Bhagavad-gītā Seriatim #7

Bhagavad-gītā Seriatim #7

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

Prabhupada das remembers Sri Advaita Gosvami So, Arjuna’s reasons to fight. So, notice we’re seeing, bringing out here is that the material world’s always going to have problems. It’s always going to be, you know, we adjusted that if you’re used to it. That used to be about a few feet shorter when we moved it.

This way also it went.

So there’s more kids, it’ll move back more.

That there’s always going to be difficulties in the material world. One is always going to be faced with one’s attachments, right? As long as we’re conditioned, this is going to happen. And even if you’re not conditioned, still the problems will remain, right? That’s not going away. But the point is, is how do you respond, right? There’s this idea, no, but if you’re in advance, you won’t think of these things. No, that’s not the point. Otherwise, why do we have the verse by Yamunācārya, right? Who’s one of the, I think he’s Rāmānujacārya’s guru, right? You know, so he’s considered in a very senior position. But, was it Yamunācārya?

Yes, Yamunācārya. Yeah. So he says, whenever I think of sex life, I spit at the thought. So that means the mind, that’s what the mind does, it thinks of things, right? But the soul is now deciding whether it likes what it thinks about or not, right? Because you have consciousness, which is above the intelligence, which is above the mind, right? As it’s pointed out, the chariot of the body, the soul is in, then the intelligence is the driver. The reins are the mind, and the senses then are the horses. So that means the horses are driven by the intelligence through proper operation of the mind. So that means the mind is there, it thinks whatever it thinks. Now, if we identify with the mind and we do what the mind does, then we can say, well, what can we do, we’re overwhelmed, this, that, which is true. But there’s the element of intelligence.

The intelligence is the actual driver. So if the intelligence is overwhelmed with lust, then it thinks how to get fulfilled in gazes, senses, and lusty activities.

In other words, trying to sense gratification, trying to fulfill one’s desires. So it’s just a matter of the intelligence doesn’t have to be, because the consciousness is above that. So if you’re interested in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then when the mind comes up with all kinds of strange and wonderful ideas, then the intelligence is there, you can just not be involved.

It’s basically that simple, to just not be involved. But we have to accept the principle that we don’t want to be involved, because the option is there.

It’s always that, this is crazy, should I do this or not, and the next thing you’re doing it. Because we’re just so used to doing what the mind offers.

Does this make sense? So the difference here as we see is how, just in the beginning, we’re going to see, this point is the overall, is being dealt with in the whole Gītā. But how these problems come up, and how they’re faced and how they’re dealt with. So Duryodhana, we see his attachments come up, his anxieties come up, and immediately he starts to deal in a diplomatic way to try to manipulate and control everyone in his environment to get what he wants. So he doesn’t mind manipulating his teacher and Bhīṣmadeva and everybody else there to get what he wants, even though in the process all of them may be killed. It doesn’t matter to him. His point is, I have these attachments and I’m going to take care of these by my manipulative process. So this is the demoniac mentality.

While Arjuna, he’s confronted with his attachments, and being confronted with his attachments, then we see his, his base, even though there is the material mix, it’s actually founded on the principle of the natural compassion of the soul. The soul is naturally compassionate.

Now that can be applied either from the material or the spiritual. Spiritual is that one is sorry to see that Kṛṣṇa’s eternal servant is absorbing themselves in such stupid activities and suffering.

Or it can be because you identify with the situation and therefore, based on the bodily conception or on the conception of the mind, then you’re feeling some compassion.

Does it make sense? So we see in the purports in that, Prabhupāda keeps going back and forth between the two, right? It’s hard to tell what’s, what’s happening, right? Because factually it’s based on Arjuna’s compassion as a devotee, but at the same time, because the element of Yogamāyā is there, then it’s been arranged that it will manifest more like the material, right? Basically the symptoms are the same, but you’ll see a difference in, in, in one creates an inspiration, one creates you can’t do anything, because why? Why would there be a difference, right? Why would there be a difference? Because physical symptoms will be the same, the emotion’s the same, right? Because that’s what’s happening. It means one is coming naturally from the soul, the other one is being generated through the different, what do you call it? You know, chemicals in the body, right? Just these situations are there, then the chemicals produce that experience that should be coming from something else, right? Based on something Kṛṣṇa conscious. Does this make sense? So that’s the, so the material energy is dead matter, so it replicates those things through the manipulation of the chemicals of the body, then you get all these different experiences from that, and then how the mind interprets it, then you call it one thing or another. The basic difference will be is that in both of them that compassionate element is there, but one there’s no attachment, so then one is thinking how to help them, how to preach, how to, you know, somehow or another get them from being absorbed in material activities to understanding their position as servants of Kṛṣṇa, because they’re suffering, because they’re not identifying as servants of Kṛṣṇa, right?

The other is that when that attachment is there, then one feels there’s a loss in that attachment, right? Now that attachment is our identity.

Does that make sense? Because as we mentioned, attachment, when it’s obtained, then from that position of aniruddha it moves back to the position of prajumna, so it’s part of the sambandha, it’s part of one’s identity.

So being part of the identity, there’s the, either there is lost or there is the prospect of loss. So that means loss of identity, that’s why there’s a problem, right? For the spiritual vision of it, it’s still the same thing, but it’s not loss of your own identity, it’s loss of the individual whose suffering’s identity is servant of Kṛṣṇa, that’s the problem, right? So the same situation, then for the devotee, there’s no loss of identity, because whether your attachments, material attachments are there, means prosperous or they’re being lost, your identity is still servant of Kṛṣṇa, because you’re not identifying with them, right? To that degree you don’t identify with them, to that degree they don’t give you problem, to that degree that you do identify with them, to that degree they give you problem.

Does this make sense? Right? So, we see is that because there is a lack, I mean there is an identification with them, then because of this, then there’s a loss of identity or there’s a hampering of the identity, because I am that attachment, that attachment can be loss of that, so I don’t know how to identify myself, and unless you have an identity, how do you act? Right? Does that make sense? That’s why in these self-help scenarios when they’re trying to, you know, train one in the system, one of the first things they do is give you a strong identity, that you can do it, you’re the doer, yeah, get out there, it doesn’t matter, the only thing standing between you and that is yourself, you know, all these kind of things like that, they’re trying to get you to develop an identity, if you have an identity, you’re confident, in other words, the prajumna is brought up, right, you’re inspired, then you do something, but because of lack of, loss in the field, which is sankarsana, then you lose your inspiration, nothing happens, right? So, for the devotee, there’s a loss in the field, but their identity is not connected with that field, their identity is connected with the servant of Krsna, so they’re going to use the field for their, for their, for their activity, but they’re not the field, right? The materialist identifies with the field, the devotee doesn’t, he identifies with Krsna. So, therefore, there’s no loss in the field, there’s an obstacle, but there’s no loss, therefore, prajumna is not lost, that inspiration is not lost, well, for the materialist, it is, right, because first the field’s set, then you’re inspired by that field, right? But if, if the field’s not right, you can’t become inspired. Devotee knows the field will never be right, and even if it is nice in the material world, it’s temporary, it’s just a matter of time before it’s not right again, so why get distracted? So, whatever situation, one will serve Krsna, right? That’s the principle. Does that, does that make sense? So, we see the difference here? So, the devotee sees it, then he’ll think how to preach, how to inspire, have something like this, but the materialist, when he’s confronted with the exact same thing, has the same physical reaction, then, but his will be loss of inspiration, because he, there’s no, where’s the identity? Does that make sense? So, even though he, he is, basically the principle is it’s coming from his spiritual platform, you know, as a pure devotee, that this is, this is there, then the difficulty comes, the difficulty comes is that, that’s actually the basis of it, that’s the foundation of it, so that’s why it’s coming up, but at the same time, then the Yogamaya is there, then he gets this, he actually gets the reactions of the materialistic, you understand? This is where the Yogamaya is playing, but otherwise, the same situation, right, is going to create the same kind of feeling of compassion, but one’s spiritual, one’s material, right? So, that’s just a matter of whether, you know, Yogamaya’s acting, you know, Yogamaya or Mahamaya, so since he’s a devotee, he’s always under Yogamaya, but since Yogamaya and Mahamaya are the same person, therefore she, for the pastime, acts in such a way that the, she’s manifesting as Mahamaya, right? You understand? So, it’s Krsna’s arrangement, because the point is, is only someone like Arjuna, who is a great devotee, would react or respond so fully that all aspects of material attachment would be manifest, that everybody could identify with it, and no one could say, okay, well, that’s a nice story and all that, but it doesn’t apply to my situation.

