When things don’t make sense, look for a deeper sense

[Bhagavatam class at ISKCON, Chowpatty, Mumbai]

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So, today morning one of the most bewildering pastimes from the Srimad Bhagavatam is being discussed.
The Yadus disappearance from the world apparently through a fratricidal conflict among themselves. And that they were destroyed is apparent as explained by Jiva Goswami that Nasha applies not to the actual reality but to our perception of the reality. So, I’ll talk today on the theme of how to harmonise our perceived reality with actual reality.
And this the disharmony or the conflict between perceived reality and actual reality. It can happen at various levels. I’ll talk about three main issues.
One is when bad things happen to good people how do we understand? When something disastrous happens directly with someone or something connected with the Lord. And lastly, here Krishna is saying in future I will go and visit you. So, is the future completely known and controlled by the Lord? If yes, then how do we have free will? These three questions I’ll try to discuss today.
The one of the most common questions with which atheists try to defeat theists. In fact, one atheist called this the checkmate question. If God is good, why would that God allow anything bad to happen especially to good people? Now, this question can be answered in various ways.
One fundamental way we can say offence is the best defence. So, one fundamental way we can respond to this question is why should bad things not happen to good people? Why do bad things happen to good people? Well, why should bad things not happen to good people? What do you mean? Good things should happen to good people. Bad things should happen to bad people.
Why? Who said that? If the world is guided, is working according to unguided natural processes as atheism would have us believe, then there is no reason at all why there should be some, why good things should happen to good people and bad things should happen to bad people. In fact, within the purely atheistic or materialistic world view, there is no conception of good or bad also. Why? Because everything is simply natural processes interacting with other natural processes.
So, when a coconut falls on the ground, that coconut is simply falling. Now, if under the tree underneath, if a person is there and cracks the person’s head, well, it’s simply the law of gravity acting. And the law of gravity does not have any conception of good or bad.
So, when I was in Florida, I saw along the road hundreds of coconuts lying on the ground. I asked, where are these coconuts lying? The government had a rule that coconuts may fall on people, so as soon as the coconuts start becoming ripe, they cut off the coconuts and all of them are lying on the ground. I said, can we pick them up? He said, you can pick as many as you want.
I said, why don’t they sell it? No, no, they get, they have marketed coconut water which comes from South America. They have packaged, pre-packaged. Why is that? They said, because, you know, in America, especially in the USA, labour is so expensive that to take the coconut and make into package coconut, that is more expensive in America than just to import coconut from Australia, America, South America.
So, the point here is that from the naturalistic world view, if a coconut falls on someone, if somebody is there, someone is not there. There is no concept of good or bad because nature does not know anything good or bad. Albert Einstein said that you know, gravity causes things to fall but gravity cannot be held responsible for people falling in love.
So, now, there is at one level the whole idea that if everything is natural, then whatever happens in nature is what happens. And good and bad are simply conceptions in our human brain which are simply based on survival instincts of different people. So, when a lion catches a deer, that catching is good for the lion and bad for the deer.
So, what is absolutely good and what is absolutely bad? From the naturalistic world view, naturalistic means materialistic world view, there is no basis for a conception of good and a conception of bad. We may say, no, no, no, we all accept there is good and bad, but there is no basis for that conception if we strip it down to the fundamentals in the naturalistic world view, there is no reason for calling something good and calling something bad. And there is no reason for any correlation that good things should happen to good people and bad things should happen to bad people.
So, even in theistic world view, which often draws itself from science, which claims that we are the scientific world view, that is based on a faith. And the faith is that there is an order in nature. When Newton saw the fruit falling, he asked the question, what made the fruit fall? When I had gone to Cambridge University last year to give a talk over there on science and spirituality, we passed by that same tree, which is there.
So, that tree is like a pilgrimage place for scientists. Now, Newton asked the question, what made the fruit fall? And it is his brilliance that he came up with the answer that gravity made it fall. But the question itself has an assumption that things don’t happen by chance in a disorderly way.
There is an order in nature. And science is basically a search for the discovery of that order. So, Paul Davies is a prominent scientist who is a sceptic.
