This transcription is by Uddhava Priya Prabhu, used with permission from lecture folio that you can download HERE

January 20, 2009

Maharaja: One should regulate his sense gratification by a balanced program of spiritual and material knowledge. The activities for the maintenance of the body should not be stopped. Since the culture of spiritual knowledge necessitates the help of the body and mind their maintenance is required. But these activities must be performed in connection with the ultimate goal of going back to Godhead. Śrīla Prabhupāda concludes:

Human activities diseased by a tendency toward sense gratification have been regulated in the Vedas under the principles of salvation.  This system employs religion, economic development, sense gratification and salvation, but at the present moment people have no interest in religion or salvation. They have only one aim in life—sense gratification—and in order to achieve this end they make plans for economic development. Misguided men think that religion should be maintained because it contributes to economic development, which is required for sense gratification. Thus in order to guarantee further sense gratification after death, in heaven, there is some system of religious observance. But this is not the purpose of religion. The path of religion is actually meant for self-realization, and economic development is required just to maintain the body in a sound, healthy condition. A man should lead a healthy life with a sound mind just to realize vidyā, true knowledge, which is the aim of human life. This life is not meant for working like an ass or for culturing avidyā for sense gratification…Unless religion, economic development and sense gratification aim toward the attainment of devotional service to the Lord, they are all simply different forms of nescience, as Śrī Éçopaniñad indicates in the following mantras. 

Dharma, artha, kama and moksa should be used for development of devotion. You have to use something, means devotion is a process and process means activity, that means unless you are going to do an activity how is it going to be devotional service? We just don’t sit down and meditate on nothing, that exist, that is not devotional service. Devotional service means something active is happening. 

For that activity to happen you use your senses. All activities you are dealing with your senses. To work with those senses they actually have to function. That means you would need the artha, the health to maintain that, then the dharma would give that as a side thing. But the purpose of dharma is to connect oneself to the Lord. You are not trying to develop artha for yourself, you are trying to develop pleasure for the Lord.

Here it is saying: Human activities diseased by a tendency toward sense gratification have been regulated in the Vedas under the principles of salvation. The regulation, we take that regulation of sense gratification is just religion. But actually it is meant for the purpose of salvation. 

Because only in a regulated lifestyle can you then distinguish between what should be done and not done and what is the quality you are dealing with. Otherwise how do you tell the difference between rasas unless there is some regulation? 

The more the regulation then the better the results. Let’s say you have these contests where there they are working on taste of something: the ladies are baking pies, they are tasting or smelling different things, but there is rules on that. They don’t just walk in and start tasting everything. They can’t have eaten, after they taste one thing they have to rinse their mouth. There is a whole regulation. Otherwise, even the understanding and being able to discriminate the senses doesn’t work very well. 

The whole idea is just by regulation then you bring the intelligence into the picture. When you bring the intelligence into the picture then you can discriminate. Otherwise you can’t tell the diffence between dharma, artha, kama, moksa and bhakti, many can’t. If it is just something religion then it is bhakti: bhakti for my family, bhakti for my children, bhakti for many devas. They say that devotion, but it is not actually devotion. Bhakti is only in relationship to Krsna, Krsna and Krsna’s pure devotees. That is bhakti, but anything else you are doing it for your own purposes. It may be more subtle, more elevated: Instead of gross sense gratification it is extended sense gratification, you don’t worry about your senses but about others senses, but it is still sense gratification. That’s why he can say religion and sense gratification. Artha is just what maintains that sense gratification because it maintains yours and others’. So that is the difference: prana-maya means maintaining others’ sense gratification. Therefore you need economic development, social systems, rules of ethics, and judicial systems for those who don’t follow the ethics, because all those things will get in the way of sense gratification and that is their point. Money is there for sense gratification, justice is there for sense gratification, ethics is there for sense gratification. Religion is not meant for sense gratification, it is meant for sacrifice. But these things aren’t connected

Those who understand dharma, artha, kama and moksa in connection with the Lord they actually can come to the devotional platform. 

Mantra 12

Mantras 9 and 12 describe people bereft of éçāvāsya consciousness. 

