34 Is nature sacred Does the Gita teach eco-friendly living – Gita 10.17

So, thank you very much for joining today. We’ll be discussing Chapter 10. Last time, we started it, and we’ll continue that discussion, where our topic will be: Is nature sacred, and does the Gita teach eco-friendly living? This is based on Chapter 10, Verse 17 in the Gita.

How can I know? “Vidyam” is to know, “Katham” is how. “Aham Yogim” refers to telling that you, who are the supreme yogi, are the topmost in the category of people called yogis. How can I always meditate on you? In what manifestations can I contemplate you?

This verse raises a very important question about a crucial directive of the Gita. One of the most consistent themes of the Gita is that we need to constantly remember Krishna. Just before this, there has been the Chatur Shloka Gita, one of the verses from which we discussed earlier. Krishna says that the topmost devotee is Machittaha, meaning they always remember me. So now, how does one go about remembering? At one level, the remembrance is about Arjuna asking, “How do I remember?” His question is not just “How do I remember?” It is a bit more specific: “How do I remember you in this world?”

So let’s try to understand this. One way to remember God is to go to the temple, look at the pictures of Krishna, hear the stories of Krishna, and in that way, we bring ourselves in contact with Krishna. Naturally, there will be remembrance of Krishna through that. However, we cannot do these things constantly, even in the past. Unless someone is a renowned sage, people like Arjuna had royal responsibilities, and we also have our responsibilities, so we interact with the world. How do we remember the Lord at that time? Krishna is being asked this: “How do I remember you in this world?” And Krishna answers by giving Arjuna some guidelines about how he can see him in the world. This is what we will discuss in today’s session.

We’ll discuss three aspects: understanding vibhuti, which is the theme of Chapter 10, called Vibhuti Yoga. Then, we’ll discuss understanding the universe as a form of the Lord, and finally, we’ll move forward to appreciating eco-friendly living.

So, now, to understand vibhuti, let’s first look at the word “vibhuti.” Bhuta means existence or manifestation. Vibhuti means a special manifestation. “V” is usually a prefix that means “special.” So vibhuti means a special manifestation. What is the nature of this special manifestation? The one above the many manifests as the one among the many. There are many things in this world, but there is one being above all beings: God. So the one who is above the many (uppercase “one”) is the supreme being. This being manifests as the one among the many. Here, “the one” refers to the best.

In every area, when we observe things, we are attracted to those things which are of high quality, those things that are excellent. For example, if we want to explore a sport, we want to know who the best players are. If we want to learn a musical instrument or just enjoy listening to it, we want to know who the best performers are. If we go to a new city for tourism, we want to know the most attractive buildings and the best natural spots.

There are many things in this world, but our attention is naturally attracted to those things that are the best. The best may not simply be in terms of beauty, but also skill, power, or functionality. For example, when we want to buy a phone, we want to know which phone gives the best value for our money, depending on our needs.

So, we don’t see things objectively. Consciously or subconsciously, we grade things, and the things we deem most important get our maximum attention. This is just how human cognition works. Otherwise, there are so many things to perceive. For instance, when we enter a room to meet someone, say for an interview with the boss, the first thing we will notice is the boss. What is their expression? Even when we look at a person, we focus on their facial expression, as it might determine how we interact with them. Next, we may notice things like how opulent the office is, but the point is that our primary focus is on what is most important or valuable to us at that moment. Sometimes, this functional perspective may also be aesthetic. For instance, if we want to buy a showpiece for our home, we look for the most attractive one.

The point is that, in this world, our attention naturally goes toward things that are consciously or subconsciously graded by us as the best, the most important, or the most relevant in some way. So, Krishna says that whatever appears to you as the best is a manifestation of me—that is vibhuti.

God’s manifestations are broadly of two types: emanence and transcendence. Emanence refers to the manifestation of God within nature, while transcendence refers to God’s manifestation beyond nature. We often use the word “transcendence” in a generic sense. For example, when we say the holy name is transcendental, we mean that it is non-material, that the holy name is not like any ordinary sound but is the divine manifesting as that sacred sound. So, technically speaking, the holy name is an immanent manifestation. It is a manifestation of the sacred, of Krishna, as sound that is perceivable by our ears and articulable by our tongues.