And he says, science has to begin with the faith that there is order in nature. Without that, there can be no science at all. So, that there is an order in nature is something which is an article of faith, even for science.
And when science encounters some disorder, so, for example, Newton’s laws of physics stopped working at the microscopic level or the macroscopic level. Then scientists did not give up their faith that there is an order in nature. They tried to go deeper to come up with some other theory that would explain that which was not explainable by Newton’s law of gravity.
And that’s how quantum physics relativity came up. So, the point here is that we do see in our day-to-day activities that there is a correlation between cause and effect. That when we do something bad, something wrong, we get some results of that.
If somebody drives carelessly, then the result is that they may meet with an accident. They may get a speeding ticket. So, if you drive carefully, that doesn’t happen.
So, there is a correlation between action and consequence. If somebody has a very damaged lung, the doctor will ask, at what age did you start smoking? Now, we see the correlation between cause and effect. And when sometimes we are not able to see this correlation between cause and effect, just like sometimes at the subatomic level or at the macroscopic level, when the Newton’s law of motion, which normally explains the cause-effect correlation, that doesn’t work.
So, what do we do? Just as scientists don’t give up the faith that there is an order in nature, but they look for a deeper theory that explains. Similarly, we need to look for a deeper theory. Normally, we do see cause and effect working.
Normally, say, we see that, say, if somebody eats reasonably, their weight stays good. If they eat a lot, they bloat up. But there are some people who eat little and still they become obese.
And there are some people who treat their tongue like a conveyor belt. And still, they don’t get weight. So, normally we see a correlation, but there are sometimes when that correlation doesn’t work, then we have to consider some other factors.
Some people may have an unusually high metabolic factor in their body. They can digest a lot of food. Or some people are genetically inclined towards obesity.
Some people are not. So, there is a normal correlation, but when that normal correlation doesn’t work, we don’t reject the principle of correlation. We look for some other explanation, which is involved.
Same way, when in life something bad happens to somebody who is good, then it is not that there is no correlation. It is not that there is no principle of action leading to reaction, but that there is something deeper going on, which we can’t perceive. I just came from a tour of America and Australia, I came to Australia, to Sydney.
It was one of the most difficult classes I gave over there. The day I landed in Sydney, it was Sunday, I had to give a class over there. It was in Brisbane.
So, there, one of the most leading young devotee Mataji’s, over there, she had just passed away, died in a brutal accident in Vrindavan. And she was one of the most young, dynamic devotee leaders and the whole congregation was in a state of shock. So, at that time they asked me to give a class and I was just praying to Krishna what to speak at that time.
I didn’t even have time much to prepare. So, I have to explain based on the past time of Abhimanyu and his unfortunate death at a very young age. Basically, we all work with the presumption that there is some correlation between cause and effect.
And, if we assume that there is no God in control or that, basically when bad things happen to good people there are three possibilities. That God doesn’t exist, God doesn’t control or God doesn’t care. Non-existent, negligent or impotent.
That is the possibility about God. Now, neither of these possibilities, none of these three possibilities correlate with what the Bhagavatam tells us. But, if we see even the purely logical or scientific world view if we see that there is, we look for meaning and order in whatever we see.
So, in science basically the search for meaning and order. Oh, why do objects fall like this? This is because of this. Why does this happen? This is because of this.
This is because of this law. This is because of this law. Now, what do we have if we do not stay open to the possibility that there is a deeper explanation.
There is something beyond our normal capacity to perceive and understand. Then what do we have? We have science and we have logic which explains this happens because of this, this happens because of this, this happens because of this. But, why do we exist? Well, that has no purpose.
Why do we live and why do we die? That has no purpose. So, then basically we end up with islands of meaning in an ocean of meaninglessness. We end up with islands of meaning.
Oh, why do objects fall? That’s because of law of gravity. Now, why does the temperature rise like this? Oh, that’s because of laws of thermodynamics. Why does this happen? Because of this law.
Why does this happen? Because of this law. Now, why do we exist? There is no reason for that. There is no purpose for that.
