Gita key verses course 13 – Why are there so many religious paths? – Gita 4.11

So, today we are discussing the 4th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, text 11. This is 4.11: “ye thamam prapadyante tam satayiva bhajamyaham mamavartaman uvartante anushyaparth sarvashyama.”

Ye thamam prapadyante, Krishna says, as all people surrender unto me, I reward them accordingly. And importantly, mamavartaman uvartante anushyaparth sarvashyama, mamavartaman uvartante, all people are on my path. Sometimes this is translated as “mamavartaman uvartante,” meaning that all paths lead to me. So, here we will be discussing what this means, especially in terms of why there are different paths and how we can look at the PowerPoint. You will see various points over there, discussing why there are different paths, how we can evaluate different paths, and how we can commit to one path while also appreciating other paths.

So, in this case, broadly speaking, one metaphor we will be using is the metaphor of climbing up a mountain. Now, when we climb up a mountain, at that time, there are two things: there is the bottom of the mountain, and there is the top of the mountain. So, the bottom of the mountain is material consciousness, the top of the mountain is spiritual consciousness, and each one of us needs to move on that journey from the bottom to the top. Now, for this journey to take place, what all is required? Firstly, we need a path to go up the mountain. This is a journey which every human heart ultimately longs for, even if that heart doesn’t know that it’s longing for it. How is that? Because we are all longing for lasting life and lasting love, and lasting life and lasting love are not to be had at the material level of reality. They can be had only at the spiritual level. So, our efforts might be directed in various directions. When we watch, say, romantic movies, when we read novels, when we try to form romantic relationships, whenever we are actually looking for something lasting, some lasting connection, we are expressing, often in a misdirected way, that aspiration to climb up the top of the mountain because it is the spiritual level of reality that is eternal. At the material level, things are temporary. So, that was one of the fundamental teachings of the Gita.

In 2.16, Krishna says that of the temporary, there is no endurance; the material keeps changing constantly, and of the eternal, there is no cessation.

So, this is the journey that we all want to take. Now, on this journey, or for this journey, the path that is there, different people have different visions of that path. So, broadly, this vision can be talked about in three ways: exclusivism, pluralism, and inclusivism. So, if you look at the diagram, you’ll see that exclusivism refers to the idea that there is only one path. This path is the only way to the mountain. So, we could say that when we are trying to climb up a mountain, there is a path and there is a purpose. The path refers to which particular road we are taking, and the purpose refers to where we want to go, that is, the top of the mountain. So, in exclusivism, people are more attached to the path than to the purpose, and they think this is the only path.

Now, exclusivism strikes us as unreasonable and narrow-minded. Why? Because in exclusivism, the basic point comes up that if God is infinite, then why should the ways to Him be finite, and not only finite, why only one? If God’s love is unlimited, then why would He limit access to Him and the expression of His love to only one path?

So, there are religions in the world, there are traditions in the world, which are exclusivist.

So, the word exclusivism refers to something like, say, if a particular channel, say ESPN, has exclusive coverage of a sports event, like the Cricket World Cup, then that means it’s only available here, nowhere else. So, like that, some people say that God is accessible only through their path and no other path. So, exclusivism seems narrow-minded to us. Now, if we go to the other extreme, we can have pluralism. Pluralism holds that all paths are right. Now, when this happens, when we say that all paths are right, there is a problem with that—a serious problem, in fact, and that is that we can look at it in two ways.

First of all, if you are at the bottom of a mountain, logically speaking, there could be paths which go around and around the mountain, there could be paths which go down into a valley, there are paths which go away from the mountain, and there could be paths which go up the mountain. So, logically speaking, all paths don’t go up the mountain. So, pluralism seems very broad-minded, but actually, it’s empty-minded. So, empty-minded means it makes open-mindedness into a fetish. It raises open-mindedness to such an absolute value that we want to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out and there’s nothing left inside.