The transcendental, in terms of this classification of emanence and transcendence, refers to the spiritual world, which is not perceivable to us. It exists beyond nature. When God manifests within the world, He is immanent but still transcendent in the sense that He is not controlled by material nature. His essence is not defined by matter.

Apart from such special manifestations, immanence is also used generically. The vibhuti is used for those aspects of nature that manifest divinity. The Bhagavad Gita’s principle is that Krishna is asking Arjuna how he can remember him. Arjuna asks Krishna, and Krishna replies by giving a list of immanent manifestations. In verses 10.20 onward to 10.39 in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna gives a list of various things that represent his vibhuti: among trees, the tallest tree; among bodies of water, the largest body of water, the ocean; among flowing objects, the river; and so on.

This list is indicative, not exhaustive. “Indicative” means it is describing points for us to see. At the time of Arjuna, there was a particular worldview and certain manifestations were considered most important. In today’s worldview, the list could be expanded. For example, Krishna might say, “Among tennis players, I am the best,” or “Among cricket players, I am Sachin Tendulkar or Virat Kohli,” or “Among countries, I am the most powerful.”

The idea is that whatever attracts our attention, we direct our focus toward Krishna through that attractive thing. Immanent manifestations are easier for us to remember because nature and material things manifested in nature are perceivable by our senses, and our consciousness largely exists at the sensory level.

So now we can think of things inside our head, close our eyes, and think of them within us. Some of us might be able to visualize them more clearly than others, but still, we don’t usually function at the level of thoughts in the sense that not only at that level—yeah, we always have thoughts, no doubt—but our thoughts are more or less connected with the things that we can perceive tangibly. Tangibly, or we could say perceive through sensory means. Even if we are connecting with people digitally nowadays, that’s what has happened because of the lockdown, but even within the digital realm, we try to have as much sensory perception as possible. For example, if you’re only hearing this class as audio, there is a certain level of connection that is established. If you have audio and video, then there is a greater connection because there’s greater sensory perception.

So, because our consciousness exists at the sensory level and we can see things at the sensory level, whereas those at a transcendental level we cannot see, firstly, it is visible and it is perceivable. We habitually perceive things, so both ways, immanent manifestations are easier to remember. That’s why Krishna answers Arjuna’s question by giving a list of various immanent manifestations. We don’t have to necessarily remember the list of all those immanent manifestations, but understand the principle. If somebody is attracted to various natural objects and they consider, say, the Niagara Falls as the most beautiful natural scene they’ve seen, then among natural objects, the Niagara Falls attracts our attention. We understand what is it that makes this thing attractive. It is actually manifesting a spark of Krishna. That attractiveness is coming from Krishna. Krishna will say this later: “mama tejo amsha sambhava”—everything which is attractive manifests “mama tejo,” my splendor, amsha, part.

So now when Krishna talks about vibhuti, He uses the sense of oneness. For example, in one of the verses, He tells Arjuna, “Among the Pandavas, I am Arjuna.” Earlier, He says, “Among the gods, I am Indra; among shining objects, I am the sun.” Now, what does this mean? It is not talking about ontological oneness. Ontological oneness means that it is not that literally Arjuna and Krishna are the same. If that were so, then what would be the result of that? Krishna is speaking the message of the Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna. If Arjuna hears, actually Krishna says, “I am you” or “you are me,” whatever way we want to put it, Arjuna would say at that time, “Okay, interesting, and if both of us are one, then what is the point of you telling the Bhagavad Gita to me? I already know it. We two are one.” No, because Arjuna doesn’t tell Krishna to stop speaking. In fact, our Acharyas have described that when Krishna mentions the word “Pandavas,” Arjuna thinks that Krishna will surely say Yudhishthira because Yudhishthira is the senior-most among the Pandavas, and he is known to be Dharmaraj, the very virtuous person, and that is true. But Krishna uses the word “Arjuna” because Arjuna has virtue, strength, as well as devotion. So, the way the benedictions were sought when Arjuna was born—the strongest benedictions, Pandu sought for this third son of his. So, among the Pandavas, for most people, when they think of the Pandavas, the most well-known and celebrated among them, in many ways, for his accomplishments at least, was Arjuna. So when you think of Arjuna, you think of how special Arjuna is. Understand the special power of Arjuna. What makes Arjuna special? That comes from Krishna.

