43 Are some people innately bad – Gita 16.06

So today we will discuss the topic of the divine and the demoniac nature. This is Chapter 16 from the Bhagavad Gita. And what we’ll discuss is: are people basically good, and are some people innately bad? This is based on Gita 16.6. Krishna is speaking here that there are two kinds of living beings. In this material existence, in the created world, there are two kinds of people: the divine and the demoniac. Krishna says, “I have spoken about the divine nature in detail.” The detail refers to this being the sixth verse. In the first three verses of the Gita, Krishna has spoken about the divine nature. But earlier, he also talked about the qualities of the godly in the 12th chapter, in the 13th chapter, early in the 10th chapter, and in the second chapter when he talks about Sita Pragya. The 12th chapter talks about the devotees, and the 13th chapter talks about the characteristics of those in knowledge. So all those refer to his Vista Rahasya Propto. I have talked about this in detail, 254 to 72, 13 to 20, 13, 8 to 12, and 10, 5, 6 also. So, like that, he has talked about the divine qualities. Now, Asuramparth Meshudu, I’ll talk about the demoniac qualities, or the qualities of demoniac people. One significant word Krishna uses is Abhijatosi, which means they are born with these characteristics. So sometimes we put it this way: some people are wise, and some are otherwise. Those with divine nature are wise, and those with demoniac nature are otherwise.

Now, let’s look at these. We’ll discuss first: Are some people innately bad? What makes some people bad or demoniac? And how are they reformable? When we talk about people’s innate nature, there are different theories about human nature. We could go into many details, but in our chapter on relationships, we have discussed this briefly. So I’ll just mention it here. We have discussed it in detail. So there is one theory that people are innately good, and society makes them bad. For example, communism operated on this ideal, and social determinism is what they believe about human nature. Communism is more of a political ideology about how society should be organized, whereas the underlying view of human nature is social determinism. That means everybody is an influence of their society. So if somebody has become a brutal terrorist, why? It’s because the society did not integrate them properly.

Currently, in France, there is an attempt to contain the radicalization of Islam. Much of the Western media often only coddles radical Islam. You may be aware that there was a brutal beheading of a school teacher who showed some cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in his class. The New York Times had an article titled “A Teacher, A Killer, and the Failure of French Social Integration.” That title means why did this person become a killer? Not because there’s something innately bad with the ideology they were believing or because there’s something dark in their own nature, but because French society failed to integrate them. It’s possible, but it’s not necessarily a social failure. Generally, the idea is that people’s bad deeds are considered social failures.

On the other hand, there is—if you can imagine a pendulum—one side where people are innately good, and if they behave badly, society makes them bad. On the other side is the belief that people are innately bad. This is the belief of many religions, not just ideologies, but religions that propagate ideas like original sin. In the Abrahamic tradition, Adam and Eve sinned against God, and since that time, what is called the original sin has passed down to all of humanity like a genetic defect. Therefore, everybody is innately bad. Of course, here, Christians may say that actually, because we are made in the image of God, we are good, but without the saving grace of, say, Jesus, we will tend toward badness. We will tend toward evil. Now, both of these ideas have their utility and their flaws. Yes, society does influence people.

And some people, just from childhood, seem to be too violent, too aggressive. So the idea is that if we say that only society makes people bad, then what about people who live in a good society, who are relatively from good families, have wealth and prosperity, yet they also become evil? If you say people are innately bad, then the question arises: not everybody is equally bad. If the original sin has contaminated everyone, then why is not everyone equally contaminated?

So the Bhagavad Gita reconciles these two visions by talking about two levels of innateness: the soul and the mind. The soul is by nature good and godly because the soul is a part of God. But the mind, how it is, depends on the impressions.

Let’s look at this from a diagrammatic perspective. You can see here three levels: the soul, the mind, and the body. When we talk about innate nature, what are we talking about? If we consider innateness at the level of the soul, then the soul is always pure because the soul is a part of God. So, is everybody innately good? We would like to believe that people are innately good. And yes, that belief is vindicated if we look at the level of the soul. Yes, everybody, at their deepest core, is good. But at the same time, at a functional level, everybody may not be good because the soul is covered by the mind and the body.

The mind has impressions. It carries these impressions based on past karma. Past karma can refer to the karma we have done in this life previously or in our past lives. When a child is born, the child is not born as a blank slate. The child has impressions from the past, and those impressions prompt the child to act in different ways.

So when Krishna says some people are born with divine nature and some are born with demoniac nature, it means that there are people who have done particular kinds of activities in their past lives. Those who have done demoniac activities in their past lives form those kinds of impressions on their mind. And that’s why they’re born with a demoniac nature.

So, can some people be innately evil? Well, at the level of the soul, no, but at the level of functioning in this world, some people may have something twisted inside them because of which they may behave in terrible ways. So it’s not just that society makes people bad.