So, rather than presuming that if there are islands of meaning in an ocean of meaninglessness, that raises the question how did the islands of meaning come at all? So, it’s much more reasonable to presume that there is an ocean of meaning, but it requires something beyond our normal perception to understand. So, we if we choose the idea that God is not in control or God doesn’t care or God doesn’t exist, then the very basis on which we function on day-to-day life, that basis itself we will have to reject. So, you know, sometimes people say, oh, to have faith in God, it requires a huge leap of faith.
Yes, it requires a huge leap of faith, but atheism requires a much greater leap of faith. You know, it requires too much faith to believe in the non-existence of God. Why? Because if God is non-existent, then there is no basis for us to function at all in the world.
Because everything that we function, we function based on certain assumptions which are foundational. So, right now I am speaking, there is an assumption that when I enunciate certain sounds through certain languages, certain meaning is coming out to you. When we come out of a room, we raise our step and put the step forward.
There is an assumption that our leg will come on the ground and will not fly away. There is a foundational assumption in our day-to-day functioning which is based on implicit acceptance of the principle of cause and effect connection. And that principle of cause-effect connection itself has no basis in the atheistic worldview.
So, American thinker Ralph Earl Emerson, he said that what I have seen is enough for me to believe in the one whom I have not seen. So, what I have seen, the very fact that there is some order in nature that indicates that there is some source of that order. Now, when we perceive disorder at our level, what is the reason for that? One reason, of course, we can say is karma.
We have done, so actually the principle of God’s benevolent goodness that is not very sustainable with a perspective that is only up to one lifetime. Because from this lifetime’s perspective, bad things do happen to good people. And this is one of the biggest problems for Christianity and the Abrahamic religions in general, which do not accept reincarnation, at least in their mainstream versions.
That why do bad things happen to good people? They just can’t explain. Because from this life’s perspective, yes, bad things do happen to good people. So now, so their explanation goes more on the perspective of, we could say, attributing to the inconceivable.
God’s ways are different from our ways. We don’t know why God works in a particular way. Or that God has a plan which is different from ours.
Which is all true. But it is not a very they go on the level, not of philosophical explanation so much as trying to emotionally whatever happens is for your good. Some innocent people are suffering.
That’s because that is meant to invoke compassionate spirit among those who are not suffering. And that way it enables you, when we suffer, that suffering is meant for our growth. So, that is good that we look at how positively we can see the evil in the world as meant for our growth.
Now, within the Vedic tradition, there is the explanation of karma. Which is more intellectually satisfactory. In terms of, okay, this is whatever happens, it is by God’s plan.
It is for our growth. But it is not that God is doing it. It is we who by our past karma are getting it.
Now, unfortunately, the principle of karma can lead to hard-heartedness and insensitivity. Because we end up saying that whatever has happened is because of your past karma. this is one of the, in my last year, I spoke in Yale Medical College.
There was a Muslim scholar of Islamic studies. And I spoke of science, spirituality and self-improvement. So, he had this question.
He said, Hinduism does not encourage any self- improvement individually or socially because everything is said to be ordained by karma. So, you are meant to be the way you are by karma. And that’s why any action for improving oneself individually or socially through social justice, that is discouraged.
And that’s why, he says, in Hinduism, there is an unfair caste system. So, then I explained, okay, we see that the if this was the idea that there is no impetus for any kind of improvement, then why would people do anything at all? If everything is ordained. The Mahabharata is the world’s longest poem.
It is seven times bigger than the Iliad and Odyssey combined together. The Iliad and Odyssey were considered the biggest poems. Now, if everything were ordained, why would anyone take the labour of writing 110,000 verses? If everything were ordained, why would there be a branch like Ayurveda, which vigilantly tries to treat people? So, it is true that the caste system was sometimes perpetuated by telling the people in the lower caste that you have done bad karma in the past, that’s why you are born in the lower caste.
But the purpose was not perpetuation of unfairness. The purpose was cooperation based on acceptance of reality. Different people are of different natures, they need to be engaged accordingly.