Does that make sense? So, that’s why the Lord uses the devotees, because they’ll give the greatest range and also intensity, right? Because they’re on that platform, so the emotions are much more powerful, so they’ll react. You see Duryodhana, he’s basically very emotionally involved, but it’s not manifesting in any way that you can actually identify with it, you know, unless you’re a really good politician, then you think, wow, this guy’s good, you know? He’s freaking out, but he’s showing everything’s fine and going to his guru and inspiring and everything like this, you know what I’m saying? But otherwise there’s no, but the situations that we see that Arjuna’s in or Yudhisthira in the gambling match or Draupadi, like this, those we can say, yes, those are, because the emotions are full, the intensity is very great, you know, and so it’s very complete, so it creates a situation that all people become attracted to, because if you’re not attracted, you won’t identify. If you don’t identify, you won’t use it, right? You won’t even contemplate it. Does that make sense? Like Prabhupada was talking about, why Krishna consciousness is the universal religion? Because Krishna is the all-attractive one, right? Other religions are geared for a particular time, place and circumstance, and so they’ll be attractive to one person but not to another.

So then, but Krishna being attractive to everyone, being all-attractive, that means everyone can be attracted, so it is the universal religion.

Does that make sense?

That’s the point. Yes? Wouldn’t you have people from other religions disagree with you?

The point is, is God is all-attractive.

Now if they don’t understand that about God, they know God is great and God is omnipotent, omniscient, at least they say, but if you get into practical, they don’t even agree with that. And so, what’s the reason that you should follow their religion? What’s the reason you should follow?

They say so, but what is their main tool that they use why they say so?

Afterlife, yes. Fear. It’s simply fear. So fear means everybody can appreciate fear, so in that way they can kind of talk to everybody, but are people today living the lifestyle and having that determination and commitment of, you know, Christians in previous time?

You know what I’m saying? You know, so, no. You had that determination before they became established, you know, but it took them a few hundred years to become established. I think it was about 400 years to become very, 300 they were getting quite strong, but 400 then they were, you could say, I think that was from the Holy Roman Empire, so then it was, you know, very established then.

But before that, you know, there was a lifestyle. Do people live that lifestyle now? No. So how do you say they’re a Christian? What is the symptom that they’re a Christian?

Like before you could tell by looking at them they were a Christian. They were wearing black burlap clothes, they were Christians, you know? If they wore complete clothes and covered their head and had these chutters on, then they were Jews, right? If they didn’t cover their head and they wore their chutters open and all that, then they were, you know, they were Romans or pagans, right?

You know what I’m saying? So you could tell who they were, did they, you know, by how constricted or free they were in the wearing basically of their chutters, you know? It was worn freely and nicely, they were pagans. It was kind of restricted, mildly restricted, they were Jews. Tied up in knots and all that, so it was practical and didn’t create any problems, they were Christians.

Does that make sense? Yeah. So then what is, it’s very specific, so what is it that they got now that, you know, so they’re saying, no, they wouldn’t agree, but they’re not even following their own religion, you know? So what was attractive then? What is the whole point? So if the point is just you won’t go to hell, great, but that’s just doing good work. Because if they say, no, it’s by surrendering to Jesus, then great. Then all those persons who are surrendered to Jesus, they should be fine, right? All of them, right? But does one Christian group say the other Christian group is fine? No. The Protestants and the Catholics, they’ve been, you know, harassing and killing each other for, you know, basically the last thousand years and they’re still doing it today. So, but they’re both surrendered to Christian, to what do you call it? Jesus. Then that’s all part of the Western, Western, you know, Christianity. Then there’s Eastern Christianity, which they’ll all say they’re out of it, and then you have the Orthodox.

So you have three major systems, and within there sometimes you have hundreds of branches, probably.

But basically you have, you know, well, Protestant Catholicism, you have East Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. These are your major, major, based on the, what do you call it? The different, what is it? Yeah, different Gospels. Yeah, different Gospels they expect, but also the, those conferences. They have a name for those conferences like Nicaea.

Councils. Yeah, councils. They also use councils as, I’m thinking of a different word, but it’s, but they’ll, you know, so there they define, is Jesus God or not? Is he divine or not? You can’t, can he be in human form and still be divine? Or you can only be divine in divine form, since there is no divine form, therefore they’re all impersonal. So who was the guy that was walking around here? Why you could see him, but you can’t see God. It’s just, you know, like this, very, very weird stuff. You understand? So the difficulty comes is that, it’s based on fear, and even they say that it’s all about Jesus. It’s not really about Jesus. It’s just a matter of if the way that I think about it, because the main point is, as a materialist, whatever he does, he thinks that’s right, and anything outside of that is wrong. Right? Even the most broad-minded, liberal person, there are limits to what they think are right and wrong. You know? If it comes by life experience, generally they’re much more broad-minded. But those who come to that conclusion through intellectualism, they’re actually quite narrow. Because only if you’re broad-minded like they’re broad-minded. Because if you’re broad-minded, what’s wrong with being conservative? Nothing. Broad-minded conservatives are also fine. But no, conservatives are not fine.

You know? But the guy who’s out on his farm, you know, and has to, you know, if he doesn’t get his potatoes in, then he’ll starve in the winter and die. Generally he’s much more broad-minded. He’ll accommodate much more variety of people, because for him, it’s not about your philosophy, it’s about how you live your life.

You know what I’m saying? So for him, it’s like, you know, like that. Does that make sense? So, just as they say, unless you do this, then it’s narrow-minded.

And it doesn’t seem that there’s tenets beyond that, that they accept.

So, therefore, how broad can it be? That’s the difficulty. It can be quite broad, but at the same time, it’s limited.

But the point is, is Krishna Consciousness, it’s anybody can take it up. Anybody can be that. You don’t even have to change your lifestyle. Christians, you have to change your lifestyle.

You have to change whatever you’re doing. But us, we start from wherever you’re at. Then you can expand.

And the point is, is you’re dealing with God, so we’re saying you can chant any name, just this is the nicest of them. It’s the most attractive of them. But you can chant any name, as long as it’s a bona fide name of God, you can chant it. That’s the problem. So we’re not saying you have to live like, you can start however you are.

So, because it deals with the nature of the actual soul, and the soul’s application of its consciousness into the spiritual is complete, therefore, it’s able to deal with any situation. That’s its universalness. While the other ones, you adjust the situation, they have major problems in application.

Their theology, they don’t know how to apply it, necessarily.

Or if they do, they’ll live in their specific way. Those who actually understand more of the theology probably will understand what we’re saying better.

And those who don’t know theology, but what we know of the church is not powered by theology. Previously, the academic world was, as we know it, what you’re talking about now, you’re Oxford, you’re this, you’re that, you’re University of Bologna, and all this like that. These are all Christian institutions.

They had two levels of study. You’re undergraduate and you’re postgraduate, and they’re only two levels.

You’re undergraduate, then you studied the trivia and the quadrivia. So that meant your language, your math, your music, your grammar, your logic.

These were what was studied. Then you were considered to be an educated, cultured human, a gentleman. Then, beyond that, then there was the advanced learning, whether you get a doctorate or a master’s, depending upon the university. Then that one would give you, that was either in law, medicine, or theology. And law and medicine were seen on the same level, but theology was seen as higher. So that’s how it worked out then at the Bologna University. They made it that the law and the medicine were master’s degrees, and the theology was doctor.

