprocity. So, often, this principle of reciprocity and the principle of mercy, especially ahetu ki kripa and reciprocity, causeless mercy and reciprocity, how do they align? So, the idea is that the mercy is causeless in the sense that Krishna’s response may be reciprocal, but it is not proportional. What do I mean by different? Reciprocal means I do something for you and you do something for me, that is reciprocity.
But proportional would mean, say, I do one thing for you and you do one thing for me. But Krishna’s response is not necessarily proportional. Many of us know that theme that when we take one step towards Krishna, Krishna takes 100 steps, 1000 steps towards us.
So, Krishna is, the reciprocity is there, but the mercy does not override the reciprocity. The mercy means that the reciprocity is there, but additionally, there is, it is not proportionality. Often Krishna’s response is disproportional.
Disproportional means he can give far greater respect than our endeavour. So, reciprocity, the mercy comes in the, it is that Krishna’s response is disproportionate. Now, disproportionate is often used in a negative sense, like we do a little mistake, it is disproportionate to get angry with us.
Right here, it is used in a positive sense. So, people who showed a little interest in Krishna, it is amazing how they made progress in bhakti. And during Prabhupada s time, it happens even now also.
So, this is, when Prabhupada is asking for ahaitukki rupa, he is not saying that I will not make any debt. So, the ahaitukki is that Krishna’s mercy can be far, far more than what we are putting in the end. Okay.
Let us take the second part and then we will have question answers. Now, sabkalla hi sambhav koy, tumi se kautuki. Krishna, you can do everything.
So, this raises the question of Krishna s omnipotence. Krishna, you can do everything. So, what does everything that can, what is exactly the challenge for Prabhupada? You know, Prabhupada later on said this verse that please make me dance.
So, in general, there is what we do, there is what we can do and there is what we cannot do. So, when we talk about Krishna s omnipotence, like Arjuna, when he had to reach Jaidrath, he did everything that he could and then what he could not do, Krishna did. So, it is not that we don t do what we can.
So, while Prabhupada went to America, Krishna, he is praying to Prabhupada, he is praying to Krishna that please make me dance. But Prabhupada, Krishna is actually arranging the stage for Prabhupada to dance. So, what is that stage? In many ways, we said that the audience was very difficult for Prabhupada.
But broadly, we can look at three things, the cultural, the religious and the political. So, let s get the other two. The cultural is the biggest thing.
The political is that it was just two months before Prabhupada landed in America that America loosened its immigration regulations. Now, between 1965 till after 9-11, till 9-11, American immigration regulations were quite loose. A lot of immigrants came to America.
After 9-11, they started tightening it much more. Now, it is very difficult to get an American passport eventually. But during, so Prabhupada came just for two months.
He kept extending, kept extending, kept extending. And how was he able to extend? They had, just for various political reasons, the American government felt that we need labour and we want people to come from abroad. So, around 1920, after the First World War, they had tightened the regulations.
Because there were Japanese people there and they had a lot of suspicion and other things. But after around 1965, they loosened it. And that led to people being able to come.
Now, of course, Prabhupada, when he came, at that time there were hardly any Indians in America because previously the immigration regulations were not that easy. It was not easy for India to go to, Indians to go to America. Now, there were a few Indians, but they were mostly people who had settled in, people who had gone maybe two, three generations before to the Caribbean islands.
And they had gone as mostly indentured labour. The British colonisers, they had taken people to India. Indians, they had to do work, labour.
And over a period of time, they had become maybe a little, got some wealth and then immigrated to America. But otherwise, there were no Indians back then. So, politically, things were working out.
Now, religiously also it was, so politically was the immigration was loosened. Now, religiously, it was in 1965, again, just three months before Prabhupada came to America, that Catholic Church passed something called Vatican II. Till that time, the Catholic Church officially held that anybody, any religion other than the church and Christian religion, that is the path of the dead.
That is the path of the dead. All gods other than the Christian god are not just, they are not god, they are manifestations of the devil. And anybody who follows them is going to go to hell.
