When people don’t accept us.. Cincinnati Chaitanya Charan

Hare Krishna. Thank you for coming today. I’m delighted to be here with you. I’ll be speaking on the Bhagavad Gita, drawing from one of my latest books. You’ll receive physical copies of these books as soon as they arrive.

We can read from them then, but until those arrive, I’ll discuss a common problem we all face: the feeling of not being accepted, respected, or appreciated within our social circles. This can happen in any group—whether it’s a devotee circle, a professional setting, our family, or extended relatives.

One of the greatest sources of pain or discontentment in life comes from feeling like we don’t belong where we’re supposed to. For instance, if we live in a distant country, we might feel, “I’m here, but I don’t belong here in America.” This feeling can arise for various reasons, but how do we deal with this sense of not being accepted or connected? That’s what we’ll discuss today, based on a Bhagavad Gita verse. Can everyone see this from wherever you are?

An Affirmation and Prayer

This affirmation is also a prayer. Please repeat after me:

“My dear Lord, help me to learn how to help others to learn.”

Many times, when we feel people aren’t understanding or appreciating us, it’s easy to blame them, thinking “people are terrible” or “these kinds of people are terrible.” While that’s possible, if we immediately jump to that explanation, it becomes very difficult to develop good relationships. As an American comedian once said, “I love humanity; it’s just human beings that I can’t get along with.”

When we try to become spiritual, we might read lofty words like “see equal vision towards everyone.” We might think, “I have an equal vision towards everyone—my vision is that I equally dislike everyone.” No, we don’t want that. Someone once told me, “My life is filled with friends that I do not like. And if I cut off relationships with all the people I do not like, I will have no friends left.” I said, “Oh, that’s an unfortunate and undesirable situation.”

So, how do we communicate with others when there are communication and connection problems? How do we deal with that? That’s what we’ll try to discuss today.

Let’s read this prayer again:

“My dear Lord, help me to learn how to help others to learn.”

If you feel that someone isn’t “getting” you, instead of thinking “they are dumb,” consider: “Maybe I need to learn better how they can understand.” That’s the mindset we’ll discuss today.

Understanding Different Natures

Let’s repeat these words:

“The wise should not disturb the mind of those to worldly work inclined. Let them act while you gently show the path to truth that they may know.”

This is a poetic translation of Bhagavad Gita 3.26. So, let’s look at what’s going on here. I’ll write and draw some things to explain.

The Challenge of Acceptance

Broadly, the challenge we’re discussing is when we don’t feel accepted, connected, appreciated, or respected by others. What do we do in such situations? I’ll discuss this broadly in today’s class based on these words.

What is Krishna broadly saying here? Different people have different natures and are at different levels. Just because someone doesn’t understand you doesn’t mean we have to disturb them by calling them foolish. Rather, we need to consider, “What can I do to help them understand?”

For example, we might be at a particular level—intellectually, culturally, or educationally—and that level may be higher than others. We might expect them to take a high jump and come up to our level. But sometimes, when we expect them to take that high jump, they may try and end up going further down. They are unable to take that leap. Then, our expectations create too much pressure on them, and instead of coming closer, they end up going further away from us.

Navigating Relational Problems

When we face problems in our life, such as relational problems, we generally need a more nuanced approach. When we feel disconnected, our minds can swing to extremes. One extreme is thinking: “People are terrible. People are cold. People don’t care for me.” This feeling can even arise among devotees. Sometimes we’re going through challenges and difficulties, and we expect help and understanding from others, but others don’t seem to understand us.

So, one extreme could be to say, “People are terrible. Nobody cares for me.” An atheistic philosopher was once asked, “Do you believe in hell?” He surprisingly said, “Yes, of course.” When asked how an atheist could believe in hell, he replied, “Hell means other people.” That’s one extreme we can go to.

The Three Glaciers of Life

In life, we broadly experience three kinds of suffering or “glaciers.” As souls, we are situated in three broad circles:

1. The Body: The soul is situated in the circle of the body.
2. Society: The soul is situated in the circle of society.
3. Nature: The soul is situated in the circle of nature.

From each of these, some suffering can come to us.

• What is the suffering that comes from nature called? Adi Daivik. Yes.
• The suffering that comes from society? Adi Bhautik. Yes.
• And the suffering that comes from our own body and mind? Adi Adhyatmik. Yes.

Among these three types of suffering, Adhibhautik (that which comes from other living beings) is often the most difficult to tolerate. If there’s a storm, a tornado, an earthquake, or extremely low temperatures, it’s difficult and can be devastating. But we accept it; we grit our teeth and learn to live with it. In a sense, we see nature as simply “nature”—natural forces that sometimes hurt us. Similarly, with respect to our body, when there’s sickness or disease, it’s extremely troubling, but we accept it. “I’ve got a disease, and as long as it’s there, I have to live with it.”

However, with people, it’s different. We have expectations, and we often think, “How could you do this?” or “Why are you treating me like this?” We see people as conscious agents who make choices, so we wonder, “Why are you being so mean or so cold to me?” This makes social pain the most difficult.

What does pain from other living beings mean? It can range from mosquitoes to Mujahideen (deadly terrorist fanatics), or even a mother-in-law. When this Adhibhautik clash occurs, it becomes very difficult to deal with.

Distress Management

The Gita discusses how distress in this world falls into three categories. We all need to become adept at distress management, much like governments have departments for disaster management. We talk about stress management, but the Gita talks about distress management. Arjuna, for example, is in great distress.

To manage distress, we need to understand its source. We’ll use the acronym IAS. While IAS is a tough exam in India, distress management can also be tough.