So, it’s striking that in the Bhagavatam, on very few occasions, when people suffer, their past karma is mentioned. For example, in the 9th chapter of the 1st canto, when Bhishma is analysing the cause of suffering of the Pandavas, this is so unfair, this is anyaya, this is atrocious. He gives many explanations, does not even mention the explanation of karma over there.
Because the Pandavas are great devotees, for them there is no question of karma. But then we move forward again and we see the incident where Parikshit is accosting, confronting the Kali who is in the garb of a king, who is attacking the bull and the cow, attacking the bull. Now, at that time, Parikshit asks Kali, asks the bull, what is the cause of your suffering? The question itself can seem absurd at one level.
See, he is beating me, that is the cause of my suffering. Why are you even asking me? So, his question can seem absurd, but the bull’s reply is also, he says, actually it is very difficult to determine the cause of suffering. And he gives various theories, some people say it is kala, some people say it is guna, some people say it is karma, some people say it is prakriti.
Ultimately, it is impossible to know for certain what is the cause. And Parikshit says, kudos, well done! He said, now I can understand that you are dharma personified. Because only you could have given an answer like this.
So, the Bhagavatam does not use karma as a simplistic explanation for everything. Yes, karma is true at one level, but we have to see what is anukul to bhakti. There is anukulyasya sankalpa, pratikulyasya varjanam.
What is favourable for our remembrance of Krishna, we accept that. What is unfavourable for our remembrance of Krishna, we reject that. So, we have to see what helps a person to grow, to come closer to Krishna.
So, we could become very insensitive and irresponsible if you just start attributing karma to everything in the, everything, to everything that goes wrong. If a baby is crying, should the mother think, oh, the baby is crying by her past karma? Obviously not! The mother has to think, what is my dharma? What is my dharma? What is my duty at this point? And the mother has to do that duty. If a thief has robbed a person, then that person goes to the king and says, oh, I’ve been robbed.
The king, should he say, oh, it’s because of your past karma you’re robbed. Well, no, the king has to see, what is my dharma? My dharma is to correct what has gone wrong over here. Now, if somehow the king is incompetent, or somehow the king makes efforts but the thieves are not caught, then that person can think, this happened because of my past karma.
And that is for individually accepting. So this is that karma is not the stress. Dharma is the stress.
What is my dharma right now? And sometimes that dharma involves diligently taking up action to correct the situation. Sometimes that dharma involves just accepting whatever is the situation. Normally we think of surrender in terms of Siddharapati raising her hands up.
Surrender. Yes, that is one way of surrender. Dependence on Krishna.
The Bhagavad Gita tells Krishna, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam sarvam. Surrender to me. It’s 18.66. Seven verses later, in 18.73, Arjuna says, I’ll surrender to you.
Karishe vachanam tava. But how does Arjuna surrender? That is not by raising his hands up. Arjuna surrenders by yatra-partha dhanur-dhara.
By picking up his bow in readiness to fight. So there is dependence on Krishna, which is one form of surrender, and there is diligence for Krishna, which is another form of surrender. And both are important.
And intelligence means to know which form of surrender is to be applied when. About 20-25 years ago, when first time I started giving classes, so one senior devotee gave some guidelines to me. And the last guideline was about how to give classes.
The last guideline was depend on Krishna. But in bracket, but only after you have prepared. If I say I depend on Krishna, but I have not prepared.
Then, that is not dependence, that is irresponsibility. So there is dependence on Krishna and there is diligence for Krishna. So, when through the normal explanation of cause and effect, we are not able to understand, we are not able to correct, then there is dependence on Krishna.
With normal principle of cause and effect, we are able to correlate. We are able to correct, then there is diligence for Krishna so that we can correct. If somebody has a disease, well, they have to work to take medicines.
But if despite taking medicines, the disease is not getting cured, then there is dependence on Krishna. Accept it. So for us, we understand that Krishna has some bigger plan.
Krishna has some bigger purpose going on. Which may not be perceivable for us right now. And that’s why we just wait.
We may not be able to accept whatever happens at that time, but we can still move forward. It’s not possible to be grateful for all situations. But it is possible to be grateful in all situations.
