Today we are going to discuss the concept of Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti. So Chapter 2, contents of the Gita, summarized.
Arjuna submits to Lord Krsna, that is, disciple, and Krsna…
Arjuna submits to Lord Krsna as the disciple, and Krsna begins His teachings to Arjuna by explaining the fundamental distinction between the temporary material body and the eternal spirit soul. The Lord explains the process of transmigration, the nature of selfless service, and the supreme and the characteristics of a self-realized soul.” So these are all the topics that will be there in the second chapter. So verses one to nine are Arjuna surrendered to Kṛṣṇa and begs for guidance. Verses ten to thirty, Kṛṣṇa’s instructions on the immutable spirit soul. Verses thirty-one to thirty-seven, Kṛṣṇa urges Arjuna to perform his kṣatriya duty, karmakānda. Then verses thirty-eight to fifty-three, better than karmakānda is naiskāmya, buddhi-yoga, action without fruitive results. And fifty-four to seventy-two, by practicing naiskāmya, one develops the qualities of a sthita -prajñā, a person fixed in Kṛṣṇa, divine consciousness. So verses one to nine, Arjuna surrenders to Kṛṣṇa and begs for guidance. Verse one. Dhrtarastra was glad to hear that Arjuna was renouncing the kingdom. The word madhusūdana, however, indicates that Kṛṣṇa, being possessed of sweetness, madhu, will destroy sūdana, the lamentation of Arjuna. Is that taken from the Ācāryas? Baladeva, okay.
Commenting Arjuna’s so-called compassion, Śrīla Prabhupāda writes, no one knows where compassion should be applied. Compassion for the dress of a drowning man is senseless. A man fallen in the ocean of nescience cannot be saved simply by rescuing his outer dress. The gross material body, one who does not know this and laments for the outward dress, is called a śūdra, or one who laments unnecessarily. Arjuna was a kṣatriya, and this conduct was not expected from him.
In other words, the compassion we discussed, that Arjuna’s compassion that is there, we’ll see it come up again and be mentioned, is because he’s a devotee. It’s not from somewhere else. His compassion in this environment is coming because he’s a devotee. Now, being a devotee, then all these come up. But Prabhupāda’s making the point is, but it’s being misplaced. It arises because he’s a devotee, but it’s being misapplied.
Because it’s only for the outer dress, for the body. He’s worried about the family relationships and their health and these kinds of things like that. Because a war is not really so good for their health.
So this is the situation.
Yes, but the point is, it’s misapplication, then it’s taking the form of Mahāmayā. Because it’s illusion. In other words, the compassion may be there because he’s a devotee, but it’s not being applied in connection to Kṛṣṇa. Because Kṛṣṇa wants to fight. That’s one thing. The other thing is that compassion could come up in somebody who’s not a devotee. Just by their piety, by previous good work, they have the piety that they have that compassion. But it’ll still be misapplied.
Does that make sense? The point is that compassion is coming up and is being misapplied. In other words, care for others is coming up. Because otherwise, this is a very major platform.
The topical issues are always about some element of prāṇamoy.
Compassion for others, consideration of others, and all that. But what’s it based on?
It’s based on just modern concept. At least Arjuna is based on some Vedic principles. So it seems to be dharma.
Modern is not even based on dharma. They don’t even know why. Why you should be compassionate? It’s natural. Why is it natural?
If it’s natural to be compassionate and kind, why is that? People can’t explain. So if you can’t explain where it came from, how do you know where it’s supposed to go to?
Let’s say I come up to you just standing there and I hand you a plate with food on it. What do you do with it? Eat it. But what if it’s bhoga and it’s meant for the offering? I’d hand it to you to offer it. But I didn’t say anything. So you don’t know what it’s for. You don’t know, is this prasad? I should eat it. Is this bhoga? I should offer it. They just want me to hold it and they’ll offer it. Or they want me to hold it, then they’ll come and take it and they’ll eat it. You don’t know. So you don’t know where it’s come from, how do you know where it’s going to? So this compassion is coming, but he’s thinking of it as from dharma and this and that. But he doesn’t actually understand where it’s coming from. It’s coming from his nature as a devotee, so that means it should be applied properly.
He’s not understanding that. So, now what’s important in this also is to know, because we could say, oh, he’s a great devotee and then yoga maya covered him and all this and that. So actually it doesn’t apply to me. But the point is, why is it pointed out that he’s a devotee and these qualities are coming because he’s a devotee? Because a devotee can make the same mistake. That compassion comes up. But how will you apply it? Will it just be to the body or it’ll be to the soul? Right? Let’s say you have a devotee mother. Okay? And she feels kindness towards her child. Right? So that compassion is there based on her being a devotee. But now, how will it be applied?
Will it be applied to make the kid Kṛṣṇa conscious and bring them up in a nice environment? In other words, you take care of them, do everything nice so that they’re comfortable in the environment so they can become Kṛṣṇa conscious? Or are you just, they’re so cute and nice and then you just interact with the body and just try to please them on that platform?
Does that make sense? What’s the point of pleasing them and interacting with them?
Right? Like Arjuna’s saying, you know, we have to respect and please the elders. But why? Why do you have to respect the elders?
Right?
Pleases Kṛṣṇa. Why? Because it’s the principle of authority. So if that’s not seen, then though it’s pious, it’s nice, it’s misdirected. So you have to see the philosophy of it. It doesn’t change the activity as we see. Arjuna’s activity didn’t change. So it’s not that now the mother who’s seeing her child in light of Kṛṣṇa consciousness will deal any different than a mother who doesn’t.
Does that make sense? It doesn’t change. In fact, it should get better. Arjuna was good, but on the battlefield Kuruksetra, he was better. That’s not how he’s determined. He’s fighting for Kṛṣṇa.
So it will get better. So materially it gets better. Why? Because it’s Kṛṣṇa’s creation. Why? Kṛṣṇa doesn’t want His creation to go right. He’s made all this arrangement and done everything so perfectly. Right? And then it’s okay that we mess it up?
Why wouldn’t it go nicely? Think about it. We’re thinking, oh, it’s only going nicely because we get involved. If we don’t get involved, it won’t happen. No, it’s Kṛṣṇa’s creation. It will go on anyway. And it will go on nicely. The demigods arrange things very nicely.
So that’s easy. Now what is our part in it? Does that make sense? So the point is, it’s not that by practicing Kṛṣṇa consciousness, being Kṛṣṇa conscious, that the mechanical activity is any less.
It’s no less. In fact, it will be more. So it’s only thinking about themselves. It won’t be as good an interaction as if they’re doing it for someone else. And if you’re doing it for someone else based on religious principles, it will be better than that. Does that make sense? Someone who is detached from the material energy, their performance of it will be better than that, because their own personal motives aren’t going to be involved, because they’re liberated. And someone who has devotion for the Supreme Lord and sees everything in connection with the Supreme Lord, it will be better than that.
So this idea is that being fixed in Kṛṣṇa consciousness means the material won’t go nicely. This is also another form of impersonalism. Right? That spiritual means it can’t be the same as material. So therefore, if you want things to go materially right, you have to just be materialistic.
I wonder why that’s not called being fanatic.
Why is it so important that materially it goes nicely?
That they can’t explain. Verses 2 to 3. Lord Kṛṣṇa does not approve the professed compassion of Kṛṣṇa, Arjuna. Arjuna should give up such false magnanimity and act under the guidance of Kṛṣṇa. In verse 2, the Lord says that if Arjuna leaves the battlefield, he will achieve neither liberation nor heaven nor happiness on earth. So nothing is going to be accomplished. The point is this. Creation is there because it should be progressive. It should be doing something. Activity should gain something. Otherwise, why is there the law of action and reaction? Right? So now, by what he does, he’s not going to get any benefit. Neither here, nor in the heavenly planets, nor beyond that. So it won’t free him from the material world. It won’t get him a good place in the material world. And it won’t even get him anything good now. So that’s basically, you could say, useless. Right? So it’s not applied properly. Because if somebody’s applied properly, it’s at least minimally pious. Right? And if it’s done in the mood of naiṣṭhikārya, it should at least get you liberation.
