Vidura-Dhritarashtra relationship – The contrast of commitment and attachment

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Shri Prabhupada ki Jai. Hare Krishna. So, we will discuss today on the first canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, how Dhritarashtra went from having many experiences to becoming experienced.
The first canto of Srimad Bhagavatam sets the setting for the Bhagavatam itself. And we all have many experiences in life. But just having experiences doesn’t necessarily improve, make one experienced.
Because to be experienced is to be about having good judgment. The capacity to make wise decisions. The capacity to understand, understand life’s realities and to respond to them wisely.
Now, if you look at scripture, the primary purpose of scripture is to help us learn how to live our life wisely. The Bhagavad Gita is not primarily a book about war, although it is spoken on a battlefield. And when Arjuna has faced with the question, what do I do? Should I fight or should I not fight? Now, sometimes to understand one thing, we have to change how we understand everything.
To understand one thing, we have to change how we understand everything. Why? Because that one thing is so confusing, that so complex, that it cannot be understood in isolation. So, for Arjuna to understand, should I fight or should I not fight this war? He had to change his understanding of everything.
His understanding of everything means, okay, who am I? What is life meant for? Normally, we all go through life with certain assumptions about how life is meant to be lived. And those assumptions do work for us using the normal framework of life. So, to think that I am the body and to live accordingly, it’s, you could say, the normal way of living.
And it does work for some of the time. But it’s when we lose our bodily capacity. So, either we lose somebody, loved one, or we lose our own capacity to move, mobility or whatever, then suddenly our capacity to live gets deprived.
And then, at that time, we question our assumptions about life. What is life meant for? So, it is to answer that question, we need to question everything. And without that questioning everything, if we superimpose our own conceptions, then we don’t really gain proper understanding.
So, the Bhagavatams, Prabhupada also says in one purport, that the purpose of the Krishna consciousness movement is to change how people think. It is not just to change what we think about. Yes, of course, we want to think about Krishna.
But unless we change how we think, we will otherwise fit Krishna into our own existing way of thinking and our worldview. So, Krishna will just become another object of maybe pious entertainment. Krishna is not an object of pious entertainment.
He is the objective of perennial enlightenment. When we become enlightened, we understand that enlightenment culminates in Krishna. So, how we think is what the Bhagavatam wants us to change, not just what we think about.
Now, so now how we think, what does it mean? It means our worldview. It means how we look at the world. And it means how we function in the world.
Like sometimes some people might get, they may observe the same thing, but they may come to a completely different conclusion. Somebody might say, electronic objects, they need smoke to function. Why? Why would you say such a thing? Because after smoke comes out of them, then they stop functioning.
So, what have they done? They completely got the cause effect wrong over there. It is not that after smoke comes out, they stop functioning. It is rather when they stop functioning, then smoke starts coming out.
So, we might take a same set of observations, but come to a completely opposite conclusion. So, materialistic people may say, oh, youth is temporary. We also say youth is temporary.
They say youth is temporary, therefore, enjoy before your youth goes away. I saw an advertisement, youth is temporary, enjoy before you become a dirty old guy. So, the facts are the same, but the inferences that we draw from those facts, they can vary.
And actually, in many ways, facts themselves are dead. It is ideas that are alive. It is the desire that are alive.
It is hopes and dreams that are alive. So, if somebody has a house, it’s a small house, it’s a big house, that’s a fact. But, it is, sometimes you can have a big house, it’s like, the house is like a graveyard.
Because the people living over there are completely lonely or suspicious. They have this big house, but the only facility that big house provides them is the facility for large space in which to feel lonely and unhappy. Nothing more than that.
Sometimes people may live in a small house, but if their family is well connected and they relate with each other very nicely, then there is life over there. So, just as it applies to objects, same applies to facts themselves. Or, you could say dead, but it is ideas that are alive.
So, the fact is that life is temporary, youth is temporary. That’s a fact. But, what does it imply? What is the idea, what is the worldview that we bring to that fact? That is what is important.
Parikshit Maharaj was cursed to die in seven days. That’s a fact. But, what is the idea of how to live that he brings into those five days? That is what has changed.
So, sometimes people say that, okay, you practice all the spiritual business, but still you are also going to die. You also get deceased. So, yeah, facts.
Facts are what they are. The fact that we are going to die is not going to be changed just because we become spiritual. But rather, how we approach death.
And, of course, where we go after death. Now, somebody may say, who has seen where somebody goes after death? That’s okay. You will not see where we go after that, but you can see how we live before death also.
Spiritualist life is much more meaningful, much more deeply joyful even in this world. In the 11th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, the example is given of, two examples basically of how in the Virat Rupa is being shown, the Kaala Rupa is shown over there. In the universal form, the time manifestation is shown.
And the time manifestation, Pathanatinam Bahoam Bhuvega Samudrameva Vimukha Dravindi That just as the rivers go into the ocean, similarly, Arjuna is saying, I see living beings entering into you. And then he gives another metaphor. He says, Ithaapadam Ithaapatangam Pradeeptam Jwalanta That just as moths enter into fire.
So, in the Srivastava Sampradaya, one of the most prominent successors, successor Acharyas after Ramacharya is Vedanta Deshika. And he has written a sub commentary on the Gita. But then he gives a beautiful analysis of this, two metaphors.
He said that when a moth enters into fire, the moth is completely destroyed. Its body is destroyed, its world is destroyed, its life ends. But when a river flows towards the ocean, two things happen.
The river’s essential nature doesn’t change. The river is water flowing, enters into the ocean, water keeps flowing. And also, while the river is flowing, it nourishes all the land nearby.
It nourishes the vegetation nearby. It provides water to the people nearby. So, similarly, the example is that the moth rushing towards the fire is like materialistic people living.
They are rushing towards the fire of death where everything will end for them. And at that time, their whole world view is completely destroyed. Their whole world is destroyed.
What I am living for, everything is lost. Because they may live for money, they may live for fame, they may live for position. Everything is lost.
So, when we are very attached to something, we just incorporate everything that we know into that world view itself. I have written a book on reincarnation. So, I was asked a question which was probably the funniest question I have been asked in my life till now.
What was that question? So, one boy asked me. He says, I am in love with this girl. But somehow, you know, our parents are not agreeing.
So, we are unable to marry. So, what karma can I do by which I can reincarnate in the next life and marry her? So, that I am a soul. What has happened? Bollywood has had many movies.
What they have done is they have used reincarnation as a plot point. As a plot twist basically. So, people have this.
The idea of reincarnation has been romanticized and sensationalized. Many people have this idea. I want to find my soul mate.
Yes, it’s good to find a compatible partner. But the idea that there is some partner with whom we are going lifetime after lifetime after lifetime. I said, whenever people ask me this question, how can I find my soul mate? I said, first find your soul.
Then you can worry about the mate. So, if the basic world view has not been changed, then the idea of soul and reincarnation simply get imposed on that world view. And then people just don’t really grow much by that.
So, we need to change how we think. Without that, knowledge. See, there is knowledge and there is purpose of knowledge.
Gyanam Jnanam Jnanam Jnanam Videsa Arvasya Veshtatam in the third chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says, that there is knowledge, there is object of knowledge and there is objective of knowledge. It’s a very interesting distinction. There is knowledge.
Say for example, there is engineering knowledge. So, now, I got a degree in electronics engineering. So, that is knowledge.