Going back to the earlier point of social determinism, it’s not that society makes people bad. Two people may be born in the same family—two brothers, for instance. One becomes a criminal, and the other becomes an upstanding citizen. Both may have the same upbringing, but they choose different paths. It’s not just social influences; it’s also individual choices. And these individual choices are shaped by the individual karma that somebody is carrying.

Also, if you consider the Christian idea of original sin, the problem with that idea is, as I said, why is everybody not equally sinful? Our understanding, the Gita understanding, is that people have different levels of wrong tendencies because of the different levels of impressions in their mind.

Now, let’s look at what makes some people demoniac. If we take the same graph and visual as earlier, with the soul in the center and the mind and body around it, we can see that the white represents virtuous tendencies—the good impressions in the mind—and the black section represents the dark, evil impressions. Those who are born with demoniac nature may also have some good, but it is very little. On the other hand, within them, the evil is much worse, much greater. And that’s why, as Krishna describes, their characteristics are arrogant, violent, ignorant.

You can summarize this as: they think they know everything, even though they don’t know much, and they think if anybody doesn’t agree with them, they will destroy them. So ignorant, arrogant, and violent—that is their characteristic. These are unhealthy characteristics. These are people born with demoniac nature.

In contrast, those born with the divine nature have much more virtuous impressions within their mind. These impressions come from their past karma. Of course, actions in this life also affect this, and we will talk about that shortly. But those born with divine nature are inclined toward virtue.

Like that, in verses 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3, Krishna describes the divine qualities. In their case, the virtues are much more prominent.

Now, if you consider the demoniac nature further, the whole 16th chapter could be considered a description of those with demoniac nature. So, let’s look at these descriptions one by one. First, they reject any non-material reality. Krishna describes this in 16.8 and 16.9: there is no God, no foundation, no ultimate reality. Therefore, they ask, “What is the purpose of life?” Once you reject anything higher, then only the lower remains. If we reject the idea that there is a God, then what remains is the world and the pleasures that the world offers. Verse 16.9 says: “What other purpose is there for life than sensual pleasure?”

And then they become bound by their various desires for pursuing pleasure. Krishna says that they are bound by hundreds and thousands of desires. Why are they bound? Because they have devoted themselves to the fulfillment of karma and krodha (desire and anger). One characteristic of this is: the more our worldly desires, the greater our worldly anxieties—immeasurable anxieties, even to the point of death.

Why are desires and anxieties related, especially material desires and anxieties? Because whenever we have material desires, we seek things outside. Not only do those things give us pleasure, but they become the very purpose of our existence. Without them, our life itself seems pointless. So when we become so dependent on them, and things outside are not in our control (we may like to believe they are, but they are not), we experience greater fear, worry, and anxiety.

That’s why there is great chinta (anxiety). So, basically, the first two verses talk about the worldview, about the totality of reality. Once you reject the idea that there is a God, then what remains is the pursuit of material pleasures. And as they pursue this, they seek money. And they will pursue money at all costs. Krishna describes this in 16.13 and 16.14, saying that they will do anything—anyayanartha sanchayan, anyaya (injustice)—to earn money. For example, he describes the common mentality: “This much money I have attained, and that much I can attain more.”

So, at one level, everybody thinks that way. But beyond that, what makes them demoniac is that they start thinking, “If anybody comes in the way of my getting money, I am ready to even kill them.” The person thinks, “I have killed this enemy; now I’m going to kill that one as well. And then I will be Ishvara.”

Ishvara means the controller, and it can also mean God. So, basically, the demoniac believe that by gaining more power, position, and pleasure, they will become God. And for that purpose, they are ready to even kill.

There is this ordinary covetous mentality—”ordinary” doesn’t mean it is desirable, but it is widespread. Everybody wants more, but what are we ready to do to get more? What makes them demoniac is not just their desire for more, but what they are ready to do to fulfill that desire.

And then what happens? They are not just satisfied with gaining ungodly pleasures by ungodly means. They also want prestige. They want not just prestige, but even the prestige that comes from religion. That means after they gain money and power by ungodly means, they may perform some godly activities. They may give some charity, or they may do some sacrifices.

They think that if they give charity and perform sacrifices, people will praise them for how pious they are. Some people go to the temple to take darshan—”Oh, I want to behold the Lord.” But some people go to the temple to give darshan. For them, going to the temple is basically a photo op. They’ll post it on their social media, and people will think, “Oh, what a nice person.”

Especially if someone is a movie celebrity—now, I don’t want to paint all movie celebrities with the same brush—but for some of them, they may do all kinds of movies with gross sensuality. But they don’t want to lose the religiously minded public, so on a festival, they might go to a temple and take a photo. People will then think, “Oh, such a nice person. They go to temples too.” For them, it could just be a show.

Similarly, people may perform yajna, but they’re not doing it for the name of God. They’re doing it for naam (name and fame). When they do sacrifices, it’s just for show.

In this way, the demoniac not only perform ungodly activities, but they also contaminate godly activities with ungodly motives. So, we could say that the demoniac ruin everything. These are very dangerous people.

