QA on balancing the material and the spiritual

Talk to Bangalore youth forum

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So, how would you prefer you would like to pass the mic and ask questions or have chits whichever way you prefer. Whoever has questions you can start. Yes.
So, in the neon that galaxy there are many stars, so depending on the size of this galaxy the details come from this side here, so I do not think it is practical for me to tell you. So, is it unscientific supposition of scientific data or is there any question that what is star tree point of view? Star. Ok.
So, modern science gives us a particular vision of cosmology where it says that the cosmos which is millions of light years and how do we understand this from the Shastric perspective? First thing to know is that scripture has a particular purpose and that purpose is to give us spiritual knowledge. Along with that scripture may give us some knowledge about the material world also, but that is not the primary purpose of scripture. So, if we start approaching scripture for material facts and figures, we divert ourselves from the purpose of scripture because scripture is like, I will use simple examples for this first, let us start from something down to earth.
We have health as a primary concern for us when we are living in this world, whether we are materialist or spiritualist, our health is important. Now, we can take care of our health, we can treat ourselves either using Ayurveda or using allopathy. Now, both are valid ways which can help us to heal ourselves, but if we consider the conceptual model of Ayurveda of how it sees the body and how allopathy sees the body, it is substantially different.
Ayurveda’s central is the concept of heat, Jatraguni. We come to allopathy, there is no such conception as fire in the body. There is temperature of the body, but there is no such concept as Jatraguni.
What we call as facts are always theory laden. Theory laden means, what we call as a fact is determined by what kind of theory we are using. So, with respect to the taking care of the body, Sri Prabhupada was pragmatic.
He preferred allopathy, Ayurveda himself, but on once or twice he did use allopathy. When he was in England and he had a serious health problem, he did a surgical correction using allopathy. Prabhupada was not fanatical that you have to take Ayurveda only.
He did not make allegiance to the material system of medicine coming from the Vedas as a sign of our faith in the spiritual knowledge given in the Vedas. Even if I find that Ayurveda doesn’t work for me, Ayurveda doesn’t make sense to me. I take allopathy, I take homoeopathy, I take whatever else.
It doesn’t matter. The body is just a tool for functioning in this world. So, just as we understand clearly that the scripture has not primarily come to give us material knowledge.
We may learn something important about health also from scripture. We may learn about regulated living and things like that. But that is not the primary purpose of scripture.
So, similarly giving knowledge of the cosmos is not the primary purpose of scripture. And when we position scripture as a competitor of science, scripture is giving knowledge of material world, science is giving knowledge of material world and the two are in competition. When we position scripture as a competitor of science, we devalue scripture.
We devalue scripture. Scripture is giving us higher knowledge. It is giving us knowledge of the spiritual world.
So, that’s why in general there is no need to highlight any conflict between the scriptural knowledge of the scriptural conception of the universe and modern scientific conception of the universe. So, we understand that these are two different models. They come from two different perspectives.
Just as Ayurveda and allopathy give us two different models of the body. Similarly, the Bhagavatam and modern science, they give us two different models of the universe. And if we see, when Parikshit Maharaj asked Shubhdev Goswami for a description of the universe, you know, if he could have just seen all those things with his eyes, he would not have asked for it.
It’s obviously seen with the eyes. And Shubhdev Goswami describes something which is from a mystical vision and then he also says after that, that this cannot be understood, that this universe is so vast that it cannot be understood comprehensively. The purpose of the Bhagavatam is not to give an exhaustive knowledge of cosmology.
It’s primarily from chapters 15 to 25 that it talks about cosmology. And there are a few hundred verses in those ten chapters. But if you look at the verses that describe cosmic distances or dimensions, they are barely one-tenth of it all.
The remaining verses are, okay, these residents are staying over here, then this is how they offer prayers, and this is what Jambudvi presents, this is what this represents, offers prayers. So the purpose of the Bhagavatam is to give an overview of how dharma and devotion pervade the universe. And that’s why we look at the start and the end of the descriptions of the cosmos.
The point is, this is how the glory of Lord Hari is demonstrated. So the point is not to give an exhaustive cosmology. So apart from that also, if we try to say, consider, now the devotees, we are trying to make a planetarium as per Sri Prabhupada’s vision.
At the same time, Prabhupada himself told, you have to consult some very learned Vedic scholar who can explain this. So it is quite difficult to just build a planetarium based on the Bhagavatam description. Because it is like, suppose, you know, 500 or 1000 years down the line, say, all the maps of the world are destroyed.
And we have Leela Amrut. And based on Prabhupada’s travels in America described in Leela Amrut, we have to construct a map of America. See, Leela Amrut is not a geographical book.
It is a biographical book. It contains some geographical knowledge. But to make a geographical or cartographical map from Leela Amrut will be very difficult.
So like that, from the Bhagavatam to depict the cosmos is extremely difficult. And what to speak of it being difficult from the modern perspective, of those who have been educated in the modern scientific conception of the cosmos. It is difficult even from the traditional perspective.
What do we mean by the traditional perspective? See, although we often refute Mayavad very strongly, we have a very Mayavadi notion of Indian history. What do we mean by Mayavadi notion? We think that everything in Indian culture, Indian history, in Vedic tradition, everything was Bhakti. But it’s not like that.
There are many different schools of thought. And all these schools of thought were present. And actually they all evolved towards Bhakti.
But when I say so, with respect to the vision of the cosmos itself, there are two broad bodies of knowledge. There is Puranic cosmology and there is Jyotishya cosmology. So, Jyotishya cosmology is basically what is used in astrology.
Jyotishya Shastra, as Bhaktishyamsa Thakur commented on it, and Surya Siddhanta. Now these are two different bodies of knowledge. The Puranic cosmology and the Jyotishya cosmology, they are different.
And even prominent astronomers, astronomers and mathematicians say like Aryabhatta. Aryabhatta, he himself said, I cannot understand the Puranic cosmology. Now he developed the Jyotishya Shastras quite a bit.
He wrote a lot and he is one of the founders. So, he is able to make sense of the cosmology that is described in the Jyotishya Shastras. And using that, he gives a lot of good calculations, remarkable calculations.
So, he is in many ways prescient as compared to what modern science found later. But even he is not able to reconcile the two. And our acharyas, say Vishnachakra Thakur, Vishnachakravarthy, before that other acharyas who commented on the Bhagavatam, they have tried to explain the Bhagavatam’s cosmology as much as possible.
But none of them has ever used the Bhagavatam’s cosmology for doing any astrological calculations. The Bhagavatam’s cosmology is not usable. The dimensions described over there are such that they just don’t make sense from our human perspective.
So, that means there is a cosmology that makes empirical sense and that is for practical use. That is the Jyotishya cosmology. And the Puranic cosmology, none of the acharyas have denied or rejected it.
But it is more of a envisioning of a cosmos from some other perspective. And how that is to be understood now, it’s difficult. But nobody has created, no acharya has said that because we follow Bhagavatam, so, therefore, we will not refer to Jyotishya Shastra’s cosmology.
They have not created a confrontation between the two. So, today, just as within the Vedic, the tradition was comfortable with two different visions of the cosmos. So, and they were also comfortable with not being able to reconcile the two.
So, actually the whole philosophy is Achintya Bheda Bhed. Achintya Bheda Bhed means that we have to come to a level of acceptance of the contradict. Isn’t it? So, we have to accept that there are contradictory things and we may not be able to reconcile the things.
