Gita key verses course 28 – Why is life so tough? – Gita 8.15

Hare Krishna. Welcome to our session on the Gita ki verses. Today we’ll be discussing the topic of why is life so tough and if God loves us, why doesn’t he make our life easier? So this is based on a well-known verse from the Gita 8.15, which often strikes people as pessimistic.

Maa mupetya punar janma, dukkhaal ema shaashvatam, naapnuvanti mahatmanaha, samsiddhim parmaam gathaha.

Krishna is in this section of the Gita stressing the importance of spiritual practice by contrasting the nature of the material and the spiritual worlds. In the previous sessions in the 7th chapter, through various angles, we discussed how God manifests in this world in various ways. And then in the 8th chapter, which is in Sanskrit called Akshara Brahma Yoga (the imperishable Brahman or attaining the Lord at the time of death), the idea is stressed on the temporality, the temporariness of the world and thereby focus on the transcendence, the transcendental reality.

So this verse says, “maa mupetya,” those who attain me, “punar janma,” birth again, “dukkhaal ema shaashvatam.” So this world is dukkhaalaya; the word “alaya” means abode, like the word Himalaya. Himalaya is a place where “hima” means snow, so it is a place of snow. So similarly, this world is a place of distress, “dukkhaal ema shaashvatam” and it is temporary.

They will not come again to this world; they are mahatmas. “Mana” is mind, “maha” is great. So these great-minded people, these great souls, “samsiddhim parmaam gataha,” because they have attained the supreme destination, “parmaam samsiddhim,” completely attained.

So it’s interesting, in this verse, the stress is not so much on the point that the world is a place of distress, but that a destination beyond this distressful world can be attained by those who are devoted to Krishna. So it’s almost like a given truth. It’s something which doesn’t even need to be questioned or discussed. Suppose if someone says that, “If I get a better paying job, then I’ll move out of this locality and I won’t have to come back here.” So when somebody makes a statement like that, it’s implied that that locality is not a good locality to live in. So when somebody is having a discussion like that, not only is that implied, but it’s implied in a way that doesn’t even require discussion or justification. It’s assumed that it’s like a self-evident truth. So we’ll start with that as our discussion today. We’ll be discussing three points: how there’s a universal spiritual truth that has been taught by many of the world’s traditions.

And then, based on the understanding of that truth, we will look at what love means. First, we look at a naive understanding of love and then we look at a deeper understanding of love. Here, we’ll be talking about love in terms of appreciating God’s love for us and then expressing our love for God.

So what is this universal spiritual truth? That across traditions, this is something which has been commonly taught. Say, for example, in the Bible, it is said that the world is a veil of tears. And this world is a place where so many distresses will come upon us that eventually we will cry. And a veil indicates it’s like a valley. It’s something which is deep and dark, and we have to pass through it. And Dukkha is considered in Buddhism to be the first noble truth. Dukkha that is called that.

Now different philosophers have argued about their particular philosophies. And some people may say that this world is unreal or whatever. Say, our selfhood itself is unreal. That the idea of God is unreal. Well, okay, all these things can be argued and counter-argued for. But at a practical, experiential level, distress argues for itself. When pain comes in our life, it can be overwhelming. Pain argues for itself. So we might or might not believe in, say, the existence of a soul, of another world, of God, or even of this world. But when pain comes, we can’t deny the existence of that pain.

So now, it is echoing such universal spiritual teachings across traditions. So if we consider Christianity to be the prominent representation of Western religious systems, although it originated in the Middle East, it spread across the West. And Buddhism as a prominent Eastern religious system, which is also now spread across the West significantly. So the Gita, in many ways, predates both of them. And the Gita is saying the same thing several thousands of years ago that this world is an abode of distress.

So now, what is the point of understanding this? Without some ground level understanding of things, we may have unrealistic expectations. Say, for example, if somebody is going through a desert, and say now a child is being taken to a desert by the parents. The parents may love the child, but whatever they do, the heat of the desert is simply going to be the fact of life over there. You can try to protect yourselves by having a fan or something like that, but the heat is a given fact. Now if that given fact itself is not accepted, then what happens? Then the child might start chronically complaining to the parents, “Now why is it so hot? Why did you bring me here? Why are you not protecting me from the heat?”

