Vritrasura lila analysis 1 – The setting for the stunning twist in the storyline

Srimad Bhagavatam class at ISKCON, Adelaide

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna. Today morning, we are discussing from the Mithrasur pastime, the 10th chapter of the 6th canto. And I’ll discuss this class in three parts.
First I’ll talk about the significance of this pastime within the Shri Madbhagatam. Then I’ll talk about the flow of the pastime till this point. Then I’ll talk briefly about the purport.
In tomorrow’s class, I’ll talk about the subsequent pastime and how it plays a significant role in the Bhagavatam. The Bhagavatam Chaitanya Mahaprabhu described is Amalapurana. It is the spotless Purana.
That which is a lower dharma, that is rejected. Kaitava means cheating or fake, counterfeit. That is rejected.
Now you may wonder, how can dharma be counterfeit? Actually, this concept is not very easy for people to digest. There is a commentator on the Bhagavad Gita. He, when he commented on the word sarva-dharman parityaj, he said that Krishna has come to establish dharma.
How can he tell sarva-dharman parityaj? He said, therefore, think whenever whoever wrote down the Bhagavad Gita, they forgot to put a A before that. So he says the word is sarva-adharman parityaj. So, give up all adharma and surrender to Krishna.
How can you give up all dharma to surrender to Krishna? But, the point is that dharma is a multi-level word. That there are various levels of dharma. Dharma can have many different meanings.
One of the meanings is duty. So, we have, say, as family members we have some duty. As professionals working in an office, we may have certain duties.
As citizens of a country, we have certain duties. There are various kinds of duties we have. And sarva-dharman parityaj mam ekam sharanam vraja.
Prabhupada says that even the hippies were practicing sarva-dharman parityaj. But they were not, I taught them to practice mam ekam sharanam vraja. So, they had given up their duties, their family, their country, their education, their own career also.
But, they were not doing anything else. So, sarva-dharman parityaj is itself not the main point. The main point is mam ekam sharanam vraja.
And for mam ekam sharanam vraja, if some dharma comes in the way, you should give up that dharma. Sarva-dharman parityaj is not meaning that you should become adharmic. It means that whatever dharma comes in the way of mam ekam sharanam vraja, you should give that up.
So, if you read the Mahabharata’s previous parva, the Bhagavad Gita comes in the Bhishma parva. The previous parva is called the Udyoga parva, in which there is a similar discussion which Yudhishthira has with Krishna. And the same point, a similar point, Arjuna is discussing over here.
So, Arjuna had a conflict over which dharma was more important. His kula-dharma or his kshatriya-dharma. His kula-dharma was that he should protect the members of his dynasty.
How can he fight and kill them? His kshatriya-dharma was that those who are aggressors, they should be killed. So, what should he do at such a time? So, suppose somebody is a judge. And that judge at that particular time, say his own, some relative is a convict.
The judge has to pass a sentence at that time. So, now it’s very difficult because as a relative you want to protect your relatives, but as a judge you have to do your duty. So, most judges would recuse themselves from such a responsibility.
Somebody else, another judge would come and do the judgment. But Arjuna did not have that option. So, he was caught in a conflict which is a higher duty, kshatriya-dharma or kula-dharma.
So, Krishna told the higher duty is para-dharma, that is bhakti. And for bhakti, whatever is uncool, you do that. And he chooses the kshatriya-dharma.
So, this dynamic of even rejecting lower dharmas for the sake of the highest dharma, this is consistently illustrated in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Because at one level, when Parikshit Maharaj is cursed and he is about to die in seven days, some people may say, no, this is very passive. You are cursed and you are cursed unfairly and you do nothing to retaliate against the curse, nothing to counter the curse.
You just accept it and passively die. This might seem like passivity. But Parikshit Maharaj is not just passively accepting death.
Like say, somebody points a gun at you, I am going to shoot you. You just raise your hand, okay, I am going to die. Parikshit Maharaj is not like that.
He is active. But he is active in what sense? Not in trying to materially counter the curse, but in spiritually transcend the effect of the curse. The curse is going to hit the body, but he raises his consciousness above the body.
And actually, Acharya Krishna, Acharya Thakur and other Acharyas described in the 11th Canto commentary that it was not that Takshak’s, Takshak was the snake bird which bit Parikshit Maharaj. And it is said that because of that bite, he died. But actually, the reality is Parikshit Maharaj had become so absorbed in the remembrance of Krishna based on whatever Shukadeva Swami was speaking, that in that trance of absorption, he had already left his body.
So, when Takshak came and bit, he simply bit a dead body, a body from which the soul had passed. So, the point is, Parikshit Maharaj did not give up his duty, literally speaking, in the sense of being irresponsible. He took up a higher responsibility.
So, as a, as human beings, it is a natural responsibility for us to protect ourselves. So, suppose, now we are in a situation, say if some IITers are attacking us, and then what should we do? Should we just say, I depend on Krishna, or should we just try to run away from there and try to protect ourselves? Now, both are acceptable for a devotee. The important thing is, how am I remembering Krishna? So, I am devoting my thing that, just let me depend on Krishna, whatever Krishna wants.
Krishna has given me intelligence, Krishna has given me strength. Let me use it to save my life so that I can serve Krishna more. So, bhakti is not stereotyped.
How bhakti is to be practiced in different situations will vary. We see, the classic example of surrender is Draupadi. She raises her hands in helplessness and says to Krishna, please save me, Krishna.
Now, the Bhagavad Gita ends with a call for surrender. Surrender to God. Now, Arjuna does not raise his hands in surrender.
Arjuna picks up his bow and surrenders. So, for Arjuna, at that particular point, fighting is a means to surrender. And that’s why the definition of surrender that is given in the Haribhakti Vilas, based on the Puranas, is very dynamic.
The first two elements of surrender are anukulyasya sankalpa, pratikulyasya varjanam. That is, accept the favorable, reject the unfavorable. Now, this is not just passivity.
You have to think, okay, what is favorable for my bhakti, what is unfavorable for my bhakti, and respond. So, surrender is a very active thing. In fact, surrender is the most active way of responding.
Surrender is not passive. And Bhagavatam illustrates this through various pastimes that we, if we have a stereotype of what bhakti is, Bhagavatam says that stereotype doesn’t work. So, normally speaking, there is a hierarchy.
Say, in any society, we could say that, okay, wealthy people are given sometimes more privilege than the poor people. Or somebody who are politically more influential, they may be given more privilege than people who are lower. So, every society has some kind of hierarchy.
And the Bhagavatam also acknowledges the hierarchy. But in the Bhagavatam says that bhakti inverts the hierarchy. That if there is bhakti, and somebody who is considered lower, they will actually become higher than those who are considered higher.