Distress broadly falls into three categories:

1. I: Inevitable Some distress is inevitable, as Krishna discusses in Bhagavad Gita 2.14: “Just as the changing seasons bring heat and cold, happiness and distress will come in our lives.” This is simply a fact of existence.
2. A: Avoidable Some distress is avoidable. Krishna talks about this in Bhagavad Gita 5.22. This type of distress arises from our own actions. For example, if we walk down a road and bump into someone, they get angry and push us back, and we then punch them, leading to them stabbing us—this whole chain of events could have been avoided. Perhaps we could have been more careful, or even if pushed, we could have avoided losing our temper or punching them. Many problems are avoidable when we give in to our impulses, such as kama (lust), krodha (anger), lobha (greed), moha (illusion), mada (madness), and matsarya (envy). Different approaches are required for dealing with different kinds of problems.
3. S: Strengthening These are problems that, by going through them, make us stronger. Krishna talks about this in Bhagavad Gita 18.37, saying, “That which tastes like poison in the beginning will taste like nectar in the end.” These are the kinds of problems that are beneficial to experience. For example, if you want to become healthier, you might need to exercise regularly, go to the gym, or do yoga. Learning anything new or self-disciplining for something demanding isn’t easy; initially, it feels like poison. But by enduring that “poison,” we eventually reach a point of “nectar.” This kind of distress helps us reach a better place.

Approaches to Distress

So, how do we deal with these three kinds of distress? There are completely different approaches:

• Inevitable distress: We need to accept it as a fact of life.
• Avoidable distress: We need to correct our actions and change our behavior to prevent it. We need to counter those kinds of actions.
• Strengthening distress: We need to train ourselves or toughen ourselves so we can endure and grow through these challenges.

It’s important to recognize that not all distress is the same. Broadly, these three kinds of distress have three corresponding approaches. While this framework can be applied to all forms of distress, I’ll now focus on Adhibhautik klesha—the social distress that comes into our lives when dealing with people.

Social Reciprocation

We live in society, and generally, we do something for someone, and they do something for us. This is reciprocation, a natural and fundamental aspect of any interaction. Reciprocation can broadly be of two kinds:

1. Transactional: This means the interaction is a simple exchange. For example, when we go to a shop, we’re polite to the attendant, they’re polite to us, we give money, and they give us a product. This interaction has reciprocation, but it’s transactional. At the end of the day, we might not even remember who that person was.
2. Transformational: In contrast, some reciprocation can be transformational. Through these interactions, you become a better person, or the other person becomes better by interacting with you. While many of our interactions at work or in social life might be largely transactional, most of our casual relationships fall into this category. In transactional relationships, even if someone misbehaves or mistreats us, it’s annoying and irritating, but it doesn’t cause as much emotional turmoil.

Inevitable Social Distress

Consider an example: America is much more inclusive now, but twenty, thirty, fifty, or a hundred years ago, there was significant racial discrimination and segregation. One reason India, post-independence, aligned with the USSR rather than the USA was partly due to both Gandhi and Nehru criticizing America for its segregation. Before the Civil Rights Movement, Black individuals were expected to sit at the back of the bus and weren’t allowed at the front. Indians were often treated similarly and expected to sit at the back as well, as there weren’t many Indians in America at that time.

So, despite America’s Declaration of Rights, segregation existed. If racial discrimination is the norm in a place, then while it’s painful, people would often accept it, thinking, “What can we do about it?” If that’s the norm everywhere, we learn to live with it.

Similarly, if we, as practicing devotees, visit Islamic countries in the Middle East, where many Indians and Hindus go for employment, the public practice of any religion other than Islam is generally not allowed. We accept that. While there are vibrant devotee communities there, they are all private. In general, if the broader society operates in a particular way, we learn to accept it.

There will always be some inevitable distress in every situation that we need to accept. When two people come to work together, or two people get married and want to build a life together, there will be differences. The idea of finding a “perfect partner” happens only in romantic movies, and even there, a dose of realism eventually comes to destroy the idealism.

I know a devotee couple in Canada where I sometimes stay. The husband is a marketing manager for an international company and also a learned priest who performs rituals like thread ceremonies, housewarmings (graha pravesh), and weddings (vivaha). His wife is in family law, which is a polite term for divorce, as that’s one of their main services. They joke that they’re a “complete power couple”: you go to the husband to get married, and to the wife to get separated.

She told me that sometimes, people—mostly women, as she’s female—come to her seeking separation for reasons that seem frivolous to us. There might be deeper, unarticulated reasons, but one Canadian lady came to her wanting to divorce her husband, saying they couldn’t agree on the air conditioning temperature in their house.

While that can be a problem, considering the hierarchy of problems, there are people without air conditioning, or even without a house. The lawyer paused, “Is that really the reason you want to divorce?” The lady insisted it was, explaining, “I actually married quite late…”

“I was waiting for my perfect partner, my ‘Mr. Right.’ I truly believed this person was perfect for me. But,” she said, “if he had been Mr. Right for me, then our body temperatures should have sung together.”

People can have many unrealistic expectations. So, there will always be some differences whenever we work closely with anyone. Sometimes, you might say certain things that the other person just doesn’t understand. Or the other person expects something from you that you don’t understand. That’s just the way life is.

Casual vs. Serious Relationships

I bring up the distinction between casual and serious relationships because while frustrated expectations can occur in both, the pain caused is different. In casual relationships, frustrated expectations cause little pain. But in serious relationships, they can cause a lot of pain.

When we’re experiencing a lot of pain, we need a sense of perspective. It’s important to remember that some of this is inevitable.

Yesterday, I gave a class about how we are not alone in the world; we are a part of God, and God has a plan for us. Whenever I discuss God’s plan, especially with a Western audience, one common question is, “Has God planned a life partner for each of us?” The idea is that in the romantic imagination, God can sometimes be brought in as an element. “Oh, this was a coincidence, and we are meant to be together.” Maybe, maybe not.

But the point is, if there was such a plan—if A was supposed to be with B, C with D, E with F, and G with H—then if one person makes a mistake, like A goes off with D, then one person’s mistake would disrupt everyone else’s life. Is God’s plan so fragile that one person’s mistake can disrupt it? No, it’s not that simple.

God’s plan is that we learn and grow. Our relationships are not just for our material gratification—”being with you gives me a lot of material pleasure.” While that might be a small purpose, a much bigger purpose for our relationships is our spiritual evolution. We are meant to grow through all our relationships. So, a certain level of feeling misunderstood, unaccepted, or undervalued is just a part of life. And what is inevitable needs to be accepted.

