Man and Woman Interaction Lecture #2


Holy name, that's the main principle. Always remember Krishna, then that means, we are always absorbed in Krishna. Absorbed in His name, form, qualities, pastimes. But the other side, never forget Krishna, that means being able to either give up those things that are not useful in Krishna consciousness, or engaging those elements of attachment in Krishna consciousness. Right? So the technicalities convince us to give up those things that make us forget Krishna. Does that make sense? We understand where these other things come in? So just because they might at present take up more of our life and timewise, but it doesn't mean that quality is the same. The quality is those things that are direct service to Krishna, the chanting of the holy name, hearing of Bhagavatam, associating with devotees, worshiping the Deities, living in the Dhama. So these are the main elements. Then everything else is in support of that, either in direct support of that or indirect. So Pancaratra is directly supporting that, because it works only because you are performing these 5 activities. While the Vedic then is removed from that and that then those things that are actually the real distracting things are then turned around and connected to Krishna. Does that make sense? So the hierarchy is there. Bhagavata, they are the main, then Pancaratric, then Vedic. The idea is, body, mind and words should be engaged in the Lord's service. So whichever position or combination is required that you are fully absorbed, that's what we are trying to do.  Does that make sense? So there is no specifically, you could say, right position for the individual. Correct means, fully absorbed. But what varna, what ashrama, how much one is absorbed in the Pancaratra or the Bhagavata, that as far as sadhana goes, that's secondary. We know the Bhagavata is better, it's the best position, that's supported by Pancaratric. And that can be assisted by the Vedic if you know what you are doing. But the point is is, whatever is going to work for you, that's the position you should be in. But knowing that the Bhagavata is the superior position, therefore one is always endeavoring to move in that direction. And one moves at a speed that actually works. Festivals are there to always push more than what we are accustomed to doing. But our day-to-day life should be something that we can maintain. Because mode of goodness means maintenance. Passion is creation, ignorance is destruction. So that lifestyle you can maintain and maintain your Krishna consciousness, that's the mode of goodness. Then for special occasions, festivals, that, then we push ourself beyond that. You know, you can fast until midnight with no water, because the next day you can eat. And then you learn, "Hey, I went all day without eating, why am I complaining I am going to die if I don't eat by 9 o'clock?" So like that, then you slowly, slowly learn that it's not... All our material needs actually aren't as important as we give them recognition. Does that make sense? But it's important to be able to do that, otherwise, being in a neutral position, the tendency will be to go towards ignorance. Neutrality will always turn negative. So that means, there has to be a dynamic standing in the mode of goodness. Does that make sense? Static position is only when you don't know actually what you should do. The static doesn't mean that it's tainted by passion or ignorance. It simply means that one is in the present, not sure what should be done, but are looking for what should be done and is willing to do something once one figures that out. Does that make sense? Very important. Because from that position then you can understand what should be done. Because otherwise, if it's tainted by ignorance, then "Oh, I don't know, I can't do anything, I am useless." That means, you won't do anything, if the opportunity arises. And then passion then, "Oh, yes, I'll do this, I'll do that, I'll do so many things," but since you don't actually know what the moment is offering, you'll generally always make a mistake and therefore you'll become angry. Does that make sense?