So, for example, in the ninth canto, we have the pastime of Ambarish Maharaj and Durvasa Muni. From the social hierarchy point of view, Ambarish Maharaj is a Kshatriya, and he is a Grahastha. Social hierarchy point of view, in Varanashram, Durvasa Muni is higher.
He is a Brahmana, and he is a Sanyasi. And yet, because Ambarish Maharaj has bhakti, this normal hierarchy gets inverted. And Ambarish Maharaj is seen to be much greater than Durvasa Muni.
And the similar dynamic is illustrated in the Bhagavatam in the two main battles between the demigods and the devotees that take place. One battle happens in the sixth canto here, another battle happens in the eighth canto. When Bali Maharaj is the commander of the demons.
Here, Pritharasura is the commander of the demons. And normally speaking, the devatas are considered virtuous, the asuras are considered vicious. But in both these pastimes, it will be revealed that the asura is more virtuous than the devata.
That Pritharasura is a greater devotee than Indra. So, in one sense, the Bhagavatam here demonstrates dramatically how the normal cosmic hierarchy of the devatas being higher than the asuras is inverted. Now, the character of Pritharasura is talked about in many places.
Pritharasura occurs first time in the Rig Veda, and there he is described to be a snake demon. And the snake demon is terrorizing devatas, and Indra comes with his Vajra as a fierce fight and kills Pritharasura. So there, Pritharasura is depicted in the typical terms of a demon who is demoniac, who is ungodly.
However, the Bhagavatam’s depiction of Pritharasura is very different. The acharyas explain that these same stories involving similar characters happen again and again in different kalpas. And the Rig Veda refers to one particular story of Pritharasura, in which there is a demon named Pritharasura who is actually demoniac.
Whereas the Bhagavatam takes a similar basic storyline, but it twists the storyline. What does it do? It actually depicts another play, another pastime, wherein Pritharasura is not just a demon, but he is a devotee, not just a devotee, an exalted devotee. So in the sixth canto, this pastime starts, this is the tenth chapter going on.
And Pritharasura will come into the foreground in the eleventh and the twelfth chapters. So Pritharasura has appeared in the ninth chapter. Actually, this pastime starts with the seventh chapter when Indra offends the devatas.
The Bhagavatam actually is a description of the striking events in the universe in one day of Brahma. So, we know the setting of the Bhagavatam is the first canto, is basically setting the scene. And at the end of the first canto, Parikshit Maharaj and Shukadeva Goswami meet.
And then Parikshit Maharaj asks some questions and those questions are more or less answered by the sixth chapter of the second canto. And the Bhagavatam would have ended at that point. But Parikshit Maharaj asks some further questions.
And especially he starts asking universal questions. How does the universe come about? How does it grow? What is time? And in response to that, from the third canto, around the seventh chapter onwards, the Bhagavatam starts describing the history of the universe within one day of Brahma. So, how Brahma appears and how the Kumaras appear, how the Rishis appear, how Shiva appears, all this is described.
And then, from the third canto till the end of the seventh canto, it’s a description of the events in the universe in the life of one Manu. Day of Brahma is divided into Manvantaras, 14 Manvantaras. The first Manvantara is Swayambhu Manvantara.
So, in the Swayambhu Manvantara, whatever events happen, they are described from the third to the seventh canto. Then the eighth canto, first, second chapter, there is like a fast forward. Seven Manvantaras are described.
Seven Manus, their reigns are described in brief. And then, the current Manvantara, that is, Vaivasvata Manu. So, from the eighth canto till the end of the Bhagavatam, twelfth canto, events in the Vaivasvata Manu’s Manvantara are described.
So, currently also, as Prabhupada explains, Shastra 4.1, I spoke to the Sun God. This is the Vaivasvata Manu going on, Manvantara going on. So, now, in the battles of the demigods, which I described, why I gave this background of the chronology of the Bhagavatam is, the two battles between the demigods and the demon that are depicted, they are in different Manvantaras.
The sixth canto battle that is being described now is in the Swayambhu Manvantara. And the eighth canto battle is in the Vaivasvata Manvantara. Now, here, in the sixth chapter, in the seventh chapter, Indra offends the Devatas.
Indra offends his spiritual master, Brihaspati, because of which he loses power. And then he is overpowered by the demons. And when he is overpowered thus, at that time, he seeks protection.
And he gets the Narayana Kavach. And with that Kavach, he fights and he becomes powerful. Meanwhile, he offends another sage.
And not only offends, he actually murders Vishwaroop. And because he is, I won’t go into the full details of the story here. But because of that, his father, Trashta becomes very angry and he performs a yajna, from which Pratharasura comes.
In other words, Asura. Asura has many meanings. One of the creative etymologies, creative means there is not a literal etymology.
But it is an etymology used for explaining the meaning. It is Ra. Ra means Ramate.
Asu means breath. So Asura means those who delight in the breath of the body. That means those who delight in the bodily conception of life.
They are the Asuras. And the Devatas, on the other hand, the word Deva comes from the, is related with the Da. Da means light.
So those who live in light. Vishnu Bhakta Svatao Devo Asuras Tad Viparyayo. So now in many religions, there is this conception of the battle between good and evil.
And so for example, in the Christian religion, they face the problem. Because see there are Christianity and Buddhism, they are like two extremes. Christianity accepts the soul without reincarnation.
Buddhism accepts reincarnation without the soul. So Christianity accepts the soul. They accept that there is something which continues to exist.
And it goes to heavens. And if you save yourself by surrendering to Jesus, by accepting Jesus as your saviour, you go to heaven. But then they have a serious problem.
The problem they face is that why is there so much inequality in the world? Why are some people born poor? Why are some people born wealthy? They may say that, oh, it is all because Adam sinned against God. And Adam ate the forbidden apple. But then this leads to a serious question.
Serious Christian theologians don’t take the Adam-Eve story literally. Because if you say that tsunami kills thousands of people, earthquake kills thousands of people, all the earthquakes, all the tsunamis, all the tornadoes that happen in the world, they all happen because someone ate an apple millions of years ago. It is monstrously insensitive to the reality of the suffering that we face in this world.
In fact, an aggressive atheist in London, he has said that, I believe he has made a court case in London saying that belief in God should be declared immoral. His argument is what? That to say that a good God rules the world when we see so much suffering in the world. This is an insult to the terrible suffering that people are going through.
So all religions face the problem of how the miseries in this world can be reconciled with the idea of a good God. And they find it very difficult to explain this. So Christians say that it is just a test of God.
Okay, it is a test, that is fine enough. But the question is, suppose there is a class and after that there is an exam. And all different students get different papers.
One student gets an easy paper, another student gets a very difficult paper. The question is not why there is an exam, the question is why there is discrimination in the exam. Isn’t it? So why are some people born in relatively prosperous families and live happily, relatively speaking.
Others have a lot of suffering in their lives. So the problem is not just why there is suffering. A bigger problem is why there is variety in the suffering that different people go through.