But no, there are certain given truths. So that the world is a place of distress is, or was, we could say a given truth in pre-modern times. But often in our world, in our times, the word belief has a negative connotation. Believers are often looked down upon because the idea is that generally the word believer is associated with God. And it is said that how can you believe in something which you have never seen? So belief is looked down upon. But belief is a feature of the human psyche itself. And now, what we believe in can vary, but we all believe in something or the other.

So in modern society, one of the most foundational beliefs is that the world is a place of enjoyment and life is already enjoyable or will soon become enjoyable with some material progress. Now material progress can refer to technological advancement, or it can also refer to some mental adjustment. Just change your attitude and life will become enjoyable. It’s almost dogmatic. There are many thinkers who try to have a progressive view of history. A progressive view of history means that they try to say that life in the past was bad, and now it is better, and in the future, it will become even better. Now, in the last century, with the two world wars, it literally devastated this idea, this progressive view of history. Because in the last one century, and even the last century itself, the first half of the last century, more people were killed in violent warfare than were killed in the preceding 19th century combined together. So it was devastation. Unfortunately, human memory can be incredibly short-lived. And thus, till this corona pandemic hit the world, the last 50 or 60 years after the Second World War, we enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity.

And the idea again became prominent that life is enjoyable. Of course, we have mental distress and we’re trying to deal with that. So the point here is not that, just like if a person is going through a desert, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do anything to protect ourselves from the heat. But we also understand that the heat is going to be there and we start with that baseline expectation or baseline acceptance, we could say. Then, okay, it’s going to be hot. Now, let me see what I can do about it. But if I’m resenting, “Why is it hot? Why is it hot? Why is it hot?” then that baseline expectation itself is a problem. So the world is a place of distress, and this modern belief that life is enjoyable or will soon become enjoyable, this sets us up for frustration.

Why is the world a place of distress? We have discussed this topic earlier in our sessions. So there is a purpose. So this particular verse, when it says that if you focus on Krishna, then you won’t attain this world, which is a place of distress. What that means is that in one sense, attaining Krishna is the purpose of the world. And then if that purpose is fulfilled, then there’s no need for being in this world. So in that sense, the world is like a hospital. And the purpose of the hospital is to treat and cure the patient. Say if somebody is infected by the coronavirus, then if there’s a severe infection, they will be hospitalized, or even if not hospitalized, they are quarantined.

Now, being quarantined, being isolated, being immobilized is not a pleasant thing. But for a particular purpose, it is done till we become cured. And then after that, we can resume our normal activities. So if you understand the purpose, then it’s easier to bear some difficulty, whatever might be there. So the purpose is the healing of our consciousness. What does healing mean? A diseased consciousness is a consciousness that is attached to matter and that is constricted because of the attachment to matter. Matter is temporary, spirit is eternal. If our consciousness expands to the eternal spiritual level, then that is the purpose of existence. And once that purpose is fulfilled, then the Bhagavad Gita says we do not have to be present in this world of distress. Just like there is a hospital, but there is a whole world beyond the hospital.

So an implicit truth in pre-modern cultures was that there is a world beyond this world and that world is life’s ultimate purpose. So in the light of the purpose, the statement doesn’t seem so pessimistic. Otherwise, the world is the place of distress. Why are we so pessimistic? But if we say the hospital is the place where there will be pain. Oh, okay. But it’s not that somebody has to live in the hospital forever, especially if the disease is curable and a cure is available. Then the person can soon go to the hospital. So the Gita’s stress is, in this verse, on taking the cure.

So to take the cure, we need to understand what is the disease and then take the treatment. So this is an example of a purpose-centered expression of love. This will be a segue to our next point: that if a bird gives birth to a baby, normally birds reproduce through eggs. Now the egg, the baby bird has to crack the shell on its own. The mother bird does not crack the shell in nature. Why? Because the baby bird has to grow and develop the strength by which it can crack the shell. Similarly, our consciousness is constricted right now. We have various material attachments with which our consciousness is constricted and we need to break those attachments. So breaking the shell is vital. And for breaking that shell, whatever is required, we need to do that.

