38 Does religion make people better or worse

So, thank you very much for joining today. Today, we move on to the second section of the 12th chapter.

Broadly, the 12th chapter has the first section, which talks about various levels of devotion, starting from impersonal to personal, and within personal, various levels. Then the second half, 12.13 to 20, talks about the relationship between virtues and devotion.

The verse we are discussing today is 12.13, so we are going to talk about religion and individual behavior. Does religion make people better or worse? Why are some religious people so ill-behaved? This verse describes the virtues that, if present in a devotee, attract Krishna:

Advesta sarva bhutana maitra karuna eva cha nirmamo nirahankara sama dukkha sukha kshami.

This is two verses together.

Krishna says, “Such a devotee is dear to me.” So who is that devotee here? A devotee is advesta—one who is not envious of anyone. Sarva bhutana maitra—one who is friendly. Karuna eva cha—compassionate to everyone. Nirmamo nirahankara—non-possessive, non-arrogant, and steady, not susceptible to mood swings. Sama dukkha sukha kshami—one who is tolerant, forgiving. Such a devotee is dear to Krishna.

Here, if you look at these virtues, these are qualities that even a person who is not necessarily a devotee will appreciate. Nobody likes to be with someone who is arrogant unless that person is going to do something for them; then they might just curry favor with that person for the time being.

We like a person who is non-possessive, willing to share whatever they have. We all like people who are non-envious, friendly, kind, who stay calm amidst challenges, who are not constantly critical or fault-finding, but who tolerate others’ mistakes. So, Krishna is talking here about devotees in terms of universal virtues.

And then he says, yomat bhaktah same priya—that such a devotee is dear to me.

At one level, we could say that all devotees are dear to Krishna. Those who love Krishna, Krishna loves them. Krishna, in fact, loves all living beings. He is suhradam sarvabhutanaam (5.29 in the Gita)—the well-wisher of all living beings. So even those who are not devoted to him—what to speak of those who are devoted to him—are loved by Krishna.

But among those who are devoted to him, those who develop godly virtues are the most dear to him. Krishna’s characteristic is suhradam sarvabhutanaam—he is the well-wisher of all living beings. And Krishna is telling us that his devotee’s characteristic is advaeshta sarvabhutanaam maitra karunayeevacha.

So, essentially, they are the same. Krishna is the well-wisher of everyone, and those devoted to him are also well-wishers of everyone.

Now, of course, devotees are finite beings, so naturally, they cannot do as much as God can for everyone. But the idea is in disposition, not necessarily in the contribution that we do. In disposition, those devoted to God, if they are godly, become dear to Krishna.

The relevant point for our talk today is that devotion, when coupled with virtuous conduct and good behavior, is what is pleasing to Krishna.

So today, we will talk broadly about the negative perceptions of religion in today’s world and how well-grounded they are in terms of reality. We will discuss how there has been radicalization of religion and also radicalization of atheism.

And then I will talk about the three modes and religion within the three modes. Finally, we’ll talk about harmonizing devotion and virtue.

Now, radicalization refers to things becoming more extremist, intolerant, or violent. If you look at religion, it has been one of the most influential cultural forces for a long time in known human history—even if we consider history as it is understood by modern empirical or contemporary standards.

In that history, we see events like the Crusades, which were fought between Christians and Muslims, and the Hundred Years’ War, which was fought between Protestants and Catholics, tearing Europe apart. That conflict was one reason why some people left Europe to come to America. This was the Mayflower worship and everything surrounding it. That’s how America was started by quite pious people who were being persecuted in Europe.

Then, of course, we have terrorism. While terror refers to a general feeling of great fear, terrorism as an ism—where there is a sudden, unplanned attack on civilians—is a relatively new phenomenon. Historically, when a king conquered another king, soldiers might sack their cities, but that was more about plunder. Terrorism, in the sense of targeting civilians in sudden, deliberate, and unpredictable ways, is a relatively modern phenomenon.

Terrorism is often justified or carried out in the name of religion. Suicide bombers, for instance, have probably contributed more than anything else to the modern negative perception of religion. Nothing has impacted this perception more than 9/11, with the planes hitting the twin towers. That event is indelibly etched into the modern psyche.

There’s also the concept of jihad. While jihad is a term associated with a particular religion, the broader perception is that religion fosters intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and eventually violence.

In the material world, whenever things go to an extreme in one direction, they often swing to an extreme in the opposite direction as a counter-reaction—much like a pendulum. Just as there has been radicalization of religion, there has also been a radicalization of atheism in recent times.