And that cannot be explained rationally without taking into account pre-existence. So Christians accept after life, but not pre-existence. After life means after this life we have another life, we have life in future.
But pre-existence that we existed before. So once I was traveling in South India, in India a lot of Christian conversions are happening. And Christian conversions, Christian missionaries, they especially try to get influential Hindus.
So if they can catch a Brahmin, it is a prize catch, you have converted a Hindu Brahmin to a Christian. So I was in the train and this Christian missionary came to me. So we started having a discussion.
I took the standard. I said, thou shalt not kill. Why do you kill animals? So then he realized, so he started trying to dodge it.
He said, if you are concerned about killing, then why only the animals? There are so many embryos, babies who are being killed and their mother is going through abortion. Why don’t you oppose that? So I said, so you are also opposed to abortion? He said, yes, of course, it’s murder. I said, okay, good.
So before that he had said, Jesus is the only way to God. You cannot go back to God. You may be devoted to God, but you cannot go to God unless you surrender to Jesus.
So he had argued this. And I said, why are you limiting God’s love like this? If God is unlimited, by saying that there is only one way to God, you are actually limiting the unlimited. So then I came back to the same point.
He said, okay, if the child is there in the womb, the baby is there in the womb and the baby is aborted, what happens to the baby? According to your philosophy, that those who don’t accept Jesus as their saviour, they are going to go to hell. So what happens to the baby? Will the baby go to hell? He said, no, no, no. The baby is innocent.
So God will rescue that baby and take them to heaven. I said, okay. What is the purpose of life? Just to go to God.
Then why not abort everyone? He said, how can we do that? How can we abort and see? If the child is born, the child may not surrender to Jesus. And may go to hell. But if the child is not born, the child is aborted, he will surely go to Jesus.
So the goal of life is to go to Jesus. He had no answer to that. So our goal is not to criticize Christianity here.
But the point is, if a worldview is not understood properly, then it always runs into logical fallacies. Suppose if I have a map of Australia, which is not a complete map of Australia. Let’s say the map does not show, say particular to New South Wales.
Then I come along and then I am going in my car. And the map shows there is nothing here. But I see there is land over there.
So to travel, I have to go off the map. So like that, if our worldview is not properly founded in proper understanding of philosophical principles, then people cannot stay on that map. Because of practicality or because of logical reasons, they have to go outside the map.
So the reason I am talking about Christianity here is that they have this conception that there is a good God and there is an evil Satan. And there is a battle going on between the two. Some other Christians, they try to explain why is there evil in this world.
If God is good, why is evil there in the world? They say because God is not in control of this world. Say when Adam sinned and Adam accepted the temptation of Satan, at that time Adam, by that accepting the temptation, chose to come under the control of Satan. And since that time, all the descendants of Adam, that is all of us, are under the control of Satan.
There will be a final fight in which God will defeat Satan. But till then, Satan causes trouble in this world. And God is not in control.
This is how they try to get God off the hook. How do we not blame God for the suffering in the world? By saying that God is not in control. But this idea that Satan is very powerful, not as powerful as God, but very powerful, and in the final titanic battle, God will exert himself fully and destroy Satan.
That actually minimizes the power of God. So the Bhagavatam also talks about this theme of a battle, of a cosmic battle between good and evil that occurs in various religions. But the Bhagavatam talks about it in an entirely different dimension.
There is good, there is evil. There are devatas, there are asuras. But God exists beyond the devatas also.
God is not just a part of the good in this world. God is beyond the good of the good. There is good and there is bad.
And both of them, there is variety between them. But still, both of them are actually temporary. Both of them are material.
Buddhism, I was talking about the other side, Buddhism accepts reincarnation without the soul. Now for 2500 years, Buddhist scholars have not been able to answer the question, if there is no soul, what is it that reincarnates? Now what is it that goes from one body to another body? They say it is just the impressions that are there within you and they go from one body to another body. But the question comes up, where are those impressions towards? What is the locus? They give the example, the Bhagavatam also gives the same example, but in a different context.
They say that there is a candle. When the candle is burning, we see a continuous flame. But actually there is no continuous flame.
There is no continuous flame. The wax of the candle is burning and the flame is emerging. But there is no one entity called the flame.
Similarly, they hold that actually there is no such thing as a steady consciousness. They compare the consciousness to the flame. And they say the flame is constantly changing.
Similarly, they say our consciousness is also constantly changing. And just as the, say one candle can go from, one candle can, when it is about to be extinguished, we can use the flame to light another candle. So like that they say at the time of death, the consciousness from this body goes to another body.
But just like the flame itself is nothing really existing. Similarly, the consciousness also doesn’t exist. The Bhagavatam gives this example, but for a different thing.
Actually, there is, okay we may say that there is no such thing as a flame, really. But to understand that there is no such thing as a flame, there has to be a persistent conscious observer. So we are talking about consciousness.
Consciousness is the observer of things. So how can I observe things consistently? So for example, if I see you today, and tomorrow I see you, and tomorrow say your hairstyle is different, say you have shaved off your hair. Now I have to be the same to know that you are not the same.
Isn’t it? If you are also not the same, I am also not the same, then we will not be able to know each other. There has to be something which is constant to detect inconstancy. So the question is, what is it that is constant? That constant is the Atma.
So what happens is, because they don’t accept the reality of the soul, Buddhism focuses on trying to say that everything is unreal. So Buddhism’s solution to the problem of suffering is that suffering is illusion. That suffering is illusion.
And if we just give up desire, then all the conceptions of suffering will go away. But just giving up desire is not a particularly attractive conception of life. Give up desire, give up activity, give up consciousness.
But what exists after that? Well, nothing exists practically speaking. So the Bhagavatam explains that this world is not false. The good and the evil that are there in this world, they are really there.
In the early days, Srila Prabhupada was giving a lecture, he was explaining how all that we experience in the world is there, but all the conceptions are illusion. So one Srila Prabhupada disciple, he started thinking, you know, okay, there is a wall over there. So I am not the body, I am the soul.
So is that wall an illusion? Is my head an illusion? So he started contemplating. He had been earlier doing impersonalist meditation, which says that everything is in the head. So he said, okay, if I think the wall is an illusion, my head is an illusion, can I walk through the wall? He just went to the wall and bam! He hit his head against the wall.
And he went to Prabhupada and said, Prabhupada, you said that this world is illusion, but I hit my head and really it hurts. So Prabhupada said, this world is not illusion, it is illusory. Illusory means it is temporary.
The illusion is not to think that the world is false. That is itself an illusion. To think that the world is real is a partial understanding of reality.
The problem is that the real illusion is to think of the temporary as the eternal. So that is the mistake. The world is real.
This table really exists. This wall, this room really exists. But what is unreal is our thinking that this is going to exist forever.
