Bhagavad Gita Overview Chapter 13

Jai Shri Krishna, Chaitanya Prabhu, Nityaananda, Shriya Dvaita Gathara, Shrivaasadhi Gauda Bhaktabhinda
Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare
Jai Shrivaasadhi Gauda Bhaktabhinda
Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare
Hare Krishna

So, we continue our discussion on the Bhagavad Gita and we are moving to Chapter 13 now. As I have mentioned before, the Gita is more of a natural conversation. The structure that is seen in the Gita is something that is discerned by the readers and the commentators.

Technically speaking, or structurally speaking, from the 13th chapter onwards until the 18th chapter, it is called the Jnana section of the Gita. Now, if we consider what Krishna is doing, we consider the path of Karma Yoga, the path of Jnana Yoga, and the path of Bhakti Yoga. The way Krishna is developing the thought is from Karma Yoga to Bhakti Yoga in chapters 1 to 6. Then there is the discussion of Bhakti Yoga in chapters 7 to 12, and from chapters 13 to 18, it transitions from Jnana Yoga to Bhakti Yoga. Krishna talks about Jnana Yoga but concludes the discussion in Bhakti Yoga.

Now, why does Krishna talk about Jnana Yoga? As I said, Krishna doesn’t start by thinking that, or this Gita doesn’t start with the plan that we will be discussing all these parts. It is the questions that Arjuna asks that bring these topics up.

At the start of the 13th chapter, Arjuna brings in certain terms and asks for the meanings of those terms. When he asks for the meanings, at least some of them are terms that have never been mentioned before. For example, Arjuna uses six broad terms. He uses Kshetra and Kshetra Jnana, Prakriti and Purusha, and Jnana and Jeya. So, he asks for the meanings of these six terms.

Now, when he is asking the meaning of these six terms, at least these two terms have never been mentioned before. Even Jeya is not mentioned. Prakriti, Purusha, and Jnana are natural terms in the Sanskrit vocabulary. So, why is Arjuna suddenly asking for the meanings of terms that have not been discussed before? One reason is because he is focused on understanding Krishna’s worldview.

See, knowledge—whenever our knowledge increases—is not that if I have some old knowledge and then I gain some new knowledge, these two pieces of knowledge are existing in just two different headspaces without much connection. That doesn’t bring a holistic sense of wholeness or integrity. There has to be a connection; we can’t just have two units of information for them to be useful. Our old knowledge has to be somehow connected with the new knowledge. The new knowledge may build on the older knowledge.

This means, say, if we study something about physics in the first year of engineering, then we study something more about physics in the second year. We are building on the previous knowledge. Sometimes, the relationship between new knowledge and old knowledge is a linear build-up. But sometimes, the new knowledge may also be that it is a bigger worldview within which the old knowledge fits in. It’s not so much a build-up, but a bigger picture that accommodates the smaller picture.

Now, sometimes it could also be that the new knowledge we gain involves the rejection of some old knowledge. So, learning to some extent also involves a certain level of unlearning. We unlearn some things and then we learn the link between the old and the new. This especially happens in our views on politics or opinions about people. For example, we might think someone is a rude person. Over time, we realize that maybe this person is not really rude. We were hasty in our judgment. Yes, this person sometimes behaves rudely, but perhaps something else is going on.

In one sense, when we gain new knowledge, we try to fit it or bring it into connection, not just connection, but harmony with our previous knowledge. For example, let me take a simple example. Say a doctor is sick and we go to the doctor, and the doctor prescribes some antibiotics. If we’ve heard that these antibiotics have a lot of side effects, we may initially refuse to take them. But then the doctor may explain, “Yes, there are side effects, but they happen only in these specific cases. In these other cases, there are no side effects.”

Or, if they happen, we have this kind of medicine to counter it. So, what is happening is that we may still find that the previous knowledge was not entirely wrong; it was more incomplete.

What is happening here is that Arjuna lives in a spiritual culture, and by living in that spiritual culture, he has also heard about the Jnana worldview. He has heard different sages talk about that worldview, within which they have talked about these terms.

So when Arjuna is asking about the terms, his interest is not in the dictionary meanings of those terms. The Bhagavad Gita is spoken on the battlefield. Arjuna is not interested in knowing what the definition of this term is or that term is. The terms point to the underlying worldview — how does that worldview fit into what Krishna has taught now?

That’s why, when Arjuna asks very specific questions, Krishna’s answers are not focused so much on specific explanations of the terms. Krishna is focusing not on technical dictionary meanings but on the essential worldview that is there. And he addresses that worldview. With that understanding, let’s move forward.

One of the challenges in understanding the Bhagavad Gita is that the Gita is spoken at a particular time. While the Gita’s message has two aspects, one is timeless, and the other is timely. “Timely” means it was spoken at a particular time. So we could say there is a universal aspect to the Gita’s message and a contextual aspect.

For example, now we are discussing the Gita. I may give some examples from cricket, but maybe a thousand years from now, the game of cricket has become extinct. At that time, if someone wants to understand what’s going on here — what is this cricket thing? What is the sixer? What is the boundary? — they may not understand it. There are certain contextual aspects.

Some of the contextual aspects may be important for understanding the core concept, but some may not be contextual, though they may be a part of what the audience already knows. For example, when we teach the Bhagavad Gita in our temples through courses like Discover Yourself, Genius and Discovery, or Essence of Bhagavad Gita, we may talk about the existence of God. However, the Gita doesn’t have to talk about the existence of God because that is not the issue for Arjuna. He doesn’t doubt the existence of God. In fact, it’s not that Krishna actually proves the existence of the soul so much as he explains the characteristics of the soul. Based on these characteristics, he shows that the soul is different from the body and the soul is eternal.

What happens is that there is Gita knowledge, and for us to reach that knowledge, we may need some pre-Gita knowledge. For example, let’s take at least three concepts: existence, rationality, and soul. Rational is the adjective; rationality is the noun. Concepts like soul, God, and Karma are not logically proven by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita because Arjuna does not need that proof. But we, as readers, may need those things. Is this point clear?

So, in the contextual knowledge, some things may be irrelevant to us, but some may be relevant. For example, Krishna tells Arjuna to fight. Now, that is contextual. Is that relevant for us? A physical fight against someone is not relevant for us. It is contextual but not relevant. However, a metaphorical fight against our lower desires and impurities of the mind is relevant.

The Gita talks about literal fighting, which is contextual. It’s important because it’s part of the Gita, but it’s not relevant for us today. Some things are more relevant than others. In the Sankhya worldview, there are certain concepts that are more relevant than others, and we will focus on those concepts. This forms the entire worldview itself. Krishna will explain how the Bhakti worldview integrates the Sankhya worldview.

