To become responsible, learn also when to not take responsibility
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
This is a very catastrophic event that is happening, where insults lead to injury and that leads to violence. Now, in this particular section, after the whole pandemonium has happened, Lord Shiva's messengers have come and wrecked Daksha's assembly. Now, after the event, the devtas are rushing for help to Brahmaji.
Vishnu is not so easily accessible. So, they are going to Brahma for help. And in the Purport Prabhupada, in the verse it is said that Brahmaji, knowing what would happen, Brahma and Shiva, they did not come there.
They would not come there. So, I will speak today on the topic of how a part of taking responsibility is knowing when to not take responsibility. Integral to taking responsibility is knowing when to not take responsibility.
And within that I will take three points. That everyone has free will and even God can't control that entirely. Second is, we all have finite capacities.
And third is, we need to do what it takes to nourish ourselves, so that we can use our free will properly. So, I will take each of these points. And we will have some questions in between also, after each point, if you have questions.
So, now, human life is, as we say, meant for being responsible. Responsible as the word, if we put it in a different sense, responsible. That we should be able to take, choose the right response.
And that means, as situations emerge, we need to think about the situation and then think what is the best course of action that I can do in this situation. So, while we take responsibility for ourselves and if we take any position of leadership, we take responsibility for others also. At that time, we are all in some way taking responsibility for others.
That means, even if we are in any kind of relationship with anyone, we are a friend of someone, we are the parent of someone, even if we are the child of someone, the actions of those who we are connected with affect us. So, now, if we want to take responsibility, now what can we take responsibility for? We cannot take responsibility for others' actions directly, in the sense that others have free will. And in this particular situation, when it is said that Brahma and Vishnu did not come to the assembly knowing that a disaster was going to happen over there.
Now, we may say, if a disaster is going to happen, they should come beforehand and try to avoid the disaster. Normally, it is said that a principle in firefighting is, fight the fire before it starts, not after it has started, or not after it has burned things down. So, with respect to fire, it is obviously true.
Because fire is insentient, fire does not have free will or consciousness. So, if we can extinguish the fire before it starts off, or just when it is starting off, it will go off. But with respect to people, they have free will.
And when they have free will, sometimes people have to learn the lessons through experience, not through intelligence. Although we say that it is best to learn through intelligence, but sometimes we all have to go through certain experiences, we have to experience the consequences of our actions, and only then we will learn. So, if we do not acknowledge that others have free will, if we overestimate our capacity to control others, then we simply get ourselves into trouble.
Because, say with respect to fire, we just go there and extinguish it. But sometimes when somebody is about to do something wrong, and at that time, we forcibly stop them from doing something wrong. Now you think, I am protecting you.
And it is true at one level, we are trying to protect them. But, it may backfire, and they may start resenting us. And they may start going against us.
Say, there is a standard example for intersectionary action is that if somebody is walking off a cliff, or walking off a terrace, and we see them walking off the terrace, we should rush there and warn them, don't walk off, you will fall down. Now in that case, the danger is very simple and very clear. It is just that they are not noticing it.
We tell them you will fall off from here, and they will notice it. But with respect to normal day to day conduct, it is not so easy to recognize the danger. If somebody wants to choose a particular course of action, and then, this is what I want to do.
And if others tell them, don't do this. And quite often, what happens is, people start thinking that there is an authority under the subordinate, and the subordinate is doing something wrong. Now the authority may be well-intentioned and say, don't do this.
But, if the subordinate is convinced that this is what I want to do, then what may happen is, the subordinate, instead of feeling grateful that the authority has protected me, the subordinate may start thinking that actually, the authority is not my well-wisher. The authority is my ill-wisher. And therefore, the authority is trying to repress me because the authority doesn't want me to succeed, or the authority is envious of me, or whatever.
The mind can work in many different ways. So now, if we consider, in the devotional circles, there are two dangers. One is sin, and another is offence.
There is paap, and there is aparadha. So, the person is going on the wrong track, they will commit sin. But, if we try to forcibly stop them, they will commit offence.
And from the spiritual perspective, sin is not as damaging as offence. So, somebody commits sin, and then they do something wrong, and they get the consequences for that, they will come to their senses, oh, I did something wrong. But, if they commit an offence, oh, devotees are my ill-wishers, then they go away from devotees.
So, even if somebody does something wrong, even if somebody sins, then still the path to Krishna is there for them. Because, still they have some relationship with devotees. Maybe at that time they will realize, oh, what you told me was right.
But, if they start developing hostility towards devotees, then they will never come back. So, what is important is that the relationship not be damaged entirely. Now, of course, for some people, in some situations, you tell them, don't do this, and they will listen.