Right? Otherwise, if it doesn’t at least get you some material benefit or freedom from material entanglement, what’s the use?
You know what I’m saying? What’s the use? Make sense? So, you know, this is Kṛṣṇa’s point. It’s not going to get you anything. So it’s pretty useless. It’s not even a basis to even start from. It means, okay, you’ll attain the heavenly planets. We have something to talk about. But why all that same work, you could get out of the material world and go back to Godhead. Why would you settle for only going to the heavenly planets? Same work. Right? But where he’s not going to get anything, why would he even talk about it? You know, it’s like going up to the machine, putting the coin in the machine, and the machine is broken. What would be the point? No, no, but, you know, at least we’re making the endeavor. He tried, you know. Why can’t you appreciate that he tried? Kind of like, but he tried for something stupid. You know what I’m saying? It’s like we’re happy that he made the endeavor. So that much is good. But that’s all you can praise. You can’t then give him the respect for having done something of value. You can respect, yes, he’s willing to endeavor, willing to try to get it, you know, willing to make that effort. But that’s where it ends.
Right? So, why doesn’t he know it’s broken?
You know, we’re talking about here, Arjuna knows what it will be. Krishna’s telling him what you’ll get. And he’s saying no. Right? Okay, there’s no sign on there, but the guy before you said, hey, I put it in there, the thing’s broken, don’t even bother. No, no, but let me try. You know, I mean, you can come up with all these nice, you know, how do you say, platitudes like that.
And so, of all these nice, they sound great, but they’re really useless. Because the point is, one should get a result. One could say, no, I’m not, you know, into that, that’s, you know, kind of, you know, materialistic. No, it’s practical.
You do something, and it should get a result. So the devotee does something, it pleases Krishna.
You know? I mean, someone who says, I don’t get involved in the materialistic, why does he do that? Because it gives him some sense of peace, or satisfaction, or a sense that he’s, you know, above the common person who’s just absorbed in the material creation.
They’re getting some benefit. No one’s doing something without getting a benefit. Right? Because every action gets a result. But now it’s just a matter, what is your quality of understanding what to do with that result? That’s where we see the difference.
Right?
Does it make sense? No? Kind of. But it doesn’t make sense.
Be specific.
Means what’s the nature of the guy you’re thinking of? Couldn’t follow the sequence. Sequences is what we’re saying is, now here Krishna’s pointing out that his compassion is not doing anything. It won’t do anything. He’ll get no benefit. So why would he be involved in something that you won’t get any benefit from? That’s the point. Even if the benefit is the satisfaction of benefiting someone else, it doesn’t matter. He’s not getting any benefit. He won’t get anything. So the point is, there should be a result to action.
Does that make sense? So even the person who claims that he’s not involved in the material energy because I don’t want to be, I don’t want to be materialistic, like the hippies. They don’t get involved. We’re not into this modern corporate society. But they’re being not involved in that modern corporate society for a purpose. They feel more peaceful. They feel more satisfied. They feel more connected with nature, with their community. You know what I’m saying? Like that.
Or as didgeridoo or something. But he feels some benefit is there. That’s my point. Krishna’s saying is that you’re going to get no benefit from this. So why would you do this?
Does that make sense?
Yes.
What benefit will he get?
But is that a benefit?
No, that’s a state of existence.
You act according to your whims. So then that’s called whimsical. Right? But that’s not a benefit. From the whimsicality should come a result. So I’m saying that the hippie’s not involved in the, you know, he doesn’t have a job somewhere. You know, he has, you know, they stay in the community and they grow some vegetables. Right? But they’re working. They’re getting some results. He’s doing it maybe by a different method, but he’s getting a result. You know, so that time and effort that he puts in, he’s getting some, you know, cabbages. And so they’re happy. The same effort if he was doing it in the city, then he would get some money and he could also buy cabbages and then he’d get some other facilities. You know, someone else is putting in the same effort and has, you know, a billion dollar empire. You know what I’m saying? So they’re getting something from their effort. So the point is this here. What will he get from his effort? You know, that you can be whimsical. I mean, if that’s your goal is to be whimsical. But the point is, is what is the whimsicality get? Otherwise, it’s just a little circle. It doesn’t get you anything. You know what I’m saying? So a state of existence is the platform from which you perform an activity to get a result. Right? So if it’s only a state of existence, it’s not enough. Right? Because the state of existence basically is, you know, defined by your, what do you call it? Adjectives.
You know what I’m saying? It doesn’t, it’s not, it just defines the noun. It doesn’t show what the noun is doing. There’s no verb. You know, so there’s no action, so there’s no result. So it means it doesn’t really have a direction.
You know what I’m saying? You know, guys that just wander around and don’t do anything, then that’s another thing. That’s also a waste of time. You know what I’m saying? Once you have a philosophy and do something with it, then there’s some meaning. But here his philosophy is not going to get him anything. Is that okay?
In the same verse, Krishna is called Bhagavan. Srila Prabhupada explains that the Supreme Personality who possesses all riches, all strength, all fame, all beauty, all knowledge and all renunciation is called Bhagavan. Bhagavan Sri Krishna is the highest truth from the Purport. Krishna and the Supreme Personality of Godhead are identical. Therefore, Lord Krishna is referred to as Bhagavan throughout the Bhagavad-gita. Bhagavan is the ultimate in the Absolute Truth. Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding, namely Brahman, or the impersonal all-pervading spirit, Paramatma, or the localized aspect of the Supreme within the heart of all living entities, and Bhagavan, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Krishna. In the Bhagavatam 1.2.11, this conception of the Absolute Truth is explained thus.
The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical.
Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan.
These three divine aspects can be explained by the example of the sun, which also has three different aspects, namely the sunshine, the sun’s surface, and the sun planet itself. One who studies the sunshine only is the preliminary student. One who understands the sun’s surface is further advanced, and one who can enter into the sun planet is the highest, Bhagavad-gita 2 .2 purport. So we’re establishing Krishna as the Supreme Absolute Truth. One is then we can see where is the weakness in Arjuna’s problem here, is that he’s not seeing things in connection with the Lord, because now these three aspects are there. Either it’s Bhagavan that he wants this to happen, or it’s Paramatma, what are the natural workings of what is your duties and everything, or it’s Brahman, how things are functioning, what’s the mechanics of just the interaction of the energies. So he’s not seeing this situation on the battlefield in connection with any of these. So he’s missing the point. It’s not connected to Krishna. And then, whatever he wants to get, he won’t be elevated to heavenly planets, he won’t get any facility on earth, he’s going to go to the forest and be renounced, trying to gain something there, some renunciation. But the point is that Krishna is the source of all these opulences. So whatever he’s looking for, it’s in Krishna. So now if he will connect what he’s doing to Krishna, then things will work properly. If he doesn’t connect them, then he’s not going to get any benefit.