When Krishna is describing, “Asoma maya hata shatru dhanishe cha paranapi,” meaning, “These people I have killed and those I will kill,” he could be referring to Duryodhana. Arjuna is also thinking of Duryodhana. Sometimes when two people are talking, they refer to a third person but don’t mention their name, perhaps because they don’t want to specify it. But both of them know who is being talked about.

Duryodhana had these characteristics. In royal families, sometimes there is envy about who is going to become the successor or who is more popular. Envy, though bad, is not necessarily disastrous or dangerous. But from that envy, what did Duryodhana do? He was ready to even kill his own brother. He was ready to kill Bhima. When they were just teenagers, he made a plan during a picnic to kill Bhima. He made a feast, but for Bhima, he prepared a special feast. His plan was to kill Bhima, or at least attempt to. This is the mindset of a person with demoniac nature.

If you consider the spectrum of human beings, we could say there are people with demoniac nature, there are people with divine nature, and then there are people who have a mix of both. Although this has been shown in a particular proportion, we could say that at the extremes, the number of those with divine or demoniac nature may be very small. What will really differ is the mix of both in most people.

Earlier, we talked about the black-and-white conceptions of spirituality. We also need to avoid black-and-white conceptions of human nature. Sometimes, if someone is presumptuous, they might give a Bhagavad Gita to a person and say, “Read this 16th chapter, and from verse 6 onwards, you will find yourself there. And from the first three verses, you will find me.” The first three verses describe people with divine nature, and the remaining verses describe those with demoniac nature. This is presumptuous. We cannot presume—and it’s arrogant, disrespectful, and plain wrong—to say that the people we are dealing with are of demoniac nature. Most people will be somewhere in the mix.

So, earlier we talked about avoiding black-and-white conceptions, but it’s important to remember that black and white is not always bad. When a child is learning, first the child has to identify colors that are radically different. This is black, and this is white. Then the child can start identifying shades of gray. The key point is that there are shades of gray, and there are a few people who might be very demoniac, or very divine, but most will be somewhere in between.

What differentiates them is that even those with divine nature may have dark desires, but those with divine nature fight against their dark desires. When anger arises, when greed arises, when lust arises, they try to restrain it. Krishna will later talk about these three as the three gates to hell, which characterize those with demoniac nature. Lust, anger, and greed are the gates to hell, and the wise people fight against them. They try to restrain them and renounce them, whereas the demoniac people fight for them.

For example, Ravana had lust, and he abducted Sita. He was not the least apologetic or repentant about the fact that he abducted a married woman against her will. He fought and killed, and not only did he die, but his entire kingdom was devastated and his army killed for his desires.

So, just the presence of dark desires doesn’t make a person demoniac. It’s the attitude toward the dark desires that matters. Are they fighting for them or fighting against them? If they are fighting against them, they are not considered to have a demoniac nature. They are considered to have a divine nature.

Here’s the corrected and refined version of your text with improved clarity and grammar:

---

There is nothing beyond matter.
So, we could say these people are pure devotees of matter. Just as for pure devotees of Krishna, there is nothing except Krishna existing, for them there is nothing except matter existing.

Just as those who are devoted to Krishna understand that Krishna, as God, has inconceivable powers, such people will ascribe inconceivable powers to matter. For example, matter, which doesn’t experience anything, somehow evolves into consciousness and develops the capacity to experience things. Somehow, matter, which never organizes itself on its own unless there is some conscious agency, has organized itself into this whole world. That’s fanatical materialism.

Now, if you consider science, science is in one way functionally materialistic. When scientists function in the world, they operate with the presumption that anything we observe in the world must have a natural explanation from factors within the world. By “in the world,” I mean we observe any material phenomena. In science, the term used is “natural phenomena.” If we observe natural phenomena, we want a natural explanation for it, not a supernatural one.

For example, when Newton observed the apple falling, he believed in God. He even considered his scientific study as searching for an understanding of how God fashioned the universe. “Oh Father, I think thy thoughts after thee,” he said. He would consider his scientific discoveries as spiritual insights into how God created the world. So, he was definitely not materialistic.

At the same time, when he saw the apple fall, his question wasn’t “What made the apple fall?” in the sense of “God made the apple fall.” He wanted to understand the material mechanism behind it. So, scientists are functionally materialistic.

Some scientists may be fanatically materialistic, but they are a small minority. We cannot lump all scientists into one category. Functionally materialistic is different from fanatically materialistic.

Now, why is science functionally materialistic? The technical term for this is “methodological naturalism.” As a methodology, science is naturalistic. This means it looks for natural explanations for natural phenomena because the idea is that if something supernatural exists, we can’t control it, we can’t model it, we can’t create anything out of it. For example, if God made something happen, there’s not much we can do about it. But if gravity made the apple fall, we can understand how gravity works, and we can use that knowledge to make airplanes and other devices.