But, we can also sense the pulse of people about how determined they are to do something. And, if somebody is completely convinced about doing something, then they may find that, if we tell them, don't do it, then they will end up becoming alienated from us, and they may blame us. So, sometimes we just have to acknowledge that people have their free will, and we can't do anything about it.
This especially is true in parenting or counseling. As children grow up and become, come to teenage, and they want to assert their independence. And, sometimes children may want to, especially if somebody is born in a devotional culture.
For most of us, the philosophy came before the practices. We understood the philosophy, this made sense, and then we started adopting some practices. For those who are born in devotional families, the practices come before the philosophy.
And, because of that, they feel the practices are very restrictive. Don't do this, don't do this, don't do this, don't do this. And, because of that, they feel bhakti is very restrictive.
There was an interfaith conference in America, and there is a universal problem, they call it PK, not the movie PK, which is there in India. PK means preacher's kids. So, preacher's kids practically never become, what is becoming preacher's, very rarely they even become, they follow that religion.
So, they did a survey of that, of such kids, and they found one thing that, so, one preacher's kid was asked, who is a priest? And, he gave a definition that a priest is someone who is constantly worried that someone, somewhere is having some fun. That someone, somewhere is having some fun. So, they start thinking that priest means, all the activities that give us fun, they tell them, don't do it, don't do it, don't do it, don't do it.
So, what happens? Now, children, parents can, children can feel this very prohibitive. And, children will say, no, these activities are bad, you shouldn't do them. But, if parents try to stop them forcibly, then what will happen? The children will go away.
And, they will still go away eventually. Because, how long can parents control the children? But, once they go away, they will become very hostile. If somebody tells them, let it go.
If, you are doing, the parents tell the children, you are doing this, and it's wrong, and you are so foolish, you are so arrogant that you are not understanding it, one day, you will come crawling back on your knees to me. I will acknowledge that I am right. Now, if this is how we try to force them to do the right thing, that even if they eventually do the wrong thing and realize it is wrong, they will not come back.
Because, it has become not an issue of right or wrong, it has become an issue of ego. So, sometimes, when we want to control others, it is not just because we want their good. It is also because we want our image to be protected.
Oh, this person is trained by me, this person is connected with me. If this person does something wrong, that will reflect badly on me. And, I want my reputation to be spotless.
So, often, our desire to control others is not just because we want their good, but it is also because we want our own good image. And, especially, if we try to control others because of our own insecurity, then, people sense that. And then, they feel, you are more interested in your good image than what I feel, what my emotions are, what my concerns are.
So, in a sense, we could say that, for Vishnu to not intervene over here, it is a disaster happening, why don't you intervene? Why don't you do something? But, here is also exhibited the opulence of renunciation. One of the six opulences of the Lord is renunciation. Renunciation means that, even if we are not attached to things going right.
We talk about renunciation at one level in terms of objects. Oh, give up wealth, give up power, that is renunciation. But, one aspect of renunciation is also that, if things don't go according to our plan, then, we don't get extremely agitated about it.
We let go of it. So, people have free will and we can't control their free will always. I was in Princeton and there was an audience of Hindu scholars, or Hindu students and Hindu scholars.
So, they have a lot of conceptions about the Indian epics. So, one of the conceptions is that, Krishna is a war mongering God. That Krishna caused war.
And so, one person asked this question that, when Duryodhana fell in the Maya Sabha, in the assembly, at that time, he slipped and he thought it was normal surface, but it was water, he slipped and he fell. So, the queen laughed over there. And Yudhishthira tried to stop them from laughing, but Krishna did not stop them.
Krishna did not intervene. So, was it that Krishna deliberately wanted Duryodhana to be insulted, so that the war would take place? So, Krishna actually instigated the war. And now, so then, so they said, is Krishna a war mongering God? So, I said, Krishna himself went as a Shanti Doodh.
He went as a peace envoy. And the most accommodating terms, he sought peace. So, if Krishna had wanted to instigate war, then why would Krishna have gone as a peace messenger? So, now, apparently some devotee had gone there before me and he had spoken that the same Krishna who spoke externally to Duryodhana to proposing peace, that same Krishna from within Duryodhana's heart told him, don't accept the peace proposal.
Now, I don't know how they got contact with Paramatma to come to know this. If you see, there is no indication of anything like this in the Mahabharata. Krishna is earnestly seeking peace.
In fact, I have a whole class on this, how Krishna uses dharma, sorry, saam, naam, bhed and danda, all the four methods to somehow try to avoid war. So, now, this is Krishna's super soul is there, but Krishna does not determine our decisions. Krishna gives us the necessary information, the intelligence, the recollection based on our desires.
So, it is not that Krishna stopped Duryodhana from accepting. Duryodhana didn't want to accept and then as a super soul Krishna might have given him rationalizations. Now, in this particular case, when Krishna did not stop the queens from laughing, at one thing, at one point, see, something is humorous and the humorous should not be seen to be malicious.