So the purpose of the world is to heal our consciousness from its diseased attached condition based on centered matter to a spiritual level. So a naive understanding of love, let’s look at this and then we’ll look at a deeper understanding of love. So a naive understanding of love is sometimes love can defeat the purpose of love. So overprotection can be underprotection. Say for example, parents, naturally parents love their children and they want to protect their children. Now one vital aspect of protecting one’s child is preparing one’s child for the future. So especially in life, there are problems, in the world there are disagreeable people and every individual has to learn to deal with these on their own.

Now of course, in the growth journey, when the child is very small, the parent, especially the mother, actually protects the child. So when a child cries in the middle of the night, the mother doesn’t tell the child, “This is not the right time to cry, shut up and go to sleep.” But no, that time the child has no awareness of anything and then the mother immediately, in one sense, unconditionally offers love to the child. Now as the child grows up, the child is expected to behave in a particular way. Now that doesn’t mean that every aspect of the behavior has to be stereotyped, but if there is a basic decent, polite behavior, then other children want to play with the child. Now other people want to be with that child.

So if the parents don’t discipline the child in that way to regulate the behavior, then what happens? When the child grows up, the child becomes disagreeable, nobody wants to be with that child, and then that loneliness, that isolation can be actually much more painful than some amount of discipline given earlier by which you may want to act like that, you may want to speak like this, but no, you cannot speak like this, you cannot do like this. So there has to be some amount of discipline required. So overprotection, what are we meaning here by overprotection? That one part of protection is preparation.

So in life, each of us eventually has to fight our own battles, and if somebody else keeps fighting the battles for us, then we don’t grow up and that is unhealthy, that is counterproductive. So this is the key point: that if we think that love means that somebody else will fight our battles, then that is a misunderstanding of love and this is not just in the parent-child relationship, but this dynamic applies everywhere. Now if we consider help that can harm, that happens say in the arena of social service, where social service can lead to disservice. How? Suppose somebody is an addict and they are given handouts. Now many addicts, if they get some free money, they get some dole, they may use it not to get food or some basic hygiene or basic requirements for health, they may just use it to drink or get stoned.

So what happens? The intent might be to help and in that sense, one is expressing one’s care, one’s concern, one’s love, but it is a help that harms the other person and if the addict has that expectation that say that if people care for me, then they should give me the object of their addiction, then that is a distorted understanding of love. So now when naturally, if you consider the previous example, this example, that when an addict does not get the object that they want, then it causes distress and it’s not just psychological distress, sometimes there can be physical withdrawal symptoms which are painful, but still, protecting the addict from that pain means that not just simply giving the addiction to the addict substance that will continue the addiction but helping them deal with that pain.

The Role of Distress and Love in Growth:

1. Attachment and Co-dependency:
   • In relationships, especially when dealing with addictions (e.g., alcoholism), there can be a phenomenon called co-dependency, where a partner enables harmful behavior by covering up the consequences.
   • Helping an addict involves knowing when to shield them from consequences and when to allow them to face the results of their actions in order to learn and grow. This is akin to a parent allowing a child to face consequences to learn responsibility.
2. God’s Relationship with Us:
   • God (Krishna) does not enable us to continue in our attachment to material things. While life’s difficulties may arise due to our attachment, these challenges are not an indication that God doesn’t love us.
   • Distress in life, like a tragedy in a movie, does not solely come from the temporary nature of the world; it stems from our emotional entanglement with transient things. Krishna wants us to shift our consciousness from material attachments to higher spiritual understanding.
3. Growth Through Distress:
   • Distress is often seen as an obstacle, but it can be a path to growth. Just as discomfort in a hospital motivates us to heal and leave, life’s difficulties prompt us to awaken and grow spiritually.
   • The Bhagavad Gita teaches that life’s struggles are not signs of God’s lack of care, but rather, they serve as opportunities for spiritual awakening and growth.
4. The Deeper Meaning of Love:
   • True love involves preparing loved ones for challenges, not just protecting them from them. Just like a mother bird lets its chick struggle to break the shell, love helps individuals grow by facing difficulties.
   • In the case of Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna’s empowerment did not mean that Arjuna would be free of obstacles. Rather, Krishna provided the strength to face and overcome those challenges. Empowerment from Krishna meant gaining the strength to endure distress and continue on the path of righteousness.