Functional materialism is not necessarily wrong and doesn’t necessarily imply that someone is atheistic. Why am I discussing this? Because we want to avoid the temptation to brand everyone who disagrees with us as demoniac, or everyone who is non-spiritual as demoniac. There is a broad spectrum of beliefs. Similarly, not all materialism is the same.

Not all atheism is the same, either. Some people are simply atheists, while others are anti-theists. We discussed earlier the radicalization of religion. Atheists basically say that God doesn’t exist. They may say this because they have either never seen convincing arguments for God’s existence or they’ve had bad experiences with people who represented God, such as hypocrisy or arrogance, which put them off.

On the other hand, anti-theists believe that the very idea of God is evil. Not only do they claim God doesn’t exist, but they also want to destroy people’s faith in God and legislate religion out of existence. These are fanatical atheists, not functional atheists. So, we cannot say that all atheists are demoniac.

We must look at various aspects of their lives. Yes, they reject the existence of God, but that doesn’t mean they will pursue sensual pleasures in the same way as a demoniac person.

Now, do atheism and materialism intersect? Yes, they do. Both reject any higher reality. However, they are overlapping but not identical. Why? Because there may be materialistic people who still believe in something higher. They may believe in some devata (deity), some higher power, or even in God. They may think that if they pray to God, He will fulfill their worldly desires. These people are religious materialists. So, religious materialists fall into a separate category that doesn’t overlap with atheism.

Among atheists, there may be some who believe that there is something higher, something beyond matter, but they may not accept that it is God. They might say, “It’s just a mystery.” They may find the conceptions of God they are taught by various religions to be naive or intolerant, but they are somewhat spiritually minded.

One prominent example is Albert Einstein. Einstein’s views have become a battleground for both atheists and theists to support their ideologies. There are quotes from Einstein where he talks about God, such as “God does not play dice,” and other quotes that suggest he rejected the traditional idea of God. Both sides use his quotes to argue their point.

But, if we look at Einstein’s views in context, it becomes clear that he rejected the idea of God as presented by the religions he was exposed to, especially the Abrahamic ones, which he found parochial. At the same time, his study of science made him feel that there must be some higher intelligence, some higher organizing principle, without which nothing would function. So, he accepted that there was something higher, but he didn’t necessarily define it as God in the conventional sense.

The point here is that we should avoid using figures like Einstein to justify simplistic caricatures of people who disagree with us. It’s not always a matter of clear-cut categories.

So, as I mentioned earlier, not all sensual pleasures are the same. Those with divine nature may also pursue sensual pleasures, but they do so in the context of life’s four primary goals—purusharthas—as we discussed in an earlier session. These four goals are dharma (virtue, morality, religion), artha (prosperity), kama (pleasures), and moksha (liberation).

Dharma is the cultivation of virtue and moral practices. Artha is the material prosperity one earns through dharma. Kama is the enjoyment of desires, and moksha is liberation from the cycle of birth and death. When one fulfills desires as part of this system, it is not entangling. Sensual indulgence, when aligned with dharma and artha, gradually leads one to realize that these pleasures are not the ultimate goal, and one seeks something higher.

And then one will rise toward moksha, which is liberation.
So, when dharma, artha, kama, and moksha are present, life is sustainable. I’ll explain why it is sustainable in the next slide. But it’s uplifting because what happens? By doing dharma, one is cultivating virtue. Because of that cultivation of virtue, one’s sensual inclinations gradually diminish. Their sensual inclinations get regulated and eventually purified.

In contrast, if you look at demoniac people, they are often dismissive. Dismissive about what? Dharma, artha, kama, and moksha. For them, there is no dharma, no moksha. They dismiss the idea of cultivating virtue and reject the idea of anything higher in life. Because of this, they simply pursue prosperity and sensuality—wealth and sensuality.

Now, this is unsustainable. Why? Because if you consider the way the world is going right now, we have, for example, disrupted the environment in our pursuit of prosperity. Many of the ways in which we are living are quite disruptive and not sustainable. We need to move toward alternative forms of fuel, or at least do something to sustain the environment.

But what happens? Both the divine and the demoniac may pursue sensual pleasures, but the difference is that the demoniac sees sensual pleasure as life’s only purpose and will pursue it at any cost. Artha and kama are all they pursue without considering anything higher in their lives.

I mentioned that they may even murder for money. So, how do we know whether someone is divine or demoniac? One way to understand this is by looking at their boundaries—what are the things they will never do?

It could be different for different people. For example, someone might say, “My elders may do something unreasonable, and I might get angry, but I will never yell at them. I will not raise my voice against them because that’s cultured behavior.” Similarly, if two people start fighting, they might behave like civilized human beings and not resort to violence. That’s a boundary. However angry I get, I will not hit anyone. In every family, disputes arise, but when it escalates to domestic violence, it becomes alarming. At that point, we may begin to question if we want to be with such a person.

