Bhagavad-gītā Seriatim #53

Bhagavad-gītā Seriatim #53

Full Playlist of Bhagavad-gītā Seriatim Lectures 

Use your browser search function* to search for keywords within the lecture transcription. You can click anywhere in the audio track to jump to the respective section of the transcription text, and click anywhere in the transcription text to jump to the respective section in the audio track.
*CTRL+F on Windows, CMD+F on Mac, Find in/on Page on phone

DISCLAIMER: This is an automatic transcription which contains some misspellings and other irregularities. When in doubt, compare with the audio. If you would like to help us edit these transcriptions, please write to bvps.transcriptions[at]gmail.com

Sadhguru chants Sanskrit chants Sadhguru chants Sanskrit chants Sanskrit chants So chapter ten, the opulence of the Absolute.

All wondrous displays of power, beauty, grandeur or sublimity, either in the material world or in the spiritual, are but partial manifestations of Kṛṣṇa’s divine energies and opulence. As the supreme cause of all causes and the support in essence of everything, Kṛṣṇa is the supreme object of worship for all beings. So in other words, the manifestation is only a portion of Kṛṣṇa’s opulence. That’s not the big deal, because we take it that the facility is what’s important. The big house, the big car, all the nice furniture, he’s got his own airplane, he’s got tons of money. That’s the minor part. All right? So Kṛṣṇa is the interaction between him and his devotees, that affection. That’s the big deal. That’s where the big amount of energy is. To create the facilities, that only takes a small amount of Kṛṣṇa’s potency.

All right? So it’s a relationship that’s big, because otherwise, if it wasn’t, then why isn’t ātmārāma considered the big thing?

Because ātmārāma means the potency is there.

So that would be the thing. But it’s the interaction that’s important. Because if you have a manifestation of something, it’s just there, it exists. So it’s the difference between that and the ātmārāma stage, because that’s just existence.

All right? But rasa means it’s interaction within that state of existence. That’s the greater element.

All right? So that’s the point. Him as a person, that’s what’s special. The facilities, that’s not what’s special. That’s not what impresses Kṛṣṇa. It’s the offering. Otherwise, if it was impressed based on that, then what is our hope in offering some substantial service to the Lord? Right? What do we have to offer? It’s already Kṛṣṇa’s. But it’s the offering in devotion, that’s what then is impressive to the Lord. That controls the Lord. If devotion controlled God, that means that’s something powerful. Right? But the potency to create the different manifestations, that’s minor. All right? So both for Him and His energies. This is the minor element. The relationship, the interaction, that’s what’s special.

So verses one to seven. Devotion resides in perfect knowledge of the Supreme.

So in verses one to three, One who knows Kṛṣṇa as the unborn Lord and the source of all sages and demigods is undiluted and free from all sins.

Verses four to six. All qualities originate in Kṛṣṇa. The progenitors of mankind come from His mind. Verse seven. One who knows Kṛṣṇa’s glories engages in devotional service.

Right? So He has no origin.

He is the origin. One may say, well, what is His origin? No, but that’s, we’re trying to define that which is created. Right? By that definition, we’re saying, okay, well, God created everything, but who created God? But that is an important element for that which is created.

But God is the creator, so He’s beyond. So He doesn’t fit into our definition.

You know what I’m saying? In other words, we’re feminine. We’re energy. So we have a source.

Right? We have a support. But God has no source and has no support. He is the support. He is the source. So He’s just something different. So we can’t define Him according to our definition.

Yeah, He’s beyond.

Some say He’s beyond masculine and feminine. He is masculine. That’s what puts Him beyond. Yes.

Yes. Time, space, all these things. So we bring these elements up for that. But it just comes from our nature because then, you know, one, now we’re conditioned, so time and space. And two is we do have a support. So then we’ll naturally think, well, what’s His?

It means understanding is one thing, but it’s just a matter of knowing that that’s the way it is. But it’s not important to know more than that for the relationship.

Does that make sense?

Just like this, the child, okay, they may understand, okay, the father, he works and he arranges everything in the house, but does he know the details? No. But is it important for the relationship? No. So that’s the point. It’s not important for the relationship. We try to make it important because we’re trying to be the controller and enjoyer, so that’s why it becomes important to us. But it’s not actually important because we think if I can’t understand it, I can’t control it, then I feel a weakness or something less. But that that’s God’s position and that’s just the way it is, and we’re not going to be able to understand it beyond the basics. Then that’s just our position. And if we accept that, then there’s no difficulty. We think perfection is being God. Yeah, we think perfection is being God. So if we can’t understand it, we can’t. Because anything that we can understand, we feel that we’re in control of it, right? The man understands something about the weather, so now he’s the controller of weather. You know, he understands something about botany, now he’s the controller of all the plants. He knows something about geology, now he controls the planet. He understands. So anything where you have knowledge, you feel you have control. You understand? This is also just as a subtle thing, cultural.

That’s why the gentleman, he doesn’t say much. When it doesn’t come up, he doesn’t talk about it. You know? Does that make sense? And then there’s your standard concept, the American concept. They always talk about it. Oh, yeah, I did this and I did that. But you see someone who’s a cultured gentleman, he doesn’t talk about that. So there’s always something new that you never knew. You know the guy for ten years, he never knew that the guy does skydiving or something. You just don’t know because he doesn’t talk about it. If the situation is there, he talks. If not, he doesn’t. So there’s some mystique. You understand? Because what you don’t know, you don’t have control over. So you know you have more control. Right? The same way with the women. Same thing, of course. But that’s not the thing where they say. It’s a matter of they keep themselves nicely dressed. No one actually knows what they look like. And because of this, the other women can’t get control. Because as soon as they know what you look like, then they can control. Because they will decide, oh, I’m better than that.

You understand? So there’s all kinds of subtle things here. So all this thing, we can do what we want. Yeah, you can do what you want. But the point is, you also get the results of doing what you want.

So you can talk all you want. Saying, oh, well, we shouldn’t talk so much. Then you’re being reserved. So, you know, no, but we’re into this more outgoing and more like that. But you get the result of that. You become common.

Well, the other, then it’s something special. Does that make sense? So this will be a reason we want to know, demand to know. Because then we feel it puts us in a superior position.

Because if I don’t know, it puts me in a position of weakness. So that’s why we’ll say, oh, no, but the person’s a public figure. Therefore, it’s our right to know. No, but all it is is that’s a statement of desire for the element of security.

Because what do you do with that knowledge? How is it going to improve your life? Nothing. It has nothing to do with you.

But one demands it because then one feels it puts one in a superior position. And if one doesn’t know, then he feels I’m in a lesser position.

So if there’s humility, one can know how much one can know about God. And one is satisfied. And one doesn’t feel insecure because one is dependent upon God. So, therefore, there’s not going to be any problem. If that affection is there, he’s not going to create any problem for us. Is that OK?

Verses 8 to 11.

So, yes, the point here is that it means all the facilities and everything that’s there that’s manifest comes from Krishna. All qualities come from Krishna. All the sources of everything within the material world comes from Krishna. So someone who understands this, surrenders to Krishna, engages in His service.

Verses 8 to 11, the Cakrasloki Bhagavad-gita. Verses 12 to 18, Arjuna’s surrender and request. And verses 19 to 42, Krishna’s opulence.

So verses 1 to 7. Devotion resides in perfect knowledge of the Supreme.

In the 7th, 8th, and 9th chapters, the Lord discussed His inconceivable power in order to inspire devotion. In chapter 10, in order to manifest and increase that devotion, the Lord will describe in detail His extraordinary opulences, which were previously discussed briefly. These were discussed in the note. These were discussed in 7, 8 through 12, and 9, 16 through 19. So now this is 10.

OK, verses 1 to 3. The Supreme Personality of Godhead said, Listen again, O mighty-armed Arjuna, because you are my dear friend. For your benefit, I shall speak to you further, giving knowledge that is better than what I have already explained.

Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know my origin or opulences, for in every respect I am the source of the demigods and sages.