In Mantra 9 it is said that both the ignorant and the educated materialists are doomed and among them the atheistic intellectuals are worst. 

Mantra 12 states that the māyāvādés go in deeper darkness compared to the demigod worshipers.

Because the demigod worshippers at least you are dealing with the concept that there are people involved in relationships, whereas the impersonalists get rid of all idea of form and interaction and anything, so that is real ignorance, even though they are so intellectual.  But actually they are most ignorant, because spiritual life is interaction. You have senses, you have emotion, you have form, you have activity, but it is transcendental. While in the material world you have the same activities but they are misdirected. So the problem is not the activities but the misdirection. That is the problem. So the impersonalists, the Mayavadis here they are even more in ignorance because they say there is nothing which is not the fact. There is something, there has always been something. That’s why they are in even deeper darkness even though they claim they are more elevated because they are intellectual. But here it shows how they are not necessarily.

The worship of the demigods brings merely partial and temporary relief from the miseries of the material existence. Therefore Śrī Éçopaniñad advices that only the Supreme Personality of Godhead should be worshiped since only this type of worship can bring the ultimate good for the soul. 

It is not possible to understand the Absolute Person simply by negating the material qualities. Thus although posing as high grade transcendentalists the māyāvādés actually support the cause of the atheists:

The atheist directly denies the existence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the impersonalists support the atheists by stressing the impersonal aspect of the Supreme Lord. (Śrī Éçopaniñad, mantra 12, purport)

An example how the māyāvādés support the atheists is given by Śrīla Prabhupāda in his purport to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.1.1:

The whole material creation is moving under the principle of sex life. In modern civilization, sex life is the focal point for all activities. Wherever one turns his face, he sees sex life predominant. Therefore, sex life is not unreal. Its reality is experienced in the spiritual world. The material sex life is but a perverted reflection of the original fact. The original fact is in the Absolute Truth, and thus the Absolute Truth cannot be impersonal. It is not possible to be impersonal and contain pure sex life. Consequently, the impersonalist philosophers have given indirect impetus to the abominable mundane sex life because they have overstressed the impersonality of the ultimate truth. Consequently, man without information of the actual spiritual form of sex has accepted perverted material sex life as the all in all. 

People are interested in material sense gratification. That means you are going to have to engage your senses. So if the Lord is impersonal that means there is not way to engage your senses in connection with the Lord, so there is no spiritual application of sense gratification. 

So then that would mean that, if it is not, since the living entity is going to engage in sense gratification anyway then he is going to do it without connection to the Lord. If there is some connection to the Lord then the tendency is to control it, to regulate it as we saw before: by regulating it that brings around the element of liberation. So without this regulation there is going to be a problem. 

So now, why would one regulate unless it is for a higher purpose? So unless you convince them, that by regulating you are going to get more sense gratification, who is going to do it? Like someone might regulate here because they want sense gratification in the heavenly planets.

The difficulty then comes si that if one acknowledges that there is sensual activity in the Supreme, but that sensual activity is on the transcendental platform. Then one can be inspired to bring one’s senses in line with that application of the senses. So that will regulate, improve and uplift. But if one doesn’t, since the living entity has to engage the senses anyway, since the Mayavada concept is bogus, it doesn’t exist in reality, the living entity is therefore, they are encouraging sense gratification, even though they claim they don’t engage the senses. But they are actually encouraging it because if there is no Supreme then basically it comes down to sense gratification is just whatever you feel is important rather than what the sastra say is important. Even if you accept the sastra because you are pious you are simply going to do it simply because that is the best way to get sense gratification. You are not doing it because it pleases the Lord therefore the element of liberation actually never really comes up. Very rarely you can find a person can follow the sastra on the platform of naiskarmya and not be a devotee. In previous ages they could do it very nicely but in this age it doesn’t basically really work.