So, because of this, there is a certain level of, now, individually then people were seeking, but at the institutional level, at a governmental level, it has increased. Now, that did not affect Prabhupada immediately in 1965, but 1966, 67, 68, 69, Prabhupada got an opportunity to speak in colleges. And many interfaith scholars, they started investigating.
Okay, you want to know about Hinduism? There is a Hindu group right here. Okay, what are they doing? So, they came, they were enquiring. But the major factor was the counterculture.
So, the theme I am taking over here is that when Krishna is working, see, miracles can work in two ways. Generally, the word miracles is used to refer to something which breaks the laws of nature. Like say, Krishna lifting Govardhan Hill is a miracle.
So, if somebody asks, Krishna has to lift the Govardhan Hill. If I have to lift this phone also on one finger, that is difficult. I have to find the centre of gravity of this phone.
I put my finger exactly there and then I will be able to hold it. So, somebody asks, how did Krishna find the centre of gravity for the phone? Not the phone, for the Govardhan Hill. Now, Krishna does not have to find the centre of gravity because he is the source of gravity.
So, the laws of gravity were underpinned. So, when we say miracles, they are, sometimes people say miracles are unscientific. Not exactly.
Miracles are not against science. They are about science. They are not against science.
We accept that science has a principle. Krishna has arranged this world in such a way that it works according to certain principles and those principles can be uncovered by science. But Krishna governs them.
So, when the normal workings of nature are broken, that is, are suspended one. So, that is one way of understanding miracles. But sometimes miracles can happen not above nature or they can also happen within nature or true nature.
So, when Hanuman went to Lanka, he jumped across the ocean. That was a miracle where the normal laws of work functioning are suspended. Prabhupada went to America, he went by Jal Doodha.
There was nothing miraculous in the sense of breaking the laws of nature. But the result that Prabhupada achieved was miraculous. Something, it is a miracle, you may say that it is so amazing that something came up.
So, miracles is used in both sense. So, what I am talking about is that the stage in which Prabhupada is going to do his dance. This is the, that stage was being prepared by Krishna.
In the counterculture, what was this counterculture actually? It had many factors. That one of the key factors was that there are people who, see America for the first time. America sold weapons to everyone.
America also had some casualties, but not as much as Europe because America was not the theatre of the war much of the time. So, America became very prosperous. And the children were born.
In 1945, the war ended and the soldiers came back and the children were born after that. By 1960s, they were in their teens or they were young adults. And previous generation has struggled to just attain a basic level of the great American dream, a house with a white kit fence and typically having some amount of prosperity.
Previous generation has been very difficult, but these people, they got it on a platter. Now we think of America as a land of prosperity. But when the settlers, when the, as they call the pioneers or the explorers, when they came from Europe to America, at that time, according to many statistics, the average lifespan in America was 40 years.
Very few people, because there was a very difficult time. People would be travelling and there was nothing over this. 40, 45 was the average lifespan.
But then America built prosperity. So, now these people, they already have prosperity. And they felt, okay, what more of it like? Okay, you know, we have wealth, we have some security, we have, what more is there to live? There has to be something.
And they were exploring. They were disillusioned with education, they were disillusioned with religion, they were disillusioned with the family structure, they were disillusioned with the whole idea of how life is lived normally. They wanted something more.
And so, there was these three factors with respect to the cultural aspect, that there was, one is the disillusionment, that they were disillusioned with prosperity. Now, how many of you are familiar with the word disillusioned? Illusioned, we are familiar. Now, disillusioned, it does not necessarily mean free from illusion.
What it means is, it is no longer attractive. So, disillusioned with material prosperity, with material success. This does not mean they have become spiritual, but they have become something.
Now, there had been other spiritual teachers who had come in the past and there was like a lot of openness toward Eastern spirituality. India was seen, both India, Hinduism and Buddhism were seen as esoteric religions and people wanted no more of it. So, there is an openness and curiosity toward Eastern spirituality.