Sankhya and Jnana are terms that are sometimes used interchangeably — not always, but often. Sankhya literally comes from the word Sankhya, which means number or count. As a noun, it means number; as a verb, it means count. Basically, what the Sankhya worldview does is analyze the world and break it down into its component elements. In the 30th chapter, Krishna will talk about the 24 elements that are part of the Sankhya worldview.

The idea is that when we break something down into its components, we can get a better understanding of it. In Sankhya, the purpose of breaking things down is similar to science. In science, we break things down into atoms and molecules, which are further broken down into subatomic particles. While the methods of Sankhya and science have some similarities, the purpose is different. In science, the purpose of breaking down is to gain power — to control.

For example, if you understand the laws of gravity and motion, you can use that understanding to create technology and bend the world to your will. In Sankhya, however, the purpose of breaking down is to let go — it is about detachment. Jnana and Vairagya (detachment) are traditionally associated together. The more we gain knowledge about the nature of the world, the more we develop detachment.

Unfortunately, science doesn’t lead to Vairagya; it often leads to Raga (attachment). This isn’t always the case, but it’s the tendency because the focus of science is largely on developing technology to gain control. For example, technology leads to more and more entertainment, which increases our attachment to material things.

In one sense, Sankhya and science share a similar method, but their purpose is the opposite. Science focuses on gaining control over the world, while Sankhya focuses on detachment from it. Science is sophisticated and involves mathematics, which is a key part of its methodology, whereas Sankhya doesn’t involve mathematics as much. There are significant differences, but broadly speaking, their methods are similar.

So Arjuna wants to know about this worldview, and Krishna starts explaining briefly about the terms. He then moves on to focus on the worldview. This is a more technical section of the chapter, and in fact, the 30th chapter is one of the most technical chapters in the entire Gita. I will skip over many of the technicalities and focus on the key principles. Let’s take a look at this.

Here’s the corrected and clearer version of your transcript, divided into appropriate sections:

Let us look at the first term and how we explain it.

Sri Bhagavan Vacha
Idam Shariram Kaunteya — This body of Arjuna, or Kaunteya (son of Kunti), what is it?
Kshetram Ittyabhidiyate — It is known to be the Kshetra (field).
Idam Shariram Kaunteya
Kshetram Ittyabhidiyate
Etadhyo Vetti — One who knows this,
Tam Prahu — That is known as the Kshetragya (knower of the field).
That one who knows the body is the Kshetragya.
Etadhyo Vetti Tam Prahu
Kshetragya Iti Tadvidha — That is known as Kshetragya, the one who knows the field.

So, essentially, Krishna is broadly equating Kshetra with the body and Kshetragya with the soul. So, Kshetra refers to the body, and Kshetragya refers to the soul. Now, why not just use Atma (soul) and Sharira (body)? These terms could be used, but they have specific implications.

Kshetra means “field” and refers to the field of control, the field of influence. Krishna will later talk about two other terms: Purusha and Prakriti. Prakriti refers to nature at large, while Kshetra refers to the part of nature that is under our control, though not fully. We never have complete control over it. For example, right now I am writing here. I have some control over my fingers and the tablet on which I am writing. My hands are part of my body, and that is my Kshetra. But what you are writing in your books is not my Kshetra; it’s your Kshetra.

Your hands are part of Prakriti, and Prakriti is the entire material nature. Within Prakriti, each one of us has some Kshetra. Some of us have a larger Kshetra, and some of us have a smaller Kshetra. For example, the President of America has a much larger Kshetra than a poor person living in a hut somewhere in Bengal. But that person also has some control. So, Kshetra refers to the body, but more broadly, it refers to the area of control that we have. Our primary area of control is our body, and based on where the body is born, the talents within the body, and other factors, our influence may extend outward.

Krishna talks first about Kshetra and Kshetragya. In both of these cases, Purusha refers to the soul. But the Purusha is also the Supersoul. We know our body, and Krishna also knows our body. In the next verse, Krishna will talk about the Supersoul, another knower in the body. So there are broadly two knowers: the soul and the Supersoul.

Now, after discussing Kshetra and Kshetragya, Krishna will go into Jnana and Jnana. This introduces a subtle difference. Normally, we think of Jnana as “knowledge,” but Krishna uses it more in terms of the process of gaining knowledge. You could say it’s the process or the parameters for acquiring knowledge. When Krishna talks about Jnana, he is not talking about knowledge in the Vedic context as simply information to be gathered. The purpose of Jnana is liberation — Vairagya (detachment) and liberation.

While we are in the material world, detachment is something that must constantly be practiced. Again and again, temptations will come, and we have to keep saying no to them. Temptations generally involve pleasure, while distractions may not be pleasurable — they could be like a loud noise that is annoying but not enjoyable.

In the Vedic context, Jnana is not just a one-time thing. For instance, when we were children, we learned the alphabet and math tables, and we don’t need to relearn them. They are resources that are stored within us. But the Jnana needed to navigate through the world is not simply a set of data or information. It is more of an attitude — a way of looking at the world.

With this attitude, when we face distractions or temptations, we will be able to say no to them and focus on what is truly important. In this sense, Jnana is not something static, but it’s a continuous process. Therefore, when Krishna talks about Jnana, he doesn’t just present it as having a particular set of information (for example, understanding the soul or the gunas). Knowledge is something that we need to keep acquiring. For this, we need certain values.

Now, virtues and values are similar but not quite the same. In schools, we talk about “value education” but not “virtue education.” So what are values? At one level, values refer to what is valuable. There is what is truly valuable and what feels valuable, but the two are not always the same. For example, consider an alcoholic. The alcoholic may have a job deadline, and the job is what is truly valuable. But the alcoholic might feel that the drink is more valuable than the job.

The greater the mismatch between what is valuable and what feels valuable, the poorer the values of the person. In value education, the aim is to align what is truly valuable with what feels valuable. For example, sometimes we speak rudely to someone and later realize that they are powerful. If they complain about us, we might feel regret. But this regret is different from a situation where we say something rude and, regardless of external consequences, we feel remorse and realize that we shouldn’t have been angry.

So that is because of the values of a person. I hope this difference is clear, what I am trying to say. That means that if you do something, you feel bad. And that may be followed by regret. But the regret may be because of external consequences, or the regret may be because of internal conscience. Now, which indicates better values? Internal conscience. Now, if somebody does not care for external consequences also, then we will say that person has pathetic values. Isn’t it?

So basically the idea is that in life, we will constantly be encountering situations. And when we are encountering situations, we need to know what to focus on. In one sense, what is knowledge? Knowledge, from an operational perspective, is that which guides our vision. It guides our vision toward what matters.

