​Seek the synergy of siddhanta, sadhana and sadachara

​Congregation Program at Irvine, California, USA

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
And I’ll speak on the topic of seeking the synergy of sadhana, siddhanta, and sadhachara.
Now these three sadhana, siddhanta, and sadhachara, these are three fundamental aspects of our spiritual life. And these three need to work in synergy. So I’ll explain first these three, what they mean, and then we’ll see how they can work synergistically or how they can work divergently.
So siddhanta is philosophical understanding. So siddhanta means that we study the scriptures, discuss them with devotees, and gain clear understanding of the concepts. So siddhanta is what shastra teaches us.
And siddhanta is fairly important. In fact, most of shastric study and a large part of scriptural history is discussions and debates about what is the right siddhanta, what is the correct philosophical understanding. And siddhanta is important because unless we have the right understanding, we cannot really move in the right direction.
So philosophy is like a road map. Now if I want to go, say I came from the temple here just now. Now if say I had a map, if I had a wrong map, no matter how earnestly I want to come, I will not be able to reach.
So philosophy is like the map which helps us to understand the territory. And when we understand the territory, then we can choose, we can choose the right way and move towards our destination. Now there is sadhana, which is the practise.
And sadhana is what we do to tune and focus our consciousness on spiritual reality. So for example, our chanting, when our scriptures study, our puja, our seva, they are all we can say a part of our sadhana. The word sadhana means that there is sadhya and sadhana, the three words.
Sadhya is the goal to be achieved. Sadhana is the means by which we achieve that goal. And sadhana, sadhana and sadhana, they are two different things, related but slightly different.
Sadhana is the means by which I move towards the goal. But sadhana is the actual practise by which I move towards that goal. So to further elaborate this, that continuing with the metaphor of the map.
So if I have a map, which shows me the territory, and I decide, okay, from the temple, I want to come here. So my sadhya is this place. The sadhana is the car.
I came by car. So now, just the car and the destination, that doesn’t take me there. I have to drive the car, or someone has to drive the car for me.
So sadhana is the car. Sadhana is the driving of the car. So in that sense, sadhana and sadhana are related, but they’re not exactly the same.
So I may have the right sadhana, but I may not be doing sadhana. That means I may be, say, initiated in the chanting of the holy names, but I may not be chanting myself attentively. So I have the means to grow, but I may not be growing spiritually.
So the sadhana is the process which moves us along the road map that we have got from siddhanta. And generally speaking, the sadhana is very important for serious spiritual practitioners. And for such practitioners, there are certain practises which, for example, we take vows to chant a particular number of rounds.
We have deities in our temple. We make our home into a temple where we keep the deities and we worship them. So without any practical practise, all the philosophy remains theoretical.
It is just conceptual. Maybe this is right. Maybe that is right.
When people study the philosophy without associating with any transformational practises, then the philosophy just remains speculation. And speculation by its nature is inconclusive. So Krishna in the fourth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, in text 10, he says that if you want to attain him, we need to give up three kinds of mentalities.
vīta-rāga-bhaya-krodha-manmayā mām upāśhitaḥ bahavau jñāna-tapasā pūtā mad-bhāvam āgataḥ This is vīta-rāga-bhaya-krodha. Rāga is attachment. In this context, it refers to attachment to this world.
Oh, I can enjoy in this world. If I think I can enjoy in this world, then there is no need for me to enquire about Krishna. I am happy here.
So even if God exists, the idea is God is happy there, I am happy here. Let things go on like that. So if I am attached to the world and I don’t feel interested in God, rāga, that is an obstacle.
Bhaya is fear. Okay, I don’t know what is out there. Better let me not explore.
I don’t know what is out there. So krodha is anger, but it is more like frustration in this context. It is that, you know, these people say this, these people say this, these people say this.
Who knows what is right? Better not get involved in this stuff. So it is scepticism that comes from inability to arrive at a proper understanding. And then one feels, I just don’t want to get involved in this.
That is krodha. So now, when this sort of scepticism comes, when one does not practise spirituality. Once when Prabhupāda was in America at that time, after his class, one hippie said to him, so Swamiji, your philosophy sounds like the philosophy of Buddha.
So Prabhupāda said, do you follow Buddha? He says, no. So Prabhupāda said, follow Buddha, follow Jesus, follow Krishna, follow someone. Don’t just talk.
Don’t just talk. Because when we are just talking, then we do never realise anything. Whether something is right or something is wrong, we’ll come to know when we practise.
Just like if I go to a doctor, if I have sickness, and I can go to different doctors, and they can all give me different diagnosis. This is the problem, that is the problem, that is the problem. At some point of time, I have to take a prescription.
Unless I take a prescription, I’ll never come to know what is right. So scepticism is often considered an intellectual virtue by many people today. You know, I don’t believe anyone in anything.
I’m sceptical, I’m intelligent, I’m critical. Scepticism is useful because then we won’t believe anything and everything. But we have to also know that scepticism can only tell us what is wrong.
It can never tell us what is right. If I’m sceptical, I can find out, this doesn’t make sense, this doesn’t make sense, this doesn’t make sense, this doesn’t make sense. Scepticism can never tell me what is right.
It can only tell me that which is wrong. So people who pride themselves on their scepticism, say, I don’t, I’m not like these naive believers. They believe this religious stuff, God stuff, souls.
I don’t believe such things. I’m a sceptic. You know, in today’s intellectual ethos, being a sceptic is considered like an intellectual heroism.
I don’t believe anyone in everything. But so, now when we ask such people to believe, they’ll say, no, I won’t believe, why should I believe? But you know, we can turn their argument on them, tell them, you want to be sceptical, I have a problem with that. That problem is, you are not sceptical enough.
How is that? Says, you are sceptical of everything except scepticism. If you are truly sceptical, be sceptical of scepticism also. Be sceptical of scepticism means that you are saying, I will be sceptic, but evaluate scepticism sceptically.
Can scepticism ever tell you the truth? Scepticism will only tell you what is wrong. So that is a fundamental flaw of scepticism. And therefore, being sceptical, I can move this away, I don’t need this here.
So the scepticism is something which is present among people who study philosophy, but don’t practise anything. And that is why sadhana, practise is important. So there is siddhanta and there is sadhana.
Sadhana are the practises by which we get realisation of higher spiritual reality. So consider, say this is like a, is this a two-story house? Two-story house. So suppose, you know, our existence, we could say like a two-story house, material existence and spiritual existence.