So, it’s recollectional unity—recollection means remembrance. In terms of remembrance, for those who know, as soon as they think of Arjuna’s special prowess, they think of Krishna, how specially Krishna has blessed Arjuna, and that’s how Arjuna has these powers. So, vibhuti is not pantheism. Pantheism is the idea that everything is God. Vibhuti does not justify pantheism; it actually talks about tools for remembrance. Because that is the question of Arjuna, and Krishna is answering accordingly. The overall principle is that the best in everything represents Krishna. So, we can see whichever field we are in, whichever field we are attracted to, and especially whatever things we are attracted to in those fields, we can see those as pointing us to Krishna, as reminding us of Krishna.

Now, this is a theme which we will explore more in our next session also, but today we’ll be talking about it primarily in terms of infusing our vision of nature with a sense of sanctity—seeing nature as sacred. For that, we’ll talk about understanding the universe as a form of the Lord. So Krishna gives a list of many attractive things that manifest Him, and then He gives the principle in 10.41, which I mentioned earlier, that these are all manifesting a spark of my splendor. And once that is described, Krishna says, “But this is not all. Actually, not only special things within the universe manifest me, but the universe itself rests on a spark of me. By one spark of me, the whole universe, by one part of me, the whole universe is being sustained.”

So, this verse is the seed for seeing the universe itself as a manifestation of God, and that will be described in the 11th chapter of the Gita. So we see God not only as someone who exists beyond the universe or as someone who manifests within the universe, but He also manifests as the universe. So with this vision, we actually start seeing nature as sacred. How exactly sacred? Because it is the body of God. It is a form of God. So now, with this devotional vision, what will happen is we will see something like, say, gardening or ploughing, where we are interacting with nature. It is like worshipping the universal form by touching or massaging it. So we are not just simply interacting with nature. Nature has miraculous potencies, and when those potencies are manifested, we can appreciate them. You know, when somebody is, say, gardening or, as I said, ploughing. At that time, we may not do ploughing so much, but we may be more familiar with gardening. But the idea is how Prabhupada would give the example that often we take a seed of a rose flower, and that has no—itself may not have any fragrance, the soil itself may not have a very strikingly distinctive fragrance, water doesn’t have any striking fragrance. But we take that seed, put it under the earth, and pour some water on it, and then we get a rose flower. So the creativity of nature can be breathtaking, and where is this manifesting? These are all transformations which are happening within the form of God.

So it’s like when we are interacting with nature—so if right now, say, I’m touching my laptop, I’m touching my knee, touching my chair, wherever you are sitting, you’re touching various material objects. We don’t—we may not just see them from a functional perspective. So, actually, we are always surrounded by—we are always in contact with various material things, and those material things also manifest God. The soul, in that sense, is always in touch with the Divine. So we start seeing nature as sacred because we see nature as a manifestation of the Divine. The universal form is a manifestation of Krishna. However, there is more to it—that there is another vision of why nature is sacred, because we can see the reality as a cosmic family: that God is the cosmic father, nature is the cosmic mother, and all living beings are the children.

So the idea here is why are all living beings considered children? Because the key thing is that there’s a cohesive family. The Bhagavad Gita, in the 14th chapter, gives this vision that Krishna says, “Just as in a normal family, a child is born to the union of the male and the female, but similarly, Krishna says that nature is like the womb, and He is the seed-giving father.” And then significantly, He says, “sarvayonishu konteya,” “sarvayonishu” means all species. So it is not just people of our particular group, our nationality, our race, our religious orientation, or even our intellectual, psychological orientations. It’s not even all human beings— all living beings are a part of one family. And living beings include not just animals, but even plants. So the idea over here is that nature is sacred because nature is the consort of the Divine.