Say, for example, if somebody has medical knowledge, if somebody is a doctor, then when somebody comes to a doctor’s clinic, we could look at that person’s clothes, the kind of hairstyle they have, the kind of glasses they are wearing. But if the doctor sees the person’s color is very pallid, maybe their eyes have become red, maybe their fingers have become discolored, the doctor will say, “Okay, this person is sick, maybe he has this disease.”

So in general, if a car mechanic, somebody comes to the car, and that person, you could look at the model of the car, you could look at the car plate number, you could look at various things about the car. But then the car mechanic will say, “Okay, you know, this noise indicates that the carburetor is spoilt.” So now, the other things matter, but generally speaking, the Gita uses the word Jnana Chakshu. Jnana Chakshu or later on Shastra Chakshu. Both of these are words. Chakshu is what? Eyes. So what does this actually do? This is basically the Jnana that guides our vision to see what really matters.

And somebody who doesn’t have that Jnana Chakshu, they may just get caught in incidental details. So when we are studying, we need to focus. When we are attending a class, then we need to focus on the subject matter that has been spoken. Now, of course, naturally we will notice the teacher. The teacher is giving the knowledge. But if somebody gets too caught in, say, how the teacher’s expression is, how the teacher’s pronunciation is, and some people may make fun of how the teacher pronounces some words. Everybody has their behavioral idiosyncrasies. Now, you can mock them, you can fixate on them. But then we will not be learning much in this class.

So in one sense, Jnana is that which enables us, guides our vision to focus on what really matters. So I’ll put all I’m saying together now. That when there is education, there are three levels, you could say, of education. In education, there is learning the subject. Then there is learning how to learn. Okay, so I learned this one subject and then I got a hang of it. Okay, so where do we find the more important books? Where is this miscellaneous material which may not be… we learn how to learn.

And then, most importantly, is learning the value of learning. Or we can say, getting a taste for learning. So if somebody gets this, then they can keep learning in groups. So now, learning the subject, this is more or less information. Okay, I studied engineering maths, and I know the subject. But if somebody gets the attitude of learning, then that person can be eager to keep learning and growing in life. So when Krishna is using the word Jnana, he is not using this sense of getting information about the subject. He is using this in terms of getting the attitude by which we can keep learning. And therefore, when he talks about learning, he focuses on values.

So I will just talk about two values which Krishna talks about, just to illustrate this point. So the first value that Krishna talks about is humility. Now, in fact, Krishna talks about a total of 20 values. 20 values that comprise knowledge. So when he is saying “comprise knowledge,” that means these comprise the values that will help a person to keep acquiring knowledge.

So now humility, the way Prabhupada defines it, one simple way to understand it is that there is what we know. Everyone knows something in life. And there is what we don’t know. So humility means to consider the possibility that what I don’t know may be more important than what I know. So in this sense, humility is actually quite similar to curiosity.

So in terms of gaining knowledge, if a person thinks that they know everything, then they can’t learn anything. See, a teacher may know the subject, but if a teacher hears the students, then what happens? The teacher can learn still more. “Okay, this part of the subject is easy to communicate. This part of the subject is a little more difficult to communicate. This part of the subject, students get easily. This part, maybe we need to give some more examples.” So you can always keep learning. Now, the teacher knows the subject, but for a teacher to communicate effectively with the audience, knowing what the audience knows or where the audience is coming from, that may be more important.

So humility means to be open to the possibility that what we don’t know may be more important than what we know. When Prabhupada went to America, initially he was staying in Butler, Pennsylvania, and he was staying at the house of Gopal Agarwal and Sally Agarwal. They were Indians. Gopal’s father had sponsored Prabhupada’s visit to India. His father got his son to sponsor the visit. A visit from India. And Gopal had married this American girl Sally. And then they were… they had just done this as a favor to their father, father-in-law.

And apparently, they had written sponsorship letters for many people, but nobody had ever come. So they hadn’t actually expected Swamiji also to come. So for them, Swamiji came with a big shock, actually. So they also… and Prabhupada sized things up immediately. And after talking with Prabhupada, they were not very interested. So then, Prabhupada was not so much preaching to them because they were not so interested.

Then Sally Agarwal, her memories of Prabhupada are given in the Leela Murtha, and she says, “Swamiji was eager to know everything about America. He says, ‘How the vacuum cleaner works, how the washing machine works, how you punch the tickets to work in the local.'” Now, did Prabhupada go to America to learn how the vacuum cleaner works? No, Prabhupada, through all this, wanted to understand how the American mind works. How American society functions. And then he could communicate more effectively to Americans.

So what we don’t know may be more important than what we know. That is the key principle of humility. Say, if we have this, then we can always keep learning in life. So this humility will ensure that a person will not fall into my hands. When somebody comes, “Hey, this particular temptation, I am not going to fall for that.” But maybe the temptation is coming in a more forceful way than what I had thought. Maybe I need to know a little bit more about it.

So humility will protect us. So when Krishna talks about these values, what is he talking about? The values that will help us to detect what really matters and what doesn’t matter. To detect what is the reality and what is the illusion that will take us away from reality. So like that, Krishna talks about… oh, then he says… like that, he goes on a full list. And then he says that… he says… he says that, “See, the dukkha in the material world.”

Now, why is it important? Because if one doesn’t see this and one doesn’t adequately contemplate this, then one may not feel the need for spiritual inquiry at all. Generally speaking, philosophy… remember I gave a… when do people think about philosophy? In misery. Yes. So and the biggest misery is death. So often death is the greatest prompter for philosophical discussion. So if somebody doesn’t just think about it at all, then they will have no reason to think about philosophy. Life is wonderful. Life will soon become wonderful.

So this contemplation… janma, mrityu, viragadi, dukkha, dosha anudarshana… systematically contemplate this. Regularly contemplate this with an unblinking eye, with a clear-eyed realism. This is what will impel one to focus on spirituality.

So otherwise, if I think, “Oh, it’s like the future is extending eternally ahead for me,” nobody will say that I am never going to die. But most people, when they talk about death, they think it’s something that is going to happen long, long way, far, far away, after a long, long time. It’s almost like they’re talking about that is going to happen to someone else, different from me.

In fact, there was a Greek philosopher… of course, he was not a philosopher. He was a “phoolosopher.” So he said, “I will never die.” How? “Because as long as I am there, death won’t be there. When death is there, I won’t be there.”

So now, we can do word jugglery. But it is we who will have to experience the trauma, the agony of death.