So siddhanta, the philosophy will tell us, okay, I have the body, but beyond that, I have a spiritual side also. So siddhanta will tell you, this is not just a one-story building, this is a two-story building, because normally we think I am simply the body. But the siddhanta tells us, there is a two-story building.
The sadhana gives us the means by which we rise to the higher story. So sadhana is like a staircase or an elevator, depending on which kind of sadhana we are practising. That is what enables us to experience spiritual reality.
In spiritual circles, you often use the word realisation. Now what does realisation mean? Realisation simply means that, that which is a reality, I understand it to be a reality. That which is a reality, when I understand it to be a reality, that is a realisation.
So for example, scripture tells us that wealth alone cannot make us happy. So now I may accumulate a lot of wealth, a lot of wealth, and still I feel dissatisfied. I still feel dissatisfied.
And then because I feel dissatisfied, I think I should get more wealth, I should get more wealth, I should get more wealth. But at one particular point, I said, no, no matter how much I get, I’ll always want more. Today, quite often, there is a rat race in society.
Everybody is competing, competing, competing. Now the problem with the rat race is that even if we win the race, we still remain rats. We don’t get out of the rat race.
Okay, I might get to a higher position, but there are others also still gunning for that position, and they want to knock me down. So there is no definitive ultimate victory in the rat race. So that’s why there is no satisfaction.
So that which is a reality, if I suddenly understand, okay, I accumulated so much wealth, but still I’m not satisfied. No matter how much more I accumulate, I’ll not be, I’ll not get satisfaction. This does not mean that I have to give up wealth, but I have to give up the illusion that wealth will make me happy.
Wealth is important, but no, there is what we live with and what we live for. What we live with cannot take the purpose of what we live for. What we live with is a means.
Wealth is important, it is a means, but what we live for is the purpose for which we are living. So by the practise of sadhana, we start getting these insights. So that which has been theoretical through the sadhana, through the siddhanta, study of philosophy, that becomes internalised, that becomes realised through the practise of sadhana.
Sadhana is like the elevator that takes us up. Now sadhachara, that’s the third limb. Sadhachara, achara is behaviour.
Sadh is good or right. So proper behaviour. When Shri Prabhupada was asked, how can we know your disciples? Prabhupada said, they are perfect gentlemen, perfect ladies and gentlemen.
It’s interesting that Prabhupada did not say that my disciples are those who chant sixteen rounds every day. He did not say that they have memorised Bhagavad Gita verses or they understand the Achint Bheda Veda Siddhanta. So these are important.
They are definitely important, but and we take vows for our sadhana, we study the siddhanta, but in this particular analysis, Prabhupada focused on sadhachara. He says that my disciples are perfect ladies and gentlemen. So the world will not care of what I am performing.
The world will not care what is my siddhanta. The world will see what is my behaviour. The world will see how I am conducting myself.
And if people find that our conduct is appealing, you know, we are courteous, we are respectful, we are sensitive, we are mature, then that attracts people. And so Prabhupada was saying here in this context that our sadhana and our siddhanta, they are all demonstrated through our sadhachara. So we need to be able, people when they see devotees, they should feel that, oh, it’s a nice person.
I want to know what makes this person tick. And if they feel like that, I want to know what makes this person tick, then they will enquire. And then that opens up avenues for us to help them come closer to Krishna, to share knowledge about Krishna with them.
Now, in every, in spiritual life, there are internal, we could say internal parameters of success and there are external parameters of success. So internal parameters could be, say, you know, how strictly I’m doing my sadhana. You know, am I chanting my rounds properly? Am I fasting on Ekadashi? You know, what are the standards of deity worship I have at my home? All these are important, but they are internal standards.
The world is not going to care so much about it. The internal standard should reflect in the external parameters. External parameters is how we behave, how we conduct ourselves.
You know, if somebody does something wrong, you know, do we just snap out at them? We just get angry and blast out at them? Or do we, are we tolerant? Are we understanding? So our behaviour should demonstrate that we are different from others. Now, at one level, another aspect of sadhachar can be following the regulatory principles. That is also sadhachar.
You know, we avoid meat-eating, intoxication, gambling, illicit sex. And this is also definitely very important. And this can come both as a part of sadhana, it can be a part of sadhachar.
But different people, people in general, they may or may not see what you eat, but they will see more how you behave. You know, in Mahabharata, it says that what goes into your mouth is important, but what comes out of your mouth is even more important. So what we eat is important, but how we speak, how we conduct ourselves, that is even more important.
Sometimes, unfortunately, our spiritual practises, instead of making us more understanding, they make us more judgemental. So for example, if I am fasting on Ekadashi, and I am fasting nirjan, and then I go into the kitchen and see who all is eating what? I am eating thrice a day. I am eating so much, it’s gratifying.
Now, when we start becoming judgemental like this, and what is happening? Our body is fasting, but our ego is feasting. Our ego is feasting at that time. So, I may be following sadhana very strictly, I am fasting nirjan on Ekadashi, but that is not leading to sadhachar.
Because I am looking down at others, I am mocking others, I am deriding others, and that definitely is not sadhachar. So the point I am making is, ideally speaking, our sadhana, our siddhanta and our sadhana manifest as sadhachar. But sometimes, the very practises of our sadhana and our siddhanta, they can manifest in a judgemental attitude.
So as far as our sadhana is concerned, I follow this so strictly, others don’t follow it so strictly, they just follow it, they are attached, they are between the stick. We become judgemental. We start mocking them, we start deriding them.
And this is counterproductive. Counterproductive because every person has a positive side and a negative side. From the spiritual perspective, we see their positive side, we could see is a manifestation of, or put it another way, you know, when we see the positive side of someone, we are seeing, we are being Krishna conscious.
We are seeing their potential for Krishna consciousness. There are so many people who don’t even fast anything on Ekadashi. At least these people are fasting from grains on Ekadashi.
So some people, in some religions, people eat meat. Now, if he becomes atheist, they are meat eaters, what is the use? Yes, but at least they believe in God. There are so many people who are atheistic.
So I can see in every person the positive side or the negative side. And Srila Prabhupada, when he came to America, he came and lived among the hippies. And the hippies were people, you know, from the Indian perspective, just people who are in the West, they are considered degraded.
They are considered very fallen people. But the hippies were considered degraded even from Western standards. So they were considered degraded by those who are considered degraded from the Western standard, from the Vedic standard.
So their only regulative principle was to break all regulative principles. I want money, so I gamble. I get some money, I eat meat.
To digest the meat, I eat wine. And when I get all the energy, I have sex. So that’s all.