In verse 3, Krishna dismisses Arjuna’s seemingly learned arguments as cowardice. According to Srila Baladeva Dibhusan, Arjuna argues back, quote, This is not cowardice in the form of lack of courage, but rather a judgment arising through consideration of proper action towards those worthy of worship, like Bhisma, and an act of compassion towards cousins such as Duryodhana, who will die by the blow of my weapons. The Lord answers, No, this is not correct judgment, nor compassion, but a transitory, chudram, weakness of heart. Therefore give up that weakness and prepare to fight, utistha, afflictor of the enemy, pranantapah, do not become the laughingstock of the enemy. So he’s saying it’s not cowardice because yes, I can fight, I can do this and that, but that’s just talk. The point is, if it was, then he’d be standing there with his weapons ready and composed, and then he would say, but should we kill all of them? He would say, hey, I came here for a battle with Duryodhana and his brothers, and now all my relatives and other senior people are here. Is this fight supposed to include them? He could be taking advice like that, but he’s already dropped his bow, and he can’t even function. He’s sat down. He’s already said, I won’t fight. It’s not because he’s saying, based from the principle, he’ll kill them and that. So it started with, he’s talking, and then I’ll fight with them and I’ll kill them, and then what will happen? But in the state he’s in now, he can’t claim that it’s not cowardice. So Krishna’s making this point. So he’s saying it’s consideration of that.
So, I mean, if it was really in consideration of that, then they’d just go over and request that Bhisma and Drona don’t fight, and then no problem.
They just tell Duryodhana, okay, we’ll fight with you if these two don’t fight, and if not, we’ll go back and claim our half of the kingdom.
Verses 4 to 9, Arjuna gives more arguments, but finally he realizes his bewildered condition and surrenders to Krishna as his disciple, because he can’t figure out what to do. If you’re not bewildered, you know what your options are. Maybe it’s okay, it’s this or that, but it’s dynamic, you’re analyzing. But bewildered means you can’t figure out what to do. You don’t know what to do. You can’t even figure out your options, really.
This is an important moment because it signifies that even a great person like Arjuna cannot solve the problems of life without the help of the spiritual master. The result of Arjuna’s seemingly learned arguments was indecision and confusion only. Mundane knowledge and material opulence cannot drive away ignorance and lamentation. Right? Because ignorance, lamentation is due to ignorance. So the state of existence is material. State is existence. The material state is based on ignorance. Otherwise, one is situated in the material energy, which is technically the inferior energy, or the external, the bahiranga. Right? It means technically it’s bahiranga, what’s outside. Right? And so it’s not conscious.
So the state of existence of being in this environment is that because one doesn’t see its connection to Krsna. So it’s ignorance. So we call it material because of the state of ignorance. Then it becomes material. Now you have someone who’s self-realized. They can understand that this is Krsna’s inferior energy.
So it’s another form of Brahman, the inferior form. And so there is no material.
It’s just God’s creation made out of, how do you say, inferior, how do you say, material. I would avoid material because we’re trying to keep it separate from that. Ingredients, you can say, whatever it is. It’s just because it’s not conscious.
Right? Spiritual world is made out of superior, you know, does that make sense? Superior matter because it is conscious.
Does this make sense? This is an important point to note here. Because otherwise, we too much will go on the external, which is okay in the beginning, but know that it will create problem later. Is that if we only see it as material, this matter is bad. But what’s bad about it? What’s bad about this wall?
You know, anything specific?
You don’t like the bug there or something?
So the point is, if it’s connected to Krsna, it’s good. If it’s not connected to Krsna, that’s what’s bad. So it’s not that, here’s a wall made out of, you know, elements of earth, and that’s a problem.
That’s not the problem.
Does it make sense? That’s not the problem. So the difficulty comes is that it’s not connected to the Lord. So that’s the important thing. So it’s the ignorance that makes it material. Otherwise, self-realized persons move through the world and they’re unaffected by matter.
Why? Because they don’t see it separate from the Lord.
So they’re not in ignorance. So material life means that one is in the state of existence of ignorance.
And in that state, then one doesn’t know things what they are, one will lament. Because one will think that things should go in one way, but they go in another way. Because material energy is like that. It’s just what it does. Right? That’s what it does. That’s what the material nature does for a living.
It just exists there so you can be in ignorance.
Because she’s not in ignorance.
With his surrender, Arjuna establishes the proper method of understanding the Bhagavad-gita. In the Purport to 2.7, Srila Prabhupada writes, Krsna is therefore the original spiritual master of the science of Bhagavad-gita, and Arjuna is the first disciple for understanding the Gita. How Arjuna understands the Bhagavad-gita is stated in the Gita itself. And yet foolish mundane scholars explain that one need not submit to Krsna’s person, but to the unborn within Krsna. What they don’t understand is that Krsna is unborn, and the unborn they’re talking about is outside Krsna. Right? His effulgence, that’s the unborn that they’re talking about. So, this is why scholars are not very necessarily, mundane scholars are not very much appreciated by the, how you say, the Vaisnava Vedantic mind. Because they’re not actually scholars. They’re intelligent people who have a good ability to, how you say, observe facts, maybe even remember facts, and see and analyze the interaction or situation of the facts and come up with some varieties of conclusions. But the problem is, like Arjuna, since they don’t actually know what it’s come from, they don’t know where it’s supposed to go. They don’t actually know the situation. So they’re speculating with something, you know. Does that make sense? You know, it’s like, let’s say I give you, I take a bolt out of a rocket ship, and I put it here in the middle of the floor. And I ask you, what is this? You could come up with all kinds of things, but would you ever come up with that it’s from a rocket ship? Or let’s say it’s from a 1940s Chord, right? Would you know that? No.
Chord? Never heard of Chords?
How about a stud spear cat?
No?
Model 2 Ford?
Model A?
A Mustang.
So how would you know it’s from there, right? You wouldn’t know. You could figure out, okay, well, this end’s a little fatter, and it’s like hexagonal and all that, and then this other end has these little lines on it, and it’s got this other one on it that’s hexagonal like the other one, but the other one’s solid and connected, but this one has a hole in it. And the hole is the same size as those little lines on the solid one. And if you put them together, you know, and you turn one of them, it’ll move back and forth. So you could figure all this out. But now, great, now you know what a bolt is, okay, but now what does it explain about its origins and what are you supposed to do with it, you know? So who knows what they’ll come up with with that kind of a thing, you know? Does that make sense? You get the bolt and you screw it down a little bit and then put it down there at that height, and then the bugs can crawl under it, you know, and then you can take it and pull it out, and then the bugs are caught inside, you know. Of course you have to put a piece of paper first. So, I mean, it could be used for so many, you know, activities, but it doesn’t mean they’ll come to the right point. So this is the difficulty in the mundane scholar, is Arjuna figures out he’s bewildered. The scholar rarely ever understands this.
Rarely is a problem.
Arjuna understood that the reason for his bewilderment was due to family attachment.
The family members were natural objects of affection. However, one should not be overly attached to them because this will turn him into a kripana, miser. The kripana is convinced that he is able to protect his family, and that his family will in turn protect him. This false assumption makes his life miserable and full of anxieties.
On the other hand, a brahmana who knows Krishna as the ultimate protector and well-wisher achieves peace, Bhagavad-gita 5.29. So, a few points important here.
This family attachment says here, the family is natural objects of affection because this is in the original form, then affection is there in the devotional environment because here it’s all in connection to Krishna. But in the material world, as a devotee, then there’s a connection to Krishna, but you’re a family person not because you’re a devotee. Is there any need for the pure spirit soul to be married and have a family? No. So that means there’s other considerations. So it’s natural for it to be there, but the point is if one overly emphasizes that aspect rather than the soul on the original aspect of affection, then there’s going to be a problem. So that’s what Arjuna’s done. He’s overemphasized the one and put it off balance with its connection with the Lord.
As we see, he’ll go on with the same family life, but the point is the perspective in which he looks at it.
Yes? Do affection and attachment automatically go together, or can you have one without the other? Affection and attachment.
Affection is, how do you say, an aspect of prajumna. You know, there’s some attraction, some affection, and these kind of things. It doesn’t have a need to be there. It may arise from the field, but it’s not a necessity. Attachment is a necessity.
