So one of the elements that also has been, that Prabhupāda brings out is this element that the Māyāvādīs talk about of reflection. But they’re saying it’s just like, as the Vedas mention that, we must say it’s a reflection, and as a reflection’s not real, therefore material world’s not real. But the weakness in their argument is, but what it is reflected from is real. Because if it’s actually a reflection, so then Brahman is there. It means if the jivas conditioned are covered by illusion, does Brahman stop to exist? No, even according to their philosophy. So that means at that time there’s two. So there’s a reflection, you can see Brahman and you can see the jivas.
So what does that mean?
Right? It means, there’s two means in the original that is being reflected there are two.
You understand? If you can see Brahman in this material world, that means that’s because there’s original Brahman and that is being reflected here. So that works for them that way, but if you reverse the thing, the logic’s the same the other way. So if you see the jivas here, that means because there’s originally that they’re there. You understand? So the problem with these is they’ll be using faulty logic. They won’t take the logic far enough. They only take it far enough to deal with what their purpose is. Right? You understand? So Prabhupada mentions that one also as another one of their foolish arguments. Right?
In verse 26 to 30, Kṛṣṇa shows that there’s no reason for lamentation even if Arjuna does not believe in the existence of the eternal soul. Right? Because if you just say, even you’re going to take the materialistic point of view that the life comes from dead matter. Right? So then what’s the big deal? It’s just a transformation of dead matter. If it goes back into dead matter, what’s the problem? And anyway, they’re going to die anyway. So it’s not like it’s a big, you know what I’m saying? You know, if you take into the modern science, they’ll take the body as a sack of chemicals. I’m not sure how much it’s worth these days. Everyone knows how much the chemicals in the body is worth these days. I mean, when I was a kid, it was worth about five dollars and twenty-six cents or something. So I’m not sure what it’s worth now. I’m sure inflation has gone up a bit. You know what I’m saying? So what’s the lament? The cycle and birth of death is certain and applies to everyone. So many living entities are born and die at every moment. What is the use to grieve for them? It’s just because if you’re looking at it just comes from matter, it’s not a big deal. So then why would you, why would you lament about it? Right? So he’s using, you know, an atheistic argument here.
Or as Srila Prabhupada puts it, no one laments for the loss of a certain bulk of chemicals and stops discharging his prescribed duty. Right? You know, you’re walking along, you drop a sack of cement in there and it gets ruined. You don’t, that’s it, and your life’s finished and everything. Yes? I’m not arguing that they’re not in the relationship.
They’re not in the form, means if you’re looking at what’s, but what’s lost?
The relationship is lost. But, but you can’t, you can’t lament for the, the, the body. Because that’s just made out of dead matter, that’s going to go back to dead matter. But in the discussion here, those that make these arguments generally don’t bring up the emotional aspect, because they don’t really think that far. Right? That would be a different group of materialistic thinkers. Right? In other words, technically speaking, anyone with mundane consciousness, then life or the soul has come from, from matter. Right? So the gross materialists of the, you know, of the varieties of karmis, you’re going to have those that only believe in one lifetime and those who believe in many. Right? Same with the, the, the other school, the pessimists, the pessimistic school, where you can’t be happy in this world. They’ll also only believe in one life or in many. Right? So then, but in any case, for the materialists who don’t know anything about the Vedas, then life is coming from matter. Right? It’s just a combination of the, the, the elements creates, generates the life. So by that combination, consciousness is generated. You know, they can’t say how that would happen, because nothing else that you know of, consciousness is generated. Right? You know, it’s like your, your coffee table, you know, never just by chance one day becomes conscious or something. You know? So that doesn’t happen, but people get distracted and somehow or another it works for them. Right? Because you’re interested in matter and you become inspired by matter, you’re attached to matter, so all your emotions are included with matter. So then the idea that from matter, therefore, consciousness comes isn’t that far of a step. Right? Because you think it’s the matter that made you inspired or gives you that feeling of need. Right? And by working with it, it’s transformed.
Right? So the concept that you could transform the energy and life could come from it, then isn’t that far of a step for them. Does that make sense? But the problem is they’re an illusion because they don’t understand that, that inspiration they have is not coming from the dead matter. It’s coming from the Lord. So they don’t see this.
Then on the other side is that the impersonalists, the voidists, then they are also saying that there is no individual life. There’s only Brahman. So when illusion is covered by illusion, then there is individuality. Then there’s that specific separate life. Right? So what is illusion? What is illusion equated with? Yeah, the material energy. Therefore, life is still coming from the material energy. So you find all mundane concepts of philosophy and religion, the living entity will come from the material energy, like that. They’ll say it comes from God, this and that, but in actuality, why is there? Why is it happening?
That’s because of the thinking. It’s because of the material energy. So they don’t understand that. That’s why Krishna first starts out with Him and the living entities are eternal. They’ve always been there.
Right? Because if you establish that point, then one, you get rid of all the materialistic things because we haven’t come from it, matter. So matter is what’s foreign. So God and the living entity, that’s what’s common. So that’s where the relationship lies, not between the living entity and the material energy. Nityo nityānāṁ.
The greater eternal is connected with the smaller eternals. The material energy is not eternal and it’s not conscious. And so if it’s not conscious and it’s not eternal, then that combination can’t make any happiness.
Because happiness means it’s the result of combining the field with action.
Does that make sense? So that would get rid of that aspect.
And if you say that God and the living entity is eternal, that gets rid of all your Mayavada and your Buddhism, all your pessimistic philosophies that, yeah, the material world’s bad, so we’ll stop interacting with it and we’ll elevate ourselves out of here, back to a position of lack of anxiety, the so-called Vaikuntha platform of existence, but without Vaikuntha. So it doesn’t work quite well. See, easily they could have called Brahman Vaikuntha if they wanted, but they didn’t. The planets are Vaikuntha. But when it’s mentioned Vaikuntha in the scriptures, then the Mayavadis will take it as Brahman. They think that’s Vaikuntha. It means it’s the place with no misery. But the point is, you say it’s a place of no misery. And so is that a nice concept?
If you could have a situation where you would never be unhappy, never be in anxiety, never disturbed, would that be good?
It would be boring in the long run, but I mean, is the concept appealing? Yes. But the point is, is why is the concept appealing? It’s the nature of the soul. There’s misery here. OK. That defines it. But what point is coming out here that pokes the hole in the Mayavad philosophy?
It’s for themselves? It’s for themselves?
It’s for their pleasure? Yes, it’s not for Brahman’s pleasure, but that’s the point. If it’s for their pleasure, it can only be pleasure if you exist to experience it.
You understand? For Brahman, if there’s only Brahman, it’s all one, there is no anxiety in the first place. So why would it be a drive to get back to the stage of Brahman?
Because you’re already Brahman. See, this is the difference between the Mayavadis and the Brahmavadis.
The Brahmavadis says, we’re Brahman anyway, so our anxiety is coming because we don’t understand that. But we’re already Brahman, and everything around us is Brahman, so just relax.
But the Mayavadis, this is all illusion, we have to get back to Brahman. But the point is, then that’s almost saying that we’re not Brahman now.
And if you’re saying yes, OK, it’s illusion, so then why take the illusion so seriously that you would make so much endeavor? If it’s an illusion, why are you working so hard?
It doesn’t make sense. So the point is, is that the individual can only appreciate the happiness of Brahmananda if he exists as an individual.
Because if you say you merge back in Brahman, then you’ll be happy. Brahman’s already happy without you merging back into it or not. Right? Brahman doesn’t need you to be happy.
So you’re establishing that you are actually the cause of Brahman’s happiness.