I am making a simplistic analysis. But that was what they were, their regulative principles, they all break. If Prabhupada had been puritanical, obsessing over, you know, who is how pure, he could never have stayed with them at all.
So Prabhupada saw their potential. He did not see their faults. These people are so degraded.
I am a Mahabhag, I am a pure, why should I stay with them? He just rejected them and gone away. But Prabhupada saw, through it all, they have some interest in spirituality. And they are misled.
Because they are misled, that’s why they are looking for spirituality through drugs. And Prabhupada tried to lead them. So Shri Prabhupada was not judgemental.
See, there is definitely, through philosophy, we have to understand what is right and what is wrong. But we cannot impose our standards of right and wrong on others who have not yet understood those standards also. You may say, these are not my standards, they are scriptural standards.
Fine. But they have not understood scripture right now. So we can’t, we can’t judge others by our standards.
That is just not fair for them. And if somebody has been born and brought up in a culture, where meat eating was just a norm for them, then for us to condemn them because they are eating meat, it’s unfair for them. So our spirituality should make us more understanding, not more judgement.
So I was just a few months ago, I was in Australia, and I was in a temple. And I gave a three-part seminar on cultivating non-judgemental attitude. And then after that, one Mataji and her husband, they came and wanted to talk with me.
And they were, this Mataji was from a shastra background. And her husband was a scientist in a big position in Brisbane. So he said that, he said the seminar, the non-judgemental attitude, it spoke to her very much.
He told her experience. First time when she came to a temple, she saw that there’s a Mataji doing garlands. And she had been born in a pious family.
So she thought, let me also go and start making some garlands. And she went and started making the garlands. And suddenly some senior devotee came over there and asked her, do you eat meat? She was so taken aback by that, she didn’t say anything.
Do you eat meat? He said, he snorted her in mute. And then that devotee just snatched the garland that she was making and flung it to the ground. He says, you cannot even touch the flowers that are meant to be offered to the Lord.
She was shattered. She went away crying with broken hearted. That’s her sincerity and Krishna’s mercy that she met some other devotees who had more understanding.
They pacified her. And then, now she’s become a sincere devotee, initiated devotee practising bhakti nicely. But this is, yes, there may be some standard, but I cannot become judgemental towards others.
In Shakta worship, meat eating is a normal part of their life. So I cannot judge people based on my standard and condemn them. Even if I say my standard is scriptural standards, but they are not aware of those standards.
So our spirituality should never make us judgemental towards others. We need to be understanding. Different people come from different backgrounds, and based on their backgrounds, they will have certain perceptions, they will have certain actions.
And I should see how I can elevate them. So if our pride in our sadhana, I follow such strict standards. That makes us judgemental towards others.
Then actually that judgmentality is a lack of sadhacharya. Sadhacharya at a very basic level means there is human sensitivity, there is human courtesy. So Srila Prabhupada, when he would meet people in America, he would not greet them Hare Krishna.
While going on morning walks, he’d greet them good morning. Why? Because Hare Krishna, they’ll not understand, what is this Hare Krishna? So as a, he was a monk, he would say, I’m renounced, I don’t care what people think in the world. But no, he was polite, he would just, good morning, good morning.
So one time he was going along, and there were several of his disciples who were in the sannyas dandas, here is a sannyas danda also. So some people asked him, what are these sticks for? Srila Prabhupada, he said, they are to keep the dogs away. You know, okay, makes sense.
So Srila Prabhupada, he did not get into at that time giving a lecture. You know, I am a sannyasi, I renounce the world and these three dandas are tied together and this represents that I have given my body, mind and speech all to God. He said, people are not ready for that.
Let me just explain something. Okay, it made sense. So sometimes, you know, people ask one question, and then we just give a whole dose of philosophy.
Why do you people don’t eat meat? Those who eat meat, they are making their bodies into graveyards. Where the corpses of animals are going inside. So, when we start speaking like this, we just alienate people.
So, now when I am saying this, I have also done mistakes like this. So it is not that I am standing apart from anyone and judging anyone else. You know, we all go through phases in our spiritual life.
So especially in the early stages of our philosophy, when we start practising a particular path, we are so excited about it, we want everyone else to practise it. So, you know, once I asked Jai Dwait Maharaj, the senior scholar, you know, how should I preach to my parents? Maharaj said, by letting anyone except you preach to them. That your parents, they have seen you since you are a small baby, you have grown in their arms.
They cannot see you as their teacher or their spiritual guide. So let others preach to them. So it’s not that just because now I have spiritual knowledge, now I have become enlightened and now, you know, I’ll become the guru of my parents.
It doesn’t work like that. They are still my elders, they are still respectable to me. And yes, I would also like them to come to Krishna, but then there’s a proper channel by which I do that.
So we need to be respectful. Prabhupada, when he had, you know, Brahmanand Swami, Brahmanand Swami was one of his disciples. You know, when his mother came to his house, Prabhupada told her, go down to your mother.
Now his mother knocked on the door and he was going down. Where are you? His mother couldn’t understand what he was doing. But Prabhupada wanted them to be respectful.
So sadhachara is ultimately what people see. People don’t see sadhana, people also don’t see siddhanta. Sometimes we have differences over philosophy.
You know, okay, this is right, this is right. Yeah, when there are differences of philosophy, they need to be resolved. But sometimes in the name of difference of philosophy, you know, we become so aggressive against each other.
This is wrong. This is just wrong. This is deviation.
This is this, this is that. And then in the name of philosophical debates, you know, we create a very animosity filled atmosphere. And all the lay people, what they think is, you know, you people, you are quarrelling about the nature of the next world.
And you are making a hell in this world. Isn’t it? Why bother about the next world only? If you see there are Islamic terrorists, and it’s a big, big problem for the whole world. But the biggest casualties of ISIS are Muslims only.
These other Muslims, they also believe in Muhammad, they also believe in the Quran, they also believe in Allah. But their belief is different from say the Wahhabi cult. And the Wahhabis want to remove everyone else.
So what is happening over here is the people think this is the right understanding. And anybody who does not have this right understanding, they are all wrong. And they are all going to go to hell.
And not only are they going to go to hell, we will help them get there faster. So this is, of course, extreme. But the point is, it happens with us also, this is right, and that is wrong.
And then we may, sometimes as devotees, if we are a little more philosophical than others, then that philosophical attitude also creates pride. I know the right thing, others don’t know the right thing. And then often, sometimes because of that, if we feel something is not right, something is wrong, then we become very judgemental.