The body is real. What is unreal? What is illusion? It is not the body that is the illusion. It is the soul’s misidentification with the body that is the illusion.
So matter is real, spirit is also real. Because both of them come from the supreme reality. So here in the battle between good and evil is being talked about, the good is at the material scale, good.
The bad at the material scale is bad. But God exists beyond this material duality of good and bad. God is not on the side of good.
God is on the side of those who are devoted to him. And usually you would associate that the good are devoted to him. Those who are good, they are devoted to God.
But it may not necessarily be so. Sometimes people who are apparently on the side of bad, they may be more devoted to God than those who are on the side of good. Now there are many atheists who are very aggressive atheists.
And one of the ways Christianity tries to argue that religion is good for the world is by saying that how much good religion does to the world. We do so much missionary work, we feed so many hungry people, we educate so many people. This is how much, this is how belief in God is good for the world.
So the atheists in order to counter that, they also do a lot of charitable work. And there is a prominent atheist organization, social welfare organization, they say their slogan is God in double quotes. God sends calamities, we send relief.
So this is a horrendous misrepresentation of the reality. So here they are good in the sense that from the material point of view they are doing charity. But it is not God who is sending calamities.
It is our own misdeeds which are rebounding upon us as various calamities. So here there can be good, but that good can actually be far away from God. So good should lead us to God, but good is not necessarily the same as God.
So materially somebody will be charitable, but if that person is as blatantly envious of God, thinking that God is causing harm and I am doing good, then that is not at all from the spiritual point of view good. So the good and bad, in a material hierarchy it is like this. The bad is here, the good is here.
So Tamoguna is there, Ajoguna is there, Sattoguna is here. So good is higher than bad. But from the spiritual perspective they are like this.
And from the spiritual perspective what our disposition towards God is, that is more important. So somebody may be very fallen in the sense of that person may be relatively speaking say in a low-born family. But if that person has devotion to God, devotion to Krishna, then that makes the person higher than the person who is born in a higher family, but is not very devoted.
In the 7th Canto, 9th chapter, text 12, Prahlada Maharaj describes that the Brahmana may have all good qualities. Arvindanabha. He may be, but Arvindanabha Vimukha.
But if he is averse to Lord Vishnu, who is lotus-navel, then as compared to that, Swapacham Varishtam. Swapacha is a person who eats dogs, means a low-class person. Varishtam.
Swapacha is better. Why? That Swapacha, if he is Manyeta Darpita Mano Vachane Hitartha. That Swapacha has actually devoted oneself to a Supreme Lord.
And such a person, Pranam punatise kullam. Such a person not only delivers oneself, such a person will deliver his dynasty also. The dynasty also.
Nath Bhurman. Somebody just proud that I am high-born, that person will not be able to deliver anyone. So here, in this particular pastime, as we will see in tomorrow’s class, that the Bhagavatam, the Bhagavatam is going to depict how Dhritarasura, although he is low-born, he is actually high in consciousness.
And till now, the Bhagavatam story is going along the normal storyline. Sometimes when people read novels, or they watch movies, what captivates people is the twists in the story. That means, if something is going along, you expect that, okay, the story is going to happen like this.
Suppose there is a fight between the hero and the villain. And suddenly the villain kills the hero. Hey, what is going on? What is going on? How did the hero die like this? That’s an unexpected thing.
So then, if the story is going along the normal storyline, then people may get bored. But if there is a sudden unexpected twist, then that catches the interest. So, for the unexpected twist to have an impact, initially, the story has to go along the expected lines.
And then when everything is going along the expected lines, then suddenly an unexpected comes. That catches us by surprise. So right now, the Bhagavatam story is going along the expected lines.
What are the expected lines? The demons and the devatas are fighting. And the devatas are winning. Although the demons fight very forcefully, but still, as is described in this verse, that the devatas, the demons’ attacks will not affect the devatas.
And an interesting example is given over here, that sometimes people who are low class, so the word shudra is not used in a casteist sense, but in a sense of the kind of values a person has. So, as a person with low consciousness, that person may curse a person with high values. You are such a fool, you are this, you are that.
So now in the Vedic culture, it is described that for advanced people, words have not just informational potency, but words also have performational potency. Words don’t just provide, for example, a doctor may say, take this medicine. And there is information.
And after that information, I have to do the performance, I have to take the medicine, then I will be cured. But suppose a judge says, let this person be hanged. Because the judge has a position of authority, the judge’s words, it’s not just an informational utterance, it’s a performational utterance.
That means just by that action, by that word itself, the action is performed. What is the action? Okay, this person, this convict will be hanged. So like that, when there are very powerful sages, if they say to someone, Naraguni says, turn into trees.
That is not just a bad wish. Their words have the performational potency. It’s a performational utterance.
It’s not just an implication. It’s not just a bad wish or something like that. Why? Because the sages have great power.
And by their power, if they speak something, that curse is transformed into reality. But those who have not done any mystic powers, those who do not have any austerity, those who don’t have any mystic powers, they may say, turn into a stone. Nothing is going to happen.
Nothing is going to happen. So Prabhupada gives the example, they purport that a vulture may be very hungry. And a vulture looks at a cow and thinks, if this cow would die, I would get a nice feast to eat.
And vulture says, let the cow die. The cow is not going to die because of the vulture. So like that, people who do not have mystic potency, their words have no performational potency.
They may speak the words, but they don’t have any performational potency. Similarly, it says that the demons, they attacked, they attacked the devatas, but their attacks had no impact. They were attacked, but because they did not have the mystic potencies, they did not have the power, necessary power.
The essential point is not mysticism. The essential point is power. They didn’t have the necessary power.
So, their effect, this is a person without mysticism, mystic credits, that person doesn’t have the, the words don’t have the power. Similarly, the demons’ weapons did not have the power. And that’s why sarve prayaso vimogha.
Vimogha means it all went in vain. And this brings in one more point with which I will conclude that. Actually, as devotees, in Kali Yuga, very few people have the capacity to curse anyone.
But, we may be targeted by others’ critical words. And, the critical words can hurt. So now, it’s important that when people criticize us, we, we need to see criticism with a critical eye.
That means, if you see criticism with a critical eye, sometimes when people speak harshly, you say, how could you speak like this? Why didn’t they do like that? And you might get very hurt by it. But, the nature of Kali Yuga is, shatho naishkriti kolasaha. That, it’s described in the 18th chapter, that people who are in Tamoguna, they think that cleverness is seen in expertise and insulting others.
The more expertly you can insult someone, the cleverer you are. That’s what people think. So, with such a parameter, we cannot be insulated from criticism.
We may be criticized by non-devotees who practice bhakti. We may be criticized by devotees also sometimes. Because, what happens within devotional service also, different devotees may have different conceptions of what is bhakti.