So, logically speaking, another way of looking at pluralism is that if we consider that, say, if all paths are right—that is the statement—then one path is that among all paths, one path is that only my path is right. So, if all paths are right, then one of those paths, which says that only my path is right, should also be right. So, if A is that all paths are right, then B, only my path is right, should also be right. So, if A is right, then B should be right. But if B is right, then A can’t be right. If only my path is right, then all paths can’t be right.

So, pluralism leads us to a logical quicksand in which we get stuck. And there is no easy way ahead. So, exclusivism and pluralism, we could say, are both problematic. People who are exclusivist often, instead of trying to go up the mountain, keep going around and around the mountain and pulling down people from other paths, saying that their path is wrong. Whereas pluralists go all over the place and think that they are going up the mountain, but they are actually not going up the mountain.

So beyond this, there is inclusivism. Inclusivism means there is one purpose which includes many paths. And that one purpose that includes many paths means that what is the one purpose? That one purpose is to get to the top of the mountain—to get to the top of the mountain. And now, there can be many paths up the mountain. Somebody can go from the left, the right, the front, the back. Somebody can go from a side which is very vertically steep, where it gets you up faster, but it’s dangerous. Somebody can go from a slowly inclining, slowly rising side where the ascent is slower, but it is smoother. So, like that, there can be different paths up the mountain. But the key is that we should be rising up the mountain. If you’re not rising up the mountain, then it’s not a valid path.

So for each one of us, how do these three paths relate to this Gita verse, and how does it relate to what is being taught in the Gita till now? This is the first conceptual understanding of what the Gita is teaching, and then let’s look at this concept.

So, basically, the Gita begins with Arjuna’s question about what should I do? And Krishna answers, to understand what you should do, you should know who you are. And He talks about the difference between the body and the soul. And then He talks about how that spiritual identity needs to be expressed through our practical activity in this world. So, we talk about various aspects in that direction. In the previous session, we talked about how Krishna and God Himself descend to this world to give revelation and to maintain social order in the world.

So now, we maintain social order in the world. Even when God comes and descends, not everybody surrenders to Him, not everybody harmonizes with Him. So, different people have different ideas and they follow different things. So Krishna says the principle here is reciprocity. As people surrender to me, I reward them accordingly. So that principle of reciprocity. Now, what does it mean actually? God is not just a principle, He’s a person. And as a person, what it means is that He seeks love and He offers love. And loving relationships are based on reciprocation.

So Krishna, to the extent we approach Him, to the extent He reveals Himself, and thus if somebody starts climbing up the mountain, the vision of the peak becomes clearer and clearer. So Krishna reveals Himself more and more as we take efforts to go closer and closer to Him. And now, what does this mean in the second half? The first half is the principle of reciprocity. It’s like when we want to relate with someone, we share our hearts with them, and they share their hearts with us. We commit to them, and they commit to us. It’s a reciprocity.

Now Krishna is always committed to us in the sense that He’s always present in our hearts. He is always our well-being share. At the same time, He doesn’t impose Himself on us. So He doesn’t reveal Himself to us more than what we want to see. So that’s the first principle of reciprocity. Now this reciprocity depends on the heart’s desire. It depends on what we want in the heart. It doesn’t depend on one specific religious affiliation. It depends on one’s devotional intention. So in that sense, the Bhagavad Gita is universal in saying that access to God depends on the intention of the heart, not the affiliation of the body or of the affiliation based on race or religion or whatever else.

Now, what does the second half mean? As I said, some Gita commentators say all paths lead to me. Now, while this, if it’s taken literally, has several logical problems.

Prabhupada asked a simple question when he was presented with this translation. He says that if all paths lead to God, then why does God have to speak anything? If whatever Arjuna will do, he will ultimately attain Krishna, then why does Krishna have to speak the Gita? There are many places in the Gita where Krishna says that there are very divergent, even opposite trajectories that our life will take depending on the choices we make. Conclusively, if you don’t become conscious of me, you will be lost.

So when Krishna says this, what does it mean? It means He’s giving clear choices, and choices have consequences. He’s not giving a “feel-good” kind of spirituality that says whatever you do, you will attain me. So what does this mean? “All paths lead to me” is not Krishna’s message, actually.