So that distinguished them, though they were actually, they were the equal level of study, but they were just making a difference in the superiority of one subject matter over another, not in depth of study. As far as depth of study, they were all the same. So as academics, they were respected equally, but as their position. So theology in those days, that was the top academic subject, and someone in that was considered the highest of all academics. And today, I would say, at the, what do you call it, at the ironic term that they call the enlightenment.

So in the late 1700s, then that would change. I’m sure it already started to change with your renaissance, because the problem was is from the 1100s, the difficulty is there is that they were unable to, I would say already at that time, theology was considered the top academic field, but it wasn’t the driving force of the church. It would be the basis on which it was functioning, but your, yes, the church, politicians, I would say, use a better term than that, just your priests, your common priest, he was firmly situated in his faith, and his, and his, and his faith position was, you could say, validated by his ability to inspire others in his same faith. You understand? But it’s not that if you ask him a question, he’d give you an answer. So the problem was is there were much more of them than there were theologians. Those theologians were in the schools or in the monasteries. So they were either in the universities or in the monasteries, but you don’t hear of these great Christian functionings happening from those places, right? So then you have, you know, let’s say, however they, by their faith and their thinking, would come up with something that made sense to them on the mundane logic, then that became so-called Christian philosophy.

But it didn’t necessarily happen to have anything to do with that.

You know what I’m saying? You know, it’s just like dressing nicely is bad, right?

Or, how do you say, taking a bath is bad. Means, means that was the one way you could tell the difference between Christians and the other religions is in the, you know, the first thousand years, Christians didn’t take baths, you know? I mean, it’s only with the plague and they figured out that by taking a bath you didn’t get sick, then only I think maybe then they kind of lightened up on their, you know, pressure that, you know, was maya to take a bath. You understand? So basically anything to do with finer sentiments of human culture was nonsense. All there was is faith. So it’s just God and faith. But somehow or another, the subtle, because it was harder, you know, you could in one sense get by without it as long as the practical was applied, that the practical is based on the subtle. But since you could get by in just doing the practical without understanding the subtle, therefore that was left. But otherwise, what is more, it’s just like if you take a piece of iron, if I give you a big, you know, pair of pliers and a big hammer and a piece of iron and a fire and say, now make something out of it, you’d probably have a lot of problem doing that, right? But a blacksmith just takes it, it’s like magic, he can make things. So that same ability and magic, because it’s obvious and you need it, he’s not a witch. But if it’s a little bit more subtle, which you can’t quite understand and see what’s happening, like medicine, you take this herb and put it, you don’t see it working, then you’re a witch.

So technically anyone who didn’t just sit out in the field and just pray to God, technically should have been counted as a witch, right? So anyone more than that. And interestingly enough, that’s basically your original position of what a real Buddhist was, you know, because they have the same conception about God as a Buddhist does. The only difference is the Buddhist says there’ll be nothing at the end and the Christian says you’ll be in a heavenly place. I’m not sure if they take baths in the heavenly place, but hey, you know, that’s another thing. Does that make some sense? So because of that, so between those who are just functioning based on faith, they’ll see a lot of difference because they think God is different. Your God is different. Those who function on theology will see a little bit less difference. They’ll still see difference, but they still can’t deal with the philosophy the way we can. Technically we don’t have any dogma, but all these other religions, they have to have dogma because they can’t explain.

You understand? We can explain, so there’s nothing that we can’t discuss. We may not like the way the person asks the question or something, but there’s no point that we can’t discuss. There’s others and they do have points and because they don’t want to discuss it or they can’t discuss it, so therefore it’s a dogma and that’s just the way it is.

But how the logical steps you got there, they can’t explain. We can explain it.

Does that make sense?

So 27 to 46, Arjuna’s reasons not to fight. This is after his attachments have come up. So we see here his attachments, he takes shelter of Kṛṣṇa. Duryodhana, his attachments, he takes shelter of his own clever abilities. This is the difference between the devotee and the demon. The devotee depends upon Kṛṣṇa, the demon depends upon himself. So sometimes the devotee, depending upon his attachments, takes longer before he finally surrenders. The demons attack, the demigods, the demigods go out, they fight like that and it starts to get rough and then they fight more and then it gets more rough, then they turn to Kṛṣṇa. But the demons never turn to Kṛṣṇa.

Seeing his relatives ready to fight, Arjuna felt compassion. In his purports to Bhagavad-gītā 128 and 129, Śrīla Prabhupāda explains reaction in two ways.

Any man who has genuine devotion to the Lord has all the good qualities which are found in godly persons or in the demigods. Whereas the nondevotee, however advanced he may be in material qualifications by education and culture, lacks in godly qualities. As such, Arjuna, just after seeing his kinsmen, friend and relatives on the battlefield, was at once overwhelmed by compassion for them who had so decided to fight amongst themselves. As far as soldiers are concerned, he was sympathetic from the beginning, but he felt compassion even for the soldiers of the opposite party, foreseeing their imminent death. In this, he’s not seeing that he’s going to lose. That’s another point to notice here, is that he’s never thinking that he’s going to lose or that he won’t be able to fight and defeat them. That doesn’t go. He’s just thinking that defeating them means everybody will be killed.

This overwhelmed a kind devotee like Arjuna. Although it is not mentioned here, still one can easily imagine that not only were Arjuna’s bodily limbs quivering and his mouth drying up, but he was also crying out of compassion. Such symptoms in Arjuna were not due to weakness, but due to his soft-heartedness, a characteristic of a pure devotee of Kṛṣṇa. So here he’s bringing out the element that is coming from him being a devotee in that natural compassion.

So this is that where I’m saying on the one side the purports, they discuss this. Then on the other side, then they bring out this other. There are two kinds of trembling of the body and two kinds of standing of the hair on end. Such phenomena occur either in great spiritual ecstasy or out of fear under material conditions. There’s no fear in transcendental realization, because fear means loss. A devotee never sees loss. He’s eternal, Kṛṣṇa’s eternal. And so situations, we don’t identify with the situation, so it’s the situation. The situation is simply how you can serve Kṛṣṇa. The situation changes, then it changes how you’d serve Kṛṣṇa. But you’re serving Kṛṣṇa, that’s the identity.

Does that make sense? So you have no problem in the field changing. Why would you have a problem with the field changing? The change of the field means change of variety of service to Kṛṣṇa, means change variety of pleasures for Kṛṣṇa. So why would there be any problem in the change of the field? There wouldn’t be. So for the soul, especially the soul being feminine, feminine loves change of field.

Why do they like to go out to dinner? It’s very rare going out to dinner is any better than eating at your house. It costs you ten times as much. You’ve got to drive there, you’ve got to wait for the seat, things like that. And then go through the whole thing, and choose what you want. You don’t know what’s right or not, whether it’ll be good or not, unless you have something. And then there’s no variety if you always get the same thing, like that. And then how everything will go there, and if something does go, it can’t just get up or this or that. It’s like you have to be there and everything, you have to dress properly. But it’s a change in the environment. So it’s a change of the experience. So that’s what’s important, to change the experience, not that the food’s better.

Does that make sense? So variety is standard. So it’s not that there’s a change in that, so that’s not the thing. But in the material platform, they get attached to the field, identify with the field, so a change in the field is a cause for fear.

Does that make sense? Because the relationships are based on that field, and the field is temporary.

While in the spiritual platform, the relationship is based on your eternal relationship with God. So that’s not connected to the field. How you’ll express that relationship, that’s through the field. But the relationship is not based on the field. That’s why a devotee can be a devotee in the spiritual world or the material world. It doesn’t matter.

The relationship.

Does that make sense? I mean a bigger level court, the field meaning the creation or something like that, so God’s always connected there. Does that make sense? So there’s no fear. So here Prabhupada’s pointing out, if there’s fear, that means then there must be material. It can’t be spiritual.