Right? When it’s supposed to be the other way around. Especially if you don’t exist. Yeah, and if you don’t exist, then how are you going to… You know, so it’s just, it just doesn’t make any sense or philosophy. Right? They’ve been thinking about it for a long time, so they’re quite good at discussing it. But it still doesn’t make any sense. Yes? May a Brahmavadi have understanding about Paramatma and Bhagavan? May a Brahmavadi have understanding? No. He can move forward to those. Because once a Brahmavadi understands about Paramatma, then he’s not a Brahmavadi anymore. Then he’s, you know, he’s on the Paramatma platform of realization. And if he still wants to have Brahman liberation, though? Then that’s called a Patanjali yogi. Okay. Like that. That’s called a real idiot. Right? Because it’s like, the impersonalists merge in Brahman, but they don’t know there’s a person. But to know there’s a person and still want to merge into Brahman, that’s stupid.
That’s unfortunate. You know what I’m saying? So the point is, is if one’s on the Brahman platform, then one’s liberated. So there’s nothing stopping one’s, there would be nothing to create a misunderstanding of what you’re dealing with. Right? There’s no conditioning to, you know, cloud the vision. So that’s why if a Brahmavadi comes in, if a person actually comes in, an actual Brahmavadi comes in contact with the Lord, then he’s on the transcendental platform, he knows he’s only dealing with the transcendental platform, but this is a superior platform, so he accepts it. Does it make sense?
If such a person comes with pure bhakti, immediately? Pure bhakti means, you can say pure bhakti, but at what point they come to pure bhakti? I mean, when they come in contact and they accept the Lord as a reality, because they have…
That’s another thing, but the point is, the Brahman platform and the platform of Baba are the same. The situation is the same. The difference is, Brahman, you’re only seeing the impersonal feature, while Bhagavan means you’re seeing the personal feature. But still, you have to progress.
The residents of Vrndavana who are practicing Baba Bhakti, they’re not conditioned.
But they have to make an endeavor to develop that prema.
You understand? We have to get rid of the concept of the lightning bolt hitting us and then becoming enlightened.
Or that there’s some mystic thing that we don’t know about. Because mysticism means there’s something you don’t know. So it’s slightly… It’s like a sceptic form of watching horror movies.
You know what I’m saying? That’s very tamasic, it’s based on the body, mysticism is something higher and it happens, you don’t know how, but you’re not afraid of it. But it’s still that same thing of ignorance because you don’t know. It’s just a pleasant form of ignorance in this way. You know, while horror movies are a little bit more, a little grosser.
Does that make sense? So, these kind of attractions, then we need to give up. Because that’s it, karma and jnana. And then sometimes the Prabhupada mentioned yoga. Yoga is included within karma.
But sometimes it’s brought out because that element of the mystical attachment, as opposed to the grosser attachment, or the subtle attachment of the karmis.
Does that make sense? Enjoy here, or enjoy a future enjoyment, or heavenly planet enjoyment. It’s based on pious activities like that. But it doesn’t have the mystical element, while yoga does. Does that make sense? That’s many times brought out in these worldly religions and philosophies like the new age. One of the elements is the mystical side of it. It makes you attracted or something. So you know, they add a little bit of everything. Does that make sense? So that’s where it’ll come from. So it’s originated in that, and then it filters through into all these different ways. The point is that it’s work, but it’s nice work. Because the soul is servant, so that’s the natural work. Working hard to be master, that’s the unnatural position. But working hard to be servant, that’s natural. That’s what they do.
You know what I’m saying?
Is it to create the mystique? Because there’s people that are usually more attracted to Shiva. Yeah. He actually wears all that. I mean, that would be a secondary reason. You know, like Krishna comes to associate with the devotees and kill the demons. Kill the demons is the secondary, associate with the devotees is the primary.
Lord Shiva is to not associate with the materialistic demigods. That’s why he wears all that. And as a secondary, it may attract the ganas.
Does that make sense?
So, like that. So it’s basically the opposite of why Krishna does things. Yes. What are ganas? Ganas are the different groups that follow Lord Shiva. So all his, sometimes it’s translated as the hordes. Like that, just depends upon what aspect you’re looking at. If you’re looking at it, his associates are those who follow him, then they’re ganas. If you’re standing on a battlefield and they’re on the other side, you generally call them hordes.
Like that. Because they may be a bit strange and a bit wild. But Lord Shiva being very kind, then that’s where he takes care of them.
So does this make sense? He’s talking just on the bodily platform.
He’s mentioned about the soul. The soul is eternal, so why should it be a problem? And as the soul is there, either they’ll go back to Godhead.
So Prabhupada’s saying in the Purport, why are you worried about killing Bhishma and Drona? They’re great devotees, so they’ll go back to Godhead. So what’s the problem? Is it a problem if a devotee goes back to Godhead? So he’s saying you don’t have to worry about it there. And even on lower levels, if you’re just seeing the pious activities, then they’ll go to the heavenly planets or be born here again with a fresh new body. So as far as karma goes, then everything will be nice. Then he’s putting aside the element of the soul. Even if you don’t believe there’s a soul, just the body’s going to die anyway, so why are you so worried?
So he’s just bringing out all these different angles. Because in discussing, if one understands this hierarchy of arguments of the different schools, then you use them to establish your point. In other words, you only use an argument that is necessary to defeat the others. You don’t use necessarily beyond. So that’s why these other philosophies, they’re based on Vedic literature.
So they’re correct up to a point. So up to that point, they’re useful. Their conclusion, that’s where the problem is. But like the logic defined by Gautama is very useful. But his conclusion, that’s what’s not useful. So these things can be… Does that make sense? So here, this would be something that would be expanding from the people connected, coming from Vaisheshika. His point is there’s only atoms. And then by the influence of the Lord’s energy, then these atoms are put together and they make all the different forms and everything that we see. And so with time, then the atoms just go back to their original state. Right? Does that make sense? So then that’s what we would call death or decay or anything like that. They’re just going back to their original state. So his point is there’s nothing to be too worried about. This is going on anyway. Atoms are coming together, atoms are going apart.
And so because we identify with that, we become sad. But the problem… So this part is good, it’s true. We’ll say the same thing. But the problem is then he’ll say, don’t worry about it, and then you’ll come to the Vermont platform. And that’s it. So that’s a problem there. No, but the point is you should know where these atoms came from and why they come together and why they go apart. So there’s a person controlling them. So that person is controlling it, then you can have a relationship with them. So vaiseshikas, they accept that that person is controlling it, but they don’t even consider for a moment that having a relationship with them is important.
Does that make sense? So this argument would be their argument. It’s just chemicals anyway. Chemicals means the combination of atoms. So they’ve all come together and then now they’ll all go apart. So then why are you worried about that?
… … … … … … … … Ah, okay, then here it is. From the purport of verse 26 it becomes clear that the atheistic propaganda is not a unique feature of our modern age. So here’s another point, is that the modern man is so proud he thinks he’s unique and special. But the point is, as Prabhupada pointed out, they’ve always been there. There have always been this modern way of thinking has always been there. There was never a time it wasn’t there, because modern means, it’s either not based on the Vedic or it’s not properly based on the Vedic. To reject the scriptures and to replace them with speculative theories which justify sense enjoyment is neither innovative nor admirable. There’s always a class of philosophers almost akin to the Buddhists, who do not believe in the separate existence of the soul beyond the body. When Lord Kṛṣṇa spoke the Bhāgavad-gītā, it appears that such philosophers existed, and they were known as the Lokāyātikas and the Vaibhāṣikas.
Such philosophers maintained that life symptoms take place at a certain mature condition of material combination. The modern material scientists and materialistic philosophers also think similarly. According to them, the body is a combination of physical elements, and at a certain stage the life symptoms develop by interaction of the physical and chemical elements. The science of anthropology is based on this philosophy. Currently many pseudo-religions, now becoming fashionable in America, are also adhering to this philosophy, as are the nihilistic non-devotional Buddhist sects. So we see the point is that they justify their sense gratification, their endeavor, whatever it is, because of this. But basically all do this. If you ask those that have some connection, the Abrahamic religions, then they’ll say the soul comes from God, but then they’ll say, you know, the soul is the body, right? So there is a point in there where they’re also accepting this philosophy, but it’s more unconscious.