Now, there are definitely parts of the Bhagavad Gita that talk about different paths, and these different paths ultimately lead to Him. So, through Karma Yoga, through Jnana Yoga, through Bhakti Yoga, through all of these, ultimately people can attain Krishna. But saying that various paths can take us to God is very different from saying that all paths lead to God. Therefore, saying that this verse means “all paths lead to me” is an oversimplification to the point of distortion.

But then what does this verse mean? The adjective sarvashaha is closer to manushyaha (people) than vartma (path). So rather than saying “all paths lead to me,” it is more accurate to say “all people are on my path.” Mamavartma is closer to manushyaha than vartma. So, we could say that all people are on my path. Now, what does this mean?

This leads to a deeper principle that we will explore later. But for now, to understand simply: when I talked about material consciousness and spiritual consciousness, I said this is the bottom of the mountain, and this is the top of the mountain. The top of the mountain is spiritual consciousness. That’s true. At the same time, God is not limited to the top of the mountain. God exists everywhere. By Him, all of existence is pervaded. In fact, everything comes from Him and everything is pervaded by Him.

So, what this means is if somebody goes to the top of the mountain, that’s good. If somebody goes around and around the mountain, someone goes away from the mountain into the valley, or someone just keeps going halfway up the mountain, wherever a person is going, they are attracted to something. They are going in that direction because of that attraction. Later on, Krishna will tell in the Bhagavad Gita that everything attractive manifests as a spark of Krishna’s splendor.

So, what this means is if everything attractive manifests as a spark of Krishna’s splendor, that means that whatever anyone is attracted to, they are attracted to Krishna. For instance, if a person is alcoholic and they can’t give up alcohol, if while craving alcohol, while drinking alcohol, they think that this is the taste of Krishna, then by remembering Krishna in this way, one day they will become devotees of Krishna. Now, He’s not saying that by drinking alcohol, they become devotees of Krishna, but by seeing the connection between the attractive power of alcohol and the supreme attractiveness of Krishna, by remembering Krishna thus, that will begin their spiritual journey, and eventually, they will attain Krishna.

So, when Krishna says all people are on my path, what it means is that whatever anyone is attracted to, they are attracted to Krishna. However, they are not conscious that they are attracted to Krishna, and that’s why when they go on that path, they don’t go to Krishna. So, everything attractive comes from Krishna, but everything attractive doesn’t take us to Krishna. I’ll repeat this: everything attractive comes from Krishna, but everything attractive doesn’t take us to Krishna.

What this means is, now let’s change the metaphor a little bit. Instead of the top of a mountain, the example of the bottom and top of a mountain gives us a sense of the trajectory that needs to be followed, and certainly it is our consciousness that needs to be transformed. At a particular level now, we are at a material level, and that consciousness has to rise to the spiritual level. But it is not that God is present only at the spiritual level. As I said, God is present everywhere in His various manifestations.

So, let’s change the metaphor to that of the ocean. Suppose somebody is lost in a desert, and there is an ocean at some distance from them, not yet visible to them. Now, from that ocean, some drops of water might have been blown by the wind or whatever, and they have fallen. Some drops might have fallen along the way that goes toward the ocean. Some drops might be just on the left side or right side where they don’t, where the person doesn’t go. Those drops are also at the same distance from the ocean, and some drops may be on the opposite side of the ocean.

So, now all these drops have come from the ocean, but going toward those drops won’t necessarily take the person toward the ocean. Similarly, if we consider Krishna to be the ocean and the various attractive things in this world to be the drops, then everything attractive comes from Krishna, but everything attractive doesn’t take us to Krishna.