You know what I’m saying?
Does that make sense? So the attachment is expressed through affection.
But someone can be, just by nature, to express affection may be there, but they could express it anywhere. You know what I’m saying? So affection is just something that comes up. You have a field. It means a field of activities. And in this field, let’s say, there’s a cute kid. And you see the cute kid, and they’re doing something nice and all that. So it awakens some affection, but it’s not, you have to interact with that kid. It would be nice, you know, if you go over and interact. It’s nice, you go over there and he growls at you and makes a face, you know, you go like that. Does that make sense?
No? Never had that happen?
Yeah. Make weird faces. Turn the eyelids inside out.
Make all these weird kind of stuff. Try to scare you away.
Okay. Then, okay. Because if you’re overly attached and you’re a kripana, that means you’re miserly because you’re not actually, the application of the nature of the soul is not being applied. Right? You can say, no, but he’s giving so much in charity, this and that. But he’s still a kripana, because what about himself? What about the soul? What’s the soul been given to? How is the soul engaged? So the soul is much more important than anything else. Right? If it comes down between somebody’s life and all their money, they’ll generally choose their life. Right? Because if they choose their money, then they’ll die anyway, so still you don’t have the money, so better, you know, take that. Right? So the soul is more important. So the soul is not actually engaged. Just his environment is engaged. You know, so that’s partial. So he’s still miserly. And then this point is he’s able to protect his family. So what’s the point here is he’s worried that he wants to protect his family, protect Bhishma, protect Drona, protect all the other personalities. So this element of protection, then, is what is distracting him, because he thinks he’s the protector.
No, he can be an instrument of protection, just like he’s an instrument on the battlefield for the fighting. So you can be an instrument for protection, but you can’t be the protector. Like that. You simply do those things that Krishna recommends on how you affect protection, and then you do your best, whatever result comes. That’s up to the Lord. So you can be an instrument.
Right? So the brahmana knows that Krishna is the ultimate protector, so then he knows ultimately everything will work out. Maybe at this point this is a little difficult. Right? But one doesn’t give up hope. Right? Does that make sense? You know.
Verses 10 to 30. One doesn’t give up protecting, like you’re out walking down the road here, and then somebody comes out and starts bothering who’s with you, and so then you get rid of them. So now you don’t think, well, you know, all this trouble and all this and that, so, you know, why should I be involved in protection? Right? Does that make sense?
So, same way as that, you think, oh, if Krishna’s the protector, and then, you know, things are still not going right, then you give up on that. No, it means something comes up, then you deal with it. Right? When you protect somebody, one, you try to create an environment in which things won’t come up, but it also includes that if things do come up, you take care of it. No? So the point is, if things come up due to our previous activities, why would we blame God if he’s our protector? Why did this happen? No, this happened because you did something wrong. The reaction has come. Now, it’s by depending on Krishna, you know, then you’ll be protected from that. But that it comes up, that shouldn’t be blamed. That we can only blame ourselves. Does it make sense?
Is it clear why this particular point of blaming Krishna in the variety of ways that we can, why I keep talking on it? Because it’s regularly done. Because of this, they lose their determination, their focus in being involved in Krishna consciousness.
Okay. Verses 10 to 30. Krishna’s instructions on the immutable spirit soul. Verses 10 to 25. The soul is immortal. In the first chapter of Bhagavad-gita, Arjuna asked Krishna to perform the menial service of driving the chariot. And now Arjuna wants Krishna to act as the spiritual master. By the request of Arjuna in the 11th chapter, Krishna reveals his universal form. But later withdrew it because Arjuna became disturbed and asked him to do so. I guess withdraw. Krishna answered all the questions of Arjuna. At the end of the Gita, he was ready to repeat everything again, just to ensure that his disciple was clear of misgivings and doubts. Thus the Lord was ready to act in different capacities as a friend, servant or master in order to reciprocate with His devotee and to enhance their loving relationships. In his commentary to Bhagavad-gita 2.10, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura writes, Harisikesa, smiling slightly, spoke the following words to the depressed Arjuna in the midst of the two armies. Quote, You have shown such a lack of judgment. Laughing at him as a friend, Krishna could put Arjuna in an ocean of embarrassment for his unworthy actions. However, because now Arjuna took the position of a student, laughing would be improper. Thus, Krishna suppressed his laugh by closing his lips. Instead, he slightly smiled.
Prahasanaiva parata. The Lord of the senses, Harisikesa, was previously controlled by the words of Arjuna out of love for him. Bhagavad-gita 1.24 And now he becomes the controller of Arjuna’s mind, again out of love for the benefit of Arjuna.
So, in other words, he’s showing such a lack. He sits down and says that I won’t fight and all this and that. And all these things, he’s making these points. And we don’t know which is better, you know, to kill or be killed or this or that. Krishna could have laughed, but he didn’t.
If you think about it, it’s funny, right? Here’s someone who’s trained in this and that and coming up and they can’t figure out what’s supposed to… He’s a ksatriya, he’s on the battlefield. He’s right in the middle of the two armies, right? And he can’t figure out what he’s supposed to do, right? He had been talking about this battle, you know, for fourteen years. He went to the heavenly planets for five years just to collect weapons from the demigods, right?
And now he’s saying, I won’t fight, you know, because of these other things. You know, why Drona and Bhishma weren’t there before or what happened? You know? So, Krishna could laugh, but because he surrendered to him just before that, his conclusion, right? Then, instead of laughing out loud, he just closes his mouth so there’s a little smile, right? Because, you know, that would be improper.
So, the way Krishna reciprocates by how you’re dealing, right? So, before, he’s the chariot driver, he’s that. So, he could say whatever he likes, you know? I mean, of course, you have to be careful, but… You know, or as his friend. But here he’s now the spiritual master, so therefore he’s dealing differently. So, Krishna’s… Arjuna’s always acting according to the relationship that the devotee is manifesting, right? So, this is very nice. It means Visvanatha is very nicely bringing this out, right? So, we see the subtleties in the rasa and the relationship that’s there, right?
Assuming the role of a guru, Krishna immediately rebukes his disciple for misplaced compassion. Says the spirit soul can never die, Arjuna should not lament. Moreover, the bodies of Bhishma and Drona were already old. Arjuna should be happy that they will rejuvenate their energies. Arjuna agrees with this, but he’s still miserable due to the pains of separation. He will feel in the absence of his beloved elders. Krishna answers in verse 14 and 15. The feelings of happiness and distress are due to the identification with the material body. They follow one after another and should not be the cause of rejecting one’s duties. Arjuna should therefore tolerate and fight.
Because the point is, is there the teachers and the grandsire on this platform, but that’s not necessarily the position in the spiritual world. Does that make sense?
In the spiritual world, Krishna is his guru here. So that element will remain. Someone has a spiritual master here, that position will remain there. The bodies won’t. The bodies will be different. Relationship stays. But what he’s lamenting about is the loss of the material relationship. Not the relationship with that specific soul.
Because everyone that’s here, then one will be related in the spiritual world. What the particular specific relationship was, that’s another thing. But what are we related here on? Related here because of the devotional service.
That will remain.
Does that make sense? The Prabhupada said there will be an ISKCON in the spiritual world. So that service, that relationship based on service will still be there, but the material environment, the material facility, that will be different. That will be gone.
So in the spiritual world, there’ll be a spiritual body. And what your relationship will be there, that’s something else. But the basis is that service to Krishna.
Does that make sense? Yes.