Even though you can understand the philosophy, you’re not going to understand it this way. And the same as you can see it from the spiritual point of view as you as your eternal relationship with God. So it’s a thing that’s going to gradually evolve. When fear comes up, you have to realize it. And you see it just as you still identify with the material instead of the spiritual. Instead of rightly or wrongly doing it. Yes. That’s the point. That’s what the meaning of sadhana bhakti is. It’s practice. Fear comes up.

It’s just habit that it comes up. Remember, how long have we been here? You know what I’m saying? If you have four heads, then you haven’t been here a long time. But if you don’t have four heads, then you’ve been here a long time.

Does that make sense? So much habit is there.

So that’s why again and again and again it comes up. It’s just habit.

Does that make sense? So that’s why we don’t take someone doing something, as long as it’s not detrimental to others, as such a problem. The main point is how to correct that. That’s the main focus. Right? So now what they do also bothers others. You have to put them in a situation they won’t bother others that they can work on their own self. If what they do doesn’t bother others, then how to bother others means it’s not directly connected. Of course, people can always be bothered by anything. But does that make sense? So that’s what you’re trying to do is correct their mentality. So it’s being done through intelligence, because the intelligence is the driver. So if the consciousness is right, then the intelligence can be more focused. Then the intelligence can then control the mind. Because you always find is that if there’s just something that just comes up and you just automatically do it, that’s from habit or desire like that. But much of the time you see if it’s something that you’re not sure if you should be doing or not when it comes up, then there’s a conversation.

Yeah, you want to do this, but then what about these things? So who’s talking?

Yeah, the mind and the intelligence, they’re talking.

You understand? So the point is just what the intelligence says, analyze that. Once that’s there, then you’re in a strong position. If you start analyzing the mind, unless one is, you know, the mind is already strengthened, then you get distracted by that because it always comes up with, you know, it has its reasons, right? But you first start with, okay, since you’re going to have to analyze, you got two sides, you know, and you want to moderate between these two, right? Like that. So then, but first take the side of the intelligence, right? Because that’s without emotion, it’s just observation of the field, right? And things based on previous experience. So then go through and analyze that. And when that’s nicely understood and when it’s strengthened there, then either one gives up or need be, then analyze the mind.

You know, but then you have something to compare it to and you have that strength of it. So by doing that more and more, it just becomes more and more prominent. This is practice.

Whatever you do, then you can do more of.

Some things that we do won’t be like habitual and the conversation like that will not be, it won’t go on forever. That’s what I said. When it just comes up, you do it, then that’s just your habit. So how do you deal with that? Afterwards, you think about, you know, it means at some point you’re thinking about it, then it becomes more prominent. So it may not happen to me, but at the time, then you’ll start to think whenever it comes up. So it’s just a matter of you contemplate. Point is, is some some things may take time. So we’re willing to put in the time. You know, that’s why then one doesn’t become. In other words, if if you think, oh, I can’t do this and I’m so useless and all that, and there’s no endeavor, what does that mean?

It’s ignorance. Yes. In other words, it’s a mundane approach to it. Spirit. The spiritual approach is that I’m not all the mind and intelligence and senses, but I’ve identified so long by habit. I do these things. So therefore, I want to stop doing these things. So it’s going to take practice. So if something goes wrong, the only solution is corrected and try again. You understand? By saying, oh, I’m so useless, then that’s you’re only discussing identity. You’re not contemplating what to do to correct it. You understand? So you just feel sorry for yourself. But you know, but the point is, the Vedas already say, OK, that happens. So move forward. So that means contemplating that I can do this, make a plan, do it, execute it and get the results.

Does that make sense?

There are two kinds of trembling of the body and two kinds of standing of the hair on the end. Such phenomena occur either in great spiritual ecstasy or out of great fear under material conditions. There is no fear in transcendental realization. Arjuna’s symptoms in this situation are material fear, namely loss of life. This is evident from other symptoms also. He became so impatient that his famous bow, Gandiva, was slipping from his hands because his heart was burning within him. He was feeling a burning sensation of the skin. All these are due to a material conception of life. Otherwise, he says, other symptoms, otherwise the symptoms are the same, right? The standing of the hair, hair, what is it? Trembling of the body, standing of the hair, those are the same. But the bow is falling from his hands. So we can understand he’s sitting down. He’s unable to do anything. So this is the material. But here also notice when he says loss of life, it doesn’t necessarily mean his. He’s talking about loss of life of the relatives. Then you’re not going to have anybody to enjoy with like that.

Confronted with his material attachments, Arjuna became depressed. Depression is unavoidable as long as we have material desires and it comes from fear of losing our material possessions. In a lecture on Bhagavad-gītā, 128.29, Śrīla Prabhupāda says, So Arjuna was not a coward. He was a competent warrior. But still, dehātma-bhūti, the bodily concept of life is so strong that Arjuna admits, triṣvatu svajanam kṛṣṇa, My dear Kṛṣṇa, I have to kill my own men. Own men means this bodily relation. Why are others not own men? Everyone is own men because everyone is Kṛṣṇa’s son. So when one becomes Kṛṣṇa conscious, he can see everyone as own men. And when he is not Kṛṣṇa conscious, he simply sees own men where there is bodily relationship. This is the defect. Lecture one, Bhagavad-gītā, 128.29 in London, 73.

Because he’s only seeing own men meaning his family members, like that, or own men meaning his own warriors. But he’s not seeing it from everyone as servant of Kṛṣṇa. So the problem is, why are all these servants of Kṛṣṇa ready to kill themselves over simply Duryodhana can’t be satisfied with whatever he gets? No matter what he gets, he’s not satisfied. So why should everybody die for this one guy? Because that’s actually what’s happening. 640 million people died because Duryodhana is not satisfied with what he has. That’s all. So that’s a demon.

A materialist would become upset that Kṛṣṇa encouraged killing one’s own relatives and would praise Kṛṣṇa as a non-violent sādhu, the so-called intellectuals. However, Arjuna was motivated by the very source of violence, family attachment.

So in other words, this is what we’re meaning by the nondevotee doesn’t have any good qualities. Because even though he’s performing compassionate activities, they’re still based on his own bodily conception. It’s only because he feels, I’ll get something from this, is he doing it. He doesn’t think, I’ll get something from this, he’s not doing it.

That’s all. So in one sense it’s good because it actually is reflective, I mean, yeah, reflective of actual good qualities.

But actually their motive for it. So it’s not that giving in charity and being compassionate is not good. That is good. But what is actually the motive of the person doing it? That’s where we find they don’t have the qualities of the demigods. We’re not saying that being nice and giving in charity and being compassionate is bad. No, that’s very good. Where did it come from? It comes from the devotees.

But the point is that the real motive for that is something else. Otherwise, why is it that the guy gives charity?

Why is it there always has to be big charity? There always has to be that check that’s this big that they take their picture with and it’s hung on the wall. That’s a motive. They can say, no, they’re just being kind to the donor. But why is it that previously did they do that?

You go back a hundred years, 200 years, did they do that? No. Like that. So therefore, the motive is getting more and more obvious.

That’s all. So having given in charity is nice, but why that?

So it makes them feel good because the businessman wants to feel religious. But he wants everybody to know he’s religious because if he’s religious, you prefer to do business with him. So for him, it’s a matter of profit and loss. That’s all. He identifies, he wants to be identified with powerful people and religion.

If he’s associated with this, people take him seriously. So it’s just business. That’s all. He may be a pious businessman, but it’s still just business.

So as you go deep into it, then you see it’s not actually a good quality. But better they have these so-called good qualities than not have them. Right? Society runs more smoothly. But better they take up that they’re a devotee of Kṛṣṇa and serving Kṛṣṇa than they have these qualities and they’re connected to Kṛṣṇa. Then it has some real meaning. Otherwise, not so much meaning.

When one is bound by family attachment, he thinks in terms of I and mine. He is ready to justify any amount of violence as long as it’s applied outside of his family circle. The concept of I and mine, ica and dveṣa, is described in Bhagavad-gītā, 7.27.