So although victory was assured for Arjuna, that does not mean that victory came painlessly. Just like if a person is sick, when there is sickness, there is going to be some distress. If a doctor says, “Okay, now we have found a cure for your sickness,” just having a cure—even a cure that works—does not necessarily mean that the treatment is going to be painless. Sometimes we evaluate the treatment based on whether it is removing my pain right away, rather than on whether it is actually curing the underlying disease. So that may not be the best criteria for evaluating the treatment.

Similarly, if we think that God’s love means that the world will no longer be a place of distress, that is a misconception. Krishna loves us as we are, but He loves us too much to let us stay as we are. We discussed this theme earlier—whether God’s love is conditional or unconditional. It’s unconditional in the sense that He always loves us, wherever we are, however we are. But it’s also conditional in the sense that He wants us to grow, He wants us to develop. He loves us too much to let us stay as we are. This again brings us back to the example of parents and children. Now, should parents love their child conditionally or unconditionally? At one level, we may say, “Of course, you should love unconditionally. Whatever you do, I am with you.” That’s true, but as I said earlier, parents also have to discipline the child.

What parenting studies have shown is that children thrive best when there is an atmosphere of love that is both conditional and unconditional. That means, “Yes, whatever happens, I value you, I love you,” but at the same time, “I want you to develop your potential. I want you to become all that you can be,” and that means there has to be some amount of discipline, some amount of dedication. Somebody has to do the disciplining, somebody has to instill the dedication. That’s why, quite often, there is a traditional family structure—nuclear family—where there are two parents. Then one parent can offer unconditional love, and the other parent can offer conditional love. If it’s one parent alone, and that parent has to offer both conditional and unconditional love, that becomes very difficult. Single parents might be very dedicated, but parenting is not one person’s job intrinsically.

So the point here is that God’s love is both conditional and unconditional. It’s unconditional in the sense that no matter how attached we may be or how many distresses may be in our life, Krishna is always there in our hearts with us. He never abandons us. He stays always with us, always ready to help us. He’s the well-wisher of everyone. Simultaneously, He wants us to grow. He wants us to develop our potential, and if we don’t do that, then we are missing out on the joy that comes from expanding our consciousness, from linking with the eternal, from developing a personal relationship with the Divine and experiencing unending joy thereof. And He doesn’t want us to be deprived of that.

That’s why the idea here is that the world is a distressful place. But this distress doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist or that God doesn’t care. It means that we need to expand our consciousness beyond this world. We need to learn to see that our stable attachment, our enduring purpose, is not something in this world. When we change our expectation from God, then we’ll find that God’s love is always with us. If we expect that the distresses of the world go away, then they may not go away. Of course, they will go away at times, but they will not necessarily go away according to our time or our plan. But if we see that we want a shelter for our consciousness beyond this world, and we seek that in God, then we’ll find that shelter is available. If we turn towards Krishna and try to absorb ourselves in Him through the practice of bhakti, then that shelter will be available for us. And in experiencing that shelter through absorption in Krishna, we’ll find that His love for us is always available.

So, I’ll summarize what I spoke about today and then we can have a few questions. I started by talking on this topic: Why is life so tough? If God loves us, why do we still have problems in life?

So, three points: First, I discussed how it’s a universal understanding that was present in pre-modern times. Whether we talk about Christianity, which says that the world is a veil of tears, or Buddhism, which says distress (dukkha) is life’s first truth, or the Bhagavad Gita itself, which says, “This is dukkha-leya-mishasvatam.” It’s a universal understanding. Like if the desert is going to be hot, the modern belief is that life is enjoyable or life can soon become enjoyable if we just make some adjustments. There can be some material physical development or there can be some mental adjustment. No, the fact remains that the world is a place of distress. Now, this is not pessimistic because implicit in the spiritual texts is the idea that there is a life beyond this world.