Yes. It means the particular souls, they serve Krishna together, they’ll be in the same environment in the spiritual world, as long as their goals are the same. And so they’ll be there. But what they will be, what forms they’ll be in, what their specific service is, that’s another thing. But they’ll be that friendship that will still remain. You know what I’m saying? But who your mother and father is or who other family members, that will change. That you can’t say.
Yes? No?
You know, this stuff’s real. This is what’s real, not what’s going on here. What’s going on here is the element of reality is only how much is connection with Krishna.
So then these things, it’s just the way it’s going to go. It’s his duty, that’s what he’s there for. It’s not that he’s just walking around and everything’s perfectly fine and they just happen to be in the palace doing some daily activity that they normally do and then suddenly now it’s his business to kill Bhishma and Drona. No, they’re on a battlefield that they’re committed to fight. He already committed to the fight and the lines are drawn and he knew beforehand that Bhishma and Drona were on the other side. But now it’s only… So therefore, in principle, there wasn’t a problem with it. But when he’s faced with it, then that family relationships, the attachments, that then became prominent. But before that, he didn’t have any problem. You think the Pandavas wouldn’t have known Bhishma and Drona were going to be there?
Yes?
I think this is after this.
Yeah, because at that point then they were determined and everything.
Otherwise then probably Krishna would have mentioned it. You’ve even gone up to Bhishma and Drona and asked how to kill them and now you’re not willing to… I would expect that something would have been mentioned.
I think it’s afterwards. Because then it was time for the fight and then they took off their armor and came with no shoes and offered obeisances. So then Duryodhana thought, oh, they’re surrendering. They’ve come to their senses and understood they cannot defeat us and now they’re willing to surrender. But then they just walked up to Bhishma and Drona and, I think, Kripa and others like this and then got their blessings.
Arjuna does not want to perform his duties because he thinks this would destroy his happiness. The jiva’s drive for happiness proves that his natural position is that of happiness. Srila Prabhupada writes in Beyond Birth and Death, the soul is part and parcel of the Supreme Being who is sac-cid-ananda-vigraha, the embodiment of knowledge, bliss and eternity. Indeed, the very same Krsna, which is nonsectarian, means the greatest pleasure. Krsna means greatest and na means pleasure. Krsna is the epitome of pleasure. Could you go up and mention to them that it’s not so important to make so much noise?
Krsna is the epitome of pleasure and being part and parcel of Him, we hanker for pleasure. A drop of ocean water has all the properties of the ocean itself and we, although minute particles of the Supreme Whole, have the same energetic properties as the Supreme. So the soul being part and parcel of Krsna, then he will have the same qualities, though they will be minute. The example is the drop of water and the ocean. The drop of water is very small, the ocean is very great, but the quality of them is the same. Because we’re expanding from Krsna and we’re conscious, so then there’s going to be… So conscious, that’s sat, there’s activity, cit, and there’ll be a result of that, ananda. So ananda is inherent in the soul. So the desire for pleasure, the desire to be happiness, that’s not the problem.
The problem is it’s not being connected to Krsna.
That’s the main…
So he’s worried about this will destroy his happiness, but the point is then you have to replace the show where the real happiness will be.
Excuse me.
Yeah, they’re trying to make some different thing for the kids.
And they thought that there was no class now, so they didn’t realize it.
Although qualitatively equal to the Supreme, the jiva is not identical with him. In verse 12, Krsna rejects the Mayavadi theory of monism and establishes that He and the living beings are eternally spiritual individuals. The separated existence of the living entities is not an illusion which dissipates in the state of liberation. Rather, it is their constitutional position. To the Mayavadi’s argument that the individuality mentioned here refers to the false material ego, Srila Prabhupada replies as follows. The Mayavadi may argue that the individuality spoken of by Krsna is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Krsna’s individuality? Krsna affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also. He has confirmed His individuality in many ways, and in personal Brahman has been declared to be subordinate to Him. Krsna has maintained spiritual individuality all along. If He is accepted as an ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, then His Bhagavad-gita has no value as authoritative scripture. Common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach that which is worth hearing. The Bhagavad-gita is above such literature. No mundane book compares with the Bhagavad-gita. When one accepts Krsna as an ordinary man, the Gita loses all importance. The Mayavadi argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse, such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Krsna to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great acaryas like Ramanuja and others.
Do we understand the position is that the Mayavadi will say that Krsna is talking about the body here when He says we’re individuals. But if that’s the case, then what’s the meaning of Him making the point that He’s a fool?
Because He is making distinction between Himself and Bhisma, based on the body, or finding the commonality based on the body. And Krsna has already said you’re a fool for looking at it this way, and then He’s going to say that everything’s based on the body again? That doesn’t make sense.
And if we accept that it is on that platform, the material platform, then that means Krsna’s on the material platform. So why would the Gita be special?
Why this? We could get a comic book on SpongeBob SquarePants. What’s the difference?
What does it matter?
No?
What’s the difference? If something is individual, if something is manifest because it’s illusory, then what does it matter, the quality between one illusion and another?
So why would you even need to study scripture?
Identifying a book as different from you, wouldn’t that be illusion? You are the book. Be the book.
Yeah.
Not bad.
Yeah. More ethnic. Bhagavad-gita, as I is.
Okay.
Right? So here we understand the technique that’s used. And this is very important in jnaya, because you’re absorbing the other’s theory into yours.
Right? Because if you just say one has defeated it, but it remains, it still remains, and then they can come up with more arguments. The point is, is that you absorb.
So here they go, no, but his argument of the individual is material. We can say, no, it’s not material. So that’s definitely an argument. But here, the first thing you go, even if you say it’s material, because that’s their argument. And you say, even if it is, you say it’s material. We accept it like that. But then what does that mean? That means then Krishna is material. We want to hear from some material guy?
Have you ever seen that on the top of the charts?
No. So what?
Material girl. It was.
Okay. So when you remember.
Yes. Individualism. Individualism. I see. This is some philosophy here. Individualism.
What do you mean by individualism? As a professor of the individual life philosophy.
How do you define individualism?
Over concern about yourself.
I think that would be called egoism or selfishness or self-centeredness.
That would probably be the most. That self-centeredness. But that’s whether you. That doesn’t. It doesn’t change even if that quality is given up or is properly engaged. It doesn’t reflect on one’s individual nature. It doesn’t change the individual nature.
Does that make sense? So whether one is an individual and is self-centered or one is an individual and is God-centered.
It doesn’t change that one’s an individual.
You know what I’m saying?
Does that make sense?
Yes. You remember. So when you speak about absorbing someone else’s lack of effect.
Does that mean that you show it’s proper place? You show it’s proper place. Yes. You show how it’s part of consideration in your argument. In other words, your argument is so broad that it already includes theirs. They just don’t. They just are proper. They’re not seeing the proper perspective of their own argument. So you change their perspective. So now it’s in line with yours. So here then we see is one of the methods is just you just take what they say. And OK, if we take that. OK. No problem. But then what does that mean? And then you show how it’s wrong. Then you bring it back and you show how it’s only a portion. Then you bring it back to your greater point that you’re making.
Does that make sense? So that’s where saying is we’re not dogmatic. We don’t even mind discussing it in that way. The point is if it’s like that, then why would Gita be important, especially for the Mayavadis?
Why would it be important if it’s spoken by a mundane individual? So that means all the Upanishads are spoken by, they’re all individuals who are talking. So all those individuals then are, you know, it’s not important. So, you know, so then according to that, then discussion is because of your misconception of individuality or your sadhana or chanting of mantra or anything you do that you would call spiritual is all because of your misidentification as an individual. So it’s all illusion. So therefore, why be involved in it?
No, but the point is, if they’re in the state of enlightenment, but then how is it that their form was still there if they were enlightened?