The object of knowledge is, OK, I studied computers, I studied television, I studied various electronic gadgets. But while I was studying there, I found that for most students, what is the objective of knowledge? Their objective of knowledge was money, jobs, position, prestige. They wanted to be top in their class so that they would attract the girls.
So, the objective of knowledge was very mundane. So, what we study and why we study, they are two different things. So, what the Bhagavad Gita says is that for a devotee, the object and objective of knowledge both have to be Krishna.
We study about Krishna so that we attain Krishna. Now, when somebody is a pious materialist, then they study about Krishna but so that they may come and worship Krishna, they may come and hear Bhagavad Katha. But their purpose is so that Krishna will make my life in this world better.
So, the object is Krishna but the objective is not Krishna. So, the Bhagavatam tells us how Parikshit Maharaj made both his object and objective Krishna. Now, if you see, before the actual Parikshit Maharaj and Shukadeva Goswami’s pastime starts, there is this whole pastime of, many pastimes before that, but one of the pastimes which defines the mood of the Bhagavatam is this pastime of Vidura and Dhritarashtra.
Vidura and Dhritarashtra have a very interesting relationship. It’s at one level a very perplexing relationship. I was giving a seminar on relationships.
If two people have a relationship, how do you know that relationship is successful? So, one devotee raised his hand and said, if the people don’t kill each other, that is also one level of success. I said, okay, at least you survive and you live. Live and let live.
That is also one level of success. So, if two people are in a relationship, one parameter of success, at a very broad level, you don’t destroy each other. Sometimes you will feel like doing that.
Especially when people frustrate us, they feel like doing that. But then we could say success of a relationship is that when each of us are in trouble, then what happens? We help each other. So, what happens is, if you have good friends, the good friends take you to lunch.
Bad friends take your lunch. So, whatever you are, they take it away from you when they get the opportunity. But so we could say that when we are in need, as I say, a friend in need is a friend in need.
So, when we are in trouble, somebody helps us. Or when the other person is in trouble, we help them. That’s also friendship.
So, sometimes trouble comes right upon us and then we seek help. And if somebody helps us, we can say, oh, this is a person I can count on. But sometimes it may be that, you see, sometimes trouble comes upon us and sometimes we chase trouble.
Sometimes we do things which are going to get us into trouble. Although at that time we may not perceive that, okay, this is going to cause trouble. And then, if we have a friend, that friend may tell us, okay, if you do this, this is going to get you into trouble.
Better avoid this. So, another level, another, say, one level of success, the second level of success of relationship could be that when we are in trouble, we help each other. But even more is when somebody is going to, doing something that is going to get them into trouble.
At that time, a friend warns them, don’t do this. This is going to get you into trouble. And that is where often the friendship gets tested.
Because when the trouble is upon us and somebody helps us, yeah, we feel grateful. But when the trouble has not yet come upon us and we have our own ideas of how things I should be doing, and somebody tells us, don’t do this, then what happens? Why is this person telling me about this? We often ascribe our own motives to this. You know what I mean? So, this is what happens to Ravan, that after Hanuman comes and wrecks Lanka, burns it and goes back.
After that, Ravan calls an assembly of war. He says, our capital has been attacked. So, it was half of Lanka Ravan had burned down.
Sorry, Hanuman had burned down. So, he says, we have been attacked. What do we do? And then he starts by saying, a foolish king just acts according to his impulses and makes everyone do what they want, what the king decides.
But a wise king seeks advice from his friends, advisors, ministers. And then implied is that I am a wise king. But then what happens? Now, all his generals speak what he wants to hear.
And they say that actually, yes, Hanuman is just a monkey. No, he was able to cause some damage because he caught us unawares. But now that we are prepared, if he comes again, we won’t be surprised, he will be surprised.
Some people say, actually, you know, we should chase him right now and go wherever he is and we will attack him and punish him. Nobody who attacks Lanka should be allowed to go unpunished. And they all, not one of them addressed the cause, the actual cause of the aggression, cause of the problem.
That is Ravan’s abduction of Sita. But at that time, there is only one voice of sanity. Whose was that? Vibhishan.
Now, Vibhishan spoke this and he also knew that this was going to be a difficult conversation. Because generally, when we live with people, we also get a sense of what they like to hear and what they don’t like to hear. And generally, if something is unpleasant, we will avoid speaking that.
But if something has to be spoken, then we also have to approach it very carefully. So, Vibhishan approaches carefully. He says that, oh, Ravan, I speak this as your brother and you are Vibhishan.
Oh, Ravan, you do not have immunity from humans as well as monkeys. And our current aggressors are both humans and monkeys. And in this case, it is we who are to be blamed.
Because we attacked them first. It was we who, he did not say, you did this. He says that we should return Sita.
Because we have abducted Sita. And then he says, we should not forget the power of Ram. Because alone he destroyed our 14,000 soldiers, Rakshasas and Janasthams.
And he starts speaking. He makes a very strong case. But at that time, immediately Ravan says, first Indrajit gets up.
He says, are you really a Rakshasa? He says, you are afraid of our enemies. Rakshasa is fearless. He says, you are so afraid of your enemies and you are creating fear of our enemies within us.
Now, there is a difference between fearlessness and foolhardiness. Fearlessness is where there is danger and that danger is unavoidable. A person fearlessly faces that danger.
Foolhardiness is where the person goes into danger. Like somebody, if somebody steps off a 10-storey building, what are you doing? I am checking gravity works till now. Well, gravity will work and you will stop working.
So, that is, some danger is unnecessary. That is not, that is not fearlessness. That is foolishness.
It’s foolhardiness. So, but when Vibhishan spoke those words, one by one Ravana and Chandra stood up and he continued saying what Ravana wanted to say. And Ravana rejected what Vibhishan said.
Not only he rejected what Vibhishan said, he even rejected Vibhishan himself. So, now, a similar dynamic is there in the first canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam where Vidura gives good advice to Dhritarashtra. Repeatedly refuses to hear.
In fact, if you consider, this story is very interesting also for another reason because traditional cultures were quite hierarchical. Hierarchical means that somebody is in a position, they are to be offered all respect and submission. And the whole Bhagavatam’s mood is that devotion inverts all hierarchies.
In fact, I have a whole class on how Bhagavatam inverts the hierarchies. But let’s consider this, that somebody who is conventionally, traditionally considered superior and somebody else is considered inferior. But if the person who is considered inferior has devotion, then they become superior to the person who does not have devotion.
So, this is right now seen in here itself when Dhritarashtra is the king in terms of position as well as age. He is greater. Vidura is not just, not the king, he is not even, he is younger, but he is also from inferior birth.
Although the same father, but from a lower mother. So, in every way he is inferior. But we will see the same theme again.
Normally demons are considered lower than devotees. But there is a pastime in the Bhagavatam, sorry, than the devatas. But there is a pastime where the demon is shown to be greater than the devatas.
Which is that pastime? Dhritarashtra. Dhritarashtra is greater than whom? Indra. Dhritarashtra is a demon, Indra is a devata.
Then there is another pastime after that where a demon is shown to be greater than not just one devata, but better than all the devatas. Which is that? Prahlad. All the devatas try to pacify Vishnu, Narasimha, but they don’t pacify.
He is not pacified. But it is Prahlad alone who pacifies. And normally we have, brahmanas are considered higher than kshatriyas.