We all get provoked at times, but the key is identifying the boundaries we won’t cross, even when provoked. For example, someone might say, “I may get angry and yell, but I won’t go as far as to kill someone.” That is a boundary. Of course, not killing someone isn’t just about being law-abiding—there are many aspects to law and order, but the point is there are boundaries.

If someone kills when provoked, then they are demoniac. But again, not everyone who behaves in a materialistic way is necessarily demoniac. Even materialistic people have their boundaries. Just because someone is sensual doesn’t mean they are equally given to excessive sensuality.

I remember speaking at Amazon in Seattle, where we discussed moral relativism. Someone argued that morality is subjective: whatever people believe to be right, is right for them, and whatever they believe to be wrong is wrong for them. However, when I asked this person if there are things in the world they believe are wrong, they gave examples like terrorists, child abusers, and rapists.

I asked, “Do terrorists think they are doing something wrong? They might believe they are doing a virtuous deed.” Just because they believe they’re right doesn’t make it right. This is not moral relativism. So, they agreed that not everything is subjective, and some actions are wrong universally. Boundaries of right and wrong may differ among people, but we all agree on certain principles.

No one is actually a moral relativist. Later, an Amazon executive, one of the managers who attended the seminar, said that people have their boundaries. With respect to those boundaries, people are not moral relativists but absolutists. They have clear lines that they won’t cross. For example, in Amazon’s apparel division, they sell clothes that may sometimes be skimpy, but they have a policy that they will not depict children wearing those clothes, as they don’t want to encourage pedophilia in any way. So, they have boundaries.

Now, demoniac people are defined by boundaries that are extremely loose, or sometimes there are no boundaries at all. Whatever they want, they will do for sensuality.

So, if demoniac people will do whatever they want for their desires, what checks them from doing something wrong? Let’s look at what checks us. We have two inner restraints: one is the power of conscience, and the other is the fear of consequences.

Conscience tells us, “Don’t do this. Don’t do that.” If our conscience is strong, we won’t even consider doing certain things, and if we try, we will feel bad, and that will stop us from continuing. The fear of consequences usually comes from having well-developed or at least functional intelligence. “This will get me into trouble, so I won’t do it.”

These are the two primary restraints we all have. For demoniac people, though, these two restraints function very differently. In practical terms, they have no conscience. For example, Duryodhan, when it was pointed out to him that he had wronged the Pandavas, said, “Even if I introspect, I don’t see anything wrong that I have done.” He didn’t admit any wrongdoing, let alone correct it.

They may fear consequences, but that fear is only there as long as they don’t have enough power to counter those consequences. Once they gain enough power, they can avoid the consequences. For example, mafia dons who can kill without fear of law enforcement—they don’t worry about the consequences because the law is in their pocket.

So, for demoniac people, if they have boundaries at all, those boundaries are simply because they don’t have enough power to avoid the consequences. They are not bound by conscience or moral principles, but by their ability to escape the consequences.

When we hear about such descriptions of demoniac people, there might be a tendency to “otherify” them, to treat them as an entirely different species. But the reality is, there are degrees of demoniac behavior, and most people, even those who may seem far removed from virtuous behavior, have their boundaries.

So, child abusers, rapists, psychopaths, terrorists, sociopaths, serial killers, school shooters, and murderous dictators—they are often referred to as animals, beasts, or less than human. We may almost treat them as though they belong to a different species entirely. But it’s not that simple.

The same dark tendencies that exist in them, to an extreme degree, also exist within us—albeit to a lesser degree. Remember the diagram of the dark side and the bright side? The dark side is much larger in them, but that darkness is also within us. We can’t just label them as demoniac and see ourselves as good people. I may be a good person, but that dark side is also within me, though it may not be as strongly expressed or developed. It’s there. And if I’m careless, if I indulge in it without mindfulness, my dark side may grow as well.

We must avoid treating them as if they are a completely different species. It’s easy to say, “I would never do anything like that.” But if we look back at our own lives, we realize we have all done certain dark deeds that might shock us today. “How could I have spoken like that? How could I have acted in such a way?” We all have moments where we realize our dark side may be much stronger than we thought. It may be darker than we initially believed.

Of course, this doesn’t mean our dark side is as extreme as those of murderers, sexual predators, or tyrants. But we all have a dark side, and sometimes it can lead us to do things darker than we would ever expect.

We need to have a healthy fear of what we are capable of. Be terrified of how terrible you can become in order to never become that terrible. What does this mean? When we see demoniac people, we shouldn’t just say, “Those are horrible people. They are demons.” We must understand that if we don’t control our own dark side, we could end up just like them. That’s why we must be careful.

When we read the epics, such as the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, or the Bhagavatam, it’s easy to identify with the virtuous characters—perhaps the Pandavas, or Ram, Hanuman, or Vasudev Devaki Nanda Maharaj. We may even identify with the Lord himself in our devotion. However, to gain the full benefit of studying the scriptures, we should also try an intellectual and emotional exercise: identify with Kamsa or Ravana. What made them act the way they did?