So, just as in our tradition, the two traditional sources of knowledge, of cosmological knowledge, the Jyotishya cosmology and the Puranic cosmology, the two were not brought into confrontation. Similarly, today, the empirically derived cosmology, this cosmology that is used for making practical sense of the universe, that is modern scientific cosmology. So, in a sense, modern scientific cosmology is similar to Jyotishya cosmology.
Similar in the sense that it makes empirical sense, it is usable for practical purposes. Now, of course, there are many concepts which are similar between Jyotishya and Puranic cosmology. And there are many concepts which are dissimilar between modern cosmology and Jyotishya and Puranic cosmology together.
So, they are not exactly interchangeable. But I am talking about the principle here. The principle is we don’t have to bring the material in confrontation with the spiritual.
The material knowledge is for functioning in this world. And whether we use modern cosmology for understanding and functioning somewhere, whatever functioning we have to do, or whether we use Jyotishya cosmology, it doesn’t make much difference. It’s just a model.
It’s like either I take Ayurveda or I look at it. So, modern science as an endeavour, it is a progressive endeavour. And even honest scientists would admit that their vision of the universe is not complete.
It is prone to revision. Jagannath Bhandeva Subhadramaya ki Jai. So, that’s why, in general, trying to highlight the facts and figures of the universe, that distracts us from the purpose of scripture.
So, we focus on the principles that are taught in scripture, the values that are given in scripture, the spiritual wisdom that enables us to raise our consciousness. So, otherwise, if we can do some kind of reconciliation and try to explain this figure is like this, but if we try to highlight the factual aspect of scripture, we will always be on the defensive. Defensive against outsiders and insecure ourselves.
How do I make sense of this? How do I make sense of this? How do I make sense of this? How do I explain this? How do I explain this? So, the Bhagavatam uses the vision of the cosmos, which is from a higher dimensional perspective. Now, somebody may say, what do you mean by higher dimensional? It’s just imaginary. No, that’s not true.
Because the same thing can be perceived at different levels, it can be in different ways. And that is acknowledged even in science. For example, today science has two prominent theories, especially physics.
There is quantum physics and there is relativity. And quantum physics and relativity perceive the universe in two different ways. According to relativity, there are solid particles, there are atoms.
Whereas, according to quantum physics, there is just waves. And waves collapse into particles when there is an observer who is looking at them. Quantum physics is a very complicated theory.
But even Einstein, no, he couldn’t digest quantum physics. One of his most famous quotes, critical of quantum physics is that I would like to believe that the moon continues to exist even if I am not looking at it. So, according to quantum physics, the idea is that there is no such thing as a moon.
There are only waves. And when there is an observer who looks at the moon, then the waves collapse into an object. Einstein said, this doesn’t make any sense to me.
But the problem is that quantum physics makes no sense in terms of a pictorial model of the universe. But it works with incredible precision as far as mathematical calculation is concerned. So, quantum physics, that means, basically, quantum physics is more of mathematical and theoretical, conceptual.
Whereas, relativity is more of observational. Not entirely observational, but more deriving from observation. So, we could say, broadly speaking, that relativity relies more on protection.
There is a vision of the universe and I want to make sense of that. Whereas, quantum physics relies more on anuman. That is, ok, we make inference, we make calculations, we come up with a theory and we see if the whole thing makes sense.
So, basically, within modern physics itself, protection and anuman, in that sense, are at war. Now, what do scientists do? Scientists, you know, there are areas in the study of the universe where relativity works. There are areas where quantum physics works, especially in terms of cosmic distances, it is relativity that works.
In terms of the, especially the microcosmic world, it is quantum physics. So, what do scientists do? They just use whichever theory works. So, now, if you see, most scientists today have given up.
By scientists, I refer to those who are serious scientists who actually go deep into subject. You know, they no longer make the claim that science gives us any understanding of reality. They tell us only science gives us models of reality.
The models have some connection with reality. But models are not the reality. Say, a model is like a map.
A map of say Bangalore gives us some idea of Bangalore. But the map of Bangalore is not Bangalore. So, like that, quantum physics gives us one model of reality and relativity gives us another model of reality.
And the reality is something different. And just as there are two models which are not reconcilable, and still science goes on, you know, accepting whichever works more pragmatically. So, just because we say that there is another vision of the universe which is given in the Bhagavatam, which doesn’t make sense to us empirically, that does not mean it is false.
It simply means it’s a vision from a different perspective. And we focus on the devotional message that comes from the Puranic cosmology. And if we are in the field of science, if we have to do some research, if some devotee scientist is working at ISRO, you know, he or she doesn’t have to make it a mission to try to counter modern cosmology.
It’s just functional. It’s a functional model. As far as it works, use it.
Even science itself may reject it tomorrow if some other functional model works better. So what happens is if we put scripture as a competitor to science, then we devalue scripture. And thus we create insecurity in our own faith and we create hostility among our potential audiences.
So we avoid that by focussing that scripture is there to give us spiritual knowledge. Does that answer your question? Any other questions? Oh, OK. All these questions are you.
Is that today’s? OK. Yeah. OK, just a minute.
Any questions about this topic? Whatever I discuss, if there are any questions, we’ll take those first and we’ll move ahead. So you say, out of nine forms of devotional service, one is the Sathya. And there is among the five Manus, there is a Rasa called Sathya.
So what is the difference between these? And at our level, is it possible to practise? In fact, how to practise that Sathya in devotional service? OK, yeah. So there is one of the limbs of Bhakti is Sathya and there is also one of the Rasas is Sathya. So how are the two related? How do we practise it? See, first of all, they are coming from two different, again, analytical frameworks.
So one is more of a mode of developing the relationship with Krishna. So if you look at the Shravanam, Kirtanam, Vishnu, Smaranam, Pada, Sevanam, that in that these are all ways in which we can connect with Krishna. Iti Pumsarpita Vishnu Bhaktishchena Navalakshana Kriyeta Bhagavatyaddha Tanmanyaititam Uttamam So Prahlad Maharaj is asked by Rani Kashyapu, what is the best thing that you learnt in this school? And he gives this list of nine things, Shravanam, Kirtanam, Vishnu, Smaranam, Pada, Sevanam, Arjuna, Mandanam, Dasyam, Sakhyam, Atmanivedanam.
And then he said, Iti Pumsarpita Vishnu. These are nine activities which you are anyway going to do. Now Olympics is going on, everybody is doing Shravanam, Kirtanam, Smaranam of Olympic athletes.
Isn’t it? So Shravanam, Kirtanam, Smaranam is also going on. So these nine activities normally go on in the material world. That’s just normal human activities.
But Iti Pumsarpita Vishnu, when we offer them to Vishnu, then Bhaktishchena Navalakshana, they become the characteristics of Bhakti. And Kriyeta Bhagavatyaddha, they increase our attraction to Bhagawan. And when that happens, Tanmanye Uttamam, that this understanding that by doing these activities, we can increase our attraction to Krishna, that is the best thing that I have learnt from Rajasekhar.
So basically he is talking about these as activities by which we can develop our relationship with Krishna. Now in that Sakhya is also one of them. That means when we are developing a relationship with Krishna, we treat Krishna as a friend.
So Prabhupada, for example, when he was on his way to America, he wrote two songs. One was Malkini Bhagavatarma and then the other was, what was the other name? Yeah, Boro Krishna. Basically the second song he talks about how he treats Krishna almost like a friend over there.