There is a difference. Humor means, sometimes somebody makes a joke about somebody else and everybody laughs. Now, it might be an innocent joke, but say, if A makes a joke about B and everybody laughs and now, if B is already thinking that, you know, A is hostile to me, A is my enemy, then something which is an innocent humorous joke starts appearing to be malicious.
How dare you laugh at me like this? Actually, that was not the intention at all. So, it was just funny. Now, when Krishna told the queens not to laugh, it was not that that triggered the war.
It was not that that triggered Duryodhana's enemy. Before that itself, Duryodhana had already tried two big things. He had already tried to assassinate Bhima by giving him poison and he had tried to assassinate all the Pandavas along with their mother by having them burned in Varanamata.
So, if at all anything, this incident was a trigger and it was a trigger. Krishna did not want to antagonize Duryodhana. Some people are just so puffed up that sometimes some puffed up people get deflated, other people say, now you are coming back to earth.
So, it is not that you get joy in insulting others, but just getting some people who are just high up. So, Duryodhana was like that high up. So, Krishna wanted to just ground him.
So, Krishna was always the well-wisher of everyone. But still, the point I talk about this is that Krishna, he tries at times to intervene in people's lives. But there are times when Krishna also is a hands-off approach.
He can't do anything. Some people are just the way they are. So, by acknowledging that something is just not our responsibility, that if we think that we can control others and that we should be able to control others, then we will end up alienating them and agitating ourselves.
So, the first point I said, the point that sometimes we should not, part of being responsible, not taking responsibility, the first point was that we should know that everyone has free will and others can't control their free will. Not even God can do that. Any comments or questions about this? In a group, if you want to give some message, do we… Yeah, that's a good question.
If in a group we have to give some message, then do we also have to adjust or sensitize ourselves at that time? Yeah, we always need to be sensitive. But generally, in a group, it is a little more generic, it is not so much specific. So, if you are giving a broad philosophical instruction, even if it is meant for a particular person, that's what we have in the mind.
But if we don't make it obvious to everyone whom we are talking about, then it is as you say, in the akal bandh ke liye ishara kaafi hota hai. So, these kind of sayings, you can't translate them into English. A sign is enough for the intelligent.
Well, that sweetness is not there in it. But anyway, the point is that, yes, in a group, if we look at Prabhupada's example also, Prabhupada, when he would give classes, when he would write his purports, he was quite categorical in establishing saddhanta. But especially with respect to lapses or wrongdoings among devotees, Prabhupada was not at all very heavy about it.
Prabhupada was very understanding, very accommodating. And Prabhupada did not judge or condemn people for their wrongdoings. And Prabhupada naturally hurt if somebody did wrong.
But Prabhupada maintained the relationship with that person. There is practically no incidence that I know where he castigated a person so much that that person went away. Prabhupada generally would, on an individual level, he would always be gentle.
So the whole point is that there is a time to instruct and correct. And there is a time to just let go, people let go and experience and then they will correct themselves. So the understanding when it will be depends on how receptive or how hostile somebody is to our inputs.
So if our giving some updesho hi murkhana prakopaya na shantaye, that giving instructions to those who are foolish, it only agitates them more. So instead of that, it is better that let them learn their lesson. But in general, if we are talking with a broad community of people, then without making it obvious whom we are targeting, if we give a broad instruction, then that person will probably get the message.
So I will move on to the next point. Second point I was going to make is that we all are finite beings. And we have finite capacities.
So because of this, we all need to choose our battles. Choose our battles means a standard strategy in war is that if a big formidable army is attacking another kingdom, say they are attacking a port. So what happens is that they send a small contingent to attack from one direction.
And the defending army presumes that this big army has come. We need all our resources to defend. And they go in that direction to defend.
And then the major part of the army attacks from the other direction. And then by that way, this army is caught unprepared. In fact, when Duryodhana suspected that the Pandavas are in Matsya, in the Matsya kingdom, at that time, because Bhima had killed Keechaka and Keechaka was so powerful that very few people could kill him.
So at that time he decided to attack and he used this strategy. He had the Trigarta king, Susharma, attack the Matsya kingdom from one side. And because he was also a powerful king and he was attacking, so the whole army went to defend over there.
And then the entire Kuru army came from the other side and attacked. And there was no one to defend. And that's why Bhuminjaya, the son of Virat, along with Brihanalla, who was actually Arjuna, they were the only people left to go and defend from that side.
So what applies in war also applies in real life. That sometimes we want to control one thing, we want to fight one battle. But in trying to fight that battle, we get so obsessed with it and that's not that important a battle.