So, to summarize this whole point: Why am I emphasizing so much on the Jnana aspect here? When the Gita talks about Jnana, it is not just some components of information that comprise Jnana. It is more a process that will help us keep acquiring Jnana. So Jnana, in this sense, is not static. It is not static information. I got it, and that’s over. Say, for example, it’s like math tables. We learned it in our childhood, and it’s over. So that is not the Jnana that is, it is Jnana is more of a dynamic perception. That is, as we face different situations in life, how are we able to perceive the dynamic perception again of what really matters? What is the important thing over here? What is the reality? It means Krishna versus Maya. So that perception, that is actually what is Jnana, and that’s why it’s more of a value system that helps us to have a particular way of perceiving the world. That’s the emphasis on Jnana.

So here I have adopted a slightly different approach. Rather than putting the whole 13 chapters as a verse, as I said, some of these chapters are very technical, and putting them in verse is a bit difficult. So I have put some of the verses as prayers. So let’s look at that. Your teaching about learning is what we need to be learning. Education is meant to boost our virtues, not our earning. We are defined not by what we know but by what we do with what we know. Virtues are the actual heart of knowledge. These are not learned merely by going to college. There we may get information but not realization, which comes only by humble service done with dedication. One of the things they talk about is Acharyopas and components of knowledge. Anything else is just noise pretending to be the words of the wise. It is decorated ignorance that won’t free me from the wise of wise. So wise is basically like a tight grip. So wise has a grip on us. Please O Lord, let my knowledge not inflate my ego. Instead, let it show the way that towards you will go.

This is basically the idea of knowledge as a set of values that enables us to choose and keep moving towards Krishna. So now, after this, Krishna will talk about, he will talk about Kshetra and Kshetragya. He will talk about Gyan. And then he will talk about Geya. Geya is the object of knowledge. Now, how many of you have heard the word “object”? It is such a common word, you may object to the question itself. But let’s see, when I use the word “object of knowledge,” what does it mean to you? Focus. So it is the theme, the topic, the area, the object of knowledge. What is it that we are trying to do? Now, here, at one level, we can inquire about anything. And we humans, the Atma, have the Chit facility. Chit means that we are conscious. And because we are conscious, we are curious. But what we are curious of, that is determined by our attachments. Our consciousness is our capacity to know. Curiosity is our eagerness to know. Now, what are we eager to know? Because we are conscious, we have the capacity to know. But say right now, because we have the capacity to know, if I say that I will teach all of you French. French? I don’t have time to spend on that. If I say I will teach Sanskrit, some of you may be interested. So there is eagerness to know. So we can know about many things in the world.

So when Krishna uses the word Geya, he is focusing on not just the object of knowledge, he is talking more about the worthy object of knowledge. And not just worthy, the most worthy object of knowledge. That means what is really worth knowing? There is knowledge, as I said, it is what really matters. You may have heard the difference between science and spirituality. Science is the study of what really matters. Spirituality is the study of what matters, what really matters. So spirituality is not just the study of spirit. Yes, when we analyze what matters, we will eventually understand that the spiritual matter is more than the material. But spirituality is generally the study of what matters. So when Krishna is talking about Geya, he is talking about what really matters in life. What is really important? And with that in mind, he focuses on two things: the Atma and the Paramatma, the soul and the Supersoul, and of course their relationship. So he says this is what really matters.

By knowing this, you will attain liberation. You will attain eternal life. Now, can we say that by learning about software coding, you will attain eternal life? It may have some operational value. We are not saying it doesn’t matter. But Krishna is talking about that Geya, which will actually give us the value of eternity. So that will give us…

What does the word “Amruta” mean? Amruta has two meanings: Eternal and also elixir. Elixir is a very technical word. Nectar is a simpler word. Amruta.

So basically, the Atma has three faculties: Sat, Chit, Ananda. Krishna basically says we should use our Chit, our knowing faculty, to know the things which will help us realize the Sat and to realize the Ananda.

So, we can be curious about many things in life, but what curiosity will help us to realize our eternity? What curiosity will help us to realize our joyfulness, innate joyfulness? That is the most important curiosity.

So through a park, he says, “Swamiji, for example, now we have two large volumes of books explaining how this grass grows.” Prabhupada replied, “That grass will grow without your two books.” This professor was also intelligent and said, “But Swamiji, if God didn’t want us to study the grass, why did He put the grass there?” My point is that you study the grass and forget the God who put it there. So it is not that you don’t study the grass, that can be studied, but if we study only that and forget God, it becomes an issue.

So, spirituality is the study of what matters. Okay, studying grass matters to some extent, but as compared to what really matters, that is not all that important. The study of what matters—this is where we’re talking about this 13th verse now. I will speak to you about that object of knowledge. By knowing this, what will happen? You will attain eternal happiness. So, I’ll focus on this phrase only. Let’s recite it once more together.

Now, Krishna will… The next section of the Gita, from verse 13 onwards (13 second half till verse 18 or 19), all this can be understood by those who have devotion to Me, and then they will attain My nature. Now, this can be quite confusing and complex because broadly there are two schools of thought: There is the Atma (soul) and there is the Paramatma (supersoul).

So, now, the two schools of thought are that the soul enters into the supersoul and merges (this is the impersonal idea), and the other is that the soul doesn’t merge but links with love. There is a bond of love—this is the Bhakti worldview. The two different worldviews about the relationship between the soul and the supersoul.

Now, Krishna in this section sometimes speaks verses that can seem to support both worldviews, but if we look at it as Krishna moves forward in this chapter and in this section of the Gita, it’s very clear that Krishna is talking about how He is speaking about a bond of love. That’s why He says, “Madh bhakta etad bhikyaaya.”

The nature of language is that sometimes words can be misinterpreted. Sometimes there are two things with respect to words: there can be misunderstandings and misinterpretations. In both cases, there is a “miss,” meaning we miss something.

So what is the difference between misunderstanding and misinterpretation? Is it difficult to understand? Is the difference difficult to understand?

Okay, that would be this applies, isn’t it? This is another “miss” over there. The first part is correct; we don’t misinterpret. Well, it’s given in the wrong way—that is true, but it is a little more than that. Misinterpret means that sometimes there are two possibilities. I may misunderstand, and therefore I may miscommunicate. I got wrong information, or I understood the information wrong and told that.

But generally, misunderstanding is more unintentional. Misinterpretation is often intentional. The language is not fixed. Sometimes this interpretation can also be unintentional, but generally, interpretation is an act that involves conscious analysis, conscious intention, and conscious intelligence.

So, there is much in the Gita, and in general, any philosophical work which is complex. It’s possible to misunderstand, but then, if somebody doesn’t seek the right understanding, instead they take their own worldview and impose it, then they are misinterpreting. So which among the two is worse? Yes, misinterpreting is worse.