So basically when you offer prayers to Krishna, we can offer prayers to Krishna in the mood of a friend also. I have one friend who is a Sri Vaishnava and he says, you Hare Krishna’s have got everything wrong. You know he says, for Radha, you have double honorific, Srimati and Rani.
And for Krishna, there is no Bhagawan, no Sri, just Krishna. So actually, now Prabhupada especially, Krishnaanswara Thakur would use Sri Radha to refer to Radharani. Our previous Acharyas would simply refer to Radha.
Prabhupada emphasised the double honorific because there is a lot of misunderstanding of the Radhakrishna relationship as mundane. And Radha was thought as the paramour of Krishna. You know, it was considered almost like an innocent relationship.
So to emphasise that Radha is a worshipable person, Prabhupada added a double honorific, Srimati and Rani. And Prabhupada actually, he encouraged devotees to develop a very personal relationship with Krishna. Now he says, you know, when Haigreya Prabhu was first told to run that act, to call it magazine, he says, Prabhupada, I have never done anything with a magazine except read it till now.
How can I run a magazine? How do I edit it? How to produce it? I don’t know anything. Prabhupada said, pray to Krishna, he will guide you. So Haigreya Prabhu writes that actually when we lived with Prabhupada, he made us feel that Krishna is a real person who will really help us if we just reach out to him.
So that was the potency of Prabhupada. So Prabhupada actually helped us develop a very accessible relationship with Krishna. So in that sense, we can, sākhyam, we can, when we share our heart with Krishna, you know, if we have some difficulty, if we have some conditioning, if we have some obstacle, we unburden our heart to Krishna and seek his help.
Wait a minute. So praying itself is vandanam. But just sharing our heart in a friendly way, sometimes devotees do journaling.
In journaling, they just write out. They write a letter to Krishna, they write a prayer to Krishna. So praying is the culmination.
But sometimes, you know, before that there is discussion. We want to share our heart, unburden our heart. So basically when we understand that Krishna is our indwelling companion, that means he’s a friend.
Now sakhā, that mood of tameva mātā cha pitā tameva, tameva bandhu cha sakhā tameva. So you are my mother, you are my father, you are my brother, you are my friend. So that relationship of Krishna is a very approachable companion.
That is the mood of a friendship. So as sādhakas also, now if we make friendship the only definer of our relationship, then that’s not good. Krishna is also our master and we have to respect him, we have to go down to him.
Now if we meet a friend, you know, when we come before Krishna, we can’t say that I’ll not offer obeisances to Krishna. Krishna is my friend. Now there is an etiquette we follow.
But the relationship should not be only reverential. We should be able to share our heart also with Krishna. So in that sense, we can treat Krishna as a friend.
But now when we can come to the sākhya rasa, that is actually one of the five ways in which there is an eternal relationship. So there Madhuryas, Vādāsya, Vātsalya, these are the five ways in which devotees relate with Krishna eternally. So one is that we try to develop a relationship with Krishna by cultivating a particular mood.
And the other is the natural flavour of the relationship in the spiritual world. So sākhya rasa is the natural mood of that relationship. In sākhya rasa also, there might be other rasas, other moods that come in.
But that is the defining flavour of the relationship. Does that answer your question? OK. So when I offer bhoga to Krishna, I often think that, oh, after I offer this, I’ll be eating this.
And I try to cultivate a service attitude. But somehow I keep thinking about food and eating when I’m offering bhoga. So what to do at that time? So actually, the first thing is that we prepare the food and offer it to Krishna.
I said that we cannot become pure devotees without becoming devotees. Sometimes we set the standard of bhakti right in the beginning only to pure devotion. And then we think, I can never practise this.
Well, first we have to become devotees. So that means we offer Krishna the food, whether we are thinking of eating food or not, just offer the food. And then gradually, as we keep practising bhakti, if we try to cultivate a more of a prayerful mood, we recite some verses, we recite some songs.
Some devotees, when they’re cooking also, they may have some kirtan going on. And even when they are offering, not just when you’re offering, we offer a prayer, but before that also, maybe they have some devotional stimuli or they have some nice kirtan, some devotional music going on, something which reminds us of Krishna, especially in some temples when rajbhog is offered. Not only that time Krishna offers the food, but outside devotees come and sing some song.
Bhakti Nautapur is a song about how Krishna eats food and Vishwamitra offers food to Krishna. So basically, we try to create more and more of a devotional atmosphere around us. And as we become absorbed in the devotional atmosphere, then the thought of our eating the food ourselves will go down.
And that’s why the point is not that food is a basic biological need. And if you’re hungry, it’s not possible to not think about the food. But the point is, we should not be thinking only about the food and not thinking about Krishna at all.
So we should not, just like there is a water filter. So I put the water in so that I take it out. And I get clean water.
So we should not think of Krishna as a bhoga purifier. You know, I am, simply, simply, you know, I don’t want to get karva, so I’m going to take this bhoga, put it before Krishna and then it becomes prasad and I’ll eat it. We don’t have a utilitarian or instrumental attitude towards Krishna.
No, we know that Krishna is a person and we are offering the food to him. And we try to offer it with as devotional attitude as possible. But it is not that we have to become too worried about having the right consciousness.
The right consciousness will come by the practise of bhakti. And the more we create devotional stimuli around us in the process of cooking and offering, the more the right consciousness will become more and more natural for us. So I want to know more and more about Krishna and study the scriptures more and more.
And I feel restless if I don’t know more. And sometimes this distracts me in chanting also. So is this favourable or unfavourable? Actually, knowledge is an important feature in assisting us in bhakti.
Knowledge is not the way, but knowledge shows the way. When we know about Krishna, then our chanting becomes more infused with bhakti. So sometimes our devotees on Ekadashi say I’ll chant 64 hours.
If we can be absorbed in Krishna, that is fine. But sometimes somebody said, OK, if I’m going to spend 8 hours, I’ll spend 4 hours studying shastra and remaining 4 hours I’ll chant. And we may find that at that time if we studied shastra and thought about Krishna, we got some Krishna stimuli, then when I chant, I’m actually more absorbed in Krishna.
So the principle is absorb you in Krishna. There is no need to reduce our bhakti to only one specific activity. So we have a particular sadhana that we do and in that sadhana we do chant the holy names for a particular amount.
But beyond that, beyond our basic sadhana, we have to connect with Krishna in whatever way is favourable for us. And another important point is if it is knowledge about Krishna directly, then that is not just jnana. That is actually also limbo bhakti because then it is shravanam kirtanam.
Vishwamitra Prabhupada is speaking and we are hearing from them and we are reading their books also. So that is favourable for bhakti. So it’s not that it is something which is an obstacle.
It is something which is, at least we have some way in which we are attracted to Krishna. That is a matter of, that is a strength for us. We can tackle it.
The problem it becomes when, when we say that I will do only this and I will not do the other things. So that is not possible. That’s not good.
And even if, say, if you are chanting and you are thinking of scripture, now that is a distraction, but still it is a positive distraction. It is better to think about scripture than to think about worldly things or thinking about sense gratification. So basically there is a point of concentration and there is a circle of concentration.
Point of concentration is when you are chanting, just hear the holy name, hear the sound of the holy name. But quite often that is very difficult for us. So now when we find it very difficult, we just give up the effort and just go, let the mind go everywhere.