Sanyasis are considered higher than grahasthas. But there is a pastime where there is a grahastha and a kshatriya who trumps, maybe I shouldn’t use the word trump, who supersedes brahmana and sanyasi. Which is that pastime? Ambarish Maharaj and Darvasa Muni.
So Darvasa Muni is a great sage and he is a renunciate. But when he tries to attack Ambarish Maharaj, he is rendered powerless. Sudarshan Chakra starts chasing him.
In the 10th canto itself, we have the yajnik brahmanas and their wives. So the brahmanas are very good brahmanas, but when Krishna comes, they don’t pay attention to Krishna. Where are their wives go? And Krishna blesses their wives.
So they are considered higher than husbands. And then of course we have the topmost devotees of the Bhagavatam are the gopis. The gopis are simple cowherd women, but when Uddhava comes there, now Uddhava is a prince, Uddhava is also a devotee, but he says the gopis’ devotion is such that I feel as if I have no devotion at all.
So the Bhagavatam inverts all hierarchies. So the hierarchies are important for functioning in the world. In particular settings, particular hierarchies are required.
But what the Bhagavatam shows is, if somebody has devotion, then no hierarchy is greater than devotion. So similarly over here, Nitrashtra is the king, but Vidura is, although younger in age, position and birth, he is far higher. And what does Vidura do? Vidura has a very difficult task because there are different times we all become blinded.
See what does blinding mean? We all have certain opinions about certain things. Now our opinion is like say this object. Suppose this is a phone.
If I hold it here, say I can’t see even if I’m holding it here. But the closer I bring it, if I bring it here, then I can’t see anything except this phone. So like that all of us have opinions.
But the closer we hold the opinion to us, the lesser we can see anything else except that opinion. So we can’t avoid having opinions because we need to function in life and we need to have some functional understandings. But we need to hold our opinions lightly, not tightly.
If we hold them tightly, then we can’t perceive anything else. So now opinion is just another word in this context. We can have our opinions.
We can have our attachments. We can have our desires. These are all natural.
We can have our expectations. But none of these can we hold them very tightly. If we hold them tightly, they blind us.
If you don’t hold them at all, that is also not going to work. Some people, nowadays some people have this idea that if somebody has any belief, OK, you believe in God, you believe in this religion, you believe in this tradition, then that will make you narrow minded. Because then you will have only that belief and you will not accept anything else.
It’s not like that. See, it’s like we need to be open minded. But our mind is like our mouth.
The mouth should be open to take some food inside. But to keep the food inside, the mouth also has to close. So like that, we need to be open minded to receive ideas.
But after that, we have to hold those ideas. We have to mould our life according to those ideas. So we need to hold on to ideas, opinions, but we cannot hold on to them so tightly that we become blind.
So Dhritarashtra was blind, not just physically, but also metaphysically. And he was blinded by his attachments. Who was he attached to? Duryodhana.
Now it’s at one level natural, at another level unnatural. Whenever, say any parents have a child, at that time, it is natural. Natural in the sense that by nature it is arranged, the parents feel a strong affection for their child.
And among all the species that we humans know about, human children have the maximum period for caring. If we have birds, birds come out of their shells and adult bird take care of them for a few months and they start flying on their own. But human children need care for a significant amount of time.
And in that way, if nature had not provided that bond between parents and children, then the parents would not be able to take care of the children. So Prabhupada writes that the affection that the parents feel for children is natural and necessary. It is natural and necessary, but it is not spiritual.
Intrinsically it is not spiritual. Yes, if we see our children as souls and we strive for their spiritual well-being, then it can be spiritualized. But it’s not intrinsically spiritual.
So Dhritarashtra, naturally, because he had wanted a son and finally he got a son, and in the past kingdoms, especially for kings, they also had responsibility of continuing the dynasty. So heir was very important. So he thought Dhritarashtra will be my successor.
So naturally there was attachment. But what is the difference between attachment and affection? Any ideas? What is the difference between attachment and affection? Attachment leads to frustration, affection leads to care. Well, but sometimes even people whom we are affectionate to may not listen to us.
And then that will also lead to frustration, isn’t it? So you are on the right track. But anything else? Yes, please. Attachment is based on taking, affection is based more on giving.
That’s a good point. What do we take or give? Let’s try to apply it to some situation now. Consider Dhritarashtra and Duryodhana.
Duryodhana was his son. What was Duryodhana giving to Dhritarashtra? Frustration. Dhritarashtra expected Duryodhana to perform the same.
Yes, like all parents, he wanted his son to become a powerful king. And then his name, his legacy will live on, his name will spread. That’s a natural parental aspiration.
Sometimes parents feel that all that I was not able to do, I want you to do. That’s understandable. So Dhritarashtra, he was blind, so he was never officially like the functional king.
When he was nominally the king, he wanted my son to become the king. That’s not wrong. You could say that’s a natural parental aspiration.
So, yeah. He couldn’t differentiate between the right or the wrong ways to make his son king. That is because of his attachment.
He just wanted only his son to be the king, whether the right way or the wrong way. OK, that’s a good point. That attachment means that it blinded him to ethics.
He wanted his son to be the king at all costs, whether right or wrong. Now, what would affection have meant? If he had been affectionate, what would it have meant? Affection, when Dhritarashtra will love his son, he can have a desire to be the king, but not following the wrong ways. He should guide him, this is the right way to do it, but not the wrong way.
That is affection. He loves his son, but also protecting him not to do the wrong thing. OK, so affection would mean that he stops him or protects him from doing wrong things.
At least one eye should be open. OK, at least one eye should be open. That’s a good way of putting it.
Yes, thank you. I think we are on the right track. Affection leads you to doing the prescribility, but attachment leads to unlimited desires.
Well, OK, but even affection can lead to a lot of desires. We want maybe our loved ones to do a lot of things, to be wonderful. We may have a lot of expectations from our loved ones also.
I was in America, I was doing this talk on parenting. So at that time there was one lady, she told me that there is a book called Tiger Mom. Tiger Mom is about how Chinese mothers, they are like tigers in trying of protecting and not even protecting, just compelling their children to rise way, way, way high.
So you could say that is attachment. But they may say that’s affection. We want the best for our children.
So and wanting the best for our children, it’s a lot, a lot of things for our children. That’s not necessarily bad. You are on the right track.
But any one more answer, anyone? Yeah, maybe attachment is doing what’s best for oneself or affection is doing what’s best for both people or for the other person. Attachment means doing what’s best for oneself. OK, that’s true.
But then how was letting Duryodhana go on the wrong track good for Dhritarashtra? It is the right track. Maybe let me put it this way. I think attach, when we are attached, we care more for what the other person thinks about us than what we care for that person.
That means we care more for the other person’s opinion about us than for the other person’s well-being. Let me explain this. Suppose there’s a doctor and the doctor has to give the child an injection.
No, this injection will cause you so much pain. I don’t want. You are such a cruel doctor.
Oh no, the child thinks I’m cruel. Let me not do the injection. Now, what is happening over here? The child is caring, the doctor is caring more for the emotions of that person and the perception of that person about me, the child about me, then about the child.
Not giving the child the injection may cause far greater pain to the child. So, when we are attached, we can’t bear the thought that the other person is not pleased with us. When we are attached, then we are emotionally dependent on the other person.
And the other person’s pleasure with us has to become the center of our life. And we will go to any extreme to make sure that the other person is pleased with us. When we are affectionate, of course, that doesn’t mean we want to displease the other person.