While the situations in these epics may seem far removed from our lives, consider this: If we were in Germany during the Nazi regime, who knows? We might have become part of the Nazi machinery, either actively participating or passively allowing it. Would we have resisted? We don’t know. Books have been written about ordinary people who ended up committing horrendous acts. One example is the story of a Polish police regiment during World War II. Initially just regular law-abiding officers, they were forced to carry out Nazi orders, killing thousands of people by the war’s end.

There is also the famous Stanford prison experiment, where students assigned the role of jailers became brutally abusive toward the prisoners, even though the prisoners were also students and not criminals. Within days, the jailers turned violent, and the experiment had to be shut down. These ordinary students became capable of cruelty in a short time. This shows that even well-meaning people can fall prey to their darker sides under pressure.

So, we cannot stay proud of our purity or our virtue. We need to protect and nourish it because, in provocative circumstances, we too could do terrible things. We shouldn’t just identify with the demoniac people in an abstract way; we need to look at them and cultivate a healthy fear of our own dark side, which can be just as destructive if not properly controlled.

Now, are demoniac people reformable? Yes, everyone is reformable. The question is, after how long, and at what cost? They may have a dark side, but they can counter it. The problem is, they may not want to. Some people have lust, anger, and greed, and they see these traits as sources of power and pleasure. They don’t want to give them up. Even when they recognize that their desires are becoming uncontrollable, they may not know how to fight these internal enemies. When the enemy is external, at least we can fight it. But when the torment is from within, what do we do?

Are demoniac people reformable? Yes, but it is not easy. For them to reform, they need to change their mental impressions. Their conscience is weak, and they may not even know how to activate it. Some may not even want to change.

If they encounter highly evolved spiritual saints, however, these saints may help activate their conscience. We have the example of Narad Muni transforming Murghari, a hunter who used to sadistically kill animals. Narad Muni’s association changed him. But Krishna, as a peace messenger, went to Duryodhana, and he was not transformed. Ravana, too, was not transformed.

For most demoniac people, activating their conscience is extremely difficult unless they face a severe consequence. In Narad Muni’s case, he also gave Murghari a vision of how the animals he had killed would come back to torment him in the future. This vision of severe consequence helped. But sometimes, people do not learn from such consequences in this life, and they may only learn in their next life, where they are reborn with a better disposition.

So, when it comes to controlling demoniac people, we can’t just be assertive with them. To be assertive would mean to be aggressive.

1. Passive, Aggressive, and Assertive Modalities:

• There are three ways to deal with people: passive, aggressive, and assertive.
• Passive and aggressive are extremes, whereas assertiveness is the ideal.
• However, when dealing with demoniac people, assertiveness often requires aggression because mere discussion won’t suffice.

2. The Need for Confrontation with Demoniac People:

• If people have a divine nature, conflicts can often be resolved through discussion and removing misunderstandings.
• Demoniac people, however, don’t just misunderstand—they have malevolent intent. They want to hurt others.
• Thus, confrontation, not just discussion, is necessary to deal with them.

3. Social Determinism and Aggressive Intervention:

• Social determinism suggests people shouldn’t be treated as criminals or unjustly punished.
• While it’s true that minor crimes shouldn’t result in harsh punishment, some people may not want to reform and require aggressive intervention.
• In some cases, capital punishment may be necessary, though there are valid ethical concerns regarding miscarriages of justice (e.g., wealthy people evading punishment).

4. The Concept of Hell and Aggressive Intervention:

• Just as we have prisons for wrongdoers, demoniac people may face aggressive intervention in the form of going to hell.
• The concept of hell can be controversial today, especially given the descriptions of eternal punishment that seem incompatible with a loving God.
• However, it’s important to understand that in the Bhagavad Gita, it’s not God sending people to hell; rather, it’s their own actions (karma) that lead them there.

5. The Role of Karma and God’s Presence in Hell:

• Just as the law of gravity causes someone to fall if they step off a building, karma causes people to face consequences for their actions.
• God does not send people to hell with a personal agenda; it’s their own wrongdoings that lead them there.
• God is always present, even with those in hell, as His love never forsakes anyone. This shows His infinite grace.

6. Differences Between the Gita and Abrahamic Religions on Hell:

• In Abrahamic religions, hell is often seen as eternal, and non-believers are sent there regardless of their actions.
• In the Bhagavad Gita, hell is not eternal. Those who go to hell are wrongdoers, and hell serves as a “tough classroom” where they can reform.
• God never rejects anyone; He accompanies all souls, even in hell, waiting for them to reform.

7. The Purpose of Hell in the Gita:

• The purpose of hell is to help individuals develop fear of consequences and gradually reform.
• Hell is not a permanent state. People will eventually be restored through God’s love.
• The timeline for deliverance depends on the person’s free will: turning to Krishna and practicing bhakti will expedite the process, while cultivating vice will delay it.