O skāyina bhārata, O conqueror of the foe, all living entities are born into delusion, bewildered by dualities arisen from desire and hate. Notice this desire and hate.

This desire and hate we see is that this is the basis of this. So no one minds doing any amount of violence as long as it’s outside. So as we were discussing before, it’s outside your religion, then no amount of violence is a problem. They’re not your religion. So how many points in history do we find, even though Shylock was told he should become a Christian because he didn’t have compassion? He was demanding his pound of flesh, and he meant it literally. And it was only when he was legally stopped that you can have the pound of flesh, but you can’t have any blood. It’s not in the contract. So if any blood is lost, then you’re at fault for assault.

And so then he had to give up, because how can you get the flesh without the blood? Of course, the same principle is also there in the Bible on basically whether one should be a vegetarian or not. But somehow or another, that one’s let go. You can have the, what do you call it, the flesh, but you can’t have the blood, God mentions. He gets the blood, you get the flesh. But the point is that blood is not being offered, and how do you get out all the blood? So it’s the same point, but somehow or another, because one’s real life and one’s a drama, therefore in the drama it works. In real life it doesn’t, like that. So the point is, is they’re willing to kill outside of that.

So how many religions go in and wipe out all villages or communities? Men, women, and children.

What do the children know? That they’re killed because they’re not, like that. So where’s the compassion?

The term Catholic means broad-minded.

That’s what it literally means, broad.

So where’s the compassion? Where’s the thing? So it’s the others who hate. Oh, the Muslims are in Jerusalem.

Then the Christians have to go kick them out.

But the point is, if it’s God’s place, then anybody can go and be there as long as everybody can be there. But the problem is there’s one group’s there, don’t let the other one go in. Does this make some sense?

Generally speaking, other than the Jews who’ve always been there, any other group comes in, then they have a problem. They don’t let the others practice. So this is a big problem, is that it’s based on desire and hate. And then when it was one religion against another and all this fighting, then that’s there. But when it’s not, then within their own religion, then they’ll fight with each other. Once Europe became Christian, then who was to fight with? Occasionally, once Jews grew enough, then you have a community you could go in and kill and that. But then there’s no Jews, so you have to wait for another few hundred years. Before there’s enough of them, then you can start that process again. So after they’ve killed all the Jews and all that, then what’s left? It’s just Christians. So now, desire and hatred, so then you apply that again. Now it’s within Christianity, this group or that group. Does that make sense? So it’s always a problem. It comes down to it, it’s just desire and hate. So it’s material, it’s mundane, it’s not spiritual. Otherwise, the point is that everybody is God’s children. Yes? Why does the hate come from frustration that you’re not God? Frustration that you’re not God. I mean, ultimately it will come from there, because you want to get something done and there’s something that’s getting in the way, so it has to be someone else’s fault. So therefore, you’re going to blame somebody.

It seems to work well. Everything’s going nicely. I think the plague came up. This is the fun part. The plague comes up, and so somebody’s got to be wrong. Who made the plague happen? So we’re good Christians, so it can’t be us, so it must be the Jews. So then they go in and massacre all the Jews. Unfortunately, the plague continues. The problem was that Christians didn’t take baths. They’re dirty. So the disease spread very easily. People who live way out in the country had less problem. It took a long time before sometimes the plague ever got there, and generally it was bought by other Christians.

Places where they took bath, there was no plague.

Europe, this was wiped out, but right on the edges of Europe, in all those countries where they would weekly take a bath and take a sauna, there was no plague.

So they kill all the Jews for that, but they still didn’t get rid of the plague. So there’s always the idea it has to be someone else’s fault.

And then after Jews are gone, then it’s got to be the witches. It’s got to be something. It’s just so mundane. Just so mundane. Like that. Really, really mundane.

What?

Icha and Dvesha.

Yeah, icha is desire. Dvesha was hate, because hate means you see a difference.

Yeah, basically. Or, yeah, like that. I can’t get it, so therefore I don’t like others. In other words, they have an ability, I can’t get that, so therefore there must be something non-Christian about it.

Yes?

The fan came on because I think the electricity came on.

So I think that was what happened. It wasn’t that somebody turned it on. It was probably drawing somebody’s clothes last night and then the current went off and it wasn’t functioning and then the current came back on.

Has that ever happened to our line? Has that ever happened to our line? You’ll find amongst, means, on the top levels, no. But you’ll find on lower levels it goes on in day-to-day life. Means what we’re talking about goes on in day-to-day life. It’s just a matter of when you get enough day-to-day life together, and especially those in charge of bigger aspects of day -to-day life then are influenced by this, then these things can happen. But otherwise, generally you don’t see so much. You get bodily conscious that the king becomes a Shaivite, everyone has to become a Shaivite, otherwise they get in trouble and stuff like that. But generally there have been places where the king becomes Vaishnav and says either be Vaishnav or you have to leave. They won’t kill you, they just pack up and go somewhere else. But the Shaivites generally haven’t been that broad -minded. So within Hinduism you see it happening.

You would see, between the Buddhists and the Hindus, you’d see this. Definitely between the Muslims and Hindus, that’s pretty standard. But within the Gaudiya line, then it’s just the neophyte devotees, they always have a tendency to fight amongst themselves. Because they’re seeing on the platform attachment, what they’re doing is what everybody else does.

I do this in devotional service, and I find this good, why doesn’t everybody else do it? Even though what they’re talking about technically is correct, but the motive behind it may be materialistic. Though it’s in connection to Kṛṣṇa.

So you have, it’s whatever one person’s doing. If somebody’s doing bhakti, why isn’t everybody? Somebody’s doing the Hare Nāma, why isn’t everybody? Someone’s at the full temple program, why isn’t everybody? Someone dresses in this way, why isn’t everybody? So you’ll have that element. But it looks similar because the activities that are being discussed are bona fide according to śāstra. So now it’s a matter of what is the motive behind it? Not that the activity of what they’re talking about is wrong. And maybe even the arguments they give are very good. But the point is, is what’s their motive? That’s why they’re not able to convince others. Others aren’t inspired.

Does that make sense? So it has to be that this is of what is beneficial. And so then because there’s a broad variety of activities, then as long as you’re engaged to that degree, that absorption, then that’s good. So if somebody does it from sitting in the kitchen and cooking for the deities all day, or somebody is out on book distribution, it doesn’t matter.

Does that make sense? So all these services can be encouraged. So those who are good at them then can expand and inspire others, but they should be very careful that there isn’t a mundane element.

Does that make sense? Otherwise then it doesn’t last. That’s why you’ll see this person is so strong on the point, and then one day they’re just not doing it or just disappear. And how could that happen? It’s because they were doing devotional activities and all that, and their taste in it was good, but at the same time as that underlying material side they weren’t addressing. And because they weren’t addressing at some point, then it overwhelmed them.

So the point is that it’s the consciousness. That’s why all this is dealing with the conscious. It’s not a matter of you have to give up family attachment, because if that was the point, did Arjuna, after the Bhagavad Gita, give up everything and go to the forest? Did he maintain his position as a ksatriya? Did he maintain his position as a warrior? Did he maintain his position as a family person? Did he have a family? Did he interact with that family? So what changed?

The consciousness changed.

The devotees will tend to go by the externals. If we’re not attached, then we’re not into all this family stuff, this, that. Arjuna was not attached. He had a nice family.

The point is, who is it for? If it’s for yourself, that’s one thing. If it’s for Krsna, that’s another thing. But it looks the same. That’s the point given here. It’s the material and spiritual look the same. There’s some elements you can tell that it’s going into ignorance or it’s devotional or not, but the basic fundamental of it, that looks the same. Family life looks the same, whether it’s spiritual or material.

Having an occupation looks the same.

So it’s just a matter of the consciousness. So that’s what the Gita is describing, the change in consciousness. You don’t have to change the position.

The difficulties, the karmis don’t get into the philosophy. The jnanis get into philosophy, they won’t do any activity. The buddhi-yoga means you know the philosophy and you do the activity. That combination, that gets your realization. That’s bhakti.