The impersonal conception of the Supreme Lord is a form of ignorance, arising from an imperfect conception of the Absolute Truth. The māyāvādés who deceive their followers with concocted ideas must go to the darkest regions of the universe:

These rogues are the most dangerous elements in human society. Because there is no religious government, they escape punishment by the law of the state. They cannot, however, escape the law of the Supreme, who has clearly declared in the Bhagavad-Gétā that envious demons in the garb of religious propagandists shall be thrown into the darkest regions of hell (Bg. 16.19-20). 

(Śrī Éçopaniñad mantra 12, purport)

Basically speaking we are dealing here with this isavasya principle that everything is connected to the Lord, so that includes the senses, that includes all form and social elements and interaction, all elements of emotion, need. If it is seen that it is there in the transcendental platform then one tries to, that is the proper situation for the living entity, the natural situation, but it is very unnatural for this living entity to be entangled here and engaging separately from the Lord in material activities. The idea is how to bring oneself to the point of giving up the material activities here and taking up the spiritual activities. So you are giving up material sense gratification and taking up spiritual sense gratification. You are giving up material emotion and taking up spiritual emotion. That is what is being pointed out. 

Those persons say that we just get rid of the senses and the emotions then they are most dangerous. But because today the government is not religious therefore they don’t take that as bad, as an offence. Otherwise it should be punishable. The brahmanas have to be aspousing things properly according to sastra. If it is not according to sastra it shouldn’t be done. Therefore it should be that the government is seeing that improper understandings of the sastra are not allowed. 

That’s why based on this principle Prabhupada said philosophical deviation is worse than sensual deviation. Because philosophical deviation means you don’t accept the spiritual. So it is not progressive, you are not going back to Godhead. 

Devotee (1): Since there is this tendency of yata mata tata pata, there is going to be a whole lot of argument, a whole lot of debate, a whole lot of judgment calls, so that is that an ongoing regular affair in a state of in a kingdom or is that just in the modern times that people are so absorbed, I mean even then they were absorbed in arguments and schools of thoughts, and was it accepted that ok you have this school of thought you have this school of thought, as long as you follow your school then that’s fine. So you are just supposed to follow whichever flag you are under, or?

Maharaja: That would be your most general. But you would also have kings who would take an active part to establish appropriate behavior. Like in South, in Hampi they had to be Vaisnavas. Or here in Bengal, in Visnupur, the king there they had to be Vaisnavas. You are Sivites or other things then you had to live. So Visnupur was just devotees. So you would have. But the main thing is it had to be correct according to sastra. So even if you are a karma-kandi or a jnana-kandi you had to be practicing properly. Just like any of the four varnas or four asramas if you are practicing it properly that was okay, if you are not that would be corrected. You had to be situated in these unless you are a paramahamsa then that is very obvious. But it was the government’s business that the proper environment was there. So the more the realization of the king the more he would influence the people.

Because the kings and brahmanas were following then the citizens would follow. Like during Santanu’s reign it was very nice, everybody was just following. After Parasurama killed all the ksatriyas then the ksatriya women went to the elevated brahmanas and then through Niyoga then they started the next ksatriya lines. So those ksatriyas having come from those pure background then their rule even the animals tried to mimic the control of the senses and proper behavior of the human beings.

There is some place where Prabhupada is talking about that previously the animals would have respect for humans and see them as the senior species. But they felt protected they knew that they would not be dealt with improperly. Like in the Bhagavatam it is explaining about how someone is keeping an animal but the idea is that they are going to kill and eat this animal. Because they are going to maintain this animal for so long when they owner comes with the knife to kill the animal the animal first thinks it is a joke, so they actually know what is going on. But they think it is a joke because he is always taking care and just having a fun: I am going to kill you, but he actually won’t. So when they actually figure out that he is the animal is extremely shocked because that person has always taken care. So that is one of the reasons that the animal slaughter is such an abomination because of the breakage of faith. 

It is mentioned in the sastra that to kill a friend it is actually one of the greatest sins. It is in the category of killing brahmanas. It is just a touch less but it is within that category, killing brahmanas, killing cows, killing friends. That is in that category because of either the elevation or that trust.