So now, the vision of the sacred can be seen in many different ways. One is that the universe itself manifests as a form of God. Another is that actually, nature is the means through which we all get our forms. Just as the mother is the means through which we all get forms, the mother gives us our forms. Similarly, nature gives us all our forms, and in that sense, we are all her children. So, this is also another way of respecting nature, of seeing nature as sacred. And seeing nature as sacred is important for us to venerate it properly.

So now, with this understanding, as I said, the universal form will be discussed more in detail in the next session. But I’m talking about the universal form as one way of looking at the sanctity of nature and discussing another way also. But let’s move on now to the point of eco-friendly living.

So now here, we will not go into so much detail into the specifics of how to live in an eco-friendly way. There are standard practices—there are three Rs that are often talked about: reduce, reuse, recycle. So that is all fine. It’s important. But we will talk about a fourth R over here. So reduce means don’t consume so many things; then reuse means don’t use so many things that are used and thrown. Try to use reusable things. And then, if sometimes we have to throw away, we try to recycle those things. So reduce, reuse, recycle—by this, we all can decrease our carbon footprint on the earth. That’s fine, but there is something more, and there’s a fourth R that is required, and that is raise. We need to raise our consciousness. We need to reconceptualize our place and purpose in the universe. Now, why do we need to raise our consciousness in this way? That’s what we’ll discuss. We’ll look at what conceptions did we have, so when will eco-friendly living be possible?

So, our conception of nature—what were our conceptions of nature? For this, we need to consider what conceptions we have and what conceptions we need. For example, if we look at pre-modern times and compare them with modern times, it’s like a pendulum. In the past, most of humanity was dominated by nature. Then, with the advent of industrialization and technological advancement, we began thinking of dominating nature, believing that we could use technology to control nature. Both of these extremes—being dominated by nature and dominating nature—are unhealthy and unsustainable. We need to learn to cooperate with nature.

Now, what do we mean by being dominated by nature? Some people have a very romanticized view of nature, and this romanticized view of nature is that nature is inherently good, and human beings are bad. There are some ecologists who make this point, and there is some validity to it, but it has to be understood contextually. For example, E.O. Wilson, a prominent biologist, says that if any species on Earth were removed, it would create a hole in the ecosystem, disrupting its balance. However, if humans were removed, it wouldn’t create any problem at all. In fact, many ecological problems would be solved if humans were removed. What is the point of this statement? It’s striking and strange—does it mean we don’t count in the ecosystem at all? We have many problems, like climate change—would they be solved if humanity were just removed? Well, yes, but the implication is not that humans should be exterminated. That would be a very misanthropic statement. That’s not the point here.

So, are humans like predators destroying nature? To some extent, yes, but what are we supposed to do if that’s the case? The case is that we human beings are meant to interact with nature with an elevated consciousness. We need to raise our consciousness to a higher level. That’s the key point here.

Some people think that if we just roll back time or turn back the clock—there is a romanticized view of the past. For many people, there is this idealization of nature, that nature is so good, and humans have made it bad. For instance, if we live in cities and experience pollution, congestion, and all these things, we might consider natural living to be living in an idyllic cabin in a forest. That might seem very attractive, and yes, it has its appeal. However, we need to understand that nothing in this world is inherently good or bad. Nature is not necessarily benevolent, and human beings are not necessarily malevolent. Humans can be benevolent or malevolent, and nature can also be benevolent or malevolent.

It is not simply that we are disrupting nature. It is also true that nature, at every moment, is trying to destroy us. How? If we consider our bodies, a war is constantly happening inside them. Germs are attacking us, and unless our body vigilantly defends itself, it will deteriorate and die. So, the body is part of nature, and one part of nature is attacking another part of nature. There are germs attacking our bodies, and our white blood cells are defending them. If we were to give nature free rein, it would overwhelm us. Nature would destroy us. That’s the nature of nature: a struggle for existence where one life form becomes prey for another.

At every moment, nature can come upon us in various ways. There can be natural calamities, predators, or weather extremities. These are all part of the struggle for existence. We can talk about a remote past, as described in sacred texts, where nature and humanity lived in harmony. The Bhagavatam does describe that vision, and we’ll come to that later. But if we look at human history over the past several hundred or thousand years, it has been filled with diseases, disasters, and humanity fighting a losing battle against nature.