It’s like, suppose there’s a speaker over here who doesn’t speak Hindi, and say the entire audience is Hindi-speaking. I am translating for that speaker, but then the speaker says something, and I speak something else entirely in Hindi. Now, the speaker is speaking English, the speaker doesn’t understand Hindi, and the audience doesn’t understand English.

So, what happens then? It’s like there’s a speaker, there is the audience, and in one sense, the translator is the bridge, isn’t it, between the audience and the speaker? So now, the speaker is understanding only English, the audience understands only Hindi, and now the speaker is giving a speech, and the translator is giving another speech. Suppose one audience member comes over there, and they understand English…

And then that person says, “Hey, you are not translating right! You know, a nice class is going on; why are you disturbing? Be peaceful.” But no, it is not a matter of being peaceful. It’s a matter of being purposeful. See, if the translator wants to give a speech, fine—get your own audience and give a speech. But if you are translating and you say you’re translating someone else’s speech, and then you are giving a separate speech, that is not right. It’s not Hindi, and that’s deceptive.

Actually, that’s why Prabhupada would say that when people give their own opinions based on the Bhagavad Gita, that is not the Bhagavad Gita as it is. That is the Bhagavad Gita as you are. It’s as you interpret it. So, okay, you can write your own book and give your own philosophy, perfectly fine, but that’s the challenge. The point is that the relationship between the soul and the supersoul is a relationship of love, and when we understand this, we can become liberated.

Now, after this, Krishna will talk about Purusha and Prakriti, which is the last two parts of the Bhagavad Gita. Now, in Purusha and Prakriti, let’s look at… Krishna talks about… Let’s look at two examples. See, one of the relationships between Purusha and Prakriti—this is a little technical concept, but I think it may interest you. In fact, this is a concept which led to the idea of the soul being rejected in mainstream philosophy in the West.

There is one famous philosopher who said that in the history of philosophy, there is no idea as dead as the idea of the soul. Now, the soul can never die, but he thought of the soul as an idea, completely dead. Friedrich Nietzsche said, “God is dead.” This person said, “The soul is dead.” So, why do they say this? Let’s try to understand this. See, let’s look at these two metaphors, or let’s look at one of those metaphors of how the soul functions in the world. The 33rd verse is one metaphor; the 34th is another metaphor.

“Light to give illumination” is one of the metaphors. Krishna is different; Krishna is everything. “Krishna lokam”—this entire world. “Ekam ravi”—the sun illuminates the entire known world for us. Similarly, the Kshetram (the body) and Kshetri (the soul), the Kshetra—similarly, the entire Kshetra, the entire body, is illuminated by the Kshetra. The example Krishna is giving is that the sun illuminates the universe; similarly, the soul illuminates the body. The sun and the universe, the soul and the body.

Now, what is the significance of this example? See, the sun causes photosynthesis on Earth. The sun causes plants to grow, and when the sun rises, the birds wake up. All of nature starts becoming active, most of nature. There’s some long-term nature also, but most of nature becomes active when the sun rises. So the point is that the sun is far away, but it radiates its influence. Similarly, Krishna is saying the soul is separate from the body, but the soul radiates its influence to the body.

So, this metaphor conveys something important about the relationship between the soul and the body. Now, in Western philosophy, as science started advancing, one of the principles of science is called “causal completeness.” Causal completeness means that any effect and its cause can be completely explained in material terms.

For example, if I drop this phone, what will happen? You’ll say, “Have you dropped your intelligence? Why are you dropping the phone?” But if I drop the phone, the phone will fall. If I fling the phone down, it will fall faster. So why did the phone fall faster, or why did it crack more in the second case? Because it was struck with greater force.

Now, why did the phone crack more? In one sense, the effect of the phone getting cracked can be explained in terms of the material cause. And the more clearly you understand the cause, the more clearly you can understand the effect.

So what philosophers, especially philosophers influenced by science, started arguing was that the way things happen in the body, the way things happen in the physical, physiological, anatomical workings of the body, there is no room for the soul. What they mean is that the body acts because we eat food. The material source of energy, food, is what gives energy to the body.

And every action—say if I lift my hand up, how fast I can lift my hand up, how much weight I can lift—can be explained in terms of how much muscle I have in my hand, how skilled I am in body movement, how much I habitually weight lift. So, every event, every action done with the body can be explained in terms of the material components of the body. Therefore, they say, there is no room for the soul.

Now, is this argument sound? What do you think? Is the argument understandable at all?

Yes, but now we say, this was actually considered to be a fatal argument. René Descartes was a philosopher who prominently proposed the idea of the soul. He proposed that the soul is situated somewhere in the pituitary gland, because at that time, it was thought that the pituitary gland was connected with the entire brain and could control the entire body.

So, now, the idea of material causal completeness—this is something that science focuses on, and there is, in one sense, truth to it. Even the Shastras accept it. Krishna says, “Om purnam adah purnam idam.” “Purnam idam” means that this world’s functioning can be explained in material terms.

When Newton saw the apple falling, Newton believed in God, but he wanted to know what made the fruit fall. At that time, he was not looking for God making the fruit fall, he was looking for a material mechanism, and that’s perfectly fine.

So now, there’s a fundamental mistake when science says that there is causal completeness, and therefore there is no need for the soul. The point is, when you say there is no room for the soul, that is based on the assumption that the soul should have a material influence. But the soul is spiritual, isn’t it? Because the soul is spiritual, it doesn’t have material influence. The soul doesn’t need to have a material influence.

Say, for example, if somebody is driving a car—now we have the car, the standard example. I’ll take three examples with increasing sophistication to illustrate this point, and then we’ll conclude this chapter. If you consider the car and the body metaphor: Now, when the car moves, does it move because the driver wants to go somewhere, or does it move because its engine is activated by the fuel? Both are correct.

The fuel is the cause of the car’s motion. If there is no fuel, the car will not move. That’s perfectly true, but there is also a personal intention. There’s a person who has the intention of pulling the car. Now, that person may just come and touch a button. Traditionally, cars have keys; you put in the key, and then move it. In some of the more modern cars, you don’t have to put in a key; you just touch a button, and it starts moving. So, now, how fast the car moves is not proportional to how much force is put on the button. No, that touch of the button is a very minor thing, but it is enough for the mechanism to get activated.

So, we could say, “Why is the car moving so fast?” Well, it is because the accelerator has been pressed. But the accelerator being pressed is not the source of the power of the car, is it? The accelerator, when pressed, activates the mechanism by which the car is moving. So, as you’re getting this difference, if somebody wants to run fast, they have to exercise physical energy to run fast. If somebody wants the car to move fast, it’s not that they have to exert their energy to press the accelerator very hard. The more sophisticated the mechanism, the less energy is required from the conscious person.