Obviously not. But then when we are affectionate, there are limits to what we will do for the other person’s pleasure. We also have our values.
We also have our principles. We have our purposes. And we also have a concern for the other person.
So, if we are emotionally dependent on the other person, then we just can’t act in a principled way. So, Dhritarashtra’s attachment to Duryodhana was that he just couldn’t tolerate Duryodhana being unhappy and especially Duryodhana being unhappy with him. So, anytime Duryodhana wanted to do something terribly wrong, Duryodhana said, this Pandavas, they have become very popular.
You know, we will send them away from our kingdom. He says, how can you send them away? They are my nephews. He says, no, we will send them to Varanavarth.
And there they can go as the representatives of our kingdom. They have a beautiful festival over there. And people of Varanavarth will be happy.
At least that somebody from the kingdom has come to be with them. We have never gone. We haven’t sent anyone for a long time.
Dhritarashtra said, but they are popular here already. If you send them there, they will become popular there also. Then when they come back, they will be even more influential.
Duryodhana said, but who says they will come back? Dhritarashtra was a politician, Duryodhana was a politician. So, they knew what it meant. So, his plan was, they will go there and they will be assassinated over there.
Now, Duryodhana, it’s a horrifying plan to make. But they are his own nephews. Dhritarashtra was about to speak.
And then, people who are, say, don’t have one sense, suppose somebody doesn’t have eyes, then other senses compensate for that. They become very sharp in other senses. Somebody who can’t see, they can hear very sharply.
So, like that, he immediately could sense that Duryodhana had become very tense. Now, his own son was contemplating murder, cold-blooded murder. There is weakness and there is wickedness.
Sometimes people get angry. When they are angry, they may yell at someone, they may shout at someone, they may throw something. And of course, somebody becomes physically violent in anger, that’s bad.
It’s extremely bad. But still, weakness is where anger suddenly surges up and a person does something wrong. But wickedness is where somebody in a cold, calculated way plans how to hurt the other person the most.
So, weakness is hot-headed. Wickedness is cold-blooded. Weakness is impulsive.
Wickedness is calculated. And weakness can be forgiven. But to give forgiveness to wickedness is foolishness.
It’s like, you know, some terrorists are there, they are about to kill. And then, that terrorist’s gun is empty and there is a security person just points a gun at them. He says, oh, no, no, please forgive me, please forgive me.
And this police person puts the gun down and the terrorist takes another gun out and shoots him. You know, when there is wickedness, forgiveness is important, especially in close relationship. We shouldn’t hold grudges against each other.
But when there is wickedness, when there is cold-blooded, calculative attempt to hurt others, at that time, forgiveness is foolishness. That’s why, you know, forgiveness is vital as an individual principle. But as a state, a state itself cannot be forgiven.
A state has to function primarily based on justice. That’s why Brahmanas, it is said, they should forgive. But Kshatriyas who are meant to administer justice, they are meant to punish.
And what was Arjuna’s confusion at the start of the Bhagavad Gita? He was wanting to exhibit Brahminical forgiveness when he had to administer Kshatriya justice. The Pandavas, the Kauravas had done repeated wrongs. And not just one wrong, two wrongs, three wrongs, four wrongs.
At least somebody does some wrong and they realize they are wrong and they apologize for that. But Duryodhana, there is not the slightest apology at all. He conspired to burn the Pandavas, to kill the Pandavas, to defraud them of their kingdom, he sent them to the forest.
But after that, when he came back, what did he say? When Krishna came as Shanti Doodh, Krishna said, just give five villages. And what was Duryodhana’s response? Anyone remembers? Yes, I will not give, thank you, enough land to even put the tip of a needle through. That’s like saying, suppose, say we invite somebody to come for a program.
And you say, actually I have to go here. I have this engagement so I can’t come. They are saying no.
That’s one way of saying no. Suppose if you invite somebody for a program and they say, even if I die, my dead body will never come for your program. Now that is not just a no to the person, no to the request, it’s like a no slamming in the face of the person.
So this was the kind of no he was saying. So there was no apology, no regret, no repentance, no reformation at all. So he deserved to be punished.
So now that extreme came because Duryodhana was never stopped by Dhritarashtra. Dhritarashtra would sometimes make a half-hearted attempt to stop him. But when Duryodhana knew how to push the buttons, how to press the buttons, how to manipulate his father.
And his weakness was that he was so attached. Attached means he couldn’t tolerate Duryodhana being displeased with him. See, being in any responsible position means that sometimes we may have to displease others.
Because we have to take certain decisions and this decision may displease that person. Now, of course, sometimes some people make it a business of displeasing everyone. That is unhealthy.
But if everybody around us is displeased with us, then it’s quite possible that something is wrong with us. Not everyone else is wrong. But the other way is that if we try to please everyone, what will happen? The only thing that will happen is that we will become miserable.
It is the easiest way to make ourselves miserable is to try to please everyone. So we have to have some purpose, some principles and we act accordingly. And then some people will be pleased, some people will be displeased.
Just by our practicing bhakti, some people are going to be displaced. What can we do about it? So we don’t want to displease anyone. But we can’t make others pleasure or displeasure the sole basis of all our actions.
So that is attachment. Now when Dhritarashtra had this attachment, he just couldn’t listen to everyone at all. In fact, there was an incident where after the Pandavas were sent to the forest, the Pandavas were furious.
All of the Pandavas have taken vows to break vengeance on the Kauravas. Bhima has said that I will break Duryodhana’s thigh. I will rip apart Dushasan’s arm.
Sahadeva said I will teach you Kuni. Arjuna said I will bring down Karna. And then Duryodhana, Dhritarashtra is very fearful.
Whenever his mind is disturbed, he wants some advice. So he calls Vidura. And he says Vidura, the Pandavas are so angry with me, with my son.
So what should I do now? Dhritarashtra says, after you have brought a storm upon yourself, after bringing the storm, how can you expect any good? The Pandavas are virtuous and they were so patient. But still you agitated them so much. So what good can come? But at all, if you want to do some good, just call the Pandavas back immediately.
Give them all that you have taken from them. And then ask Duryodhana to apologize to them. Ask Duryodhana, Dushasan and Karna to apologize to them.
Yudhishthir, although Bhima is angry, Yudhishthir is kind. Yudhishthir may still forgive. And if Yudhishthir forgives, Bhima will not go against him.
That is your only hope. And when Dhritarashtra hears this, he gets angry. He says, you live on my bread, but you always speak things that displease me.
The Pandavas and Kauravas, both are your nephews, but you always favor the Pandavas. And you are always against Duryodhana. I have no need for you.
Go wherever you want. When he hears this, Vidura walks out. Vidura decides, there is no point staying with Dhritarashtra.
So what happens? Vidura also gets on his chariot and goes into the forest where the Pandavas are living. And then when Yudhishthir sees Vidura coming, Bhima gets angry. Previously also what had happened, when the gambling match was to take place, Dhritarashtra had sent Vidura to play.
He says, now is he calling us for another gambling match? What do we have to lose now? But then he sees Vidura’s face and Yudhishthir immediately gets up and says, what is the matter, O Khantva? There is another name for Vidura as Khantva. And then he tells what has happened. And he says, I would like to live with you in the forest.
And Yudhishthir says, that would be an honor for us to have your association. And then he starts living over there. Next, see, Duryodhana is wicked.