So, the mode of goodness means, you are aware of the present right now and are willing to act upon it. Because activity cannot be accomplished without focus. So unless you're focused on what's happening right now, then you won't be focused to do an activity when the opportunity arises. Does that make sense? It's a very important position to be able to take. Because then you are always aware. Activity takes place in the moment, so that means, time, place, circumstance must be applied to the moment, because time, place, circumstance, that's connected to the... Means, we say we want to apply something and therefore it should be practical. And then sometimes we hear, "Well, Vedic is kind-of like old and all that, it's not practical. While modern, of course, is the cat's meow." You have a saying, local saying? Something like that. It means it's the perfection. But the point is is, because they say, "Time, place and circumstance." But personally I say whoever says that is only talking, because I can guarantee that whoever said that could not explain what time, place and circumstance means. So it sounds great, that's the nice thing about the modern, it sounds very nice to the mind. And you cut short any too much intellectual kind-of like complication, so it's very simple and sounds very sweet. So which is an important ability to be able to do. But it doesn't mean it's correct. Does that make sense? Someone says, "Don't worry, everything is going to be okay." Okay, so then if it's in a situation that warrants an emotional exchange, that will work very nicely. But let's say we are out in the middle of the street and there is a riot going on, then we don't say, "Oh, don't worry, everything is gonna be all right." So therefore this simplistic emotional approach may not always be the right situation for actually getting out of the material world. Does that make sense? So time, place and circumstance can be fully understood when the principle is understood. The principle always applies. Does that make sense? So that means, it's always applicable, but you must take that principle and apply it in detail to present situation. Does that make sense? So that's actually where the problem lies, because if someone says the Vedic is not practical, means they don't actually understand the principles of the Vedic. So that means it only leaves you with detail, and having the inability to understand the difference between detail and principle means you will fail in some situation. How many details can one individual memorize? Does that make sense? But if you understand the principle then through contemplation you can apply that principle to the time, place and circumstance. The principle is a formula how to operate the field. So what takes intelligence is understanding what is the field and which formula you are supposed to apply. Does that make sense?

So in application, means, activity, that means there is a verb. So as we mentioned, you have time, mood and accomplishment. So time, place, circumstance, means time... Time matches time, right? Place is accomplishment, because it's the place, it's the field what you can accomplish something with. You know what I am saying? If you are sitting behind a wheel of a car, that place you could get the accomplishment of driving. I guess, you could also honk your horn or turn on and off your windshield wipers. But it's the place. Circumstance will be the mood. If the mood is wrong, you can't accomplish something. So if circumstance is wrong, you can't accomplish something, even though you are in the right place at the right time. Does that make sense? So that's the understanding of time, place and circumstance. The right place, at the right time, in the right mood or attitude, then you can accomplish something. So how is that the monopoly of modern thinking? No, that's Vedic thinking. Veda means knowledge, and knowledge means that which actually works. So if anything is working in the material world, it's only because it's actually following the principles set down by the Vedic standard. And if it doesn't work, means it's not following the Vedic principles. Does that make sense? So, according to Manu, modern means that which is not Vedic, because if it's not Vedic, it's temporary. Means, you can only see it now, after some time you won't see it any more. Does that make sense? Because it will change. Does that make sense? Like that.

So the Vedic application means the moment. That means, there must be focus. If you are not focused on what's happening right now, then you are either in the future or the past. Which means, you are either in the mode of passion, or ignorance. That means then your result is not going to be that good. Because only in the mode of goodness you actually get a result that's proper.

Another approach to sambandha, abhideya and prayojana, means that the energies that it stems from, sat-cit-ananda. Sat is existence, so that's knowledge, sambandha-jnana. But when that reflects into the material world, that becomes ignorance. Material existence is based on ignorance. Do you understand that connection? The cit then is the knowledge potency, which means there is action. In the Vedic there is no such thing as knowledge on its own, knowledge goes with action. Jnanis, they take knowledge into the realm of inactivity. But that's a mundane concept, spiritual concept is knowledge means application. Knowledge will be applied. Does that make sense? You buy a hammer because you are gonna use it. Does that make sense? Everything in your house you get because it will be used, so knowledge is required to use, so the two go together. So that action then becomes in the modes of nature the mode of passion. Because it's action for fruitive result. Does that make sense? So then the mode of... And ananda, that's happiness, that will be your goal. Any situation then the activity performed in that situation is to bring happiness. So then the ananda then transforms in this world as the mode of goodness. Does that make sense?