Devotee (1): There is a saying to take out a thorn with a thorn or that a certain situation is unfavorable and there is asuric elements sometimes you need asuric measurements to take care of that situation then usually afterwards the pain is still there. Like when you take the thorn out you get more pain and so how can we function in this material environment that is permeated by asuric principles and by rajasic and tamasic principles? It’s just like yu can’t function from a purely brahminical platform if you are engaged in business or politics.

Maharaja: No, that is the rule of them. You can be purely brahminical in your following other. There is the mentality and then there is the technique used. 

Like I remember seeing once, there was a devotee running a cloth business and his closest friend came to this shop and said I like this how much is this cloth? The shop-owner said it is this much. Then the friend because he considered himself very expert in bargaining with businessmen and also because he is a friend so we was little overly familiar, so he said, no I give you this price which was much less. No, because you are my friend I have already considered all these things and dropped the price down to what it costs me. I am only charging you cost, I am not making any profit. Then the friend said I don’t believe you it should only be worth that much. Then the shop-owner said do me one favor take it for free because you are my friend. I don’t mind giving it to you but I can’t sell it to you for less than it costs. If you want to buy it then buy it at cost, you want it then take it for free. I can’t sell it for less. He is going on: If I were a business person then why would I tell you the cost price I would tell you more and you would bargain down and I would still make profit and you would feel good about yourself. Because you are my friend I didn’t. That’s why in business it is called: satyanrita, means half-truth half-lie. You can’t tell the truth when you are dealing in business. It is just the way it works. Because if you were told the truth the no one would believe you. No one believes that a businessman tells the truth, that is just the way it is. So even if he told the truth no one would believe it.

Like Narada Muni and King Cobra, when King Cobra became a devotee then Narada Muni told him that he has to be non-violent, he can’t bite people and all that. He used to live under the bridge and all that and when the kids figured out that he is not going to attack them then they were harassing the throwing stones and this and that. So then lateron Narada Muni came and was asking how everything was going and he could see that he wasn’t very happy. He asked what is the problem. He said, well now that I am non-violent all the kids abuse me. Narada Muni said, no I told you to be non-violent I didn’t tell you that you can’t raise your hood. In other words it only looks like.

Like I have seen so many times in Indian families. Their little child is doing something it shouldn’t be doing. They are told nicely and they don’t respond because they are so absorbed. Then they make some kind of noise or face but it is very characterized to get angry: ahhh. Then the kids get scared, runs off and stops doing it and all the adults laugh. They weren’t angry, it is just that they made the show of anger, but they weren’t actually angry. It is not that you actually have to be angry. I have seen many who don’t come from that kind of background or samskara and they get actually angry at the child and so it has a reaction to the child. Because the other one the child doesn’t feel insecure, he just knows I am not supposed to do that. The other one knows that I am not supposed to do that and feels insecure. 

So in dealing with these other people you are clever and you still work according to sastra. Your mentality is in the mode of goodness because you are doing it to please Krsna. That is there, so you are not interested in the result for yourself. But the technique that you would use that you are dealing with that element, that you would use according to full diplomacy or economic understanding of whatever it takes. 

Devotee (1): In economics it is understandable because the customer comes, buys and goes but in politics we have to deal with people on an ongoing basis and these people might be devotees and the diplomacy is not exactly one of the 64 qualities or items

Maharaja: No but it is one of the 64 arts that Krsna and Radharani know

Devotee (1): But to be diplomatic…

Maharaja: Diplomacy, when we say someone is being diplomatic: Let us say someone is representing a state, he goes to another country and he very diplomatically presents the needs of his country in a way that the other country appreciates that and accepts it. We would call that good because he is doing it on behalf of his country. Generally the negative connotation of diplomatic is that I am doing it for my own purpose. So diplomacy is not the problem. Is it for sacrifice, a higher purpose of diplomacy, or is it for your own purpose? For or own purpose that diplomacy is not good. It may be technically correct but no one will appreciate it. But if it is being done actually because it is the sastric or higher principles that you have to take care of, you are dealing with this person but there is a greater standing or community thing that has to be dealt with. So you are dealing with the person according to the context of the greater principle. That diplomacy is what human life means, that is etiquette. When etiquette is applied in the political field it is called diplomacy. Otherwise etiquette is the proper… is understanding your position, the other person’s position, what it is the work that it is supposed to be on a natural relationship, what is the result, and how I should behave and speak and act that it happens. So technically your etiquette and diplomacy are the same thing. It is just that diplomacy is used when it is politically applied. Etiquette is when it is socially applied. So it always comes down to what is the motive. Because if the motive is good…