But instead of that, if around the point of concentration, I create a circle of concentration. Circle of concentration means that I have some words glorifying the holy name or some words describing the compassionate, loving nature of Krishna. I just keep that in front of me or I keep a picture of Krishna in front of me.
I keep a printout of the Hare Krishna in front of me. I keep a picture of, say, if I have taken initiation, if I am going to take initiation, the initiation ceremony, I am a spiritual master. This is my service to my spiritual master.
Wow, I have taken. So then even if the mind wanders, when we have a circle of concentration, then we give some room for the mind to wander in things which are related with Krishna. Instead of letting it wander all over the universe.
So in that sense, if we are studying, if we study scripture seriously and then we are chanting, at that time, if we think about scripture study while chanting, that’s not the best. But quite often that may be better than the alternative. Because if I say I will not think about scripture and I just can’t focus on the sound of the holy name, then I’ll start thinking of a hundred other things.
So better keep the mind in a circle of concentration. And from that circle, we keep directing it towards the point of concentration. We try to bring it closer and closer towards Krishna.
So the desire to study scripture is actually very good. And if that enables us to increase our remembrance for Krishna, that is the way we find ourselves absorbing in Krishna. And definitely we can see that as a blessing of Krishna that we grow, that we tap in going deeper in our bhakti.
So can we have spiritual solutions to material problems or do material problems require material solutions? See the Bhagavad Gita is very clear that the spiritual wisdom is meant to give us direction. You know, Arjuna won the Kurukshetra war not because of the knowledge of the Bhagavad Gita. He won it because of the knowledge of archery that he had learnt throughout his life.
Isn’t it? The Bhagavad Gita did not give him knowledge of archery. So what the Bhagavad Gita did was he had the knowledge of archery, but he did not have the inspiration. He did not have the direction.
How to use it? Why to use it? So the spiritual is not a substitute for the material. The spiritual is the foundation of the material. The spiritual is the director of the material.
The spiritual is the purpose provider for the material. The spiritual is not the substitute for the material. So when we say spiritual solutions for material problems, we are talking primarily in terms of changing of spiritual consciousness.
And then after the spiritual consciousness is changed, then some material solution is only going to be required. So if we say that, if we say that, okay, democracy is bad, you know, actually sometimes we just take one statement of Prabhupada and highlight it too much. So Prabhupada said democracy is demon crazy.
Now actually that is only one statement of Prabhupada. If we see, Prabhupada engaged with democratic leaders quite often. Well, Prabhupada came all the way from America to India to meet Indira Gandhi.
And he came to India. And if we see practically in today’s world, that is only the countries where there is democracy, where we are able to practise and share Krishna consciousness. You know, China, although it’s democracy, it’s not exactly democracy.
We have to be underground. We can go but not much. When USSR was Soviet, it was not democratic.
We had great difficulty. In the Middle East countries which are theocracies, again we have no opportunity to practise. So the point is, we may condemn democracy, but what is the solution that we have today? So we may say, okay, in the past time there was monarchy.
But do we have a person who is so trained enough to become a Rajyogini today? So we don’t have to make it an agenda to reject all material solutions in the name of spirituality. So material problems do require material solutions. Now the problem comes when we think that the material solution alone is everything.
And I don’t need spirituality at all. That becomes a problem. So the material and the spiritual go together.
They are complementary. The spiritual gives us the wisdom by which we can implement the material in a proper way. So without spiritual knowledge, even the best material techniques, they will not work very well.
They will not grant anything substantial. So we always need material solutions for material problems. But those material solutions have to be directed by spiritual wisdom.
So it’s as you said, if somebody doesn’t have a job, then they shouldn’t just think that I’ll chant Hare Krishna and some more Krishna will send a job in my lab. It’s not like that. It is that we have to ourselves take a level.
Okay, why am I not getting a job? Maybe I’m not, I don’t have the, I’m not presenting myself properly. I’m not going and making the right connections. I’m not, I have to do whatever it takes.
So now while seeking a material solution, we can cultivate a spiritual consciousness. Krishna, whatever I’m doing, I’m doing it in a mode of service. So for material problems, there is material solution guided by spiritual wisdom, directed by spiritual wisdom.
So when we talk about spiritual solutions to material problems, that is primarily in terms of spiritual orientation, spiritual guidance. It is not in terms of the spiritual replacing the material. Is it clear? Okay.
So in the sense, Bhagavatam is the solution to all problems. And for pure devotees, we also see that the material problems are also solved by their practise of bhakti. So how do we understand this? The spiritual, Bhagavatam is the ultimate solution to all material problems.
It is not the immediate solution. It is the ultimate solution. Atyantika Dukha Nivrutti.
But is there any place where the Shrimad Bhagavatam forbids the taking of Ayurvedic medicines? There are places where it is described that when somebody is wounded, they take some herbs, they have some mantras for curing. So now we have to understand that Ayurveda, again there is a spiritual understanding. But it’s material.
Okay, you have this disease, you put this herb in the body, you take the regulated diet in this way. So it’s material mechanisms for countering material problems. It’s done with a spiritual understanding.
But there can be Ayurvedic doctors who may be completely atheistic also. So it’s not that Ayurveda is a spiritual knowledge system. It has come from the broad spiritual body of knowledge.
But it is primarily offering material mechanisms for solving material health issues. And there is no place where the Bhagavatam says that if you have to have faith in Bhagavatam, that means you should not take Ayurvedic medicine. It doesn’t say like that.
For that matter, if we see when Maharaj Kruthu, his citizens, they come to him and say that we are starving. The digestive fire is burning us from within. They say the forest fire may burn all the living beings in the forest.
So at that time you don’t tell them chant Hare Krishna and everything will be happy. He actually makes arrangements for food for them. So time and again we see that when there is a material problem, there are material solutions provided for it.
So the Bhagavatam offers us ultimate solution to material problems. Now I would say that this kind of statement that the Bhagavatam is the solution to all problems. We might find something said like that by Prabhupada if we just search.
But Prabhupada gives context. Prabhupada himself in the last days, he told Giriraj Maharaj, now how will the Krishna consciousness movement spread? He said by organisation and intelligence. He did not say by chanting Hare Krishna.
He did not say by following four Ayurvedic principles. He said by organisation and intelligence. So the organisation and intelligence, these are material principles.
They can be used for transcendental purposes but they are not themselves transcendental. So the point is that this kind of statement is that the Bhagavatam is the solution to all problems. Now I would personally consider them as intellectually responsible statements.
They seem to be very devotionally faithful statements but in the name of being devotionally faithful, they are actually neglecting the reality that the reality is the Bhagavatam gives us various kinds of knowledge but that knowledge is not exhaustive. See, when we have some statements like say, Bhaktsyamsa Thakur said if all the books in the world were destroyed and I had only one book, I would choose Srimad Bhagavatam. Now that is fine but that is for what purpose? Is he saying that from Srimad Bhagavatam, if I am in an unknown place, I will learn how to cook food? Is from Srimad Bhagavatam, I will learn how to break trees and make it into wood if I have to live on an island? No, it is for the purpose of living in this world in terms of pursuing the ultimate goal of life.
Then for that purpose, we don’t need so much literature. But for practically working in this world, one of my friends, he has done his PhD in Bhaktsyamsa Thakur. So he showed that Bhaktsyamsa Thakur had a big book which was basically like when students want to give GRE, they have a vocabulary book.