Why do you do like this? This is law, this is deviation. You see, in spirituality also, there are matters of principle, and there are matters of preference. Matters of principle means that we should chant the holy names of Krishna, we should chant Hare Krishna Mahamudra.
Now matter of principle, this is a matter of principle. But a matter of preference may be, okay, I can sit on the floor and chant, I may sit on a chair and chant, I may stand and chant, I may walk and chant, I may chant loudly, I will chant softly. But these are all matters of preference.
Now once we start mandating the matters of preference, everybody should just sit and chant. If you chant while walking, you are distracted. That means you are not sincere, you don’t want to focus on chanting.
So this is a matter of preference. When we make a matter of preference into a matter of principle, that is fanatical. The principle is, we need to chant, and for chanting we need to focus on chanting.
But different people may be able to focus differently. And that is a matter of preference. So when there are matters of preference, then when we make them into matters of principle, then we come off as fanatical.
And again, sadhachar becomes lacking over there. So we become insensitive towards others, thinking that they are wrong and I am right. So actually, rather than thinking of philosophy in terms of right and wrong, now philosophy is subtle.
And there can be various right answers. There can be different right answers. So at different contexts, one time, Prabhupada, he was going on a morning walk, and he asked devotees.
Sometimes Prabhupada would play the role of a sceptic. So, how do you know that Krishna is God? Prabhupada asked. And different devotees started giving different answers.
Prabhupada said, no. Finally, he said, because Bhagavad Gita says so. Bhagavad Gita is authority.
Bhagavad Gita says Krishna is God. That’s why we accept Krishna as God. No, this was second part.
The first time it happened, Prabhupada asked, different devotees gave different answers. And Prabhupada finally said, no, no, no, this is not right. So finally Prabhupada said, okay, let me move to the same narrative.
Let’s shift it afterwards. So after that Prabhupada had to say another conversation in another place. Same conversation.
So why do you believe Krishna is God? So there’s one devotee who had been in the same conversation earlier. And different devotees gave different answers. And then this devotee said, Prabhupada, because Bhagavad Gita says so.
He said, why should I believe your Bhagavad Gita? And then Prabhupada said, because Krishna is God, because when we chant Hare Krishna, we experience ecstasy. And then after that Prabhupada went to another place. He went to another place.
There also he asked the same question. You know. So why do you think Krishna is God? So there’s one devotee from the earlier conversation here.
Prabhupada, when we chant Hare Krishna, we experience ecstasy. He says, that is your sentimentality. So what does this mean in this context? Actually, Prabhupada was emphasising different points in different places.
In one place he was emphasising that our beliefs should be based on Shastra. Another place he was emphasising that our beliefs are not just based on what Shastra says. Shastra should also be transformed into experience that we have, into realisation that we have.
So it is not that this answer is right and that answer is wrong. There can be different answers based on different contexts. So philosophy is often quite subtle.
And unless we acknowledge the subtlety of philosophy, we can become very judgemental. This is right and that is wrong. And when we become judgemental like that, then for the sake of Siddhanta, we give up Siddhartha.
Because we think that you are wrong and I have to protect the world from you because you are wrong. So then when that happens, then people become not just right, they become self-righteous. And there is a, it is the saying that the greatest enemy of truth is not lies.
The greatest enemy of truth is blind faith. When somebody has blind faith, no amount of reasoning can make them change it. And that is why if their faith is, if they are faithing something is wrong, something is, somebody is speaking lies, you tell them, this is a lie, this is the right, they’ll accept it.
So lies are opposite to truth, that’s true. But then lies can be easily proven to be false. But when somebody has blind belief, it becomes very difficult to change it.
Because it is completely hooked into that way of looking at things. So our Siddhanta, what happens is, Prabhupada is much bigger than who we are. Krishna is much bigger than who we are.
And we get one understanding of Prabhupada. We get one understanding of Krishna. And within what Sri Prabhupada has said, within what Krishna has said, now we have a particular nature.
And based on our nature, we are attracted to certain things. So some devotees, they are very confrontational, fools, rascals, everybody is wrong. Now Prabhupada spoke like that.
Yes, now what is happening is Prabhupada has not only spoken like that. Prabhupada has spoken in many different ways also. There is one lecture where Prabhupada says, you know, so the pure devotee prays to Krishna.
Krishna, all these rascals are suffering in material existence. You know, please deliver them. Now here, rascal is not a judgemental word at all.
Prabhupada is just actually, it’s his kindness coming out. So the same word can actually mean very different things based on intention, based on tone, based on context. You know, sometimes you say husband, wife are quarrelling.
And the wife says, you know, you don’t love me. I love you. Now, the words may be, I love you, but there is no love over there.
There is anger. On the other hand, you know, sometimes, you know, in love one person says, you rascal, what are you doing? Now you rascal, this is actually, the word is strong, but it’s affection over there. So when Prabhupada uses the word rascal, actually, he’s using it not as a value judgement, as a condemnation.
He’s simply saying these people are misled. And being to lead them on the right track. But when we use the word rascal, quite often we become very judgemental while using it.
So Prabhupada was actually, there are many times when he was very sensitive, very gentle. And one time the devotees had a temple in a, like a double apartment. The devotees’ temple was on one side, and there was an elderly lady staying on the other side.
So Prabhupada just went to meet her. And when Prabhupada went to meet her, now Prabhupada was just talking about like, old people talks. How is your health? You know, what are you doing? And how do you manage this? How do you take care of your food? How do you take care of health? And Prabhupada said, how many teeth do you have? You know, Prabhupada did not preach anything to her.
It’s just that he was just a gentleman. Somebody’s alone, somebody’s staying alone. Just go and talk with her.
So the devotees were very surprised. What is Prabhupada doing? They were thinking, when will Prabhupada bring Krishna over there? This is all just the background for getting Krishna. But Prabhupada did not do that.
Prabhupada just went and talked with her and was nice with her. So what happens is, sometimes we just focus on one aspect of Prabhupada based on what we like. What is our nature? What is our inclination? And we neglect other aspects.
Prabhupada is much bigger than what we think of him. So sadhacharya, our siddhanta, you know, in the name of being philosophically correct, we should never give up basic human courtesy. Even if somebody is wrong, still, they are also parts of Krishna.
And we have to be courteous towards them. In a traditional India, when there will be debates between scholars, the debates will be very fierce. But at the end of the debates, whoever had organised the debates, say one person invited the other person, whoever wins, they will give a garland, they will offer gifts, and it will be a graceful party.