And that was for various reasons. But a third factor which came into the mix was, there is the idea that drugs is the gateway to spirituality. There was this drug called LSD.
So, these people who take the drug LSD, they give a new full form, like you have some acronyms and you change the acronyms. So, LSD was the lead of spiritual discovery. So, anybody who takes LSD joins this legal spiritual discovery.
Their idea was that through drugs, you will go towards spirituality. And this came from various places. In the Native American tradition had the idea that POT is a plant extract that is prepared.
You take it, you go high, get some mystical insights. From India, there are some spiritualists who take Bhang. So, now, where exactly this idea came from, that’s a complex history.
But the idea was that drugs is the way to spirituality. And now this idea started grabbing the mainstream, grabbing the youth. And so, people who took drugs, it was, these people were not like drug addicts.
They are people who were seeking spirituality, but they were into drugs. So, we could say that the whole thing of the counterculture was a very large part. Many, many youth over there were a part of the counterculture.
And within that, there was a fairly small, highly visible group of people who were called the hippies. So, now sometimes the whole counterculture is equated to the hippies. The hippies, what were they? That they were people who were not really so much searching for the spiritual as rejecting the material.
They were, these are the people who often got into drugs, not so much for spiritual purpose or maybe they got into drugs for spiritual purpose. But afterward, the spirituality is forgotten and drugs only remain. So, they were the people who got into drugs.
And by 1978 itself, and certainly by 1970, Prabhupada was writing many letters very saying, no, we don’t want to be identified with the hippies. That we are not hippies and we don’t want to be identified with the hippies, Prabhupada. Because initially, there was actually a genuine spiritual search.
But what happens is that even if the nature of addiction is, somebody may start off for some other purpose. But eventually, the addictive substance comes in and people get caught. So, like in the West, there is the idea, you know, drinking is not a bad thing.
Becoming a drunk is a bad thing. The idea is drink, but don’t get drunk. Now, is that possible? Well, yeah, there are people who do that.
But the problem over there is that you drink and you think, oh, I’m only a social drinker. Only when, you know, there’s a party, there are a group of people, just to belong to the group I drink. But then slowly, that starts getting into that.
So, it becomes like an escape mechanism. And initially, I drink when there are people with me, I want to hang out with the people. And after some time, I don’t want to hang out with myself.
So, I’m lonely and I start drinking. And once it becomes an escape mechanism, then it becomes the addiction. That’s how the drugs, they started a spiritual search.
But afterwards, they just became getting people in. So, when Prabhupada came there, he initially, if you see, he initially was in Button Pencil, then he came to New York. And from New York, he came to the Lower East Side, which was the place where the counterculture was there.
And this was the unlikeliest of audience. These three quick examples of how unlikely his audience was, that in America, there are few countries where guns are legally allowed, for ordinary citizens also. So, in the counterculture, there would be many trigger-happy people.
Trigger-happy is the adjective, that is, they’re happy to pull the trigger. That’s the word. So, like, they get triggered very easily.
So, there are both kinds. There were some people from the youth who were like, who were, they were hippie counterculture. They had some nice guns for self-defence and they would use it.
And there were others who were local vigilantes or local citizens. They felt, oh, these are hippie, they will come and attack us. And that’s why we should have guns.
So, when Prabhupada was there in the Lower East Side, first when he went there, Dr. Mishra and others said, Swami, there is no place for you there. There is no place for a person like you to go. When Prabhupada went there, he said that, Swamiji, if you go there also, just stay in your room.
Don’t come out of your room. Because it’s a high crime area. It’s a dangerous area.
In that area, Prabhupada would go out for walks. And he would just fearlessly go out for walks. It was not a constant crime, but it was deadly.
So, it is also an area where it was that Prabhupada, people would take drugs and people would just pass out in drugs only, they would die. Now, Prabhupada would walk along and sometimes the only time people would come would be people lying on the streets. It is a terrible place.
But what Prabhupada saw over there was that these people were actually spiritually illicit. So, when we talk about Prabhupada as fools and rascals, very strongly condemning, but Prabhupada was not judgemental in the sense of dismissing people. If he had been judgemental, he would have found 100 reasons to not even consider the people of the common culture.