So that means, happiness is only experienced in the present, not the future or past. The future is passion, we make plans, we have our desires. Does that make sense? The past, then we contemplate and we lament. So happiness is only tasted at the present. Does that make sense? So when they say, "A moment of happiness," because the moment is how much we can perceive. Just like in music, a quarter-note is all that the ear can actually appreciate. So therefore even though mathematically you could break a note down more than a quarter, you don't bother, because you can't distinguish it. Does that make sense? You have a full note, you have a half-note and a quarter-note, you can't hear less than that, so why bother? And in experience then it's broken down into moments. Moment is 1/11th of a second. Shorter than that is not appreciated. Does that make sense? So that's why it's said "a moment of pleasure", because the present is one moment. So only someone on the platform of naishkarmya can live in the moment. The fruitive worker is living in the future, if he is successful, or living in the past if he is not. Does that make sense? So that's why unless you situate yourself in the mode of goodness, you can't be happy. Does that make sense? That's why all this blabber about only those in the modern society and modern culture can enjoy, and those following the Vedic are too restricted, that's the blabberings of uninformed fools. Because happiness is in the present. When is the modern person ever in the present? Does that make sense? So when do they enjoy? They are dressing up, that's the mode of passion, they are always in the future "I am gonna go out. I am gonna do this, I am gonna do that." They go to the nightclub, but they are not in the present, they are looking for someone. Even if they find someone, then how far can they take that someone? And then, having drunk so much, the next thing they know is they wake up in the morning in some bed with a stranger, and that's it, so where was the enjoyment? Where was the present? If they were focused on what they were doing right now and being fully absorbed in it? Basically, never. Do you understand? And even if they were, a moment here and there, "Oh, look at that boy, look at that girl," there was that moment, so one moment in 12 hours? Think about it! Maybe another moment, then when they agreed to go to your house or they come into this one, you are going to their house. Two moments! Do you understand? This is reality, this is not talk, this is science. The modern is not scientific at all. They have math, but they don't have science when it comes to relationship. Because give them a million dollars, they could not explain what a relationship is. Because unless you understand sambandha, abhideya, prayojana, you don't really understand. You know what I am saying? You may know, you be nice, you be this, you may consider the other person, those are part of that, but where does that come from? Where does good qualities come from? Where does the concept of "be nice", "don't hurt other people," "don't steal from other people," "don't get jealous and envious of other people," "be honest," "be truthful," where does that come from? Modern thinking? Or religion? Where does it come from? It's the remnants of some variety of religion, and religion comes from God. Therefore when God gives the most complete form of religion as the Vedic literature then what's the problem? Why that won't work? Do you understand?

So therefore one has to have that focus and faith in the Vedic culture. Because it works everywhere. Any other culture may work for a particular situation, but take it out of that situation, it doesn't work. Does that make sense? That's what's going on. Let us just take a really common example that devotees love to fiddle with, clothes. So now, in how at least in my experience most devotees approach clothes... Actually... Yeah, okay, we'll leave it at that. Is, "The devotional clothes that we wear, those aren't practical." But define "practical." See, I mean, according to how I would understand "practical" means, "If by wearing those clothes the activity cannot be performed." It's not practical to use a butter knife to screw in the screw, it's more practical to use the screwdriver, because it gives a better result. Or, let's say we don't have a screwdriver, so then it's being practical to use the butter knife. Who here can with full confidence raise their hand and say, "You cannot drive a car, you cannot walk down the street, you cannot get on a bus or tram, you cannot go in a shop and buy something, because the devotional clothes stop you from doing that"? Raise your hand if you are really confident, you really feel confident that this is true. Yeah. So therefore, at least in this crowd, no one should ever use that statement again that it's more "practical" to wear karmi clothes. Does that make sense? Otherwise then just accept that you are attached and sentimental and that's just the way it is and you don't like it any other way and just be honest. Because that would be modern, right, being honest? Vedic means consistent, modern means inconsistent. Does that make sense? So as we go on and we start to see that modern is more and more just a conglomeration of our attachments that we loosely hold together with some foolish arguments that change according to the wind. Does that make sense? Now, up to now we've only dealt with detail, externals, because that basically is... that's the "anybody takes this" point. You know what I am saying? One may, just as a last point on this before we move forward. Even if one does think it's more practical, it's strange how one would switch back into the same kind of clothing that one would have worn before joining Krishna consciousness, not what somebody else would have worn before joining Krishna consciousness. Does that make sense? Therefore it's just attachment, it's not actual reality.