So we see that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, when he defeated Keshav Kashmiri, what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did was, he did not dishonour him. He defeated him, but he did not dishonour him. How? Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not arrange for a public debate in which he defeated him.
There was an informal gathering on the banks of the Ganga, where Chaitanya Mahaprabhu proved that his scholarship was inadequate. And he did not, when his students started laughing, oh, you cannot answer this question. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said, don’t laugh, stop them from laughing.
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said, he actually gave his opponent a graceful way out. He said, it’s been a long day, you have travelled a long distance, and you already spoke 100 verses glorifying the Ganga. Now you must be tired.
That’s why now some questions it will be difficult to answer. So go back home, study, rest, study your books. Tomorrow you can come and continue the discussion.
So it’s not that we have to, after we defeat someone, we have to rub it into their, you know, it’s like we defeated someone, rub their nose into the sand and prove to the world or make their moustache filled with sand. It’s not like that. We have to, our goal is not to defeat people.
Our goal is to elevate people. And for elevating people, see, when we make, when we sacrifice sadāchārya for the sake of siddhānta, what is happening is, quite often, there are people and there are opinions. And people’s opinions are different from people.
So we need to correct their opinion, their opinions are wrong, but for that we need to separate them from their opinions. And sadāchārya means that we can disagree without being disrespectful. It’s not that being respectful, I have to agree, in the name of sadāchārya, I have to agree with anything that anyone says.
But there can be disagreement without degenerating, degeneration to disrespectfulness. And that is sadāchārya. So when we have all these three, our siddhānta, our sādhana and our sadāchārya, all three move together in the synergy of this, then what happens? Then we grow spiritually and the bhakti movement also grows socially.
Well, I may practise sadhana very nicely, I may understand the siddhānta very nicely, but if the sadāchārya is not there, if I’m self-righteous, if I’m proud, to some extent, I may grow myself spiritually because of my sadhana, because of my siddhānta, but then we alienate people. They start thinking, you are narrow-minded people, I don’t want to associate with people like you. So if we want to have, not only we ourselves grow spiritually, and actually if we are too self-righteous, we are proud, we may ourselves not grow also, because we are actually more concerned with proving that I am right than actually glorifying Krishna and getting people closer to Krishna.
But even if we assume that we are growing ourselves, we alienate people. So the world is going to see the sadāchārya. And if we are, sadāchārya in this context means, broadly, you could say, behaviour in the mode of goodness.
In the mode of goodness, kind, courteous, respectful, sensitive, and as the Prabhupāda said, of a gentleman. So when that sadāchārya is there, that enables, when sadāchārya is there, actually we become means by which people can come to Krishna. People become attracted to us, and we become means by which people come closer to Krishna.
I once saw on a car, you know, people put many slogans on their cars. So this was a Bible belt, and there was a person who put a car on his, put a slogan, put a slogan on his car, God, please save me from your preachers. So sometimes those who are preaching God’s message, they are so self-righteous, they are so judgemental.
I have come to save you. So they are saying, God save me from them. I don’t want to entangle.
So what happens sometimes, those who are, those who are meant to share God’s message, if they don’t have sadāchārya, they don’t behave properly, then instead of they becoming channels for getting people towards God, they become obstacles for people coming towards God. And because of their behaviour, people get rebelled. So when there is this proper synergy of siddhānt, sādhana and sadāchārya, then both, we grow internally, we grow spiritually, and the bhakti movement also grows socially, attracting more and more people towards Krishna.
And this way, both internally and externally, internally we get higher satisfaction, externally we can make positive contributions. Otherwise, if the sadāchārya is not there, then there is too much conflicts that happen. They happen within the devotee community, between devotees and non-devotees.
And that sadāchā, when then that conflicts happen, then even we cannot do sadhana properly. Whenever there is a quarrel, whenever there’s an argument, whenever there’s bitter feelings, now all that affects our sadhana. We can’t study properly, we can’t chant properly, we can’t worship properly.
So the more we try to cultivate sadāchārya, the more actually our sadhana also becomes better, because the conflicts become lesser in our life. And the more our focus on understanding the siddhānt will also become more. And this way, there can be synergy by which we can all move forward in our spiritual life.
I’ll summarise. I spoke on the topic of seeking the synergy in sadhana, in siddhānt, sadhana and sadāchārya. Siddhānt is philosophical understanding.
It’s like a map which shows me the territory and tells me where I am and where I need to go. So without siddhānt, we’ll be lost, not knowing what to do or where to go. So philosophy is very important.
And along with that there is sadhana. So sadhana, sādhya and sādhana. Sādhya is the goal where I want to go.
Sādhana is the means by which I go there. Sādhana is the actual going there. So car is the sādhana if I want to go to a particular place.
The place I want to go is sādhya. And the driving of the car is the sādhana. So sādhana are the practical spiritual activities that we do by which we grow in our spiritual life.
So for us it can be chanting, worshipping the deities and other such activities. Now the sādhana is what helps us to go closer towards Krishna. And without sādhana, we don’t get realisation of siddhānt.
If we don’t practise anything, then everything just stays speculation. And sometimes people become sceptical. So we can argue with sceptics that, you know, don’t tell them they are too sceptical, tell them they are less sceptical.
Be sceptical of your scepticism also. Recognise that scepticism can only tell you what is wrong. It can never tell you what is right.
To understand what is right, you have to practise something in your life. It’s like Prabhupāda said, don’t just talk. Follow Krishna, follow Jesus, follow Buddha, follow someone.
A patient has to take some medicine. Then they will understand whether the medicine is right or wrong. But without taking the medicine, they will never know it, whether it’s going to work or not.
So sādhana is important by which we get realisation of the siddhānta. So realisation means that which is a reality, I understand and accept it to be a reality. Now, to some extent, in spiritual practises, both siddhānta and sādhana are interlinked.
The world doesn’t care what your philosophy is. The world doesn’t care what your personal spiritual practises are. What the world is going to see is sadācāra.
What is your behaviour? And Prabhupāda was pointing to this when he said, my disciples are perfect, ladies and gentlemen. So if people see that devotees are well behaved, then that attracts them. What makes this person click? And then that opens channels for us sharing kṛṣṇa bhakti with others.
And I discussed how both sādhana and siddhānta can sometimes make us judgemental towards others. And then the judgmentality deteriorates, erodes our sadācāra. If I am fasting on ekādashi, but I’m condemning those who are eating, then that is my ego is feasting.