Take, for example, a hurricane. It causes devastation, and we are jolted out of our human-created world, realizing that we are at the mercy of larger forces. But because we have some understanding of nature, we can predict when a hurricane will come and take precautions to minimize the damage. In the past, people could also predict storms, but not with the same accuracy we have today. The point is that we need to recognize that there is a struggle in nature, and we can’t have a starry-eyed view that nature is always wonderful. Nature has a purpose, which I’ll explain later, but it’s not just that we are destroying nature—nature is also trying to destroy us.

In the past, people thought they were completely at the mercy of nature. If nature did something, they were helpless. Moving from that view, the pendulum swung to the opposite extreme: we thought that we should dominate nature. Through technology, industrialization, and urbanization, we tried to create pockets where we could exert control over nature.

The vision of nature became more functional and utilitarian: if we can understand its mechanisms and control them, we will dominate nature. But this approach has led to many counterproductive consequences. Even when we control one aspect of nature, we often encounter unforeseen complications. For example, we used fossil fuels to accelerate our lives, but that led to air pollution, climate change, and even future wars over resources like oil. Many experts say that in the future, water may become the cause of war because we might run out of fresh water.

So now, there are of course dystopian predictions about the future. It’s not that every problem predicted by environmentalists is necessarily going to manifest—we’ll come to that part a little later. But the fact is, at this stage, we need to recognize that our attempt to dominate nature has not been very successful. We have created pockets of security, but we have also created chaos and disaster. If it’s not being seen immediately, it is going to catch up with us in the future. We have built an economy based on exhaustible resources from nature, and when those resources get exhausted, how we are going to move forward is a matter of great concern.

It is said that we have not inherited the present from previous generations; we have borrowed it from future generations. In many ways, our attempt to dominate nature has led to problems. So, what would be the right way to look at it? We should avoid both extremes: we are not meant to dominate nature, nor are we meant to be dominated by nature. We are meant to cooperate with nature.

Now, what vision of nature will lead us to cooperate? When you talk about eco-friendly living, it’s eco-friendly; it is not eco-controlling or eco-controlled. It’s eco-friendly, meaning we cooperate with nature. We understand that we are one part of nature, and we need to create space for us to live peacefully and productively. At the same time, we also need to have space for other beings to live. This vision of either being dominated by nature or dominating nature is not a healthy vision. So, what does spirituality have to do with this? If we want to cooperate with nature, how can we go about doing that? And how can spirituality contribute to that?

This is the theme discussed by many researchers. I will quote one person here: James Lovelock, a prominent authority in environmental studies, and former advisor to the US president on global warming, says that 30 years ago, he thought the top three global environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, and climate change. He was convinced that with enough good science, we would be able to solve these problems. But he was wrong. The real problems are bigger than that—things like selfishness, greed, and apathy. For those problems, good science isn’t enough. We need a spiritual and cultural transformation, and scientists don’t know how to do that. This is so vital that we don’t know how to do that.

At one level, people thought that if we made people aware that a certain way of living would cause a lot of problems, they would stop living that way. But still, that knowledge doesn’t necessarily lead to transformation. On a psychological level, we know there are many things we do that are not healthy for us, but we still do them. So, just knowledge doesn’t lead to transformation. Even scientific knowledge about the consequences of our lifestyle on the environment doesn’t necessarily lead to transformation. So, what do we do about it? As James Lovelock says, there has to be a spiritual and cultural transformation.

Spirituality here refers to changing our vision of nature, and culture refers to the lifestyle we lead. Our inner conceptions need to change, and those conceptions will lead to actions that are transformed by that. That’s why for this to happen, there needs to be an inside-out change. There is inner pollution that leads to outer pollution. What do we mean by inner pollution? It’s the way we conceive our place and purpose in the universe. It’s the way we conceptualize nature and our relationship with nature.