So, in that sense, when Krishna says all people are on my path, it means they are ultimately pursuing me, no matter whatever they are pursuing. That doesn’t necessarily mean that just by pursuing those things, an alcoholic by drinking alcohol or a manic sports fan by binging on sports matches is going to attain Krishna. But if they contemplate philosophically, “What is it about this that captivates me so much? Oh, there is this player who bats so well. Where does this player’s ability come from?” That ability comes from Krishna. Where does the thrill that comes in a sports match, when there’s a tense final, a tense concluding phase of the match and some exciting finish happens? All that excitement is actually a draw of the excitement that is experienced in the spiritual level of reality when a soul has a relationship with Krishna. The soul is about to meet Krishna and doesn’t know whether they’ll meet or not.

So, that is all. The idea is that we all surrender to Krishna and that Krishna is everywhere, but going everywhere won’t take us to Krishna because it is our consciousness that has to rise toward Krishna. Everything attractive comes from Krishna, but everything attractive doesn’t take us to Krishna. Now, having understood this, this point that we have, I have now talked about exclusivism, pluralism, and inclusivism.

Now, there is a beautiful example of inclusivism in a quote from Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Bhaktivinoda Thakur states that if we go to the place of worship of another tradition where God is worshiped in a way different from ours, then what should we do? He says we should be there in a respectful, worshipful mood and appreciate that God has extended Himself out of His loving compassion for these people and manifested in a way that they can appreciate, that they can connect with, and that they can devote themselves to. Our appreciation for God’s compassion can increase: How compassionate is my Lord that He manifests in this way?

At the same time, this deepens our devotion to the Lord in the form that we are attracted to, that we can connect with. So, we talk about being committed to our path while also appreciating other paths. How does this work? It’s like if we are trying to go up a mountain, and we have come to a particular height, and somebody else has gone up the mountain and come to a particular height, and now they share notes. They might be at different places—they’re not exactly next to each other—but maybe they are both at the same level in their respective journeys. And if they share their notes, there are some things that are similar and some things that are different. If there is a sincere desire to learn and share, both can enrich their understanding of their path and their purpose.

Prabhupada would often say, when he came to the Western world, “I have not come here to make Christians into Hindus.” There is a horizontal conversion where people are pulled from going up the mountain by this path to come over here and go up by this path. So, Prabhupada was not interested in horizontal conversion. Horizontal conversion is essentially changing people’s location from one place at the bottom of the mountain to another place. Vertical conversion, if at all we want to use the terminology “conversion” (which nowadays has a negative connotation), we could say vertical transformation. What that essentially means is a change of people’s location—not horizontally from one place to another, but vertically in terms of their consciousness. The consciousness rises from the material level to the spiritual level.

Prabhupada’s interest was in vertical transformation, not in horizontal conversion. And what does this vertical transformation mean? It means that somebody becomes devoted to the Lord and starts rising towards the Lord. So, if somebody was already a committed Christian, Prabhupada would encourage them to follow Christianity with greater commitment, with greater depth. He would encourage them to follow the commandments more clearly. Prabhupada felt that “Thou shall not kill” is a commandment that Christians are not following properly and that could be used to encourage them to become vegetarian, which would help them rise to higher consciousness.

Now, some people who are nominally Christians (meaning they are born into a particular family but have no interest in spiritual growth or see their religious affiliation as a path to spiritual growth), Prabhupada wouldn’t bother too much about. He would say that you can practice the path given by Krishna and Lord Caitanya. He would inspire them to take up that path.

So, Prabhupada was both, we could say, an inclusivist. There is a universal aspect to spirituality, and there is a confidential aspect to spirituality. The universal aspect is that we all want to go up the mountain, and everybody should be encouraged to go up the mountain. At the same time, the confidential aspect means that there are certain things revealed only in certain traditions. It’s like if we are at the bottom of a mountain, sometimes when we look to the top, some paths might be shrouded with trees or cliffs, and we might not be able to see the peak very clearly. Some paths might be so clear that even from the bottom, we can see the peak much more clearly.

Similarly, in the Bhakti Yoga tradition, our understanding is that we have a very clear glimpse, a clear vision of God. That vision is what we are sharing. So, Prabhupada would say that there is a description of Krishna’s pastimes and of that one absolute truth (ekam satvipra bahudha vadanti). Though we should say that there is one truth, the wise people know that truth by different names. So, Prabhupada would say Krishna, Christ, Buddha, Allah, Yahweh—these are all names of that one absolute truth. One absolute truth can have different names.