So therefore then we see is even we take that, the modern, but define "modern". You go out on the street, how many different styles of dress are there? Right? There is people in three-piece suits, there is people in just suit and tie, there is people in dress casuals, there is people in... How you say? Yeah, just in casual, then there is people just plain floppy. Then there is people that are fashionable, then there is people that are just outright crazy and outrageous. So which one of those is modern? And when you go out on the street and say, "this is the only thing that can be worn," why did you choose that one? Right now we've just given six different options. Does that make sense? That's why it's nonsense when someone says, "Oh, it's practical." "Dhotis aren't practical," or "Sarees aren't practical." I've seen ladies in India doing roadwork, I mean, roadwork, building roads, wearing their sarees, keeping their head covered and carrying their baby. And they are carrying 15 bricks on their head! Any man here could carry 15 bricks on their head? I'm not joking, 15, okay, at least 12, okay. Now, if you are gonna do that, you get out in there in your boots, they are doing it bare-footed. And you could say, "Well it's different here." It's 40 degrees here, jack, where is the difference? So then? Right?

So this is the point that modern doesn't have any standards. Any standards that are there are based on the remnants of some religious faith or practice. Religion comes from God. What God gives therefore is the most practical, but you have to know what God is talking about. Just like when we were talking about the screwdriver and the butter knife can both get screws into your wall. One will do it more efficiently, one less. Does that make sense? So then it's a matter of what you have, the situation you are in. Does that make sense? So time, place and circumstance therefore defines what it is you will use. If you don't have the butter knife you might even try using your fingers. You might be able to get the screw in far enough that at least hold the thing till you... And it will work until you find a screwdriver or a butter knife, or whatever else you can get your hands on. Does that make sense? In other words, what gets the screw to go in? Something that's thin enough and wide enough to fit in the slot of the screw and that you can get some leverage on it, so that you can actually screw it in. That's the principle that's working. Therefore I could take the back of a bread knife and put it on the screw and turn the whole knife and put the screw in. Does that make sense? That's what is the principle of a screwdriver. We've come up that it's got a long thing and then a flat end and then a handle with a hole, but all that is just to get the flat part into the screw and to have something which you can get enough leverage to get that twerking action. So therefore if you understand that principle, then you can get the screw into wall by looking around your house and finding whatever will accomplish those two points. Does that make sense? So that's why you would say, "He is a practical man," because he actually understands the principle behind the mechanics of what he does. Does that make sense?

So now, taking that into clothes... All this up to now was preliminaries, but... [Laughter] For the three second point that we want to make. No matter where you go, what culture, what society, there is clothes that they consider appropriate. How that's developed? Various modes of nature, time, place, circumstance. You know, on the North Pole what's appropriate may be different than what is considered appropriate in the Bahamas. You know what I am saying? North Pole, the girl's being real bold showing some skin, you could see the tip of her nose, because it's freezing cold over there. Do you understand? So therefore then what the Vedas are saying, this is the rule according to Manu, that someone should wear clothes that is appropriate for their age, their position in society. You know what I am saying? Does that make sense? That's the Vedic principle. So is that not being applied everywhere in the world? You are going to a formal program, you wear a suit. You are going out fishing with friends, you wear something casual. Is that not going on everywhere in the world, every last culture down to the last person? So how are they not following the Vedic principle? Right? So that there is a concept of appropriate dress and inappropriate dress, that's Vedic, it's not modern. The concept of appropriate dress, the concept of economics, the concept of social position, right? That an administrator or the person who heads the country should have power, is that not in every culture? So where does that come from? Kshatriyas have power. You are in the business field, you are successful by how much money you have, not how much knowledge you have or how much influence you have, right? If you are an academic then it's how much knowledge you have. If you are an artist, it's how good you are expressing your art. Where do these come from? Universal principles, you can't get around them, because it's established by God. So now this is what it actually comes down to. There is a hierarchy of everything. Means, the screwdriver is better than the butter knife, which will be probably better than bread knife, which is definitely better than your fingers. But they are all following the principle, does that make sense?