We get so consumed by it, we get so agitated by it, that some bigger battle that is to be fought, we have no energy, we have no attention, we have no intelligence, we have no emotional stability left for that. So we need to choose our battles. Sometimes some people are doing something wrong and we may get very agitated by it.
Why is this person doing like this? But then we may have some very important meetings, some very important surveys, some very important class and if we let ourselves get too worked up by what that person is doing, then this important service may be lost. We may not be able to perform properly in it. So choosing our battles means, okay, I want to do this well, but if this person is not cooperating, let go.
So tolerance is a strength over here and tolerance means at one sense learning which battles not to fight. Tolerance means learning to accept defeat in some battles so that we can win in some battles or at least to accept a reversal, accept a setback in some battles. So sometimes if we want to, one of the biggest problems for people who want to be successful in life, especially people who are talented, there is a survey done that talented people, how many talented people really become successful? There are childhood prodigies.
Some people are just phenomenally good in childhood. If you see on YouTube, there are movies, there are videos of babies in diapers. They are playing violin and they are playing it accompanying with the orchestra.
Everybody else is playing. How do they learn it? From a reductionistic scientific perspective, there is no way they could know it. It's clear they learned something from their previous lives.
But the point is that these are phenomenally talented prodigies. How many prodigies actually become successes in their later life? So often the childhood talent doesn't translate into success because people are what is called perfectionists. They want everything to be perfect.
No, everything can't be perfect. Sometimes some things you just have to accept. This is the way it is.
But let me focus on this. So if we don't learn to choose our battles properly, then we obsess over a small battle and we end up losing a big battle. So it's like, you know, we could say life is like a cricket match.
In a cricket match, sometimes when the bowler bowls a bouncer and the pitch is very unpredictable, and the batsman says, I am going to hit a six on the bouncer. And the bouncer is such a bad ball that the batsman gets injured trying to hit. The hand gets injured, the head gets injured.
And then what happens is, the batsman has to just hobble back or the batsman can't perform properly and then the batsman gets out. But if there's a bouncer, just tuck under it. And then there's an over pitch delivery, you can hit it for a big boundary or whatever.
So like that, sometimes some problems are like bouncers for us. And actually even in batting, the batsman requires a certain amount of humility to bend down. So if you don't bend down, then the bouncer will hit.
So like that, life sends bouncers our way sometimes. But at least with respect to cricket, you can easily make out this is a bouncer. But sometimes what happens, in a pitch there's uneven bounce.
You see, they think the ball is normal, and then suddenly it bounces. So like that, sometimes we think this is a small problem, and suddenly it grows out of proportion. But we have to deal with the problem as it actually is, not as we think it is meant to be.
This person is meant to obey me, why is this person not obeying me? But if that person is not obeying, that person is rebelling, we have to let go at that time. So I thought this is a normal ball, it is bouncing. Well, then duck at that time.
So like that, we have finite capacities. And recognizing the limitation of our capacities is vital for us to use those capacities properly. So, sometimes we are put in situations where we just can't do anything about anything, or anything about a particular thing.
So at that time, we just need to, we need to just recognize, just stay silent. I was talking with one senior devotee, who was a GBC member, a guru and a sanyasi in our movement. And now he has retired.
So I asked him that, a nice talk we had. So I asked him about how, when he was a GBC member, he was in the center, and now he is little in the sidelines. So how does he feel about it? So he told me, now I feel liberated from the need to have an opinion about everything that is happening in ISKCON.
I feel liberated from the need to have an opinion about everything that is happening in ISKCON. Because sometimes what happens, different devotees do different things. Oh, this person spoke like that, this person did like that, this person did like that.
What do you think about this? What do you think about this? What do you think about this? And some people are what is called motor mouth. You know, they are loose cannon. Loose cannon is like, if there is a cannon, and a cannon is meant to shoot the enemy.
But if the cannon is loose, normally a cannon, you have to press it forcefully, then it shoots out. But loose cannon means you touch it, and the cannon goes out. And then, instead of injuring the opposite person, it may injure some of your own members only.
So some people, their mouth is like a loose cannon. So, little trigger, and they speak. And when they start speaking, they hurt others and they hurt themselves also.
So, such people, actually when we have to give, if we have to give our opinion on something, we have to think carefully. A very important aspect of learning to speak effectively is to learn when not to speak. Most of us, when we talk about speaking, how can I speak more articulately? How can I speak more eloquently or attractively? Yes, all that is good.
But, especially if you are in a leadership position, when not to speak. That is extremely important. Many times I have seen that, when I ask His Holiness Radhath Maharaj of any controversial issues in our movement.
I am a part of Shastrik Advisory Council, so we have to deal with many of these issues. So, when I ask Maharaj about this, Maharaj says that, in one particular volatile issue, Maharaj said that, I have heard good arguments in support for it, and I have heard bad arguments in support for it. And I have heard good arguments against it, and I have heard bad arguments against it.