So it was Bhaktsyamsa Thakur’s vocabulary book. Now he would memorise English words. So he spent a lot of time because English was a language which he wanted to use and he spent time doing that.
So he did not think I will learn English from studying Srimad Bhagavatam. He spent time learning English. So separately, so it’s not that, so you know, when we make exaggerated claims, we alienate intelligent people.
When you make exaggerated claims and think that this is the proof of my faithfulness, it’s not a proof of faithfulness. It’s simply sentimentality and we alienate intelligent people by that. So we can learn a lot from scripture.
We can learn material things also from scripture. But it is not that scripture itself is the source of all kinds of knowledge. That was not there in the tradition itself.
Jiva Goswami, when he wanted to establish and defend Gaudiya nationalism, he went to Varanasi which was at that time the capital of Mayavad. Prabhupada said Varanasi is the Vrindavan of the Mayavadis. So he went to Varanasi and there he learned Sanskrit.
From Madhusudana Vidya Vachaspati. So the thing is, so it is not that if I want to learn Sanskrit, I can learn it simply from Srimad Bhagavatam. No, he had to go to some other source to learn Sanskrit.
So, you know, we have, this is a strong statement, but what we have often, we have often concocted a definition of faithfulness that is unfaithful to the tradition. Our notion of faithfulness, being faithful to the tradition, we have ourselves concocted something. Nobody in the tradition has ever considered scripture as a source of all kinds of knowledge.
To study Bhagavatam, we have to learn Sanskrit, if you want to study the original Sanskrit Bhagavatam. And it is not that by studying Bhagavatam, I can learn Sanskrit. I can’t do that.
Bhagavatam Sanskrit is quite complex. You want to learn Sanskrit, Mahabharata is useful, Ramayana is useful because their Sanskrit is relatively simpler. Bhagavatam Sanskrit is quite difficult.
So, material and spiritual are different branches of knowledge and spiritual knowledge will guide us in our material life. It will help us to direct our material knowledge. But it is not that the spiritual knowledge is a substitute for material knowledge.
Is that clear? So, in the case of pure devotees, their material needs are also provided for when they practise bhakti. Yes, that is true. At the same time, that is not the Vedic standard in the sense that even if we see Krishna, he actually comes to establish dharma and he creates a system for establishing dharma.
So, basically, he is actually creating a material system for the maintenance of dharma. And when there is a disturbance in the material system, he says, I myself distend for what? For re-establishing the system. Dharma samsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge.
So, it is not that the miraculous is the expected standard. There can be miraculous interventions when Krishna comes and protects his devotees and even satisfies their material needs. But that is never the standard.
That is, that is miraculous and that points to the exalted nature of that particular devotee and the great love of Krishna for that point. But it is not that that is the standard at all. So, there is the Vedic culture.
So, for example, in the traditional system it was, there is a temple. The temples have to, temples are not necessarily normally themselves earning sources. So, people have to come and do charity.
There is a big temple and sufficient people don’t do charity. How will the temple go on? So, what would be the tradition would be is that people would give cows and people would give land. And then the Brahmana priests who were looking after the temple, you know, they would employ shudras who would till the land.
And they would, the shudras would also get some of the grains, their barter trade would be there. And after that, the grains from there would be used to offer bhoga and the families would be fed. Most of the Brahmanas would be grihasthas.
The families would be fed. So, it is not that, you know, if a person is a priest and he has a family, it’s not that they are expected to simply depend on charity. There is a system created over there.
System was temple, temple cannot sustain itself always by charity. So, then there has to be a system for which the temple can also have some reliable source of food and things like that. So, the exceptional is meant to, the extraordinary is meant to inspire us to practise the ordinary with greater faith.
What do you mean by this? See, the Bhagavatam 6th canto describes Ajamila’s pastime, where Ajamila just chants once the name of Narayana and he is delivered. Now, after hearing this, Parikshit Maharaj doesn’t say, I don’t have to hear Bhagavatam 7 days. I will just chant once Narayana when the snake devils come to bite me.
He doesn’t say that. He actually keeps hearing the Bhagavatam. So, the miraculous, the extraordinary that is meant to inspire us, Krishna is so merciful, Krishna is so kind.
And if Krishna can do so much for those devotees, if I practise bhakti lifelong, then how much Krishna will take care of me. So, it is not that the extraordinary examples of Krishna’s intervention, they are meant, we are not meant to make them as our standard expectations. They are meant to increase our faith in Krishna that if we serve him diligently with the standard process, then we will move closer to him and he will reciprocate.
So, how do we understand Krishna’s statement of Yogakshinam Vahamyaham in the context of, say, material problems require material solutions. So, yes. Now, see, many times we take verses from the scripture and we use them as standalone verses for conveying some philosophical points.
And they can be used that way. But the script, the verses come in a particular context. And if we see what is the context, this is 9.22 in the Bhagavad Gita.
And from 9.20 till 9.33, Krishna is basically contrasting material worship with devotion, with worship of the devatas, with his own bhakti. And that’s why 9.20-21, he is talking about how if we worship the devatas, trai vidyamam sva-pahaputapapa yajjerishtva sarvati prarthayante te punyam asadya surendra-lokam asnanti divyam dvideva-bhogam te tam bhuktu-asarga-lokam vishalam shinne-punyam atya-lokam vishinti evam trai-dharma-manuprapanna-gata-gatam kama-kama-lokam Krishna says, even if you go to heaven, you will fall back. So, that result is temporal.
On contrast with that, whatever a devotee achieves, So, whatever one has achieved on this spiritual path, that will always stay with you. So, this 20-23, 20-22 is a contrast of the longevity of the results of demigod worship and Krishna worship. Then 24-26 more or less, 27, is the contrast of the simplicity versus complexity.
That, Krishna says that for others, you have to perform elaborate rituals. Whereas, for this patram-pushpam phalam toye, that from 27 onwards, when Krishna talks about that 27, 28, 29, 30, that is talking about how in the material, in karma kanda, if you commit sinful activity, you will get a sinful reaction. But if you practise bhakti, then even if you do something sinful, bhakti itself will purify and elevate one.
And then lastly he talks about, to do certain karma kanda rituals, you have to be born as a brahmana, you have to have a high birth, certain qualifications are required. But bhakti doesn’t require any qualifications. So, essentially that whole section is a contrast between demigod worship and the practise of bhakti.
So, we cannot take that statement as an absolute principle which applies in all situations. So, Arjuna is a pure devotee. But did Arjuna cut corners in his practise of archery thinking that, you know, even if I don’t practise, now Krishna will make sure my arrow hits the goal.
Krishna did not do that. We know how tirelessly Arjuna practised. One night when he was eating his food and the lamp went off, he thought, hey, if I can eat food when it is dark, then I can shoot also when it is dark.
And then he practised at night and he started shooting invisible targets. So, Arjuna did not think my bhakti is a substitute for my dedication in my practise of archery. So, Yogakshema Mahamyaham is in specific context talking about how the results of bhakti are eternal.
It is not a universal statement for all kinds of protection in all situations. That’s in the context of the Bhagavad Gita. Now, our acharyas have quoted it at times to talk about how Krishna will protect us Krishna will provide for what we have.
That is true. So, scripture is not limited to its context. Sometimes the scriptural verses can apply beyond their context also and as general principles.
But we have to understand them in the context so that we can see where they expand. So, Shrila Prabhupada, he created, he often would quote, let’s say Yogakshema Mahamyaham, but you know Prabhupada actually was very careful about the material management also. You know, in the initial days he would himself keep accounts of all the expenses.