He would have probably considered that these are the most unqualified people for him to take to, for him to preach to. But he saw that one spark of spiritual interest. And one time it happened, Prabhupada, the devotees had, this was a little later, the theme is that how Prabhupada, Krishna was actually creating a stage for Prabhupada.
But it was not an easy stage to dance. The stage was there and the audience was there, but still reaching the audience was not very easy. They were interested, you see there is a difference between interested in spirituality and receptive or ready for spirituality.
Like I’m interested in something, but what the price it takes. Okay, I’m sick, I’m interested in that medicine. Doctor says, okay, but you know, you have to give up all other food and you have to eat this diet for the next three weeks.
Okay, I’m not that interested now. So people were interested, they’re not really ready to pay the price, what it was required. So, Prabhupada, when he was in 26th century, there was like a small raised platform which Prabhupada would sit and the devotees had constructed that, like a wooden platform and Prabhupada would sit and people, audience would come and sit.
But in those days, because drugs is the pathway to spirituality, somebody would take drugs and after taking drugs, they would speak something. There’s a special term for such people. They were called LSD saints.
That means the idea is that how this person has, by taking LSD, has got access to some different domain and from that domain, some wisdom is coming. So, if a person has LSD, he has to speak, everybody has to become shant and listen to that person. So, one time Prabhupada was giving a talk and one person from the audience said, Swamiji, I want to speak.
Prabhupada said, questions after the class. I want to speak now. Prabhupada said, questions after the class.
This person got up and just climbed out of the and came and sat next to Prabhupada. He said, I want to speak now. Prabhupada looked at the audience and Prabhupada just picked up the kartala and started doing kirtan.
Throughout the kirtan, this person was sitting and looking at Prabhupada and everybody looking what is going to happen. Prabhupada just calmly continued the kirtan. And then after kirtan got over, that time Prabhupada didn’t have much money.
They would just have an apple. They would cut a small slice and they would give the food, apple as prasad. So, Prabhupada got the award and Prabhupada, they also got a knife.
Prabhupada cut the apple on that rare section and everybody would come and take a little bit of apple. So, Prabhupada cut a piece of the apple and piece of the apple in the knife. He both extended it to this person sitting right there.
Everybody fell silent. This hippie, he looked at the apple, he looked at the knife, he looked at Prabhupada, he looked at the apple, he looked at Prabhupada. He extended his hand and then everybody breathed a sigh of relief and he picked up the apple.
Well, his one Prabhupada disciple, he told me that. He says, that was, seeing this, that convinced me that Swamis were real. Who would have thought that is a way to convince people? Prabhupada got an audience that was interested.
But actually, to win the award after that, it was extremely difficult. So, just because a stage is there does not mean in any way that the dance performance is easy. The dance performance was still extremely difficult.
There was a stage, Krishna was arranging a stage, but Prabhupada himself did extraordinary work. So, when we say that Krishna is going to do wonderful things, yes, if we consider this is the world, Krishna is abhava and now Krishna can do wonderful things around us. So, Krishna can create an opportunity for us, but Krishna can do wonderful things through us also.
Krishna’s miracle working potency can be both ways. So, God’s will happen around us or to us and also happens to us. So, if you look at the history of how Srila Prabhupada will work out things, it is a history of remarkably miraculous things.
And his confidence is now you can do anything. So, he is not just saying Krishna you will make things happen around me. His prayer is also Krishna you will make things happen to me.
So, what exactly is his plan that we will discuss in a future session. I will summarise. Today, we discussed three main themes.
The first theme we discussed is about the concept of the modes, the gunas. How the gunas can, there are two concepts of the gunas that they are like, they are progressive, where we need to go from the lower guna to the higher guna. But they are also from the spiritual perspective equivalent.
From anywhere, we can move towards Krishna. So, there is vajas, tamas, sattva and there is transcendence or vajas, tamas, sattva and transcendence above. So, both these for starting, it is from anywhere.
