37 Beyond black and white conceptions of spirituality – Gita 12.10

Thank you very much for joining today for this Gita Ki Verses course. It has been a long journey we have been on, and now most of the sessions from here onwards will be more applicational. We have discussed most of the important concepts from the Gita. We will, of course, be introducing new concepts throughout, but the focus will be more on applicational subjects than conceptual ones.

Today, I will be talking about Beyond Black and White Conceptions of Spirituality. So, I will talk about: Is spirituality digital or analog? Then we will talk about adjusting versus compromising, and then how to balance between the two through purposefulness.

So, there are four verses that are going to be the center of our discussion: 12.9 to 12.8, 12.11, and 12, but primarily 12.11. So, I have chosen one of them here:
Abhyasepi asamarthosi matkarma paramo bhava madartham api karmani kuruvan siddhim avapsisi. Krishna is saying abhyasa is systematic practice. So if you are unable to do that systematic practice of sadhana (asamarthosi), if you find that you can’t do it, matkarma paramo bhava means then you work by making me your ultimate purpose. Work for me, as Prabhupada translates it, matartham api karmani. By working for me, kuruvan siddhim avapsisi, you will attain perfection by that.

So what does this mean? This means that Krishna is giving multiple options. This was 12.10. If you say, 12.8 was constantly fixing your mind and intelligence on me, in this way you will live with me, live in me, in fact. 12.9 is: If you can’t fix your mind constantly, then fix it with effort. Try to fix it on me. If it goes off, bring it back. If you can’t fix your mind on me at all, then at least externally engage in my service. And the next verse will say that if you can’t do that also, then at least work for some good cause. So Krishna is giving multiple options here through which we can connect with him.

Now, when you talk about digital or analog, what do we exactly mean here? Digital is the idea that digital usually has only two states: one or zero. So, spirituality as digital means that we are either in Krishna or in maya. If we are doing this, we are Krishna conscious; if we are doing this, we are not Krishna conscious. Either we are in spiritual consciousness, or we are in material consciousness. Now, that is, at one level, true. Yes, there is spiritual consciousness, there is material consciousness.

At the same time, because we live in the material world, our spiritual consciousness is mediated through the world of matter. So, what do I mean by mediated through the world of matter? Even if you are going to something like a temple, now the temple is in a particular city, and we may be in the temple, we may be holding the deities or taking in the temple atmosphere, but that is in a particular city. So, we are going to notice the kind of people who are around us. On the other hand, we might go to a place like Vrindavan. There, also, we are experiencing Krishna, but Vrindavan is, from a spiritual perspective, not in the material world. But it is also at a particular geographical place in the world, and we are going to mediate spirit. We access spirit through matter.

So, some people will be affected quite a lot by that, by the matter through which they are experiencing the spirit. Some people will not be affected that much. For some people, the whole Indian culture seems very exotic, and that could be positive, enhancing the spiritual experience. Or it could distract them also—oh, they get caught in experiencing so many other things that they don’t experience Krishna so much.

On the other hand, for some people, western culture might seem very different, and now Indian and western cultures themselves are very broad generalizations because there is so much variation within what we call Indian culture or what we call western culture. However, some people might find it very new and exotic, and for some people, that might be what distracts them. Others might say, “Okay, this is how it is normally,” and focus on the spiritual.

So the point is that we always access spirit through matter. When we hear someone speak, for example, if we are hearing someone who is speaking with a very thick accent, we are hearing a spiritual message, but we will have to process the accent. For someone who doesn’t have an unfamiliar accent, it might help them process the message better. But who knows? Someone with an unfamiliar accent might give the feeling, “Oh, this is something far out, this is something special.” That might attract them more.

The point we are making here is that spirit is always accessed in the material world through some material medium, and how much this material medium affects our consciousness will vary from person to person. That’s why matter itself plays a role in how we experience spirituality. We are human beings in both material and spiritual consciousness, which is true, but it’s not that simple because our spiritual consciousness is mediated through matter. Sometimes, the matter’s influence becomes much stronger than the spirit’s influence, and at other times, the matter’s influence becomes minimal.

To say that someone is in spiritual consciousness is not entirely accurate unless we are extremely pure. We are never completely in 100% spiritual consciousness. Take, for example, someone who is a very good singer doing kirtan. How much are we relishing the sound of the holy name, and how much are we relishing the voice of that person? We may say that person is a devotee, and they are devoting, but what if someone else, who is not a devotee, has a less beautiful voice but is also singing Krishna’s name? If we relish the good singer’s voice more than the less gifted one, how much of that relish is spiritual and how much is material?