Grateful for all situations means whatever happens, I am grateful for that. That’s quite difficult. Sometimes bad things happen.
But it is possible to be grateful in all situations. Yes, this terrible problem has come, this is bad, but I am grateful that I have Krishna with me. I can remember Krishna.
I have the association of devotees. I have the remembrance of Krishna which can shelter me. I have so many things right in my life by which I can deal with this.
So now, this same principle applies even more when we come to looking at the past times of the Lord. So the point I started off is how we perceive when our perception and the reality don’t match, what do we do? So our perception is bad things are happening to good people. The reality is, as we understand from Shastra is that bad things don’t happen to good people.
So then how do we harmonise it? We understand that there is some other principle that is working over here. And that other principle is Krishna’s plan. Whatever that plan is, for what purpose it is, we can know.
Immediately how it is working, it’s very difficult to know. For what purpose it is means, that ultimately it is for our spiritual growth. How specifically that will work out, that it’s very difficult to know.
So this applies, this principle that when the perception, what we perceive and what is the reality, they don’t match. Then this applies even to Krishna Leela. In Krishna Leela here we see Krishna has own family killing each other.
And Krishna is himself there at that time and even he is not able to stop them. How can this happen? So here the perceived reality may seem that does Krishna not have control? Do people even at Krishna Leela’s times work in their own arbitrary ways? No. There is a higher purpose going on over here.
Higher purpose is, as is explained in the previous verses, that Krishna wanted to take the Yadus out of this world. And it is said that there is enough in this world for those who want to believe in God. And there is also enough in this world for those who want to disbelieve in God.
Ultimately what we want to believe is a matter of our choice. In this world there will be evidence which will be conducive to belief and there will be evidence which will be conducive to disbelief. Which evidence we focus on is up to us.
Either we can look at the disorder and say there is no order, there is no God. Or we can look at the order and say there is God. If we look at the disorder and say there is no God, then it becomes impossible to explain why there is order.
From disorder, order can’t come. So, on the other hand, if we look at the order and understand that God is there, then wherever there is disorder, we can we can analyse that there may be order at a deeper level which I can’t understand right now. So, here the nashtah is described in the verse that this destruction was apparent.
In the Bhagavad Gita also similar principle comes up. In 4.1 Krishna says that sa evayam mayathedya yogah proktah puratana imam vivasvate yogam proktavan aham avyayam He says this knowledge of yoga is avyaya, it is imperishable. This is 4.1. And then 4.3 He says sakaleneha mahata yogo nashtah parantapa So, if that which is avyaya how can that be nashtah? If it is imperishable, how can it be destroyed? So, when these two words, there are just two verses apart, three verses apart, 4.1 and 4.3. So, the explanation is that it cannot be destroyed.
The destruction refers to not the destruction of the knowledge but it refers to the destruction of our access to that knowledge. So, it becomes, it is indestructible but it becomes inaccessible at times. So, similarly here when something terrible is happening to the lord, devotees those who are very close to him, we have to see that not that there is no god or there is no order that the destruction is only at a surface level.
There is something deeper that is happening that we can’t perceive. So, when we when we call for faith, there is faith that is based on reason and there is faith that is beyond reason. So, faith is not a call for the rejection of reason.
Faith is a call for rejection of dependence on reason. Rejection of reason means we just believe. There is no reason, no logic, we just believe.
That is not what faith is. In faith, it is based on reason that we use our reasoning capacity as far as it goes. We observe the world, we see a correlation between cause and effect, we accept that and based on that we infer that there is a controller.
But then we also understand that there are certain things which are beyond our capacity to perceive. So, faith is not a rejection of reason, it is a rejection of total dependence on reason. We are ready that when some things don’t make sense to me, I am ready to accept that with faith.
So, the human reason reaches up to this point. But the reality shows us something which is beyond that point. So, faith is the bridge between the finite human reason and the infinite divine reason.
The infinite divine reason means God has a plan which may not be understandable to us immediately. So, for us to bridge that space that requires faith. And that faith is what enables us to persevere when our life seems to be disorderly.