The Imperfection of Ideals

We can apply this to any situation. Some people recounted being at an interfaith meeting where different people from various religions discussed the challenges of reaching out to the world today. One pastor shared that he was doing a radio or TV show where people would call in and ask questions. He said he got a question from a caller who identified as Christian but didn’t go to any church. The pastor very cautiously and respectfully asked, “Can I know why you don’t go to any church?” The caller replied, “I have not yet found a church that agrees with my philosophy.”

We don’t go to an institution of God to learn philosophy; we expect it to conform to our philosophy. Sometimes we might expect an ideal society, an ideal community, an ideal group of people, or an ideal club. But no ideal club exists in the world. And even if an ideal club existed with all ideal members, we wouldn’t get admission there, because we are not ideal, are we?

So, we all have to learn that there are certain inevitable sufferings we need to tolerate. Someone sent me a joke where a person said that a woman spent her entire life looking for the perfect man. She finally found him, and then it turned out that the perfect man was looking for the perfect woman, and she was not the perfect woman.

Nobody’s perfect in life. So, some distress is inevitable.

Avoidable Distress: Our Present Karma

Having said that, it’s important that we shouldn’t consider all distress to be inevitable.

What were the three kinds of distress we discussed?

• I was inevitable.
• A was what? Avoidable.
• And S was strengthening.

So, for avoidable distress, what do we need to do? We need to correct it. That which is inevitable, we accept it.

The problem with the attitude that “some distress is inevitable, so accept it” is that it does not mean all distress is inevitable. Much distress comes because of our own actions.

I was in the UK, staying at a young devotee’s home. He told me, “Tomorrow is my wife’s wedding anniversary.” I asked, “What do you mean, your wife’s wedding anniversary? Are you talking about your ex-wife, or what are you talking about? Is it not your wedding anniversary?” He said, “All these are sentimental things. I don’t believe in these things.” That was a bit of a signal for me.

Then, as he was driving me, he told me he had been introduced to Bhakti in his youth and wanted to do a lot of service and outreach. He had hoped his wife would support him, but he said, “My wife is not at all cooperative; she’s quite disagreeable.” He then added, “I’ve got a realization that Krishna gave me a disagreeable wife so that I’ll become detached from material life.” He was just beginning his married life, about twenty-seven or twenty-eight. I said, “Wait a minute. Don’t jump to that conclusion. Don’t bring Krishna into it where it could be your own problem, isn’t it?”

Later, at their home, while I was taking Prasadam, his wife also spoke with me. She was a very intelligent lady, eager to understand Krishna consciousness, and had some good questions. Then she started talking to me. She said, “I soon realized that as a husband, there are some basic things a wife would expect: to do some work at home, take care of certain things.” This devotee was neglecting that because he thought, “All these are mundane; I want to be transcendental.” Naturally, his wife was dissatisfied.

I told him that you cannot live the life of a brahmachari (celibate student) if you are not a brahmachari. The brahmachari ashram (stage of life) is also a place where you can take shelter of Krishna. So, you need to understand your life partner and learn to work together. Understand what their expectations are. You cannot fulfill all expectations, but sometimes when we completely neglect our role, that ends up creating far greater problems.

Present vs. Past Karma

When we talk about avoidable suffering, it means that some suffering comes from our past karma. In India, people sometimes say, “What karma did I do to get a person like you in my life?” People might say it aloud, or just think it, or even say it to another person. It is possible that some of the problems in our lives are because of our past karma.

But it is just as possible that the problems coming into our lives are because of our present karma. Not all things that happen in our lives are solely because of our past karma. Broadly speaking, as I said, problems are either inevitable or avoidable.

Broadly, inevitable problems can be attributed to past karma. If a child goes to a particular school and there are mean kids or bullies, while bullying should be stopped by authorities and parents, we cannot protect our children from every single unpleasant interaction. Some kids will just be mean, and our children need to learn to develop a little bit of a thick skin. Neither parents nor teachers can protect everyone all the time. So, some suffering is inevitable, and we could say that is due to past karma. Everybody has some suffering that comes from their past.

At the same time, there is also suffering which is avoidable. Avoidable suffering is because of our present karma. This means that there is suffering that… (Copies of the text will be distributed to you. We’ll read from this. When you get the book, you can go to page 120, to Bhagavad Gita 3.26. This is something we can read from and discuss.) Let’s look at this.

The Interplay of Past and Present Karma

Understanding that suffering can stem from both past karma and present karma is quite important. Let’s look at this. Would anyone like to read the paragraph? If you have the book, it’s on pages 120 and 121. Yes, please.

Good Intentions Versus Good Intelligence

“My dear Lord, You emphasize that good intention is not a substitute for good intelligence. Even when I want to do good for others and guide them toward a higher level of consciousness so that they ultimately connect with You, I need to carefully consider whether such instruction might be disruptive for them, even to the point of being destructive.”

Sometimes, we want to help others, believing we’re doing something good with our good intentions. However, the other person may not always accept our good intentions. We try to be kind to someone, and they hurt us or lash back; they might even be rude. This can be very disruptive. But why does it happen?

We might assume, “Oh, it’s my bad karma that I’m surrounded by people like that.” But generally speaking, one of the key principles discussed in Nyaya (Vedic logic) is to understand the cause of something, in this case, distress. It states that you should first look at the Drushta cause, which is the visible cause. Start with the visible cause, and if it doesn’t make sense, then move to the Adrishta cause, the invisible cause.

So, regarding the Adrishta cause, if someone isn’t dealing with us properly, you need to question: “Have I rubbed this person the wrong way in some manner? Have I done something that agitated them or made them rude to me?” Start with that, and try to address it as much as you can.

Of course, sometimes, beyond our capacity or even our comprehension, people may just be harsh with us. There will always be some incompatibility and issues when we work with people. But don’t assume that all the problems we’re facing are inevitable and that we must simply live with them. It is possible to decrease problems through better communication and understanding.