Dhritarashtra is weak. So what happens? He is angry at that time. But after that, what happens? The next morning he wakes up and he is thinking, what did I do? I sent my brother, who is always my well-wisher, I sent him away.
And he calls Sanjay. He says, Sanjay, please go and call Vidura back. Tell him I am alone over here.
I need him. Then Sanjay goes and he calls Vidura. The king is remorseful that he sent you away.
He requests that you come back. And now Vidura thinks, should I go back or should I not go back? Somebody has rejected us. Somebody has spoken hurtful words to us.
He says, why go back to such a person? But Vidura decides to go back. Why is that? Because that is Vidura’s love for Dhritarashtra. He feels that if I go back, then at least there will be some voice of sanity over there.
There are voices which are promoting Dhritarashtra towards insanity. The voice of Dhritarashtra, of Dushasan, of Shakuni. But there should at least be some voice of sanity.
Of course, Bhishma was there. But Bhishma was bound by vow. And Bhishma could not speak directly against the ruling king.
Bhishma had taken a vow that I will serve the ruling king of the Guru dynasty. And that’s why he could express his opinion, but he could not strongly go against him. So Vidura went back.
And that’s why actually we see that relationships often require a lot of commitment. Where we might get insulted, we might get rebuffed, we might get rejected. But if you just take it too seriously, then even small, small things can lead to great problems.
So he came back and again he was there as a voice of sanity trying to help him. But what was happening was that although he had respect and regard for Vidura, his attachment to Duryodhana was too strong. And when Duryodhana was not there, he would hear from Vidura and he would appreciate what he was saying is very good.
But as soon as Duryodhana would come, everything he would permit. And then finally what happened was just before the Kurukshetra war. Now Vidura knew this is the last attempt he had to make.
He told Dhritarashtra that your son will cause the destruction of the whole dynasty. Abandon him right now if you want your dynasty to survive. At that time Duryodhana gets furious and says, who has asked you to come over here? O son of a maid servant, while being here with us, you are working for our enemies.
Get out of here and take nothing except your life with you. Now in a hierarchical culture, normally we don’t speak harshly to anyone but want to speak of our elders. So now what happens is that Vidura is of the same level as his father.
For Duryodhana to speak like this itself was an outrageous breach of etiquette. But more than that, when Duryodhana spoke like this, Dhritarashtra remained silent. And that was what hurt Vidura the most.
The harshest words of our enemies don’t hurt us as much as the silence of our friends. Because we know from our enemies, from our critics, what else can we expect. That’s all they are going to do.
But when we are being attacked, at that time our friends remain silent. So that is like a betrayal, that is a terrible letting down. So at that time Vidura decides, enough is enough.
He leaves over there. Now it’s interesting, we see the difference between what Vibhishan does and what Vidura does. Vibhishan goes to the side of Rama directly.
Although Vibhishan has no relationship with Rama, at least no relationship directly in that lifetime. But he forms that relationship at great risk to himself. He might be labelled as an enemy’s brother and arrested or punished or even killed.
He takes that risk and he goes. But Vidura does not go to the Pandavas’ side. Although he already has a relationship with the Pandavas.
Why is that? Because Vidura still has not given up hope on Vidarashtra. And he has still hope. What has happened is, the difference between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, many differences.
I have a whole class on this. But in this context the difference is that in this case Vibhishan’s brother was the active villain. Whereas Vidura’s brother was not the active villain.
It was the passive villain. So, Vibhishan had to take that stand against his brother directly. Because he felt, I am a member of the royal dynasty and I want to show Rama that it is not the Rakshasas against you.
It is one particular Rakshasa who is against you. He felt that I cannot stop Ravana. But after Ravana is killed, I can ensure that the other Rakshasas and the Rakshasa kingdom itself is not destroyed.
So, he goes over to that side. But Vidura, he knows that if he goes on to the side of the Pandavas and if he is a part of the forces who kill Dhritarashtra’s sons, then Dhritarashtra’s attachment will be so blinding that he will just not be able to hear anything. And thus he decides not to actively fight against the Kauravas.
He has gone on a pilgrimage. And then after Dhritarashtra’s all his sons are killed and Dhritarashtra is lamenting, at that time finally, after the lamentation has gone on for sufficient time, then Vidura comes back. Dhritarashtra had to lose everything before he lost his attachment.
Everything he had to lose. Why was that? Because that attachment was blinding him. Like say, if I am holding this on, holding this on, maybe some stones come, some bullets come and just get shattered to pieces and there is nothing to hold on to.
That’s when the blinding will go. So, for Dhritarashtra, he had to lose all his sons. And then when Vidura came and then when Vidura spoke, that was the time when the words entered.
Earlier, whatever words he would speak, those words were like lightning. It hit, it would illuminate, but afterwards it would go away. But when Vidura was killed, and afterwards Vidura’s words were not like lightning, but they were like light.
It came and stayed with him. So what the Bhagavatam depicts through this starting conversation is that although Vidura was on the right side, he was devoted, he was virtuous, but even a devoted and virtuous person, it is not just that he could speak and immediately everything would work. There was a challenge, there was a danger.
He had to, even he had to wait till the right time. Although Vidura was a pure devotee, he was a wise person. In fact, just like we have Chanakya Nidhi, which is a set of verses which describe very wise sayings of Chanakya, there is Vidura Nidhi also.
Vidura is considered a very wise person also. But even Vidura, his words did not have effect till the right time came. We see that in the life of Sri Prabhupada also.
Prabhupada was a great soul, always. But for 40 years, he was speaking spiritual wisdom to Indians, and there was no effect. Even in the West, when he came to America for the first 6-7 months, there was no effect.
But Prabhupada kept speaking. It is not just the potency of the person. Potency of the person is important, but the appropriateness of the time also is important.
And the time often determines the receptivity of the person. So sometimes we may want somebody to come on the right track. We may want somebody, say for example, somebody is materialistic, we want them to become spiritual.
Yeah, it’s important. We desire that and we try to speak accordingly. But sometimes if people are not ready, we shouldn’t take that as a personal failure.
This person is not becoming spiritual. Why? Maybe something is wrong with him. It could be.
We can check whether we are not presenting things properly. But we shouldn’t double down on them and try to force them. Because sometimes the time may not be right.
And when the time becomes right, if we haven’t, so what Vidura did was, that Vidura maintained the relationship even when the relationship was not effective. He could not get Dhritarashtra to do the right thing. He could not even stop Dhritarashtra from doing the wrong thing.
But still Vidura did not just reject the relationship and end the relationship. He kept the relationship and then when the right time came, he was able to give Krishna to Dhritarashtra. He was able to give spiritual understanding.
So for all of us, we have many relationships and when we share Krishna consciousness with our colleagues, with our friends, with our relatives, sometimes people may just not take up. Sometimes what happens? There is an infamous zeal of the new convert. When we are new to Krishna Bhakti, we just become very zealous.
I conclude with one story. This is from my own life. I sometimes feel embarrassed about how I used to be maybe 20 years ago.
Of course, possibly 20 years later, I’ll be embarrassed about how I am now. It’s always possible. But when I was introduced to Krishna Consciousness after a year or two, there was one friend of mine.
He was in the same college. And after we graduated, after we, I was going to say after we passed out, I spoke that with one class in America. After we passed out, people started looking at me as if, because in India, pass out means graduate.
In the West, pass out means to go unconscious. So why did both of you pass out after we passed out? So after we graduated, both of us got a job at the same multinational company and we would go by the same bus. So my stop was before.