These are very difficult questions to answer. It could be that good singing enhances our absorption in what is being sung, or it could be that the good singing gets us absorbed in the voice itself, rather than in the message being delivered. Conversely, for some people, a less skilled voice might distract them so much that they can’t absorb the transcendence. For others, the lack of a pleasing voice might mean that they focus on the content of the voice, ignoring the material aspect.

The point here is: can we even separate what is material from what is spiritual? We don’t always know. Consider deities, for example. When the deities are dressed in a particular way, some dresses we might like more than others, or some darshans we might prefer over others. Is it because we like certain colors elsewhere, and when we see those colors on the deities, we are drawn to them? Are we appreciating this as a spiritual attraction, or is it a material attraction directed in a spiritual way? It’s difficult to know.

Rather than seeing a clear black-and-white separation between material consciousness and spiritual consciousness, we should acknowledge that yes, there are things that place us definitely in material consciousness—like when someone is enjoying something purely sensual. That could be called material consciousness. On the other hand, if someone is looking at something sensual and seeking sensual pleasure through it, that is also material consciousness. But if someone is looking at something spiritual with a spiritual intention, then that is spiritual consciousness.

There is the content of the consciousness and the intent of the consciousness—the main intent, which is what we are interested in. So, what is spiritual consciousness and what is material consciousness? It’s very difficult to dissect in all situations, and many times, it may not be necessary to analyze too deeply. After all, we are individuals, each becoming attracted to Krishna in our own way.

Spirituality, digital? Well, it’s not that simple. Spirituality, analog? In some ways, yes, because even when we say there is spiritual and material, material is also diverse. Apart from what I said about our own interests shaping our absorption, there are three modes within material nature, which we will discuss in the 14th chapter when we come to it. But beyond that, there is the principle of goodness, passion, and ignorance. Broadly, we could say goodness is pro-spiritual, passion is non-spiritual, and ignorance is anti-spiritual. Again, these are generalizations, and sometimes something in passion might be anti-spiritual, or in particular situations, something in passion might be pro-spiritual.

For some people, they might work best when working on tight deadline-driven projects. Even services, when there’s a deadline to complete a task or meet a goal, could help them focus. They may be absorbed in Krishna, absorbed in the service of Krishna, but are they absorbed in remembering Krishna, or are they absorbed simply in seeking that goal? We don’t always know, and perhaps, do we really need to bother about these things? On one level, yes, but on another level, we don’t need to be overly concerned. First things first: fix the mind on Krishna, somehow or other, fix the mind on Krishna.

Now, up to this point, I’ve discussed consciousness itself, and how that consciousness can be material or spiritual. But it’s not simply black and white. There can be various levels at which something is material or spiritual, and we need to carefully analyze before making a quick judgment. Then, what to speak of not just levels of consciousness, but levels of practice?

Levels of practice mean that what if someone is practicing at one level, and someone else is practicing at another level? There could be different levels at which different people practice spirituality, and they are all moving toward Krishna, but at different levels. That is what Krishna offers in these multiple levels of connection with him from 12.8 to 12.12. This gels with the overall approach towards spirituality that the Bhagavad Gita offers.

What the Gita offers us is user-friendly spirituality. What do I mean by user-friendly spirituality? You could say, “From your place, at your pace, access Krishna’s grace.” This applies not just to the practice of bhakti but to all forms of spiritual practice, or even material practice that is conducive to spirituality. Krishna offers this inclusive approach in 4.11, where he says…

He says, “All people are on my path,” and the first half of that verse is, “As all people surrender unto me, I reward them accordingly.” What this means is that all people are on my path, but depending on how much they are connected with me, I reveal myself to them accordingly. This is very different from what could be called digital spirituality. Some traditions have the idea that this is the only way: if you are following this path, then you are on the right path; otherwise, you are on the wrong path. This is a black-and-white approach. But here, we recognize that the Bhagavad Gita is offering something much more nuanced. It’s not just black and white; there’s a lot more going on that needs to be carefully considered.

Why does the Bhagavad Gita offer it like this? Because not everyone can access spirituality at the same level. Different people are at different levels, and they need to begin from where they are, moving at different paces. In one of our earlier sessions, we talked about spirituality being like climbing up a mountain—the spiritual journey is like going from the bottom to the top of the mountain.

Now, if we try to climb a mountain, whether for trekking or visiting a holy place like Tirupati, which is on top of a hill, there are multiple factors to consider. There could be many ways to reach the top: some people might climb through the natural path, others might take steps, or a ramp, while some might take a bicycle, a bike, a car, or even a helicopter. All these are ways of going up. But with respect to spirituality, different people are already at different heights on the mountain, and they will progress at different paces. Not only are they at different places, but some may go up very fast, while others might go slower.