How has that happened? Let me share a few quotes by some prominent atheists. These individuals are not just atheists; they are what you might call antitheists—they are aggressively opposed to religion and God.

For example, a prominent atheist made a series of documentaries titled Religion is the Source of All Evil. Not just “evil,” but all evil.

Then there are atheists who claim that teaching religion to children is child abuse. Why? Because they believe children lack the rational faculty to discern, and indoctrinating them into particular ideologies could turn them into machines of hate and death. While this might be true in certain extreme cases, most religious teachings involve fostering virtues and encouraging good behavior in children. Nonetheless, using a term like “child abuse” is highly provocative.

Another prominent atheist stated that if given the choice between removing religion and rape from the world, they would remove religion. The reasoning is that rape causes occasional damage, but religion causes constant damage. To even draw such a comparison shows the depth of antipathy a person must harbor toward religion.

Another atheist claimed that religion teaches “dangerous nonsense” by saying that life doesn’t end with death. Why call it dangerous nonsense? Their argument is that people wouldn’t become suicide bombers if they believed life ended with death. However, the first known suicide bombers were part of the LTTE in Sri Lanka. The LTTE was a radical organization that initiated suicide bombing but was non-theistic—it was more of a regional political movement.

The idea that life continues beyond death is a widespread spiritual teaching that has given countless people hope and purpose. It offers a sense of justice beyond this life. While there are a broad variety of effects from this principle, dismissing it as “nonsense” or “dangerous nonsense” overlooks its profound significance for many.

So, as I said, there has been aggressive antitheism as well. There has been some extremist radicalization of religion, and there has been radicalization of atheism. The radicalization of atheism has largely been a reaction to the radicalization of religion—or at least the perceived radicalization of religion.

Now, what is the reason for this extreme antipathy toward religion? What is the reason? Let’s look at it. One of the most common conceptions is that religion makes people violent—that religion causes wars. But is this really true?

If we examine even recent human history, most wars—including World War I and World War II—were not fought on religious grounds per se. They were fought on ideological grounds, such as Nazi ideology, or for territorial gain, power, and wealth. For example, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam War, which have significantly shaped recent human society, were not fought on religious grounds.

If we consider the history of India, it was invaded by many invaders, including Islamic invaders. However, these invaders often fought among themselves. The Turks, Mughals, and other dynasties fought each other for dominance. Similarly, if we consider the Middle East today, more than the conflict between Islam and Judaism, there is internal conflict within Islam—between Shias and Sunnis. Often, the biggest casualties of Islamic extremism are Muslims themselves. Many Muslims have become refugees due to violence in their own countries.

So, is religion causing war? When Shias and Sunnis are fighting, is it their religious ideology or something else at play?

Let’s also consider other statistics. The biggest violence in human history was caused by communist ideology. This is an important yet largely overlooked fact. In the USSR and China alone, a hundred million people were killed by their own governments. These governments decided that anyone who disagreed with their ideology—or was even suspected of disagreement—should be killed.

In Ukraine, there was a man-made famine that killed 10 million people. The government centralized all food stock, took it to one location, and failed to distribute it, resulting in mass starvation. The combined death toll of these events exceeds the number of casualties in World War I, World War II, and all other wars combined. In total, those wars resulted in about 35 million deaths, whereas communism caused over 100 million deaths.

The reference for this is Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917. This demonstrates that non-religious factors, particularly communism—which was not just non-religious but anti-religious—have also caused mass violence.

Karl Marx famously, or infamously, stated that religion is the opium of the masses. In Soviet times, there was systematic persecution of religion. Churches were burned, priests were killed, and even Hare Krishna devotees in the USSR were subjected to heinous treatment.

So, when we consider violence, the historical track record shows that non-religious ideologies have caused more deaths than religious conflicts.

Now, let’s look at another perspective. The number of people killed in wars and violent conflicts in the 20th century is seven times greater than those killed in the previous 19 centuries combined. Yet, historical data shows that the 20th century was the least religious century in human history.

Why was this the least religious century? Several factors contributed to it: the perception that religion is irrational, urbanization that displaced people from their native places, immigration that led to the breakdown of family structures, and the erosion of religious traditions. Despite this decline in religiosity, the 20th century was the most violent.

So how can we blame religion for violence when the correlation between violence and religious affiliation is actually inversely proportional?

Why was there so much conflict in the 20th century? One reason is that technology made killing much easier. Weapons of mass destruction were developed. But do we blame technology for the deaths? Obviously not. Technology is a tool used by people, just as ideology—whether secular or religious—is a tool.