Yudhisthira Maharaja had his spies, he used intrigue and everything is going on because he is dealing with elements that aren’t necessarily God conscious. You can’t deal with a non-God conscious person with the same trust as you would with someone that is. That degree that one is not Krsna conscious to that degree one has to be diplomatic. But the point is it has to be on a higher principle, then it is fine. That is just the way it works. 

Otherwise what happens is that lack of diplomacy doesn’t give rise to less politics, it gives rise to less etiquette. So in the name of not being diplomatic, meaning that it is bad, devotees will drop all etiquette and deal very roughly with each other in the name of getting the service done. But Krsna is only interested in service that follows etiquette really. The etiquette is the whole social interaction because only through that is rasa tasted. Because getting something efficiently done is only part of the process of rasa. But if you deal roughly that you don’t understand this sambandha-jnana. Either you don’t understand they are a member of the same group or committee or something, or administration or management so therefore they have to be respected because of their position. They are in a position, they have to be respected. They may be junior or senior to you that doesn’t matter, they are still in a position. You have the element that as a living entity and as a human being. They must be respected as a devotee, or the Supersoul is in their heart. So many aspects whatever is one’s inspiration that one still has to follow the etiquette. There is no excuse for not following the etiquette saying, well I was forced to, or they left me no alternative. That is all just bogus nonsense of people who don’t know etiquette, can’t follow etiquette or don’t even want to follow etiquette. It just makes it easy. To just say whatever I like, get upset, angry and emotional that is the easy thing to do. Any 8 year old can do that. So what makes someone an adult is that ability to control that.

Like you see sometimes you have a child and they are able to control that very nicely. They don’t respond as a child, they respond in a mature way. That will be noted that they are a child but they acted as if they were an adult. In the inverse it is that if an adult acts as a child it doesn’t make him anymore adult. It is actually he is a child though physically he is an adult so you will accept him as an adult. But it is not that the mentality is not that of children. It is has to be done very carefully.

This whole pragmatic minimalist approach actually may be great in business where you are dealing with an outside person or a hired person but it has nothing to do with relationships. It may make money but that is all it will make. It will not make one relationship, and money doesn’t buy relationships. Therefore people who act on that platform don’t have relationships. They may get ahead economically, but that is only considered ahead amongst the economic community. But those who are really situated in the ecomonic community they are religious and they have relationships, and they know business is business. Amongst friends they work amongst themselves, but if they are outside the community they don’t spare them at all. They know how to deal with both. But unfortunately if one is not coming from that kind of background and one has experience of being yourself and be able to perform your occupation. That’s why there is asrama and varna, it is two different things. So they can’t separate it. So they feel that the efficiency that I use in varna they can use in asrama. But it is supposed to be what makes thing work in asrama that is what you use in varna. The technique may be different but it is actually the mentality of asrama that is what you are supposed to use in varna. But they will use it the other way round and then wonder why people are upset. 

Devotee (2): I would like to aks about this point you mentioned philosophical deciation versus sensual deviation. My understanding is that in philosophical deviation one may reach a conclusion right or wrong that this is his conviction and act accordingly thinking that he is doing the right thing even though it may be sinful or off-track. Whereas in the sensual deviation one is clear philosophically about what is right and wrong but sometimes he may because of weak-heartedness find himself indulging and knowing very well that it is wrong but not being able to help himself. In other words, this comes under the category of committing sinful activities on the strength of the holy name?

Maharaja: You could call it that but you don’t necessarily. Committing sinful activities on the strength of the holy name means I am going to commit this sinful activity but it doesn’t matter because I can chant Hare Krsna and make it go away. 

Devotee (2): Or the other offence to maintain material attachments…

Maharaja: That is there. But the point is if you are not a paramahamsa right now, then you are committing that offence. If you are on the platform of bhava then you are not committing that offence. 