The idea is that everyone needs to be included and allowed to go up. If you say, “This is the pace at which you need to go, and if you’re not going at this pace, then you can get out of here,” that is not Krishna’s mood in the Bhagavad Gita at all. Krishna offers user-friendly spirituality. This means we understand and accept that there is a “digital” aspect to spirituality in the sense that there is sensual consciousness on one end and spiritual consciousness on the other. There can be a graph or polarity with one extreme being sensual and the other spiritual. At any given moment, we may not be entirely in either of these extremes. There might be a lot of variation in our consciousness, and we may feel comfortable at a particular level as we try to move higher. We need to acknowledge that and continue forward.

I already mentioned these various levels of bhakti that Krishna talks about. In 12.8, Krishna describes spontaneous absorption of the mind in him—this could be considered pure devotion, where the mind and intelligence are fully absorbed in Krishna. Krishna says that not only will you come to him, but you are already living in him. Then, there is conscientious absorption in Krishna, as mentioned in 12.9. This means making an effort; the mind might wander, but the person makes a conscious effort to focus. In 12.10, Krishna says that even if your mind doesn’t fix on him, at least work for him. For example, some people might say, “I can’t do all this chanting of rounds, but I’ll come to the temple and do some seva.” That is also a form of progress on the spiritual path, and Krishna acknowledges that.

Krishna even says that if someone is working for a good cause, that too is a step toward spiritual consciousness. A good cause could be humanitarian work, social work, or any work that benefits others. Even if there is nothing overtly spiritual in the work, helping others is still progressive toward spiritual consciousness.

Now, to understand this last level—especially 12.11—we might say there’s nothing Krishna-conscious about feeding hungry people, providing clothes, or other acts of charity. Some might say, “That’s just mundane charity; it’s not spiritual.” But it’s not that simple. Why? Because there are two aspects of broadening consciousness: expansion of consciousness and elevation of consciousness.

Expansion of consciousness means thinking of more and more realities at the level we are at. For example, someone might be in material consciousness, thinking only about how to get the best food, with little concern for others. But someone with an expanded consciousness might think, “There are 20 people here, and 20 cakes; everyone should get one. Even though I arrived first and could take five, I’ll share equally.” This is an example of expansion of consciousness. The person is thinking beyond their own needs and considering others, which is desirable.

Expansion of consciousness can apply to broader issues, such as environmental consciousness or national consciousness. For example, if someone is considering how their actions not only benefit them but also benefit their community or country, that’s an expansion of consciousness. Similarly, if we are buying something, and we choose to support a charity with that purchase, that’s also an example of expanding our consciousness to think beyond our immediate needs.

Then, there is the elevation of consciousness, which means thinking about higher realities. This could be thinking not just about physical needs but about emotional and spiritual needs. For example, helping people not just with their physical hunger, but considering their emotional or spiritual needs, would be an elevation of consciousness.

In this way, spirituality can be understood at various levels, and as we grow, our consciousness expands and elevates, gradually connecting us more deeply with Krishna.

So, we could say that the elevation of consciousness will lead to more and more absorption in Krishna. In the first three verses—12.8, 12.9, and 12.10—Krishna is talking about increasingly elevated levels of consciousness. From verse 8 to 9, there is an elevation from the highest to the intermediate levels of consciousness. In verse 11, Krishna is talking about the expansion of consciousness: even if there is no elevation, at least let there be expansion.

The best broadening of consciousness is where both elevation and expansion occur. However, sometimes, some people may have elevated consciousness but not expanded consciousness. Elevated consciousness means they may think about Krishna and be attracted toward Krishna, but still, they may be somewhat narrow-minded in their approach toward other paths, believing that theirs is the only right way and others are wrong. While we cannot deny that they have elevated consciousness, that doesn’t necessarily mean they have expanded consciousness.

The best way to develop is to have both elevated and expanded consciousness. Krishna acknowledges that the elevation of consciousness at various levels is desirable, and if elevation is not possible, at least the expansion of consciousness is still desirable.

Now, this brings us to the matter of perspective. What do I mean by this? Good is better than bad, but it is still worse than the best. We don’t have to equate good with bad or demonize the bad. Let’s consider an example: if someone has environmental consciousness but no spiritual consciousness, they might think that because they are an environmental activist, they don’t need to do anything spiritual. However, that’s not so simple. If we compare this with self-centered consciousness, we can say that environmental consciousness is an expansion of consciousness. It’s better than a self-centered mindset, even if it doesn’t have a spiritual element.