In our tradition, there is a distinctive revelation of God that is not there in other traditions. This is not just a sectarian claim for one-upmanship that my tradition is better than yours. God is not the monopoly of any tradition. In fact, all traditions are devoted to God. God is not limited to any tradition. God is bigger than any of the paths and religions and processes that people may use to devote themselves to Him.

God transcends every conceptual framework that we might use to approach Him or to understand Him. But, having said that, this is not a sectarian claim to one-upmanship. This is just an objective statement based on the study of the texts. If you look at the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Quran, there is not much positive description of God. The Old Testament is basically a description of the adventures of God’s chosen people—the adventures and the misadventures, we could say. How they were slaves in Egypt and how Moses helped them come to the promised land and subsequently what all happened. That’s what is described in those books. God comes mostly as a supernatural presence who intervenes sometimes to protect those who are devoted to Him and sometimes to punish those who go against Him, or even punish His own people when they choose to go away from Him. But God per se is not directly revealed.

Even in the New Testament, the Christian Bible, the Old Testament is sometimes called the Hebrew Bible. Now, in the New Testament, most of it is actually Paul’s epistles—Paul’s letters that he wrote. Paul was one of the followers of Jesus who actually never met Jesus. In fact, while Jesus was alive, Paul actively persecuted Christians on behalf of the Roman Emperor. But then he went blind on the road to Damascus and had a transformative experience. Jesus restored his eyes, and then he became devoted to Jesus. So, most of what we call the Bible is actually Paul’s instructions about how to live morally and how to follow Jesus. So, that’s more moral instruction than any spiritual revelations. Even Jesus, the most important part of the Bible we could say, is the Gospels. The four Gospels are written by four different Apostles, and they are basically descriptions of Jesus’ activities while He was there, from different perspectives. And Jesus, during His life, mostly taught through parables—stories with moral import to them.

And none of those stories have any deep personal revelations about God, God’s nature, or God’s personality. If we consider the Quran, it was revealed gradually over time. Till the age of 40, Mohammed had a fairly normal life. Although he was known to have times of solitary contemplation, at one particular point, after a hard life when he had settled down and become relatively influential after marrying the widow who had been his employer, he went into a cave. He heard a voice saying, “Write.” He responded, “I can’t write.” The voice said, “No, write.” Mohammed then understood that it was the Archangel Gabriel speaking to him. He heard those words and later spoke them to others. Sometimes, while talking with people, he would suddenly feel that the divine was speaking through him and would ask others to write it down. He spoke these revelations at different times, and several decades after his death, his followers compiled them into the Quran. The Quran is mostly a unidirectional revelation, where there is no serious philosophical discussion or very deep personal revelation of God’s nature.

Again, none of this is to minimize the potency of these traditions or to say that those who have followed them have not risen to high spiritual levels. What I am saying is that if we look from the bottom of the mountain, from some sides, we can see the peak more clearly. From other sides, the path might still be taking us to the peak, but we can’t see it as clearly because of various reasons—the path might be winding around, there might be wild terrain, trees, or cliffs. As we grow spiritually, there have been exalted saints in many traditions across the world, saints who were completely devoted to God. So, in that sense, there is a universal aspect of revelation: ultimately, God wants the soul to reach Him, and thus, there are different paths for reaching Him.

At the same time, we can appreciate the path we are following and its specific attributes. One attribute I am referring to here is that the revelation of God’s personal identity is much clearer in the Bhakti tradition. This is how we can appreciate our path and commit to it while also appreciating others and their commitment to their paths. Bhaktivinoda Thakur says that by seeing others’ devotion to their paths, our devotion to our path will increase. For example, when you see Muslims doing their namaz regularly, you may be inspired to do your prayers regularly.