And sometimes that bridging may happen in a few hours. That means, after a few hours we understand why this happened. Sometimes it may be after a few weeks.
Sometimes it may be after a few years. Sometimes it may even be after a few lifetimes. But, it is this faith enables us to bridge the gap between the finite human reason and the infinite divine reason.
I was speaking at this point in Fort Lauderdale in America. After that one devotee came, Russian Mataji came and she told me that she had an experience like this. So, did I mention this in my last Vaheguru Gautam class? Okay.
So, he said that she had gone to New Vrindavan and suddenly she had got some emergency at her workplace. So, she had to go immediately. And she was looking who can New Vrindavan in a remote place.
How can she go from there? He came to know there was one devotee who was going from there to the airport and he had hired a car. So, she told, met him. He said, can you take me? He said, yes.
Tomorrow morning come at 10 o’clock. At this point I will pick you up. She went there at 9.50. It became 10, 10.15, 10.30, 11, 11.15, 11.30. There is no phone range very good over there in that area, New Vrindavan.
At 11.30 finally she got a contact. And he said, oh, you know, I forgot completely. And he said, I also have to urgently catch a flight.
So, I can’t come back now. She was furious. He said, you wasted my time.
My whole plan is disrupted. How could you forget? I told you. He said, sorry, range is not coming.
And he cut off the phone. And then she was seething with anger. And that evening she had just come to the temple in the evening at 6 o’clock.
And then another devotee told her, you know that young man who had gone in the morning? He said, yes. His car met a terrible accident. There was a drunk driver who hit the car full on the passenger side.
And he showed the pictures of the car. Terribly damaged. Now, if she had been driving with that boy, she would have been sitting on the passenger side.
She would have been killed over there. So, this boy got some slight injury. But he survived.
So, the point here is that here after 7-8 hours, she understood why that happened. You know, it was Krishna acted. Now, what exactly was the cause? Is it that boy’s forgetfulness? Is it her inadequacy in reminding him? Her mistake in depending on him? Is it Krishna’s plan? So, bad things happen, but Krishna can bring good even out of the bad.
So, we may sometimes understand how something is for good after a few hours. Sometimes it may take a few days, few weeks, few months, few years also. So, we need to perceive here.
So, our reason takes us as far as it goes. And where reason can’t explain, we need to take the leap of faith. And faith is not the rejection of reason.
Rather, faith is the extension of our human capacity to analyse to the area where we can’t reason. And thus, we make sense with the eyes of faith. And this brings us to the last point.
Krishna is saying in the future, I’ll go and meet at your house. So, is the future ordained? This is another criticism that atheists have. That God’s defining attributes are self-contradictory.
They say that God’s omniscience and God’s omnipotence can’t go together. Why? If God knows everything, then does he have the power to change everything? If, say, in the future, A is going to happen or B is going to happen? He knows it. Then, can he change it? If he can change it, that means at the point he changes it, he decides on that.
Then does he know it in advance? So, if he knows everything, that means the future is planned out and even he can’t change it. But if he can change it, that means the future is not planned out. And that means either he can be omnipotent or he can be omniscient.
He can’t be both. Now, our understanding is that actually God’s attributes, God is not just a principle, he’s a person. And his attributes are meant for his purposes.
So, Krishna’s omnipotence or his omniscience is not like an attribute he’s forever stuck with. Like some people are very tall. Now, being tall is advantageous in some cases, but in some cases, if the door is low or somebody will bump their head, they are stuck with their height.
That Krishna is not stuck with his omnipotence or his omniscience. Krishna’s defining attribute is that he is Bhaktavatsala, he is Krupanavatsala. So, his underlying attribute is what we can say, omnibenevolence.
He works for the good of everyone. And while working for the good of everyone, sometimes he may use his omniscience, sometimes he may use his omnipotence. So, when for doing the good of someone, if it’s required that he exhibit his omnipotence, he will exhibit that.