You know? If you don’t ask, then they’ll talk all nicely God stuff, but as soon as you ask, then they start taking up these philosophies.
They don’t have a philosophical background. Basically there must be something, because you can get a theological degree, you know? You can get a doctor of divinity. So that means you’ve studied a lot of theology, but what actually that means, I’m not sure. Probably it means they study the scriptures themselves quite to some degree, but not necessarily that they actually know any philosophy. But from what I’ve heard, theologians have a more grasp of it, but still, it’s not enough. They just have more crazy theories, that’s all. And a lot of it is just a patch-up, whatever development is there in secular philosophy. Yes, that’s it. But they have to get into this groundwork. Yeah. There was a problem that came as, I think it was, what was it, Thomas Aquinas, that he merged the Catholic doctrine with Plato. With all the Greeks.
I don’t, but specifically Plato, not Socrates. But he used a lot of theologians.
But that’s just what Plato used. See, because Plato is not believing in Socrates’ point of there’s an absolute truth, and you must adjust everything in line with that absolute truth. That ended with Socrates drinking his little drink. Because that’s why he was killed. Because he was saying there’s an absolute truth, a single absolute truth. He wasn’t sure. He’s talking more like on the Brahman platform or something. But he’s not understanding beyond that. But because that got him killed, then we see that Plato then avoided that point.
And then Aristotle brought it down to just, basically, that’s what modern science is based on. So Aquinas merged these two.
Because there was a problem because the Christians were just saying you only had to have faith. And basically, they worked very hard to get rid of anything that you’d use your intellect for in any kind of study of the material energy and movements of it and all that. That was considered nonsense, oh my. So then, but by his time, then you had the kind of secular thought and academic thought was starting to become more powerful. There were questions. I mean, you have 1,000 years of just saying, just believe how long it’s going to last. So that lesson of that long is pretty good, like that. Of course, you might get your head cut off if you didn’t. So you had inspiration to be involved. But at some point, that wasn’t working.
And so then he merged the two, because they didn’t really have any philosophy anyway, so it didn’t matter. So as long as you could word it in a way that God was still the prominent teacher, then it worked for them. But then the problem came is then that’s where like Galileo and, what’s his, the other one, Da Vinci and them would run into problems, because if you took that Aristotelian theory and actually applied it into the science, the development of the science at the time, it didn’t work. You know, the famous one was on the tower of, meaning Tower of Pisa, you dropped the thing off and all the calculations that came from that, that’s actually what got him. That was Galileo, no? I think that’s what got him in trouble, because it disproved Aristotle’s theory, which was what Christianity was now founded on.
So that was their attempt to be involved with it. And then now they’ll absorb Darwin’s theory or these other things. They make these attempts where they don’t have their own explanation of philosophy, so they’ll take on the modern thinking. So actually, these things, we may say, no, they’re very different, but actually there’s not actually much different than this at all. Because the Buddhists are definitely in line with this. But then the other major, if you take the Abrahamic religions, that’s basically most of the planet. I think there’s two billion Christians. And there’s over a billion or so Muslims. I’m not sure how many Jews like that. It doesn’t matter. They’re the chosen ones anyway. The other riffraff doesn’t matter.
So you’re dealing with a huge amount of the population, a huge amount of the world. So on this, they’re based on this, this point.
What was the difference between lokayatikas and vaibhasikas? That I’m not sure. We’d have to investigate into that.
Yeah, I’m not sure. Unless they’re vaibhasikas or vaibhavas. Yeah, I’m not sure. It means special or something like that. But it also may be connected with Vaisheshika. Because that’s the atomic theory, because he’s going into scientists. So I think it would be something connected with atomic theory.
So this has always been there.
You got something?
In verse 30, the Lord concludes his instructions on the immutable spirit soul. Srila Prabhupada summarizes, The Lord now concludes the chapter of instruction on the immutable spirit soul. In describing the immortal soul in various ways, Lord Krsna establishes that the soul is immortal and the body is temporary. Therefore, Arjuna, as a ksatriya, should not abandon his duty out of fear that his grandfather and teacher, Bhisma and Drona, will die in the battle.
On the authority of Sri Krsna, one has to believe that there is a soul different from the material body, not that there is no such thing as soul, or that living symptoms develop at a certain stage of material maturity resulting from the interaction of chemicals.
Though the soul is immortal, violence is not encouraged. But at the time of war, it is not discouraged when there is actual need for it. That need must be justified in terms of the sanction of the Lord and not capriciously.
So here the point is that one should take this philosophy and say, Well, it doesn’t matter. You don’t have to interact nice. You don’t have to deal nice. You don’t have to deal with anything because it’s all just, you know, how you say, chemicals anyway. But the point is that still would be atheistic. The point is that all these things have to connect to the Lord. You connect it to the Lord, then it actually becomes real. So Krsna defines under what situations you deal in which way with the other living entities who are embodied.
So that always has to be there. You always have to see that Krsna is going to establish what it is you do and what you don’t do. So nonviolence is one of the main principles of the dharma-sastra. But real nonviolence is connecting the soul to Krsna.
That’s real nonviolence. To not do that, that’s violence. That’s the ultimate violence. Because you may kill the body, that’s violence, but killing the soul by not connecting to the Lord, that’s worse, greater violence.
So here then, if there is a reason for it, the war, and it’s based on religious principles, then it’s justified.
Otherwise, then it’s not. Then it’s wrong. But in this case, then it’s justified. So then Krsna is encouraging. Yes?
Yes, because you’re doing the greatest welfare work. Because welfare is generally the opposite of violence, right? Because violence means the person is lost, but welfare means he’s gained. So this is the highest welfare, is preaching. But some, being influenced by these kinds of philosophies, then will think that preaching is, oh, that people don’t like it. But that doesn’t mean it’s not there. Does anybody like that they have to have cardio-surgery or something, and they’re going to end up with a big scar on the chest? No, nobody likes it, but it doesn’t mean it’s not done and people aren’t benefited.
So in other words, you find a way that is least disturbing and most attractive, and you preach, but just say preaching shouldn’t be done, or Harinam shouldn’t be done, or we just don’t wear our devotional clothes because people will be disturbed.
That’s atheistic. They say it’s for preaching, but it’s not for preaching. It’s for their own personal self-satisfaction. When they go out on the street, they want to get a particular reaction out of people, and they don’t want it to be negative because they’re a Hare Krishna. So it’s simply purely self-motivated.
It’s not something else, because for every example, oh, this happened, and then this reaction came, and this came in the papers, there’s devotees doing the exact same thing, and it comes out positively in the papers.
It’s like the scientists. They’ll find something that goes with their theory, so they’ll say this is true, but then suddenly it goes against their theory, then they’ll just go down somewhere with some number on it, and no one will pay any attention.
That’s what Sariputta points out, that modern man, skeletons of modern man have been there as long as they have all these other kinds of skeletons. They’ve always been there, but they don’t accept it, even though it’s there. They just ignore it. There may be, he’s pointing out, so much that it’s very obvious that they were always there, that they have this theory and they’re attached to it. And so when they say, well, how does that happen? It happens in every field.
Every field that happens. It’s just like just reading yesterday about this, the teaching of the English language.
And possibly even your other European languages, your Romantic languages.
If you go back for the last something like a thousand years or something, they would teach you the letters, the sounds of the letters, so that you could read, though you didn’t know what it meant. Because up until, I think, the 1700s or something, you learned to read by reading Latin, because they were all based on Latin and all the sounds came out of Latin. So, therefore, the skill of reading, you don’t have to know what it means, right? So the kids would learn how to read, and then once they knew how to read, then they would hand them a Bible, and then that was their textbook. Because they could read perfectly, though they didn’t know what it meant. Then they start reading the Bible, they learn vocabulary and what it means, but they could read perfectly. But at some point, a group of intellectuals came up with this idea that that’s insulting, because you’re reading, you don’t know what you mean, so you should bring it that it’s meaning-based.