It’s like the world is a hospital and there is a world—and our home—beyond the hospital. The purpose of the distress, in one sense, is that we expand our consciousness beyond matter to spirit. And what makes this world stressful? Firstly, it is a material world where things are temporary. Secondly, it is our attachment to those temporary things. The fact that there is a tragedy movie on TV does not necessarily make us feel bad. It is when we get emotionally involved in the movie that we feel bad.

Then we discussed the naive understanding of love and the deeper understanding of love. Three examples: if parents pamper the child and overprotect the child, actually overprotection means underprotection. It works out to be that the child will not be prepared to face life’s challenges. The love defeats the purpose of love when the parents don’t prepare the child. Similarly, charity that is used by addicts to further their addiction: the state may want to help, but the help harms. The third example was of a codependent partner of an addict: if the addict’s partner or significant other tries to keep covering up the problems, then not having to endure the consequences of one’s actions may make the addict continue those actions. Enduring the consequences can often be a deterrent to repeating those actions.

So, God does not want to become our codependent when we have an unhealthy relationship with matter, and because of our attachment to it. Then we talked about how God loves us as we are, but He loves us too much to let us stay as we are.

Children thrive best in a relationship, in a parental relationship, where the love is both conditional and unconditional. Unconditional in the sense that they accept you however you are, but conditional in the sense that you have so much potential and you need to discipline yourself to develop that potential. The example of the bird in the shell: the bird does not crack the shell for the baby bird; the baby bird has to do it on its own.

We discussed Arjuna. Krishna empowered Arjuna, but Arjuna being empowered didn’t mean that he didn’t face any problems. Rather, he got the strength by Krishna’s grace to face the problems. So, rather than expecting life to be problem-free, if we expect that life is purposeful in terms of always sticking to the purpose of expanding our consciousness, then we will find that Krishna’s inner presence, which gives us the strength to face life’s problems, can be experienced through the practice of bhakti. And therein, we will experience God’s love for us.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments?

In this discussion, we address how to prioritize activities in bhakti when time is limited and the nature of distress in life. Here’s a summary:

1. Prioritizing Bhakti Activities: In bhakti, there are many activities to engage in, but it’s crucial to focus on the “big things” that nourish us spiritually. These include regular sadhana (spiritual practice) and studying scriptures. When time is limited, it’s helpful to choose one activity and commit to it for a set period, such as a month, and dedicate yourself to it regardless of external circumstances. This creates a steady connection with Krishna and shows seriousness about spiritual growth.
2. Dynamic Nature of Life: Life is dynamic, and our priorities might change depending on the context. For instance, while driving, you may listen to a class, but if there’s heavy traffic, that may become impractical. In such cases, you shift your focus temporarily but keep the overall purpose in mind, adjusting priorities accordingly.
3. Purpose Provides Perspective: The key to navigating daily life is remembering your ultimate purpose. While driving, for example, your goal may be to reach your destination, but you can also use that time productively by listening to spiritual content. Having a clear purpose helps you prioritize tasks and revisit your goals to ensure you’re moving in the right direction.
4. Distress in Life: Karma or Nature of the World?: When we face distress, it can be difficult to pinpoint the exact cause. There are two ways to approach understanding distress: analysis and synthesis. Analysis involves breaking down the causes, such as past karma or the nature of the world. However, in real life, it’s often a combination of both. The world is inherently full of distress (dukkha), but specific events might also arise due to our own actions (karma). When we face difficulties, we analyze the situation to see if our actions contributed to the problem, but we also recognize that distress may arise simply because it’s a feature of life itself. Both perspectives are complementary, and synthesizing them helps us respond pragmatically.

The idea is to face life’s challenges with awareness and humility, understanding that some things are beyond our control, while others can be addressed through self-correction.

So, if somebody is having some severe relationship problems, then we try to introspect, analyze, and see what it is that we could do to improve the relationship. And we all can do certain things. At the same time, we all have certain basic natures. And different people have different degrees of compatibility. So, we don’t want to, in the sense of taking, there is one thing is taking responsibility and the other is blaming. Now, we understand that blaming someone else is a problem. But we may not understand that blaming ourselves can also be problematic.