Correcting Ourselves: Aversion to Fault-Finding

In this chapter, Krishna discusses a quality called Anupaśyan (often rendered as “aversion to fault-finding”). Generally, when we face any kind of problem, our mind tends to gravitate towards two things: Raga (seeking quick pleasure) or Dvesha (seeking a villain).

• Raga means we try to forget the problem through pleasure. For instance, if there’s an argument between two people, they might go to separate rooms and watch TV or start surfing on their phones, avoiding talking to each other. The typical image of two disagreeing people is them sitting next to each other, looking away, glued to their phones. So, one approach is to seek complete pleasure, trying to forget the problem.
• If Raga doesn’t work, if the problem is too overwhelming, then we start looking for a villain: “Because of this person, all this problem is coming into my life.” Sometimes we blame the person themselves, or even someone who recommended that person to us. For example, if we enter a business partnership and the person turns out to be unreliable, we might blame the person who recommended them, or the unreliable partner themselves. Our mind tends to look for a villain.

Krishna says that those who possess Daivi Sampada (divine nature) are averse to fault-finding. They are not looking for a villain in their life. Could there be villains in our life? Of course. But if we are constantly looking for villains to blame our problems on, then we give away our sense of agency.

Consider the lives of the Pandavas. They were just small children when they came to the kingdom of Hastinapura. Duryodhana tried to assassinate them, poison Bhima, and even tried to burn their entire family, including their mother. What did the Pandavas do? They were not obsessed with the Kauravas. The Kauravas eventually allowed them to return, offering half the kingdom, but gave them a wild, desolate half called Khandavaprastha. The Pandavas worked hard and converted it into Indraprastha.

They were often treated unfairly, but they made the best of their situation. In effect, the Kauravas, especially Duryodhana, were far more obsessed with the Pandavas than the Pandavas were with the Kauravas. It’s ironic that the Pandavas did nothing to intentionally hurt the Kauravas. While the Pandavas’ very existence was a threat, they never demanded the entire kingdom; they were even ready to settle for just five villages. So, there was practically no direct hurt from the Pandavas to the Kauravas, but a lot of hurt from the Kauravas to the Pandavas. Still, it was the Kauravas who saw the Pandavas as villains in their lives. The Pandavas never thought of them as villains; they focused on their own duties: “Okay, we have our own future. Let’s work on it.”

The point is, the extent to which we are hurt by someone does not determine how much we think of someone as a villain. It is often when we are insecure, looking for someone to blame for our problems, that we end up finding a villain in our life. Generally, we want to avoid both of these tendencies. We should move from the visible (drishta) to the invisible (adrishta) cause only when the drishta does not work.

So, what does “correct” mean? It could mean that we learn how to communicate better, or we try to understand the other person instead of judging them. When the other person gets angry, generally speaking, whenever there’s a conflict or a difference of opinion, it’s very easy for us to point out what the other person did wrong. And it’s true; the other person may have done something wrong. But what requires a lot of humility and courage is to consider what I have done wrong.

One of the standard practices in serious mediation—which is also a principle in Tarka (logic or argumentation)—is that before you dismantle or destroy the other person’s argument, you rephrase the other person’s argument in the best possible way you can. If you can just have that patience, you know, “I am angry with you because of this, this, and this. And you are angry with me because of this, this, and this.” So, instead of just proving to the other person why my reasons for being angry with you are valid, what if I could just say, “Okay, you tell me why you’re angry with me, and I will rephrase that”? Not that I accept it, not that I agree that all the points are valid. But if we try to hear the other person to understand what they’re saying, we don’t have to accept their understanding.

But many times, if we just understand, “Oh, you think like this,” then we might realize that if I had been thinking like that about some other person, I would also have been just as angry. What often happens is, when we hear somebody accusing us of something, we immediately get angry: “How could you accuse me of this? How could you think like this about me? What kind of person do you think I am? What kind of relationship do we have if you think like this about me?”

We tend to become very defensive or aggressive when faced with accusations. However, it’s important to consider that even if the accusations feel outrageous to us, the person making them likely believes them to be true. If those accusations were indeed true, anyone would feel equally angry.

Three Degrees of Avoidable Problems

When discussing avoidable problems, there are generally three degrees of conflict that arise:

1. Disagreement in Judgment

This is the least severe form of conflict. For example, if two people are in charge of cooking for an event, and one suggests cooking for 50 people while the other says 70, and we prepare for 50 but 70 people show up, we might blame the other person for the lack of food. This is a judgment issue, and everyone can make mistakes in judgment. While it can be painful to have one’s judgment questioned, it’s not the most damaging type of conflict.

2. Questioning of Ability

This is more painful than a disagreement in judgment. When someone’s ability is questioned—for instance, “You are not competent enough for this position,” or “You are not capable of doing this role”—it goes beyond a one-time mistake. It implies a fundamental lack of skill or aptitude. While a person can learn and improve from a judgment error, questioning their inherent ability can be deeply discouraging and make reconciliation very difficult. Imagine someone saying, “The one thing I’ve learned about you is that you can’t learn anything.” Such an attitude makes resolution nearly impossible.

3. Questioning of Motive or Morality

This is the most damaging and often a point of no return in relationships. When someone’s motive or morality is questioned—for example, “You didn’t want this program to succeed,” or “You deliberately sabotaged this because you disliked the leader”—it attacks their character and integrity.

Consider two parents who disagree on parenting styles; one is lenient, the other strict. It’s often hard to say who is “right,” as the long-term impact unfolds over time. However, as long as both parents believe the other has the child’s welfare at heart, their relationship can endure. But if one parent starts believing the other doesn’t want the good of the child, the foundation of their co-parenting relationship crumbles.

The Role of Likes and Dislikes

Our personal likes and dislikes play a significant and often dangerous role in how we interpret others’ actions. If we like someone, we tend to attribute their mistakes to a simple judgment error. If we dislike them, we often ascribe their mistakes to a character flaw.