If it is required that he exhibit his omniscience, he will exhibit that. So, in the Damodar Leela, for example, that same Krishna, who doesn’t know how to untie the rope that has been tied to him, he knows that those trees are actually Nalakavar Manikarya. That same Krishna, who does not have the strength to break the rope, has the strength to pull down a huge tree by the force of his belly.
So, what is going on over here? Actually, Krishna has a plan. And for his plan, if he needs to know that these are, he wants to serve his devotees, he wants to fulfil the word that his devotees have given, Narada has given the word. So, to fulfil that, he manifests his omniscience.
Now, for fulfilling that, if he requires, he manifests his omnipotence. Now, to reciprocate with the love of Mother Yashoda, when she wants to punish him, she wants to discipline him, at that time, he doesn’t manifest his omniscience or omnipotence. He says, I don’t know, my mother has tied me, how will I come out of it? So, Krishna, he works for our good.
Is the future completely ordained? No. What happens to us in major events is ordained. It’s like a journey.
If I’m travelling, then what kind of problems, what kind of weather I’m going to face, what kind of road is there, slippery or good, that is planned. But how I drive is not planned. Even if there is a dangerous road, if I’m driving safely, the possibility of an accident is much more reduced.
Even if an accident is likely to happen, it’s much more reduced. If I’m driving recklessly, even a safe road accident can happen. So, what happens to us is ordained.
But how we respond to it is not ordained. The actions we choose is up to us. Baldev Vidyamukhi says in the Vedanta Sutra, a commentary in the Bhashya, that if all our actions were ordained, then scripture would become meaningless.
Because scripture tells us, do this, don’t do this. So, we do have free will. And Krishna has his supreme free will by which he acts for our good.
So, the human free will is not in independence of the divine free will. The human free will is by the arrangement of the divine free will. Krishna, by his free will, which is omnipotent, has given us free will.
And he gives us guidance how to use it. So, what happens in the future, we may come to know something about it through astrology. But even astrologers, they have to do a lot of inference.
It’s from praktaksha, whatever they see, from there also they have to make anumana. And that can sometimes be right, can sometimes be wrong. So, what is beyond anumana is that whatever happens in the future, Krishna will be there with us.
And Krishna will help us to grow. Krishna will help us to come to him. That is the faith that we are meant to get through shastra.
Shastric study is not just meant for memorising verses or analysing scriptural technicalities. All that is good. But the most important faith that we need from shastric study is that Krishna is our well-wisher.
The greatest weakness of faith is the weakness in Krishna’s, is the lack of faith in Krishna’s benevolence. Our greatest weakness is not our lust or anger or greed or negativity or whatever. Our greatest weakness is our unwillingness to believe that Krishna loves us.
And by the association of devotees like Srila Prabhupada, who had total faith in Krishna’s benevolence. Even when Prabhupada was in America, he had just come to America, had a heart attack, he had no money, he had no institutional support, no followers. Prabhupada says, He is also doing inference.
He doesn’t know for sure what is going to happen. My dear lord, you must have some purpose. That’s why you have brought me here.
And Prabhupada’s conclusion, Just as a puppeteer makes a puppet dance, my dear lord, make me dance. So this metaphor of dancing is the blend of dependence and diligence. So, a dance has to be done, the dancer has to be expert while dancing.
Even when a person, even when a puppeteer is making a puppet dance, it’s not that the puppeteer can make any object dance. If your stool can’t dance, the object also has to be fashioned in a particular way by which it will dance. So, similarly, when Prabhupada is saying, Krishna, make me dance, he himself is using his full resourcefulness, his intelligence, his planning, his hard work, to do what is in his power.
So, what is in our human capacity, we do diligently. What is beyond our human capacity, we leave to Krishna independence. So, there is this diligence and dependence, both are drawn together in the metaphor of dance.
Krishna, wherever you put me, I will dance for your pleasure. So, the place where we are put in, the setting we are put in, that we are dependent on Krishna. But the action of serving him to the best of our capacity, that is our dependence.
So, for 40 years, Prabhupada was dancing for Krishna, but the stage was such that there was nobody observing, nobody appreciating, nobody connecting. And the last 11 years, Krishna arranged such a stage for Srila Prabhupada, that thousands and millions of people came. And, this dance of divine surrender inspired surrender similarly in millions.