He who knows me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds, he only, undiluted among men. He is free from all sins.

So, this is verses 1 to 3. One who knows Krishna as the unborn Lord and the source of all sages and demigods is undiluted and free from all sins. Because sin will come from what? Ignorance. And in that ignorance, we try to do what?

We try to enjoy it. We try to enjoy and?

Become separate from Krishna. So, we think that our source is separate from Krishna, that we function independently. So, that’s the cause of sin. So, one understands that I am servant of the Lord. He is the origin. And so, everything is connected to Him. Then, in that case, where will the sin come in? Because sin means it’s not connected to Krishna. So, if you see everything connected to Krishna, where is the sin? So, that’s also going a step further in explaining that previous points that we’re making about how the devotee is always saintly, even if the activities are not on par with his consciousness. Because it’s connected to Krishna, therefore it’s progressive. That’s the special point. It’s connected to Krishna.

Does that make sense? So, because the consciousness is connected, even though the activities aren’t, by the time the consciousness is going to influence the gross, the subtle body, which will then control the gross body. Does that make sense? So, if one understands that Krishna is the supreme, that He is the source of everything, everything is coming from Him, then where’s the sin? Because everything you’re dealing with is Krishna.

So, that you see Krishna in it, that’s already the first step. But it actually, because, how do you say, what’s pious and impious is based on what’s Krishna’s preference. So, then here’s His personal preference. There are the approved options. Right? And then there’s whatever we want to do. Right? So, whatever we want to do that’s not approved, not based on authority, that’s sin. Right? Then you have those activities which are approved, but not necessarily, specifically, Krishna’s favorite element. Then those can either be, those are materially pious, but they can also be engaged in Krishna’s service, then they actually become pious. Right? So, even that they’re pious, if they’re not connected to Krishna, they’re still counted as sin. Right? Because the point of the approved activities is to see it in connection with Krishna.

So, actually you’re trying to get to understanding Him as a person. You don’t understand Him as a person, then technically it’s still not proper. But, in any case, if it’s connected to Him, it works.

Right? So, that’s the essential element that we got from last. So, here He’s taking it further. Yes? Sin for us has a lot of moral connotations. Yes. For Krishna, it would be just the distance from Him, right? We are getting away from Him. It means, yes, sin for us, yeah, is a moral consideration. For Krishna, then it just means you’re not seeing Him. In other words, one’s covered by illusion. So, the opportunity to see Him, to interact with Him, becomes less. Because in a pious activity, a pious activity requires what?

Sacrifice. Sacrifice. Right? So, that means the result is for someone else. Even if it’s for a mundane purpose, it’s still sacrifice. Well, sin is their sacrifice.

No. No, it’s for yourself.

So, that’s why sin is to be given up. Not because the sin itself is specifically bad.

Right? It’s because it’s not for yourself.

You know what I’m saying? So, the thing is just like Prabhupada’s statement. It says, illicit or illicit sex, it’s still sex. The activity is the same. It doesn’t change. So, the difficulty is not the sex. The difficulty, what’s the purpose of it? Right? So, illicit means it’s for yourself. Licit means then it’s for a higher purpose.

Does that make sense? So, there’s the element of sacrifice.

So, that’s why it’s a problem. Because it’s being done for yourself. So, therefore, you become so self-absorbed that you’re going to forget the Lord.

Right? Does that make sense?

That’s the element. So, that’s why it’s a problem. Right? Meat-eating. Why is it a problem? Right? For your own taste buds, you’re willing to kill another living entity. So, it gets pretty self-centered. And then, how do you offer this in sacrifice?

You can’t. So, therefore, it’s all about you. So, that’s the problem. Because we see in the other ages, the animals could be sacrificed in these big yajnas. Right? So, there is the element of sacrifice. So, then it’s not a problem.

As far as sin goes. Right? There’s no sin. Doesn’t mean there’s not a reaction. It’s not that the next ashram in a yajna, you’re not going to be the horse. And that horse is not going to be the king. You know, that’s going to happen. But there’s no sin.

You understand? Because there’s sacrifice. But it’s a lower level of sacrifice. It’s on the level of karma. Right? So, it’s going to have its shortcomings.

Right? So. So.

You know, gambling. What’s the problem with gambling? It’s about winning without making the investment. It means just by doing nothing, you’re going to get everything. I’m going to get a million dollars that everybody else works very hard for by doing nothing. Right?

So, that’s bringing out, again, ignorance. Right? There’s laziness. There’s no activity. No endeavor. So, you get attached to, I’m going to get something for nothing. And so, it comes about yourself. So, you completely forget the Lord. Right? Intoxication. What’s the problem there? It’s my sensation. It’s your sensation. Yeah. And it has nothing to do with anybody else. In fact, most of the time, depending on what it is, it either makes you more dull or a little bit more, either, how do you say? Less conscious of others or more conscious of yourself. One or the other.

Sound like something? Yeah. You know, if it brings down, it means you’re less conscious of everything else. So, you’re more comfortable with yourself because you don’t look bad in comparison to others. Or, if it brings you up, then it makes you more conscious of yourself, so you’re feeling on top of the world, so you think you’re better than everybody. So, in either case, it’s all about yourself. In terms of drugs, I’ve seen people who are looking for something higher. They’re looking for something higher, but is that where to look for it? Just like, let us say, you have your closet. Okay? You know, everything’s in there. Your old sports shoes, you know, this, that, you know, everything’s in there, right? Say somebody is hungry, and so they start going through your closet.

So, their endeavor is very sincere, but is that the place to look? No. No, no. I mean, unless they want to make some tea out of your socks or something, or, you know, like that. You know what I’m saying? So, in other words, that’s not the place. So, nice, but if they’re really sincere, they’ll move on. But if they don’t, then that’s the point.

So, we see what the problem here is? The problem is that there’s no sacrifice. That we’re self-centered. We’re not appreciating Krishna.

Right? So, that’s the problem. It’s not actually a moral issue. Because when you’re dealing with morality, you’re dealing with elements that what you’re doing is not actually wrong. It’s the endeavor.

I mean, not the endeavor, the consciousness about it. That’s the problem.

In morality, that would be better. Yeah. The point is this. Somebody’s…

Yeah. What did I say?

Somebody’s going into a store and taking something.

So, is going into a store, getting goods, and walking out, is that the problem? No. If you pay. Yeah. The point is this. You didn’t pay. That’s the problem. You understand? The person’s cooking and eating. Is that the problem? No. The problem is it’s not offered.

You understand?

Yeah. You’re not included. So, it means Krishna’s not included. So, that’s the point, is that the guy ran off with someone else’s wife. So, a guy, men being with women, is that the problem?

That’s what I’m saying in general. Okay. No. Look in the broader sense.

Is it a strange thing that the masculine principle’s with the feminine principle? No. Okay. So, that’s not the problem. The problem is that’s not his female counterpart.

You understand? It’s someone else’s.

That’s the problem.

So, again, self-centered, right? It’s not you. Yeah. It’s you. It’s not considering the higher principle of nature, of dharma, and everything.

Right? Because that’s the point, is that the basic human life starts at dharma. So, even you’re dealing with niti and kama, or artha and kama. It still must be in relationship to dharma, right? And then we see from what’s given here in the Gita from the second chapter, you also have to include moksha. Is that we’re the soul? Is that we’re supposed to go beyond this material creation?

Right? And then having established that, then he brings out that the real thing is bhakti.

Right? So, these higher elements aren’t considered. You know, the actual dharma, what you should do socially to not disturb the universal order. But then, the point is, is are you actually part of this universal order? No, you’re the soul who is in control of the universal order. That’s God. So, we’re supposed to be subservient to God, and that in devotion.

So, these levels are not being considered. But, you know, as I say, artha and kama, these are.

So, it’s not broad enough.

You know what I’m saying? In other words, you can’t establish a social system based on artha and kama. You can establish on dharma. That’s a social system. Then, to maintain a social system, there must be money and there must be sense gratification. Just as there must be also liberation.