Devotee (2): How is that sensual deviation less than philosophical deviation?

Maharaja: Because you are carried away. What is more? The kid is hungry and goes into the kitchen and steals a cookie. The adult is working in a business, he knows what is going to happen, he manipulates the stockmarket and he makes big profit. No one puts the kid in jail, the adult goes in jail. It is the element of knowledge that makes it worse. Both are stealing, one is stealing bigger one is… Now, if that adult went into the store and stile the cookie, then you might say something and he will get into trouble.

So it is the element of being under the influence of knowledge, but the other one is not under the influence of knowledge.They know it is wrong but they are under the influence of the emotions and senses. The other one is under the influence of knowledge and he is thinking that my philosophy is correct. Because the point is the senses are getting carried away that is pretty standard. We sit down to take prasada and do we just eat that much we need or do we take those few extra-servings more. So those kind of things go on. But it is still workable because you accept the senses and the sense objects those interactions have value but the real point is that it has only value in connection with Krsna. So that can be more easily converted.

But a person who has a philosophical deviation that won’t bring him near to Krsna at all even if he is controlled in his senses, he is very moral and outstanding and charitable, whatever it may be the nice quality you are looking for it won’t bring him any near Krsna because it has nothing to do. Therefore like the sahajiyas they are performing all the devotional activities but because they don’t actually know how to properly connect them to Krsna therefore that is more dangerous. Or the smartas that is more dangerous. Or the Mayavadis that is more dangerous. Because the point is the living entity getting out of the material world. 

These other things that happen. That is why the Bhagavatam gives examples of that happening. You see examples in Bhagavatam because that is meant for Paramhamsas the book of sensual deviation and then what happens from that. But philosophical deviation like Durvasa thinking that the yogi is higher than the devotee he is chased around the universe by Sudarsan. Only when he understands that the devotees are the highest then he is relieved from that and then he goes off with that commitment, he goes to Brahma-loka to all these yogis there and is explaining about Ambarisa Maharaja’a glories. Those things will take people more away from Krsna, that is your apa-sampradayas and all that, so in the other class that will be discussed, all the kinds of deviations that can be there and in the 6 systems, so more philosophical, more religious, all these different things. 

The thing is why this would naturally come in the mind is because by nature people are religious, they have to have religion. So religion means there is going to be some regulated form of the lifestyle or ritual, social interaction and from that we get our artha and kama. Since that is important to us anything going wrong there means everything else will be disturbed. But liberation is generally not so much of a common value. The element of the jnana is generally not so much the common element. 

The other thing would be to catch sensual deviation that is pretty obvious. Because the situations and all that so it is fairly easy to identify. Philosophical deviation you actually have to know the philosophy to actually identify it. So the emphasis in the society would be on the philosophy and the culture rather than simply on the basic ritualistic forms. That would mean education, that would mean brahminical culture would have to be the prominent element. But if that is not then it will drop down. 

Then if it is the ksatriya element then it has to be religion, dharma, and people have to be their proper duties, they are not going to tolerate also sensual deviation simply because it is irreligious. But it is for a higher principle that everybody must be engaged in the religious process. And then the sensual element will be dealt with actually according to how bad it is because there is a hierarchy of sensual deviation. According to sastra since sastra is the point: sastra gives religion, sastra must be followed therefore in following sastra what is the appropriate correction for a particular kind of sensual deviation will be applied and that’s all. 

When you drop it down into prana-maya, into the vaisya environment, then because economics only happens if there is justice and ethics then any break in ethics makes them insecure in the realm of economics and therefore it becomes a very major thing. Because now morality is dealing with their occupation. Morality is not the occupation of brahmanas and ksatriyas, it is part of their occupation. But for vaisyas it is a very major element of their occupation because if people aren’t moral then how do I keep my money, I can’t show my money to people because then they will steal it. When there is lack of morality then all the justice breaks down. Because someone who wants more sense gratification they do immoral things and that means I lose. So for the vaisya it becomes much more of a prominent element. That culture will over-emphasize the platform of morality and make it into the all in all. 