So then they start doing these things of words, that you see the word and you know what it means, therefore, you can read it. So it’s just you memorize a symbol. So, you know, it means, why use that? They could have used Chinese letters, it’s much more developed. There’s 10,000 of them, so they’ve got a broader range of explanation than, you know, 26 letters. So if you’re actually going to go by meaning-based, then the hieroglyphics is actually a better system. It’s more, you know, you can catch the connection a little bit better. But in any case, they changed it into that. Starting in the 1700s, it came out by the early 1800s, that became like standard. It just took the place of a stone, because to an adult, that sounds reasonable.
But what they miss is that it’s not reasonable to a kid, because a kid doesn’t know what any word means. And to read a word, you have to know how to identify the syllables.
So it’s really a bogus philosophy. But right now, in all the schools in the world, that’s what’s going on. And that’s why it’s like, I forget what it was, 100 million Americans are illiterate.
They can’t read. Or their reading is at best, fourth grade level.
I’m talking adults. So there’s 300 million Americans. Like that, from last I heard, maybe it’s something this way or that way. 280 or something. But now, how much of that is children?
Right? So 100 million adults is practically most of the adults. So that means only really sharp, intelligent people know how to read nicely.
And the intellectuals have made this happen. And people will complain about it, but they won’t hear, because to them, it’s a great theory. So it’s the same with all this, because why I gave that example, someone would say, but it’s so obvious how stupid it is. There’s so many things that are so obvious, but people buy it, because intellectually, it seems to make sense to them.
You’re going to say something?
That’s the whole thing. The whole thing is that you have to, from the beginning, you have to know what it means, otherwise you’re missing out. But because you mix meaning with the actual phonics, they never learn to read. Like that. They just don’t learn to read.
You know, it’s sad. And the problem about it is, is that those who understand the actual reading, because it’s a science, while the others are working on an art, but what they forget is art’s based on science. Art doesn’t work without science, and that’s why it doesn’t work. So that’s an example, just there, taking it out of the philosophical, and this is intellectuals, this is academics, these are PhDs, and they still don’t understand. So, like this, Maya’s so clever, she can make everyone very illusioned.
Right?
In verses 10 to 30, the Lord defeats Arjuna’s misplaced compassion, 127 to 129, using both Vedic and modern arguments. Right? So, he goes back, he uses, he starts with the Vedic, and if that, even that doesn’t work, he’s showing, even in the modern, it doesn’t work. It’s just like we saw Prabhupada before, would take, even you take the Mayavad philosophy, it still doesn’t prove it.
Right? It still doesn’t prove there’s no soul. So the same way he says, even on the modern thing, you know, what’s the problem?
So, it’s a standard method, but the point is, as it’s pointed out here, it’s not used capriciously. It’s not used in your own idea. It’s always based on Krishna, it’s always based on the scriptures. So by doing that, then it becomes useful. Otherwise, if you make up your own thing, then it immediately becomes useless. Right? As soon as the wire is disconnected from the generator, it doesn’t do anything. It just, it’s not doing anything. It’s still the same wire, so, so, fools can’t see that. They can’t see that it’s not connected, it’s not carrying the electricity, because they see the form.
Verses 31 to 37, Krishna urges Arjuna to perform his ksatriya duty, karma-kanda.
In verses 130 to 135, Arjuna refused to fight, because even if he wins, he would not be able to enjoy the kingdom without his kinsmen.
Right? Because he’s saying, the goal is to enjoy. Right? But that’s not dharma. Right? That could be artha, you know, and his actual thing is himself enjoying, but it’s being presented that, you know, share it with the relatives, so it’s pranamoy. But his arguments are on the platform of dharma, or manamoy. But we see, actually, his point, he is anamoy. He doesn’t want to, he himself is not going to enjoy.
Right? In verses 31 to 37, Krishna defeats this argument. Arjuna should fight, because it’s the best way to secure his enjoyment. You want to enjoy, then, yes, great. Fight for your enjoyment. But you should actually know what your enjoyment is. Right? He’s given a lower level enjoyment, now a higher will be presented. By dying in the battle, he would attain heavenly planets, and by conquering the enemy, he would win the kingdom. On the other hand, if he abandons the battle, he would incur sin, by neglecting his ksatriya duty, and would lose his prestige.
The great generals would conclude that he ran from the battle in fear, and this would be most painful for him. Therefore, Arjuna should stand with determination and fight. So he brings it back down to a practical point. You want to enjoy, but there’s only two ways you’re going to enjoy, by fighting, you know, and winning or losing. In either case, if you fight, you’ll enjoy. You’ll either enjoy here, or you’ll go to heavenly planets and enjoy there. While if you take your philosophy and go to the forest, the others aren’t going to take it, wow, he’s such a great sadhu. They’re not going to look like that. They’re on the battlefield. Otherwise, why has he been talking for fourteen years about battle? They’ve been talking longer, but this is obvious, that they’re talking. Vows have been made. You know, he’s done all these things, and now suddenly he’s not going to fight. He’s suddenly now become a sadhu. You know, that doesn’t make sense to them. Of course, that’s exactly what Dhrtarastra’s hoping for. He’s actually hoping that the influence of the dharma-ksetra will make, how do you say, Arjuna see, you know, the higher principles, and he’ll give up fighting and go to the forest. That’s actually what he’s hoping for, yes.
Yeah, a relapse in a sense, but you could say, it’s a relapse, but it’s a lower relapse.
You know what I’m saying? Because the dharma-ksetra could also make him more God conscious.
You understand? The point is, this dharma would be followed, but on what level? So you have the dharma-sastra, which is the varnasrama system. So that’s not what he’s talking about here. Right? And he’s professing that he’s compassion for others, but without it being based on dharma, it comes down to artha. And we see his real motive is karma. He’s not talking about dharma related to moksha, or dharma related to the soul and bhakti. Right? So the field could have all the… So the thing is, it’s not real dharma when you are talking artha and karma, unless it’s directly in connection to dharma.
Dharma-sastra, following your duties that are prescribed, and it’s beneficial for others, and there will be facility for enjoyment, that’s fine, because it’s rooted in dharma. Right? The nature of something. Right? But if it’s not rooted in that, then that’s the point. He’s not seeing that. He’s giving up his duties, so then it will be sinful. Because of that, he’ll lose his prestige.
Losing his prestige, then the others will, you know, speak bad about him. So even out in the forest, they’re not going to talk about what a great sadhu he is. They’re just going to talk about how he’s a coward.
You know, it’s like, if they were out in the forest, and having been in the forest, then they decided, why get involved in this? And they just got independence and austerities and said, we’re staying out here. Right? Then people might have said they became saintly.
But they came back and asked for their kingdom, and you know, full force, they’ve arranged armies. I mean, that didn’t just happen. They didn’t just call up a few friends and say, hey, can you bring all your buddies? We’re having a rumble. You know, it’s like that. So it didn’t exactly, you know, it was big work to organize that many kings.
So now they’ll just see it as weakness. They just won’t see it another way.
Because otherwise, even if it was from that, it would have been done in a different way. He wouldn’t have gotten fearful. He wouldn’t have sat down. He would have just drove out there and just said, this is ridiculous.
You know what I’m saying? They would have gone off with dignity. But here he’s just, you know, it’s not very dignified. Does that make sense? All right. So after the study, he was kind of getting some dharma, but now he’s presenting his dharma. Yes, because the point is, your knowledge has to be applied. Right? In other words, let us say the devotee has knowledge. What will he do next? He’ll apply it. Because knowledge is sambandhigyan.
Then what’s after sambandhigyan?
Abhidheya. And that gives you a result, prayojana. So now, he didn’t have sambandhigyan, and then he saw that what he could gain, his prayojana, wouldn’t happen. So therefore, he’s not interested in Abhidheya. But when Krsna changes it and points out that the sambandhigyan is different, the soul is added, then that changes your prayojana, therefore it changes the work.
Right? It means the consciousness, not the work itself. So here, Krsna’s then going back, okay, now you understand the soul, now let’s fight.