But for sustaining, we need to come towards sattva guna. So, we talked about how gunas, they affect how we see things, how we see things and how we process things in terms of jnanendriya, karanendriya and mana, perceive, pursue and process. Then the second thing we talked about is that about mercy.
So, especially when we say causeless mercy, it does not mean there is no cause. What it means is the cause is too less. So, we have to make our endeavour, but the cause is too less.
So, our endeavour is not all important, endeavour and mercy, we can put it as. So, our endeavour is not all important, but it is not also no importance, zero importance. It is important, not sufficient.
So, we have to make our endeavour in the best possible way. And lastly, we discussed the concept of miracles, that Krishna can do everything. Miracles can happen beyond nature, that means breaking the laws of nature or they can happen within nature or through nature also.
So, through nature means like situations come out in a wonderful way by which things work out. So, we discussed Shri Prabhupada, the stage on which he was going to dance. If you consider Shri Prabhupada as the expert dancer, the stage, we discussed the politically how immigration laws opened just before Prabhupada came, the religiously how the church also became somewhat more open to the Vatican and especially culturally, how this counterculture came up.
And in the cultural aspect, we discussed how the audience was, they were open, open to understanding, but that does not mean it was, it was not open, easy. It was extremely difficult because they were not ready to come in. Prabhupada had to work extremely hard.
So, there were people, they were interested in Eastern spirituality, the material prosperity and they had this whole fascination with the drugs. So, that drug, that was what made it especially difficult. So, Prabhupada worked too hard.
So, Krishna s will, when it works in our life, Krishna s plan can work around us, but Krishna can also work through us. So, around Prabhupada, the stage was being created. But through Prabhupada, the dance was being done.
And by both of these, the most extraordinary outreach initiative will manifest, which we will see. Thank you very much. Is there any one more question? Yes, yes, go ahead.
Go ahead, please. Yesterday, you were telling, like, even you were giving an example, like, mistakes happen. But Krishna is so expert, even in the mistakes, he makes his plan, he makes his plan.
So, in that sense, sometimes the mistake is done by a person? Or is there a situation where Krishna makes the person to make the mistake, so that the plan will get executed? For example, and see the example of, let s say, Kaikeyi. So, when Kaikeyi… So, if somebody makes a mistake, is it Krishna making them do it? Or is it they making the mistake? And Krishna using that mistake? So, you know, Bhaktivinod Thakur talks about how Shastra can be understood in multiple levels. He talks about Krishna Leela, the fifth canto of Bhagavata, the tenth canto of Bhagavata.
So, based on that, I use the four-point framework, that when we look at the events in scripture, and we try to understand them at four levels. One is at the literal level. This is what happened.
And at the literal level itself, it is this event happened and this happened happened. In that, the story itself is entertaining. And so, when somebody is looking at the story at the literal level, their main concern is the suspense, the drama, the plot twist.
Sometimes in movies, if they have a review, this is spoiler alert. Because if you know the story, then the fun is lost. So, at the literal level, the main focus is on the newness and the entertainment value.
So, many people when they hear Krishna Katha, this is at literal level. This is what happened. Then there is at the ethical level.
Ethical level is where we learn some lessons about decision making. Okay, this person did right, this person did wrong. So, at ethical level.
The next level is the allegorical level. Now, Krishna Leela itself is not allegory, but it can be understood at allegorical level. Like say, the six children of Devaki who were killed before Krishna and Balarama.
So, not everything in scripture is allegory, but some things can be seen from allegorical perspective. And the last is the devotional perspective. In the devotional perspective, we see everything is just Krishna’s Leela or Krishna’s plan.
So, we see that our Acharyas themselves explain things at different levels. So, if you consider the Gita’s context itself. So, Prabhupada sometimes says that Arjuna’s illusion, Arjuna was put into illusion by Krishna so that the Gita could be spoken.