There’s a story about Prabhupada in Iran. He was talking with some devotees after they had invited some guests and those guests had left. Suddenly, the namaz prayer started in the background. Prabhupada folded his hands, closed his eyes, and remained silent and prayerful for the entire prayer. Afterward, Prabhupada opened his eyes, which were bright, and said, “Wasn’t that beautiful?” Some devotees were a little taken aback and said, “Prabhupada, wouldn’t it be better if they were chanting Hare Krishna?” Prabhupada looked almost pained and said, “Why are you making me sectarian? They are worshiping God in their way; we are worshiping God in our way.” Prabhupada demonstrated an openness to the idea that God can be accessed through different paths, and he showed respect for other traditions while remaining committed to the Bhakti path.

Now, if we are going to follow a particular path, how do we know that a path is taking us up the mountain? We talked about inclusivism and understanding one purpose with many paths, but we also differentiate inclusivism from pluralism. So, how do we know that one path is taking us up? Is it taking us up or round and round, or is it taking us away from the mountain to a valley? Essentially, there are two things to look for.

First, if the path is taking us up the mountain, the peak should come closer, and the ground should seem further away from us. This means that as we go toward the spiritual level of reality, if we are following a path that leads to the spiritual realm, the attractiveness of the spiritual will be revealed more and more to us. We should start feeling more serenity, more purity, and more ecstasy in our connection with the divine. As we rise up the mountain, our attachment to worldly things should start decreasing.

So, in broad terms, attachment to the divine and detachment from worldly infatuations are characteristics of a path that is actually taking us on a spiritual journey. The specifics of spiritual attachment and detachment from material things may vary in different paths, and individual practitioners may show different degrees of detachment. But the principle is that if these two things are happening, then the path is taking us up the mountain.

By considering attachment to the divine and detachment from material things, we can evaluate a path—not in a judgmental sense, but to understand our purpose and see if the path is taking us toward that purpose.

In this way, we can have an inclusive vision of reality, where we both appreciate our path and commit to it while also appreciating other paths and the devotion people have to those paths.

To summarize: I began by discussing how we understand the principle of reciprocity and why there are different paths. I explained the basic metaphors of the top and bottom of the mountain: the top represents the spiritual level of consciousness, while the bottom is the material level. Spiritual paths can be categorized into three broad levels: exclusivism, pluralism, and inclusivism. Exclusivism claims that one path has exclusive rights to God, which can be narrow-minded and fanatical, making an unlimited God seem parochial. On the other side of the spectrum is pluralism, where all paths are considered equally valid, but inclusivism offers a balanced perspective, acknowledging multiple paths while emphasizing one’s own path for spiritual growth.

That is not right because all paths don’t take us to the top of the mountain. Secondly, we need to talk about the logical issue: if all paths are right, then one path claiming to be the only correct path creates a logical contradiction.

Then, I talk about Bhakti Vinoda Thakur’s appreciation of how our devotion to God increases when we see Him manifested differently from how we experience Him. Our devotion to our path grows by seeing the devotion of others to their paths. We also discuss the universal dimension of spirituality and the confidential dimension specific to each tradition.

The confidential dimension means that each tradition may view the truth differently. I talked about how the specific revelation of God’s personality and beauty may be absent in some traditions but is much more prominent in others.

Now, we also discussed the meaning of “all paths lead to Me” in the Bhagavad Gita. If that were the case, it would make Krishna’s teachings redundant, as Krishna instructs us to do certain things and avoid others. The phrase “all paths lead to Me” could be understood as Krishna being like the ocean from which droplets have dispersed in various directions. Some droplets move toward the ocean, while others move away. Everything attractive comes from Krishna, but not everything leads us to Him. Whatever a person pursues, they are ultimately pursuing Krishna. To the extent they realize this, they will redirect their quest toward Him and ultimately attain Him.

Now, let’s address a few questions one by one.

Is belonging to a parampara a sign of affiliation? What does it mean? Well, not exactly. You have to understand that God is not limited by any material designation.