So, what is the difference between taking responsibility and blaming ourselves?

So, if somebody has fallen down, taking responsibility means, “Hey, I was careless. I didn’t notice the water over there, that’s why I slipped and fell. Let me get up, let me rise up, and start walking.” That is taking responsibility. Blaming means somebody has fallen down, and you say, “You stupid fool, can’t you watch? You are so stupid, you will keep falling down.”

So, somebody stands next to a person who has fallen down and keeps pounding, beating that person.

So, now in our case, we might do like that: “Oh, I’m so stupid, I’m so sinful, I’m so fallen.” And if by that attitude we keep beating ourselves up, then that is unhealthy.

So, that’s the way we have to, the key principle is whether we analyze the cause of our suffering in terms of some action that we have done or the generic nature of the world being Dukkhalan. The key principle is that we need to feel encouraged to rise and resume our forward motion in life, our movement toward Krishna, our service to Krishna, our journey toward Krishna. If we don’t feel inspired that way, then something is wrong, and we need to revisit our understanding of things and get a more constructive understanding.

If someone lives a life of luxury and comfort and they don’t experience distress at all, the statement that the world is a place of distress seems to be like a statement by which people are being forced to turn toward God. Yeah, that’s possible. We all have a certain amount of karma that we have done in our previous lives. And some people may have done a lot of good karma in their previous lives, by which they have a life of comfort and luxury in this life. And when they have that kind of life, then what happens by that? They may relatively experience less distress in this life, particularly.

So, ideally speaking, that less distress should be seen as less distraction from spiritual life. Somebody doesn’t have to worry too much about how to earn a livelihood. Then they can focus on something bigger. But unfortunately, they may start obsessing over something smaller. They might start pandering to their senses and just neglecting life’s bigger responsibilities, and that would be unfortunate.

So, every situation brings with it some pluses and minuses. And from the Bhagavad Gita’s perspective, if somebody is having a relatively happy life, there are degrees of distress and there are degrees of happiness. Some people may have relatively less distress in their lives. And that’s fine. We understand that past karma can act as a buffer to some extent to life’s sufferings. But still, even they have to grow old; eventually, they have to get diseased, they have to die. Those can’t be avoided. And sometimes if somebody has had a very comfortable life, then their death can actually be quite painful because they may become attached to their life as they’re living it and then losing that can be extremely painful.

So now as far as whether God is forcing us? No, there’s a difference between warning and threatening. That is, say, somebody holds a gun to our head and says, “You do this, otherwise I’ll shoot you.” That is a threat. But if we are driving on a road and there’s a notice over there that says, “Slow down, sharp curve ahead,” and say there’s a picture showing that you’ll fly off a cliff and fall down, you may die because of that. There’s a picture like that. Now, that is not a threat. That is a warning. Generally, the difference between a threat and a warning is that when the person is threatening, that very person is personally involved in making us suffer the particular action, particular thing that they are threatening. Whereas a warning is, “This is how things are, and therefore guard yourself.”

So it’s not that Krishna personally causes suffering to people who do not align with life’s purpose, who do not live spiritually. But there is a nature to the world, and those who live in material consciousness get attached to temporary things. They suffer when those temporary things are taken away. So Krishna is not personally inflicting suffering on people who are wrongdoers. There is a law of karma, and according to that law, things happen. So in that sense, the statement is not a forcible threat. It’s just an intelligent warning.

So how can we explain the message of the Gita to those who do not believe in the Gita? We need to see what is their particular need and see how we can address that need at that particular time. And generally, people’s felt need needs to be addressed before their actual need can be addressed. Just like going back to the doctor’s example. If a patient is in pain, now the patient may not understand what is the root cause. The patient basically feels the pain, and if the doctor addresses the pain, the patient feels good. So an ideal treatment involves both a medicine for curing the disease and for addressing the pain.

So now, in the case when somebody’s going through distress, we also need to be there to emotionally support the person as much as we can. So now, when Abhimanyu passes away, Krishna does not throw philosophy at that person. Krishna basically states that in this world, distress visits everyone, but in great people, the character of a person is seen by how they face the distress. That is, whether they do actions which increase their and others’ distress, or they do actions which decrease others’ distress. And so Krishna tells Arjuna, “The Pandavas also and your brothers are also suffering over here, so don’t act in a way that increases the suffering.”