Right? So then if you do that, okay, even if we take that, what you’re saying, so that means there is such a thing as being in a state of enlightenment and still having form and being able to be interactive. So that means the platform of enlightenment doesn’t mean there’s no action and there’s no individuality.
Of that death, but then you’re saying that the state of Brahman existence in their pure form, that they, how you say, imagine it, or that would be the word? Yeah, aspire, conceive of. That is dependent upon the material arrangement of death, which is an illusion. That means their Brahman is dependent upon illusion. So that means their Brahman is not independent. So that would mean that there’s actually two, illusion and your Brahman. But you’re saying Brahman is more important, but at the same time that state of existence is dependent upon the material.
Yeah, Jivan Mukta is not possible. So if he is, then why are you talking everybody’s Narayana? Why are you saying only to the sannyasis, no more Narayana? Why don’t you say to that dog, he’s also Narayana. Say to this pillar in the Mola Narayana. Why don’t you just, you know, that’s all you do all day?
You know, huh? I would like to add to something. Yeah, something, I don’t know.
So it’s a problem. It’s very inconsistent. The point is that Jiva likes the concept of the Mayavada philosophy because, one, it’s very simple, right? It’s not your fault, right? You’re just here due to illusion. It’s not your fault. You’ve been produced by actually the material energy, right? And technically there’s nothing you can do wrong because, on one level, because it’s all Brahman anyway. It’s all illusion. So, and you have no emotional responsibilities.
You just do, you only work for yourself. Anything that people do, spiritual, is different from that. So, you know, you can, therefore, speculate in your own way what you want to do. And no one can say anything because it’s obviously spiritual because it’s different from people who are not spiritual are doing. You know, so how do you define, you know, what is sadhana for someone who is Brahman? You know, where do they get that from?
You know what I’m saying? So the difficulty is it just allows one to do anything you want, technically. So if, but the Jiva can’t, unless he is liberated, can’t function without religion, right? Mundane religion. So he will create one.
So then Shankara created it for, you know, those who had faith in the Vedas. So that’s your Mayavada philosophy. But for those who aren’t following the Vedas, the Buddhists, did any of the practices that people are doing now, was that given by Buddha? Other than the begging and, you know, like this, a couple of things. But they live in monasteries, which he didn’t agree with. What kind of, what is the shape and design of these monasteries? What’s the architecture? You know, where did all the Tantra come from? Tantra is from the Vedas. You know, where does, you know, how you say, you know, the purusha, prakriti and time come from? Why do you have to worship them? It’s all void.
You know what I’m saying? So all these things, these have been created so that they can actually live a lifestyle. Because as a conditioned jiva, they need a religion. So they create one.
Does that make sense?
So that’s the problem. They’ll create.
Yes. As a conditioned jiva, they need to live a lifestyle. So why didn’t Lord Buddha also give a lifestyle so they can live that? Why didn’t Buddha give a lifestyle? Because his business was to stop them from misusing the Vedas to kill animals to eat. You know, they were misapplying the animal sacrifices mentioned in the Veda, you know, just so that they can have, you know, lunch.
So that’s not, so it’s just, it was just distracted to get them to stop that. The natural thing is to go back to the Vedas, you know. But in the meantime, then they follow something else. Because what happened is they were defeating all these great Brahmins.
But a lot of the Brahmins that they were defeating were Tantrics.
And then from that, that got so much, the Tantra got introduced into the Buddhism. You know, they were very impressed. I think at Kamakshi up in Assam, there was some big pundit there, and they were very, very powerful, so I think they impressed them. You know, like this, so they slowly, slowly absorbed all these things.
But then I know this even started happening in the lifetime of Buddha. So technically, Buddhism didn’t even last the full lifetime of Buddha. They were actually not directly following pure Buddhism.
But the point is this, you know, that his purpose was to get them to stop misusing the Vedas. You know, like that. And then they’re like that for a while. And then Shankaracharya will come, bring them back to the Vedas. And then after that, then Ramanujan Madhu will come and, you know, bring them from the Mayavada back to Vaisnava. So that’s the process.
Okay.
Regarding the spiritual individuality of the soul of the Lord in the Taitir-upanishad, 2.6, it is stated, So kamayata bahusam.
He desired, may I become many. Oh, is that what it is? This self-awareness of the Lord cannot be the material ahamkara, which arises from the mahat-tattva, because the material ahamkara disappears during the time of pralaya. Therefore, this mantra proves that the Lord had a spiritual identity before the manifestation of ahamkara. Because He says, He’s one, that may I become many.
So only the mahat-tattva do we see that many are there. Before the mahat, there was only one.
So the mahat, what makes the mahat different from pradhana is the introduction of the false ego and the living entities.
Otherwise, because time is movement, so when time enters and false ego enters, then at that time, then the material energy starts to separate.
Because false ego is the catalyst, you could say, of the mechanical reaction of material manifestation.
Pradhana is there, you add false ego, it becomes mahat. You add false ego again, then you’ll get the element false ego will manifest. You add false ego again to false ego, then you’ll get intelligence. You add false ego again to intelligence, you’ll get mind. You add false ego again, you’ll get ether. Again, then you get air, then earth. I mean fire, then earth, water, then earth. So earth means it’s the maximum amount of false ego. That’s why the false ego is focused on the body.
So the subtlest of these, how you say, these bhutas, these elements, then is focused on the grossest. Because false ego is going to relate with the maximum manifestation of false ego. Does that make sense? The senses is going, you know, so that means, you know, the earth, water, fire, air, ether. Those things manifest, but what you see is the earth.
What you’re looking at is the earth. You’re not looking at the water element or the air element. You know? Does that make sense? Right?
Yes.
How does the false ego relate to the purusha bhava?
What does ego mean?
So what’s real ego? What is false ego?
Yes. So that’s false ego. So ego identity is there, otherwise how are you conscious? That you’re conscious, then there’s going to be an ego. You’re conscious so you can identify yourself and the field.
Does that make sense? So that’s the…
As far as the spiritual identity of the soul is concerned, in Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.339 it is stated, quote, The spirit soul is born in many different species of life within the material world. Some species are born from eggs, others from embryos, others from the seeds of plants and trees, and others from perspiration. But in all species of life, the prana, or vital air, remains unchanging and follows one spirit soul from one body to another. Similarly, the spirit soul is eternally the same despite its material condition of life. We have practical experience of this. When we are absorbed in deep sleep without dreaming, the material senses become inactive. And even the mind and false ego are merged into a dormant condition. But although the senses, mind and false ego are inactive, one remembers upon waking that he, the soul, was peacefully sleeping.
Sridhar Swami writes in his commentary on this verse, I slept happily and I was not aware of anything. But he’s able to say that. He’s able to say that I was aware that I was unaware. Right?
Sounds very Zen, right?
The awareness of unawareness.
This is to illustrate that the soul has an experience and hence existence during the state of deep sleep when the mind, the intelligence and the ahamkara are not functioning. This proves that the soul remains a separate entity even when he is freed from false ego.
Yes.
No.
See, God is eternally himself, his internal potency, his external potency in the jivas. Right? That’s eternal. Now, the point is, is manifesting that, that you could say there’s possibly a point in time. You know, it was on Tuesday afternoon or something, you know. I think Kali Yuga started on Wednesday.
They can say, they can say when it started and everything, the time exactly. I think it was Wednesday.
They did calculations. February 18th.
February 18th.
Maybe.
So it’s a matter of when the jivas are manifest. It’s not a matter of when they’re created. They’re never created. That’s why Krishna’s, that’s his first verse in this, is never was there a time when you did not exist nor I nor all these kings. Right? So that was the way it was.
Does this make sense? Like that. So it’s just a matter of manifestation. That’s why I get so a little bit too, basically not such an important discussion to try to say, well, where did the soul come from and this and that? Were they in the spiritual world? Not a good point is this. Can you understand that the soul was always there? All souls were always there.