I’m not growing and actually I’m being self-righteous. So we cannot evaluate others by scriptural standards, our standards or even scriptural standards, if they are not aware of those standards. So somebody has been born and brought up eating meat, we can’t condemn them for eating meat.
We have to give them proper understanding. If we condemn them, then we simply lose them. And similar, just as our sādhana can, our standards can make us judgemental towards others.
Similarly, through our philosophical understanding can also make us judgemental towards others. You are a deviant. But spirituality, philosophy is not just always so clear about what is right and wrong.
There can be the same spiritual teacher who has taught different things at different times. I did an example of how Prabhupāda talked about why is Krishna God? How do you know that Krishna is God? He gave different answers at different times. So in the spiritual life, there are principles and there are practises.
Sorry, there are principles and there are preferences. So principles should not be changed. But when preferences are made into matters of principle, that becomes fanatic.
And when we let differences in our siddhānta erode sadāchāra, take away sadāchāra, then we get caught in such conflicts. The world starts becoming apathetic with religion. And you people, you are fighting about what the other world is.
And you are creating conflicts in this world. There is a whole big body of thought that is called as apathism. Apathism means, it’s not atheism, apathy.
I don’t care whether God exists or not. I just am apathetic about it. People think, why bother about this whole stuff? That’s how people feel.
And I concluded by talking about how our sadāchāra, when we have proper behaviour, then we become channels for people to come towards Krishna. On the other hand, if you don’t have sadāchāra, then we become obstacles. People go away from Krishna because of us.
As I said, God save me from your preachers. And lastly, I discussed about how when we practise bhakti with sadāchāra, then our sādhana and siddhānta can help us grow peacefully and can help the bhakti movement also to grow harmoniously. Otherwise, there are too many conflicts in sadāchāra lacking.
Conflicts between devotees and non-devotees, between devotees and devotees. And then that conflicts, they distract us from our sādhana. And they make spiritual progress difficult.
And they make the social outreach of the bhakti movement also difficult. But when there is a synergy of all these three, and my sādhana and my siddhānta, they help me to not just grow towards Krishna, but manifest in my outer behaviour also, where I come to the mode of goodness. And I’m courteous, sensitive, respectful, polite.
Then that attracts people towards Krishna through us. Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments? Yes, go on.
I was wondering what you would say when you come into practise, but among devotees when you come into practise with sādhana, when you give some service in the temple and you have devotees calling over and say, well, I can give you my service today, I can give you this, and become maybe on a regular basis, how do you keep composed? How do you control your ego? How do you control everything? Yeah. See, if we have to get some services done, and if devotees keep repeatedly saying, I can’t do this service, I can’t do that service, then how do we stay calm? Because we have to get the service done. If devotees don’t cooperate, what do we do? Yeah.
Actually, over a period of time, we ourselves find out in the devotee community, who is trustworthy and who is not trustworthy, who is reliable and who is not reliable. And usually those who are reliable, they are the people whom we can count on. And we want to engage others and help others to grow also.
But we also have to get our responsibilities done. So first of all, we need to find out people who are responsible, and focus on them. And others, we have to educate people about what responsibility means.
And some people, if they’re not ready to understand that, then sometimes we just can’t rely on them. So then we have to make some alternative arrangements. Sometimes it’s, you know, if we are a manager, manager means simply that when nobody else does, I have to do it.
It’s like the idea of being a manager, and it can become too much of a burden. But then if that is happening, then you may have to take some management decisions and get some people who will do things reliably. So overall, in every service, emergencies come up, ad hoc situations come up.
But emergencies should be occasional. If emergencies are regular, that means it’s not just an emergency, there is a managerial issue over there. We have to have some managerial overall, by which the emergencies can be avoided.
So maybe we have to get people, we may have to move from volunteers to people who are paid for their services. This one example I’m seeing, there have been some management decisions that have been taken. It’s like, you know, trains or cars or planes, sometimes they get late, that is unavoidable.
But if all planes are regularly getting late, and that means the aeroplane company or the airport, they’re not managing properly. So occasionally, there will always be pressures. But if that’s regularly happening, then there’s the managerial overall required.
And overall, you know, if we appreciate those devotees publicly, we appreciate those devotees who are consistent, those who are reliable, who are trustworthy, then that also inspires others to become like that. We don’t publicly shame those who are not, that’s undesirable, but publicly appreciating those who are, who are behaving in a particular, who are being responsible, that also inspires others to take up similar service, to become similar in response. And quite often it is that in the devotee community, there are some people who want to do services, but they’re not getting services.
And there are others who are given services that they want, they’re looking for a way out. So, so, so if we just cast our net a bit broader, and look for people outside our normal frame of reference, we find there are people who are eager to do services. There are many people who are actually grateful to be given an opportunity.
So if we do that also, then we can deal with that issue. So, yeah. So when somebody asks you to do service, and you take their hands for that reason, but they just don’t want to do it, and they just don’t feel inspired, is it offensive when they feel that way? Okay.
If somebody doesn’t do service, because they don’t feel inspired to do it, or they don’t do it because they don’t like it, is that offensive? I feel the word offensive is too offensive. It’s like, you know, sometimes what happens, anything that I don’t like, I call it an offensive. It shouldn’t become like that.
Offence is a very serious thing. Usually, I will, my understanding is that serious offences are those which are done with malicious intention. Now, somebody is doing wonderful service, and I want to pull them down for some reason.
And that which is done with malicious intention, that is offensive. So, if someone is not doing a particular service, because they are not inspired to do it. Now, quite often, it is good to have some education for people about the importance of the service also.
Whereas, in general, for us also, if you are doing a particular service, the nature of the mind is that its inspiration goes down over a period of time. So, if I read something about my service, read some, let’s say, Prabhupada’s instructions, if I am doing management, read Prabhupada’s instructions about management, or basically read things which help me to see that service in spiritual light, that often inspires people. Sometimes we just, something we know is very important, we tell people, we should do this.
But you know, they don’t have our background, our understanding. They don’t realise how important it is. So, if we explain to them also by telling people about a particular service, how important it is, then that can itself inspire them to become a little serious.
So, along with giving service, we can also see it as our responsibility to give people education about the importance of the service. That’s from our perspective. But sometimes there are people who are not inspired by a particular service, and then we just can hope that they can become inspired in some other service.
It’s not offensive because we all have our natures. So, there is always the individual’s perspective and there’s the institution’s perspective. In the institution’s perspective, I have to get these things done.