Is affiliation with a parampara a prerequisite to distinguishing a valid path from a fake one? Not necessarily. The four paramparas are what we know from a particular text, but are these the only four paramparas? In our tradition, we’ve had saints who have been accepted as saints without belonging to a parampara. Mirabai is an example, and there are many others. The idea of a parampara should not be used to turn an inclusive tradition into an exclusive one.

The parampara system essentially indicates that the soul is on a multi-life journey. Some people may have already been on a spiritual path in a previous life, had a spiritual master, and evolved spiritually. In this life, they may not be connected to a spiritual master or tradition. Of course, we shouldn’t presume that we fall into this category, but we must respect devotion wherever it manifests. One characteristic of devotion described in our tradition is that it is not dependent on anything else.

Devotion is not dependent on affiliation with a parampara. When we die, Krishna will not check our attendance at a particular ritual and grant or deny entry to the spiritual world based on that. It is ultimately about the affiliation of the heart. There are people who took initiation from Prabhupada but never truly practiced. Prabhupada once said, “I never initiated them because initiation is an act of the heart.”

We understand that traditions can be many. The important thing is being connected to God and progressing on the path toward Him. Generally, Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that knowledge is transmitted in this way, which is a description, not a prescription. Krishna is not saying that this is the only way He will reveal Himself for eternity.

Being in a parampara is a safe way of gaining knowledge, much like going to an authorized doctor increases the likelihood of receiving good treatment. However, for some ailments, a grandmother’s home remedies may work. The grandmother will not replace a doctor, and she won’t start a medical academy, but the principle is that wherever the cure is happening, it is good.

Thus, we accept that if someone is attached to the Lord and exhibits detachment from material things, we appreciate their devotion. We don’t need to exclude them just because they are not part of our parampara.

Prabhupada was asked about this on a TV show. He was with a Christian priest, and the host asked the priest whether someone who follows the Bible would go back to God. The priest said, “The path to God is narrow and difficult.” When the host turned to Prabhupada and asked whether someone who follows the Bhagavad Gita would go back to God, Prabhupada said, “If anyone follows the message of God, they will attain God.” Prabhupada was clear on that.

Now, regarding how we can know if we are on the right path: Essentially, it’s about increased attachment to the spirit. This means we are growing spiritually, becoming more attached to the spirit and less attached to matter. That’s the essence of the process. As for the question about different degrees of surrender, I’ll address that when we talk about surrender in a future class.

I don’t want to go into the whole concept of devatas right now; I will discuss that in a future class as well.

Now, chanting is often said to be the only way. How does this relate to inclusivism? Well, what is chanting? It is the repetition of the Hare Nama mantra. Prabhupada said that chanting any name of God can elevate people. There is both a universal and a confidential aspect to this.

Some names of God refer to His relationship with the world, while others refer to His self-existential glory. For example, there are names that describe God as the provider, protector, and maintainer—these are names that speak about what God does for us, rather than who God is in His own right. Bhaktivinoda Thakur explains that the names of God that directly refer to His self-existential glory highlight His personality more and, therefore, awaken a deeper spiritual attraction to Him. These names remind us of God’s true nature.

That said, chanting any name of God can elevate us. We should not limit our understanding of chanting to just one particular mantra. Chanting, in its essence, is an expression of love and devotion. When we love someone, we take great joy in remembering them and calling out their names. By chanting the name of God, we invoke the same love, and our devotion for Him increases. This is the principle of devotion and inclusivism as it relates to chanting.

Now, how can we be efficient in fulfilling our worldly duties while striving to reach the top of the mountain, or while we are in between? It’s not that we should abandon our duties, but rather, we should begin to see those duties through a more spiritual lens. Instead of working solely for personal gain—whether it’s wealth or fame—we recognize that the abilities we have are gifts from God. We use those abilities to make a contribution on His behalf.

Earlier, in a previous session, I talked about how happiness comes not from collecting and consuming but from connecting and contributing. We see our abilities as gifts from God, and when we use them to serve others, we do so with a sense of gratitude, knowing we are contributing to His work in the world. This helps others on their spiritual journey.