So therefore dressed in the most appropriate dress for the human nature, performing human activities is the dhoti and the saree. It perfectly accomplishes the needs of the individual, right? The man wants his legs free. A dhoti doesn't do that? That's why it's split. But in its being split you can appreciate the legs, but it doesn't bring out the grossness. Does that make sense? You can see the sides of the legs, but you can't see the front or see the back. Does that make sense? So therefore it works perfectly. Does that make sense? For the ladies, then it's covered, you don't want to see the individual legs. It covers the chest, and since a girl is going to fidge it and play around at all times anyway, then is it better she plays with her hair, or with the end of her saree? Right? The modern girl says, "Oh, it's such a trouble to keep the saree on your head," but a girl with a loose hair, what does she do every 3,5 seconds? Fiddle with her hair, right? But modern fiddling creates attraction, while playing with the saree does not. Femininity is addressed, but not sensuality. Do you understand? therefore it's more refined. You have to have something to play with. The girls that shave their heads, they have little puppies to play with. Do you understand? Something must be there to play with. Or, if you wear your super-tight tank tops and really low cut... How you call them? Hiphuggers, or whatever the hell they are, then what are they doing all the time? Pulling them up and make sure they don't fall off. No? Then? Does that make sense? So, it's the most refined and it addresses perfectly the human nature. Then according to the different cultures, the time, place and circumstance, therefore then they have their dress that they call formal, what's informal, what's just common, and what's called just inappropriate. So, in other words, the principle is wear that which is appropriate for the particular time, place and circumstance. So therefore if you have to wear a tie at work, you wear a tie at work, because that's what's appropriate. You are dealing with people that that's what they consider refined. Does that make sense? You are not wearing it because the dhoti is not practical. It's not practical because the persons you are associating with don't understand it or don't appreciate it. Does that make some sense? It's a different approach, it puts it on the other people, rather than on the devotees, now that the devotees are fanatic. But the karmis are not fanatic? If someone is not fanatic that means they are very open-minded. So if they are not fanatic why would they be upset if you wear your dhoti? Because they are fanatic karmis, right? So that's why you are wearing the suit. Not because devotees are fanatic, because the karmis are fanatic. Do you understand, you have to understand where the fault lies. Why it's always the devotees, the Vedic culture, if you follow anything then it's "Oh, you are fanatic." According to modern culture, is it proper to steal? That's a rule, why are they fanatic? If you are so broad-minded, then you don't care if people come in and steal all your stuff, move into your house, take your wife and everything like that, because you are broad-minded, you are not fanatic, "Hey, cool." The definition of "fanatic" means "a person who follows rules that I myself don't consider valuable, that's a fanatic." In other words, "I am the perfect example of perfection and anyone else, they are fanatic, or out of it. They follow rules I wouldn't follow, they are fanatic. They don't follow rules that I follow, then they are out of it." Does that make sense? In other words, the standard for everything in the cosmic creation we put up on ourself. Does that make sense? But that unfortunately is a problem, because in the spiritual world the center of everything is Krishna, everything circles around Krishna, that's why here it's a perverted reflection. Perverted meaning, the reflection looks exactly the same, but the perversion is, each individual item in the reflection thinks they are the center of everything, while in the spiritual world every living entity knows Krishna is the center of attention. Does that make sense?