I have not yet heard any clinching argument on this side. So, I have not decided anything about it. So, it was a very balanced opinion, in the sense that, not that he is non-committal.
He is not saying that, I don't care about it. He says, if somebody presents a clinching argument, I am open to hear about it. But, because I am not going to hear a clinching argument, I have heard good arguments and bad arguments.
So, what happens by this statement, sometimes some people may really make bad arguments. But, if you just hold them for their bad arguments and say, your case is so poor, but they may have good arguments also. So, basically, there are times when, if we want to focus on a particular service, then, just speaking about this and speaking about that and speaking about that, we may unnecessarily end up creating enemies.
So, if we recognize our capacities are finite, then use those finite capacities in a focused way for doing what is our priority, what is our purpose. And that way, we can be constructive, we can be productive. So, this is the second point.
We have, because our capacity is finite, we need to know which battles, we need to choose which battles we fight. Any questions or comments about this? So, the last point, I will conclude with that. So, then I said that, third point is that, now we may say, I want to make the other person use their free will properly.
But, we need to use our free will properly. And to use our free will properly, we need to do what it takes to nourish ourselves. So, sometimes, we may want this person, I want this person to do the right thing.
But, if we get too emotionally involved in some person, then, we may become so agitated that we may end up using our free will wrongly. We may become impulsive, we may speak rashly. Going back to the earlier example, if somebody is about to go off a cliff or a high building they are about to walk off, and we tell them, don't walk.
And we run towards them and try to catch them. And now they are so determined to walk off there, and if we catch and hold on to them, instead of we saving them, they will drag us down. And not only will they fall down and injure themselves, we will also fall down and injure ourselves.
So, if we get too emotionally entangled with someone, and that person is going on the wrong track, and if we go along with them, then we will also fall down. So, sometimes getting too emotionally involved in anything can weaken our capacity to use our free will properly. So, I was talking with one of our leaders, he said that, it is only the detached people who are the most loving, who can be the most loving.
So, I was thinking about this, I wrote a Gita Delhi article about this, that detachment is not absence of emotion, it is absence of emotional dependence. See, if we are detached, that doesn't mean we have no emotion, we don't care for anyone. But there is a difference between emotion and emotional dependence.
So, when we are emotionally dependent on someone, then that person's pleasure or displeasure with us becomes the basis of our actions. So, Dhritarashtra was attached to Duryodhana. And what does attached mean? Means he was emotionally dependent on Duryodhana.
And if Duryodhana became very demanding about something, if Duryodhana was upset about something, then Dhritarashtra just couldn't say no about it. And what he would say, if Vidura told him, just don't do this, he said, but he is my son, he is my son, he is your son and you are meant to care for him. So, renunciation or detachment doesn't mean absence of emotion, but it means absence of emotional dependence.
So, absence of emotional dependence means that one doesn't become so emotionally entangled with the other person that one can't act properly. Now, this emotional dependence can be in both ways. Both ways means that if the person, I force the person to listen to me and still I am caught, is this person doing what I am telling or not, is this person doing what I am telling or not.
And I try to micro control the other person. And emotional dependence can also be that if this person doesn't do what I am telling, how dare this person not do what I am telling. What is going to happen to them? What is going to happen to them? What is going to happen to them? So, if we tell them to do something and then we worry, if we are in the position of authority and we tell them to do something because it's our project or whatever.
And if we are constantly worried, is this person upset with me, is this person upset with me? No, we have to get the thing done, we can't be emotionally caught in that. So, an example for this will be surgery. Now, if a surgeon has to operate someone, now operation means there will be pain and the patient will oppose.
And the patient usually has to give consent. If the patient is minor, then the adult who is the guardian of the patient has to give consent. Now, if the patient is a minor and the patient is crying and screaming and protesting, I don't want to do this.
Then the doctor cannot be so emotionally dependent on the patient that the doctor doesn't give the injection or doesn't do the surgery. The child says, no, this causes so much pain, I don't want the injection. And the doctor says, I don't want to give the injection.
If the doctor has to give the injection, then lack of emotional dependence means you do what you are told to do. But suppose the patient is adult and the patient says, I don't want to take this injection. I don't want to do this surgery.
And the patient just walks away. And now the doctor is meant to treat the next patient. But the doctor is still worried.
Why did this patient not listen to me? Doesn't he have faith in me? I am such a good doctor, I have cured so many patients. How dare this patient not obey me? I am personally concerned what will happen to this patient. The patient may die.
But the doctor may be insecure. How can he not listen to me? And if that makes the doctor inattentive and the doctor can't then treat the next patients. Then again it will be a problem.