So I would get into the bus and then two stops later he would join. Now we would do about a one hour ride. And that one hour ride, I would usually chant or read or hear something.
I would not talk with anyone at the ride. They’re all materialists. Don’t waste time with them.
But one day this friend made the big mistake. What big mistake? He asked me, what are you doing? And when he asked me, at that time, I just gave him the six session Bhagavad Gita course in 45 minutes. I started with how you are not the body or the soul.
How, you know, there is a God. And how the devatas are not God. Krishna is God.
And how bhakti yoga is the best yoga. And how the material world is a place of misery. And how we have to go to the spiritual world.
And how all religions give the same message. But Krishna consciousness gives the best message. Everything together.
I was actually congratulating myself. How efficiently I have concentrated the whole course in 45 minutes. I didn’t even notice that his eyes were glazing.
And then, after that, every day when I would get into the bus, when I would climb the bus, then his stop would come. So, now the bus has two doors. So, he would peep into the door, see where I was sitting.
And then enter through the other door. So, just I think two years ago, I met him in Seattle. His sister is becoming a devotee.
So, his sister told him, I am going for this program. His sister is also in Seattle. So, then he heard about it.
He said, oh, this is my friend. So, he came to meet me. So, then we heard about it.
I remembered and I apologized to him for having loaded down on him at that time. He said, no. We both laughed at that time.
He is now slowly becoming a devotee. So, sometimes we think that we are the rules. So, we often sometimes, if we are sharing Krishna Consciousness, we may also becoming proudly say, no, I brought this person to Krishna Consciousness.
I brought ten people to Krishna Consciousness. I brought fifteen people, fifty people to Krishna Consciousness. Now, we may keep a track of how many people came to Krishna because of us.
But we don’t keep track of how many people went away from Krishna because of us. Because of the way we conducted ourselves. So, Vidura had to speak strongly.
But he spoke strongly not at the cost of his relationship. He maintained the relationship and then at the right time, when he spoke strongly, the result was there. So, we have to see that when we are trying to help someone, it is not we who are helping them.
It is Krishna who is helping them through us. And that’s why we have Prabhupada in the marking of Bhagavad Dharma. He prays that, alankrita koribara khamata tomar, my dear lord, please make my words understandable to them.
So, he is not thinking, I am a pure devotee and I am going to enlighten all these ignorant souls. His idea is that, Krishna, you are in their hearts. It is by your will that people are where they are right now.
They are an illusion. Krishna’s will doesn’t mean Krishna wants them to be an illusion. But it is within Krishna’s plan.
And if you so desire, then you will get them out of illusion and you will make me an instrument for that. So, when we are attached, we simply go along and do whatever the other person wants to do. The opposite of attachment is detachment.
But in this case, we could say, the opposite of attachment could be just not caring at all. Now, detachment doesn’t mean that we don’t care for the other person. You don’t do what I am doing, so get lost.
Not like that. So, what we do is, there is attachment, you could say there is detachment and there is commitment. So, Vidura was committed to Dhritarashtra.
Committed doesn’t mean that I will do whatever you want me to do. But it also doesn’t mean that you are not doing what I am telling you, get lost. Committed means, he did what he could to make Dhritarashtra see sense.
When Dhritarashtra was not ready, Vidura kept his distance. But he did not reject him. He did not end the relationship.
And then when the right time came, because he was committed, now Vidura had no reason to again come back to the kingdom. He had no guarantee that again he would not be insulted and rebuffed. But he tried.
And at that time, eventually he succeeded. So, it is that commitment that will take us to Krishna and that commitment that will help us take others to Krishna. We, whenever we have any relationship, we shouldn’t, like I say, if we are parents, we are taking care of our children.
Now, we want our children to grow up to be good human beings, good devotees. That’s natural. But we can’t make our relationship with our children conditional to their becoming devotees.
A devotion is a choice which they have to take. And if you force them right now, what will happen is, a little bit pushing is natural for everything. But if you force them too much, then they will remember Krishna as something which is forced on them.
And that is not a very pleasant memory to have about Krishna. If we maintain our relationship, if we give them positive memories about Krishna consciousness, then even if they don’t practice bhakti very seriously right now, those memories will bring them to Krishna. If we think that, sometimes what happens? We start thinking that somebody if I am preaching to, that person should become a devotee and that person becomes a demonstration of my potency, my purity and my potency.
So, like that, we want our children to be devotees so that, what a good devotee I am, my children also become devotees. Yes, it’s natural we want our children to be devotees. But the important thing is that it is not we who are going to make them devotees.
It is Krishna in their hearts and Krishna can use us as agents. And sometimes Krishna may make them devotees without using us. Maybe more than the vertical, we telling them something, the literal might work better.
If they are with other children who are also practicing bhakti, then that may inspire them more. So, we definitely provide them all the facilities, but we cannot force them. If we force them, then when they grow older, they become free, they will go away from Krishna.
And they will have unpleasant memories about Krishna. But instead, we give them the facilities, we give them the good memories and eventually when the right time comes, then if we have maintained a relationship with them, then they will come. Sometimes if you say that you are wrong and you are doing this, one day you will regret this.
You are going now, one day you will come crawling back on your knees and you will admit to me that I was right. If we make the relationship in those terms, what will happen is, even if they realize they are wrong, they will not come back. Because it has become like an ego issue for them.
So, when there is love, it is natural to have expectations. But we can’t make the love conditional to the expectations. Yes, I am committed to this relationship, I am there for you.
Now, if you take this up, I will be happy. Naturally, happier. But if not, still I am there for you.
So, when they see that, when we are committed to a relationship, then we will provide the facility, but we will also have the patience for the right time to come. Similarly, when we are preaching to others also, sometimes we push people so much, that we want to push them toward Krishna, but they get pushed away from Krishna. Because if people are not coming, not coming, not taking up seriously, whatever level they are at, accept them at that level.
Krishna is also working in their hearts and Krishna will take them higher gradually. So, that way, when we work, then we can all be able to do what is required to help a person to grow in their spiritual life. And thus, we can become agents for Krishna, as Vidura became an agent for Krishna, to enlighten Vidrashtra.
So, to summarize, I spoke on this topic of how Vidura enlightened Vidrashtra. And how did Vidrashtra become experienced? That was, we talked about, I started this talk by explaining that it is our judgment that makes us experienced, not just having experiences. So, Vidrashtra was immensely attached to Vidura.
To Duryodhana. And that attached, he held on to that attachment very tightly. So, it blinded him to everything else.
Attachment means that we, affection means we are concerned about the other person. Attachment means we are concerned about what the other person thinks about. Attachment means we are emotionally dependent on that person.
And for getting that person’s pleasure, we will go to any extremes. And because of that, Duryodhana did horrible things and Vidrashtra agrees to them. And thus, he was destroyed by that.
Now, we talked about when we are practicing bhakti, the Bhagavatam demonstrates how bhakti can be shared in different ways. So, although Vidura is younger, but Vidura, younger in age, younger in, lower in position and lower in worth, but still he was able to enlighten Duryodhana, Duryodhana, Dhritarashtra. The Bhagavatam demonstrates the inversion of hierarchy throughout.
How devotion makes one superior to those who are otherwise materially superior to us. But that superiority is not to be like imposed on others. It has to be cautiously exercised.