Right? So, this idea that you’re going to have a perfect social system by increasing the economics, and that’s the only consideration, and the economics is going to be based on sense gratification. See how clever it is? Everybody’s going to buy that. Right? Economics based on sense gratification. You got both. So, it’s like a winning situation. But, does it actually create a cohesive social environment? No. Because every person is actually working for themselves.

Or at best, they’re extending to work for somebody else, but it’s restricted. Simply because they’re alive, but you have no personal relationship with them. Or, you have a group that you have a personal relationship with, but you forget everybody else.

So, it’s not big enough to create a social system. Even the finer points of artha, where you’re considering others, for other sense gratification.

So, it’s an improvement, but it’s still not enough to establish a social system. Does that make sense? So, that’s why, unless the varnasrama is accepted, there is no social system. But, devotional service is not dependent upon anything material. So, that means you can perform devotional service even without a social system. So, that’s how devotees are able to perform devotional activities. Right? Because you can do that, because it’s between you and God. Right? And then, you and whatever devotees you’re interacting with. But, as far as the social system goes, that’s not going to happen until it’s varnasrama. That is social system. There isn’t an alternative.

You can’t say, well, there’s varnasrama, and there’s democracy, and there’s autocracy, and all that. No, there’s only varnasrama. These others are parts of it. That’s all. Yes?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. It’s down that point. Right? So, notice he’s saying the point also is, another aspect of following the four of the principles means using what is your quota. Right? Right? Because the regulative principles, if you break them, you’re going outside your quota. So you’re not accepting the Lord and His giving of the quota.

Right? So, but the same, same point is you still have to accept what the Lord has given. The Lord has to be part of the equation. Right? Otherwise, then it’s nice, but it’s still going to be mundane.

It’s still going to be mundane.

You had something, yes?

Okay. If you’re following, it means if varna ashram is followed, let’s say for, for devotion or moksha, as opposed to follow for art or kama, does that make a difference between daiva varna ashram and asura? Technically, if it’s seen in connection with the Lord, it’s daiva. And if it’s not seen in connection to the Lord, it’s asura. So even one is striving for moksha, but if you don’t see the moksha in connection with the Lord, it’s still asura. So daiva and asura simply means, is it connected to the Lord or not? That’s all. Otherwise, the form basically won’t change. Let’s say the principles won’t change, but because you’ve added the Lord, then that being the essential point, then there may be so many technical details that aren’t so important, because the goal is Krishna, not going to the heavenly planets or attaining liberation. So those elements that will get you to the, specifically will, are only for getting you to the heavenly planets. Those aren’t necessary. Or for those things that are specifically for getting you liberated, those aren’t necessary. But the basic, the fundamental principles on which the whole culture is based, that won’t change, because it’s the same thing. It’s just a matter of, as we were saying, you can cook just for yourself, for your own sense gratification. You could cook for others’ sense gratification. You could cook because that’s your dharma. You could cook seeing the elements of the Lord’s energies and potencies at play and liberate yourself. Or you could cook to please Krishna. But the cooking doesn’t change, right? So the principle of cooking doesn’t change, but let’s say you’re cooking for yourself, you’re cooking for Krishna, you might change what you’re cooking. But the technique of cooking doesn’t change.

Does that make sense? So the science of Krishna consciousness and the science of material endeavor are exactly the same thing. What makes it spiritual is that it’s in connection to Krishna. What makes it material is that it’s not in connection to Krishna. Otherwise it doesn’t change, because otherwise, then we’re saying there’s two realities. When there’s not, there’s only one reality. And then there’s illusion, right? But we’d like to say, oh, there’s two realities. There isn’t two realities. There’s only one reality, and there’s Krishna, and that’s it. And this is his creation. It works because of his potency pervading it. So he pervades it whether you’re doing something on, you know, dharma, artha, kama, moksha, or bhakti. It’s still the same. The difference is that when it’s on bhakti, then he reciprocates directly, you know, as a person. Well, if it’s on these other levels, then just as his potency, he takes care of everything. So that’s just the spark of his splendor, while the devotee then sees the actual completeness. Is that OK?

Yes. Q. Maharaj, another point which Krishna says, you are my dear friend. So in the relationship between guru and disciple, that’s something important. How sometimes we don’t experience that in the past, that immediate friendship, because there’s a higher friendship purpose afterwards. Maharaj, he means with the guru. Q. Yeah, with the guru, right? Maharaj, but the thing is, is what friend, what are we looking for in friendship? Because the point is, is what’s the actual… See, friend is someone who works for your benefit, right? So one’s being given spiritual instruction, so that’s for one’s benefit. But if one’s looking, if one’s defining friendship means a particular quality of emotional interaction or physical interaction or proximity, then one may be disappointed that that kind of friendship is not there. But if one actually understands what benefit is there, then that friendship can be appreciated, right? So that’s a different level. Q. Yeah, even in that second level which you mentioned, which you’re working for the benefit of the student, the hearing aspect, if you heard, understood, not that you have this personal relationship with so many disciples, sometimes not possible, but that you feel heard, accepted… Maharaj, that’s there, but the point is, is you have to know what is heard and what is accepted. See, the difficulty comes is when we make our own definition of these, right? Because if our point of being heard means you have to sit there and listen while you, you know, talk for 45 minutes in an incoherent way, and finally you’ve said all the different things in all the different ways that your mind conceives of them, and then you’ve been heard, you understand?

But the point is, is that you’ve come forward, you’ve accepted initiation. So that means, why did you do that?

Why did one come forward and take… One instruction, one to advance in spiritual life. So, therefore, a spiritual master’s giving that instruction, and you’re able to advance, following it. So that means you have been heard. But if you want the material emotional satisfaction of that, that you may get, you may not get. That’s why Prabhupada says, put the focus on Vani, not Vapu, because if you put it on Vapu, you may be disappointed.

In fact, because your, maybe, depends how you’re looking at it, but then if there’s any material consideration, you will be disappointed. That’s how material nature works. She doesn’t work in any other way but to disappoint. That’s her, that’s her expertise. If there’s one thing she knows how to do, that’s to make you disappointed.

Right? Yes, I understand that. And from that level, what my vision is, sometimes you have a certain level of material attachment.

And listening from you, I have no trouble with them, there’s room to accommodate, but sometimes there isn’t.

The point is, is there always is, it’s just the emphasis is not given on these lower levels, because then, as Narada Muni pointed out to Vyasa, then the common person will take the, what do you call it, where there’s some, you know, consideration as the standard rule.

You know, yesterday we were discussing about socks in the puja. Was that in this class? No. What class would I have been discussing socks?

Oh, it was someone that was asking about, what about wearing socks when you’re doing puja, because it’s cold. So, the problem with socks is that you wear them around, they pick up dirt. You know, that’s why you don’t put oil on your body, why you don’t wear wet cloth, because it picks up dirt.

So, then one can say, well, what if I have a brand new pair of clean socks that I put them on just for the puja, right? So, you have that element that, okay, that could be a consideration, but what would happen as soon as we say, okay, that’s okay, that’s all right? What will that translate into in the common devotee, in his consideration of puja? Socks are okay, because what we’re talking about here is, that sock is washed, hasn’t been worn for anything else, you put it on, go into the Deity room, and then when you come out of the Deity room, you take them off, and you wash them.

Who’s going to do that? People don’t even want to wash their feet before going into the Deity room, which is so easy, let alone washing a pair of socks.

You know what I’m saying? So, this is the problem, because Krishna’s pointing out, it’s whatever’s in there, you’re going to see, that option is seeing it in connection to Krishna, right? In other words, the man’s with someone else’s wife, so that’s illegal, right? So, it’s dropped out of dharma, right? But the masculine-feminine principle, how it interacts, still remains the same. So, therefore, he could still function in artha or niti, I mean, artha or kama, and if he’s seeing it according to shastra, and he’s seeing that element’s connection with Krishna’s potency, he will be purified.