If you want to have a horse and want the horse to go fast, you might have to pull the bridle of the horse, whip the horse, or use your legs to perhaps pinch the horse in the leg. So, the horse rider also has to exercise force. But the more sophisticated the mechanism, the less visible is the role of the agent activating the mechanism. You could say, not the role of the agent—let’s put it as the agent—whatever the agent is, there is an agent activating the mechanism.

Nowadays, in America, a person came to me and said, “Is this soul and car example valid?” He says, “Now Google has auto-driving cars, so if Tesla has made an auto-driving car, does that make the example invalid?” He said the soul is like the driver of the car. The point is not that the soul is physically driving the car. We may say the car is driving automatically, but it is driving because of the intention of the driver—sorry, desire, intention, desire, whatever you want to use. The agency is coming from the driver. As sophisticated as the car becomes, the driver doesn’t need to consciously exert force to operate it, but still, the operation happens.

So, basically, when an event happens, there is a material mechanism to explain it, and then there is a non-material, non-material motivation to explain it. These two are not contradictory; they are complementary. So, say, there is a World Cup final match. Now, the T20 World Cup final is coming up. So, say, in the last ball, we need to hit six runs. Today, maybe the Indian captain is batting, and the ball comes as a bouncer. The batsman hooks the ball and sends it over the boundary, and everybody is delirious with joy. Afterward, in the post-match interview, they ask the captain, “Okay, how did you hit the six?” And he says, “By Newton’s laws of motion.”

Now, is that a valid explanation? Yes, it’s a valid explanation, but it’s not the relevant explanation. Valid means you can say, “Okay, the ball came at this pace, the bat was swung with this much force, and the ball and bat had contact at this angle. If it had contacted the top edge, the ball would have ballooned up, and instead of going over the boundary, it would have been caught by the fielder.” So, all that—the Newton’s laws of motion—are a valid explanation. But when the commentator or interviewer is asking, that’s not the relevant question. They would ask, “Did you anticipate that it was going to be a bouncer? Had you practiced a hook shot? How do you decide in which area to hit?” Those are the questions they want to know.

These two are parallel explanations. So, when we talk about spirituality and the soul being the source of consciousness, we are not saying that the soul falsifies or rejects the material mechanisms by which things work. It is that there is, now, consider, for example, a video game. I do the example of a sophisticated car and the cricket match, focusing on two levels of explanation that can be complementary. The last example is suppose there’s a very sophisticated video game. In some video games, people maybe they’re playing Grand Theft Auto or whatever. You move your hand this way, and the car moves this way. You press this, and the car moves that way, and the car moves fast or slow, all these things are there. Sometimes, when people play that, they may have levers that they pull, or maybe they just have a mouse, which they move on a screen.

In one sense, if you look at how fast the car is moving and what they are doing—moving their hand, a little finger—practically, they are doing nothing. But if you consider a more sophisticated example, there was Stephen Hawking. He had severe disabilities, so we can appreciate his willpower. But at the same time, there’s a very sophisticated mechanism by which his intention—whatever little control he had—was translated into action. That’s why his voice was so metallic. The machine was producing the voice.

What is happening here is, in this case, one of my friends works in neuro-engineering. They say that even if your body is completely paralyzed, you can try to read the brain signals and translate them into motor motion to perform some function. So, the point is that the more sophisticated the mechanism, the more there can be a link that doesn’t involve material force, but there’s still a link.

Now, where does this link come from? Say, in the video game, the key link between the person playing the video game and what’s happening in the video game—that link is established by the maker of the video game. Similarly, the link between the soul and the body is established through the super soul.

So, the soul does not act as a material factor within the functioning of the body, but the soul’s intention, the soul’s desire, is transmitted to the body through the whole system created by the super soul. Now, when we are playing a video game, we may not even know exactly how it works. When I press this, just like this, how does the car start moving so fast? We don’t know, but the video game maker knows it. To make a good video game, they need to know how things will move inside the game. They also need to know what kind of moves the player wants to make. When they know both of these, they can make a good game.

So, if you consider these three examples—the car, a cricket shot, and a video game—the video game maker needs to know the movements in the game and the movements of the player. When they know both, they act as the link. So, basically, what happens is there is matter, there is spirit, and there is the controller. Krishna, or the super soul, is the link between the soul and the body.

Now, when René Descartes had the idea that the soul is separate from the body, in the Christian tradition, the idea that God is personally present in everyone’s heart is not so prominent. They have the idea of the Holy Spirit, which is a bit mystical. It seems like an energy, but whatever it is, they have different ideas. Sometimes they use the term “Holy Ghost.” What do you think about the Holy Ghost? All ghosts are unholy! But now, Christians may have their own theological explanation of what the Holy Ghost is. They use the word “ghost” more for something subtle, not grossly material.

The idea is that the super soul is the personal presence of the divine in every heart. That idea is not there in the Christian tradition, and that is why, for them, explaining how the soul interfaces with the body is very difficult. In the Buddhist tradition, the idea of the soul is there, but again, they don’t have the idea of the paramatma. Their idea of the soul is quite peculiar. It’s like their idea of the soul is just a set of samskaras, which will eventually disappear when you reach nirvana. So, they don’t have the concept of reincarnation like we do. For them, the soul, without reincarnation, is Christianity.

They accept souls but they don’t accept reincarnation, and reincarnation without soul—that is Buddhism. So, yes, exactly. But then the samskaras have to have some place where they are. So it’s a little complicated; they say that anyway, they have their own metaphors. But no, they say that you have to get liberated from everything, even the idea of getting liberated. You know, Buddhists, among all philosophers, are the most relativistic. In general, they say the Shunya is the proper translation of voidism. Voidism is like non-existence, but they say that’s not true. Voidism or Shunya is the existence beyond existence and non-existence.

So now, you know, generally speaking, the more… see, the human intelligence is such that it will always want to defend whatever it means. So the more difficult a philosophy is to explain, the more difficult is the word jugglery used to hide that it can’t be explained. So that’s what happens. But anyway, this idea that the Vedic tradition has on how exactly the soul and the body interface is a unique insight that the Vedic tradition can offer right now. How exactly all this will be phrased in scientific terms is a distinct challenge, but consciousness is a hugely emerging field, and even, I mean, there are many devotees who are interested in science. They are going in this field now. We have created a whole forum of devotee scientists who are specifically focusing on consciousness.