8. God’s Love and Infinite Grace:

• God’s love is present everywhere, including in hell. He waits patiently for everyone to reform.
• Krishna never rejects anyone; His response is based on how we use our free will.

9. Summary of Human Nature:

• There are two views on human nature: people are inherently good or inherently bad.
• The Gita offers a middle path: at the level of the soul, everyone is good, but at the level of the mind, influenced by impressions, people can be good or bad.
• Those with a divine nature have mostly good impressions from past actions, while those with a demoniac nature have mostly bad impressions.

10. Demoniac Behavior:

• Demoniac people reject God and higher realities. Their nature leads them to harm others.
• They need aggressive intervention, not just passive or even assertive approaches, to be dealt with.

They pursue sensuality as life’s only purpose. They’re ready even to kill for that purpose. And they use religion for prestige, not for purification. Although there is this characteristic of divine and demoniac, it’s a spectrum. We shouldn’t label people very casually as demoniac just because they’re materialistic or atheistic, because we discuss nuances. There can be functional materialists, not fanatical materialists. Most scientists are methodological naturalists or functional materialists. Even among atheists, some who are antitheists can be called demoniac, but not every atheist. So this Gita chapter talks in terms of black and white, because a black-and-white understanding is also required before we can identify shades of gray. Before and after this, Krishna has talked about the three modes. In the three modes, we can understand the shades of gray within the black and white as well.

Then we talked about demoniac people, their inner restraint, and the lack of conscience power, but they have fear of consequences only as long as they’re not powerful enough to counter the consequences. Can they be reformed? Yes. But it may take a long time, and they may not even want to be reformed. For them, sometimes, they have to face severe consequences in this life, or they may die and face severe consequences thereafter until they become reformable. Then we talked about how punishment is needed for some people. For demoniac people, you can’t just be assertive in terms of talking and explaining things to them. Assertiveness requires aggressiveness. There has to be confrontation. Sometimes they need to be punished, whether by being put in jail or sent to hell. We discussed how hell doesn’t point to a God who is cruel or unloving. It is also part of God’s loving plan for everyone. The Abrahamic conception of hell and the Gita’s conception of hell are significantly different. Within the Gita’s conception, no one is condemned forever. Everybody gets the consequences of their actions, but they also always have the opportunity to reform and attain the Lord. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna. Sorry for going a bit over time today.

So, okay, it was ignorance, arrogance, and violence. Let’s look at some other questions.

Okay. A lot of questions. So, what happens to those who are in Brahma Jyoti? Usually, they are cleansed of most of their impressions, and then they will start over. Yeah, it’s something like starting from the beginning in the material world. Well, not exactly starting over again. They are still overall pure. So those who go to Brahma Jyoti might come back from there. If they are fortunate enough to associate with devotees, they might get elevated quickly and liberated. Yes, but generally, to go outside the material world, the subtle body also has to be given up.

Why is it that in Satyuga, there are more people with divine nature, and demoniacs are the lowest? Yes, that happens because there are two distinct things here: there are many universes, and souls can exist in different species at different levels of activity or dormancy of consciousness. Generally, if the souls of demoniac nature are in animal species, they will just act like animals. Now animals may also have some variety, like some dogs being more kind and others more aggressive, but it’s not a huge variety in behavior like the spectrum of human behavior, because humans have much more free will. So the souls of demoniac nature might be in lower species at that time. In Satyuga, souls in human bodies may be more pious and virtuous.

Is karma wiped out at the time of annihilation? I haven’t heard anything like that. Karma can only be wiped out by the practice of bhakti. The passage of time doesn’t wipe out karma. So, it’s more likely that in the more pure ages like Satyuga, the souls with demoniac nature are elsewhere. They are not in human bodies. That’s why the world can be overall with divine nature.

Okay. So the question here is, how do you differentiate between being selfish and protecting one’s self-interest? If somebody has been exploited in the past, when they try to be selfless but then are exploited, they again gravitate towards selfishness. How do we motivate them to balance it? I think this is something delicate. We also have to be intelligent. Intelligent means we need to observe when we act in a particular way with people: What is the effect? What is the response? Is it leading to something good? Say, if we help someone, like giving charity to a poor person, but if they use it to get drunk and then cause domestic violence, we aren’t really helping them. So we can look at the consequences of our actions. Sometimes the people we help may even turn against us. They might start demanding more and more or develop an entitlement mentality. Rather than generalizing from our specific experiences, we can learn from them. There’s a difference between learning from experience and generalizing from experience. Learning from experience means, yes, people can act this way, so I should be careful. Generalizing from experience means, because people act this way, people are bad. No, that’s not fair.