You understand? In other words, his consciousness is becoming purified, but it’s not that the activity is not giving also contamination. You’re getting both at once. So, the point is, is if someone was so focused, like Krishna’s talking about, that he’s determined to be a devotee no matter what, then he may slowly, gradually, gradually see, through interacting with this woman, though it’s an illicit relationship, according to the actual principles of the masculine-feminine principle, right? And seeing those principles in relationship to Krishna, how that potency is actually Krishna, then he’ll be purified. With time, he’ll give that up. You understand? But if this is talked about too much, then what is the common understanding?

You can do anything you want as long as you see it like that. But my point is, would they be?

Because even you look at it practically, why is the guy off with someone else’s wife? Why would that happen? He’s not satisfied himself. Why wouldn’t he be satisfied?

He’s not falling into dharma. But what actually is he not doing? In the dharma, what’s actually missing?

The sacrifice. So, that means he’s not actually acting according to masculine-feminine principle. If he was, then that feminine nature would come out of his wife, and he would be satisfied.

So, if he can’t do it with his wife, why would he be doing it with someone else? If it was a wife where it’s a situation where your intelligence works, it’s stable, it’s sober, why would it in an illicit relationship where everything’s so intensified and all that? Now he can do it.

You understand? So, it won’t happen. You can say in theory, yes, but it won’t happen.

So, that’s the point, is that technically it could, but where is it going to happen?

How is it going to happen? Because that’s your only way.

Because all your interactions has to be seen in relationship to Shastra. If it’s not seen in relationship to Shastra, then how it’s going to purify? How you’re going to get out of it? So, you’re not looking at it from the Brahman platform.

You understand? Because definitely, because you’re not dealing with something, so it’s not going to be up to Paramatma standard, because there it’s supposed to be proper activity. But unless it’s based on Shastra, how is it going to function? So, unless you can see it connected, like we said before, that one, that Prabhupada says, that taste in wine that you’re looking for, that’s Krishna. So, if you always see that it’s Krishna, you’ll be focusing on Krishna, not the wine. So, after a while, Krishna becomes more important to you than the wine, so you give up the wine. But if you just say, oh, well, if I see Krishna in the wine, then it’s fine to drink wine. No, it’s never fine to drink wine. It’s fine. Prabhupada simply said, what you’re looking for in the wine is Krishna. So, if you see that, you’ll become God conscious. We didn’t say drinking wine is fine, but that will be the conclusion that the devotee will come to. Oh, if I see the illicit relationship in relation to Shastra, then it’s okay as a relationship. No, it’s never okay.

Dharma is the standard of okay. That is the social standard. So, it’s not okay.

Does that make sense? Yeah. So, the thing works. We have examples of it working, but how many do we have? Bilvamangal, right? The endeavor he made to see this prostitute, and the prostitute pointed out, if you made that same endeavor to see God, you’d be a very advanced devotee, right? Because her point is, I’m a prostitute. I’m not worth that much. The endeavor you are making is not worthy of a prostitute. That endeavor is worthy of God. So, you should turn your attention to God. You had that focus, then do that. So, then it worked.

You understand? But how many examples do we have?

Ajamil. But Ajamil, the term, the word Ajamil, the name, if it’s broken down in Sanskrit, I’ve heard, means that which never happened before and will never happen again.

So, it’s a one-off incident that you have once in the universal manifestation. So, next time Mahavishnu breathes out, then there’ll be another Ajamil, right? So, every universe gets one.

But the point is, it’s bringing out the element that’s connected to Krishna. That’s where perfection is. So, these other elements, yes, they’re wrong, but why are they wrong? It’s completely different than approaching it from this mundane, moralistic viewpoint.

That’s not where the wrong is, because even if you’re looking there, okay, but then explain according to Shastra why it’s wrong. No, that won’t come out.

Does that make sense? Yes. In preaching and assuring devotees this moral sacrifice is more or less hopeless?

No, but why you’re following sadhana, it’s for Krishna. Where it becomes less obvious is in dealing with the indirect elements of family life. That’s where it’s more difficult to see.

So, that’s why the examples are given there, right? Because otherwise, you know, Arjuna could have been, you know, this could have been a conversation between Narayana Rishi, right? Same people, slightly different situation, right? Two very austere Brahmins who live out in the middle of the Himalayas, right? So, they could be having this discussion. But how much would it apply to us? Therefore, Narayana Rishi or Krishna and Arjuna, right? So, they’re kings or grhasthas or family people, you know, they’re in a battle. So, then it becomes more… I’m just coming back to that point. So, from the guru, I should take the instruction? Yes. From the guru, you take the instruction. If there’s anything left, I… So, he’s already giving me sastra, because he’s given me sastra. So, I have sadhu. That was my other… Yes. To deal with the other thing. That’s why there’s guru, sadhu and sastra. Everything is based on sastra. Then you have to have guru, because then there’s that focus. And then sadhu is there to support. So, the natural method is one takes up Krishna consciousness, and then in that one we’ll associate with so many devotees. And then of these devotees, then a certain number of them will become prominent, right? So, these are the sadhus. So, now, it would be natural then with more time, then of those sadhus, one of them becomes more prominent. They become the guru, the dictionary, right? But in so doing, it doesn’t mean that the sadhus lose their position, right? In the past, they would be saying, okay, you had faith in so many devotees, but now you have a guru. It’s only in him. If you have faith in anybody else, then that’s not chaste, right? So, this is, you know, the neophyte concept of spiritual life. And we see how well that worked. So, if anything happened with the guru, then there is nobody. But in this case, if something happens with the guru, then sadhus are there. The relationships are there. So, that particular focus that this person is responsible to take you back to Godhead, that’s the element that’s lost. Instructions aren’t lost. The support is not lost. Everything else is there. Does that make sense? So, that’s why there’s a society of devotees. So, then those other elements that you’re looking for, you gain from wherever that comes. Now, if that comes naturally with the guru, great. But one can’t expect that. That’s why there’s a community, right? And that’s why, in theory, there’s supposed to be vanaprasthas, you know, these older, older, older, you know, how do you say, you know, couples and that, who have retired from the dynamic grihasta endeavor, right? So, but at this point, those persons of that age are still endeavoring because they were, they were basically brahmachari, they were sannyasis when they were grihastas, right? You know, and didn’t actually take care of those emotional elements. And so, now they’re being real and taking care. So, great, better late than never. But, so, you know, we have to wait a little more time before we have a class of vanaprasthas to get that kind of support like that. When that’s there, then it will be easier for the grihastas to actually know what they’re doing, right? Because, see, someone who’s involved may or may not give good advice. Someone who’s beyond it and actually doesn’t matter to them, they’ll give good advice, you know what I’m saying? Just like, you see, you know, generally speaking, if you have a proper functioning family situation, grandparents generally are able to give more, to give advice that’s more readily appreciated by the grandchildren than the parents. Why? Because the parents are attached and the grandparents is not their kid. So, they follow it nice, they don’t follow it, hey, it doesn’t matter, it’s their life. So, that’s why they’re more effective. And the parents are less effective because of that attachment. So, if the parents are able to view it from the point of duty, they’ll be more effective.

Because if you think about it, that thing that you remember from your mother or your father, that, you know, this wisdom that one day they pulled you aside and said, hey, this is the way it is. But when they were saying that, the reason it worked is because they were just saying that, here it is, take it or leave it. For all the ones where they’re forcing it on you, you may or may not take it. Right? So, it’s the same principle.

You understand? So, that element, when you have that, then the grihastas will get the advice that they’ll be able to do what they’re supposed to do properly. Because one grihasta telling another, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Because of their own attachments.

Okay.

Krishna is the origin of all that is. Because Krishna is the dear friend of Krishna, the Lord gives knowledge that is better than that which has already been explained. Right? So, one of those Krishnas, the unborn and the source of all the sages and demigods is freed from all sins. But now Krishna, because Arjuna is the dear friend, he’ll give something more than that.

Because here is the unborn, he’s the source. Right? Like that, he’s the origin, but there’s more than that. Because the origin is actually just Brahman. Right? Because the creation is happening, is from Brahman. Right? As we mentioned here, the cause and the formal cause, which is the primary creation. Right? That’s based on Krishna’s qualities. So, that’s Brahman.