You know, Prabhupada was the founder of ISKCON and Prabhupada was the cashier of ISKCON at that time. And anybody who wanted, especially in New York when it was lower east side, anybody who wanted any money, they would have to come and ask Prabhupada for money. And in India when Prabhupada was there, he said that the western devotees, they just didn’t have any sense of prices in India.
And you know, if they would go to purchase something from some Indian, they would charge 10 times the price. And the devotees would consider, no, as compared to America, it’s very cheap. And actually they were being cheated but they were not realising it.
So, Prabhupada actually himself meticulously managed the finances in India. So, Prabhupada did not have this attitude, no, Krishna will manage everything. See, there is a philosophical principle which, what it means is, Prabhupada’s faith that Krishna will maintain me was in the sense that, you know, he just gave up his family, gave up his job and he was ready to go to America.
When he went to America, he did not even know whether he would have vegetarian food or not to eat. So, that dependence was there on Krishna. But, see, dependence on Krishna in extraordinary situations is not a justification for creating sustainable arrangements in normal situations.
You are understanding this exceptional situation? So, we do the best to raise funds for our temple. And then at the last moment, just some things don’t work out. And, you know, we may pray to Krishna and Krishna may somehow, from somewhere somebody will come and give some donation and let’s say the target will be met.
But if we don’t do anything, Krishna will arrange everything. That is not the system. That is not the system at all.
So, we have to take care of our responsibilities. And there are times when despite our best effort to take care of our responsibilities, things will go wrong. Or things will be beyond us.
At that time, we just completely depend on Krishna. But dependence of Krishna, I talked about this in yesterday’s class, surrender to Krishna is not just like Draupadi raising her hands and saying Krishna, I depend on you. Surrender to Krishna is also Arjuna lifting up his bow and being ready to fight.
So that way, we depend on Krishna by doing our responsibilities diligently. And we depend on Krishna when despite our doing the responsibilities diligently, when things don’t work out, we just depend on Krishna, Krishna you take care. Like we have Yashodamayi’s, the two fingers, the Amudha Leela, Yashodamayi did his endeavour and beyond that Krishna’s mercy was required.
So, Krishna’s mercy is not, is never meant to be a substitute for our endeavour. It is meant to be, it is meant to be the complement, that which completes our endeavour. Our endeavour is essential.
So, Ananya Shankar Yantra Yama is in the specific context, a verse which talks about the longevity of the fruits of bhakti as compared to demigod worship. And secondly, it talks about, our Acharyas have used this as a principle for talking about how Krishna protects. In exceptional situations.
But those very Acharyas, if you look at their lives, they have created systems for sustainable functioning in the world. And they have endorsed that system. They have lived according to those systems.
And that’s why we cannot take one verse in isolation. Does that answer your question? You think so, yeah. Yeah, correct.
So, it is, yes. Yeah, that’s the topic. Please.
Yeah. Please, please. Yes.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Amazing. Yeah.
Exactly, yes. Thank you. Beautiful example.
So, yes, Krishna says that if we serve Krishna, Krishna will take care of both spiritual and material needs. Yes, Krishna will take care. But how? It is not necessary that Krishna has to intervene in some miraculous way.
Krishna may give us the intelligence to do a job responsibly and that way take care of us. Isn’t it? We don’t have to think of Krishna as acting only in miraculous ways. Krishna can act in normal ways also.
That way if you see. So, by normal ways means that as you said, at 12 o’clock suddenly the kirtans came out. It was not suddenly that somewhere mystical, suddenly from nowhere some sound, disembodied sound came from somewhere.
It’s a normal TV but the kirtan came out. You see, Prabhupada, there were no paranormal miracles in what he did. But it’s just that actually, OK, I’ll not speak this.
I’m going to speak this in Prabhupada’s appearance day class. But I’ll tell about how Prabhupada went exactly at the right time and Krishna arranged that Prabhupada’s going was exactly at the right time. It is miraculous.
But see, Prabhupada, there was no miracle in the sense that suddenly from somewhere something happened and this happened and that happened. The literal events were all ordinary. You know, Prabhupada’s an old man.
He went from Vrindavan to Delhi and from Delhi he went to Mumbai and from Mumbai he caught a ship. And then he came to America. Satsvarupa Maharaj writes, you know, Prabhupada did not fly through the air and come to America.
But the mission was just as extraordinary. What he achieved was extraordinary. So when we say that Krishna helps, it is not necessary that Krishna has to help through some miraculous interventions.
Krishna can help through some ordinary means also. So at one time, I have, from my childhood I have a very high eye number. So at one time the doctor told me that if you keep working on computers, you keep looking at the computer screen, you lose your eyes.
Now for me, you know, I can’t physically move around much and I have to work on the computer. So then I had to do something. So then at that time, I just found a software which does text to speech.
So most of the time, because I don’t want to strain my eyes, I, instead of reading books, I hear books. So what I do is the computer reads it out and I hear it. And I have been doing this for 8-10 years and my eyes are fairly OK and I can hear also at a very fast speed.
So now somebody is going to say that actually, you know, you should study Shastra. You take Bhagavatam in your hand and you should study. Well, I can’t do that.
But whether it is being studied or whether it is reading through a physical book, reading through a digital book or hearing through a digital sound, we are ultimately connected with Krishna. So for me, I see this text to speech technology as the way Krishna has helped me. So Krishna helps us.
Definitely. There’s no doubt. But we should not reduce Krishna’s help to some miraculous interventions.
You know, Krishna helps us. He helps us even through normal ways. So, for example, if I say that, you know, it is, this is prasad.
So no matter how much I eat, there will be no problem because it is prasad. Krishna has provided the prasad. How can I say no to prasad? Well, the same Krishna who has given us prasad has also given us intelligence about how much we should eat.
Isn’t it? So we have to see Krishna in an inclusive way. And the same Krishna who has given us, say, the opportunity to practise bhakti, the same Krishna has given us intelligence also to decide how to balance various aspects of our life. So now in some situations devotees may feel inspired to do full time bhakti and if they are inspired to, that is fine.
At the same time, even if somebody is doing full time bhakti, the temple management and temple leadership has to have a vision. Okay, if we are going to have brahmacharya ashram, how are we going to maintain that? Now, it’s not that we just leave everything to chaos. So Prabhupada wanted good management.
And so when you say that Krishna provides for the spiritual and the material only, that is true. And the thing I am making is that when we say Krishna provides, that is not a licence for irresponsibility. That is not a licence for apathy.
Krishna may provide us, provide our material necessities by giving us the intelligence to do our material work more responsibly, more intelligently. Sometimes Krishna may provide for a devotee by, they get a job, the devotee gets a job where you don’t have to work much. You can just do 4-5 hours work, you can do other things at that time.
But at least the 4-5 hours work we have to do. You cannot say I’ll not do the 4-5 hours work also and Krishna will entertain me. It’s not like that.
So Krishna’s, again going back to the same verse of Yogakshema Mahamyam, we can very well say that when Krishna is saying for whom Yogakshema Mahamyam? Those who are constantly thinking about him, for him he says I provide everything. Now this does not mean that he doesn’t provide anything for anyone else. But the point is that we cannot take one section of scripture and isolate it from other sections.