So, envision a pendulum. If we are naive, we might think everybody is good. But we can go to the other extreme, where we become cynical and believe everyone is bad. The balance is that everyone deserves the opportunity to earn trust. We don’t believe everyone is good or bad, but rather we say, “I don’t know. Let me give them some opportunities and see.” So, by giving people opportunities to earn trust, we deal with them as individuals. If we’ve been burned before, it’s understandable to be cautious, but we don’t have to be so cautious that we never get involved. Being selfless is good, but we can’t be brainless. The point is that we have to use our intelligence. We can try being selfless in small ways and see the result. If there’s a good result, we can move forward; otherwise, we won’t. That’s how we can maintain balance. Then, thank you.

Among functional materialists and fanatical materialists, which is more dangerous? I would say fanatical materialists are much more dangerous. Functional materialists, on the other hand, might not be as dangerous unless influenced by fanatical materialists. Otherwise, they’re just going through life. Most people in material existence are functionally materialistic. Krishna himself spoke in the Bhagavad Gita 5,000 years ago, and he said those interested in spirituality are one among thousands. So, most people are functionally materialistic. Does that make them bad or dangerous? Not necessarily.

There are a lot of questions. Let me see how many I can answer now.

For Kshatriyas, when they kill, they do not incur sin, but then what about the Nazis? Does that rule apply only when they are following their duties? For example, a policeman does not get punished when shooting civilians while shooting a killer.

Yes, this does not apply to the dharmic people, like Hitler’s stooges. I agree fully. Our individual responsibility is not taken away from us because of society’s actions. If everybody is robbing, then I may also be inclined to rob, but does that make robbery a lesser crime? While the court might show some leniency if a person grew up in such a situation, a wrong thing is still wrong. Just because everyone else is doing it doesn’t make it right.

So, just because society is engaging in demoniac activities does not make those activities right. However, people need to be strategic. There is no point in becoming a mindless martyr. If you don’t participate, the Nazis will just kill you. So, you need to be intelligent about how to handle the situation. Some Germans helped the Jews escape during the Holocaust. There are stories like Anne Frank’s, where she survived for a while, finding goodness even in those times.

If everybody is doing something wrong, and for us to do the right thing is difficult, doing the wrong thing may not be as culpable as when everyone is doing the right thing and we do the wrong thing. Still, a wrong thing does not become right just because everybody is doing it. Our individual agency and responsibility are not taken away by society’s situations.

In the famous Nuremberg Trials, many Nazis said they were simply following orders. But the Nuremberg Trials ruled that this could not be used as justification because what they were doing was brutally wrong.

Does this address your question, Athena? Yes? Thank you.

Now, when we say that everybody will be delivered, what about those who will forever misuse their free will? Well, everyone has the potential to misuse their free will, but that’s unlikely. Sooner or later, people will awaken. Maybe they will face enough consequences, or perhaps they will be fortunate enough to meet saints. Through this, they will gradually reform and be delivered. It may take a long time, and that’s why we try to provide opportunities for reform as much as possible.

Now, regarding the question from Param Karuna Prabhu about Lord of the Flies by William Golding — it’s a very good book illustrating how ordinary people can become demoniac as well.

When the divine fights the dark side, it means that one can either ignore or combat it. Sometimes, lower desires can be ignored. We just continue doing whatever we’re doing, and the desires may come and go. But sometimes, these desires start pressing us too much. When this happens, we have to find more active ways to defend ourselves, such as chanting intensely to fortify our defenses.

Sometimes neglecting the mind works, but it isn’t always enough. Imagine being in a fort where people outside are screaming and threatening you. If they don’t have any weapons, you can neglect them, and they will eventually go away. However, if they have weapons, they may force their way in, and we need to actively defend ourselves. In this case, we use stronger purifying activities such as chanting more, reading more, praying more, or keeping ourselves busy with positive, spiritual activities.

Now, there are questions about the conception of hell in the Bhagavad Gita and how to reconcile Krishna as a compassionate God with verses like 16.19, where Krishna says he sends people to hell. Sometimes when reading the Gita, we forget that Krishna is not just an abstract principle — he is a person with emotions. He experiences the full range of human emotions, though he is not controlled by them.

For example, when Krishna says, Tanaham Dushyataha Kruran — “I cast them to hell,” Prabhupada translated Kruran as cruel, and Dushyataha as envious. But Prabhupada uses “mischievous” here because Krishna is speaking with his heart, expressing his concern and exasperation with people like Duryodhana.

When Krishna says, I will cast them into hell, it is not to be taken literally, but as an expression of his frustration and concern. The purpose is not to send people to hell, but to guide them toward reform. It’s a loving warning, like when a parent says, If you do this, you will have no place in my house — it’s not literal, but a way to deter the child from harmful actions.

We should understand that some of Krishna’s statements are directional, not literal. They are meant to convey a truth in a more emphatic way, and they should be interpreted in context. For instance, Krishna says that everyone can be delivered, but it may take time. People who misuse their free will may face consequences, but the possibility of reform and awakening is always present.

In conclusion, the overall teachings of the Bhagavad Gita emphasize the possibility of reform for everyone, regardless of their past actions, and it is important to understand the context of Krishna’s words when interpreting them.

Thank you very much for your participation. Hare Krishna!