Right? Because the quality is generic. It’s not specifically personal. It’s coming from a person. So, the devotee sees that part of Brahman, he sees the personal aspect of where the qualities come from. But you can see Brahman by only seeing the quality, without seeing the person that it’s from. You understand? That’s why the devotee’s understanding of aspect.

But it’s Brahman because it’s generic, it’s just the quality.

You know what I’m saying? Now we say, Krishna is strength of the pillar, or strength of the straw. But that’s just strength.

You know, so it’s seen in connection with the external manifestation.

Right? The operational cause and the material cause. It’s not seen in relationship to. I mean, even if you see, okay, he’s the strength and then Lakshmi’s taken the form of the pillar. And so that’s why then this bricks and this configuration work. But the point is, it’s still not Krishna as a person.

Right? It’s still just his quality. Krishna’s strength is Krishna as a person. Is, you know, Krishna’s there and, you know, with the cowherd boys and he’s, you know, they’re flexing their muscles and saying, hey, we’re stronger than you and he’s flexing his and, you know, that’s then what is remembered on the personal level. Because that’s where that strength, that strength is what’s holding up this. So it only takes a spark to do this. So the real is manifest in Krishna’s wrestling with the cowherd boys. Right? Does that make sense? When he kills the demons of the cowherd, does he also appreciate that strength? Yeah, yeah. Cowherd boys would appreciate. Because that’s why, that’s why the question is, is that Krishna killed Agasura.

But it wasn’t until one year later that they explained it to their parents. So the question is, why was it one year?

That’s because then the Brahma Vimohanlila came and then he took everybody away and Krishna became everybody. So only after they woke up after that year, they went home and told their parents about Agasura. Right?

So they always appreciate it.

So all these things they appreciate.

Yeah, this is part of the fun.

Yes? It’s about friendship. Arjuna is a friend of Krishna and here it is written that because of this, the best is a real friend of Krishna, you will have big knowledge, it is better. So what’s about, what’s about before the Bhagavad Gita? What about before Bhagavad Gita? Because they were friends.

No, but here friend means is that you’re, you appreciate Krishna and his position.

Right? So here friend will mean more than just the family relation. Friend here means that, that, that commitment or that, that surrender on that spiritual platform. So that’s, that’s friendship. When there’s, when there’s, when there’s community, that’s friendship.

Isn’t that equality?

Equality is a particular manifestation of friendship.

Right? You know, so, so, you know, that friendship can be in the neutral state or in the servitor state or in the, you know, state of, how do you say it? Sakya or Vatsalya or Mathurja. That’s a detail. But the friendship is, is that you are favorable to Krishna. You’re supportive of Krishna. That’s the friendship.

Does that make sense? So here is not specifically that he’s a friend, meaning that they’re buddies and grew up together. That’s not the specific meaning here.

But there would mean they’re friends because they’re, you know, they, they grew up together. They’re related. Right? Means in other words, you know, Kunti is, is Krishna’s, I think, maternal aunt and she’s their, their, so they’re cousins. So their friendship is based on that.

No, there’s more, but, you know, as far as it’s seen, then it’s, it’s, because they’re always been devotees, but it’s, that will be where it will, that aspect will stem from. So that’s, that’s the particular rasa that the friendship is manifest through.

You know, you understand? In other words, there’s devotion to Krishna, then it can be manifest through various rasas. Right? So friendship means you’re favorable to Krishna. You’re supportive of Krishna. You’re a well-wisher of Krishna. So now there’s a various of ways that it can manifest. Does that make sense? In other words, you have to be able to see that a word has various meanings or applications like that. Does that make sense? So difficulty comes as if we only have one definition for a word and then try to apply it everywhere. You know, like we were saying yesterday in logic. Okay, we have our idea of good, you know, and good for us means good work, good things, niceness, like that. So God is good. Right? And so all these good activities are good. So these good activities are God. You know what I’m saying? So automatically anything good and nice is automatically Krishna conscious.

But the fault comes here is because God may be the source of all these good activities, but these good activities doesn’t mean they’re connected to Him. So the fault is, is we’re trying to use an example that only works one way. It doesn’t work both ways, you know, like fire and smoke. You know, you can have fire without smoke, but you can’t have smoke without fire. So it only works one way, the logic. So we’re applying it where it’s reversed.

So we’re taking that it works both ways. So that’s why it’s faulty. That’s the reason that we’re attached, you know, would be to the, that the idea that material justice and ethics is Krishna conscious, because it’s good. Right? And God is good. Right? So therefore, you know, but we’re not discriminating between material and spiritual.

Because spiritual means it’s actually connected to Him, but material means it’s not. So here we’re just taking generically it’s good. That’s all it takes. No, unless it’s connected to Krishna, that’s, that’s where it becomes good. Otherwise it’s not. That’s where we’ll say even the most nice, pious man, if he’s not God conscious, is still materially motivated. He’s still self-centered.

You know, he’s still, you know, technically therefore has no good qualities. His qualities manifesting is just due to his attachment. It’s manifesting just as a potency of the Lord through the modes of nature. So it’s not actually his quality. Because within time, it’ll change. If it was his, it wouldn’t change.

But it changes. So he actually doesn’t have it.

You know what I’m saying? You know, it’s just like, you know, there’s something we give you. And then with time it changes. So you can’t actually say it’s yours.

You know, some, some, some team has the Ashes Cup, but they can’t claim it’s theirs. Because next year it goes somewhere else.

You know what I’m saying? So for a short time, they have that association with it. And it’s connected with them by that association. You say, this team has the cup. But in the next year, someone else has the cup. So it moves on. So those qualities are there, but they just keep, through the modes of nature, just are pervading the material energy. And so those who relate with it, then it appears by association that they have it. But as soon as that mentality changes, they’re not associated, and it goes away.

You know, the quality remains. The living entity remains. But that association is no longer there. Does that make sense? So that’s why we have to be very careful on the definitions of the word. So Krishna’s being very careful here and splitting things to make sure it’s very clear what is pure devotion. Right? Means what is connected to him and what’s pure devotion.

Does that make sense? Because you can work on the Brahman and Paramatma level and not be working on pure devotion. Or you can be. But the personal level, then it has to be, that has to be the element of that devotion. Questioner 2 You mentioned one principle of this pure devotional relationship between the friendship of Arjuna and Krishna, which was he could see everything, he appreciated Krishna. What would be other principles of this Rasa? I mean, what would be some exchange? I mean, how would you perceive it? It means the application will be the detail, but there’s a principle in which it’s there. Does that make sense? So there’ll be a detail on that well -wishing. And how will you express that well-wishing? Right? So because we don’t have a relationship, therefore we express that through sadhana bhakti. As that starts to develop, that relationship’s in the budding state, then that’s called bhava, bhava sadhana. Right? So we have sadhana bhakti and bhava sadhana. Then when it comes to maturity, it comes to prema, then that’s our relationship.

Does that make sense? Otherwise, before that, it’s still in practice. We’re still developing.

According to Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Krishna says, quote, I will speak knowledge to astonish you who are already knowledgeable, but who will take pleasure in my words.

Priyamanaya, Priyamanaya, as if drinking nectar. I will speak with the desire of your welfare in the form of producing and increasing your devotion for me. Hitakamyaya.

So these will astonish. In other words, it will expand his appreciation. And one will take pleasure because of that being dear, because of that element of friendship. Therefore, it won’t be taken otherwise.

And Krishna’s desire for speaking, it will be to improve Krishna, Arjuna’s position, improve his benefit, his devotion. The knowledge Krishna is about to impart is meant for his devotees only. The non-devotees will not be able to appreciate its value. Srila Prabhupada explains the reason. Why? Now, if you have a beloved son, little child, you are always thinking of him. You are saying, oh, this morning my child was playing like this. Oh, he was dancing like this. So you are thinking of him, you are speaking of him. Others may be disturbed. Why? Because that child is not theirs. They have no love for him. They don’t want to hear. Therefore, it is said here, this path is meant for such persons who are a little advanced in Krishna consciousness. Lecture on Bhagavad-gita, 10.1, New York, 1966.