Similarly, humanitarian consciousness is good, and national consciousness can be good too. By national consciousness, I’m not talking about nationalism in the sense of believing that one’s nation is better than others and seeking to destroy other nations. Rather, it’s a greater sense of connection and belonging—desiring not only progress for oneself but also for one’s nation. This type of national consciousness is inclusive, not competitive or domineering.

So, humanitarian consciousness is better than self-centered consciousness. And spiritual consciousness, where one is absorbed in Krishna and seeks to connect everyone with Krishna, is the best. We can say that the best is better than the good, and the good is better than the bad.

In this context, we have self-centered consciousness, humanitarian consciousness, and spiritual consciousness. From one perspective, anything short of spiritual consciousness may seem inadequate. But at the same time, that doesn’t mean humanitarian consciousness and self-centered consciousness are the same thing. There’s a big difference between the two. While it’s true that all of these are material, there’s a distinction between materially constricted consciousness and materially expanded consciousness. Materially expanded consciousness is better than materially constricted consciousness.

So, we can’t equate the good and bad, nor should we demonize the good. This is simply mundane. It might be mundane, but still, it represents expanded consciousness. It’s not just about social contribution—what the person is doing is laudable—but even from the perspective of their own consciousness, the expansiveness of their awareness is healthy for their eventual spiritual elevation.

For example, someone who already has expanded consciousness, like an activist working to remove poverty, illiteracy, or environmental degradation, is already concerned with these issues. When they begin to see how spirituality can address these problems at a more holistic, fundamental, and transformational level, their approach to spirituality will naturally be broader. Once they embrace spirituality, their impact may be much larger, as they can see how spiritual principles can integrate and elevate their existing efforts. Krishna is acknowledging these subtleties here, emphasizing that black-and-white conceptions of spirituality are narrow-minded. We need to recognize that consciousness must be both expanded and elevated.

Now, when we talk about spiritual growth, we focus on the journey from self-centeredness to selflessness. Selflessness can be expressed at the horizontal level, where it involves caring for others. In this context, “others” could mean one’s family. We might ask, “Isn’t that simply extended selfishness?” Yes, it may be at one level. However, in today’s world, where even the basic family structure—let alone the joint family system—is collapsing, people are sinking into a black hole of self-centeredness. In this scenario, even selflessness extended to one’s family can be an improvement. A person who is concerned about caring for their family and children may be better off than someone who spends their time playing video games or surfing Facebook, doing nothing more with their life.

Therefore, there is value in expanded consciousness. Selflessness can also go to the spiritual level—the vertical level toward Krishna. Spiritual growth is about expanding and elevating one’s consciousness.

Now, with this understanding of expanding and elevating consciousness, let’s look at the concept of adjusting versus compromising. What does this mean? When Krishna offers multiple levels at which Arjuna can connect with him, is Krishna adjusting or compromising? He is adjusting.

What does this mean in spiritual life? There are principles and there are details. If we change the principles but not the details, is that desirable? Not necessarily. Ideally, we should focus on changing the details, not the principles. Let’s break this down further: there are principles that are unchanged, principles that are changed, details that are unchanged, and details that are changed.

If both the principles and the details remain unchanged, people might think that becoming spiritual means turning the clock back. Conservative approaches to spirituality often focus on maintaining unchanged principles, but if taken to an extreme, this can lead to fanaticism. Conservatives generally aim to keep the principles intact.

The liberals are concerned with making sure that the details are changed. Both principles and details are necessary, but if the details are not changed while keeping the principles intact, this can lead to fanaticism. On the other hand, if the details are changed to such an extent that the principles are also altered, it can lead to relativism, leaving us with nothing to connect us to the tradition. Let’s consider this with an example:

The Bhakti tradition’s root texts, like the Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Bhagavad Gita, are in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is considered the language of piety and spirituality. However, in today’s world, how many people are going to learn Sanskrit to understand these texts? Not many. But if we offer a talk in English, does that change the message? No, as long as the core message is maintained, the language can change. The language is a detail; the message is the principle.

In India, even the Sanskrit texts were not as popular as their vernacular versions. For example, in Maharashtra, Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra, the Ramayana and Mahabharata were retold in local languages, reaching far more people than the original Sanskrit texts. So, the language is a detail, but the message is a principle. If we insist that people must learn Sanskrit to understand spiritual texts, we might maintain the purity of the language, but we would also limit who can access these teachings. While learning Sanskrit may be wonderful for those interested, it is not the primary goal.