So we need to do what it takes to nourish ourselves by which we can use our free will properly. And that's why when I talk about choosing our battles, one part of choosing our battles is something we don't have control on. We let go and focus on what we have control on.
But even to do what we have control on, we need to have some calmness. We need to have some clarity. And sometimes we need to just take a step back.
Take a step back and nourish ourselves. Now we have to see what nourishes ourselves. It may be hearing scriptures, it may be chanting, it may be associating with some devotees.
It may be just contemplating on some verses. Whatever nourishes us, we have to find that and we have to do that. And then doing that also involves letting go.
And when we do that, we let go at that time. We let go of things so that we can catch hold of our thoughts. Otherwise we hold on to things and our thoughts go wild.
And then we become dysfunctional. But we let go of things so that we can catch hold of our thoughts. We can calm our thoughts.
And then we can concentrate our thoughts on that which is productive. On that in which we can be effective. And that is the way we can function properly.
Prabhupada was like that. When Prabhupada found that in India people were not receptive. People were receptive but not serious.
People were receptive, yes, you come and do some katha. Prabhupada was in Mumbai and Sumati Moraji, we asked her for, she was the owner of the Sindia shipping company, we asked for passage to America. And she said, Swamiji if you want to speak Bhagavatam, please come to my house, I will be here everyday.
Now Prabhupada didn't want to speak Bhagavatam like that as a pious ritual. Prabhupada wanted to speak Bhagavatam as a means of transforming people. So then Prabhupada, he saw that Indians are not yet ready.
Indians are enamored by the West. So he was trying, trying. So he had spent 40 years in India.
But Prabhupada let go of India. And he chose, this is a battle, I can't fight right now. And he went to America.
So when we let go of the battles which we can't fight, then we can focus on the battles which we can fight. And Prabhupada was miraculously successful in America by Krishna's mercy. And then when he came back to India, at that time he not only fought that battle but he won that battle.
Of course, not many people became devotees per se. But many people became very appreciative, many people became life members and the foundation of the movement was set in India. And in next generation, the seeds that were sown were reaped widely where India has now become the powerhouse of the movement entirely.
There are more devotees, more temples, more books distributed. It's big. So Prabhupada chose his battles.
And we too can learn from him, follow his example and choose our battles wisely. So I'll summarize. I spoke on the theme of taking responsibility means knowing when not to take responsibility.
So the theme was that here Brahma and Vishnu did not intervene when this chaos happened in the assembly of Daksha. So I talk about three points. First is that everyone has free will and others can't sometimes control their free will.
Not even God can control. When we are in authority position and somebody is subordinate, we see them doing something wrong and we try to stop them. Now that may be because we want their good or that may be because we also want to have good image that our subordinates are very good.
And if we try to control them too much, they may end up becoming offensive. And sin is bad. If they don't listen to us, they will do sin.
But sin will bring humility and they may come back to the right track again. Offense will disconnect them from Krishna. So sometimes we help people learn by their intelligence and sometimes we let people go so that they learn by their experience.
And when to do this? It requires reading people properly, understanding how receptive or how hostile they are to our intervention. And second point I talked is that because our capacities are finite, we need to choose our battles wisely. So if a defending army just sends its full force to attack a small contingent of the advancing army and the remaining advancing army attacks from the other side, the defending fort will be overpowered.
So like that, sometimes a small problem, we put all our emotional tension in that small problem and something, a bigger responsibility, we are unable to do that. So we have to see which, what is more important for us and let go of small things. So tolerance means learning to accept defeat in small battles so that we can fight and win the bigger battles.
Tolerance means that when life throws a bouncer at us, we learn to duck under it, not try to deal with every problem the same way. By using our energies, our finite capacities, where we can be most productive, we can actually make a difference instead of simply reducing ourselves to impotence by fighting to win battles that we can't win. And the last part was, in order to fight the battles that we can fight, we still need to nourish ourselves so that we can use our free will properly.
If somebody is walking off a high building, we may naturally want to save them, but if they are not understanding how it is so dangerous and they are bent on going that way down, if we hold on to them, they may cause us to fall down also. So getting too emotionally entangled in anything or anyone can weaken our capacity to act properly. So detachment is not absence of emotion, but absence of emotional dependence.
Emotional dependence can come in two ways. We get the person to do the right thing, but we are constantly worried, is that person liking me or not? Like a doctor who gives an injection to a child, but is worried, is the child liking me or not? Or it can come also if somebody goes away from us and we are still obsessed with why did that person not listen to me and we don't do our duty. Like a doctor who has agitated the patient, didn't take their advice and can't give proper treatment to other patients.
So just as Krishna has the opulence of renunciation, where he can let go of things. That when somebody is not ready to listen, Krishna was not a warmongering God, Krishna sought peace with Duryodhana, but when Duryodhana did not listen, Krishna accepted that. Krishna accepted failure in his mission as a peace messenger and therein he accepted the opulence of renunciation.