So because they have that appreciation for Krishna, then they’ll want to hear these things, the glories of Krishna. Others won’t. They won’t want to hear. It’s not important for them.

Krishna is the source of the demigods and the sages who do not know the Lord’s origin nor opulence, verse 2. The concept of God as a ruling power or impersonal Brahman can be reached even by materially contaminated people. Personality of Godhead, however, can be conceived only by liberated persons. Therefore, even the great demigods and sages do not understand Krishna, what to speak of the so-called scholars on this tiny planet.

So the concept of a supreme power, impersonal Brahman, this kind of element, that’s easy for anybody to conceive. Even the aboriginal will think some great thing in nature and appreciate that potency of God. But God as a person, that then only the devotees, only those who are liberated can actually appreciate.

So as we see, as we were discussing before, the concept of God according to Nyaya and Vaisheshika, they accept God as a transcendental person, supreme person, the origin of the material world, uncontaminated by Him. He’s actually real. He’s there. He’s not like the Mayavadis, where it’s an illusion that He has a form. That they don’t have any problem with. But the point is, it’s just Him. He just creates everything according to our desire. So if we change our desire, then we can not be involved in the material creation. Then we come to the liberated platform. But never at any point do they consider a relationship with God or that God does have relationships with anybody else. So He’s alone. So where is God alone?

In which manifestation?

Atmarama, but also? But Brahman then is, you don’t have the personal manifestation. Paramatma. Right? You understand? So Paramatma is Bhagavan without any associates. So you’re not accepting that complete, you’re only accepting that supremacy and that controlling power, as you say, that ruling power of the Lord. Right? So technically, it’s still not fully personal. It’s localized. It’s just a little bit there. But it’s not full, because a person means everybody. Right? You have a friend and you only accept the friend. You don’t like any of his other friends or relatives and all that. If you’re on your own with him, out, away from all that, that’s nice. But if you’re with the family, with his friends, and you don’t accept, it becomes a bit of a problem. Because his point is, these are my friends. So if you accept me, you accept my friends.

Love me, love my dog. So it goes together.

So if they don’t, it’s a problem. Means it’s not, you don’t actually fully accept the person. There’s certain qualities you appreciate. And certain activities you appreciate. But you don’t actually appreciate the full person. So that’s the difference between Brahman, I mean Paramatma and Bhagavan. So they’re only actually accepting the Paramatma level.

But even in that, they’re not so much focusing on Paramatma, controlling and doing and all this thing. It’s more, it’s still more the Brahman aspect of just, he’s the one that creates everything.

Do you understand? So it’s a little bit, but it’s in there. So this is easy. Right? And those are the lowest levels of the Vedic philosophy. But if Krishna is pointing out that this is easy, what would be the position of an atheist who is Darwinist and saying that it’s very low, right? If God doesn’t exist, then you have to be stupid. You know, because the point is, is everything’s going on without your influence. If mankind disappeared right now, the whole world would go on nicely. You know, according to their theory, you know, it’s going on, you know, what do you call it? What are those islands? The Galapagos or something like that. Islands. Like those turtles were there a long time before Darwin ever came along. But somehow or another, he comes along and Eureka, you know, they manifest. It’s like the Mayavadis, because you think of it, therefore the illusion covers the Brahman and you’ve created it. Right? So you become the creator. So therefore, you know, the Darwin theory means we’ve created it. That’s the game. Yeah. But the point is, is how did those rocks turn into, you know, turtles?

And big turtles, right? Like that. So, you know. It’s so ridiculous. I saw a video and the guy is saying life got from the bank of crystals. Yes. I see this guy saying that. Yeah, yeah. So it’s just that they have no idea. It’s there and there’s this primordial soup and a lightning bolt. He said, where did the lightning come from? Where did this energy come from? So still life is coming from life here, but they’re not catching that. They just think dead matter is creating dead matter. But the point is, is why would there need to be an interaction if dead matter is so pregnant with the potency for life? And just, you know, it’s a sitting there should create, you know. You come in one day and, you know, your computer and then there’s somebody sitting next to it, you know, like that. Who are you?

You know, so I said, well, that’s my mother.

Then there would be the existential problem. It’s your computer and the computer is the mother of this child. So do you have some connection or relationship with this child sitting there? Do you have any obligation to this child sitting there? Because now he’s been taking care of your computer, so, you know, like that. And then the other question, does the kid come with a warranty?

You know, do you have to pay yourself?

See, all these problems are going to come up if you actually accept the Darwin theory. They are very low. Why is there so much endeavor in trying to convince them? Because they control a major part of the economy. Why endeavor to convince them? Because they control the economy? No, it’s because, see, it’s like Lord Chaitanya’s mission. Did Lord Chaitanya ever worry about that the government was Muslim? No. So we don’t care what the economic system is. We don’t care what the administrative system is. And Prabhupada will say, you know, we’ll say monarchy is your best system. But Prabhupada will talk about whatever it is, whether it’s a democracy or another group of leaders or, you know, anything. It doesn’t matter as long as whoever’s the leaders are God conscious. Right? So you have all these different elements. The Vedic system combines all elements into one in the proper blend, while these other systems remove one thing from it. So it will actually have a strength in one area but a weakness in another. You know, so that’s not actually what creates the thing. The thing is if Krishna consciousness is there, then it works.

You know what I’m saying? So our influence upon them is simply, our talking about it is simply because the general mass of people are bewildered by it and therefore aren’t taking up God consciousness like that. That they themselves, they as an individual, we may have an interest, but more is because of their influence on the general mass. Right? So that’s why also one would preach to some people who are bigger, not that it’s more important, not that that individual is more important. The soul is no different, but because they have more influence, therefore they would be able to do things. Does that make sense? So that’s the thing in the Vedic perspective, you always have that balance. It’s never just always one way. You know, the king is the absolute authority, but he’s under the Brahmins.

You know what I’m saying? The Brahmins, you know, therefore are the top of the authority structure, but they don’t actually implement it.

You know what I’m saying? You know, the parents are the authority of the child, but what they do is all about the child, according to the needs of the child. So there’s always this balance like that. You know, so one may single out particular people to preach to or preach against, but as far as the individual goes, there’s no difference.

Does that make sense?

And then according to one’s nature, then one chooses areas of preaching and all that that one would have, you know, would get the best results. Since time is short, work in something you get results from. You know, that’s the Niti, is that those activities which you’re good at and people recognize that you’re good at and praise you for, that’s the activities you should perform because that’s where you get the result.

So if you do a particular kind of preaching, like in Bombay there was this devotee, I think his name was Adi Paroosh or something, very, very tall, Prabha disciple, very tall, but he was very expert. Very naturally he would preach in the Bollywood circle. So all those big, big actors and directors and everybody who was involved in the Bollywood scene, he knew everybody and just, you know, go take prasad and all that and they’d all be favorable and all, you know, and he was very unassuming.

You know, it was so natural for him, it wasn’t that he became proud by it or anything like this or had any airs about it. No, he was just very, very natural and they all appreciated that. So he was good in that area where someone else would come in and they’d go, who is this guy who’s trying to get something out of it? You know what I’m saying? So because he can do that, you can say, oh, well, you just do that because you think it’s big, makes you, but no, it’s just that’s where he’s good. You know, if someone else, they can go in and do this prison preaching and inspire all these, like, hardened criminals that, you know, would rather, you know, as easily kill you as look at you. But, you know, he’s able to inspire them in that. I remember one devotee, oh, it’s telling me.