So it’s a reciprocation. So when I don’t have that much devotion to serve Krishna entirely, then I should not demand that Krishna will provide me only entirely. And if I have more and more devotion to serve Krishna, I will serve Krishna and Krishna will provide me everything else.
So it’s not that the material has to be deliberately neglected in the name of the spiritual. Actually this unfortunately happened in our movement in the 1970s and 80s. Book distribution was very big.
And the temples were run by book distribution. And when the temples were run by book distribution, temples were financially very sound. But in 1980s, I am talking primarily about America, in 1980s there was a lot of propaganda against our movement about being a cult and brainwashing and things like that.
And some of the devotees were also very aggressive. They started doing book distribution in very unethical ways, misleading people about what the content of the book is. Lot of things happened.
So then there was a lot of anti-propaganda. And during the 1980s, the book distribution just went up. Just couldn’t distribute much books.
And without the book distribution of Lakshmi, the temples could not be maintained. And there were devotees who had given their life, maybe for 15, 20, 25 years, they had just been book distribution. And the temple had no vision.
Some temples told that you just take care of yourself. These devotees, they had nothing else to do. So you cannot say that if a devotee has given their life to Krishna and then the temple management says, Krishna will take care of you.
Krishna will take care of them but Krishna takes care of his representatives. And it is the temple leader’s responsibility to make sure that if somebody has given their life, you cannot just ditch them at the last moment and say that now you take care of yourself. And so then the other temples, they decided, they came up with different means.
So the movement went through different phases and eventually, that’s why presently ISKCON in America or in the West in general, it primarily serves the Hindu community there. The Hindu community are the patrons because the counter-cultural phase in America is over now. And Western people are not becoming devotees in so much quantity.
So temples have to go on. So who is going to provide for the temples? So it is the Hindu community that is providing. So the point is, if we just reject our responsibility and say Krishna will take care.
No, it is Krishna takes care through his representatives. So this idea that Krishna will take care can often become a licence for irresponsibility. And that comes when we don’t see Krishna’s, we see Krishna’s hand only in certain ways and don’t see it in other ways.
We have to see Krishna’s hand in an inclusive way. And that means Krishna may help us by giving us intelligence to do things. You know, we had one of the most exalted devotees in our movement of Jayanand Prabhu.
We would work so tirelessly for organising the yatras. But then what was he doing? He was also driving a taxi. He was driving a taxi and he is earning money from driving a taxi.
And from that the temple was running for a good amount of time. So he did not think that I’ll just give up the taxi driving and Krishna will take care. He did the things also.
So the material and the spiritual, we should see them both as connected with Krishna. And Krishna may help us through some material means also. And we see it all as Krishna’s mercy.
Does that answer your question? So it is said that if you know Krishna, you know everything. That’s what Prabhupada says. So how do we understand that? This verse, if we see, Prabhupada only says, Bhagavad Gita itself says, jnanam teham saligyanam idam bhakshyam yashistha yaj jnantvaneha mohyam yaj jnantavya mahasishyate In 7.2, Krishna says, I’ll give you knowledge of the phenomenal nominal world.
And knowing this, there’s nothing else to know. So the Bhagavad Gita says that and our Acharyas accept that. At the same time, Prabhupada himself has said that the Bhagavad Gita is like graduate study.
The Bhagavatam is like postgraduate study and the Chaitanya Chaitanya is like doctorate study. If the Bhagavad Gita has given everything, then why are we calling Bhagavad Gita as graduate study? Isn’t it? So when we say everything, it is everything in essence. See the Upanishads talk about Tattvatraya.
Tattvatraya is Jiva, Jagat and Jagdish. Basically the three fundamental truths to existence. There is matter, there is consciousness and the absolute truth.
There is the supreme. So the essential knowledge about this Tattvatraya is given in the Bhagavad Gita. But as far as details are concerned, the details are so many that no book can contain everything.
No book can contain everything. Similarly, when we know Krishna, what does it mean we know everything? We know everything in its ultimate purpose. It is not that say if I know Krishna and tomorrow my computer is spoiled.
Is it because I know Krishna, I’ll be able to fix whatever problems in my computer? No, it is not like that. If I know Krishna, is it that I will be able to, if I fall sick, you know, I will be able to diagnose myself and cure myself? In the Vedic culture there were different professions. And all those professions were going on.
So it is not that when we know Krishna, we know everything means that we don’t need to know anything else. It means we know everything in its ultimate purpose. So the essential purpose of everything we come to know.
But with respect to specific details, there can be many details. So that we may have to learn from the appropriate sources. And the principle is that we learn the goal of life from Shastra.
But the means to go towards the goal of life, we may have to learn from various sources. What do I mean by that? The goal of life is I want to learn to love Krishna and I want to share Krishna with others. That is the goal of life which I learn from Shastra.
But suppose I want to share Krishna with others, then there are so many practical details which I know. So if I have to build, if we want to make a temple so that we can share Krishna with others. Now to build a temple, you know, we have to consult an architect or we have to learn something about architecture.
If I want to do online preaching, my purpose is to share Krishna. But then I may have to learn something about website maintenance. I may have to learn something about data formats and so many things like that.
So that is the means. So for doing, for serving Krishna in this world, the purpose we learn from scripture. But the means for that, many practical aspects of it, we may have to learn from other sources.
So it’s like if a devotee is going and preaching in a country where nobody knows English, then is it by knowing Krishna they will learn that country’s language also? No, they may have to go to, they will not meet, they will have to go to some person who knows that language and learn from them. Then they will be able to speak Krishna’s message. So this is, when we know Krishna, we know everything, that is in the sense of the ultimate purpose of everything we come to know.
But how to practically pursue that purpose, for that we may need other forms of knowledge, which we may have, which we may have to learn from other sources. Yeah. Any other questions? Yes.
Yes, that’s true. Good question. Bhagavad Gita says, bhogai kshetra pasaktana, that if we are attached, we cannot get the determination of bhakti.
Whereas Bhagavatam says that if we are, no matter what we are, even if we have material desires, akama, sarva, kama, still we should just practise bhakti. So there are two different things. There is starting and there is sustaining.
As far as starting is concerned, anybody can start bhakti, from anywhere. But if they are to sustain, they need to come to a particular level. Just like in shikshashtakam, we have, naam naam akari bodho nija sarvam, tatra arpita, niyamita, smaranina kalam.
There are no rules for chanting. But the next verse says, trunad api suni jena, taror api saini suni jena. Amanina manadena, kirtaniya sudah.
So what is it? As far as starting the chanting is concerned, anybody can start. But actually if you want to come to the level of constantly glorifying Krishna, then we have to develop that humility and tolerance. So, like that, we should not put preconditions for people to start practising bhakti.
Prabhupada is so accommodating. I think on the way to Krishna, he says that even if a person is a drunkard who cannot give up drinking, that person can think that the taste of wine is Krishna. And they can remember Krishna while drinking wine.
And by this, one day they will become a devotee. That person will become a great devotee. Now that same Prabhupada also has one of the regulative principles where he says no madhuri ki.
So what does it mean? Even a drunkard can start practising bhakti. But if they want to practise bhakti steadily, if they want to advance, then they may have to do certain things, just giving up the material attachments. So even in our spiritual life, in fact, today evening’s class is about how to deal with our attachments, how to not let guilt overcome us when we are not able to overcome our attachments.
That’s the topic we will be discussing today evening. The point is that whenever we have attachments, they prevent us from steadily practising bhakti. So that’s why the stress is we should give up attachments.