Similarly as devotees of Krishna, we also need to exhibit renunciation, not just of things, but also of controllership. So sometimes we need to take a step back, nourish ourselves and then fight the battles which we can fight. Prabhupada was pragmatic in this.
When he found that the battle in India could not be won, he opened a new front in America and gained dramatic victory over there and eventually gained dramatic victory in India also. By following in his footsteps and choosing where to take responsibility wisely, we can tap opportunities and make constructive contributions. Thank you very much.
Hare Krishna. So our doing that is that we should be detached. Okay.
Say somebody feels, somebody wants us to micro-control their lives, they want us to be involved in their lives, then should we do that or should we avoid micro-controlling? See now what is micro-control? It's an assessment. So it will vary from person to person. Different people have different psychologies.
Understanding people is important for dealing with them properly. So when somebody is doing a service and we ask them, how is the service going? Now they feel valued, they feel cared for, they feel concerned about me and you want to help me. Some other people, you give them a service and tell them, how is it going? Don't you trust me? I'll get it done.
So why do you have to intervene again and again? So people are not like machines, that we can use one program for all people. So that's why we have to see how different people respond to different things. So sometimes when we appreciate someone and the person feels, thank you very much.
Some people when we appreciate them, they just think we are flattering them so that we can get them to do more things. So we have to see, sometimes when we speak with people, we also have to hear how people respond to what we speak. And you can learn a lot about people by how they respond.
So what their need is, what their concern is, what their sore spot is, all that we learn by hearing people, by watching their actions. So basically, it will vary from person to person. In principle, we should not micro-control anyone.
But if people want more, some people like more guidance, some people like less guidance. And we have to modulate the relationship accordingly. Of course, over a period of time, it's good to set people free, to train people to think for themselves because we may not always be available for them.
But how fast we set whom free, that will vary from person to person. So it's like, say a mother has a baby, and now every mother wants the baby to learn to walk by themselves. But some babies may start walking at six months, not six months, maybe that's too early, maybe at one year or something like that.
Some babies may start walking freely only after maybe 15 months, 17 months. So now, after the baby starts walking freely, the mother should not keep holding the hand afterwards. But the mother should not let go of the hand when the baby is not yet ready to walk.
So we'll have to moderate according to each person's level. But the mother cannot be always holding the hand. So we cannot always be guiding people on every decision.
But instead of just saying that you take this decision, and they may feel that we are washing hands of them, they may feel abandoned by that, then we can be a little more sensitive, we can say that, what do you think you should do? She says, no, no, no, I'll do whatever you tell me. No, I want to know what do you think you should do. You know, I think if I do this, this will happen, if I do this, this will happen, therefore I want to do this.
Then we can also understand how maturely they are thinking. And yeah, it makes sense, you can go ahead. Did you think about, instead of saying, oh, this is wrong, did you think about this? Oh, I didn't think about this possibility.
So we basically get them thinking, and if their thinking is deficient in some way, we point it out. So if Krishna had wanted to give Arjuna a decision, fight the war, Krishna could have spoken that in just one word. He didn't have to speak 700 verses.
The 700 verses were spoken so that Krishna could explain to Arjuna the rationale for the decision, and not just the rationale for the decision, not just the reasoning for the decision, but also the worldview underlying the reasoning, so that Arjuna could take decisions on his own in future. So the similar should be our broad attitude in dealing with others. Thank you.
Yes. As you told that people, two types of people, by intelligence and by experience. So, as you know that the soul is connected to the material things, like Baljeeva.
So, by Baljeeva, we feel everything, or exhibit through mind. So, as you told that sometimes problems come, one has to be, if you see the bounced ball, one has to be a little humble. So, how things are operated, somebody so intelligent, so that not to face any wrong consequences in life, so that really humble himself, or he has to go under the experience, then he learns.
So, this loop actually goes in life, and how things happen, so that in order to protect, nourish himself and also serve others. How do you think, any practical way to understand the things? So, when do we learn things by intelligence, and when do we have to go through experience to learn things? Is it determined by, say, our past, or what can we do to change it? First of all, we have to be clear that learning by experience is not always a bad thing, because we have to see what we are experiencing. Sometimes, some experience also teaches certain things, and we learn them much better through the experience.
So, if it's like a disastrous thing that somebody is doing, then that is something which has to be considered. So, that had better be avoided. But it depends on the, it also largely depends on the strength of the conditioning from the past also.
We all come with certain samskaras from the past, and certain things we just can't do without, at a particular phase in our life. So, even by intelligence, I understand this is insubstantial, but no, it doesn't seem insubstantial at that time. It doesn't seem just temporary or flickering.