There is, however, a blame game where religion often gets a bad name. There’s no denying that evil has been done in the name of religion. But in terms of scale and perception, the actual violence caused by religion is far less than it is perceived to be.

The media often misrepresents religion. Why? Because the good inspired by religion is regular and therefore becomes invisible. Religion encourages people to be charitable and to take responsibility in their lives—responsibility toward family, society, and themselves. Religion encourages morality.

The idea that there is a God who watches over us and to whom we are accountable has been one of the greatest civilizing forces in human history.

Voltaire and Bertrand Russell, for example, discussed atheism with their intellectual peers, but always behind closed doors. Why? Because they didn’t want their servants to hear that God doesn’t exist. They feared that if their servants stopped believing in God, they might steal from their homes. So while they didn’t believe in God, they wanted others to believe.

The fear of God makes people moral to some extent. Now, this is not the healthiest reason to be moral, but it is a fact. Many people are inspired to live virtuously because of their belief in God. However, because this happens regularly, it becomes invisible.

People regularly give to charity, perform good deeds, and fulfill their responsibilities. But because these actions are regular, they are not newsworthy. For something to be newsworthy, it has to be unusual or sensational.

When something unusual happens, it becomes newsworthy. The bad incited by religion is intermittent, but it is ultra-visible. For example, terrorist attacks immediately catch incessant media attention. This is not to say there is a malicious agenda; it’s just how news works. What is considered newsworthy is the unusual, not the regular.

As a result, there is a negative perception of religion, which has arisen from various factors. In the first section, we discussed how both religion and atheism have faced radicalization. Now, let’s move on to the concept of religion in the three modes.

The modes are a concept introduced in the Bhagavad Gita and discussed in depth in the 14th chapter. Here, we will focus primarily on how these modes influence human behavior and the potential for transformation.

We previously discussed that technology cannot be blamed for violence; similarly, ideology, including religion, cannot be blamed. People commit violence, and they often use various pretexts—such as race, nationality, gender, color, or religion—as justification.

The question then arises: What can change people? To answer this, we first need to understand why people behave the way they do. The Bhagavad Gita uses an analytical framework called the modes to explain this.

The modes are subtle forces that shape the interaction between consciousness and matter. Consciousness originates from the soul, while the material world around us is made of matter. The modes determine how consciousness perceives matter and what it seeks within matter—what it sees and pursues.

These modes are broadly classified into three categories: goodness, passion, and ignorance. Before we delve into the modes, let’s discuss another concept and relate it to the modes: virtues and vices.

Virtues are qualities that inspire us to act in ways that benefit both ourselves and others. Examples include compassion, generosity, kindness, humility, sensitivity, and moderation. Virtues are universally appreciated because they make us better human beings, fostering a culture of sharing rather than selfish grabbing.

In contrast, vices drive us to act in ways that harm both ourselves and others. Examples include greed, possessiveness, anger, and envy.

Now, let’s relate virtues and vices to the three modes. Within every human heart, there are both virtues and vices.

• In the mode of goodness: Virtues are in control. Vices may be present, but they are regulated and disciplined.
• In the mode of passion: Virtues and vices are relatively balanced, but vices tend to be slightly stronger, making a person more prone to being pulled down.
• In the mode of ignorance: Vices dominate, and virtues are largely suppressed.

This dynamic shows that the line dividing virtue and vice, or good and evil, runs through every human heart. It’s not that people of a particular country, religion, or ideology are virtuous while others are vicious. Instead, the degree to which virtue or vice controls a person varies from individual to individual.

The modes serve as both indicators and impellers of behavior. A person in the mode of goodness is more likely to contribute positively to society, while someone in the mode of ignorance is more likely to be destructive.

These modes are universal and present in all of humanity. They also influence how people interact with one another:

• In goodness: Differences are resolved through discussion and mutual understanding.
• In passion: Interactions involve domination, with a focus on proving oneself right.
• In ignorance: Interactions lead to destruction, with an intolerance for differences and even a desire to eliminate opposing viewpoints.

We see these tendencies in various contexts, including religion. For example, some religious extremists do not tolerate contrary opinions. Similarly, in modern media dominated by the left, the phenomenon of “cancel culture” reflects this same destructive mentality. Anyone with an opinion deemed unacceptable is condemned and essentially canceled from society.

Goodness, passion, and ignorance can be present in both atheistic and religious individuals. These modes influence the behavior and consciousness of everyone. Just as technology can be misused, religion can also be misused.