For instance, if a person eats half a cake meant for five people:

• If we like them, we might think, “Maybe they were very hungry,” or “Perhaps they didn’t know there was only a small amount of cake.”
• If we dislike them, we might think, “What a glutton!” and attribute the worst possible motive to their action.

This tendency to let our biases distort our perceptions can create unnecessary conflict.

Avoiding Relationship “Traffic Jams”

Just as traffic jams occur on roads, relationships can experience “traffic jams” due to these three levels of conflict. While issues at the judgment level are the easiest to overcome, those at the motive level are exceedingly difficult to resolve.

Many relationship problems and interactions are avoidable. How? By focusing on two key aspects of “correction”:

1. Look Inward Rather Than Outward

Instead of immediately assuming the other person is bad or dislikes you, look inward to consider what you might have done to contribute to the situation or anger.

2. Give the Benefit of the Doubt

When a problem arises, try to start with the least negative explanation or motive. Assume it’s a judgment error first. For example, if someone forgets to bring something you asked for, consider that they might have a lot on their mind or be under stress. Don’t immediately jump to the most negative conclusion.

This is where communication becomes crucial. Often, we harbor resentment over perceived wrongs, letting it build up over time, only to explode disproportionately over a minor incident. Instead of accumulating grievances, address issues with the least negative assumption, and communicate openly.

When we start attributing negative motives to others, it can be devastating for relationships. Many relationship problems are avoidable, and we should strive to prevent them. The last part of what we’re discussing is related to strengthening our relationships.

Strengthening Through Difference

Strengthening implies that growth occurs by engaging with people who hold different perspectives. This is where we need to train ourselves. One aspect of this training, as previously mentioned, is to give others the benefit of the doubt to avoid problems. However, I want to focus on two more points before concluding.

Sometimes, working with people who think differently from us is precisely what allows us to grow and expand our understanding. In Krishna consciousness, we often talk about deepening our connection—going deeper into our relationship with Krishna, being more attentive in chanting, and thoroughly understanding the Shastras. This is undoubtedly important.

However, Srila Prabhupada didn’t just want us to be individually Krishna conscious; he founded the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. He wanted us to be a society. For a society to flourish, we also need to broaden our Krishna consciousness, not just deepen it. Broadening means recognizing that there are many different ways to approach Krishna, and various aspects of Krishna can attract different people. People progress in their lives and spiritual paths in diverse ways.

When we interact with others in a non-judgmental way, genuinely trying to understand their perspectives, it broadens our own understanding. It helps us see why someone might be acting a certain way or how things operate in their context.

For example, when I was first introduced to Bhakti, it was in a very conservative, regimented ashram in India, leading to a rather black-and-white understanding of Krishna consciousness: “This is Krishna conscious; everything else is Maya.” However, over the past ten years, I’ve traveled extensively, meeting diverse devotees worldwide who face different challenges across various cultures and social circumstances. This experience has been invaluable in helping me understand that we cannot simply take one version of Krishna consciousness and superimpose it on everyone. Each individual has a unique relationship with Krishna and will pursue it in their own way.

This broadening of our conceptions helps us become more mature and flexible. It enables us to attract more people, not just to Krishna, but generally fosters greater social harmony in our lives, in addition to spiritual harmony. Many problems, therefore, serve to broaden our understanding. Instead of dismissing someone who thinks differently as “a fool” or “a terrible person,” we can recognize that they might be approaching things from a very different perspective.

Enlightenment: Destination and Journey

Let’s consider an image where Krishna represents ultimate reality, or perhaps even a problem that needs to be understood. One person might approach this reality from one angle, while another approaches it from a different angle. Both perspectives can be valid, especially when considering Krishna as the Supreme Reality.

When we approach reality, we may understand the situation, understand Krishna, connect with Krishna, and experience Krishna—and that’s perfectly true for our perspective. In the Bhagavad Gita, a fascinating series of verses illustrates this. In 10.8, Krishna states that those who know Him are Buddha (enlightened). But in the very next verse, 10.9, He describes what these enlightened people do when they meet others: they enlighten each other.

If they are already enlightened, why would they need to enlighten each other? The understanding here is that enlightenment is both a destination and a journey.

• Enlightenment as a Destination: For all of us, the ultimate understanding is that Krishna is the supreme object of love. After trying to find love in many different objects, we eventually come to the point of loving Krishna, and that is becoming enlightened.
• Enlightenment as a Journey: Even when we know Krishna is the object of love, we continue to learn two things:
  1. How lovable Krishna is: What attracts me to Krishna may be different from what attracts you. By conversing with you, I can come to understand another feature of Krishna, another aspect of His lovability and the attractiveness of Krishna Bhakti.

And how I can love Krishna more deeply. A wonderful example of this is when the queens of Krishna met Draupadi. They asked her, “Draupadi, how do you keep my husband satisfied? We are so many, and we are all trying to satisfy Krishna.” They were focused on their service and eager to learn how to perform it better. The idea is that we can all learn how to love Krishna more perfectly.

Similarly, in life, we can always learn from others. This doesn’t mean we should accept everything everyone does as right. People make mistakes, and we don’t condone what is wrong. However, when we approach interactions with the mindset that “there is always something for me to learn here,” we can continuously grow and broaden our perspectives.

Srila Prabhupada’s example is illuminating. When he first came to America, he stayed at the home of Sally and Gopal Agarwal. Gopal was an Indian man married to a Western woman. They sponsored Prabhupada’s visa out of courtesy for Gopal’s father-in-law, who had requested it; they themselves had no interest in practicing bhakti. After a short time, Prabhupada recognized their lack of spiritual inclination and didn’t pressure them. He stayed at their house for about fifteen days to a month before moving to New York. He had arrived on a two-month visa.

Sally Agarwal later wrote about her experiences, which are recorded in Prabhupada’s biography. She noted several interesting things, including that “Swamiji was so interested in learning everything American.” He wanted to know how the vacuum cleaner worked, how the elevator worked, and how the subway worked. Did Prabhupada travel all the way from India to America just to learn about household appliances? No. By being curious about these things, Prabhupada was trying to understand the American mindset—how people think, how they live. This understanding allowed him to learn how best to communicate Krishna consciousness effectively. Prabhupada’s immense success was undoubtedly due to his spiritual purity, but also, significantly, to his attitude of connecting and learning, which enabled him to attract so many people.