So the whole idea is, if you understand the principle, it doesn't matter. Prabhupada said, okay, because he understands the principle, Vedic clothes are that which a gentleman wears. If you can't wear that, then you dress like a fine up-to-date gentleman. So therefore then for those of you here not wearing devotional clothes today, who can raise their hand confidently and say, "I am dressing like an up-to-date gentleman"? So then that means you don't understand what clothes are for. Does that make sense? Up-to-date means what's going on today. Is it three-button, four-button, two-button? More [indistinct 64:25] ties, more colorful ties? Something cultured. Think about it. Can you even think of anybody in this yatra who when they dress up in not-devotional clothes, actually look like gentleman? And would you need more than one hand to count them? Right? And how many hundreds and hundreds of devotees there're here? So that's the point, if the Vedic is practical, therefore we wanna accept it.

But if we just wanna do what we want to do, that's another discussion altogether, but leave the Vedic out of it. Don't blame the Vedic because you just wanna do whatever you wanna do. Just say, "I am comfortable in this, what can I do? I like looking like a slob. I love looking like a prostitute, what can I do? I love to look cheap and common. I feel at home. I grew up under a rock, so therefore when I crawl out of my rock, I wanna be me." Do you understand? Don't blame the Vedic. You know what I'm saying? Getting on a bus, right? Here you get on a bus in a line, one at a time. You try getting on a bus when there is 10 other people trying to get on it and 15 others trying to get off, and it all has to happen within 2 seconds. And still they do it in dhotis, it's called Calcutta. [Laughter] You know, here you go into a nice shop or nice mall. Try walking around the grouchy back streets that have shops there. And the really amazing thing is is, to keep with money, they may be wearing the karmi clothes, but the guys that are doing actually the hard physical labor, carrying everything around on their head, or dragging it behind them in these funny little carts, they are all wearing Indian clothes. You know what I am saying? Therefore do me a favor, at least in this one, drop it! Right? Don't blame the Vedic culture, "Oh, it's 5,000 years ago. Oh, it's Indian. Oh, it's this, oh, it's that." Oh, it's just, "I am a stupid, attached idiot and I can't stop..." Shut up. "I am not smart enough to understand the principle of clothes that I dress appropriate for the situation I am in." Does that make sense? And then we dress appropriately. Whatever that appropriate needs to be, that doesn't matter. The point is I am following the Vedic culture of doing that. Does that makes sense? Any questions?

Prabhu: I am practicing martial arts and I tried in dhoti, but in some way it doesn't work so much. If it works it's put on in a way that Prabhupada doesn't sanction in ISKCON, like as if it's trousers...

HH BVPS Maharaja: Who said he didn't sanction it? You've ever seen pictures of Arjuna when he is on the battlefield? He is wearing those kind-of like black kind-of pants with the elastic at the ankles, right? In all the pictures of Arjuna, yeah? Yes? No. You find him in dhoti, and how is the dhoti worn?

Prabhu: The two ends are tied in the back.

HH BVPS Maharaja: Yeah, ever seen pictures of Ramachandra when He is with His bow? Same. So that's the point, you get all the fancy stuff out of the way and then it's... Who said it's not authorized? There is so many ways you can put on a dhoti.

Prabhu: So it's allowed to wear dhoti like that in ISKCON?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Yeah, I've seen Godbrothers wearing it like that. But besides that, just even taking the point, let's have some fun here. What you train with in the Dojo, is what you always wear, right? Then? What's the meaning of the practice? The point is is, when you are walking down the street and some guy attacks you, then you go, "One minute!" And then you step into a phone booth, change into your black outfit and then jump out and go, "Haa!" No? That means, you have to be able to fight in whatever you are wearing. I've seen in India many times where guys go into a like a playful fighting mood and they are wearing dhotis and without even thinking, just in a moment they take their dhoti and pick it up and adjust it, so that they can wrestle and fight. How many times in a day does a samurai draw sword and put it back?

Prabhu: Not only once.