Right? And then it’s kind of like, wait a minute. You said the soul is spiritual, and now you’re saying fighting. You know, that doesn’t make sense.
Does that make sense? Right? So, that’s the shortcoming.
But it has to come out. You know, it means, in other words, the work is there, because if you have this understanding, then that karmakanda goes to a higher level. So he’s presenting it that way, because he’s presenting it, but you don’t see the whole picture. So therefore it’s called karmakanda. When you see the whole picture, it’s karma yoga.
Right? If you only see the work, it’s karmakanda. Right? The work, the result. But when you see the bigger picture, the nature of the soul and all that, and the results for the Lord, then it becomes karma yoga.
Right? But here, you know, he’s being practical.
In this way, Krsna shows that opulence and sense enjoyment come from proper performance of religious duties. Right? In other words, he’s just being practical. Is that you want to enjoy materially? Fine. But how are you going to get it? Are you going to get it by doing nothing? Running away to the forest? No. By performing your duty. Is your duty to be in the forest? Yes. But he’s not a brahmana. He’s a ksatriya. Right? He’s a grhastha. If he was a vanaprastha, yes, then you’d better run to the forest. So he’s saying, you’re going to get by performing dharma. Dharma creates artha. Artha, then you can, there’s sense gratification. So since you want to enjoy, you know, you know, I say kama, with your relatives, artha, therefore, you better perform dharma.
Right? He’s just, even just taking his point there. So this is a continuation like before of just, you know, ignoring the soul and just taking the materialistic and then taking, OK, you’re talking all this dharma. Then on this level, also you’re wrong. Right? So on the grossest material platform, the scientific platforms, you’re wrong. On the platform of karma, which you’re discussing so much, you’re still wrong.
Does that make sense? You know, it’s just like that example of Srila Prabhupada. Then, I forget what his name was, Sivananda, no, I don’t know. It was this, when they were 26 2nd Avenue, next door, exactly next door, there’s a petrol station. And so the boy came and he wanted five dollars. For petrol.
And, you know, he was asked, why? Because, you know, what does he want to do? Well, he wants to buy a gallon of petrol to, you know, pour over himself and light himself on fire and kill himself because he feels so bad about something. I don’t remember what. So then, Prabhupada, you know, then, I think, turned to Brahmananda or something and mentioned that he’s crazy.
And then, in the discussion, Prabhupada said, you know, do you know how I know he was crazy?
Why was he crazy? What do you think? This is 1966.
Okay. Yeah, he lights himself on fire. Yeah, petrol didn’t cost five dollars a gallon. In those days, I think it was like 25 cents a gallon. Right? So, you know, he wanted 20 times more the price, you know. And it’s right next door. They walk by it every day. They know how much it costs. So then, he can say he’s crazy. Because the point is, he feels bad. He wants to kill himself. Okay, that’s a natural emotion, you know, and he’s got his methods how he’s going to obtain it, you know, and all that. So, then, you could relate to that. But because he was asking too much, if he had come and asked for 25 cents, then, they would have just dealt with, you know, his emotions and stuff like that. But otherwise, so, you know, they straightened him out and all that. And I think they called his mother and they came and picked him up and took him home and stuff like that. Yes.
Yeah, he may have. He may have also. Because, you know, he went through it. Oh, you want five dollars so you can kill yourself. Okay. Brahmananda, do we have that kind of, you know. In other words, it’s the same thing. Krishna’s doing the same thing. You know, you’re going along with, okay. But, you never lose control. See, the difference is, devotees may go along with something. Okay, you know, they want to do this or that or, you know, they don’t want to do these, you know, particular devotional things that make it obvious. So, we’ll go along with that. But, they’re not in control of it. Krishna here is going along with Arjuna, but he’s fully in control of the philosophy and consciousness here. Prabhupada’s going along with these, but he’s fully in control. These others are not in control. They are controlled. So, that’s where we’ll say, that’s wrong.
Time, place and circumstance doesn’t mean you lose yourself. It means you apply yourself to the time, place and circumstance.
But, you always have to remember, who has created time? Right? What’s Krishna’s famous statement in the Gita? Yeah, time I am. Right? So, he is time. Right? Place. Who created the fourteen worlds? And, all the situations you can find in the fourteen worlds? Krishna. Okay. And, circumstances. What are circumstances based on? Right? What people are there? What elements are there? And, what are the relationships that define what could be done? Right? You have a room full of people you don’t know. Same room, same time of day. Right? And, you walk in and there’s a room full of people you’ve never seen in your life. So, that creates one mood. You know, we back up. Right? You walk into the room again. It’s full of people that you know. Right? We back up again. You know, you walk into the room and, you know, everybody there is carrying, you know, you know, some kind of a club or a sword or a stick like that. You know? You understand? That changes the mood. Who’s there? What’s there? What facilities are there? That’s what is, what is that? I mean, excuse me, the facilities of the place, but the relationship between the elements, that’s the mood. Right? And the verb carries the mood.
Right? Does that make sense? Yeah, so that means the time, place and circumstance is connected to the verb. It means the mood. And Krishna has defined what, what, if you’re with this person, what you do. If you’re with that person, what you do. If this is your relationship, this is what you do. That’s your… So, where is the time, place and circumstance that God’s not included?
That means that’s, that is a misunderstanding.
That’s a poor fund of knowledge.
Because you don’t see God. So, they’re talking like learned men, but they actually don’t know what to talk about.
It sounds great and they’re talking, you know, religion or morality or ethics or economics or justice. It sounds all nice, but like Arjuna, it means absolutely nothing.
So, here’s the technique. One, as you can see, is they’re bringing out the elephant, elephants, yeah, bringing out the element here, that you can see the difference between the karma and karma yoga. Because you want to be able to distinguish that. You can’t distinguish that and it’s also a problem. At the same time, it’s also showing methods of discussion, how you deal. The person’s on the mundane platform. You discuss on their platform. But you don’t come to their platform. You know, you’re talking with a kid, he doesn’t understand the words you’re using. You, you, you deal on his platform that he can understand what you’re saying. That doesn’t mean now you become a three -year-old kid.
So, this is real application in time, place and circumstance.
So now, in an important purport to verse thirty-one, Srila Prabhupada describes the performance of religious duties as the beginning of human life. Always remember this. Human life begins with proper performance of duties. If it’s not, that’s what an animal is. Animal does what they like. Of course, the modes of nature define what they’ll like, so they’ll only work within that. But in, you know what I’m saying, so the animal is restrained and controlled. But that’s not the decision of that individual soul in that animal body. Their mind is, I’m doing whatever I like, you know, but they’ve only given, you know, one thing to work with. You know what I’m saying? Because they’re in ignorance, they can’t see, you know. Does that make sense? So that’s, that’s the point there. So human life begins when you follow your duty. So from the purport, there are two kinds of svattharmas, specific duties. As long as one is not liberated, one has to perform the duties of his particular body in accordance with religious principles in order to achieve liberation.
When one is liberated, one’s svattharma, specific duty, becomes spiritual and is not in the material bodily concept. In the bodily concept of life, there are specific duties for the brahmanas and ksatriyas, respectively. And such duties are unavoidable. Right? So one may say, oh, I don’t believe in it, so it doesn’t matter. But the point is, Prabhupada is saying, here, if you’re conditioned, you have to follow these. There’s not a question. You don’t want to follow them. You can. It’s called, that’s your choice. It’s called sin. You follow them, that’s called piety. It’s not, because we have to remember is Krishna consciousness is not a mundane religion.
Oh, I don’t believe, I’m not a Krishna, now I’m this, or I don’t believe in that, now I’m a Buddhist, oh, that’s stupid, now I’m… Those are just external forms. You say you don’t believe it and then it doesn’t work. It doesn’t affect you.
But it’s not like that. Right? It’s God’s creation. These are there. This is how he’s established it. You perform the duties, you get the result. You don’t perform the duties, you don’t get the result. So it’s a matter of, if you’re on the bodily platform, you have to follow those duties to get what you’re looking for. Because on the bodily platform, what are you looking for?