The primary purpose of religion is to foster virtue in people. Consider the Ten Commandments in Christianity, the regulative principles in Krishna consciousness, or the general guidelines in most religions—they all emphasize living virtuously. In many cases, religions not only recommend virtues but insist upon them.

When properly practiced, religion serves as a process for transforming people. However, when misused, religion is twisted to justify, rather than rectify, one’s actions. For example, a person who is intolerant may misuse religion to validate their narrow-mindedness rather than rise from ignorance to goodness.

The virtues emphasized by various religions are designed to help societies function harmoniously. However, when religion is practiced in ignorance, it becomes divisive and destructive.

In the mode of ignorance, people focus on one fragment of their religious tradition and elevate it to absolute importance. They believe that anyone who agrees with them is good, while those who disagree are destined for hell—or worse, that they should be sent there immediately. This is a fragmental vision, described in Bhagavad Gita 18.22.

Such a mentality fosters divisiveness and destruction. In this state, people believe they are entirely good and others are entirely bad, justifying the destruction of those who disagree.

So this is religion in ignorance. The Bhagavad Gita itself, if you see, offers a very inclusive vision. Every soul is a part of God. Those who are spiritually evolved see all living beings equally. So now, when we say religion practiced in ignorance, what does it mean? It is not that religion has made people ignorant; rather, there are people who are in the mode of ignorance. Naturally, people are across the spectrum in all three modes. People who are in ignorance sometimes start practicing religion, and naturally, they will be in the mode of ignorance. There are also some leaders who exploit the ignorance of people and use the mode of ignorance to further their own agendas. They teach religion in a very fragmented and biased way, and that’s how religion becomes practiced in the mode of ignorance.

There are two factors here: first, there are people in ignorance who start practicing religion; second, there are self-interested leaders who propagate this kind of practice because it serves their agendas. Then, we can consider religion practiced in the mode of passion. Here, externals are equated with essentials. For example, if somebody has a large following and many people are coming, it is assumed that they must be potent and that God’s blessings must be with them. This is itself considered religious success.

Populism often results from this, where people start pandering to whatever is the popular sentiment. Here, people seek fame, power, and wealth, and if they get it, they think that proves they are right. There is a version of Christianity called the prosperity gospel or prosperity theology, which holds that wealth, power, and fame are indicators that God has blessed us, and their absence means God has cursed us. However, this is a very oversimplified understanding. One can get wealth, fame, and power because of past karma, and it may not have anything to do with God’s blessings. Sometimes, these things can even make one more selfish or demoniac—not always, but it is possible.

The idea here is that there is no one-to-one correlation between prosperity and spirituality, devotion, or religious success. However, there is a presumption of this, and this is largely religion in the mode of passion. The prosperity gospel, although popular (particularly in America), has been critiqued by other Christians. Prosperity theology is somewhat similar to karma kanda in the Vedic tradition, where one practices religion to gain prosperity and fulfill desires. At one level, this is true, as dharma leads to artha. However, this vision of religion is not very enlightened.

There is much more to life: moksha, liberation, is the ultimate goal. Within moksha, there is bhakti and prema—love of God—that is to be sought. All this is overlooked when religion in the mode of passion equates externals with essentials. In some cases, when religion is practiced in the mode of passion, it is not a spiritual search for God but becomes a political search for power. People come together not to worship God but to gain group power. When religion is practiced in passion, there are already people in the mode of passion, and religious leaders often utilize this mentality to serve their agendas.

Religion practiced in the mode of goodness is characterized by a recognition of the essential equality of everyone. It acknowledges that all living beings contain an imperishable spirit. There is one imperishable spirit that animates all living beings. This understanding belongs to the mode of goodness. Even if not fully understood, the idea that all living beings are children of God, parts of God, or sparks of the divine is central to religious practice in goodness.

When there are differences, discussion and deliberation are used for mutual understanding. There is introspection for deeper self-understanding: What am I doing? Why am I doing this? Such deliberation is conspicuously absent in religions in the modes of passion or ignorance. Deliberation can lead to self-criticism, such as, “I am not doing this right; this is what I should do.” In contrast, religions in passion and ignorance tend to focus more on criticizing others than on honest self-reflection.

Most importantly, religion practiced in the mode of goodness emphasizes purification to elevate consciousness. This involves rising from ignorance to passion to goodness and eventually toward transcendence. Elevating consciousness means decreasing vice and increasing virtue within oneself. Religion is meant to be a force for change—not in the sense of coercion, but as a power or agency to transform people for the better. This transformation occurs when religion is practiced in the mode of goodness, or at least when its practice is led by people in the mode of goodness. Such leaders guide even those in the modes of passion and ignorance to rise upward.