So, this is at which level? Devotional level. So, that’s true. But we also see, Prabhupada in the first chapter of the second chapter, one of the, I think the second time or third time when I read the Bhagavad Gita, this struck me just in many sense.
In the first chapter of the Gita, in the Purpose, Prabhupada is actually praising Arjuna. He is saying that Arjuna is thoughtful, Arjuna is not rushing into action. Such a thoughtful person is eminently qualified to receive the knowledge of the Bhagavad Gita.
And the second chapter starts and suddenly Prabhupada starts criticising Arjuna. He says Arjuna is in tears, Arjuna is ignorant. Tears are a sign of ignorance and attachment.
Everybody has skin disease. And Krishna is speaking in the Bhagavad Gita to free Arjuna and everyone from this attachment and illusion. So, now is Arjuna wise? Is Arjuna thoughtful? Or is Arjuna attached? So, basically, say Arjuna is thoughtful or Arjuna is attached? This analysis is at which level? The ethical level, isn’t it? So, if Arjuna’s illusion is being orchestrated by Krishna only, then why bother with Arjuna is being thoughtful, Arjuna is being attached? It’s all Krishna’s arrangement.
The point is, if we look at things at a devotional level, we can look at them, but there is nothing to learn over there. And nothing to learn as guiding principles for our life, what we should do and what we should not. It is at this level, it mostly relish the past.
Now, at the ethical level, when Prabhupada is drawing lessons, it’s important that we focus not so much on who is right, because these are great characters. And we are not meant to judge those characters so much. Rather than focussing on who is right, we focus on what is right.
So, that means that why is Prabhupada giving two opposite points about Arjuna? He is giving us lessons from the various contexts. So, one context is if you have to make a major decision, don’t just rush into the decision. But then our decision making process may be ignorant and we need knowledge to make better decisions.
So, many places we will see different perspectives when Pitraketu is cursed by Parvati. Initially, Prabhupada says that when Parvati was sitting on the lap of Lord Shiva, the sages were not laughing at her. Nobody was objecting.
Why did Pitraketu have to object? So, he says the great souls are not objecting, why are you objecting? But then, so he says that it was inappropriate for him, it was wrong for him. But then when Parvati curses Pitraketu, Pitraketu remains very calm. That scene comes.
Prabhupada in the purport says that there were great sages over here, they did not think that Pitraketu had offended Lord Shiva. Why did Parvati have to curse? So, was Pitraketu right or wrong? Was Parvati right or wrong? The point is not who is right. Point is what we can hear.
So, one point is that if we see something happening, we cannot make sense of, do not laugh at others, do not mock others. Do not be disrespectful if you cannot understand someone. Try to clarify, do not be disrespectful.
Similarly, we see that somebody else is doing something which we think is offensive. Do not just be impulsive or aggressive and condemn that person. Be careful.
Be careful before we rush to judgement and action. So, the idea is, in the ethical level, we can learn a lot. So, to answer your question, in summary, that exactly how the characters in Krishna Veela behave? Is it that the Lord is taking away their free will and making them act that way? Or is the Lord putting them in a particular situation and they make particular choices? That is very difficult.
The point is, we, rather than judging where the characters are, we focus on what level we can look at it and what we can learn from it. So, is Yashoda Mai really an illusion? Does she really forget that Krishna is God? How is the Vishwaroop coming in that child’s mouth? So, the understanding is that there is Yogamaya. She is never an illusion, but she is a delusion.
That is a devotional understanding. Now, we can also learn some things of Brahma, Vimukha and Nidamasi. So, did Krishna put mind to illusion? Or did Brahma want to test Krishna? You can go further.
Maybe the desire to test Krishna came in Brahma’s heart by Krishna’s ring. You can go deeper and deeper into it. Or not deeper, you can get caught.
It can become messier and messier. So, rather than trying to understand, like one devotee was telling me, I was giving a class on how Duryodhana misused his free will in the Shanti Doodh. So, he said that the same Krishna who was speaking externally to Duryodhana to convince him to not fight, that Krishna from within Duryodhana’s heart was telling him, don’t listen to me.