HH BVPS Maharaja: Not once? I don't know, people in the field have told me, one thousand. That's when practicing. They pull it out, they put it back, they pull it out, they put it back. Because it has got to be that without thinking you can just pull it out. So that means, you might wanna spend a few minutes having your dhoti and then figuring out how to put it the way you want in a split second, and then put it back, and then put it in the way you want. [Laughter] Like that. Because I've seen it in India, people do it.

Prabhu: [Indistinct 75:38] making practice.

HH BVPS Maharaja: But now he is happy that you can put it on the other way now. Of course, you can always carry a .45 Magnum, and then you don't have to worry whether you got a dhoti on or not. Prabhupada mentioned that also.

Prabhu: [Indistinct 76:20]

HH BVPS Maharaja: He mentioned,  if someone is spending 10 years perfecting the martial arts, and Prabhupada made the point that with one gun they can shoot you. You know what I am saying? Because the kshatriyas would know wrestling, but that wasn't their full repertoire. Like you saw Bhima and Jarasandha were very expert at wrestling. Wrestling includes kicking and punching, elbows, everything. In the wrestling match Krishna killed... What was it? I don't know who was it,  Mustika and Canura, I think He killed one of them by kicking behind the ear. And you won't kick somebody that's not facing you. So what kick would you have to use to kick someone behind the ear? Do you understand? Like that. And then when Krishna threw Kamsa down, then He punched him. At the same time is then so many times then like they pick each other up, throw them on the ground and stuff like that. But that was just general, if you don't have anything else, that's what you use. So one knows that, one is good at it. But besides that then one would know other weaponry according to what's appropriate for the situation. Does that make sense? That's the higher level of the martial arts is therefore to be able to use anything as a weapon. Does that make sense? Like that, so then one knows all these things.

Something else?

Prabhu: So at the beginning we heard about the application of time, place and circumstance, but we also heard that the mood is important, and we see, having received the instruction that we have to carry out, that we apply the instructions to place, time and circumstance, but if we are not in the proper mood, that means that we won't achieve the desired goal, so...

HH BVPS Maharaja: Mood is circumstance. Time is the particular time according either the time of the day, or the season, or whatever it is that would be the consideration of time. You have an activity you wanna perform, you have to be in the right location. You wanna distribute books, you go out where there is a lot of people, it's the right place. You go in that room there, then you might not distribute a lot of books. You know what I am saying? I'm not sure what line you'd use for the bag or sack of sugar there. "Well, these books are, you know, so sweet... Any place that you start to read, it's all sweet... And then the sack of sugar looks at you and goes, "Hey, anywhere you bite here it's sweet also." You know what I am saying? So if you don't go to the right place, you can't accomplish your goal. But the circumstance is gonna determine your mood, right? You have the wrong mood, even if you are in the right time and place, it won't work. So mood is not outside the verb, it's part of the consideration of the verb. That's what I am saying. The activity means, the verb is being applied by the subject on the object. So the verb means, time, mood and accomplishment. It's put in that order, because that's how it's gonna work. Only at the right time in the right mood can you accomplish something, but when you put it into time, place and circumstance, the same thing, then you look at it, it's the right place, the right time and the right mood, then it will get the work. Because even if you are in the right place, if the time is wrong, it won't work also. You are down in front of the bus station at 3 in the morning, but no one is there, the bus station is closed. Right place, wrong time. You might have the right mood, wrong time. Does that make sense? Yeah. So the three go together. It's just like sambandha, abhideya, prayojana. Relationship, the process and the result you'll get, Very logical, but if you look at it from the mind, then it's thinking, feeling, willing. Only when I am thinking about it, sambandha, and then I actually want the result, prayojana, feeling, yeah, I mean, feeling, then I will work, abhideya. So when you are dealing with rasa, you're going thinking-feeling-willing, means sambandha-prayojana-abhideya. Does that make sense? In activity, the field is there, you operate the field, you get a result. But the only reason you operate the field is because you want the result. So therefore you are going to prayojana before you perform the activity, but by performing the activity then you actually get the prayojana. Does that make sense? So the need for it is prayojana. Getting it is prayojana. Does that make sense? So, getting it is the result of the activity. But the activity is only performed because you want it. Does that make sense? So like that then you have to see is that depending upon what aspect you are looking at, therefore you will take it in a particular way. Does that make sense?