Someone does devotional activity, doesn’t know what it is, it’s a jnana-sukrti. Someone knows what devotional service is, doesn’t perform it, that’s an armchair speculator.

So the devotee knows what it is and performs it, therefore it’s called devotional.

Does that make sense?

Question being asked.

Was that happening in that the devotees are fighting over their rooms in Bhagbazar and stuff like that? Yeah, that would be what it is, because they’re seeing on the material platform, oh I’m a sannyasi, so I’m senior, so I should get better facilities and this and that, and then fighting over which room, because we don’t notice it so much as Westerners because we don’t necessarily connect nature with our life.

But much of the world does, so they know that you have a window on this side, then the sun comes, so that can be good. If it’s a morning sun, if it’s an afternoon sun, that’s not as good. Verandas are appreciated, they’re not places for keeping bicycles and all the junk and this like that. You go over here, that’s what they’re for, like that. Verandas are for, that’s where you live. You live on the veranda. You’re on the inside, I mean, when it’s hot, now it is a little cool, but in between when it’s like that, this is the time to be on the veranda. You know, eat there, sleep at night there, hang out and meet your guests there, that’s what you do. But for us, that’s where you keep all your stuff. And then you stay in the room, because the room doesn’t have that movement of air, therefore to make you comfortable you get an AC. And then, you know, everything works out. So you have a go-down and you have a comfortable room. Right? So they know these things, so therefore they’re fighting over, you know, who gets the most comfortable facility. So it is mundane. So his point is, you know, it’s one thing, oh, hey, this, that, and they work it out, and then life moves on, but it becomes a major constant thing. And so then, because of this, that’s mundane.

You know what I’m saying? So unless that’s stopped, then you’ll see it destroys everything.

You know what I’m saying?

Okay. So, oh, if Arjuna was to fight with soldiers unrelated to his family, he would kill them without hesitation. But because he was attached to his kinsmen, he wanted to avoid the battle, pretending to be a non-violent saint. Thus Arjuna’s so-called compassion was actually cowardice in the face of the enemy, the family attachments. His desire to retire and become a mendicant was coming from frustration, not from realization. Therefore, it was rejected by Krishna.

You see? Yes. Sometimes, if we are performing some impious activity, which, you know, in the end is ignorant, so in the end it feels bad, so then we get frustrated, and then we feel like I don’t want to, you know, you don’t want to do the activity, and then again it will come and you’ll do the same activity again and again, every time you get frustrated. So, how do you get realization? How do you differentiate between being frustrated and having realization? Okay. Frustration means you’re frustrated with the result, right, or not, yeah, frustrated with the result, not getting it here.

So, you can’t get what you want, so you become frustrated. But the point is, is why do you need to get what you want? Why is performance of sinful activities bad, right? And why do you want to not perform sinful activities? What would be the motive? You want to perform pious activities. Okay. But why would you want to perform pious activities? To please Krishna. Okay. So, yeah, so that’ll work, but the point is, is that, so what’s wrong with impious activities? Why do you choose pious over impious?

Okay, pious is pleasing to Krishna, impious is not. But technically what’s, why is pious activities pleasing to Krishna?

Has a good result.

Easier to remember Krishna. Okay. There’s something more.

It doesn’t disturb others. Okay. It’s what Krishna wants. So, how do we know it’s what Krishna wants? Yes, that’s what he does, so therefore that’s what’s given in scripture. So, it’s only called pious activity on one level because there is this situation where people perform the activity without understanding its relationship with God. They don’t understand that these are activities that God wants the living entity to do because they’re nice for the living entity. You know, it’s nice for the relationship between the living entity and Krishna. Right? That’s the point. So, the point is you have to take it back to its connection to Krishna, you know, and so then what’s wrong with the sinful activity? What’s actually the problem? All right? Hmm? Yeah, one forgets Krishna. Generally, sinful activity generally means that it’s so absorbing that you don’t remember Krishna. But pious activities is regulated, so therefore there’s all these opportunities to remember the Lord by.

You know what I’m saying? Because you’re following a regulation. Sinful means there’s no regulation. Pious means there’s a regulation. So, how you do something, there’s a regulation. So, all those points, then it connects it. So, any of those points, you can go from there into Krishna consciousness. That’s what they’re there for.

All right? So, it’s not just that it’s pious or impious.

Right? That’s a lower level of understanding.

You know, and on that level, that’s where we get, that’s where, you know, hatred and anger and frustration or happiness, all these things function. That’s the difficulty. Right? But the spiritual is beyond that. Right? So, being beyond that, then one can analyze actually what’s going on there.

Does that make sense? Because the difference is in consciousness.

You know what I’m saying?

Like that. You’re eating, you’re eating, you know, how do you say? Someone’s eating vegetarian food stuff, someone’s not. But the principle of eating is the same.

So, what’s the difference in the two?

What they want to eat, but as we’re talking about the more subtle elements, the consciousness, but how is that, what’s the manifestation of that consciousness?

Creates violence, but you’re going to have, violence is going to be there anyway. And one living entity lives by eating another living entity.

One of the two could be connected to Krishna. One of the two, not two of the two.

Yeah, but that’s what I’m saying is that, but, but the vegetarian, you can offer. So that means two out of two can be, you offer your activity of, of the offering the bhoga to Krishna. Since both living entities can be involved.

Sorry?

Yeah, it’s for Krishna. Let’s say, but the meeting, the element of it is that, what, why does one eat foodstuffs? I mean, other than the nutritional value. I mean, that’s what everybody, huh? Taste. Okay. So the point is, is you’re, you’re willing to kill another living entity for your taste. You understand? But the point is, is you can fulfill your taste without killing another living entity. That’s what probably gives the example of that from the cow, what they’re looking for is the richness of the milk, right? You know, the milk, the cream, the butter, the ghee, that’s what they’re looking for, but they don’t know that. And so then they’re killing the animal to get that taste.

So you don’t have to, you don’t have to create that kind of violence.

Does that make sense? Like that. So it’s greater violence, but, so violence there, but it’s not necessary, right? You have to eat something, but the grains are there. That’s what they’re there for. A higher class, the grains in that generally means they die when they fructify. Like that. So that’s why they’re considered higher, higher grade, you know, especially like rice and these things. But these are, you know, subtle points. You know, these are, these are points that, you know, how you say, have a loss of, you know, how you say, new age restaurants, people sit around drinking tea and arguing for hours over like that.

So then, but the principle is that, and then, because it’s, one is that it’s not regulated, means in that you’re not controlling your senses. And then even you’re saying, okay, but you’re killing the plant. But the point is, is the plant then can be offered in sacrifice, right?

But the animal can’t.

Does it make sense?

Right? And you also have the problem is, even if it’s there, there must be something more happening. But because it doesn’t bother the plant as much, because when, when you go out and pick your cauliflower, you know, then you don’t have to whisper a mantra into its ear, you know, this life I pick you, next life you pick me, you know. But when you kill the animal, you have to say, this life I kill you, next life you kill me. Right? If you don’t do that, then you’re dealing with sin. Right? Does that make sense? So that means the reactions from it are much greater. So one’s dealing with greater reactions, lack of control of the senses and that it can’t be offered.

Does that make sense?

Inferior taste, that’s there. But the point is, is that’s there. But we’re also talking from the Western standpoint.

You know what I’m saying?

Means the, how you say, the Oriental culture has ways of preparing them that are much more tasty. But I’m just saying, you know, the English, even they prepare carrots and peas, still they don’t have any taste. You know what I’m saying?

Like that. They haven’t learned the secret of French cooking.

There’s three secrets.

Yes, that’s the three secrets of French cooking. Butter, butter, and butter.

So, you know, they haven’t figured these things out. You know what to do. Something about the channel, when you cross it, I guess the intelligence is lost or something. I don’t know.

Some strange phenomenon.