So, I said, where is the praman for that? He took a decision. So, unless Paramatma gives him, nobody can take any decision. No, the Paramatma is not responsible for our decisions.
Paramatma gives us remembrance. Paramatma gives us forgetfulness. Paramatma gives us knowledge.
But based on that, we take decisions. So, if somebody is alcoholic and wants to recover from alcoholism, they go to a place where there is alcohol is there. Now, they can get the remembrance of how alcohol is so dangerous or they can get the remembrance how alcohol is so delicious.
Now, which remembrance will they get? It depends on what is their desire. When Krishna says, I give knowledge, remembrance and forgetfulness, that is based on what do you desire? If the desire to drink is strong, then how alcohol is dangerous, then apohanam. And how it is delicious, that will be smriti.
And then jnana will be, okay, how can you drink by which nobody will care. But on the other hand, if the desire to stop drinking is strong, that even if the temptation comes at that time, the remembrance, smriti will come, matta smriti will be, I got so much trouble by doing this in the past, don’t do this. And apohanam is the taste, you have to try this.
Even if I had to go into this tempting situation, how can I navigate this situation? How can I get out of this situation? How can I survive this? So, Krishna never overrides our free will. He doesn’t override the free will even of pure devotees. When we say they act according to Krishna’s plan, that is how it exactly works out is mysterious.
Yesterday, I talked about how Prabhupada books are written by Krishna. But are they not written by Prabhupada? Both factors are there. So, when the divine, human acts as an instrument of the divine will, exactly what is the human component and what is the divine component? That is very difficult for us to figure out.
So, rather than trying to figure out focus, where is this coming from? We can focus more on what is the level I want to approach it. Do I want to approach it as ethical level? Do I want to approach it as a devotion level? The question that was asked yesterday, probably if our spiritual master or somebody is giving us instruction, is it their particular desire? Is it Krishna’s desire? That is very difficult. So, we have to decide at what level do I want to approach it? Do I want to approach it at a devotional level? Do I want to approach it at ethical level? At ethical level means a dharmic level.
So, Prabhupada, spiritual master told me, why don’t you preach in the English language? Prabhupada approached it at ethical level. He felt that, you know, my family is there, my wife is there, my child is there. I did not approach it that way.
He wanted to preach, he wanted to follow the instruction. So, we can decide which level we want to approach it. It is not wrong to approach.
So, we are not judging person so much, as we are judging at what level can I approach this and at what level of what kind of lesson I can take from it. Does that answer your question? Actually, my question is like, I didn’t get spiritual, but when we take decisions, we take some decision and agree to something, but later we think, oh, why did I do that? I think the consequences we face… Oh, God! I should have asked the question. I should have questioned the question before giving the answer.
Okay. See, in general, we should not use Krishna’s, like, we should never justify our mistakes as Krishna’s plan. Isn’t it? So, if we have made a judgement error, we need to acknowledge that.
We try to learn from that. But we shouldn’t be, like, perpetually beating ourselves up. Oh, I was a terrible person.
I made a terrible mistake. Yes, sometimes it can be a mistake. So, we plan for a programme and we say, let us put 200 people, 300 people.
Now, somebody else has suggested, let us make for 300 people. No, no, Prasad is always, let us make for 200. But then what do we do? Is it wrong? Is it, oh, 100 people.
Those people don’t get Prasad. You know, Krishna would have told them that they came for Prasad. So, they came for Krishna.
Now, we shouldn’t be justifying, like, yes, that is a philosophical perspective that can be taken. Okay, in the future, when we have a programme, let us make more Prasad. Let us ensure that we don’t have less Prasad.
So, we can draw a lesson like that from there. So, we try to learn so that we can improve our judgement and improve our service to people. But if a mistake is leading to us, we are beating ourselves up constantly.
Even if that mistake happens, Krishna can bring something good out of it. So, let me accept it and move on now. So, it’s not that because these 100 people did not get Prasad.