So, some devotees may say that, some devotees may focus a lot on book distribution. And they say, we should all distribute books. Some other devotees may say, no, we should cultivate devotees.
Some other devotees may say, no, we should actually build a beautiful temple. Some other devotees may say, we should focus on youth preaching. We should make young people into devotees so that they will lifelong practice bhakti.
Now, all these are valid ways in which you practice bhakti. But, somebody who gets caught in only one definition. Preaching means distributing books.
And they may say, no, you are not distributing books. You are not doing anything. What are you doing? Just eating and sleeping.
You know, people can become very judgmental and critical if they find that things are not happening according to the way they think things should be happening. Now, book distribution is important. And that is the definition of success in bhakti.
But, that is not the only definition of success. Temple building is also a definition of success. Congregation cultivation is also a definition of success.
Publishing books itself, writing and publishing books, that could also be a definition of success. Developing expert kirtan program, that’s also a definition of success. Distributing prasadam, that’s also a definition of success.
So, when one definition of success is made into the only definition of success, that is fanaticism. Fanaticism is not just jihadis going around killing everyone who doesn’t believe in them. You know, fanaticism can be then within the Krishna consciousness movement also.
That if one definition of success is made into the only definition of success, that is fanaticism. So, as devotees, if someone criticizes us, we should not take that criticism very seriously. How can we not take it seriously? Criticism will always hurt.
There is no doubt about it. But, the more we dwell on it, the more it will hurt us. So, that’s why Rupa Goswami says that we need not just devotee association, he says we need Sajatiya Aashay Bhagwan Bhakti Sangh Sajatiya Aashay means like minded devotees.
Devotees who have the same definition of success as we have. So, if we find them devotees are very critical, we can respect them from a distance and we associate with other devotees who are more encouraging, who are more positive. Of course, sometimes criticism may be well intentioned and criticism can help us to improve.
But here I am talking about some criticism which is not very well founded. So, at that time, we will be hurt. But, if we let ourselves be exposed, that means we keep thinking about the criticism, then we will be hurt much more.
But instead, if we associate with other devotees who are more encouraging, more appreciative and we focus on that devotee association as our primary devotee association, then the impact of those harsh words will not be too much. And we can enthusiastically practice bhakti. The most important thing in bhakti is to have enthusiasm for practicing bhakti.
Anything that takes away our enthusiasm, we should know this is an attack of maya. Even if I have committed a mistake, still how will I overcome the mistake? How will I correct the mistake? It is when I am enthusiastic. So, nothing and no one should be allowed to steal our enthusiasm for serving Krishna.
That enthusiasm will enable us, even if we commit mistakes, we will correct the mistakes and we will move on. Enthusiasm will ultimately keep us practicing bhakti and will take us towards Krishna. Once Prabhupada was asked, what is the best prayer that you can offer to Krishna? So, Prabhupada said, pray to Krishna, give me the strength to serve you.
Give me the strength to serve you. We don’t pray to Krishna. Krishna, let me become a book distributor.
Big book distributor. Not that, let me build a big temple. Let me become a famous preacher.
All these things will come. But these are all external forms. The internal driving force should be our desire to serve Krishna.
And according to our nature, according to our blessings of devotees, according to our circumstances, that desire to serve Krishna will manifest in various ways. And even if there are critical attacks, they will be in vain. Prabhupada himself was severely criticized when he tried to preach.
So, he wanted to take sannyas and one of his godbrothers wrote, you have just been a grahastha, first you come and stay in the ashram, practice the disciples in the ashram, then when you have proven your dedication, then we will think of giving you sannyas. So, at one time he was preaching and some young people came and they said, can we take initiation from you? So, some of his godbrother’s disciples, they said that no, this is our area. You know, anybody who is to be initiated should be initiated by us, Kuduchod Master.
Not by you. So, Prabhupada faced so much criticism. But Prabhupada did not let take that criticism to heart.
Prabhupada just continued preaching. And that desire to serve Krishna was so strong that eventually the most amazing thing manifested. Nowhere in the history of the world has one person, 70 years old, has gone to a place where he has never been before, met people who were educationally, culturally, philosophically, religiously, linguistically, historically, geographically, they are all different from him.
No religious organization’s history has there been such a huge gap between the founder and the first generation members. And yet, Prabhupada achieved something so dramatic. The western scholar of religion, he said, that some novelist wrote a novel, talking about some 70 year old man going to a distant place and starting a world organization with people who couldn’t even organize their own lives.
He said, any book publisher will reject this novel as unrealistic. But in the case of Bhaktivedanta Swami Sri Prabhupada, fact is stranger than fiction. That is because he had a firm desire to serve Krishna and in comparison to his desire to serve Krishna, everything else fell back.
All the obstacles were turned futile and Prabhupada marched on in his glorious service to Krishna and it is by his mercy that we are all now understanding bhakti and trying to practice bhakti. So, I’ll summarize. I’ll start talking about how the Bhagavatam invokes the normal hierarchy.
The Bhagavatam says, parakaitava dharma is rejected. What does that mean? It doesn’t teach adharma, but teaches us to give up lower dharma for the sake of higher dharma. In Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna to give up the kula dharma and practice the kshatriya dharma so that he can practice the paradharma of bhakti.
And within the normal dharmic hierarchy, some things may be higher, some things may be lower. But from the paradharma perspective, that is the defining perspective. So, a brahmana and a sanyasi is higher, the vasamuni is higher than a kshatriya and a grahastha.
But the kshatriya and the grahastha, the bhakta, he is higher. So, our position in dharmic hierarchy is not as important, the material hierarchy is not as important as the disposition towards the supreme. And in that connection, we discussed that in this past time, the normal hierarchy is inverted.
And how it is inverted? That, to understand the philosophical implication of that, we discussed about Christianity and about Buddhism. Christianity accepts the soul without reincarnation. And that’s why they cannot explain the problem of evil.
They run into logical dead ends. And they discuss about what is the destiny of those who are aborted and why there is so much suffering in the world. So, their idea that Satan is almost as good as God, that is a misunderstanding of the power of God.
Then, Buddhism says that they accept reincarnation without soul. Who is the constant experiencer or observer of the inconstancy of this world? They have no answer. The candle’s flame may be changing, but the observer of the flame has to be unchanging to observe that it is changing.
Similarly, who is observing the changing nature of this world? There has to be some unchanging substratum for that. And that is the Atma. So, Buddhism says the whole world is false and all suffering is false.
To the extent we give up all desire, to the extent we become free from suffering. But the Bhagavatam explains that the world is real. The sufferings that we explain in this world are real.
But what is unreal is our misidentification with the world, our misidentification with the body. And by redirecting our heart, by devoting ourselves to Krishna, we can experience relief from misery even in this world. And that process of bhakti acknowledges God’s supremacy.
So, God is not just on the side of, God is not just on the side of the good. God is beyond the good and bad of this world. He is transcendental.