We can all expand our horizons when faced with differences of opinion, or when we feel misunderstood. Through such situations, we can learn to broaden our conceptions and, in turn, connect with more people.

Summary: Dealing with Disconnect

To summarize what I discussed today, our topic was about what to do “when we don’t feel accepted”—when we struggle to connect with people or deal with them effectively. I broadly covered four points:

1. The Nature of Distress: Not all distress is the same.
   • Inevitable Distress (I.A.S.S.): Some distress in life is simply unavoidable. As Krishna mentions in the Bhagavad Gita (e.g., 2.14), certain difficulties are inherent to existence.
   • Avoidable Distress: Krishna discusses this in Bhagavad Gita 5.22. These are problems we can prevent or mitigate.
   • Strengthening Distress: Discussed in Bhagavad Gita 18.37, these are difficulties through which we grow and become stronger.
2. Dealing with Inevitable Distress: What do we do with inevitable distress? We accept it. This means recognizing that differences of opinion will always exist. We don’t live in an ideal world, and there will always be some incompatibility because we are all unique individuals. We cannot wish this away. Sometimes, high-level incompatibility can be attributed to past karma. We accept that dealing with difficult people is a part of life, and no one will have a completely pain-free or problem-free existence. While some distress falls into this category, we cannot assume all distress is inevitable.
3. Dealing with Avoidable Distress: For avoidable distress, what do we do? We correct it. Correcting means looking at the situation not solely as a result of past karma (which can lead to passive tolerance) nor solely as a result of present karma (which can lead to immediate blame). The balanced approach is to start by identifying the Drishta cause—what is visible, the present karma. We try to understand, “Did I do anything wrong that might have made this person angry or upset?” If we immediately jump to blaming past karma or the other person’s inherent flaw, we won’t fix the situation and may create unnecessary suffering. In this context, I discussed two principles for correction:
   • Look Inward: “Have I done something that may have agitated this person?”
   • Give the Benefit of the Doubt: When a problem arises, we tend to ascribe a cause to it. Giving the benefit of the doubt means starting with the least negative explanation. This is usually that it was a judgment error—everyone makes mistakes in judgment, including ourselves. A more negative explanation would be that the person lacks the ability, and the most damaging is that the person’s motive itself is bad. We should avoid jumping to attributing negative motives and instead start with the least negative assumption. This approach helps us navigate “jams” in our relationships.
4. Dealing with Strengthening Distress: For strengthening situations, what do we do? We train ourselves. If we want to grow in our life and in Krishna consciousness, we aim not only to deepen our understanding but also to broaden our Krishna consciousness.

Here’s a corrected and more clearly articulated version of the provided text, focusing on improving flow, grammar, and word choice while retaining the original meaning:

Especially if you aim to live in a community or build a society, deepening your spiritual understanding is important, but broadening it becomes even more crucial. Broadening means actively seeking to understand why others think the way they do. As we discussed, even the enlightened in the Gita continue to enlighten each other. Why? Because Krishna, or reality itself, is so vast that even those who are enlightened always have more to learn. Even once you understand that Krishna is the supreme object of love, there’s still so much more to learn about how lovable Krishna is and how we can love Him more deeply.

With this understanding, we can better navigate life’s situations, minimize distress, and grow closer to Krishna. Let’s conclude with the prayer we offered at the beginning, which you can also find in your book. Please repeat after me: “My dear Lord, help me to learn how to help others to learn.”

Are there any questions? We have time, right?

Managing Defensive Reactions: Bonds and Boundaries

Student: Hare Krishna, Prabhu. Thank you so much for the class. I had a question about reacting defensively when someone accuses me of something. My emotions get very involved. Do you have any suggestions for creating distance from that emotional reaction and stopping that defensive response when I feel it starting to happen?

Speaker: If you’re looking for a foolproof way, I can only say that when I find out, I’ll tell you! It’s difficult. I can speak all this theory, but sometimes when someone annoys me, I also explode. That’s decreasing as I practice bhakti more, but it’s still a challenge.

Krishna discusses mind management primarily through two principles: Abhyasa and Vairagya. While these terms can be understood in different ways, I’ll use a specific framework.

• Abhyasa (Practice): This refers to building our bonds. The practice is to fix our minds on Krishna, to build a bond with Him, and to hear from and build bonds with our spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada, and senior devotees. This forms one aspect.
• Vairagya (Detachment/Boundaries): This can be understood as establishing boundaries.

The way to manage the mind’s urges and impulses is through a combination of bonds and boundaries. Let me give an example of each.

The Power of Bonds: Shatrughna and Manthara

In the Ramayana, when Bharata returns to the kingdom after Rama’s exile, he’s horrified by Kaikeyi’s actions. After performing his father’s last rites, as they walk back to the palace, a courtier approaches Bharata. While they talk, Shatrughna walks ahead. He sees them passing Kaikeyi’s palace, and from there, Manthara emerges. Manthara is the one who instigated Kaikeyi. Shatrughna sees Manthara adorned in opulent clothes and costly ornaments, lavishly gifted by Kaikeyi. She was so proud of these expensive possessions that she had no awareness of the kingdom’s grief—the king had just passed away, and people were returning from the funeral.

Seeing her dressed so ostentatiously, Shatrughna lost control. He charged towards her. Manthara noticed him and tried to flee, calling out to Kaikeyi. But Shatrughna grabbed her and violently shook her, exclaiming, “You are the cause of the ocean of agony and pain that has drowned all of Ayodhya! You are the wretched person who has destroyed our entire kingdom’s and family’s peace!”

Kaikeyi came running out and told Shatrughna to stop, but he paid her no attention. Then Bharata heard the commotion and rushed over. Bharata ran to Shatrughna, pleading, “Stop! Look at what you are doing. I’ve felt that same urge to do this a dozen times over, but we want to go to the forest and bring Rama back. If Rama comes to know that we have attacked either Manthara or Kaikeyi, he will be very unhappy with us. For Rama’s sake, let her go.” Immediately, Shatrughna released her.

