Prabhu (1): Why do we have so much faith in external results and not in relationships?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Material happiness is gaining a result, that moment you get the result of what you are working for, you call that happiness. So because that is the definition of happiness, therefore the process of getting there is actually considered secondary. You also then have the aspect that it’s a common ground. So so much emphasis is there. If you understand how the field works then the man is looking at the performance of the activity. You get the result, you are happy because you are the controller. The woman sees that the man has performed an activity, gotten a result, now then that result gives facility for interaction. Because now you have increased the ksetra. The bigger the ksetra, the more option for happiness. Because happiness is the experience gained from operating the ksetra. Therefore the common point is action and reaction between the two. But one is the controller of it and one is the enjoyer of it, or, let’s say, the experiencer of it. One of them it is the control of it and having accomplished something in a logical, progressive way creates one’s happiness or satisfaction. For the other it is the experience gained in the appropriate application of the process that gives pleasure. So now if this is understood then both from the same perspective can engage in a common activity and both of them be satisfied. But you have to understand the field to actually make that work. Then there is nothing lacking.

Like allies, they have a common interest, but they are not necessarily friends. This is the state of modern relationships. It is always in the third person. That’s why even when you are discussing they don’t like it when you use first person. If you want to say something is wrong, you have to use third person and they are comfortable. The problem is when you always use third person then because it is third person it is somebody else, so it doesn’t apply to me. Sounds nice, it’s great, I wish all those other guys will get it together and follow this, but it is not yourself, and as soon as you are talking first person, everybody gets antsy…

Like that then it is a problem because then it is so hard, so this so that, no but if you say it nicely then it was then intellectual. So therefore it is a problem because of karma, attachments and karma, or it sounds great but no one will apply it because of the attachments in jnana. So it becomes a very difficult thing how to balance it, how to say it nicely that it is taken seriously. But you still have to use third person, but you can now and again touch on the first. So that’s why action and reaction becomes so important because one identifies their happiness, means, the man thinks he got the thing he is happy because he accomplished something. For the woman, she is happy because now there is more things in the field, by operating you can get more experience. If I have one thing I can get one experience from it, if I have two things I can get two different experiences, if I have ten I can get ten different experiences. So the bigger the field the more nice it is, seemingly, that is the concept. Therefore the man is happy he has accomplished something, the woman is happy because it has been accomplished, and so the man thinks the woman is sharing the same actual kind of happiness that he is. But it is not. So therefore he thinks I have accomplished it, so accomplished means finished. Then he goes and sits down on his couch. But the woman is thinking he has accomplished it now we can use that in the interaction. But it doesn’t happen. So therefore then it doesn’t work. But that is the common point both can see. But why they want them is different.

Prabhu (2): Is that ok if a man is result-oriented, and she can understand, 'Because I am energy, I am spirit, I can only be happy in experiencing…'

HH BVPS Maharaja: That is there, of course. Means that you need to know anyway, but it is not that he is result-oriented, that is not the problem. Result-orientation is not a difficulty because it is one of the three aspects. To be actually results-oriented you have to have the other two anyway. You have to have focus, know who you are, what your field is and what you can get from it and you have to make the endeavour. So the sambandha and abhidheya are automatically in good shape if you are result-oriented. Or if you are work-oriented but you can’t work unless you know who you are and where you are going. Or it is you are identity oriented, that is ok but the identity has to be applied, so, therefore, you have to have a goal and an action.

So what it is, the scriptures and those modern methods then they give you, they deal with sambandha, abhidheya and prayojana, but they emphasize one of the three, or possibly some combinations. But their idea is, the other two will come automatically. So they don’t specifically necessarily define them. They may be hazy but the one area, they are defined very well. So that is the problem, that’s why then one, it works for the person who understands it because he automatically does all three. But when he teaches it to someone else he is emphasizing as one because through that one he got realization of all three. But he teaches it and then the other people only catch that one, they don’t necessarily catch the other two. Because it hasn’t been defined as three. And therefore then even though he is speaking very nice things, it works for some people, but it doesn’t work for others. So it leaves the door open for another self-help guru to come forth with his philosophy. And in this way then you have 50, 60 of them, that are famous, well-known self-help gurus. But there is only one process sambandha, abhidheya and prayojana. But they emphasize one of the three major and then within each one certain aspects. And so they are doing the rest of it unconsciously, or they take it for granted. Just like when we have a discussion on getting something done we don’t discuss gravity. But it is understood, you are not careful, you drop the tomato, it hits the floor, it is not in as a good shape as it was in before you dropped it. You don’t say... He drops the tomato, you don’t say, 'Hey you can be more careful.' You don’t say, 'Don’t you know that gravity is there?' and all this and that. You don’t deal with that kind of thing. You don’t emphasize that. So these people will take so much for granted.

So the problem is not being result-oriented, that’s fine. But to say that that is the one and only conclusion, everybody’s got to be result-oriented. No, that is what worked for you. Because the other two you had. But when you added result then it worked. Why? Because you had the other two. That is the whole idea that it can be result-oriented but you have to be able to understand the full picture. You want the result, but the result is for who? If it is for you, you get a little bit of, something from it. If you do that for others you get more from it. You do that for Krsna, you get the most. We are souls, we are not going to get much out of interaction with dead matter, identifying as dead matter and interacting with it. It may work for Carlos, but it doesn’t necessarily work for anybody else. The point is, whatever position you are in, you take that, connect it to Krsna. So it is not that you have to give up that result-oriented thing, that doesn’t matter. That you keep, that is good, that’s what makes you active. But you understand that the principle. So because it is being done in this way result-oriented or this, that you get a result and then that is where it stops, then what are the women supposed to do? Because the opportunities for relationship never happen. The facility is there but the relationship doesn’t happen because it is not operated. Or it is operated, it is seen as result-oriented also. But the result is, if the others are happy you will be happy. But the thing is, 'If I am happy everybody else should be happy.' So everything is backwards.

There is a complete absolute lack of understanding of the process. It is not that it is modern times so it works differently. It is the same process, God made the process, God made men, God made the modes of nature, God made this. There is no 'ifs' and 'buts' about it how it is going to work. It is going to work according to God’s rules. That’s all. It is not going to work in another way. People can sit around and say all they want it is going to work according to their way. Like I did it my way. But the point is if your way happens to be in line with God’s way, it works. And if your way is not in line with God’s way it doesn’t work.

(From Lecture on Science of Inquiry, 31th Oct 2008,  Bhaktivedanta Academy, Sridham Mayapur)