And normally, evil assists the side of the good because the good are relatively virtuous and they are more disposed towards God. But sometimes the bad may be more disposed towards God, the bad in the material sense. And sometimes the good may be averse towards God.
I talked about atheists who give charity. And they say that God causes calamities, we provide relief. So, this is where the good is becoming a obstacle, a serious obstacle towards God.
And in this particular pastime, in the case of Uttarastha and the whole background that happened, I discussed about the flow, how the Bhagavatam is describing the events in one day of Brahma. And lastly, we concluded that, still now the storyline is going on straight. But there will be an unexpected twist where the good are winning, but suddenly the bad will start winning and then the bad will be shown to be not good, but actually the bad will be shown as not bad, but better than the good.
And just as the sages’ works have performational potency, ordinary people’s works don’t have performational potency. Similarly, the demons’ weapons did not hurt the devatas. And others’ words, critical words, if they hurt us, that potency will be there, in their words, as long as we dwell on them.
But if we associate with devotees with whom we share definitions of success, and we are incurring that association, then we can march onwards. And Prabhupada, he was also criticized, but he never let himself become discouraged. By determinedly serving Krishna, he achieved something that has never been achieved in the history of the world.
Extraordinary preaching, which has delivered all of us, which continues to deliver people for many, many, many, many generations to come. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? And do we have time for questions? Okay.
Any questions? Yes. … … … … … … … … … … … … … Okay. So the question is that can we, for a sadhaka, the neophyte devotees, can we insulate ourselves from criticism just by meditating on the instruction of the spiritual master, or how can at our stage we do that? First thing is that it’s not necessary that all criticism is bad.
Sometimes the criticism may also have an element of truth in it, and the criticism may be beneficial for us. So at the same time, criticism has to be given in a in a framework of affection. Criticism is like doing surgery.
Now, it’s not that a patient walks into the hospital and doctors start doing surgery on him. No. First there’s diagnosis, first there is explanation of the problem, then after the explanation of the problem is there, then after that there is a consent of the patient, and then after that there is anesthesia given, then there is surgery done, and then after that also there is pain medicine given.
So the point is, surgery cannot be done in this community. So those who are in the position of authority and they need to correct, there is correction which is all over the required. And it is not that if we are not corrected, we will not go in the correct path.
We may also think that I am just doing bhakti, but we are doing something according to our mind. So it is not that all criticism is bad, but criticism has to be given in an atmosphere of basic affection. So the philosophies are explained and guidance is given.
And basically, the point is that there is an action and there is a person. So now the action is wrong and the action needs to be corrected. So if there is a relationship of affection between two people, between the guide, between the counsellor and the counsellee, or the guide and the, is there a word, guidee, between the guide and the guided.
So at that time, basically, the guided person understands that yes, this particular action that I did, that is wrong, but it is not that I am good for nothing. We, everyone in the soul is dear to Krishna and every soul is precious for Krishna. Every soul has the potential to love and serve Krishna.
So what should we, as well as others, or guiding us, the whole, it should be a co-operative effort where we see that you are here and this mistake that you are doing is here. Whatever I am speaking is not targeted at you, it is targeted at this mistake that was committed and this mistake needs to be corrected. Now that mistake can be an opinion also, my opinion might also be wrong.
So even when we are countering somebody’s opinion, we should know that that person and the opinion are not the same. People change their opinions and sometimes people may honestly be mistaken. Honestly be mistaken means they honestly think this is the right thing, but it may be wrong.
So we should not think that just because their opinion is wrong, they themselves are bad. That is the perspective from the overall way in which correction should be given. And we as devotees, if we find that several senior devotees are saying the same thing, then maybe the mistake is with me, it is not just that somebody is critical, but if everybody is feeling the same way, then maybe I have to correct myself.
And if sometimes, despite our best efforts, there is criticism that happens and we feel that it is very discouraging, then yes, we may not have a like-minded association immediately around us, but we also take time to understand what our own nature is. In the early stages of our life, we may think I like something. The mind’s nature is that it always keeps us dissatisfied with whatever we do.
So whatever service I am given, the mind will tell you this is not my nature. That way the mind takes the easy way out and doesn’t do any hard work. So there is also the principle of surrender.
That means when we are given some instruction, when we are given some service, we follow that instruction, we try to do that service. But while doing whatever services we are doing, we should also be observing to see, okay, what is it that I am good at? What is it that I like doing? So when we say guna, karma, vibhagacha, chaturvalane maya asushtam guna taro guna asayi, 4.13 it is said. Now guna and karma, what does that essentially mean? Guna means actually internal compatibility.
We like to do that. And karma means external competence. So we can observe while we are doing various services, what is it that we like to do and what is it that we are good at doing.
And over a period of time, gradually, we can gravitate towards that service more and more. So that will happen organically. And we don’t have to do it artificially and say that, okay, this is not my nature, so I will not do this service.
But we can, and if we have some special talent, we also have to put in some special effort to find out how we can, how we can be encouraged in that service. So suppose somebody is a singer, and then you have to find out other devotees who are singers, maybe nowadays through social media we can correspond. So we can find out ways in which we can stay in touch with devotees who are inspired in things that we are doing.
And that way, we can do that service and we can move on. So I always had a desire to write. But when I was in a devotee circle where, in the last 10-15 years, many devotee authors have started writing.
In the past, there were not so many devotee authors who were writing. So in India, there is a newspaper, the number one newspaper, Times of India, there is a spiritual column called Speaking Tree, which is read by millions of people. So I once, I wrote an article and it was published in Speaking Tree.
So for me, that was a big success. I was the first ISKCON devotee whose article was published in Speaking Tree. After that, many other devotees have also written.
But I was the first person. So when I wrote it, I went and told other devotees, you know, my article was published in Speaking Tree. So one devotee asked, how does the tree speak? You know, they had no understanding of it at all.
So, I felt very discouraged. But soon after that, Jaya Devdutt Maharaj had come there. And I had published several articles by that time.
So I showed him. I had made an ISKCON compilation. I showed it.
And he was so happy. He said, Prabhupada wanted devotees to write. Just keep writing.
And then, he went to America. And from America, he mailed around 12 books on writing for me. And then he sent them through some senior devotees, through our temple president, through other devotees.
All of them he sent. So then, I felt very encouraged by that. So the point is, that if we are trying to serve in a particular way, we need those who are going to encourage us.
And the other devotees are not bad devotees. We shouldn’t think that they are bad. It’s just that they have different conception of things.
So if we have particular talent, we should go out of our way to try to nourish that talent and also try to get the association to encourage that talent. At the same time, that doesn’t mean we reject whatever service we are doing. We keep doing what we are doing.
And we also try to extend our propensity. A devotee’s mood is that, how can I become a more and more effective instrument in the service of Krishna? So right now, I am doing some service. Let me do that.