Prabhu: At the beginning you mentioned that material needs are not as important as the [87:35] and the Mahabharata deals with the episode of Dhaumya Rishi and Upamanyu and it's said that Upamanyu was taking milk from a cow, but he reduced the amount day by day, so he reduced his eating, his intake. Is there a connection between our spiritual life and the reduction of our intake of food, so the spiritual advancement and reducing our material food, is there a connection? And also the 4 stages or the 4 levels of sannyasa, are also always connected to reducing our food.

HH BVPS Maharaja: Food is very important for you? [Laughter] In the Upamanyu and Ayodha-Dhaumya, the point was is that you are not accepting anything that's not approved by Guru. Food can be used as one example. You know what I am saying? You could use anything. So when you are dealing in an ashrama with brahmacharis there is not much else than food, right? You can't say, "Oh, you got married without asking me," or, "You went out and you bought your Bentley without asking me," or, you know... You know what I am saying? Does that make sense? So therefore basically work and food, if you notice, that's where all the examples are being done. You know what I am saying? Bhima was no less of a devotee than the other Pandavas. But when they would go out begging in Ekachakra, how would they divide up their food? Fifty percent of the food that they begged went to Bhima, and the balance was eaten by the other six of them. Even then he was hungry, that's why he was so happy when he got the opportunity to go kill Baka. [Laughter] Because besides the exercise then there was a whole cart load of food. So he ate the whole cart load of food, and even when Baka came he was complaining that he is eating his food, he said, don't disturb me, when I finish eating then I will work it out. Like that. So the point is is food will be one area where it is. So what is authorized, that's what's taken. Does that make sense? That's the point.

Another example is there is that if you are eating more than is required, so therefore you become lazy then that's not proper. But if you eat less than what you need, then you also are going to be very inefficient in your service. So it's not whether it's more or less, it's whether it's the right amount. And the right amount changes according to the time, place and circumstance. Does that make sense? So we can see, food is the consideration for... It has to be seen in light of one's spiritual development. But it's not necessarily eating less food is what you are looking for. Eating the right amount of food is what you are looking for. Does that make sense?

Prabhu: You mentioned that in the Vedic system everything works nicely, and in connection with the relationships, how can we work them out in a way that they don't become sentimental, so that we don't become too sentimental, but they don't become too cold and detached. For example, when Upadeshamrita speaks about the exchanges between devotees we are not impersonal and cold towards them. So we just throw a present at them or we just throw the food in front of them, or we just... If they open their, if they reveal their mind, we tell them that they are stupid, but we don't go to the other extreme that we don't become too sentimental, so how can we work that out, so that our relationships work in a proper way without being too sentimental or too impersonal?

HH BVPS Maharaja: As we mentioned before, the cit potency, the samvit potency means knowledge and activity together. Does that make sense? So that means, activity performed with knowledge. Like when we see in the Gita Krishna is saying, perform your duty with knowledge, without desiring the result, remembering Krishna, for Krishna. So that means, performing your duty, okay, so that's your varnashrama, without desire for result, so that's naishkarmya, so that's your best level of karma-yoga. With knowledge, that's your jnana-yoga, remembering Krishna, that's dhyana yoga, for Krishna that's bhakti yoga. So the performance of your duties in knowledge then that will insure that it works. But that means, you are performing it in the moment, you are not somewhere else. You know what I am saying? Why would you serve prasada?

Prabhu: Because, according to the Upadeshamrita, this is one way of exchange between devotees, it's a sign of our love toward devotees, serving the prasada.

HH BVPS Maharaja: Okay, so it's a sign of the love.

Lecture audio:

All comments.