So now, this question, as well as a little question of how do we console a family member if a family member has passed away because of Covid, I think there is an earlier session that explains how to deal with the death of a loved one. You can find an elaborate explanation for that. I would not want to repeat that right now.

How can we increase or broaden our understanding of Bhakti in terms of, say, Brahmachari Ashram or Grihastha Ashram? Generally, we are very influenced by the people whom we hear from or people who guide us. So if they have a particular conception of Bhakti, we naturally develop that conception of Bhakti. That’s why it’s important that we hear from different devotees and broaden our understanding by hearing, by associating, and by asking questions.

Now, some of us, whatever understanding we may have, if that is what inspires us, that is what drives us forward, and especially if that doesn’t make us judgmental towards others who have a slightly different understanding, then that is healthy. But if our understanding of Bhakti makes us judgmental towards others, then that is unhealthy. That is something which we will have to protect ourselves from, and one way to broaden our understanding is by hearing from different people.

So each of us may have a particular understanding. Now, it’s not just Brahmachari Ashram or Grihastha Ashram, it could be that what service is most important. Some devotees may feel book distribution is the most important service. Some devotees may feel that temple construction is the most important service. Some people may feel that doing big festivals like Yatras and others is the most important service.

Which is most important? Well, there can be many most important things because we all have an individual relationship with Krishna, and each of us may see certain things as most important. So rather than obsessing over what is more important or less important, we can focus on that which most connects us with Krishna, and we also understand that there are other things which may most connect others with Krishna.

So, some devotees may feel that just studying Bhagavatam, going deep into Shastra, and relishing Shastra and sharing Shastra is the key thing that inspires them in their spirituality. That’s fine; they do that. So recognizing that we are all individuals and Krishna can inspire different devotees in different ways. So just because I feel inspired in a particular way doesn’t mean that somebody else can’t be inspired in a different way. And so others don’t have to be wrong for me to be right. I can be right, and they can also be right.

Now, this doesn’t mean that everything is right and there are no wrongs. No, there are some basic conceptions in Bhakti which are clear—that Krishna is life’s ultimate goal. There are certain activities of Bhakti which are cardinal practice principles. That’s fine. But beyond that, there are many aspects which can vary from person to person. So when we focus more on the purpose and not so much on the process, the purpose is to link with Krishna. How do we link with Krishna? It may be through one ashram or the other ashram. It may be through one limb of Bhakti or another limb of Bhakti, as the primary thing that inspires us. That can vary from person to person.

So, when we focus on the purpose and see that the process can be individualized according to different people’s inspiration and nature, then we can have a broader understanding of Bhakti.

So one last question now:
Why does Krishna not allow us to enjoy this material world?
Well, it is not that Krishna doesn’t allow us to enjoy the material world. It is just that the material world itself is a temporary place. It is a place of distress because of its temporariness. Now, if we say, “Why couldn’t Krishna make this world an eternal world?” we could argue like that, but then where do we stop that argument? Ultimately, the joy in the spiritual world comes from loving Krishna. Krishna is all-attractive. He has the six opulences and he is eminently lovable.

So, if we consider in our own lives, what gives us happiness is not just the things that we have, but ultimately it is the relationships we form. We may have satisfying relationships in the world, but still, even those satisfying relationships are also temporary. Now, we may say, “Even if they were eternal?” Yes, the people whom we love have certain deficiencies and virtues, and we care for them, we cherish their love as they are, but ultimately, our heart longs to love Krishna, and Krishna is the only person with the six opulences, and Krishna has no substitute.

So, if we were to enjoy separately from him, enjoyment would not come just from Krishna providing us with lots of things in the world to enjoy or even making this world eternal. Krishna would have to create another Krishna, another object of love, with the six opulences. And if a person with six opulences is present in the world, then this world becomes like a spiritual world. Then again, what will happen is that we wouldn’t be the focus of attention. It is that person who will be the focus of attention.