As Lovelock mentions, greed, selfishness, and apathy are at the root of many of these problems. When we have a self-centered vision, that leads to problems. For example, greed and selfishness refer to the conception of dominating nature. “I want what I want, and I don’t care what the consequences are for anyone else.” That is greed and selfishness. Apathy refers to the view that nature is far bigger than me, and I can’t do anything about it. This leads to being dominated by nature. We need to avoid both of these conceptions. A healthy conception is that we belong to nature, that we have a part to play in nature. We’re not the whole of nature, but we have a role, and we must play that role.

So, how can spirituality help? Spirituality can help if we have the proper conceptions. Those proper conceptions can foster eco-friendly living. What would a spiritual vision of nature look like? There’s another pendulum here, slightly different from the previous one. It’s about our relationship with nature, or our vision of nature, within a spiritual worldview. In a theistic worldview, where we acknowledge the existence of God and the relationship we are meant to have with God, there are two extremes. One extreme is that we start worshipping nature itself as God. The other extreme is that we worship God without caring for nature at all.

The in-between is that we worship God and respect nature as a manifestation of God. So, what do we mean by worshipping nature itself as God? In this world, sometimes we get captivated by bad things, but sometimes we get captivated by good things too. The good is always better than bad, but if the good stops us from the best, the good becomes a replacement for the best. In that sense, the good can become bad.

Environmentalism, eco-friendly living, and environmental consciousness are all good, but environmentalism can become like a religion. Taking care of the environment becomes the supreme value or virtue, and people might not see any bigger picture beyond it.

Just as there can be religious extremists, there can be environmental extremists. Environmental extremists are people who absolutize caring for the environment. These people, just like some religious extremists, tend to moralize and lecture everyone else. They might say, “You are so terrible, you are so terrible,” and become judgmental, condemning anyone who disagrees with them. Similarly, environmentalists can also become like this.

When they become like this, what happens is that cultivating virtue gets replaced by virtue signaling. Cultivating virtue means actually working hard to live virtuously, but instead of that, what people do is virtue signaling. Virtue signaling is doing things that make someone seem virtuous, but it doesn’t actually cost them anything. In today’s world, especially with social media, there are “Twitter warriors.” These people might say things like, “Capitalism is so bad, industrialization is doing terrible things, and we need to stop all fuel consumption.” They’ll pass big resolutions and attend environmentalism conferences, but they’ll fly to these conferences in their private jets. By flying in their private jets, they may cause more pollution in a week than the average person causes in a lifetime.

When something becomes a religion for someone, and especially a religion that seems to give them a high moral position in society, external posturing becomes more important than inner transformation. Lecturing others about what they need to sacrifice for the sake of worshiping God, just like in the past, priests would often live in luxury while telling others to give charity—even if they were poor—while the priests themselves didn’t live simply. Many priests would live in luxury while preaching austerity to others.

Now, I’m not painting all environmental activists with the same brush. There are many environmental activists who are fervently dedicated to taking care of the environment. They work tirelessly, selflessly, and those who contribute to making a better world need to be appreciated. Environmentally, we are in huge danger, and those who can alert humanity about the dangers and do what it takes to avoid those dangers are doing a valuable service. Here, I’m talking more about those who use activism as a means of gaining social prestige and superiority, rather than actually bringing about any real transformation.

This happens when we start absolutizing nature and begin worshipping nature itself as God. In this case, we’re not worshipping God; instead, we use our devotion to God as a means of asserting our superiority over others. When this happens, it is unhealthy. Environmental extremism in this way is also unhealthy.

The other extreme is equally strange. There are many people who are religious and devoted to God but don’t care for the environment. We unfortunately see this even in many holy places in India, where people consider a place holy but don’t take care of that place. It’s considered sacred, but there is so much dirt, filth, and disorder, and people don’t do anything to clean it up. For example, in Vrindavan, the Yamuna River, which is central to Krishna’s pastimes, was extremely polluted until recently. Of course, the pollution wasn’t caused by the people in Vrindavan themselves, but by industries upstream. However, not much was being done to address it. People would come, look at the polluted river, feel sad, and then just leave. In the past decade or so, there has been some increased activism to clean the river.