And now, in today’s world, what has happened is the existence of God, because it’s become way too polarizing, God has become much more of a religious idea. God has been seen much more as a religious idea, and nobody in mainstream universities wants to fund research into the existence of God. But research into the existence of consciousness, or you want to say the source of consciousness, is very much in intake, and there’s a lot of potential for the soul.

So, the idea that the soul acts and influences the body through the intermediate arrangement of this person, that is what I have explained in very simple terms. Sadaputra was one of the most prominent scientists in our movement, Dr. Richard Thompson. He wrote a book called Mechanistic and Non-Mechanistic Science. So mechanistic science is where we look at mechanisms, but non-mechanistic science is where we look for something beyond the mechanisms. And this particular section of the Gita, with all its metaphors, is very rich with potential for both philosophical investigation and scientific exploration. But as in the Gita’s purpose in analyzing Kshetra and Kshetragya, it is primarily to enable us to attain liberation.

So, Krishna has concluded this whole chapter by saying that these two—we should discuss, understand they’re different. How do you understand chakshusha with that? The material nature which we have caught, Moksha we will attain liberation, and then all of that. One who knows this will attain the supreme destination, go to the supreme destination. So this knowledge, if you understand, then we can truly understand the difference between the material spirit, between body and soul, and the soul can become liberated.

So, the sun example, what it conveys, is that the sun doesn’t have to be physically present and physically acting for things to act in this world. Now, of course, we can say the sun is giving material energy—the solar energy is coming—that is true. But solar energy, it’s not a gross physical. So just like there are subtle ways in which an influence can happen without necessarily a physical force being exerted, similarly, the soul can influence the body without it needing to be a source of material force. The soul is a non-material cause in the function of the body.

So, I’ll summarize what we discussed today. Broadly, in this chapter 13, we talked about Arjuna’s questions. The purpose of the question is basically to bring a link between his previous knowledge and his current knowledge, the Gita’s knowledge, with Arjuna’s previous knowledge. Now, we could say that this link can happen in many different ways. It can happen that our present knowledge builds on the previous knowledge, our present knowledge cancels out partially previous knowledge. It intervenes in different ways, so the knowledge doesn’t grow in a vacuum. And so when he’s asking about terms, he’s not looking for a dictionary meaning; he’s looking at the worldview underlying those terms. And then we discuss the meaning of Kshetra and Kshetragya briefly, but a major part of the class was focused on the concept of Jnana. So, Jnana is not information—it is more like the values that guide vision or that guide information seeking. You can see how we look at the world so that we can constantly be focusing on what matters. Because in the Vedic tradition, the purpose of Jnana, put it this way, in Sankhya, in the Vedic tradition versus in science: in Sankhya, the purpose was liberation, detachment. In science, it is more about control and power. So, there’s a very different purpose of what we are trying to know.

So when the purpose is to become liberated, then you constantly need to keep seeing what really matters in the situation. So we could say education, it can be at different levels. We learn subject, we learn how to learn, and we learn the value or taste of learning. So when Krishna is talking about Jnana, Jnana is referring to this level, not this level. So we discussed two values, for example: humility. What does it mean? It is like curiosity. It is what I know may not be as important as what I don’t know. So with this, what happens is our ego won’t trap us in illusion. If temptation comes in some new way, we’ll be able to see it. Similarly, we discussed another point, which was perceiving distress—why do we need to perceive the distresses of the world? Because then they will make us look beyond. They’ll make us seek beyond. So, that focus on death is helpful.

So, then we discussed about the object of knowledge. So when Krishna is talking about the object of knowledge, he’s focusing on the most worthy object of knowledge. And what is the most worthy aspect? So in one sense, that which enables us, we use our chit. Chit is the feature of the soul—that we are conscious. And from consciousness, what happens? We become curious. But ideally, we can use our curiosity to realize how we are eternal and how we are joyful. So, this is actually the knowledge of Atma, knowledge of Paramatma, and the knowledge of the relationship between the two.

Then we discussed here about the difference between misunderstanding versus misinterpretation. So the Gita talks about this relationship in Bhakti terms—Mad Bhakta Etadvikya. We discussed in 13.80. And the last part we discussed was about the soul-body relationship, the Kshetra/Kshetri. So, this was based on 13.34, the second last verse, where Krishna says that the sun illuminates and activates the universe, including the earth. So like that, the soul is non-material and is not a material factor in the body.

So, science—whether it is neuroscience, physiology, or anatomy—it studies the material factors. So, can the body’s functioning be explained in material terms? Yes, it can, just as the car’s functioning can be explained in mechanical terms. But is that the only explanation? No, there can be a mechanical explanation, and there can be a non-mechanical explanation. So, when the body functions, there can be a mechanical explanation—this means some say, how particular body organs function, how my hand moves, I can explain it in terms of the signals coming from the brain, the information that has gone into the eyes. But that is not all that is definitely going on. Something more is going on, and that connection—we discussed three examples: one is of a car, maybe an auto-driving car. Then we discussed the example of a cricket sixer, cricket shot, and then of a video game. So, the more sophisticated the mechanism, the less visible or less tangible will be the role of the non-material agent, but still, it is there. So, the link between the soul and the body is established by the arrangement of the super-soul, just as the link between the video game player and the video game is established by the arrangement of the maker of the game.

So, Krishna says once you understand this, you get what will happen. So knowledge is that which guides our vision. By that, we will gain liberation, and that is the ultimate purpose of life. Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

Yes, please.

You said that the material world is made to look as beyond, but what we see in them… most of the people, when they come to us, close their eyes towards the key.

Yes, that’s true. That’s why it depends on the level of the people, that what we emphasize. Death is an event. But now, in the next chapter, we’ll be discussing the three modes, which are the three modes—Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. So now, depending on the consciousness of the person, the level of consciousness, if the event of death is perceived by somebody in Sattva, then there will be philosophical contemplation. “Okay, what is really important in life? Is there something beyond it?” But if somebody is in Rajas, then all that will happen is feverish indulgence. “Let’s enjoy more!” The same fact. “Oh, youth is temporary, don’t get carried away in It is so much more enjoyment available for you. Why don’t you seek that? So Prabhupada was speaking in terms that people could understand. So we also have to focus in that way. Speaking too much about death is not good. Now, if somebody’s in tamas and they hear about death, they can just have panic. They can have what is called paranoia. Paranoia is basically when a person feels constantly persecuted, feeling like someone is out to get them, like there’s danger everywhere. So in general, you have to be very careful that we present spirituality in a way that attracts people. So, to some extent, when somebody has come to at least sattvaguna or at least some time in their life when they are in sattvaguna, then that is the time of contemplation when death is happening. Like if somebody’s already having a lot of fear and insecurity.