Pleasure. Pleasure, yes, but material pleasure. So the only way you’re going to get material pleasure is interacting with the material energy in the way God says you should interact. Then you get the results that you want. So that’s one. Yes?
Duty.
Yes?
Yes. Dharma is acting according to the inherent nature. But the point is, animals just do it because that’s the way the modes of nature arrange it for them. But human beings have a choice whether to act according to their inherent nature or not. Ultimate inherent means the nature of the soul. That’s where Prabhupada’s pointing out. There’s two kinds of swadharma.
And then the other is that if someone has a brahminical nature, or in this case a ksatriya nature, are they going to act according to that, or choose not to? They act according, that’s dharmic. They don’t act, that’s adharmic. And by acting according to it, you’ll get the material facilities you look for. And if you don’t act according to it, you won’t get. Why? Why don’t you get? It’s sin. Why do you get? It’s pious.
Right? Yes? Are all animals equally ignorant?
Yes. It’s just a matter of what modes they’re controlled by. So like a cow is controlled by goodness, right? A tiger, a lion by passion, a monkey by ignorance. Right? But at the same time is the souls in all of them don’t know who they are. They all think they’re the body. It’s just the modes that means… The soul in the body of a cow is in ignorance. But the body of the cow is absorbed in the mode of goodness. So they like to be in a very clean atmosphere, nice atmosphere. You deal with them very nicely. Right? They live a very regulated lifestyle. The more regulated the lifestyle you make from, the happier they are. You know? And so like that. That’s their… Monkeys aren’t so worried about that. They’re irregulated and this and that and don’t really care about that. You ever heard of monkeys taking bath? No. Cows like to take… Every day at the same exact time they take a bath, they’re very happy. Right? The place where they just clean this and that. You never think monkeys, they don’t take bath. They just don’t like that. You know, it’s just like… Okay. So now that’s just the one swadharma. In other words, by acting according to nature, you can’t get around. So then, then in here, then now we brought around the two kinds of nature. Now the second kind is coming up here.
Swadharma is ordained by the Lord and this will be clarified in the fourth chapter. So, in other words, Kṛṣṇa defines it. So it’s not up to modern man to say they don’t care. Or it doesn’t apply in Kali-yuga. Right? God made Kali-yuga and so He’ll say what applies and doesn’t. Right? On the bodily plane, swadharma is called varṇāśrama -dharma or man’s stepping stone for spiritual understanding. Human civilization begins from the stage of varṇāśrama -dharma or specific duties in terms of specific modes of nature of the body obtained. Discharging one specific duty in any field of action in accordance with the orders of higher authorities serves to elevate one to a higher status of life. Right? So, in other words, this is the nature. This is what you have to do. Now you can just do that for lower level or you can do it for understanding that the ultimate swadharma is the soul. Right? The soul, that’s the ultimate nature. But because the soul is conditioned, therefore you act according to the material, the conditioned nature. So, the devotee deals with both at once. The materialist only deals with one. Right? Those who are liberated only have to deal with one also, but the spiritual. Right? So if they want to set example, they’ll work within the system. Because the point is the varnasrama system means your conditioned nature and the particular position or relationships you have are there because of your previous karma. But what your karma is moving through, your options in the human field are simply the reflection of the spiritual world that’s the relationship to God. Because you don’t see it in relationship to God, you’re in the material world. And it’s not generated in the spiritual world, the soul’s eternal relationship with God’s eternal, therefore there’s one nature. You know, specific detail of the nature. But in the material world, because consciousness is constantly adjusting, therefore the form that you may have to perform your duties from keeps changing.
Does that make sense? The ksatriyas do the same thing in the spiritual world as they do here. Right? Jaya and vijaya. Do they have weapons? Right? Do they stand at doors? Do they look big and strong? Do they know how to fight? Right? So that’s the spiritual world. They do the same thing. But it’s in relationship to the Lord. Right? So the difficulty comes is here is… that’s why the sudharma here, there’s not a problem in following it in connection with the Lord because it’s the same duties. But of the two, attaining Krsna’s satisfaction, that’s the main.
Right? So that’s why there may be adjustments in the application of the Varanasi principles.
The principles stay in place, but the detail changes. So if the principle is seen in connection with the Lord, then you’ll find the detail that also will be in connection with the Lord.
For urban… Well here, it’s just like this. Here’s a subtle point.
Human civilization begins from the stage of varnasrama -dharma. Right? Okay, now that’s, you know, everybody jumps up and down and pro-Vedics become very happy and the anti-Vedic starts to become very sad. Right? But here is the point that both parties generally tend to miss. Or specific duties in terms of the specific modes of the nature of the body obtained.
Right? That’s your key, is what is it doing? It’s just like this. Let us say I have a pile of pumpkins. Okay? No pumpkins? Okay. Now, I am sitting in the middle of a field and I have these pumpkins and I’m talking with some person about buying them for more than it costs me to grow them. Okay, would that be considered business? Why?
The profit is there and I have the inclination to make profit in this way. Pumpkins is what I, you know, see as profitable. Okay? Now, that guy will take it, you know, out of that farmland and he’ll take it to some small town or some, you know, some village and then he’ll bring it there. And then there’ll be, you know, that and there’ll be so many other people that have pumpkins. Okay? And then he will do what?
Yeah, sell it for a higher price than he bought it from the farmer. Okay. Now from there, then they put it in a truck and it goes into the city. You know, the big bad city. Right? And in the city, now, that person who’s bought it from out in the town, what’s he going to do?
It’s higher than he bought it in the town. Right? And then having done that, now that goes into the wholesale market and then a retailer will come along and buy, you know, 10 kilos of pumpkin instead of a truckload of pumpkin. Right? And then he’s going to sit down, you know, either in that little market or on the pavement somewhere and what is he going to do? Sell it for a higher price again. And where… And so, what is the common element between all these people in this chain?
Yeah, they’re inclined to make business and they know the science of the Prophet.
Talking about some Abrahamic religion here. We were talking about how to make money. Okay? Like that. Okay? So now, is that man sitting on the sidewalk of a street, that all it is is cement street, cement sidewalks and immediately cement buildings and he’s selling his pumpkins. Is he any less of a businessman than the man who is sitting in the field in the village selling his pumpkins?
No. Try explaining that to the probates.
They’ll say, unless you’re sitting on the land, growing it, then it’s not Varnashram. So in other words, they have no idea what Varnashram is. They think Varnashram is a form. Just like, you know, Christianity. That’s, you know, a science of God. But it’s just a form. They don’t understand the science. They’re making the same mistake. Taking the body to be the soul. Does that make sense? So, that’s why devotees, even though they’re enthusiastic, they can’t do it. Because the point is, it’s what is your specific duties of the specific modes of your body. So if you have an urban nature, then you follow Varnashram in the city.
You know what I’m saying? So that’s why they can’t establish it because it has to be out in the farm. And how many farmers do we have in this movement? Go ahead. Get out, you know, pull out one hand and go ahead and list me all, you know, three of them.
Okay, so maybe you can use two hands. You’re more informed.
You have a greater networking field. You know what I’m saying? But how many are there? Even if you take the whole movement of people. I mean, he knows how to, you give him land, he does something. Not the ones that sit around and talk and have a conference meeting and this and that and have to go to the city to make the money. No, I’m talking about, he sees some land, he sees what’s available locally and he grows something. Yeah, there’s very few of them. Right? And probably most farm projects don’t even have one. Like that. So the point is, is you’re acting according to your nature. Right? The kings, were they Kshatriyas?
Yes. Where did they live? And where was the palace? In the city.
You understand? This is a big… But, at the same time, in the population, how much lived in the city and how much lived in the farm. That is, very few lived in the city and, you know, I mean, now I think it’s less, but I know up to, you know, some back in the 90s, 80s, 70s, 80s, 80% of India lived in the village. Now I think it’s a little bit less. But, so you can imagine if things were more, you might have 10%, 5%, 3%. But the point is…
Yeah, yeah. So, the idea is that there’s always been cities.