Is that what all souls day is?
So the reference of the jivas emanating from. Emanating from. Because means, in other words, Krishna is the whole creation. So how will they emanate from?
You understand? How do you emanate from something that is everything? Because emanate means, emanating means you’re coming from the position of the individual and going outside of that position.
No? But Krishna is everything. So as far as everything is, he is that. You know, this is the kind of point where the jiva will have a bit of a problem absorbing eternal. You know, they love to talk about it. You know, the idealist is talking about, you know, this eternal ideal social system or happiness between individuals. Or the impersonalist is talking about that eternal position of liberation. But they can’t actually bend their head around it.
Does that make sense? So that means, as God, there’s no meaning of emanation.
Because there is no going outside him. Everything now is still within him.
Right? But the point is, is he as a person, they will manifest outside him as a person, as an individual, within a particular relationship. So that then you’ll have two.
But still, that is still within him. Right? Just like, what was it, Markandeya? I think Markandeya is when the water of disillusion came up. Right? I’m not sure if that was at the end of a day of Brahma or at the end of, you know, the earth. I think it’s a bigger one. It might have been even at the end of Brahma’s life. But then there’s this, you know, the waters of devastation. Because he’s Chiranjeevi, he’s floating around in that. Then he sees that manifestation of Krishna on a peepal leaf, on a banyan leaf there. You know, there sucking on his own toe.
So then, you know why he’s sucking on his own toe? Because the sages are always absorbed in meditating on his lotus feet, and they’re getting great, finding great sweetness there. So he wants to know what’s the sweetness that they’re getting from his toes. So he’s, as a baby, he sucks on his toes.
So he’s sucking on that, and then Markandeya sees him. So then the baby looks at him and opens his mouth, and he disappears in his mouth. Then when he gets inside, then there’s the whole world and everything, and he’s walking around. Does that make sense?
So that means the point is, as Krishna’s an individual, can interact with you, but at the same time, within him, contained within him, is everything. That’s why Mother Dashoda can’t put a rope around him. Right? She can bind him by his love, and therefore you see him in that specific form.
I mean, she always has form, but that specific manifestation is because of your love. So it’s only when he’s pleased with her devotion, then she can tie him.
Otherwise, they bring a full length of a rope, and it’s two fingers short. Now if they tie another such length of rope together, and then go to put it, it’s still two fingers short. And no matter how many ropes they bring, all the gopis go back to their houses and bring every rope that they have. Right? So you’re talking hundreds and hundreds or thousands of ropes, and they’re tying them together, and it still won’t bind Krishna. That’s because he is everything, but at the same time, he can manifest before you. So the point is, he expands to interact with the living entities, to interact with his devotees.
Do you understand?
Pastime zone?
Yeah, but they’re always there, but there’s always that thing of making it. You know what I’m saying? You know, it means, in other words, that process of cooking is always Krishna and his potency, but then there is the element of his potency manifested. You know what I’m saying? So Krishna is eternally there in all whatever there is, whatever possibly can be. So it’s just a matter of the Krishna and the living entities and their interaction. You manifest those elements of Krishna that are already there. That’s why it has to be in connection with him. If it is, it’s progressive, and it will bring you to him. If it’s not, then it will manifest, but it’s something that’s not, you know, you’ll be under illusion.
One’s ability to do something is coming from him. Right? Does that make sense?
Right, so then the false ego means that separate identity. Sri Sridharaswami’s pointing out is that when you’re in deep sleep, there is no false ego, there is no identity, but afterwards you can say, I was sleeping well. So that means the soul, the consciousness is beyond the false ego. And so, and he will understand that I’ve slept, not someone else slept. So that means his individually, individuality is there, you know, it means whether, whether there’s false ego or not. That’s the conclusion is that verse 12 establishes the separate eternal and spiritual individualities of the Supreme Lord and Jesus. The eternal individuality of the soul is further confirmed in verse 23. The Lord rejects the Mayavadi idea that the individual soul was cut from the Supreme Soul. Srila Prabhupada writes in his purport, the Mayavadi cannot explain how the individual soul came into existence simply by ignorance and consequently became covered by the illusory energy. Nor was it ever possible to cut the individual souls from the original Supreme Soul. Rather, the individual souls are eternally separated parts of the Supreme Soul. So even after being liberated from illusion, the living entity remains a separate identity, as is evident from the teachings of the Lord to Arjuna. Arjuna became liberated by the knowledge received from Krsna, but he never became one with Krsna.
So here is that the Mayavadis will say, well, how is it you have the illusion, oh, it’s covered by illusion. But where would that illusion come from? And why would the illusion create individual souls? Why would it be so consistent? If it’s illusion, you’d think it’d be a bit more random.
Why don’t you have very large spirit souls or different shapes or something, different interests? Why is it that they’re all the same?
And so how would the illusion create that? How would ignorance, because ignorance means that it has to be there before it happens. So we’re saying it’s all Brahman. Then if Brahman is always there, where did the ignorance come from? So that means it would have to have come from Brahman. But what would have been, as we’re saying, ignorance is the catalyst to create souls. What was the catalyst to create ignorance?
So unless it’s inherent in Brahman, then that means there is Brahman and illusion.
Yes? They say it’s immutable. They say it’s immutable, so that’s the point. They can’t explain it, that’s the point. They actually can’t. They’ll say, oh, it’s covered by illusion. People go, oh, OK. But if you ask, well, how would Brahman be covered by illusion? And then you say, but then where would they come from? Even the illusion is there. Even if you say the illusion is there, though you can’t explain where it came from, where would the individual souls come from? Well, they have to be taken from Brahman. But if Brahman is immutable, how do you get something out of it? And according to that, then how could Brahman be less, then? And then they merge back. So it’s not only then they’re perfecting themselves, they’re perfecting Brahman. So your liberation is actually beneficial. It’s so weird. It puts you in the supreme position.
But Brahman is enhanced by me becoming Brahman realized. So this is Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur’s point. There’s nothing so impressive as the most small thinks they’re the most big. The little Jiva thinks I’m God. That’s a real stretch.
This confidential understanding is a private domain of the Lord’s devotees. The different grades of non-devotees cannot arrive to such level of spiritual realization due to the envy of Krsna. So only the devotees can understand this. Non-devotees cannot understand this. They just can’t.
Because they can’t accept the supremacy of the Lord. And they can’t accept how they’re supposed to, that relationship with Him. Then it’s revealed. Because one can say no, but so many people may accept that there’s a God or this or that. But do they actually understand the nature of the soul? Those who accept God but have no devotion, what is their ultimate goal? Yes, to become a Brahman.
Because there’s no personal interaction. Paramahamsa, at least there’s some consideration. You’re meditating upon him or something. But Brahman, it’s just they’re not meditating on a person. That’s why our understanding of Brahman, we’re dealing with Parabrahman, because we see the person involved in the quality. Yes.
He’ll see the interaction of the qualities, but he’ll see the form. Right? Because unless one is convinced about the person… Now, you’re taking it from that statement where he’s just self-realized, but we understand also is that the only reason he agreed to take birth was, you know, his understanding of Krsna’s pastimes. So he’ll see Parabrahman, like that. So you don’t really have any examples of someone who’s actually on the Brahman platform.
Yes. Does Parabrahman mean seeing Brahman in connection to Bhagavan? Yeah, you see Brahman in connection to Bhagavan or at least to Paramahamsa. So in other words, you see the Brahman aspect in relationship to the person.