Something, I don’t know. Or maybe it’s when they get to, you know, Dover, it’s all that chalk powder. Someone does something to their brain or something. I don’t know.

You have anything to add or something over there? It’s too hard to get all the spices across.

They forgot to bring some with them so they couldn’t grow it. I don’t know. For some reason, they just boil everything.

It’s a bit wild.

I think in the joke, that’s the European hell, where the cooks are English.

Desire for enjoyment, verses 30 to 35. In the purport of verses 32 to 35, Srila Prabhupada writes, Arjuna has addressed Lord Krsna as Govinda because Krsna is the object of all pleasures for cows and the senses. By using this significant word, Arjuna indicates that Krsna should understand what will satisfy Arjuna’s senses. But Govinda is not meant for satisfying our senses. If we try to satisfy the senses of Govinda, however, then automatically our own senses are satisfied. Materially, everyone wants to satisfy his senses, and he wants God to be the order supplier for such satisfaction. The Lord will satisfy the senses of the living entities as much as they deserve, not to the extent what they may covet. But when one takes the opposite way, namely, when one tries to satisfy the senses of Govinda, without desiring to satisfy one’s own senses, then by the grace of Govinda, all desires of the living entity are satisfied. Because we’re connected to Krsna, then the only way we’ll be satisfied is our connection to Krsna. So when we’re connected to Krsna and we’re pleasing Him, when He’s pleased, automatically we’ll be pleased. It’s just the way it works. The pure jiva in their natural state understands that their happiness comes from a higher source. They understand it’s not inherent in themselves. Because as energy, how can you be the one who generates the potency?

Energy is there and able to do whatever it does because of its connection to the energetic. So they understand that connection to the energetic. So they know their happiness comes from another source. So it’s very natural, therefore, to connect yourself to that source. And then by pleasing that source, if you’re pleased, that’s much nicer than trying to work for yourself. It’s a much more subtle and pleasing environment where everyone else is trying to please everyone else.

But the point is that ultimately that is connected to the Lord. You’re pleasing the devotees because of the connection to the Lord. You’re pleasing the Lord.

So then one is happy. It’s because the energy has to come from the higher source. So when the energetic is pleased, automatically it goes through the whole system. Does that make sense? The generator is working. It generates electricity.

So if Kṛṣṇa is pleased, His happiness pervades Himself.

And He’s made up of Himself, the internal potency, external potency, the jīvas.

Yes? So we can please Kṛṣṇa by pleasing the spiritual Master? Yes. Why? Because He represents the spiritual Kṛṣṇa. So the spiritual Master is saying that we should emphasize the chanting of the Holy Name. Yes. So my question is, if by chanting the Holy Name we’re pleasing the spiritual Master, we’re pleasing Kṛṣṇa, why is it that sometimes, most of the time, we don’t feel satisfied from all chanting? Because you’re not aware of what’s there. Just like, let’s say, we have a nice party and bring all kinds of nice food, but if you’re in a bad mood or you have a bad stomach or something else or distracted about something, you don’t notice the food. Not that it’s not there. If you notice, then it’s there.

You still have to be aware. It’s not just automatic. You do the endeavor, automatically you get the result. But if you don’t make the endeavor, it’s not that the result doesn’t come. So when Prabhupāda uses the term automatic, it means you’re making the endeavor. Some try to interpret that, that automatic means you do nothing, and then we’ll get the result. And so then they’ll say that Prabhupāda’s not right here. No, you have to then practice in certain ways.

This is especially said by the so-called Sikh group. Prabhupāda says you chant, automatically Raghunātha Bhakti will come. Well, they say, no, you have to endeavor for it. But Prabhupāda’s saying is that you’re endeavoring within devotional service.

Then it comes. So if you’re sincere in that, then from vaidhi, then naturally comes spontaneity. That comes in anything you do.

Like that. It’s automatic. But then they’ll try to say it’s not automatic.

You know what I mean? You have to work for it. They’re saying the same thing, but Prabhupāda’s already taken it that devotional service means endeavor.

But they’re taking it, meaning, oh, you’re just sitting there doing nothing, and then you expect it to come. So that means they’re not actually including the philosophy. They’re only dealing with their sentiment or certain aspects of the philosophy. The philosophy is without endeavor, there’s no result. So automatic means a result. So that means there’s been the endeavor. Does that make sense? It’s just like if I say I put the potatoes in the boiling water and leave them there for 20 minutes, automatically you’ll have soft potatoes.

But if I don’t put them in the water, the water’s not boiling, or there isn’t any water in the pot and I just put in potatoes, it’ll come out differently.

So automatic means you perform the proper activity, automatically you get the result.

That’s the point. Because otherwise the question, well, will I get the result? If I surrender to Kṛṣṇa, will I get the result? What if something different? The point is that God said it’s that way. But we’re thinking that I can think of ways outside of God’s purview that are options that might happen. But that’s why then it’s made very, very clear, no, this is the way it works. So we have that faith. Because there’s always that, well, what if I do and it doesn’t happen?

You know what I’m saying? This is the point.

Arjuna refused to fight because his motivation was selfish. He wanted to win the kingdom and to enjoy it together with his relatives. As soon as he realized that he could be victorious only at the expense of his family members, he became desperate. He understood that his plans for family happiness are doomed, and he declined to fight, as Śrīla Prabhupāda writes. He thinks that by killing his kinsmen, there would be no happiness in his life, and therefore he’s not willing to fight, just as a person who does not feel hunger is not inclined to cook. Bhāgavad-gītā, 121, purport. Arjuna calculated that even if he wins the kingdom, he will not be able to enjoy it without his relatives, from the purport. Everyone wants to show his opulence to friends and relatives, but Arjuna fears that all his relatives and friends will be killed on the battlefield, and he’ll be unable to share his opulence after victory. This is a typical calculation of material life.

It’s 132 to 135, purport.

So basically what he’s expecting is he’s going to ride his chariot in there. He’s going to see Duryodhana with his hundred brothers there, and their foot soldiers, of course, and one or two other kings that he’s not really too worried about, maybe a few tribal kings, some others that have always been inimical, definitely like Karna and Shakuni, like this. So people you don’t mind killing, but the problem is he sees everybody there, so then it becomes a bit of a problem.

We also see as if you can’t enjoy, then nobody should enjoy. So here at least it’s a little bit more cultured. He can’t enjoy, so he’s not willing to get involved, but there are others that, so you can see there is the higher element. He can’t enjoy, nobody will enjoy. You also have that. The result of such false identification, oh no, excuse me, Arjuna played the role of a conditioned soul. The conditioned soul identifies with the sum total of attachments comprising of his own body, the bodies of his relatives and friends, and all their material possessions. The result of such false identification is that whenever a relative dies, the conditioned soul feels like a part of his own personality is destroyed. Arjuna’s situation was severe because he was about to lose not just one, but all his family members at once. In fact, he had to personally kill them all. These extreme circumstances resulted in identity crisis. Arjuna thought that killing his kinsmen was as good as committing suicide. From the purport, O Govinda, of what avail to us our kingdom, happiness, or even life itself, when all those for whom we may desire them are now arrayed on this battlefield.

A materialist identity is threatened not only by losing one’s friends but by losing one’s enemies as well. Both friendly and inimical behavior nourishes the false ego. Many great accomplishments are achieved because of the impetus generated by the enemy’s side. Thus, friends and enemies are essential for a materialistic person. Both are used to solidify the bodily concept of life and to enhance sense gratification. Yeah, because as before, you had these Christian priests become warrior, and they would go to the Crusades. When the Crusades were over, they didn’t know what to do. So they’d go, I mean, they got in Poland, a fort there, the Małbork, and a very big fort. These guys got in there, and basically all they do, because they don’t work, they just pray all day because they’re warriors, and they go out and they steal stuff from the locals. And then they go back to the fort, and no one can bother them. Like that. So that’s the thing. So the enemies also give them a reason to live. So they can’t function without their enemy. They don’t have a meaning. So you see so many times like this, that somebody defeats the other person, and now what are they going to do? Their whole life has been thinking how to defeat this other person. And now they defeat it. Now what do they do? So then, as a materialist, there isn’t anything else to do, right? You have to create a new enemy. So like that.