Because of my mistake, those 100 people’s spiritual life is permanently ruined. They will never become devotees and I am responsible for it. So, yes, we should try to learn.
But it is not that any one Jiva’s mistake is permanently ruined somebody’s life. I remember one devotee, where was this, in the UK. He gave, in a class, he gave an argumentative answer.
He said, what happened is, we are all inspired by different preachers. And we are all inspired by different preachers. Sometimes, when we have not yet understood our particular subhava, then whichever the latest preacher we have heard, that preacher becomes the most influential person for us.
So, if we have heard some classes from a very confrontational, fiery preacher, then we imitate that. So, this devotee gave a very confrontational answer to a particular question. And because of that, it did a lot of controversy from them.
That person became almost the enemy of ISKCON. And this devotee became so scared. He said, I will never do any preaching on Japa.
What if I give a wrong answer and ruin preaching life? Don’t worry so much. No, we learn, we should avoid making mistakes. But don’t think because of a mistake, I should observe it.
So, in that sense, a mistake doesn’t throw us out of Krishna’s plan. So, our mistakes, to summarise this, our mistakes are not Krishna’s plan. But Krishna’s plan can work through our mistakes.
Thank you very much. Okay. Do you want to take this? Yes.
Continue this. Sometimes, we are very clear that what has happened is a mistake. Some decision is a mistake.
Many times, it happens that we are not sure whether it’s a mistake or not. But then, after we make the decision, we are not happy with it. We don’t know really it’s a mistake or not.
So, how do we get through? Sometimes, it’s very difficult to know. So, it’s sometimes only time. I talked about these three things, that there’s intent, content, and consequence.
Three aspects are there. Like, what did I do? Why did I do it? And what was the result of it? So, how do you decide what is a mistake? Sometimes, we may say, this particular answer to this question, that itself was the wrong answer. Maybe it is scripturally wrong.
So, the content was wrong. Sometimes, it may be that we give answer which is right, but it has a wrong effect. So, you may decide, maybe this answer could have been given in this way.
Maybe I should have used this language. Sometimes, you may decide based on the effect, we come to know that this was a mistake. Sometimes, we may give a particular answer because we want to just show off our scholarship, how much I know.
So, maybe the intent is wrong. So, in general, it’s difficult to know. So, in real life, whether it’s the content that is a problem, the intent that is a problem, or the effect that is a problem.
If it is the effect, then only time will tell it. So, sometimes, you just have to wait and watch. This is the decision I took.
And will I take the same decision next time? Maybe, maybe not. I do not know that. So, sometimes, you may decide that, okay, if I am put in a similar situation, maybe I may consult someone else before making a decision.
So, that is a safer option rather than judging is it right or wrong, because we do not know. Like right now, I do not know whether I should continue this answer or stop this answer. So, sometimes, so and the follower does not come soon enough.
So, what do we do? We just wait and try to see what we can do the best. We do not have to wait for certainty before making a decision. Now, in which area of life do we apply that standard? Isn’t it? Unless I am certain, I will not make this.
Unless this is the best career for me, I am certain, I would not take this career. I would not go to this college. Unless this is the best job for me, I would not take a job.
This is the person for me to marry, I would not marry. Once we start, that does not mean we recklessly take these decisions. But in no other area of life do we wait to explore and reject all options, other options till we come to the best option.
We have to take a reasonable leap of faith. And the same applies in serving Krishna also, based on whatever understanding we get of a particular situation. So, just because we are serving Krishna does not mean that we can ban the normal process of reasoning for decisions.
We do not have to subject it to extraordinarily high standard, nor extraordinarily low standard. Because I am doing this for Krishna, one devotee was taking me for a programme. He was going very high above the speed limit.
I asked him, bro, how much is the speed limit? He said, yes, 80. You are driving at 120. He said, no, you are Krishna’s devotee, so I will put it.
So, I told him, Krishna, you drive above the speed limit, Krishna leaves the car. What even normal caution mitigation? Is it that because you are driving, you are a devotee, you do not want to make any incidents? The speed limit is 80, I will drive at 25.