For us, especially if our devotion is genuine and not just a ritual, our bond with Krishna becomes paramount in every interaction. It means that while I am here and the other person is here, Krishna is also here. I’m not just reacting to the other person based on their actions towards me. For a devotee, there’s always the consideration: “How can I serve Krishna in this situation? How can I please Krishna? Or, if I cannot please Him, how can I at least not displease Him, or displease Him as little as possible?”

When we have that bond with Krishna, even if someone has done something terrible to us, that bond restrains us from retaliating. It’s similar to how we might restrain ourselves from attacking a close friend’s relative, even if they behave badly, for the sake of our friendship. Having a bond with something higher—whether it’s Krishna, our spiritual master, or our community leaders—helps us control our impulses.

The Wisdom of Boundaries

The other principle is boundaries. Our bond with Krishna is crucial, but what do boundaries mean in this context? Boundaries refer to the lines we commit not to cross, no matter how angry we get. We might raise our voice, but perhaps we won’t use obscenities. Even if we use obscenities, maybe we won’t resort to physical violence. We all have certain boundaries we don’t want to violate.

However, when we allow ourselves to be controlled by impulses, we start violating our own established boundaries. These boundaries can be societal, cultural, or traditional, but also the personal ones we set for ourselves. Once we start crossing one line repeatedly, it becomes a slippery slope, leading us to cross further and further boundaries.

Whatever the other person has done needs to be addressed. But while dealing with them, we must be aware: “I don’t want to become like that.” No matter what happens, we don’t want to behave in a way we know is wrong. If we have these boundaries clearly defined for ourselves, strengthened by scriptural study and positive association, then even if we make mistakes in our behavior, we won’t go too far astray.

Generally speaking, the safest position is when we have both bonds and boundaries. Conversely, if we have neither, we are at our weakest.

If we lack a higher person we wish to please, someone for whom we strive to do good or avoid doing wrong, and we have no bonds guiding us, then our behavior can escalate to any degree. For example, young men might get into violent fights. But if that same person marries, starts a family, and has children, they often think, “I can’t get into these things now.” That sense of bond creates a boundary that helps them guard their behavior.

If we have only boundaries but no bonds, we’ll eventually feel suffocated. We’ll start to resent the restrictions, thinking, “Why can’t I do this?” Rules, like roads, have barriers, but the purpose of a road isn’t just to stay within the barriers; it’s to go somewhere. If we only have barriers and no direction, we’ll wonder why we have to stay within them. We adhere to boundaries so that we can have better relationships—with others, with Krishna, or for our overall well-being. Sometimes, our behavior towards one person might not improve our relationship with them, but it can harm our relationship with everyone else connected to that person. So, having only boundaries without bonds can be problematic.

Conversely, if we have only bonds but no boundaries, we remain vulnerable. We might say, “Yes, I love Krishna, I care for you,” but then when an urge arises, we might act impulsively in any direction. Therefore, to be truly safe and strong, we need both bonds and boundaries.

Speaker: Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments? It’s a long answer, I’ll try to keep the other answers short. It’s a very important question, actually. Thank you for asking it.

Student’s Testimony and Question: Navigating Difficult Relationships

Student: Hare Krishna, Prabhuji. Thank you so much for this nectar we’ve received for two days. It’s truly Krishna’s blessings that you were here and shared your wisdom. I just want to share a little about how I connected with you, and then I have a follow-up question.

A few months back, I learned about a Bhakti Yoga conference, which was all virtual. I joined, and one session was yours. I was very interested and intrigued by how you connected the Gita’s lessons with science and spirituality. It really resonated with me, and I started following you from there. I then checked your calendar and saw you were coming to our town, so I really wanted to come, see you, and learn more. Thank you for that. I’m truly grateful to Krishna for allowing me to come and listen to you for these two days.

I also learned about your story. From all of us, I want to offer three Haribols for your mother, if you would allow, because I feel she played a significant part in what we have today.

Speaker: Yesterday, I mentioned that when I got polio at one year old, it was from a defective vaccine. I couldn’t walk normally after that. But when I was about two and a half or three, a distant relative visited and was consoling my mother, saying, “So sad that your son got polio.” I remember my mother’s words, spoken very calmly, clearly, and confidently: “Whatever he lacks physically, God will provide him intellectually.”

Audience: Haribol! Haribol! Haribol!

Student: Thank you, Prabhuji. My question is related to the discussion we just had about the question Mataji asked. We live with our boundaries, that’s true. But there are certain people in our lives whom we love deeply—they are either family or very close friends. Even with our boundaries, their behaviors are not acceptable. If I want to react negatively, my Krishna consciousness tells me I’m destroying my karma, which I want to avoid. So I want to walk away. But how many times do I walk away from how many people? And does that mean at some point, I’ll start feeling like it’s my fault—that I’m walking away from everyone and losing every loved one? That’s just my internal struggle.

Speaker: Thank you for your kind words and for mentioning my mother. This is an important question. It would take me an hour to answer fully, but I’ll try to address it in a few minutes.

Broadly speaking, tolerance is an important virtue, but it’s not the only virtue. Tolerance has a purpose. If you look at the Bhagavad Gita, there’s a sequence:

• 2.14 talks about tolerance.
• 2.15 talks about transcendence. What happens when we tolerate? We attain a higher level of consciousness; we grow.

Before this, Krishna discusses intelligence, which fundamentally means differentiating between temporary things (the body) and the eternal (the soul). Intelligence also means understanding the proper perspective: knowing what are the big things in our life and what are the small things. Just as a selfie can distort perspective, making us seem very large while others are small, proper perspective means seeing things as they are.