When someone quotes many Sanskrit verses in a class, we might consider them very learned, but that does not necessarily mean they are spiritually realized. For example, while Sanskrit was used for spiritual texts, it was also used by atheistic philosophers during the rise of Buddhism and Jainism to criticize ritualism and the concept of God. These works, though written in Sanskrit, propagated atheism. This illustrates that the language itself is not inherently spiritual; the message is what truly matters.

So, when we consider the detail versus the principle, we need to understand this carefully. The main principle is that everyone should be provided a way to connect with Krishna in a manner that is accessible to them.

Earlier, we discussed levels of spiritual engagement: some people are spontaneously attracted to Krishna, others consciously concentrate their minds on Him, some work for Krishna, and others work for a good cause. These four levels are hierarchical—spontaneous absorption in Krishna is higher than conscientious concentration, which is higher than working for Krishna, and working for a good cause is the least.

However, not all variations in spirituality are hierarchical. For example, if someone studies spiritual knowledge in Sanskrit, they may have an advantage because they can read the root texts and gain deeper insights. But does this mean that studying in English or another vernacular language is inferior? Not necessarily. The difference may simply be horizontal rather than hierarchical—one person is learning in one language, another in a different one, but the essential goal is the same.

Similarly, if someone offers Indian food to Krishna and another offers American food, is one better than the other? This is not so simple, as there are many different cultural variations within India itself. The key is that the food, regardless of its origin, is offered to Krishna with devotion. The important point is the absorption of the mind in Krishna, not the specifics of the food or language.

So, what is the difference between the detail and the principle? Broadly speaking, there are certain fundamental philosophical tenets that cannot be changed. These are core spiritual truths, such as the belief that Krishna is God and that we are souls. These cannot be relativized. For example, it is not acceptable to say, “Maybe God exists, maybe there’s a soul, maybe not.” These are non-negotiable truths.

In contrast, there are other aspects that are changeable. While some things are unchangeable, there are also things that can be adjusted, and in some cases, changing them is necessary. We should not have a rigid, black-and-white view where every detail must be preserved exactly as it is, nor should we take an overly relativistic approach where everything is up for grabs. Instead, we should recognize that there are unchangeable principles and other details that are adaptable or even need to be changed.

For example, Srila Prabhupada chose to write his books in English. Although he initially wrote some works in Bengali, including a translation of the Bhagavad Gita called Gitaargaan, it would have been irrelevant to the people in America if he hadn’t written in English. Later, devotees saw the Bengali manuscript and published it. This demonstrates how the language used can be a medium for spirituality, but the message itself remains the principle. While the language is changeable, the essence of the message must remain the same.

Now, when we consider things like food or dress in relation to spirituality, we must also decide if they are merely mediums or if they are intrinsically spiritual. For example, in spiritual practice, some elements might be hierarchical, like different levels of devotion, while others might simply be different methods that are not inherently better or worse than one another.

The important principle here is that spirituality is not as simple as it might seem at first glance. There are various ways and levels of practicing spirituality. Some levels of practice are hierarchical (one is better than the other), while other methods are horizontal (different but not necessarily better or worse). Thus, we must go beyond black-and-white conceptions of spirituality.

This brings us to the concept of Niyamagraha, which refers to two extremes. The first extreme is when someone refuses to follow the rules entirely, rejecting both the details and the spirit of the law. This leads to relativism. The second extreme is when someone insists on rigidly following the letter of the rules without considering whether the spirit of the law is being followed. This leads to fanaticism. Both extremes should be avoided.

This isn’t a new or modern idea. It’s not about compromising because we live in a compromised world; the material world is inherently compromised. Deviation can also come from within the tradition itself. A notable example of this is the caste system in India, which emerged as a deviation within the tradition. The caste system, which asserts that one’s caste is determined by birth, is not the standard described in the scriptures. It represents a major deviation from the original spiritual teachings.

Thus, it is important to recognize that simply following traditions as they were in the past may not always be correct. Just doing something the way it was done in the past does not guarantee that we are not deviating from the intended purpose.

Now, how do we balance all of this? Let me illustrate the point using three examples: the purpose of an action is what is most important. Sometimes we think that we can simply replicate a practice from one place to another. For example, if I organize my room in a particular way in one place, I might think that I can do the same thing in another place. But it’s not just about replicating the action—it depends on the circumstances. For instance, if I have a lot of space in one place and very little in another, the way I organize my room will need to change accordingly. The same principle applies to spiritual practices.

Thankyou!