The Ganga, which is considered a sacred river, was once so polluted that it caught fire. Normally, water is used to extinguish fire, but when there are so many pollutants in the water, it can catch fire. There was great panic, wondering what was going to happen. We venerate God and nominally consider the Ganga sacred, but we don’t take care of the river. This is also unhealthy.

The idea should be that we worship God, but our worship of God should also be reflected in how we deal with things related to God. Nature, at one level, is a manifestation of God. At another level, it is closely connected with God. We don’t want to make nature an alternate god that competes with or replaces Krishna. Instead, we should understand that the way we deal with nature is connected to how we deal with Krishna. It’s vital to see the interconnectedness between the two. If we consider that caring for nature is a way of caring for Krishna, then naturally, we will deal with nature with greater respect. We will see nature as sacred.

The important point I want to make is that cultural and spiritual transformation matters. How does this cultural and spiritual transformation come about? It comes about because the worship of God, as practiced in bhakti yoga, also gives us non-material enrichment. Non-material enrichment means that we all look for happiness, but some people say that all industrialization, urbanization, and everything should be reversed. The clock has to be turned back, but that’s impossible for most people to do.

As I said, we are not meant to live dominated by nature either. We need to have a safe space, and we need to use our intelligence and industriousness to create that safe space. The problem arises when our pleasure in life comes from controlling and dominating nature. If we find joy in how much we have been able to control nature, that’s where the issue lies. When our purpose becomes the conquest of nature, and our pleasure stems from it, that’s when the problem arises. The key is to talk about harmony with nature—taking what is our quota.

Every living being within nature creates a space for itself. For example, a tiger will eat a deer, but the tiger doesn’t go about destroying all life forms. Similarly, humans, by merely existing, will have some effect on the ecology. However, does that mean we should stop existing? No, that’s not the point. The issue is when our sense of purpose in life, our source of pleasure, is non-material, higher, and spiritual. Then we will be satisfied with whatever space we need to create within nature for our sustenance.

The problem is not industrialization itself; it’s not urbanization itself. Even in the past, in the Vedic times, if you look at the Bhagavatam, Vrindavan was a rural place, while Mathura was urban. There were forests, villages, and cities. It is not that cities are bad and villages are good. Yes, today, cities are much more polluted than they were in the past, but urbanization itself is not inherently bad. We live in a particular world right now. Industrialization and globalization are facts of life, and devotion doesn’t mean that we wait until all of these things are reversed. We may not even be able to turn everything back, but the idea is that even within these circumstances, we can industrialize but should not take nature for granted. We should not pollute nature indiscriminately. We must understand that we are a part of something bigger than ourselves and cannot damage the whole just for our own benefit.

This vision fosters harmony. Inner pollution refers to the thinking that our pleasure in life comes from our power to control nature and bend it to our will. Instead, we want to survive in nature reasonably and respectfully. We need to create resources for that, but our pleasure should come from something higher. The way to eco-friendly living is not just about reducing, reusing, and recycling—though that’s important. Raising our consciousness is extremely important because raising our consciousness to a spiritual level changes our conception of pleasure and our sense of purpose in life. We can then live eco-friendly without feeling deprived or without depriving ourselves unnecessarily. We live harmoniously.

The cure for inner pollution is changing our conception of ourselves. We are neither the dominator of nature nor dominated by nature. We are cooperators with nature’s Lord, and thereby with nature itself.

To summarize what I discussed, we can now take a few questions. I talked about whether nature is sacred and whether the Gita supports eco-friendly living. I began by saying that yes, nature is sacred. In what sense? We discussed the concept of vibhuti, which means the one above the many manifests as the one among the many. Arjuna asked the question, “How can I remember you while functioning in this world?” While functioning, we can’t perceive everything in the world. Our cognition is shaped, consciously or subconsciously, by prioritization. The things that matter most to us are what jump out at us in our vision. Krishna says that whatever things matter to us, whatever catches our attention, we need to see the specialty that makes them stand out as resulting from the divine.

Everything that attracts us manifests a spark of Krishna’s splendor. This refers to the immanence of God—his manifestation within nature. Transcendence refers to his manifestation beyond nature. The idea of vibhuti is not oneness in a literal sense. When Krishna says, “Among the Pandavas, I am Arjuna,” he means that people who are attracted to Arjuna should see that Arjuna’s specialty is coming from Krishna. It is a tool for recollection, not a statement of absolute oneness.