So, Vidura was rejected by Dhritarashtra and Vidura went away, but he still came back because he was committed to that relationship. He wanted to be the voice of sanity. But eventually when Duryodhana insulted him directly and Dhritarashtra remained silent, he went away.
But he did not go against Dhritarashtra’s sons because then that would have, that attachment would have blinded him to hearing any words of counsel from one who had been a party to those who killed his sons. So, he just went at pilgrimage and then he came back again. And then when he spoke strong words, he was able to enlighten Dhritarashtra.
So, sometimes whether a person changes or not doesn’t depend only on our potency. It also depends on the appropriateness of the time, the receptivity of the person. And we need to let Krishna act also.
So, Prabhupada also, his preaching was effective after 40 years of relatively ineffective outreach in India. And Prabhupada did not see that I am a pure devotee going to enlighten everyone. He saw that Krishna made my words understandable to me.
So, if we have that mood, then with our loved ones, we will facilitate them to come to Krishna. And if they are not ready, still we will be committed and we will maintain that relationship. And then, when the right time comes, then we will be there to help them come to Krishna.
If we try to impose Krishna consciousness on others, they will get alienated. And when we see ourselves not as making ourselves a devotee but being a part of Krishna’s plan to help them become devotees, then we will act in a mature way to do what Krishna wants us to do in that particular service. Thank you very much.
Hare Krishna. So, any questions or comments? Yes. I was just wondering whether that principle could apply to devotees joining ISKCON.
Somehow, in my experience, in the early days, devotees became brahmacharis. It was the mood most of them should join to the temple and cut themselves full time. But then, many of those devotees eventually fell back into energy and had some resentment that they over-committed when they weren’t mature in their realizations.
Do you understand the question? Okay. Yeah, it’s a difficult question. So, some devotees who committed to the movement in the early days, then they couldn’t continue.
They had to go back to material life and they felt that they over-committed at that time. And they may have some regrets about what they did. Yeah, I think that’s understandable.
Because, broadly speaking, our movement started at a historically very unusual time. That means it was a time when there was a counter-culture and there are people who, many, many young people at that time were rejecting the mainstream society. And they were looking for some alternatives.
So, it was not that, not everyone, but a good number of people at that time, they were people who had already rejected an education, a career, a family. Prabhupada says in lecture that the hippies, they had already done sarva-dharman parityajya. I taught them how to do mam ekam sharanam parityajya.
They had given up all their duties. But just giving up duties is not enough, you know. They had to give up duties that come in the way of our Krishna bhakti.
And then we had to take up Krishna bhakti more seriously. So, now some of the hippies would anyway have, many of them were on a course to disaster. And Prabhupada came in, even from a material perspective, not just a spiritual perspective.
From a material perspective also, getting hooked to drugs can be horrible. So, Prabhupada came and gave them Krishna bhakti. And that’s how they were able to, they were saved from the disasters.
But Krishna, at that time, practicing Krishna bhakti basically meant that, because the Krishna bhakti culture and the mainstream culture were so radically different, that the way to practice it was, just move to the temple. And that’s the way it was practiced. And as long as Prabhupada was there and the zeal was there, you could practice it.
But after some time, that level of practice is not sustainable for most people. The renounced order is something which is, even in Vedic times, it was even in the Bhagavatam. How many of the sages in the Bhagavatam are renunciates? We see Shamik Rishi, he’s not a renunciate.
So many of the sages, Vishwamitra was earlier, not a renunciate. So, we cannot change the natural order of things. And certainly not in Kali Yuga.
So, most people will have to evolve organically. That means, there is gradually, organically renunciation comes up. So, at that time, because, circumstantially, there had been an upsurge of renunciation.
Not exactly renunciation in the Vedic sense, but just a rejection of mainstream society. And Prabhupada channeled that and directed those people towards Krishna. Now, in general, it is not just those who came to Krishna consciousness, they, after some time, felt that we need to go back to material life.
But you see, most of the hippies, they went on spiritual journeys, not most, a good number of hippies, they went on spiritual journeys and they did this and they did that. And after some time, they returned back to mainstream society. And many, much of Silicon Valley has been built by many of the pioneers of social media and other stuff, all that.
You know, they were people who had, they were a part of the hippie generation. So, I would say it was just a phase and Prabhupada, Krishna arranged for Prabhupada to be there at that time. And that phase was expertly tapped by Prabhupada.
But what was done at that time was naturally not sustainable. It just, we have to, each of us has to, in our tradition, we often focus on the intensity of practice of bhakti. We have to practice bhakti seriously.
We practice intensely. Now, intensity is important, but intensity has to be balanced by sustainability. Say, for example, today is Ekadashi.
Now, some of us may be fasting. Now, yeah, fasting is a challenge and we might fast. But if somebody says, fast every day, because you are fasting one day.
So, fasting one day, so fast every day. That’s not going to work. So, intensity is possible in a phase, in certain times.
But we have to find out how we can practice bhakti sustainably. And there are times when Prabhupada also has spoken. Now is the time to boil the milk.
Prabhupada says that now we have enough temples. Now we need to nourish the devotees. But somehow what happened was that at that time, the, because in youth everybody has a lot of passion.
So, because of that passion, it’s like a juggernaut that has started, you know, expand, build more temples or get more devotees, distribute more books. Prabhupada also encouraged that because that’s the way he was channeling the passion within us. But then Prabhupada did give some cautionary statements, but the momentum was such that those cautionary notes were not really heard so well.
So, I think each of us has to find our own way to move forward. Jai Dohit Maharaj gave a series of talks on, it’s called, it’s a series called unity in perversity. Not unity in diversity, unity in perversity.
So, what do you mean by that is? In general, he is talking about Christianity, Islam, Gaudiya Vaishnavism and Gaudiya Math. Anything, any religious movement that starts with a charismatic founder, after that charismatic founder departs, there is chaos. It’s just the way things work.
So, after Chaitanya Mahaprabhu departed, there was chaos. It took some time for Adil Acharya and Dhanand Prabhu, they had two groups and their followers were quite loggerheads. So, it took some time for some peace to be established.
It took for the Christian, for the church, it took 400 years to decide who was Jesus after Jesus died. Then they understood that, they decided what the identity of Jesus was. So, it is Gaudiya, but also after Chaitanya Mahaprabhu departed, there is chaos.
So, relatively speaking, what happened within, with our tradition, with our movement is not at all unprecedented. It was to be expected. In fact, we could say that things could have been even worse.
Because in the history of religious movements, never has there been any instance where the gap between the founder and the successor was so great. The founder was born in a very cultured family, lived very purely through life. Founder was in the 70s.
And the successors were in the 20s and 30s. And the founders, the successors were from a different, different culture, different language, different religion. We could even say that, rather than consider that, actually our movement after Prabhupada’s departure was set for disaster.
So, rather than asking, you know, did we make some mistakes or something at that time, we can say that actually, you could say, it’s a miracle that our movement not only survived, it survived and has expanded also. So, that shows the resilience of the Krishna Bhakti tradition and the resilience of the devotees who have carried the tradition forward. So, rather than looking at the past and thinking we overcommitted, we just have to understand that we have to practice bhakti in a way that is sustainable for us.
And we find that out what it is for us. And over a period of time, even those who are preaching, they also need, they will also become balanced. There is, I gave a class once on preaching in the three modes and preaching in transcendence.