But along with that, if there are some other things which I can learn and I can do them better, I should do that also. So devotees should be, can treat our spiritual life like we would treat our career. If we are in a job, we do whatever our boss tells us to do.
But at the same time, we also see, okay, maybe I can learn this skill. Then maybe I’ll get a raise. Or maybe if I do this, if I learn this application, if I learn this software, maybe then I will get a promotion.
So, you know, we do what our boss tells us to do, but we don’t stop with that. We also try to proactively plan how we can go in our career. Similarly, in our bhakti, we do what our authorities tell us to do.
But along with that, we take responsibility for our spiritual growth. And we see how I can serve Krishna. We should be thinking that I should find a service that inspires me, which I can keep doing throughout my life.
It is not that all the time in our life, there has to be some authority standing with a stick. Do this, do this, do this. Even if we are without association of devotees, we should not be without association.
So, others try to have association. But even if we don’t have association, we should have a service that we can keep doing lifelong. And finding such a service is our responsibility.
And by finding such service, we do whatever services we are told to do. And along with that, we also keep looking so that find out what inspires us. And that way, we can have both the balance of surrendering and taking initiative.
Does that answer your question? Thank you very much. Shall we stop here? Any other questions? Yes. I think criticism is a useful tool in showing where you are at.
Because you can show that your mind goes into turmoil five days after criticism and you know where you are at. But if you are over it now, it is very useful in showing where you are at. Yes.
Criticism isn’t useful in showing us where we are. Yes, definitely. The extent we get agitated by criticism, we can understand that we are conditioned.
At the same time, the process of bhakti is a culture of affection. So, it is for me to try to say become humble. I should try to be humble.
But if somebody insults me and he says, no, I am helping you to become humble. This is a complete perversion of the philosophy. I say it is amanina manadena.
So, it is not that by insulting me or by criticizing me, others are helping me to become humble. No, humility doesn’t… If somebody insults me, somebody criticizes me, that will not lead to humility. That will lead to humiliation.
See, humility and humiliation, what is the difference? Humility is false ego rejected. Humiliation is false ego frustrated. So, I want to be proud, but I can’t be proud.
Then I feel humiliated. Whereas, humility means that I consciously choose that there is a better way to live than to live for the praise of others. I can live for Krishna’s satisfaction.
In the remembrance of Krishna, I can be happy. So, humility is a choice that has to be consciously made. And criticism, we may say it makes me humble, but actually it makes us humiliated.
Later on, we can choose to become humble by that criticism. But criticism itself cannot make anyone humble. Criticism only hurts the ego primarily.
But if the person is proactive or person is mature, person will say, okay, this was a mistake I committed and let me correct myself. Let me take the humble position. So, as devotees, if somebody criticizes me, I can take it in that way.
Yes, Krishna is helping me to become humble through this devotee. That is good. But I should not criticize others thinking that I am helping them to become humble.
That will be a complete misunderstanding, misapplication of the philosophy. So, the problem with criticism is that it is essential and it reveals to us who we are. At the same time, it can be very demoralizing.
Because we are human beings. There was a survey done in one American university, Wisconsin University, I think. They had a group of art students, boys and girls.
They are studying art and they are planning to become writers. So, the boys formed a writer’s club and they said that whatever we write, we will all point out faults in others’ writings. And by that, we will correct ourselves and we will become better writers.
When the girls came to know about this, the girls also, they had some feminist influence. So, they said, we will do the opposite of what the boys did. So, they said, whatever we write, we will find the good points and we will praise it.
And 20 years down the line, researchers observed these two groups. So, among the boys, not one of them had become a professional writer. Three of them, they used to write, but still they are not good writers.
And most of them would get fear whenever they start writing. On the other hand, among the girls, overall the boys and the girls, they had been in the same class, more or less similar IQ level. But among the girls, one of them had become a world-famous writer.
Six of them had become published writers. And all the others were known among their friends as good writers. Even if they were writing letters or emails or whatever.
So, what this means is that actually, for bringing out the good within us, we need appreciation more than criticism. Criticism also is required. But encouragement is what we primarily need.
And in an atmosphere of encouragement, if a little criticism is given, that is good. But if the primary mode of the relationship is criticism only, then people will become discouraged. So, what happens? Especially in the case of Bhakti.
See, Bhakti is a voluntary activity. And although from the spiritual perspective, it is essential, we don’t feel it is essential. If I go to work and my boss criticizes me, I still have to keep working.
Because it is my bread and butter over there. But if I come to the temple and somebody criticizes me, then I may just give up Bhakti. Because I don’t consider Bhakti as mandatory.
And Bhakti is primarily a voluntary activity. I was just in another temple a few days ago. And I gave a whole three-lecture seminar on cultivating non-judgmental attitude.
So, after that, one Mataji came and she told that… She is from Bengali background. So, Bengali is often the Shakta. So, they take meat.
But they also have affection for the Deities. She had come to the temple and she was making garland for the Deities. And as she was making garland for the Deities, someone came and asked her, do you eat meat? She said, yes.
So, that person just took the garland and threw it on the ground. She said, you can never make garland for the Deities. She felt devastated.
She went there crying. She just couldn’t digest it. It’s her sincerity that in spite of that, she kept coming and she has become a devotee.
But, it may be true that for the Deities, we may have that, you have to follow certain standards. But there is a way to communicate these things. And if we are insensitive, then we are doing a great disservice to people.
So, the fact that she wanted to make garland means she has some service attitude. That service attitude is good. There may be some standards she is not following.
That has to be told. And that can be adjusted. But criticism often, rather than, so here the mistake is, rather than pointing out, okay, this is a particular action she is doing, which should not be done.
But what happened was, by rejecting, throwing away the garland, what was done was, she herself felt rejected. And her service attitude was rejected. So, if a soul wants to serve Krishna, to reject the service attitude of the soul is actually spiritual violence.
So, it is better to err on the side of caution, than on the side of correction. Now, people will learn through mistakes. But if they find devotees are very critical, they will give up the service attitude itself.
If they have a service attitude, they will gradually correct themselves. But if they lose the service attitude, then there is no scope for correcting themselves. So, while dealing with others, it is better to err on the side of caution, than on the side of correction.
And correction needs to be given in the atmosphere of affection. Any other questions? Any comments? Thank you very much. Yeah.
Depending on the level of surrender, discretion doesn’t apply in the end. Can you explain? Discretion means, what do you mean here by discretion? You said, I think you said, perform or choose the right service. But ultimately, if you totally surrender, whatever you do is, you surrender back to Krishna.
So, there is no mind stuff going on about discretion or choice. It is just you surrender. Okay.
So, you are happy with whatever. Yeah. Krishna is happy with whatever.