Tolerance is based on this intelligence. It’s meant to keep small things small so that we can keep big things big. For example, Krishna tells Arjuna to tolerate, but he doesn’t mean “tolerate all the atrocities the Kauravas have committed against you, no need to fight.” Instead, He’s telling Arjuna to tolerate the pain of fighting against Bhishma and Drona because it is his dharma to fight. At that time, fighting against Bhishma and Drona felt like the big thing for Arjuna. But Krishna clarifies, “You are not fighting against them; you are fighting for dharma. Duryodhana embodies adharma, and they have chosen his side.” The big thing was to uphold dharma.

So, for all of us in our relationships, we need to maintain this perspective: What is the big thing? And what does transcendence mean? It means the “big thing” ultimately becomes the biggest thing in our life: Krishna becomes a living, loving reality for us.

Here’s a corrected and more clearly articulated version of the provided text, focusing on improving flow, grammar, and word choice while retaining the original meaning:

Ultimately, we attain Krishna. That is the sequence, the progression. For us, we may need to decide, if someone is repeatedly misbehaving with us, what is the big thing here? If that person’s behavior isn’t a significant issue, and they’re not a very important person in our life—perhaps we interact with them only once in a while at social gatherings—then we can simply forget it and move on.

However, if that person interacts with us regularly and causes us considerable distress, agitating us to the point where we’re unable to function properly, then we may have to take steps to protect ourselves. This isn’t about taking revenge. When I speak of boundaries, it means not only staying within our own ethical limits but also sometimes creating distance from the other person.

It’s crucial that we are able to perform our dharma properly. For example, in a workplace, if a boss, manager, or colleague is exploitative, abusive, or manipulative, and we are constantly agitated, we might come home and take it out on our family, getting angry with our spouse or children. If this prevents us from performing our dharma at home, we must consider solutions. This might involve changing teams, changing jobs, or filing a complaint. The goal is to keep the big thing big.

Often, we talk about our karma. The purpose of life isn’t simply fulfilled by exhausting our past karma. While it’s true that suffering can be a result of past karma, that’s only one part of the picture. The purpose of life is fulfilled not so much by exhausting past karma as by executing our present dharma. We don’t just want to remove negative entries from our past karmic record; we want to do something positive in our lives.

Consider our spirituality: if a relational situation is so severe that we can’t focus at all when we sit down to chant Krishna’s name or pray to Him, then even if we sit for meditation, we won’t be able to fix our minds on Krishna. In such cases, we might need to do something—perhaps create distance from that person.

We need to understand that there are many ways of interacting with people. Sometimes, we have to cooperate because we must work together. But sometimes, cooperation might mean “you operate here, I’ll operate here.” “You take this particular responsibility; I’ll take this one.” This minimizes direct interaction. Just because two people can’t work closely together doesn’t mean they have to constantly criticize each other or ruin each other’s lives. Simply create some space.

We may need to have some hard conversations to explain why that distance is necessary. However, it’s better to create some distance than to maintain closeness with bitterness. If not warmth, at least cultivate cordiality and politeness. I believe we all have to be responsible and resourceful in dealing with these situations.

Student: Thank you, Prabhuji, very, very much. Thank you.

Transactional vs. Transformational Relationships

Speaker: Last question. We’ll start with this.

Student: Prabhu, I have a question. First of all, thank you for a wonderful talk, Prabhu. It’s been enlightening for the last two days. And I hope we continue the Buddha to the Buddha Vanti (enlightened enlighten each other), so we can spread enlightenment amongst us. You made a statement at the beginning, Prabhu, that reciprocation is a basic foundation for any interaction or relationship. And then you categorized it into two: transactional and transformational. My question is if you can explain them a little bit more. And also, if we see that reciprocation is lacking in a relationship, does that mean we should end the relationship, or is that too strong a statement?

Speaker: Okay. What do transactional and transformational mean?

Imagine you go to a takeout place to get some food, perhaps vegetarian food. You just walk in, take the food, maybe pay, and sometimes you don’t even see the person serving; you just see their hand as you exchange money for food. That’s a highly transactional interaction.

However, if you come to a temple regularly, and someone is serving prasadam, you might talk with that person, perhaps sit down and take prasadam with them afterward. There’s more engagement. It’s not just a transaction; it’s a transformational interaction. You come closer to that person, they come closer to you, and perhaps you learn something more. That’s the difference between transactional and transformational.

Now, when I say there is some interaction, some reciprocation, the reciprocation doesn’t always have to be in perfect proportion. For example, parents do much more for a child on a practical level than a child does for parents. But while parents do a lot physically, children fulfill the parents’ emotional need to nurture and care for someone. We all have a deep need to be needed. I saw a very nice quote at your home about your son/daughter, which I think said, “We did not give you the gift of life; life gave you as a gift to us.” It’s a beautiful thought.

So, reciprocation can occur at different levels. In some relationships, we might do a lot for the other person, and they do less for us, and that’s perfectly fine if that’s the nature of the relationship. A teacher might teach much more to the student than the student does for the teacher. The student’s contribution might be to attend the talks or classes (and of course, pay fees to the college or for tuition).

Basically, the closeness or distance in a relationship will naturally correspond to the kind of reciprocation present. For instance, in a teacher-student interaction, if the teacher sees the student is very interested and attentive, perhaps the student asks questions after the talk, and the teacher and student grow closer. But if the student is just waiting for the class to end, and once it’s over, the teacher looks up and all the students have vanished, then it’s just a job. The intimacy or closeness in the relationship will be affected by the nature of the reciprocation.

Should we end a relationship if reciprocation is lacking? Well, it depends. “Ending” is a strong word, as I said. But it depends. For example, if we have a distant relative or a childhood friend whom we wish happy birthday every year or do something for, but they never respond. They were closures. We decide, “Why do I need to keep spending time on this?” That’s fair enough. However, in some relationships, we might feel it’s important to continue as a service.

Ultimately, it comes down to deciding what’s the big thing and what’s the small thing in that particular situation. If we determine that a relationship or action is a “big thing,” then we can decide to continue investing in it, even if the expected reciprocation isn’t there. Conversely, if we decide it’s not a priority, we might question the need to continue if reciprocation isn’t meeting our expectations. We can make decisions accordingly.

So thank you very much.