And whoever is available, they should be doing these things. That’s the institution’s perspective. But the individual’s perspective is that, you know, this is my inspiration, this is my area of talent, this is my area of interest.
So, if we see Varanashram as a system, then we sometimes get too caught in Varanashram in terms of the four cars, the four Varanas. That’s okay. But the principle underlying the four Varanas is that people are engaged according to their natures.
So, I put it this way that in material world, everyone has problems. The expertise of Varanashram is that it allocates to people the kind of problems that they will like to solve. So, if I am a brahminical person and somebody comes and tells me, no, we have to raise 10 million dollars for building a big temple.
After you build the temple, also you want to chant Hare Krishna and study scripture only. Do the same thing now. Why do you want to build a temple? On the other hand, if I am a Vaishya, I have a Vaishya mentality, Vaishya heart, nature, somebody tells me, in the Bhagavatam, there is a verse which talks about how Krishna is the source of Vishnu.
Can you find that verse for me? There are so many thousands of verses in Bhagavatam, how do I find it? Don’t quote the verse, just make the point. Who is going to notice it? So, on the other hand, if I tell a brahmana, can you find the verse? Yes, I got some challenge, some excitement. I look through the reference and I will find the verse.
So, on the other hand, if I tell a Vaishya, oh, come on, we want to raise funds. Yes, now I got something to do. Otherwise, just chant and dance and hear classes, there is nothing practical to do.
I will go and raise funds, I will get money. So, basically, different people have different natures. And as managers, our long-term goal should be that we engage people in a way that they are inspired to serve Krishna.
So that even if there is no one to manage them, even if there is no one to oversee them, still they will continue their service lifelong. So, that is from the long-term perspective for the growth of the individual. If they find a service that they are inspired for, they just go on lifelong.
At the same time, from the individual’s perspective, the individual should think that, you know, actually, yes, I have my nature. And this is what I would like to do. But if this is what is required, I will do it.
But if we are expected to do something which is not really our nature, as our major service, as our only service, then that is an unreasonable demand from the individual. So, occasionally telling people to do something that they do not like to do, that is okay, and then people should also be doing it. But on a regular basis, we need to find out people who are interested in those services.
Or it is not just, again, I would say even what we talk about nature is also not so clear, because people also do not know what their nature is. Sometimes we just inspire people by telling them about the importance of a particular service. Initially, they may not have interest and eventually they may develop interest also.
So, basically, it has to be a cooperation between the givers of service and the receivers of service, by which rather than making being judgemental that this is offensive or this is irresponsible, we basically try to engage people in a way that they feel inspired to serve. At the same time, we also educate them in the mood of surrender by which if they are required occasionally to do services that they do not like to do, they should be ready to do that. Does that answer your question? Is siddhanta philosophy or is it principle? Okay, good question.
Is siddhanta philosophy or is it principle? Actually, we could say siddhanta is philosophical conclusion and this conclusion comes in some forms of different principles. So, there can be different philosophies. Atheism can also be a philosophy, materialism can be a philosophy, but these are not philosophies that are conclusion of scripture.
So, siddhanta means a philosophical conclusion that matches with reality that is based on scripture. That is how we use the word siddhanta and that philosophy and conclusion has various principles within it. So, the principle that God, the absolute truth is both personal and impersonal, that is siddhanta.
And there can be schools of thought which veer too much towards impersonalism and there can be schools of thought which veer too much towards personalism. Both they have imbalanced understanding. So, siddhanta is basically philosophical conclusion which can come in the form of certain principles which succinctly summarise that conclusion.
Any other questions? Do we have different natures because we have different constitutional positions in the spiritual world or is it because of the way we have been brought up? Actually, right now, our nature is largely determined by our body and mind. It is not necessarily reflective of the soul. For example, our bodies have particular genders, but that is not necessarily the nature of the soul in the spiritual world.
Somebody may be a male in this world and they may be a female in the spiritual world. So, our present nature comes largely from the body and the mind, not so much from the soul. And the body and the mind, they are shaped both by this life and past lives.
So, past life uses a certain starting point and this life, it shapes us in terms of the upbringing that we have, the association that we have. So, both past life and this life impressions, they shape our behaviour. So, our subhava comes from the kuru janma samskara, that is past life impressions and also in this life’s upbringing.
So, let us say that people have certain natures. For example, let us say a person has a money making nature. And let us say that if we were to give that person, that person is engaging in service for money making purposes.
Now, does that mean that ultimately, throughout this life, we still have to give that up? Because ultimately, it is only personal? Or does that mean that that nature is still valid because it is personal? And that still probably has a similar nature? Okay. Say somebody has a vaishya nature of making money. Will that person, by becoming spiritually purified, eventually give up that nature? Or will that nature continue till death? And will it continue beyond death also? In the spiritual world also, they will have that nature? No, definitely the spiritual world, it is different.
So, that is the nature based on the soul’s sarupa, which can be quite different. Now, in this life, whether our nature will change or not, it is variable. So, broadly speaking, nature is something which can’t be infinitely changed, even by spiritual practises.
It is just like, if I have a car, if I am a trained driver, maybe I will be able to drive the car much more expertly than if I am not a trained driver. But ultimately, a car can never run like an aeroplane. Similarly, say a person of a particular nature, it is not that if a person has a vaishya nature, it is not that they will become brahmanas.
But even vaishya activity can be done with a greater proportion of goodness, and it can be done with a lesser proportion of goodness. So, kshatriya activity also. So, as we practise spirituality more and more, as we grow in bhakti, then even the activities according to our nature, we do them, but with a greater proportion of goodness within them, with a greater service attitude to serve and please Krishna and assist in his mission.
So, it’s not so much the specific action that will change or the specific inclination that will change, but it’s the more of the intention and the more of performing that action that will change. So, even somebody might be of a brahmanical nature, but in youth, that intellectuality may also be accompanied by a lot of passion. I want to prove that I am right and they are wrong.
I want to be the best scholar. But as we grow, then we grow in age, we grow in spiritual maturity, you know, then we move from, our intellectuality moves from trying to prove, goes from determining who is right to determining what is right. So, like that, we will usually work according to our subhava, but that action according to subhava will do with a greater element of goodness within us.
And as it will be more peaceful, more spiritually conducive. Now, if some people feel inspired, another thing is, I would say because there has been, there has been intermixing among the Varanas for many generations in the past. So, it’s not necessary that we have only one particular subhava.