The same idea of immanence can be extended further. Not only are specific things within the universe sacred manifestations of the divine, as Krishna gives in his list—which is indicative, not exhaustive—but the universe itself is a manifestation of the divine. The idea of the universal form helps us see that when we are interacting with nature, say through gardening or ploughing, we are actually touching, massaging, and caressing the form of the Lord.

So, that’s one way of seeing nature as sacred. The second way of seeing nature as sacred is by viewing it as the cosmic mother in a cosmic family where God is the father and all living beings are the children. Once we understand this vision of nature, we can explore its sacredness in three ways:

1. God manifests through nature – that’s what makes nature sacred.
2. The universal form of God – seeing nature itself as part of God’s body.
3. Eco-friendly living – living in harmony with nature and respecting it as sacred.

Throughout history, humans have had different relationships with nature. In the past, humans were largely dominated by nature, enduring a relentless struggle for existence. One living being is often food for another in nature. If we take a myopic view, we might see nature as purely benevolent, but that’s not entirely accurate. Nature is both good and bad. Similarly, humans are both good and bad by nature.

When we say nature is good and bad, it refers to nature’s effects on us. If we live passively, we can’t escape harm. For example, if our body doesn’t function properly, germs will destroy us. If we live under a tree without protection, extreme weather will harm us. Therefore, we need to create arrangements to protect ourselves. In a sense, we use nature to protect ourselves from nature.

But to what extent should we try to change nature to protect ourselves? If we decide we don’t want to be dominated by nature and attempt to dominate it entirely, that’s the other extreme. This mentality has led to numerous problems such as climate change, pollution, desertification, and the drying up of rivers. Today, we’ve built an economy based on exhaustible resources, which could lead to disaster in the near or long-term future.

If dominating nature leads to destruction, what’s the alternative? We need to live in an eco-friendly way. Scientists have tried spreading awareness about the dangers of our current lifestyle, but that hasn’t resulted in widespread transformation. The root problem isn’t just specific human activities but the underlying mentality—selfishness, greed, and apathy.

The solution lies in inner transformation, which cannot come merely through more scientific knowledge. It requires a re-conceptualization of our worldview. If we consider not just ourselves and nature, but also God, how does bringing God into the picture change our vision of nature?

One way is to make nature itself into God, which can lead to environmental extremism. In this case, people may use environmentalism for virtue signaling rather than cultivating true virtue. Just as some religious people can become hypocritical and judgmental, some environmentalists can also become hypocritical and judgmental.

The other extreme is to care for God but neglect nature. This is apathetic and neglectful of God’s creation.

The balanced approach lies in worshiping God while respecting and caring for nature. This means creating a space for ourselves within nature without encroaching unnecessarily. Practical steps like reducing, reusing, and recycling are important. But to implement these actions effectively, we need to raise our consciousness.

Raising consciousness means seeing ourselves neither as dominators of nature nor dominated by it. We don’t worship nature as God, nor do we worship God while disregarding nature. Instead, we live holistically, worshiping God and respecting nature.

When we raise our consciousness, our sense of purpose and source of pleasure no longer come from controlling nature but from connecting with the Lord of nature.

Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

On Questions

If we consider how to see impure things or bad actions as connected with God, this is a valid and important question.

There are things and people in this world. Sometimes things appear impure, and sometimes people commit bad actions. Krishna explains that everything attractive in this world is a manifestation of Him (Bhagavad Gita 10.41). In the same chapter (10.8), Krishna states that He is the source of everything.

If Krishna is the source of everything, why does He highlight specific things as manifesting Him? Does this mean unattractive things don’t manifest Him? Does it imply that only beautiful people manifest Him and others don’t? No, that’s not the point. Krishna clearly says that everything and everyone comes from Him.

However, in Chapter 10, Krishna is answering Arjuna’s question: “How can I remember you?” Krishna focuses on those aspects of the world that help Arjuna (and us) remember Him.