So, the bottom duties should not be rejected. The “bottom” refers to a level of consciousness, not a stage to abandon. If we cultivate a deeper level of consciousness, we can perform those duties with greater understanding and commitment. For example, a teacher might teach simply because they need to earn a living, or they might teach because they want to shape the future of humanity by training the next generation of leaders. The second approach is much more inspiring.

When we see our work as worship, we understand that it can be an act of devotion. When we discuss work and worship in more detail, especially in the 18th chapter, we will see that our abilities and resources are meant to help us connect with the Lord inside and make a contribution on His behalf outside. By doing so, we fulfill our duties responsibly while maintaining our devotional practices.

So that we can connect with Him better, among the three divisions of knowledge—Shruti, Smriti, and Nyaya Prasthana—the first Shruti is plural, Nyaya is exclusive, and Smriti is inclusive. This is an interesting way of looking at things. Let me break this down into three key points.

First, I’ll explain what Shruti, Smriti, and Nyaya are. Shruti primarily refers to the Vedas and the Upanishads, which are considered revelations heard directly from the Lord by the sages. Smriti, on the other hand, refers to recollections or what some might call tradition—essentially, what the sages heard and transmitted to others. As these teachings were passed down over generations, they became revered as revelation.

In Shruti, the letters themselves are significant because they are considered the direct revelation from the divine. For instance, the Bhagavatam, which started as a brief work, eventually expanded into thousands of verses. That’s Shruti.

Then we have Nyaya, which refers primarily to the Vedanta Sutra. Nyaya involves logic and reasoning, providing inferences that help clarify the meaning of certain sections of the Upanishads that may be difficult to understand. It explains how these texts point toward the ultimate reality. In Nyaya literature, particularly the Vedanta Sutra, these discussions take place. These three—Shruti, Smriti, and Nyaya—are the core texts in the tradition.

Traditionally, any Acharya or any new tradition that sought to establish its authenticity had to comment on these three fundamental books: Shruti, Smriti, and Nyaya.

Now, in our context, we can say that Shruti, especially in its widely known form, discusses various forms of worship of the Devatas (deities), which can be considered pluralistic. You can worship this god or that god. This, at first glance, may seem pluralistic. However, the Vedic conception of divinity is much more subtle and nuanced. It goes beyond simple monotheism or polytheism. It’s a sophisticated form of theology known as polymorphic monotheism, which I will explain later.

In the first glance, yes, Shruti may appear to embrace pluralism, especially in the Karma Kanda (ritual section) of the Vedas. As for Nyaya, it focuses more on the oneness of reality, although the nature of this oneness is still a subject of discussion. Nyaya emphasizes monism, which can be seen as inclusive in some ways, but also pluralistic because it acknowledges multiple gods, with the ultimate reality being one.

Specifically, the Bhagavatam (a Shruti text) integrates different conceptions of divinity and offers an inclusive understanding. It presents God as both personal and impersonal, and while there are devatas (lesser gods), there is a Supreme Being who stands above them, yet they are all interconnected. So, the Shrutis can definitely be viewed as inclusivist.

Now, for the last question I will address: Does following the rules and regulations of sadhana strictly, and instructing others to follow the same, mean forcing them to follow a specific path? How is this different from spreading a particular path?

There’s nothing wrong with inviting people to rise up the mountain by following the path we are walking. When we find a particular path transformational, we naturally feel inspired to share that transformational process with others. Is this conversion? Are people being forced to follow this path? No, everyone has free will, and no one is being coerced. There is no threat or force being applied.

However, when people are new to the path, there is often the “zeal of the new convert,” where someone may feel that they have found the truth and believe others are wrong. They may attempt to prove their point and can present Krishna consciousness in a forceful manner. But I have shown how Prabhupada and Bhaktivinoda Thakur presented things—gently and inclusively.

Yes, there is a particular path, and if someone commits to that path, they can rise to higher consciousness by following it. Every path will encourage people to ascend in some way because they believe it is beneficial. But does this mean we condemn or reject other paths? No, every path offers a way to heal, and everyone can rise to higher consciousness through whatever path inspires them.

Thank you very much.