It just seems irresistible at that time. So, then, if a desire is troubling us too much, then we may have to do the needful to go through that experience. The important thing is not to shift our purpose.
It's like, if I am going in this direction, I may go by this path, I may go by this path. So, sometimes we may fail, sometimes we may set certain standards, and we may not be able to stick to those standards. So, I gave a whole class in New York, in Central New Jersey, on this topic of, that even if we fail, we can fail in Krishna Consciousness, not fail out of Krishna Consciousness.
What does that mean? Fail out of Krishna Consciousness means, say, somebody wants to fast, and they feel very hungry, I want to eat, I want to eat, I want to eat, I want to eat. Now, because of that, they just give in and they eat. Now, you could say from the standard of fasting, they have failed.
But, somebody can fail, and they may think, oh, this fasting doesn't work for me, this Krishna Consciousness, I have told you, if I become Krishna Conscious, I will transcend all bodily needs. And, I couldn't transcend hunger, therefore Krishna Consciousness doesn't work. And, not only you are fasting, but you also lose faith in Krishna Consciousness also.
Then, that means we are failing out of Krishna Consciousness. But, okay, Krishna Consciousness is ultimately, if I understand, Krishna Consciousness is ultimately the connection of the soul with Krishna, and that soul's connection will be naturally channeled through the body. And, different bodies have different circumstantial needs.
So, my body can't tolerate hunger. So, Ayurveda says that if somebody has a very high Vata Prakriti, Vahapitta Prakriti, then you can't tolerate hunger much. So, whatever, certain bodies can't tolerate hunger.
So, accept that. And, okay, it's not that Krishna Consciousness is not working. Krishna Consciousness in this pattern may not work for you.
Then, I am failing, but I am failing in Krishna Consciousness. That, okay, instead of thinking of Krishna Consciousness as, see, this is a success, this is failure, and we think this is Krishna Consciousness. But, Krishna Consciousness is so big that, sorry, this is success and this is failure.
We think success is Krishna Consciousness. But, Krishna Consciousness is so big that, Krishna Consciousness includes success and failure. Sometimes, I may eat food, and then I may sit down and chant, I may sit down and hear, and I am able to be more Krishna Conscious by that.
So, it may well be that somebody who is fasting, they may apparently be here, and they are successful in Krishna Consciousness. But, if that person is looking down at others, you know, this person eating so much food. Somebody fasts and then goes to the kitchen and sees who is eating what.
This person is so attached. This person is such a sense gratifier. Then, their body is fasting, but their ego is feasting.
And, they are not going to be Krishna Conscious. So, we shouldn't reduce Krishna Consciousness to one standard and success in one standard. So, even if we can't be here, we can be here.
And, this is not failure. Krishna Conscious is so big that it accommodates failure also. That is the mood of Apichet Sudracharo, Bhajate Ma Mananyabhag, Sadhu Rev Samantavya, Samyag Vyavasithohisa.
Even if somebody commits the most reprehensible of activities, but still, if they remain determined to serve me, then they are to be considered well situated. That is considered. The word Sadhu can mean good, Sadhu, Sadhu, very good.
Or, it can mean, Sadhu can mean saintly also. So, Samacharyas say that this means saintly, that they be considered saintly. Samacharyas say that it is good.
They are still good because they are moving towards the good purpose. So, we have to just see how much inner resistance we face when we are doing a particular activity. Say, if we can't, if we process with our intelligence, but still, there is a lot of resistance from inside, then we may have to, you know, we can't be here, we will have to be here.
We have to learn through experience. So, we shouldn't consider learning through experience as a failure because we are learning. If we just go through the experience and don't learn, then we keep repeating the experience again and again and again and again and then that is falling out, that is failing out of Krishna consciousness.
So, we don't have to, whatever happens, if we decide, I am never going to stop trying to be Krishna conscious, then we won't, we will find that Krishna consciousness is very accommodating. It is very broad in its scope and we can find our way to be Krishna conscious. What happens is that Krishna consciousness is not so difficult, but we are attached to a particular way of being Krishna conscious.
Either we ourselves are attached to being Krishna conscious in that way or others are attached to that we should be Krishna conscious in that way. Then that is what the problem comes up. But if we recognize that I have my body, I have my mind and it is with my body and my mind that I have to practice bhakti.
So, how can I do that best? So, I can take guidance from others, but I have to learn it myself. We don't work for our body and mind, that is like simply pandering to the body and mind, that will make us fall out of Krishna consciousness. But we can't work against our body and mind also because they are our resources.
So, we have to work with our body and mind. So, that means that there will sometimes be conflict, but we can't have a state of constant inner conflict. If there is a constant inner torment going on, then we have to make sure that we are fighting that battle at a level which we can win, not at a level that we are constantly being wounded and crushed.
So, thank you very much.