Right? Always. Dorka was a city. You know, Ayodhya was a city. There’s always been cities and Varanasi was practiced very nicely there. Right? It’s said that Arjuna, when Yudhisthira went out into the forest, you know, it wasn’t even a forest, because nothing was there. It was kind of like a desert in Kuru Jangala. Then, Krishna came and he called Indra and they made a city there. Right? So they took a desert, made a city there. Right? And then, because it was there, then Yudhisthira started to, you know, generate the facilities. So Brahmins came. He was creating festivals and taking care of them and all that. So the Vaishyas saw an opportunity to make money. So they were coming with all their wares.
You understand? So to create the opportunity, Vaishyas are going to come. So that’s not the problem. The problem is creating the Brahmin structures. Right? At the Panihati Utsav, right? Nityananda Prabhu told Raghunatha Das, you know, you arrange this. So he went around to the villages and got, you know, chira and everything and milk and arranged it. And then what is Krishna’s, Kaviraj Goswami mentioned after that? He’s already arranged stuff, but what was still going on? Vaishyas were still coming because they heard about this and they were bringing their stuff. So first he went out to contact them to make it. Then they were just coming because they heard there’s an opportunity. So these are real Vaishyas. Right? So they’re coming. And then he’s buying everything they have and then telling them to sit down and eat.
Right? So they made profit and got lunch. So it was good. You know what I’m saying? So the point in here is that trying to arrange something in the village, then that’s good because it’s the most obvious.
Right? It’s very easy to identify.
And it’s the most natural and the, you could say, the most ideal manifestation.
But the point is, is Varanashram applies everywhere. Have you ever heard? Are the demigods, what Varna are they?
Kings. Okay. Amaravati. What is it? Big farm. Indra lives on this huge farm.
It’s a city. It’s a huge city. Right? So the point is, is that you have the ideal manifestations and then you have other aspects that are needed to maintain the ideal. And then you have, you know, and that’s all within the natural Vedic environment. In other words, if the city’s not there, how are you going to see that the countryside is protected?
Because you have to have a king, you have to have the administration, you have to have the armies, you have to have the treasury. So you’re talking about millions of people. And then in doing this, you have to have the infrastructure to take care. So there’s got to be Brahmins to train those people and teach the people and do all the rituals and all that. You’re going to need Vaishyas to generate money and provide all the facilities that they’re going to use. Shudras have to be there to assist. So it automatically happens.
But it’s to maintain that natural lifestyle. Right? So now it’s become reversed. The natural lifestyle is there to facilitate the living in the city. So that’s reversed. But the principles of you can live Varnashram in a city or in a country don’t change.
You know what I’m saying? You’re on a farm. You get up out of your house. You go over and ask the Vaishya man, OK, what do I do today? And he says, OK, plow that field. Right? Or he gets up, he goes out, he gets on the subway, he goes to work, he goes to his boss and says, OK, what am I supposed to do today? He says, oh, I want you to fix these files.
So is one any less a Shudra than the other? No. But one is in a more natural, you know, you would say ideal environment and one’s not. But they’re still performing Vaishya, Shudra duties and the rules of being a Shudra don’t change. Right? The Vaishya in the village has to do what his boss says and the Vaishya… Excuse me. The Shudra in the village has to do what his boss says and the Shudra in the city has to do what his boss says. Right? And the Shudra in the village, he’ll get profit from doing what he’s been told. Either he’ll get money, he’ll be given grain, he’ll be given facilities, whatever it is he’ll get. And the one in the city, he’ll get a check.
Does that make sense? So there’s… In principle, there’s no difference. So if you can’t see the principle, you can’t actually see, one, it’s already working. Because Prabhupada said, Varnasrama’s going on anyway. It’s just a matter of whether it’s scientific or not. So scientific means it’s trained, it’s clear, everyone can tell who they are. Non-scientific means there’s overlap, people don’t quite know what to do, so people in one position do things they shouldn’t.
You know what I’m saying? Let’s say you have a lawyer, he’s supposed to be dealing with the law, not dealing with the law to make money. He deals with the law, from that he gets taken care of.
So that means it’s not scientific. So the brahmana is a lawyer, in the modern scenario, is not actually practicing scientifically brahminical dharma. That’s why it creates problems, because it’s not scientific, it’s mixed.
This is Varna-Sankara, it’s mixed.
Does that make sense? So that’s the point, if you can understand this, because if you can’t, then how do you identify, okay, how do you identify who’s the temple president, who’s the sankirtana leader, who’s the treasurer, who’s the pajari, who’s the cook? I mean, you can’t just say, okay, you, you, you, you, and like that, but it’s not necessarily going to work so well. So you can start like that, but after a while, who cooks?
Yes, that’s the problem. Yes, it used to be that others cooked.
Just a funny thing on that, we used to have a pajari in Vrindavan, Prabhupada Sai Omkar, and he was French. I mean, he was French. You know, like that. And so when he’d cook, but he would spend time in Mayapura and this and that. He was a very good cook, so he picked up exact, the styles of cooking and flavorings of the Bengali cooking really well. But because he was French, when you look at the preparation, it would look French. But when you tasted it, it was Bengali. It was very far out.
So like that, you know, you get the, you know, you start because the essential point is the taste, right? You know, so then you move from there.
Right. Would you rather have something? Yeah, okay. Something that looks like a pizza that doesn’t taste like one or something that doesn’t necessarily look like one but tastes like one. Which would you? Yeah. So taste is the essential. So that’s the point in Varanasi. Is that you get the essential point and manifest it how much you can.
So in a rural environment, you can manifest so many aspects more. But in an urban environment, you can still manifest them, but they take on certain characteristics. That’s all. So if you can’t understand this, one will never understand Varanashram and unfortunately never understand human life on the social level. One may end up philosophical on either the soul and like that, devotional level. But this, this is the problem, is that the actual principles, and they say, oh, principles and just, okay. And so, but those are science. When you’re talking principle detail, this is science, not art. Art is just you do something, right? You’re expressing how you feel. But how do you feel? You feel according to your nature. So what is your nature? So are you actually express, are you fully expressing what you feel?
So if you’ve expressed what you felt and you made profit, then you can say he’s acting according to his nature as a vicer.
But if he doesn’t, and he ends up in jail, then that wasn’t smart. That wasn’t acting according to his nature.
You know, that he was trying to make profit. Yes, that’s why he got in jail, because the way he went about it was wrong. But the point is, it wasn’t the proper application.
You know what I’m saying? You know, in other words, if he has to, you know, cheat and steal something, then get something that’s more to source.
You know what I’m saying? You go out in some place and, you know, drill a hole in the ground and take all the oil. Whose oil is it? It’s somebody else’s oil that you claim is my oil and you sell it. But no one will say you’re cheating, even though you are. But if you move farther up on the line, you know, and then you take things there that aren’t yours, then you’re put in jail.
Does that make sense? So you have to find where that mentality will work. Is that why politicians tend to steal? Why politicians tend to steal? So you’re saying that they should go into the forest? Because in the jungle, you can take whatever you want. You know, they’re in the wrong forum.
Raj, this that we take the essential point and manifest it as much as possible, does that mean as well that in our personal lives, in our mentality, we can act according to our nature, but how much we can interact with the other people in the society will depend on them, right? Like how much we can exert, you know, show that in our relationships. How we can show it? Why will it depend upon them? Because you have control over them? No. So then it depends upon you. Varnasrama. See, varnasrama is human life means what? Self-realization. Atato brahmajigyasa. Right? And so what is the lifestyle of someone who is interested in spiritual life? That’s the varnasrama system. Right? So the point is, is you have control over yourself. You don’t have control over anyone or anything else.
You understand? So relationships start with you. Right? Self-realization starts with you. Any endeavor, and then it starts with you. You don’t do it. It doesn’t happen. But we’re dependent upon the Lord because we’re God conscious. We know it’s His system. We’re working within His system.