But actually it is devotion that is the all in all. And morality is an important part of it because if one is distracted by immoral behavior the tendency is not be aware of spiritual behavior. That is his main weakness that it is so attractive that it takes one away from spiritual consciousness. And the immoral element generally is not very engagable in Krsna’s service. But it can be, like the gopis, it is the parakiya rasa, it is technically immoral but it is very nicely engaged in Krsna’s service. It is not that it can’t be engaged. It is just generally for us who value sense gratification over everything else it becomes too much of a distraction and so we don’t take up the dharma and moksa aspects, we just take up the artha and kama aspects. Or we take up religion only because it gives artha, so in that case the morality also becomes more prominent because we see that the break in… the lack of morality will be break in dharma. But it is actually the break in relationship that is the problem in dharma. There is a lack of discrimination there because of the mode of ignorance that is applied in the business culture then they become overwhelmed by this. 

That’s why in the Vedas there is such a strong judicial system it is because the common person can’t accommodate the necessary proper placement of moral turpitude. They can’t make a distinction. Therefore it is dealt with generally quite strongly. Not that it is necessarily that way but the person who is absorbed in it and the other persons who are observing it to them it means something. It is just like the man is forced into doing things he doesn’t want to do because of attachment to his family and if he doesn’t do them something will happen to his family. But if you have a man and you say, well if you don’t do this we are going to shoot this person. I don’t know who that person is go ahead. You are not going to get that person to do anything that way. Because morality is very important to the broad range of conditioned souls that that is the most important… they actually think that morality is religion, or is bhakti. They can’t distinguish. It is an important element of human society. But it is one of four. And of the four two are higher than it and only one is lower. But they can’t distinguish this. So they think it is the same. Morality is spiritual, morality is religious. No, morality is part of spiritual and religion. It is not itself religious. Because we see that for all non-Vedic religions it is actually not religion. It is sub-religion. 

Bhavisya Purana mentions that Jesus he will practice religion but he will preach sub-religion. He is not preaching one’s relationship with God and how to deal with that, that will be brought in a little bit. But he is preaching be good, be nice, turn the other cheek and all these things. Because the people are so engrossed in sense gratification to bring them to the platform of prana-maya that is a big step up. But for someone who is acting on the platform of religion to over-emphasize morality is a step down because it has to be balanced. Like in the meal, the whole meal actually has meaning if you get the proper balance. If I cook this much rice and this much dal then we got a problem. Or the other way round. That’s why it has to be balanced. Then morality is very important but it has its place. And the general tendency is that most will overplace it because that is the view of the common person but the devotional society is based on the brahminical culture which is the Vedic paradigm. So it has to be brought more in line with the understanding of the devotional and the element of liberation and all that. 

Because the point is it is not as much as the activity as the misunderstanding of relationships. Because the activity, let’s say if one is sensually deviated the problem is let’s say: The sensual deviation is instead of eating prasada he is eating some karmi food. So the problem is not actually that the senses are engaged with the sense objects. The problem is that it is the wrong sense object. That is the difficulty that the principle may not be the problem, it is the application of the principle. The young boys and young girls are getting a little too close. But that kind of interaction isn’t the problem. The problem is that they don’t have the relationship that they should be in that position. But that closeness, that kind of interaction is not the problem. It is they are not qualified for that, it is not appropriate for them, it is not their dharma, it is not their austerity. 

So that kind of dissection of the thing that’s why only the brahmanas and the Ksatriyas deal with justice. The vaisyas and sudras don’t deal with justice. If they do then they have to deal on their level which is basically more economic or more sensual. In the village you have your group, your pancarat … (?) and they come to some understanding. But there will be some basic rules they will be following. But very serious justice that only can be dealt with by brahmanas and ksatriyas. Because the problem is if you can’t analyse it to this degree then there is every chance that you will imbalance it. And just getting it done and establishing justice isn’t enough, it is how it is established. If you don’t do it right then you actually break something and then that reaction is got to go somewhere. And that will go to the person who applies the justice. So if the king improperly applies justice, that injustice that improper application goes to him. And it affects him and his family and his kingdom. That is why the pragmatic element is not enough one has to real pragmatism is one has to put it very much in the context and analyze exactly what is going on and then see what is actually the problem. Someone is sick, he has a fever, he has a cold, he has this and that. That is not the real problem, that is the symptoms. The problem is that he has got a certain bug that has come by a certain exposure or eating, so you get to remove that. That is Ayurveda, Ayurveda menas what is actually wrong. There is something wrong in the diet, that causes all the… you change the diet and all the symptoms go away. That is the actual dealing with that. How to remove that problem and connect that situation to Krsna. That’s why if it is done right it is there. 