However, if the people practicing are in the modes of passion and ignorance, and the leaders exploit rather than elevate, it becomes a problem. Belonging to a group with a strong tradition and extraordinary ideals can make people feel good about themselves. However, practicing religion—whether by going to church, chanting mantras, or performing rituals—does not automatically make someone a good person.

For example, having a good car and a good map does not make someone a good driver. The car is like religion, which consists of practices to elevate consciousness. The map is ideology or philosophy—a worldview. However, driving ability, like virtues, must be consciously learned. If someone has a car but does not know how to drive, they may harm themselves or others. Similarly, religion, when not practiced with understanding, can cause trouble.

Religion practiced in the three modes requires an understanding of one’s current position. It is not just about doing certain things or believing certain things; it is about transformation. This brings us to harmonizing religion and virtue, specifically devotion and virtue. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna discusses devotion as a means to elevate virtue and consciousness. If we consider a graph of virtue and religion, there are four quadrants. For instance, someone who has neither virtue nor religion would fall into the category of antisocial elements.

There are people who can be violent, robbers, or engage in all kinds of criminal activities without believing in anything higher. Such individuals lack higher qualities as well. Now, if someone has religion but lacks virtues, they can be considered bad people despite being religious. This could mean they are terrorists who use religion to justify destruction, or they exploit religion for personal gain in a cynical manner. These individuals often think their religion grants them a license to justify their vices, believing that everything done in the name of God is automatically good. But it is not that simple. Religion must encourage goodness; otherwise, it risks giving itself a bad reputation.

Such misuse of religion often alienates not only non-religious or atheistic people but also other religious individuals. On the other hand, if someone lacks religion but possesses virtues, they can be good atheists. Can atheists be good people? Of course, they can. Virtue and religion are separate aspects. There are atheists who are kind, well-mannered, gentle, and even charitable. However, their goodness is independent of their atheism. Atheism itself doesn’t inherently foster virtues. Often, their virtuous nature stems from past upbringing, experiences, or societal influences rather than atheism itself.

Krishna, in the Bhagavad Gita, speaks of those who possess both virtues and religion. He describes them as exemplary and dear to Him. This is where bhakti (devotion) comes in, transcending the conventional notions of religion and spirituality. While religion is often associated with rituals and dogmas, and spirituality with meaning, purpose, and openness, bhakti integrates the best of both. Bhakti is the most potent and transformational form of religion. It involves practices that are not merely rituals but transformational processes.

For instance, when people practice bhakti sincerely, their virtues are activated and energized, while their vices are subordinated and eliminated. Many have experienced this transformation. Someone struggling with alcoholism may overcome it through chanting the holy name. Similarly, those with anger issues may find their temper significantly reduced through the practice of bhakti. This shows that bhakti fosters virtues and helps individuals rise beyond the modes of ignorance and passion to the mode of goodness and eventually to transcendence.

Krishna emphasizes virtues in the Bhagavad Gita (12.13–12.20), describing those who embody these qualities as especially dear to Him. This underscores that religious practices like chanting mantras, reading scriptures, or worshipping are meaningful only if they transform us into better human beings. Srila Prabhupada, when asked how to recognize his followers, stated that they are perfect gentlemen and ladies. He emphasized behavior over personal religious practices because the world judges us by our actions and interactions, not just by our private rituals.

Virtues are non-sectarian; they are universally appreciated. People value kindness over harshness and generosity over selfishness, regardless of religious affiliation. While virtues should ideally be fostered by beliefs and practices, they don’t manifest automatically. Devotees must consciously cultivate virtues as an integral part of their devotion. For example, humility and tolerance are essential for glorifying Krishna sincerely. Without them, even devotional activities risk becoming ego-driven rather than God-centered.

Devotion involves not just rituals or beliefs but a way of living that encompasses how we interact with others. If someone chants and dances during kirtan but yells at others outside, their behavior reflects poorly on their devotion. Devotion is seen not only in our relationship with God but also in how we treat others, as they too are parts of God. Therefore, cultivating virtues is an integral part of bhakti, making it a holistic and transformative way of life.

Practicing bhakti diligently can undoubtedly make individuals better, and by making individuals better, it contributes to improving the world. To summarize, today’s discussion centered on whether religion makes people better or worse and why some religious people behave poorly. It explored the radicalization of religion and atheism, how misuse of religion fosters violence or cynicism, and how true devotion rooted in virtues can transform individuals and society.