You understand? Yeah. What I mean to say is that in acting in that lifestyle of someone who is trying to achieve self-realization, if other people around us, naturally we will interact with them in a certain way. But if they are not prepared to interact or to appreciate that kind of interaction… No, but the point is, okay, you’re interested in self-realization, others may be not. Right? Or in a lesser degree. You deal with them, they don’t appreciate it. But the point is, you’re dealing with them, is about what?
Why are you interacting with them?
You’re in the self-realization of why would you interact with someone else?
To help yourself in self-realization. Okay. Or to help them. Okay. But the point is, is that are they a different individual? Yes. Do you have control over them? No. Okay. So therefore, if you want them to interact with you, then that means they have to appreciate how you’re acting.
Right? So that means you deal with them based on their nature. Right? You can control your nature and how you deal with their nature. But you can’t control them to deal with your nature. That’s what people try to do. But that’s the opposite of what actually works. So in other words, they’re not interested in spiritual realization. What’s the basis of your interaction?
Just formal, ordinary things.
You may see them in light of Krishna consciousness, but they don’t. And so therefore, you deal with them on that platform. Like that.
You know what I’m saying? You’re walking down the street and some gentleman’s walking down the street, obviously a materialist, and he says, Good morning. How are you today? So what are you supposed to do? You know, go, You know, Respect to you, O servant of the Lord. Eternal soul. Like this man. What’s wrong? Just said hello. You know what I’m saying? You know what I’m saying? You just reciprocate on that level. That’s it.
That’s the point. Relationship means what’s common. That’s what you relate on, not what’s different.
Right? Does that make sense? You’re God conscious, and let’s say you have a relative who’s not God conscious. Okay? So, relationship is based on what’s common. So what’s common between you and that relative?
Family. Family. So you base it on that. You don’t try to base it on God consciousness when they’re not God conscious.
Right? But what you do is not opposed to your God consciousness because it’s you acting, so you don’t act opposed to your principles of acting, but you interface with them based on theirs. And then from doing that, you might find an opportunity where you can bring a commonality between your God consciousness and the family, and then you have something to go with. But you can’t immediately just start if there’s no connection.
Right? Let’s say I have a machine, and it needs to be plugged in. Right? And there’s a socket on the wall. What do I do? Just start, you know, pushing anywhere?
No. The point is it has to be in connection with the socket.
Does that make sense? Right? So the point is, if there’s no connection, then you act on what is connected. And then if you can bring it around by your endeavor to something where there is a commonality between that person and your spiritual understanding, then that’s the opening for preaching.
Okay?
Okay. Verses 38 to 53.
Buddha Yoga. In verses 10 to 30, the Lord defeated Arjuna’s sentimental compassion for the bodies of his relatives. In verses 31 to 37, the argument based on sense enjoyment was rejected. In verses 38 to 53, Krishna defeats Arjuna’s argument that fighting will bring about sinful reactions. In his commentary to verse 238, Srila Baladeva Dibhushan writes, right, because now he’s going to say it’s against dharma, because he’s saying, do your duty, but he’ll say, but if we do this, we’ll incur sin. Because he’s using, he’s using elements of dharma, but the thing is, he’s not applying those elements of dharma to the situation that they’re actually in. You understand? In other words, the dharma always stands, but in the situation it applies to. Right? So if he was, you know, you know, back at the palace and walked into Bhisma’s room and that, then yes, he respects him. He wouldn’t kill him. But they’re on the battlefield. And they’ve declared war. So the scenario’s changed. Now the dharma of war applies. Right? Not the dharma of teacher-student. Right?
Teacher-student has an environment. So war has its environment. As we said, the place is part of it. Right? The circumstance is part of it. Now Bhisma, instead of being, you know, his teacher and protector, he’s there on the battlefield to fight. Right? So the place has changed. The situation has changed.
Right? Time has changed. This is now after the gambling match. Right? After their being in the forest. So that has an effect. If it was before the gambling match, it’s a different thing.
So, so, so, like that. Arjuna asks, You have explained by verse thirty -three and the verses following it that I will attain sin by not fighting since I will be giving up my duty. But still, I should not fight because sin will arise from killing brahmins and gurus in a war to gain a kingdom. Because he’s just like making it like there’s occasional brahmins and gurus and we’re having this battle for the kingdom and in the process, you know, all these brahmins get killed. What he’s leaving out is that the brahmins and gurus are on the battlefield to kill him. Right? And they’ve declared war and it’s an agreed thing. It’s not just, you know, he was there, he did something stupid and this guru picked up a stick and, you know, hit him and then he defends himself and in the process, kills his guru. No, we’re not talking about that. You know. Krsna applies, It is not so. You will not incur sin by killing them when you are fighting with the desire for liberation. This is explained in this verse. Right? So, in other words, sin is, the point is, is what ultimately is sin?
Right? Not pleasing the Lord. So, it’s, these other things are scenarios in which Krsna decides what pleases Him and what doesn’t. So, in another scenario, then Krsna would want to be pleased by how He interacts with His superiors. But here, this is different situation. So, therefore, you please Krsna, in this case, by fighting.
Right? You know, if He had said, yeah, I don’t want to fight, and Krsna goes, yeah, no, it’s a good point. Let’s see how we can get out of this. But He didn’t. Krsna consistently, from the beginning to the end of the Gita, is saying, perform your duty and fight. He never says any other option.
So, Krsna is consistent. So, it’s very clear, obvious, what Krsna wants. You know? Does this make sense? And, He’s brought out this point that’s bringing up now the buddhi-yoga. It brings out that element, is that the buddhi-yoga means you’re fighting with a desire for liberation, means you’re not fighting that the result is yours. Right? If the result’s yours, then you have to be in the material world to receive the result. The world’s… If the work is not yours, the result of the work is not yours, right, then that means that same work, instead of taking you into material entanglement, will take you out. To that degree, it would take you in, now it will take you out.
So, some big work will take you farther in, the same work done for Krsna will take you out.
Does that make sense?
So, that’s this point. So, therefore, if you have the desire for liberation, that’s what it’ll be. So, He’s bringing this up, this liberation, but then He’ll take it a step further to please Krsna. That’s the ultimate liberation.
Right? Because everything has an ultimate definition.
Everything has an ultimate definition.
Right? And that’s always connected to Krsna. So, your lower levels, because ultimately it is connected to Krsna, then the form of it may be something favorable, but it only actually becomes favorable when it’s connected.
Right? So, that’s how we can work with lower forms of things without a problem.
Does that make sense? You know, it’s just like, let’s say, Prabhupada goes into somebody’s loft in New York, some hippies and that, and they say, OK, you can stay over in this corner. And then, you know, they put up a few little sheets and that, and he stays in this corner and doesn’t bother anything. Right? Because he’s adjusting with the environment.
Right? And then sees within that how to preach. Right? Sees the circumstance. Another situation where, you know, Swami and his brahmachari, they go and stay in a Hindu temple. They invite, you know, they allow to stay there and everything. And, you know, other sadhus would come and stay, and specifically I think there was one sadhu who would regularly stay there. And that, he wasn’t there. And then the Swami and the brahmachari going through the place, because it’s quite a mess, trying to clean it up, because they’re there, then go through and see if he’s got all this stuff, that, you know, ants are eating and this and that. Just junk, in their minds. So then they, you know, throw it out. But then the hosts get upset. Because the point is, is junk or no junk, it’s not your junk. It’s not your business to deal with it. But here it’s like, you know, we’re sadhus, you know, like that. This other guy’s probably a bogus sadhu, like that. And, you know, we know the standards and he doesn’t, and so we apply. But the point is, it’s just not your environment to do that.
Right? It’s someone else’s environment.
Right? So the thing is, is here, is that you have to be able to see what is your position, therefore what your work is, and what your goal will be.
Okay? So we’ll stop here for today. And then we’ll continue on Thursday with Kirtani and Buddha Yoga.