Verses 36, verse 36, 44 to 45. Fear of sinful reactions.

In verse 35, Arjuna asked, What pleasure will we derive from killing the sons of Dhrtarastra? Lord Krishna answered that killing an aggressor is not a sin.

According to Vedic injunction, there are six kinds of aggressors. One, a poison giver. Two, one who sets fire to the house. Three, one who attacks with deadly weapons. Four, one who plunders riches. Five, one who occupies another’s land. And six, one who kidnaps a wife. Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors. Bhagavad Gita 136 purport. But there is the thing is, remember when it says no sin doesn’t mean there’s no reaction. This is important to note in the flowery words of the Vedas. This no sin means you will not go to hell, you will not take birth in animal species, but it doesn’t mean there won’t be a reaction.

Does that make sense?

Yes.

What sort of reaction? Okay. The person kills an animal, right? And that. Then he goes to hell. He takes birth in so many varieties of animal species. And then he comes back as a human again, right? And then that animal has the opportunity to kill him, right? So now the sin is going to hell and being born in all those varieties of species, right? But now that won’t be there. But it doesn’t mean that the animal doesn’t have the right to kill you. You’ve killed him, so it’s only just he kills you. You understand? That’s why the dharma is higher than niti. So for following the niti, there’ll be no reaction.

Means in the way of sin. But it doesn’t mean that there won’t be a transformation in the material energy as a result of that. Because when the operational cause is applied, then there’ll always be the material cause, which is the transformation of the material energy. Does that make sense?

This, what he’s mentioning here is niti. Though it’s mentioned in the dharma shastras, but it depends how you apply it. In this situation, how Krishna’s talking is niti. You know, but is it your position to deal with this? You know, in other words, this is the thing. It’s there. If you kill someone, it’s not a problem. But if there’s you forgive or able to work it out, that might, that would be considered a higher principle. The Kauravas were guilty of all the above arrangements.

You know, all of the above.

They gave poisonous cake to Bhima Sen, set fire to the house of Shalak, stole Pandavas’ wealth, land, and wife, and were ready to attack with deadly weapons. Thus, they deserved to be killed. Arjuna argued that this is the injunction of the artha-shastra. That will be the element within the niti. According to higher dharma shastra, however, one should be ready to forgive even such aggressors. Quote, is established that there is conflict of rules in two Smriti statements. Reasoning must prevail in choosing the correct rule. However, in reasoning, the rules of dharma shastra are stronger than those of artha-shastra. Yajnavalkya Smriti 2.21. Because, yeah, Prabhupada mentions Manu, Parasara, and Yajnavalkya. These are three main. We accept these as our dharma shastras. But Manu is always the main. Yajnavalkya and Parasara basically give further details of application of Manu. And then I know of at least Parasara gives a lot more, at least in applying it within Kaliyuga. I’m not sure if Yajnavalkya does the same. So Yajnavalkya is saying if there’s two statements that are seemingly contradictory like that, then you have to use your intelligence which applies. But always remember dharma is always higher than artha.

That’s also why you see is generally when they mention that you don’t necessarily have to mention separately niti because niti is included in artha.

But artha is based on dharma, so that’s where they get the rules from. But how they’ll apply it, that’s another difference.

Arjuna failed to understand that Krsna’s single word stands higher than all dharmic rules and regulations. So now he’s taking artha and arguing dharma, but he misunderstands that the sanatana dharma is serving Krsna. Because it’s Krsna’s words who are the scriptures, so it’s Krsna’s word is the most important. So here Krsna is speaking on what He says. That’s what’s to be done.

So pleasing Krsna is ultimately the highest level.

Arjuna tried to cover up his weakness with lofty arguments. This is an example of improper use of the intelligence. Intelligence is meant to help one to advance in Krsna consciousness. The conditioned soul, however, generally uses his intelligence to rationalize his material attachments.

means there’ll always be some reaction, but it may be better. Means you interface with material energy, there will be a response. So if it’s according to sastra, then it will be always better. But within better, there may be more better and less better. In other words, by following niti, you’re not going to get to the heavenly planets, but by following dharma you will. Niti just means things are going to happen good here right now. Does that make sense? No, that’s not.

In verse 44, Arjuna, following his conscience, declared that the Pandavas are greedy, just as the Kauravas are. Although for the common man it is beneficial to follow his conscience for Arjuna, it was a step back because the supreme authority, Lord Krsna, was personally present to guide him. Deluded by family attachment, Arjuna mistook the righteous act of fighting for religious principles, the righteous act of fighting for religious principles as an act of greed.

Somehow that’s why I always appreciate the British concept of sentence structure over the American. Because British, you could have put two commas in there and made it a lot easier to read. But the American would say it’s not necessary like that. But then there’s always a problem reading it.

Yeah, so it’s always the thing is where it is. Because it makes sense on its own. I’m sure if someone’s very practiced at reading, then they’ll be able to do that. They can keep going and adjust. But the point is because the problem here is that fighting is what’s seen as greedy. So then you take righteous act and you’re trying to separate off fighting because Arjuna is there. But what he was thinking is righteous act, how you say, that fighting is actually just a, how you say, a further definition within righteous act here. So then that becomes a difficulty. That’s not understood. If there’s a comma, then you know they’re going together. But if not, then…

Yeah, yeah, mistook, yeah. So that’s why I’m saying the combination. That’s why I’m saying the British, then you can put the commas and it works so much easier. The American loves to make it as streamlined as possible to the point of not even understanding what’s going on.

Yeah, I don’t know. There’s something about it. They don’t like it. Huh? Save on ink. Save on ink. Yeah, something or something. I don’t know what it is. Or unless you do like Jayadvaita, you make three word sentences. You can make a three word sentence into a full paragraph. He’s good.

Yeah, so what they’ll do is they’ll rearrange it until they don’t have to use the commas. But then it takes on a different flavor. That’s the thing.

In verse 45, Arjuna declared himself ready to die unarmed in the battlefield just because he wanted to keep intact his false identity of a good moral person. People will say all this all the time, because it sounds good in theory, but they may or may not do it. He wanted his name to stay in the history as a hero who sacrificed his life for the sake of others. Sounds good, right? But he did nothing and that’s how you… No, he sacrificed by doing something.

His fruit of mentality is captured in the words, better for me if the sons of Dhritarashtra weapons in hand were to kill me unarmed. Better for me, right? That’s the point. It sounds good. Better for me if it sounds very lofty, but if you think, no better for me now. The conditioned soul creates a false image of himself and is ready to defeat it even at the cost of his life.

Defend it, excuse me, even at the cost of his life. Whenever this false identity is threatened, the protective mechanisms rally to keep it intact. In this way one becomes impenetrable for criticism. This specific feature of the conditioned soul makes the spiritual master’s duty extra intricate. The guru has to be sensitive and delicate, otherwise his disciple may turn into his enemy, because you’re threatening identity. Because basically the spiritual process means you’re giving up the material identity, accepting the spiritual, right? So in the process of trying to make one understand that, if it’s not carefully done, then the disciple becomes upset, because his material identity becomes threatened. He may become inimical. You see, it happens like that. So one has to be very, very careful. That’s why it’s said that one should only chastise those who are one’s students, right? Like that. But if they’re not, then they’re someone else’s student. You don’t bother.

Okay? Okay, so we’ll end here. And then we have this Destruction of Family Tradition. We’ll finish that tomorrow, and then immediately go into Chapter Two.

Okay.

Okay, so then afterwards, the essay questions and that, the reviews and essay questions we can get today, though we’ll finish this last part tomorrow. Like that. So that way it gives you another day to work, because otherwise then you’re immediately going to start on the next chapter. Okay? All right. Śrīla Prabhupāda, can you? Devotees chanting

Sign In

Register

Reset Password

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