But even if we are not able to give up attachment, that doesn’t mean we have to give up bhakti. We should still keep practising bhakti no matter what happens. And gradually we will get the strength to give up attachments.
What should not be done is, we should not think that because I am practising bhakti, that’s why all my attachments are all right. Doesn’t matter. That becomes a naam no bhala jassi paapa bhakti.
That becomes an offence against the holy name. If I see my bhakti as a licence for my sinfulness, but I have conditions because of which I fall into some wrongdoing, I am trying to give it up. It’s an ongoing battle going on.
Just because I get discouraged, just because I am defeated by temptation, that doesn’t mean I have to give up bhakti. By the way, this material spiritual is clear? Or there is any other question about that? That is there, we can take that. What is special about Kaala and Bhagavad Gita? Time is mentioned in Bhagavad Gita.
So the Bhagavad Gita talks about Kaala or the Bhagavad Gita talks about five subjects. One of them is Kaala. So what is special about Kaala in the Bhagavad Gita which is not there in other books? Bhagavad Gita also talks about Kaala.
No, it is not that when the Bhagavad Gita itself has to give some special revelation about the five subjects which is not given elsewhere. When we say that the Bhagavad Gita deals with five subjects, that is Baldevidya Pushyam’s analysis. Jiva, Ishvara, Kaala, Karma, Prakriti.
These are the five subjects that the Bhagavad Gita deals with. And what is special about the Kaala description in the Bhagavad Gita is that the Bhagavad Gita reveals the Kaala Rupa within the Vishwa Rupa. Krishna reveals the Vishwa Rupa many times in the Mahabharata.
But only in the Bhagavad Gita does he reveal the Kaala Rupa. When Dhritharashtra sees the Vishwa Rupa, he doesn’t see at that time his own sons going into the mouth of the Vishwa Rupa. At that time.
But, पक्त्रानितित्वरमाणाविशिन्ति अमीचित्वाम् धृत्राष्ट सर्पुत्र सरवे सहेवानिकालवात् पालसंहेव So, he says that, I am seeing that all the warriors are entering into their mouth. अमीचित्वाम् धृत्राष्ट सर्पुत्र All the sons of Dhritharashtra are going into it. विश्मं द्रोण्द था सूत पुत्रम्च So, he talks about that.
That Kaala feature of God, that God as time, that is revealed in the Bhagavad Gita through a mystic vision. That kind of the conception that God, that time is also a manifestation of God, that is there in the Bhagavad Gita. It’s quite prominent in the Bhagavad Gita.
But that kind of revelation is not there. So, the Bhagavad Gita gives us a visual demonstration of how God manifests as time. That is the special feature of the Bhagavad Gita’s revelation.
One or two last questions. Okay, last question? Yeah, fine. Okay, who has not asked till now? Yeah.
Yes, please. I had a kind of Bhagavatam from Jnanayaksha. It was told that, it is told that he was lifting earth from water, and then Jnanayaksha attacked.
So, in Parvata, the Bhagavad Gita is quoted that, विश्मं द्रोण्द था सूत पुत्रम्च So, my question is, if earth was in water, did it happen that Jnanayaksha and Hiranyakashipu were living on some other planet in the past life, or they took birth on some other planet? Yeah. So, if the earth had fallen into the ocean and it was lifted up by the time of Parahadeva, then were Hiranyakashipu born on earth, or were they living on earth or were they elsewhere? See, as far as the Bhagavatam narrative is concerned, I have not seen any specific statement of geographical location in the 7th Canto, in the past life. So, we cannot make any definitive statement based on the Bhagavatam itself.
But overall, if we see the Bhagavatam’s cosmology, it is clear that there is the earthly planetary system, there is the heavenly planetary system, there is the lower planetary system. And the demons don’t usually live on the earth. And it is clear that Prahladbhaga also says that I was born in Asura Kul.
So, it’s not just he is saying in Aditya’s Asuri mentality. He is also Asura Kul. He is born of Aditi.
So, Diti and Aditi, they are two sons of two wives of Kashyap Muni and they have two sons who are Adityas and Daityas. And they have their different abilities. So, it’s unlikely from the point of view of Bhagavatam cosmology that at that time Hiranyaks and Hiranyakashipu were living on the earth.
Because if we consider their whole home is also a very powerful place. The Adityas also, they are also like gods. They are not godly in their disposition.
But in their power, they are like gods. So, they don’t have to live on the earth. They have their own abode which is also very powerful.
And by that time, we say Hiranyakashipu was also very powerful and he had conquered many things. And he could even have been living in heaven. The point is, as far as the inference we can make, it’s unlikely that he was on earth.
And literally speaking, since the earth had fallen to the ground and Hiranyakashipu had fallen somewhere, Hiranyakashipu was still there. So, obviously that pastime was not happening on the earth. And now, according to some Sthala Puranas, they have cases where Ahobilam was the place where Hiranyakashipu was living.
There was a palace. Or some people say it was Pakistan, Peshawar. So, now these, the Sthala Puranas as far as they are concerned, we don’t have to get into the factuality of things over there.
When Prabhupada came to Ahobilam and everyone asked him, Prabhupada, you know, they said that Narasimha Deva appeared over here. Prabhupada, itho narasimha, paratho narasimha, yatho yatho yamani, yatho narasimha. Prabhupada replied, you know, Narasimha is here, he is there, he is everywhere.
So, Prabhupada was non-committal about the specific historicity of the occurrence of the Narasimha Leela over there. So, we have to understand that Leela is not just a historical or a geographical event. Leela is also an eternal event which can happen at different times in different places.
So, we don’t have to challenge those who say that Narasimha Deva appeared over here. But we don’t have to reduce Narasimha Deva’s appearance or Hiranyakashipu’s Hiranyakashipu’s to a particular place only. As far as the Bhagavatam is concerned, it’s unlikely that that particular pastime happened on the earth since the earth had fallen and since Hiranyakashipu and Hiranyakashipu were already powerful demons who had their own abodes.
So, it’s unlikely that they were living on earth. Hiranyakashipu tells that now go to earth and then… Yeah, exactly. Good point.
That’s a good point. Can we say because Hiranyakashipu says later we should go to the earth and conquer, destroy the earth. So, does the later pastime such as Prahlad and Hiranyakashipu, that happens on earth? No, because there is no specific mention that Hiranyakashipu takes over the rulership of the earth.
Hiranyakashipu’s mission basically is that he feels that it is the yajna, the sacrifices that are performed that gives strength to the devatas. So, he says you go to the earth and destroy the sacrifices over there. Once you destroy the sacrifices, then the devatas will become weak.
And when they become weak, then we will be able to defeat them. So, he basically at that time, he sends his forces to go to destroy the earth’s earthly sacrifices. And he says I myself will go and perform austerities.
And then he comes back and he overthrows the whole universe basically. No, upsets the universal order. And afterwards it is said that even the demigods become his servants.
And they are fearful. We just raise eyebrows, they start condemning. So, now at that time, it’s clear that he is the controller of the universe.
But when he is the controller of the universe, whether he is controlling the universe from his own kingdom or he has taken over swarga and he is residing in swarga, it’s quite likely that he would have taken over swarga because swarga is the celestial capital. It’s very prosperous. And there is the prestige of ruling over swarga.
So, either he was in his own capital or he was in swarga. But he was definitely not on earth at that time.