The point here is that our consciousness needs to expand beyond us, and we need the supremely fulfilling object of love, and that object is Krishna. So, the material world is the place where Krishna is not manifest directly; the spiritual world is the place where Krishna is manifest directly. So, to the extent we choose to love and seek a substitute for Krishna, to that extent, distress is intrinsic as a consequence of that choice. The material world is structured in such a way that the consequence of that choice soon becomes apparent for us. But it is not that Krishna has created the material world as a place where we will experience distress. Rather, distress is intrinsic to the choice as a consequence of seeking a substitute for Krishna. And that’s why, ultimately, we need to turn toward him, and that’s how we can experience lasting happiness. It’s not that Krishna doesn’t want us to enjoy separate from him; it’s that our heart’s longing for lasting love itself will not let us be happy separate from Krishna.

Thank you very much.

So, if we are chanting particular mantras for worshipping the devatas, some devata from our childhood, and then, while practicing bhakti and doing lots of services, we stop chanting those mantras, and then say our parents, our mother, who taught us to chant Bhagavad Gita verses, also feel unhappy because we have stopped doing it, and we also start feeling guilty, what do we do?

Yes, there are certain principles which are universal, and there are certain preferences which can vary according to context. So, in principle, as you quoted, when we water the root of the tree, there is no need to water the particular leaves. Similarly, when we are worshipping Krishna, the devatas are automatically worshipped—that’s the principle.

Beyond that, in a particular context, if each of us needs to do certain things, I think in an earlier class, I mentioned this point that Bhaktivinoda Thakur talks about how a devotee’s heart is in the practice of bhakti. Bhakti festivals and practices are important, but if there are certain other religious festivals—say at the time of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, the worship of the goddess was quite big. If a devotee has to go to a program like that, that’s fine. Occasionally, a devotee doesn’t put their heart in that and sees the goddess also as a manifestation of Krishna in a particular way and worships Krishna accordingly.

So, out of deference to social custom or familial custom, if one has to do certain things, we have to see according to time, place, and circumstance. As far as feeling guilty, there is no need to feel guilty. It’s not that Krishna is going to hold it against us. We see this in the example of Indra puja, where Krishna himself told the Rajvasis to stop the puja of Indra. That was not because Krishna wanted to teach the Rajvasis to disrespect Indra. The point was different. In that particular context, Indra had developed an entitlement mentality, and Krishna wanted to correct that.

But the point is that a devotee should not feel guilty because they’re not worshipping the devatas. At the same time, if a particular thing is required as per deference to social custom, then we can do it if it doesn’t affect our practice of bhakti in an inordinate way. There is no need to be a campaigner for doing it nor a campaigner against doing it. Certain things are just required circumstantially. We do it and move forward. Now, we needn’t think of this as something spiritual—it may be progressively spiritual and definitely better than doing sensual things and other activities like that. But we don’t have to make it a big issue of controversy. The principle is that we need to have our mind as much as possible available for focusing on Krishna.

So now, imagine a situation where we make it a rigid principle that we won’t chant those mantras, and then that causes so much stress and tension in our family that, even when we are practicing bhakti—chanting Hare Krishna, going to the temple, and doing all other devotional activities—because of not doing that activity, there is so much tension that we are not emotionally focused on bhakti at all. Instead of that, if a particular activity requires a few minutes or whatever time it requires, do that and be wholehearted in the practice of bhakti. But understand that the activity itself is not spiritual.

Where the problem will come is if that leads us to think that this itself is spiritual and we should do this instead of chanting Hare Krishna. That is when confusion can arise. Just like in particular contexts, certain things may take more time, and we just do the needful, and trying to avoid them sometimes creates problems.

Can it become a faith issue? Yes, if we are doing something and we are in a position where we set an example for others and others start doing the same thing, then it can become a problem. It’s not that everybody is in our particular context, and everybody should be doing the same thing. For some people, parental relationships and family dynamics might be very significant, while for others, they may not be that significant.

At a discrete level, if each of us needs to do certain things to keep our relative situation less agitated internally or externally, then we do the needful and focus on the practice of bhakti.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you, thank you very much.