I was in Perth and when Manta Ji came to meet me, she said, “I used to hear Bhagavad Gita classes regularly, but my therapist has told me that hearing Bhagavad Gita classes is psychologically damaging for you. Stop here.” So I asked, “What happened? Why did he say that?” She replied, “I grew up in a very insecure family at home, and a lot of terrible things happened to me in my childhood. I had a lot of fear complexes, but slowly I grew out of it, and Bhagavad Gita helped me.” But then one day I attended a class, and that whole class was about death – how death can come at any time. Within that class, the speaker showed four or five different videos of people dying. Somebody was just going to a shopping mall to shop and suddenly had a heart attack. Somebody was watching a sports match and got a heart attack because there was a batsman batting, and while the ball was coming to him, he got a heart attack.

So now, what happened was, after I saw that, it triggered my past fears so much that I just couldn’t function at all. So, I stopped seeing a therapist, but I had to start seeing the therapist again. I told her, “It’s not that Bhagavad Gita is psychologically damaging. It is that each of us may be psychologically damaged in particular ways, and certain kinds of presentations of certain things in the Gita can trigger us. So we need to be careful about how we present, and you need to be careful about what kind of classes you have. But if a particular emphasis in particular points is triggering, you can avoid it.”

So yes, thinking about death is favorable, but it requires a certain level of consciousness. It depends, you know. If talking about death is the only thing that you talk about, then no, there are many other things you can talk about, isn’t it? If you talk about, in our D.I.S. course, how much do you say, “You’re going to die, therefore chant Hare Krishna”? That’s not the emphasis. There are so many aspects of philosophy to talk about. That’s only one aspect, and in general, in today’s world, fear-driven outreach doesn’t work. “You’re going to die, therefore chant Hare Krishna, or if you don’t chant Hare Krishna, you’re going to go to hell,” so that’s not philosophically true. But if you preach like that, “You don’t chant Hare Krishna, you’re going to go to hell,” and say, “You go to hell right now. I don’t care for you,” that’s a different approach.

Yes, please.

Prabhu, the nature of the soul is Satchitananda, and it is already having the Ananda like whatever it needs. So why and how is it having desires? Like, desire is something that arises from my mind. So does the soul desire?

Okay, see, if the soul is conscious, the soul also has desires. But presently, many of our desires may be coming from our mind. When you are conscious, naturally, you will have desire. Like I said, what I may desire may depend on my attachment. The pure soul will have the desire to love itself, Krishna, or to hear more about Krishna, or come in the presence of Krishna. So that is the natural desire of the soul, the healthy desire of the soul. But if you consider the soul to be the mind, because the mind is a subtle body already, from the soul, the consciousness counts. Now, depending on the kind of conditioning that is there, the consciousness, the desires get colored in that particular way. So the pure consciousness is conditioned by the impressions in the mind, and accordingly, the desires are determined. So the more we change the impressions in our mind, by repeated practice of bhakti, by creating new impressions, then the soul’s desires will become more and more naturally healthy.

So, are the present desires, what they are, desires of the soul or the mind?

See, that is quite difficult to determine. We could say most of the time the desires are of the mind. But rather than focusing on the source, we can focus on the destination, because that is easier to perceive. For example, if somebody likes kirtans, are they liking kirtans because their soul is attracted to Krishna, or is it because their mind is attracted to music, and it’s just one form of music for them? Maybe it doesn’t matter. At this stage, the fact that they are attracted to giving kirtan is good. Through that, gradually, the soul will become awakened, and the spiritual desires will become activated. So we can focus more on where our desires are taking us rather than where the desires are coming from.

Is it clear, the difference? That inside, what pops up doesn’t come to the convenient level, like “I have come from the mind” or “I have come from the soul”? The desires just pop up. What we can do is, if our intelligence is alert enough, then we can evaluate, “Do I want to act according to this desire or not?” and that will determine based on… what do we determine based on? So we can determine based on considering where all this desire will take me. If the desire is coming from the mind, Krishna says, “You have to reject the mind to come to me. You don’t have to kill the mind, you have to make your mind upright.” So the healthy desire that has come, it is not that all the desires coming from the mind have to be unhealthy. Some of the desires coming from the mind can also be healthy. If you use those desires, they can take us towards Krishna.

So, is the soul projecting something, or is the interaction with the mind getting some desires?

Okay, I’m not letting the desire answer this question. No. Say, if I consider my phone, now on my phone, some notification may pop up. When the notification pops up, that is coming by its own mechanism. There are settings and other things, but when that notification pops up, it’s up to me whether I want to click that notification or cross it, whether I want to see it or not see it. So, you could say the notifications are coming by the phone’s mechanism, but that does not mean that I have no agency in it. In one sense, you could say it is I who have made the settings, and the notifications are coming. Now, I have to make the decision whether the notification is something I want to notice or not.

So, like that, the phone is like the mind, and I am the soul. In the mind, various things will pop up. What pops up in the mind is based on the impressions, the samskaras in the mind. So, basically, you could say the phone’s settings are like the mind’s samskaras. Now, it is for us to choose. Similarly, the soul can choose. Now, it is also possible that I can change some settings, and then a particular kind of notification will come more often.

So, when Krishna says these two things: abhyasa and vairagya, these are two ways to manage the mind. Abhyasa and vairagya. Now, what in terms of this metaphor? You can say abhyasa is creating new impressions, changing the settings. Hmm. So, most of you, I think I will give this example. May I tell you about bollywood.com? You know this example?

So, if our phone has got bollywood.com set, and after now, you come to Bhagavad Gita, and you want to visit Bhagavad Gita.com, but you type “B,” what will happen? Bhagavad Gita will not come, bollywood will come. So, what you have to do is, if you want to visit Bhagavad Gita.com, you have to do abhyasa, that is, visit Bhagavad Gita.com again and again. Then vairagya means, even if bollywood.com comes as autocomplete, don’t go there. So, it is like rejecting or neglecting the propositions from old impressions.

Yes. So, in this way, we can change how the mind functions. That’s why Krishna says the mind is… presently may be our enemy, but we want to make it our friend we enter into that based on spiritual desires. So, the Bhakti approach teaches that we don’t necessarily need to eliminate desire but rather redirect it towards the service of Krishna. This allows us to transcend material desires and experience true spiritual fulfillment, which goes beyond mere happiness or distress.

So, in conclusion, the Buddhist approach focuses on eliminating desire to attain a state beyond happiness and distress, while the Bhakti path redirects desires towards Krishna, leading to a higher spiritual experience. Both approaches aim for liberation, but through different paths.

Thank you very much.