So, sometimes we may have some element of brahmanical nature, some element of Kshatriya nature also. So, whatever it is, the important thing is rather than trying to worry about whether I need to change my nature or not, or whether I can change my nature or not, what we should focus on is, how can I serve Krishna in a sustainable way? So, while doing whatever services we are told to do, we can be observing, you know, guna karma dhubhagasha. Guna means quality, karma means activity.
So, the way we can translate it in our experience is that when some services according to our nature, we feel internally comfortable doing that service. And we are externally competent also doing it. So, inner competence, so inner comfort and external competence.
If these two are there, then we can do that service for a long time, we will be happy doing it. So, rather than worrying too much about what is my nature, we can focus on while doing services, which are the services, which I am comfortable and competent. And then we can focus on doing those services, that way we can move on sustainably in our bhakti.
Nancy, question? Thank you very much. Good question, yeah. So, Valmiki was a decoit and then he became a composer of the Ramayana.
So, can we say that spirituality cannot change? I wouldn’t go so far as to say that spirituality cannot change. I am saying that we shouldn’t make change of nature as the expected standard from everyone. Sometimes scripture gives us certain examples which are extraordinary.
But that may not be the universal way spirituality acts on everyone. So, it is not that necessarily that somebody who is doing brahminical activity is more advanced than somebody who is doing Kshatriya activity or somebody doing Vaishya activity. The important thing is how much is one devoted to Krishna? How much is one to serve Krishna? So, it is definitely possible.
Ultimately, it is Krishna. Krishna is God. He can change anything.
So, he can change anyone in any way. And that is why people can become competent at doing things which they had no competence earlier. So, in that sense, definitely spirituality can bring about dramatic transformations.
But with respect to one’s own nature, it is not so easy to change. There are only two verses in the Bhagavad Gita which are repeated twice. One is Manmanabha Madh Bhakto Madhyaji Maam Indus Kuru, Maam evaishyasi Yuktvaiva Maatmana Madh Parayana and Maam evaishyasi Satyamte Pratijane Priyosi.
So, almost 80% of the verse is the same. This is 9.34 and 18.65. The only other one that is repeated is 3.35 and 18.47. That is, Shreyan Svadharmo Viguna Paradharma Svarnushtha. Svadharme Nidanam Shreya Paradharmo Bhaya Vah.
Shreyan Svadharmo Viguna Paradharma Svarnushtha. Svabhavan Yatan Karma Kurvan Naapnoti Kirtish. So, basically, Krishna is quite strong in saying that we have to act according to our swadharma.
So, he is basically in the context of the Bhagavad Gita saying, Arjuna, you are a Kshatriya, don’t expect that you can act like a Brahmana. A Kshatriya has to be a martial guardian of society. A Kshatriya has to punish wrong words.
A Brahmana can punish, but a Kshatriya can’t do that. So, in that sense, it becomes, we cannot restrict the potency of bhakti and say that bhakti can’t change nature. But we can’t make the extraordinary the standard.
Bhakti can bring about extraordinary changes in people’s lives. But that is not the standard expectation. We shouldn’t make a person who is having a Vaishya nature feel guilty that they are not a Brahmana.
No, we should encourage them and they should be able to feel happy serving Krishna in their own way. So, if we expect the nature to be changed as a standard expected from everyone, then that can choke many people from serving in the way that they feel naturally inspired to do. Does that answer the question? Thank you.
Okay. So, how much time can we go on? So, you said that when Krishna asks Arjuna to write about these three modes of nature, so that means one, anyone who writes about these three modes of nature will situate in his own nature, original nature. Does that mean that it is his original nature once he has arisen from his three modes of nature? Okay, good question.
So, when Krishna asks that Arjuna to rise beyond the three modes, does that mean that anyone can rise beyond their own nature and become situated in their spiritual nature? You have to look at the context. This verse comes in 2.45 in the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna is telling rise beyond the three modes.
Actually, what he is saying is the Vedas deal with subjects related to the three modes. The subject of the Vedas deals with the three modes and this go beyond the three modes. So, if you look at the context, Krishna is talking about Karmakand.
Karmakand is material religiosity. This is 2.45. In 2.42-43, Krishna talks about So, he talks about people who do religion for the sake of getting material things, that is Karmakand. And Krishna is telling Arjuna that okay, Vedas deal with this, but the ultimate conclusion of Vedas is higher and seek that ultimate conclusion.
So, his focus is not so much on Arjuna that you have to yourself become transcendental in terms of all the actions that you do. At the end, Krishna tells Arjuna you have to fight. In 18.59, he says that We are all bound by our nature.
You may think that I will not do this. Helplessly you will be forced to do it. So, that means that Krishna is telling Arjuna more to go beyond the section of the Vedas which talks about subject within three modes, which talks about elevation to heavens.
And he is telling him to focus on the spiritual section of the Vedas, which talks about soul and self-realisation. But while pursuing self-realisation, Arjuna cannot give up his Swabhava. In terms of his action, he will pursue transcendence through the body-mind complex that he has.
He can’t suddenly get a new body and mind. So, he will naturally act as a Kshatriya. But instead of acting as a Kshatriya who seeks Swarga, he can act as a Kshatriya who seeks the spiritual world.
So, the Vedas talk about how to go to heavens. Krishna tells Arjuna, work in a more selfless way, more spiritually enlightened way and seek a destination higher than heaven. Seek the spiritual world.
That’s the purpose of what he is saying. Does it answer your question? So, that means the nature of what everybody has is different from the spiritual nature. Because Arjuna is like Vatsyatana, like a friend.
So, in the real, he is a Kshatriya. So, both are Kshatriyas. So, Arjuna is Akhira in the spiritual world and Arjuna is Kshatriya in this world.
Are those two different? Not necessarily in the case of Arjuna, because Arjuna is the eternal associate of the Lord. So, in the spiritual world, Arjuna is a Kshatriya, but he is serving the Lord in the spiritual world accordingly. So, now Arjuna may also have other roles.
Arjuna is sometimes said as Ramananda Raya in Chaitanya, in Gaur Lila. So, then he has a particular different role at that particular place. He does not necessarily have the same role there.
So, the basically the material nature, our material nature is different from our spiritual nature in the spiritual world. With respect to the eternal associates of the Lord, we cannot say that there has to be that kind of difference. It depends on what role they are playing and when that role is also existing in the spiritual world.
If that is existing, then it may coincide in the same way. If it is not, or if they have multiple roles in the spiritual world in different past times, then accordingly they may have a different, their material nature may not coincide with their spiritual nature. But we cannot make it an absolute fact that the two have to be different or the two have to be same.
Thank you very much. So, we will stop here.