Yeah, he had gone to one of these prison preaching programs and he spoke and everything like that. When you go into the prison, you have to stick your hands in and they check like that. You know, you can’t just, what do you call it? You know, they don’t just do a thing, they have to see your hands and all that and they check everything, you know, the machines and all that. So going in, he checked and all that. And when he goes, at the end, you know, and I think, you know, this was one of a really heavy prison. You know, these are all like, you know, yeah, maximum security, you know, murders, you know, all heavy, heavy duty, you know, kind of mafia and this kind of thing. He gave the lecture and was very much appreciated. At the end, one of the older guys came up, you know, it’s one of the big, big bad guys. He came up and shook his hand, you know, but with, you know, the two-hand style shaking. And then he noticed something was in his hand. And so then, you know, very care, you know, he left it very carefully. When he could see on his own, he had given him like a solid gold watch, you know. And fortunately, because it was gold, it doesn’t react. So when he put it in, his hands into the radar thing, it didn’t respond. So then, you know, when he came out, then he gave the watch to the devotee who was running the program. And so then, you know, he sold that and got money for doing more of his preaching programs. You know what I’m saying? So, you know, here’s a guy that all he does is kill and steal, but he’s giving away a gold watch to a preacher because he appreciates what he said. You know, they can see this is for my benefit. He’s not coming here and trying to, you know, give some other kind of interpretation.

Yes?

In preaching to this evolution, isn’t there also the implication that, or the reasoning that the full implication of that philosophy is that it’s only about thoughts? Do they not scope of preaching against that philosophy? It always means you’re dealing with the atheistic element because then they’re saying it just happened. Matter generates it, but life comes from life. Because otherwise, you have dead matter. What’s the difference between a living body and a dead body? Why do they accept death? You know, like that. Why is there conception? So, you know, how does this work? Because otherwise, it should just, according to their theory, just naturally happen. You know, just we’re sitting here one day and then the table starts moving and somebody crawls out or wanders off. You know, so it should just happen, you know, like this. But so the difficulty is that they’re not accepting that God’s the origin, you know. But the difficulty is the prominent world religions don’t have much on creation. As far as I remember, it is basically exactly one page and a third, and that’s it. Beginning to end, you know. And after that, then they get into, you know, Adam and Eve. But that’s it. One and a third pages. And so even though what’s said there, you know, deals with very essential elements, but it’s not enough to scientifically present the creative process so that you can, you know, those who are intelligent, those who are logical would appreciate it. So that has to be brought out. Yes.

Prahlad Maharaj, does he preach to all of us, or does he allow us? Is he trying to hurt us all? So this Prahlad Maharaj preached to the demons on his planet. So the element is, see, there’s two elements. There’s demon by consciousness and there’s demon by culture. Right? So Prahlad Maharaj never establishes himself to be not a demon by culture.

So he still follows the traditions and everything of the, because the demons, the demons mean they don’t accept God. Right? Sura means that when the going gets rough, they surrender to God. The going’s not rough, they don’t surrender. That’s why they’re neophyte devotees. Right? You see, the demons walk in, first thing they go out there, you know, with great pride and everything and fight. And if they defeat them, they all go back and everything was good. But if they fight and they get defeated, then they start thinking, oh, so then they go to Brahma. Right? Then only then they start surrendering. And then when Brahma can’t take care of it, then they go to Vishnu.

Right? So ultimately it gets to Vishnu. While the demons, when something goes wrong, they just come up with a new plan.

Yeah, that’s all. They’re dealing with their own powers. They were defeated, so then they go and Sukhacharya then works out, okay, he’s got a mantra to bring them all back to life. So, okay, now we have to defeat them. So they never think that God actually has anything to do with it. So that’s the point. That’s the demoniac nature. So, but the culture will be the same. The family line is the same. You know, is that, does that make sense? So, so that doesn’t change. So then he’ll always naturally be trying to train. And those who take it, nice. And those who don’t, then, right? The boys were innocent. So they took it.

Demons, yeah, but I’m saying they’re natural demons because they go together because there’s a match, you know. So the demigods have good qualities, and the devotees, the demons have, you know, not necessarily good qualities in the way of they’re very self-centered. But it’s not that they don’t have that strength and prowess and do all these different things. But they’re just different parents. So the, you know, coming from Aditi, that’s your demigods. And coming from, from Diti and, I think it’s called Dana or Danya or something like that. No, but that’s the daityas, but the mother. Danu, that’s it, Danu. So Diti and Danu, they’re the mother of the demons. And Aditi is the mother of the demigods.

So then, you know, you do have your family lines here. Traditions.

Sorry? Yeah, Khandru snakes and like that. So, you know, you have your lines. You have your dynasties. So they’ll keep their culture and tradition, but it’s just that it’s a matter of changing the consciousness of the god conscious.

But the point is, he’s the king. So his main business is to see that it goes on nicely and try to make that god conscious. They take it up nice. They don’t. Still, he can be a proper king. You know, he’s god conscious. He’s making the facility. They take it. Then good.

In verse two, Krishna defeats the argument that the demigods cannot understand him because they are engrossed in sense gratification. Even the sages who are detached from sense gratification cannot know him. The demigods and sages do not know Krishna because he is their source.

He is the Krishna.

So, in other words, one say, OK, well, they’re deluded by their sense gratification, so they can’t understand. But the sages would be able to. But the sages can’t understand either.

Right. So they’re not deluded by this. So that means no one can understand because Krishna is the source. You can’t actually understand the source.

Krishna is the cause of their appearance. He gave them their positions and powers as devatas and rishis, and he endowed them with intelligence and good qualities. In the same way as the sons do not know about the birth of the father, the demigods and the sages do not know Krishna’s origins and powers. No one can know Krishna unless he hears from him or his devotees. So, in other words, unless you hear from Krishna, you’ll never know because one can’t understand the source.

Among thousands of men who are endeavoring to know Krishna, only those who are fortunate to attain the association of Krishna’s devotees can know him as the unborn, beginningless supreme lord of all the worlds. Such persons are free from illusion and sin. So illusion and sin. So your illusion means is you don’t see it in connection to Krishna and sin means you’re not connecting it to Krishna. So the two are synonymous in reality.

But because you see a connection to Krishna, you’re going to perform those activities that are connected to Krishna. In other words, that which is recommended by Krishna. That’s what’s preferred by Krishna. So that means then even on the material platform, it’ll be sinless.

Verse three establishes Krishna’s unique position. He is different from the inert matter and from the conditioned living beings because he is unborn, ajam. He is without beginning, anadhim, which sets him apart from the sadhanas, siddhas, since their liberated state has beginning. The word anadhim is also used to distinguish between the beginningless lordship of Krishna and the temporary lordship of the demigods like Brahma and Siva. Krishna is loka-mahesvara, which further distinguishes him from the nifty siddhas and from prakriti and kala. Although all these have no birth and beginning, they do not possess lordship over all the worlds.

OK, so this anadhim seems to be also a very bewildering word that many people like to waste a lot of time with. So anadhim, without beginning.

But the point is, as Krishna points out, the living entity has always been there. It’s just a matter of manifestation. So since manifestation technically can have a beginning, but because it’s so far beyond what the living entity can understand, therefore the term anadhim is used, right? But you can’t say it’s eternally there because there is the element of Krishna being atmarama, where his energies are not manifest.

So you can’t say that your position now is the same as there. You can’t say because if there’s manifest and unmanifest, that means there is a change, there’s a transformation. Does that make sense? From not being interrelate, interactive, to being interactive.

Then in that state, if you choose to be favorably interactive, then that becomes the nitya -siddha, right? But those who don’t, they become the nitya -bhadra.

Because one nitya-siddha, he’s going to eternally be like that because he is God conscious.

And the other is eternally going to be nitya-bhadra until he becomes God conscious.

So if we accept that there’s a point in which we can become God conscious, that would be a natural accepted concept, no? That at some point we become God conscious, we give up our eternally bound position, and then we are eternally on the transcendental platform, right? And one would be therefore accepted as nitya -siddha, eternally perfect. But what does that eternal mean?

Eternal means from now to eternity, you understand?

So if there’s that ability to start or stop something, right, and still we can use the word eternal. So why do we get so stuck that anadi has to mean, you know, eternal and there’s no adjustment in that? Does it make sense?