That was Srila Prabhupada’s extraordinary faith, that no matter whatever went wrong, and many things went wrong in his life, but he was ready to dance for Krishna’s pleasure. Now, make me dance. That, he had that faith that Krishna is in control, Krishna has the good of everyone in mind, and make me an instrument for that.
So, if by associating with Srila Prabhupada through his books, through his followers, through his pastimes, if we can get this faith that Krishna is our well-wisher, Krishna wants our good, and that Krishna cares for us, Krishna loves us even now, however we are. Because we have to improve, no doubt. That is our diligence.
But, there is also the dependence on Krishna. So, if that is the faith that we can get by Shastric study, we will be empowered to face whatever life sends our way. Now, I’ll conclude with one thought.
Whatever karma may get us to, Krishna will get us through. Whatever karma may get us to, Krishna will get us through. Thank you very much.
Srila Prabhupada Ki! Is there any one question, short question? Yes, Muthuji. I was just requesting if you could explain in the translation for that so given in the scripture verses, Vaikuntha is used, like Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita, that now I have finished everything, I just have to return to Vaikuntha. So, I am just requesting if you could explain that why Goloka is not used, as if you had Okay, I got your question.
So, why in the scripture, even when reference to Krishna is there, Vaikuntha is used and not Goloka? There is generic terminology and there is specific terminology. So, specific terminology is used in specific contexts. Vaikuntha is like, Vaikuntha can refer generically to the spiritual world or Vaikuntha can refer to a particular area of the spiritual world.
So, from the perspective, say if I am in America, I am going back to India. Now, I am going to go to India, I am going to Mumbai, I am going to Mayapur. So, Mumbai and Mayapur can also be referred to as India.
So, in a particular context, if the difference between, if where I am going in India is what is important to be stressed, then I may say I am going to Mumbai. But, if just I am leaving America is what is going to be stressed, then I will say I am going to India. So, the Vaikuntha doesn’t necessarily refer only to the non-Goloka planets in the spiritual world.
Vaikuntha refers generically to the spiritual world. And within Vaikuntha, we also refer specifically that this is Goloka, this is Ayodhya and these are the Vaikuntha planets. But, it doesn’t mean that Goloka is not in Vaikuntha.
The terms have different meanings in different contexts. So, the word Paramatma may also be used to refer to Krishna at times. But, there is a particular manifestation which can be called as Paramatma.
So, we can’t the Gaudiya Vaishnav technical classification between say Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagwan or between Vaikuntha and Goloka, between Krishna and Vishnu. This is a technical classification that is there for specific differentiation between certain levels of reality or certain subtleties of philosophy. That differentiation will not be found everywhere.
So, in the Venkatesha Suprabhatam, there are two prayers. One prayer says that Kalabhenu Ravavasya It says that It says that actually, I know no lord other than Krishna who is the attractor of the gopis. I’ll just keep this short.
Next verse says, I know no lord other than Ram. That One says I’ll never worship any lord other than Ram. The next verse says, I’ll never worship any lord other than Krishna.
So, what is going on over here? From that perspective, Ram and Krishna are the same person. There are some verses, even in the Bhagavatam one of the verses from the Bhagavatam where he says, in the same verse, which is actually a prayer offered to Krishna, a name for Ram is used over there. Kaushalya Anandana is used.
So, we don’t have to go into this technical separation and try to look at it at every single occurrence in scripture. At every single occurrence in scripture, the generic references are used. So, Vaikuntha refers generically to spiritual world.
Vishnu refers generically to supreme person. So, the specific differentiation is what is a technical Gaudiya classification and that is also indicated or specified in scripture. But that is in specific contexts.
So, just as a differentiation within India may not be of relevance when I am just talking about leaving America. So, when the lord is simply the stress in these sections is not on where the lord is going in the spiritual world. The stress is that he is going to leave the material world.
He is going to end his pastimes here. He is going to depart. So, generically, the reference Vaikuntha is used over there.
Thank you very much.