So, preaching in, so, what I did at that time, you know, trying to dump everything on that my friend, I would say that is at best preaching in passion. That is not preaching in goodness at all. That can be preaching in ignorance.
Preaching in ignorance means that, you know, I am preaching to someone and then somebody else comes and says, oh, this person seems to be a promising person. They say, pull that person up. My person? No, my person.
And both of them are pulling. And this person says, I am my own person. I am going now.
Sometimes it happens, you know, disciples of two gurus, they want, ah, this person should become, take a decision from my guru, from my guru. And that person says, I don’t want to take any decision. I am just going.
So, it can happen unfortunately like that. So, I would say that the activity of bringing people to Krishna is transcendental. But how we do that activity may not be transcendental.
So, we have to find out ourselves how we can practice bhakti in a way that is intense but also sustainable. Any other questions or comments? Yes. Could you elaborate on how one, based on the point that you made that forgiveness of wickedness is foolishness.
To make advancement in Krishna consciousness, we need to be able to give the heart and soul to one another. Okay. Good question.
To make advancement in Krishna consciousness, we need to forgive. But then how can I say that forgiveness of wickedness is foolishness. I think there is a different context over here.
At the very least, we can say that the same Bhagavad Gita which tells Arjuna, tam sitikshasubharta, tolerate, that same Bhagavad Gita is followed by Arjuna fighting a war. So, Krishna doesn’t tell Arjuna that tolerate does not mean, for Arjuna you tolerate the atrocities of the Kauravas. Why not? You forgive the Kauravas.
Forgiveness can definitely be given but there is a difference between forgiveness as an intention and forgiveness as an action. So, let me put it another way that forgiveness is a very very important virtue and we very much lack it in today’s world. And sometimes people hold small small grudges.
I was in Canada and I was staying with a devotee couple. So, the husband does yajnas. He does vibhaha yajna.
He is a software professional but he is also a marketing person. He has also learned as a priest. The husband does these sacrifices and his wife is a family lawyer.
So, they say we are a complete package. You come to us when you want to get married, you come to me and when you want to get separated you go to her. So, anyway, this wife was telling me that sometimes, especially in the western world, people get separated over such small small things.
This woman came to him and she said, you know, I want to get separated. He said, why? She said, today morning I went to her restroom and I saw that my husband had used my toothpaste without my permission. He said, because of that you want to get separated? You could say there is a back story behind that.
That was a trigger. Foolishness. I said, are you joking? He said, no, I am dead serious.
She said, my conscience didn’t allow me. He said, I cannot do this. He said, you go to some other family lawyer for this.
She said, I rejected that case. But she eventually went and did that. So, we do need to keep small things small.
So, definitely forgiveness is very much required so that we don’t make small things into very big things. But at the same time, not all things are small. Some things are big.
And if somebody is coming in the way of some big thing, then we cannot just forgive because they will keep doing the wrong thing again and again. Say, an example could be that suppose somebody is going in a train. In India, we have these locals and metros and the capacity is 50, but there are 300 people in that.
So, everybody is squeezed. Now, in every group of people, there are some people who tend to be bullies. So, we are standing and somebody is pushing us.
You think you are so strong, I will show you how strong I am. And we start pushing back. And they push us.
And we push them. And we get so busy in pushing each other that our station comes and goes and we are still pushing. You know, that is foolishness.
But, you know, okay, you want your space, I just move somewhere else. Just a short journey. It’s a small thing, keep it small.
There’s no need to get back and hit back at the person. So, the big thing is we want to get to our destination. But suppose that person starts pushing us out of the train itself, while the train is moving.
Then that’s not a small thing which you can tolerate. Oh, you want to push me, push me. That time you have to take a stand.
We have to either raise an alarm, call others, call the authority. Or at least we have to move away from there and go somewhere else. So, that time we cannot just be passive and tolerant and forgive.
So, if somebody is coming in the way of the big thing for us, then we have to take a stand. So, if somebody, say, Naveen Duryodhan, tried to dishonor Draupadi publicly, that was a particular limit was crossed at that time. So, at that time, the time was well beyond forgiveness because it was a horrible activity to do.
And there was no remorse at all afterward. So, sometimes if somebody has done something terribly wrong and if they do not get the consequences of their actions, then they will keep repeating those actions. They will hurt us and they will hurt others.
So, at an individual level. So, when we talk about forgiveness, there is a difference between forgiveness as an intention and forgiveness as an action. So, what that means is that when somebody has hurt us and then we seek justice against them, we are not motivated by vengeance.
You did this to me. So, now just see what I am going to do to you. So, that becomes like a personal agenda against them.
So, devotees should never be vengeful. But if somebody has done something seriously wrong, something grievously horrifyingly wrong, then stop to make sure that others don’t do something like that, that they don’t do the same thing to others like that. Sometimes they need to be given the consequences of their actions.
But that is not done because you did this to me. This is so that you don’t do this again, you don’t do this to others. So, in terms of intention, a devotee doesn’t have a revengeful agenda against me.
But in terms of action, sometimes if we are in a position of protecting something and somebody is intruding on that, hurting, attacking that, then we may have to take strong action. So, it depends on what is the big thing for us. And not just in subjective sense but in terms of our life and its values and our purposes.
So, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna in the 11th chapter tells Arjuna that he reveals how all your enemies are killed by my arrangement. These are your enemies, your shatru and they are all killed. That is 11.32.33. But in the same chapter, 22 verses later, the last verse, 11.55 is Arjuna, you should work without any animosity towards anyone.
Then you will come to me. nirvairah sarva bhuteshu yaha samameti pandava One who works without animosity towards anyone, that person will come to me. Just now you showed that these are my enemies and they are going to be killed and you want me to fight against them.
And now you are telling don’t have any animosity. So, what is going on? A devotee may fight against someone but a devotee is not against someone. So, we are not having a vengeful agenda against them.
The Pandavas had nothing personally against the Kauravas. The Pandavas, if they had wanted, they fought the war not to take revenge. Although sometimes in the heat of the moment they might speak words like that.
But if they had been wanting to take revenge, then they would not have sent Krishna as the Shanti Tooth. They would not have sought peace. And extremely accommodating terms.
They fought the war not to take revenge but to establish Dharma. To establish justice. To establish the principles of virtue and justice.
If a person, what Duryodhana and the Kauravas did was, against Draupadi there was a horrifying violence against a respectable woman. Now, if somebody does violence like that, normally if some criminal wants to do it, they do it in private, there will be no evidence, no witnesses. Now if somebody does that in public, that means they are so brazen.
Imagine if somebody comes to the police station and then they violate a woman publicly like that. That means they have no fear of law at all. So the Kauravas did this to the Pandavas in the assembly.
In the assembly where people would come to seek justice. That means they had no fear at all. So for such people, that means if the gangsters have become so fearless that they can commit crime in the police station.
And that means those gangsters have to be curbed. So the Pandavas fought to establish justice. To establish Dharma and to have justice.
Just rule to be there in the kingdom. So at individual level, we forgive. That means we don’t have an intention to get back at the other person because of what they did to us.
But we have to make sure that people don’t keep hurting others and people don’t keep doing the wrong thing again and again. For that purpose, we may have to fight against them. Does that answer your question? Thank you.
So we’ll stop here. Thank you very much. Gandhra Shri Madbhagatam ki Jai.
Shri Prabhupada ki Jai. Gaura Bhakta Vendaki Jai. Gaura Prasad Ki Jai.