So others can’t see it. It’s just not available. That’s why Krsna… Prabhupada says in the beginning, the spirit of the Bhagavad-gita is that you have to at least accept that Krsna’s God and we’re His servants. Because other philosophies do accept God. So we’re saying other Vedic philosophies… philosophies… philosophies… I’m getting hungry, I guess.
They accept God. But they don’t want a relationship with Him.
Problem. So they can’t understand this. They won’t understand where the souls come, why is there, why the souls have been manifest. How do they explain it? That they won’t be able to explain. In verses 16 through 25, Krsna describes the characteristics of the soul. The Lord reciprocates, reproaches Arjuna for not seeing things as they are. The vision of the seers of truth is that there is no endurance for the material body and there’s no change for the soul. The fact that the material body has no endurance means that it’s not actually real. According to Sriraswami, because the spiritual world is real, this material world, which is an imitation, appears to be real. We should understand that reality means eternity. In other words, reflection in the mirror appears to be real because there actually is an object that’s being reflected.
But that manifestation, the person remains, but the manifestation of the person in the mirror, that’s temporary.
So Sri Ramana is just pointing out, it appears to be real only because there is a real spiritual world.
That’s why it appears to be real. Otherwise, how would you get a reflection in the mirror if nothing’s there? So that’s what the Mayavadis are saying. Yes?
That’s another thing.
That I’m not sure, how they go around that, but even just that there’s Leela, why would there be Leela? Brahman’s already perfect, it’s already the pure state of happiness. Why would Brahman want to have a Leela? For what purpose?
And then, if you say to increase happiness and all that, but you’re having to establish that there is thinking, there is consciousness, there’s that individuality. Because otherwise, to increase happiness, that means, okay, the Brahman state is nice, but when there’s individuality, it’s nicer. So then, if you’re trying to get to the topmost platform of happiness, why would you want to go back to there being no individuality when the manifestation of individuality is actually for happiness?
And then, once that point has been established, then you can always point out and decide, how does this, what idiot would want to have the dentist Leela or run over by Mack truck Leela?
Or, I say, dear John, letter Leela.
Does that make sense? So, why would that be important?
Do you all understand dear John, letter?
No, letter. I always love these things. You say something, and then some people laugh, and everybody else is very serious.
Dear John, letter is the letter that the girl writes to the guy when she leaves, and she just leaves a letter there. So he comes home and walks in, and there’s a letter there. That’s the dear John, letter.
So why would Brahman come here to experience that Leela?
You already have Brahmananda, why would you come here for that? And that’s why they become a Mayavadi sannyasi, because they got tired of all that.
Right? So it doesn’t make sense, that’s the whole point. Unless they’re devotees, they can’t really understand, because they’re motivated by their desire to control and enjoy. The purusha bhava doesn’t go away, that’s the thing. And all the bogus philosophies, the Vedic philosophies, and then their natural reflection into the broader, non-Vedic concept, is that all of them, false ego remains.
False ego remains of I am the controller and enjoyer. Maybe the gross false ego goes, but that I am the controller and enjoyer remains. So even up to, you know, all the ones that have liberation as their goal, you know, even the Uttara Vimamsa that’s being interpreted by Shankara, still that idea I’m the controller and enjoyer remains.
Yeah, because the point is, is that they want to enjoy merging with the Supreme Lord. So then, it’s not about, God will be happy if I merge into Him. You know, and even the Mayavadis, why are they going back to the Brahman? Why are they trying to merge back into the Brahman? Brahman will be happy. Brahman missed them. Brahman will be feeling so much better if I go back.
You understand? But that’s not what’s happening. They’re only interested in their happiness that they’ll get by merging in Brahman. And it’s still about who’s the controller and enjoyer. I follow this sadhana. I will merge back into the Brahman. I will be happy. I will be the enjoyer.
Does that make sense?
Yes. What do Mayavad philosophers, those who are practitioners of the Mayavad philosophy, what do they achieve as a result of that? According to Isopanisad, they go to hell.
Mayavadis will never become liberated. Never. They can’t. Their system is so faulty. Because they don’t accept, that’s why they’re called Mayavadi. Because anything you see is illusion. So their philosophy is the point of illusion.
So that’s how it goes. We were discussing it before, Vivartavada and Parinamavada. I can’t remember which is which. Yeah, Mayavadis, because they’re useless. See, a Brahmavadi accepts God, but only in the feature of Brahman. See, a Mayavadi will say this is illusion. A Brahmavadi will say it’s Brahman.
So what’s true? Is this illusion or is this Brahman? It’s Brahman. It’s an illusion to think this Brahman is not connected to the Supreme Brahman.
That’s where the illusion is, but the wall exists.
So how can you get anywhere in such ignorance?
That’s the fun part about Maya. You can be so smart, but not be getting anywhere.
Like modern scientists, they’re so smart, but their consciousness does not go beyond anamoy. Just the senses in contact with the sense objects. That is their whole science.
You would think that they’re so intelligent they’d be able to work on a higher platform.
They’ll claim they’re working with pure intelligence, but they’re not, because their intelligence has to be in contact with the senses. And that’s their evidence. That’s their authority. I can see it, therefore it exists.
Einstein comes up with the, what is it? He predicted protons or quarks or some of those little things flying around. But they never saw it. They didn’t have the, what do you call it? Any instruments that you could tell it was there. And so more recently they have understood they’re there. But it was something he came up with, who knows, 20, 30, 40, 50 years before. But it won’t be considered as a fact until they’ve seen it. But mathematically you could calculate it.
So for us it’s that subtle, that’s the origin. You hear from that, you accept that as authority. Then you apply it into your life and you see it. But they do the other way around. Does that make sense? So that’s why, even though they’re so smart, that technically their consciousness is no more developed than a child. Everything they see goes in their mouth. Now everything they see goes under an ion microscope or something, that’s all. That’s the only difference. It’s more sophisticated, their consciousness of the senses. The child is very undeveloped, but still the consciousness of the two is exactly the same.
So this is the fun. That’s why we all speak so strongly about the modern academics.
Because of these points, they can’t get beyond basically the gross body, the senses and the mind, even the intelligence. They can never get beyond these things. Their ego is still involved, though they talk subjective, objective, and they say that they’re objective and let’s say we’d be subjective. But they’re way more subjective than we are, because they are unable to go beyond their own false ego.
So we’re able to accept an authority beyond, but they can’t. They are the authority.
The soul is real because it is indestructible, unbreakable, immovable, invisible and inconceivable. Those in knowledge know that the self neither slays nor is slain, and the change of body is equal to changing dress. Arjuna should not lament because his beloved preceptors cannot be killed, nor their material bodies be saved.
So whatever is happening, the soul is technically not doing. The soul is desiring to be involved in it, therefore the results of it comes to the soul. But the soul actually is not doing the activity. Because the soul is not the body, the body did the activity, so the soul doesn’t do the activity.
Does that make sense? But because the soul identifies with that body or identifies with the activity, therefore the results of that activity go to him. So that’s karma. But if you don’t identify with the body and the body is engaged in service to Krishna, so all those activities, you don’t see I’m doing it, therefore there’s no false ego. At the same time, the results of it are for Krishna, so there’s no material reaction, there’s only spiritual result. So the result of you seeing it in relationship to Krishna, being involved in it for the pleasure of Krishna, therefore you get the benefit of having pleased Krishna. But if you see in relation to it that the result is for you to enjoy, then the material reaction comes to you, and that’s karma.
It means you’ve done the thing, you’ll get an immediate result, but there’s also going to be future results. But the devotee does something, you get the immediate result, there is no future results on the material platform. So the devotee keeps performing his activities, then that karma just disappears. There’s no new karma, so it just starts disappearing. There are no new environments.
You had a question?
Okay. So then we’ll continue with this twenty-six to thirty tomorrow.
Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare,