Yeah. So, when we are completely surrendered, there is no need for discretion in terms of choosing. Should I do this or should I do that? Because whatever we do, that will please Krishna.
Yes, that is true. There is often this philosophical question, do we surrender the intelligence or do we surrender with the intelligence? That means, I have no intelligence. I will do whatever you tell me to do.
Is that surrender? Or while surrendering, we use our intelligence also. So, actually both are true. That means, one meaning of surrender is doing what Krishna tells us to do or doing what Krishna’s representative tells us to do.
But another aspect of surrender is also using all that we have in Krishna’s service. If, the example is given, Kunti Maharani says that, let the river flow towards, just as the river flows towards the ocean, tai me ananya vishaya, mati madhu pate sakle, datte muddhvata gaddha, gange voh ghamudan mati. In 1842, she says that, just as the Ganga flows towards the ocean, let my consciousness flow towards you.
So, there Vishwanath Chakravartak explains the significance of this example. He says, when a river flows towards the ocean, nothing holds the river back. Whatever comes along, somehow the river keeps moving towards the ocean.
But other aspect is, he says the river holds nothing back. The river doesn’t think, let me keep 10% water for myself. No, all its water is sent towards the ocean.
So, surrender also means that we don’t hold anything back. And if we are not using our intelligence, we could be very well holding our intelligence back. So, Prabhupada, when he surrendered to Krishna, he says there is a song, Aarkine bhago dharma.
So, in that song he says, Aache kiccha kaave tabhi, ehi anumane, nahe keno anibena, ehi ugras thane. So, he is saying, my dear lord, there must be some purpose, for which you have brought me here. And Prabhupada says, this is an interesting word here, anumane.
Anumane means guess. I am guessing that there must be some reason you brought me here. Otherwise, why did you bring me to this terrible place? This is Prabhupada’s spiritual vision.
He is thinking of America as a terrible place. He is saying from the spiritual perspective, it is filled with Rajoguna, Tamoguna. But the point is, that, we see in Srila Prabhupada’s example, he was observing, and he was formulating strategies.
Is it that, when Prabhupada came to America, that Prabhupada had a crystal clear blueprint in his heart? You go to the Lower East Side, you meet this person, tell him to chant Hare Krishna, and he will become your first disciple. No, Krishna’s guidance did not come in such a straightforward, linear way. Prabhupada first went to stay with the Mishra Yoga Studio, and there he was allowed to do Kirtan, but he was not allowed to preach.
Then he went and studied separately. Then the janitor himself stole his typewriter. And then, Prabhupada went to the hippies, and at one particular point, he met the first hippie who seemed to be about to become his disciple.
So, he suddenly went mad with that drug-induced mania, and he attacked Prabhupada. And, Prabhupada had to flee from there. It was a third or fourth story building.
He had to run down from there and run out into the streets, not knowing where he could go. So, it is not that, just because he was surrendered, he could just do whatever it was. He had to use his intelligence.
What should I do now? Should I go back to the house? Will he have recovered from that drug-induced craze? Or should I take a ship back to India? Then he decided, there are some other young people who are coming for his programs. So, he called one of them, and they invited him to his house. So, Prabhupada used his intelligence, and based on the intelligence that he used, sometimes, some strategies worked, some strategies did not work.
And then, the devotee, sometimes, as devotees, while practicing bhakti, we should use our intelligence. Because, our intelligence is also a gift from Krishna. And, by using our intelligence, we can serve Krishna better.
But, there come times in our life, when things may not make sense according to our intelligence. But, if we are told to serve Krishna, we should keep serving Krishna. So, for Prabhupada, you know, he was, he was a grahastha, not a very well-to-do grahastha also.
And, he was not a sannyasi, he was not a preacher. And, Bhakti Sahaja Yoga Kapoor wrote a letter to him. First meeting told him that he should preach in English in the Western world.
Again, the second letter was the same thing. Now, for Prabhupada, he would have asked, how does it make sense? How can I preach? What resources do I have? What influence do I have? Prabhupada could have asked that question. But, Prabhupada kept preaching.
So, if the intelligence raises questions and objections that come in the service of Krishna, that come in the way of our service to Krishna, then we put aside the intelligence. This is what I have been told to do, I will do it. But, while serving Krishna, if the intelligence can be an aid, if by using our intelligence, we can find out better, how can I serve Krishna? Many preachers have this experience that once we start speaking, ideas come.
We remember some things, we get some points, we get some answers. And, sometimes, when we are really inspired, we feel as if it’s not I speaking, it’s like some higher power has grabbed me and is speaking through me. We feel like that.
But, and that is good, actually, if we have a mood of surrender and service, Krishna guides us. So, this is just trying to become a puppet in Krishna’s hands. But, Brahma Mantra once asked Prabhupada, how should we feel after we give a class? So, Prabhupada gave a surprising reply.
Prabhupada said, oh, I did not speak that point. I could have quoted Tashloka. I could have given that example.
Prabhupada said, don’t think, oh, I gave such a wonderful class and everybody is impressed. He said, be in the mood of self-improvement. So, at one level, we should become an instrument and just surrender to Krishna.
Even if our intelligence obstructs us, it doesn’t make sense. This is irrational. No.
Keep serving Krishna. By the same time, while serving Krishna, if our intelligence can give us better options to serve, we can and we should use the intelligence. Prabhupada, actually it was quite, you could say, irrational for a 70-year-old man to go all the way abroad.
Now, Sunti Moraraji, when Prabhupada came to her, she was the person who sponsored Prabhupada’s visit. Prabhupada told her, I want to go to America. She said, Swamiji, you are so old and America is so cold.
Prabhupada said, oh, this is the instruction of my spiritual master. I must go. So, Prabhupada, from the intelligence point of view, actually going to America at that age was not a very intelligent thing to do, you could say.
But Prabhupada did that because that was the instruction of his spiritual master. But having gone there, Prabhupada used his intelligence. Okay, should I be here? Should I go there? So, most of the Swamis were preaching in uptown.
But Prabhupada went to downtown because he saw this is where people are interested. So, the intelligence can be an obstacle in the path of bhakti or it can also be a tool in the path of bhakti. So, for us as devotees, we should not let the intelligence become our master.
The intelligence can be like our minister. The minister is like our advisor. Master means, if the intelligence says, don’t do this, we will not do it at all.
But sometimes, in bhakti, we have to take a leap of faith. We have to take a leap of faith. This is what I have been told to do.
I have to do that. So, if we let the intelligence become our master, then we will never take the leap of faith. But, if we reject the intelligence entirely, then we may end up doing foolish things.
So, we have to use our intelligence as a minister, not as a master. And that way, we can surrender with the intelligence. In normal situations, in some special situations, we can even surrender the intelligence.
And just, I’ll do your vatkrishna. Thank you very much. Prabhu’s books are on the table.
Anybody wants to buy? This is the best time.