But philosophical deviation that is really hard to deal with because Prabhupada mentions previously if someone would actually be in search of the truth if they had a wrong philosophical understanding if they were presented with the correct they would accept it. But nowadays much of the time it is ego and all this, it is their identity, it is my philosophy. And so if you defeat their philosophy you actually defeat their identity. While a real searcher he is looking for his identity and he has found it through this but if you can show him that there is something else then he will move up. Like you see in Madhva, Ramanuja so many examples or Lord Caitanya. He preaches to Prakasananda Sarasvati or Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya. As soon as He gives the clear understanding they immediately accept because they are actually intelligent. But some people you can say all you like but they will never accept because of their ego. That’s why it is actually worse.  

It is not a commonly understood thing because basically it is a brahminical understanding. Ksatriyas if explained to properly can understand it though their tendency is also going to be because they are looking at it from religion and dharma that it is wrong, they are not looking at it from morality, they are looking at it from dharma, so it will look the same as the common person but they do have the intelligence to dissect it. A common person, sudras generally can’t discriminate. Vaisyas could but whether they will, whether it is good for them economically or this or that, the tendency is they don’t want to get out of hand so you squash it and then its business is good, remains good. 

If you say this to them they say no, no it is wrong. But why is it wrong? Explain why it is wrong. Oh it is not good. Why is it not good? It is sinful. Why is it sinful? They can’t explain any of this. That is the whole point. Why is it wrong? What is actually wrong if the person had this kind of sensual deviation? They can’t, all they can do is they can explain it according to upadharma: Be good, be nice – that’s all. Why? Because that is their background. Because to be able to say exactly what is wrong with it then that is something else. Then you have to get down to exactly what is wrong that they can’t do. It is just be good, be nice. Why should you be good, be nice? Who said be good and be nice? That is where then the real problem comes: that is where the atheism comes in. Or at best they take it back to their own religion, their pre-devotional religion. That has got some religious sentiment. But it can be that it is just their own conviction. You have to be nice and if you behave like this and not nice therefore it is not good. But that is not good enough in the devotional community. It has to be it is not good because Krsna doesn’t like it because of this reason. It says here in sastra it is not done because of these reasons because it doesn’t please Krsna, that is the reason it is bad. 

But if you don’t get that answer it is a non-devotional answer. It is atheism. It has nothing to do with us. And for most it is not even religious because then they should be able to explain from Manu what is wrong, that they can’t do either. So they have to take it back to their Judaic-Christian background and from that they are going. And even that they can’t explain, very few because they don’t know the history, so they can’t explain the example Ezekiel 53.22 then says this. They can’t do that therefore it doesn’t work. So it is just sentiment that they are saying this. And this is a seemingly more uplifting and more righteous sentiment than the other person’s sentiment which is more of a deviation but technically since they can’t explain it and so therefore they won’t be able to connect it to Krsna. Therefore their application of it, their justice on that will be wrong. Even if it is right it will be wrong. It won’t solve the problem. It will still go on in the community, it will still go on in the individuals because they can’t solve it because they actually don’t know what it is. That is the difficulty that is why then certain things have to be compared back to the sastric element of it. (end of lecture) (end)

(20th Jan 2009, Śrī Īśopaniṣad Lecture #28, Bhaktivedānta Academy, Śrīdhāma Māyāpura)

This transcription is by Uddhava Priya Prabhu, used with permission from lecture folio that you can download HERE

Comments
All comments.
Comments