Not that it’s much of an issue these days, but…

Yeah, anadi vibes, yes, like that. But, you know, it’s just another way of wasting your time.

Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana writes in his commentary, the Lord says, Thus, he who knows that I am distinguished from all others by eternal lack of contact with bad qualities, no birth and no beginning, and by eternal possession of all extraordinary powers, lordship over all worlds, becomes free from karma, sarva-patna, papaya-pramucyate, which act as an obstacle to the appearance of devotion in me, that person then attains devotion to me. Means who can distinguish becomes free from all karma, which is an obstacle, right? So if you can understand, Krishna has no birth and activities. You know, he has lordship over all the worlds. You can understand he’s transcendental, right? And therefore doesn’t have any bad qualities. If you appreciate that, then all your bad qualities that get in the way of your devotion to the Lord, that will go away.

Does that make sense?

Right. In the second verse…

Yeah, he doesn’t understand the origin because he doesn’t have one. So when he does appear, his birth, then those who don’t know think that he appeared at that time, but he was always there.

So for him, appearance is a pastime.

You know, for us, it’s not exactly what you call a pastime.

Does that make sense?

Right. So in other words, if you accept Krishna in this position, then you’ll be in that position. Right. Just like Krishna says, I have no activities to perform, but I do my duties. Right. So that means Krishna is acting on the principle of nice karma. So if you want to know Krishna and associate with Krishna, you have to be on the platform of nice karma. So Krishna is not asking us to do something that he doesn’t do.

So if we accept his position, then we actually come to that platform.

He is everything. So therefore, when you understand that position, you become part of that. You understand that, you become in connection with that.

But then one is able to deal with Krishna as a person and have that relationship.

Yes.

Yes, I would say, though, it would be easier than that. It means not easier than that. It would be softer than that. No, it means the hardware is what it is. Yes, the Jiva is what it is. Your problem is your platform.

You don’t have to rewire. You have to reprogram.

It means the soul is spiritual, is transcendental, but the soul thinks that it’s not.

You know what I’m saying? So in other words, the computer thinks it’s a PC, but it’s actually a Mac.

Yeah, you understand?

So that’s the point. It’s not the hardware, it’s the software. Because the Jiva is who they are. So it’s the thinking that is the problem. The way they perceive, that’s the problem.

Yes.

Yes.

And interesting enough, we put Mac on our PCs because now they use Intel chips so they can put it the other way.

Okay. In the next section of verses, Krishna explains how all qualities come from him.

So this is verses four to six, so four to five. Intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and delusion, forgiveness, truthfulness, control of the senses, control of the mind, happiness and distress, birth, death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, equanimity, satisfaction, austerity, charity, fame and infamy. All these various qualities of living beings are created by me alone.

The seven great sages and before them four other great sages and the Manus, progenitors of mankind come from me, born from my mind and all the living beings populating the various planets descend from them.

Yeah. Okay. It just just just the last sentence of the purport of whatever we find good or bad, the origin is Krishna. Nothing can manifest itself in this material world, which is not in Krishna. That is knowledge. Although we know all things are differently situated, we should realize that everything flows from Krishna. So it’s all Krishna, but it’s differently situated.

So that’s that’s where the where we say good or bad is ultimately good or bad. Is this do we see in connection to Krishna or not? Then it’s situation seeing it there. Then we’ll see what is more favorable for service to Krishna, what’s less favorable. So it’s favorable. We’ll consider that situation better, that position. And that which is less favorable, that will be not so preferred. So it’s not a matter of what’s fanatic or things like that. It’s a matter of what’s favorable to Krishna.

What works nicely with Krishna, just like this. The cowherd boys.

Then we’ll leave that one.

Verses 46. All qualities of the living beings are created by Krishna alone. From Krishna’s mind are born the progenitors of the world and the population of the world descends from them.

Oh, you’re quoted right here.

Krishna is the source of everything. Srila Prabhupada writes, of whatever we find good or bad, the origin is Krishna. Nothing can manifest itself in this mature world which is not in Krishna. That is knowledge. Although we know that things are differently situated, we should realize that everything flows from Krishna.

So everything is coming from Krishna. That’s the point. Even the bad qualities are coming from Krishna. Krishna doesn’t have any bad qualities, but the qualities are coming. Because if you have one, you’re going to have the other. It means light is considered good, darkness would be bad. But darkness is simply the absence of light. So if you don’t have that quality, then you have the opposite. So Krishna doesn’t have to have the bad qualities to be the origin of them.

And simply if you don’t have that quality that Krishna has, then you’re going to have the opposite.

Does that make sense? Yes. So that means anything that’s there, that’s impressive. If somebody’s very arrogant and all that, but still pride and that thing comes, that potency comes from Krishna. So what you’re seeing is Krishna’s potency.

So therefore, if you appreciate it as Krishna’s potency, then you would start to see that in relationship to what the situation, how it’s situated. And then one would be able to deal with it in a way to make it progressive in Krishna consciousness or to not be critical.

But if one can’t see it, then one sees that it stands on its own. The bad quality stands on its own. God is one thing, but these bad qualities are another. And then who do you attribute the bad qualities to? So then you have to have Satan. You have to have God’s alter ego to be the source of all bad qualities. And then because the bad qualities are so rampant and so influential and powerful, that puts this person on the footing with God. In some situations, even better situated.

So that would be actually atheistic. So he’s the source of everything, so even those bad qualities. But you have to see what’s behind it. Yes?

The bad qualities are like Krishna’s facts. Yeah, Krishna’s facts. He’s inattentive. You could, if you want to try to take it that far, but that’s the source of them. It doesn’t mean that he has them. That’s the source.

Right? Because where there’s light, then there’s no darkness.

Does that make sense? So we don’t have to take it that far. You know, it’s unnecessary. That’s just where the source is. So that’s why when we’re bahir-mukha means we’re not facing Krishna. We’re looking at Krishna’s back. Therefore, the bad qualities become what’s prominent. But as soon as you become antar-mukha, then you see Krishna. Then the good qualities become prominent. So that’s why the devotee has all good qualities, and the materialist, no matter how nice, has all bad qualities. Because that’s where his focus is.

That’s all. We’ll end here.

Lecture Notes

A brief summary of the lecture contents, based on the notes of Śāstra-cakṣus students

  • Opulence is secondary, the main thing is interaction with devotees.
  • Facilities don’t impress Kṛṣṇa.
  • A gentleman does not speak much about himself
  • When we know about someone we feel we are in control, but a devotee is satisfied knowing about Kṛṣṇa according to his ability, and then engaging in His loving service.
  • 13:30 Sin comes only when things are not connected to Kṛṣṇa. When consciousness is connected to Kṛṣṇa, even when activities are not yet, then one is saintly.
  • In breaking four regulative principle the problem is, there is no element of sacrifice.
  • Without Varṇāśrama there is no social system
  • 29:00 Daivī and Asura Varṇāśrama
  • Spiritual and material endeavor is the same thing.
  • 32:30 Friendship with Guru
  • 36:20 Wearing socks while doing Pūjā
  • Theoretically, one can see Kṛṣṇa even in sinful activities and get purified but practically it happens very rarely. Sinful activities are never okay, dharma is the standard
  • For giving advice to the gṛhasthas, vānaprasthas are supposed to be there
  • 50:00 Kṛṣṇa’s real strength is manifested in His wrestling with cowherd boys
  • Friendship mentioned in verse 10.1 refers to general favorable attitude of the devotee towards Kṛṣṇa.
  • Even aborigenes appreciate the Brahman aspect of Kṛṣṇa.
  • Only accepting Paramātmā is like accepting a person alone, not his friends.
  • We should do activities in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and preaching that we are good at – Bollywood preaching, prison preaching.
  • World religions do not explain creation very well.
  • 78:45 Preaching to demons
  • 84:00 Illusion and sin – synonymous as not seeing connection with Kṛṣṇa.
  • Good qualities associated with materialists are temporary, like Ashes Cup.

Sign In

Register

Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.