Bhagavad Gita Overview Chapter 17

Hare Krishna! So now we begin the 17th chapter of the Gita.
This chapter is maybe not a very long chapter, so we will not read about it for long today.
In the 16th chapter, Krishna ends by contrasting the divine and the demoniac creatures.
He says that the divine, those who have divinity, follow the shastra, have faith, and follow the shastra. Now, shastra can refer to scripture, but, as discussed yesterday, shastra also refers to discipline and regulation. The demoniac, on the other hand, lack faith and do not follow shastra. These are the two extremes.
Immediately, you see, the 16th chapter seems to present a very black-and-white picture of human nature. There are divine people and demoniac people—it’s like a one-zero depiction. But much of reality actually exists in shades of gray, and Krishna gives this very serious black-and-white picture, which raises a question. A “question-begging” statement is one that raises a question in the audience’s mind. If I say, “I want to speak on three points” and only speak two, nobody will ask about the third point, but I’ll be left wondering, “What is the point of speaking only two?”
So Krishna speaks in a very black-and-white way, and immediately Arjuna asks, “What about the people in between?” because most of humanity exists in between these extremes.
Krishna replies that those in between have some kind of faith.

Now, what is the nature of their faith?
For example, across the world, we will see that someone might worship a devata, someone might worship a baba who claims to be God or whose followers believe them to be God. It’s possible that someone worships nature, a tree, or even a movie star or a sports player. These people aren’t literally worshiping physical temples, but they can worship anything and everything. Sometimes, they worship literally, by doing puja, but worship can also mean making something the center of your life.

This analysis can also apply to various religious traditions because in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna doesn’t always talk specifically about other religions, but the Gita provides a framework for understanding this. Krishna says we can understand the nature of someone’s faith by their actions. How do I know the nature of someone’s faith? By looking at their actions.

Faith depends on the mode of the object of worship. Krishna is not that simple. Someone might worship a person who claims to be God or who is considered to be God by their followers. There is a difference between those who claim to be God and those who are considered to be God by their followers. But either way, how do we know the nature of their faith? Because faith is seen through actions.

One way to understand faith is through actions like the food people eat, the sacrifices they make, and the charity they give. These things reveal the nature of someone’s faith.

Why these specific things? Because food represents what we take from the world. The most important thing we take is food. Other things might be space to live, entertainment, or interactions with people, but the primary thing we take from the world is food. The Vedic tradition of dharma, yajna, teaches that there should always be some kind of reciprocation: If I’m taking something from the world, I must give something back.

The primary thing we take is food, and Krishna classifies the types of food based on their impact on the world. Food is classified as sattvic, rajasic, or tamasic based on how disruptive it is.

For example, if someone considers all of existence to be potential food, this reflects their understanding of the universe. The most evolved food is prasad, and we will discuss why prasad is the most evolved kind of food.

Food represents the level of faith a person has. The least disruptive food is sattvic food, which causes the least harm to other life forms. Rajasic food causes more disruption, and tamasic food causes the most. Based on the food we consume, we can understand the level of faith a person has.

For example, if someone is so hungry for food that they disrupt others to get it, like pushing people aside in a queue or spilling food, that shows a lack of understanding of harmony. But if someone consumes sattvic food, it reflects their understanding that the universe is arranged in a way that allows them to get food without harming others.

This principle applies to the entire system of life, and it helps us understand the level of faith in someone’s actions. Faith is seen in their actions, like the food they eat, the sacrifices they perform, and the charity they give. These are key elements of religious virtue—tapa (austerity), dana (charity), and yajna (sacrifice).

So why these three particular activities? What is their significance in the majority of the remaining chapter? Krishna will talk about how these three activities can be used as parameters for judging the level of faith of a person—what kind of sacrifices they perform, what kind of charity they give, and what kind of austerities they do.

Now, to understand the significance of these three activities, one of the fundamental teachings of the Vedic tradition is that we humans are situated in three circles. These three circles are: first, the body (adhiatmik), second, society (adhibhautik), and third, nature (adhidaivik).

Practically speaking, the soul is in the body, the body is situated in some society, and we exist within the earth and the ecosystem—this is the adhidai mik. So, this is a fundamental understanding, and we need each of these circles for sustenance. If our body collapses, we can’t function. If society is filled with violence or crime, we can’t function. If nature leads to earthquakes, tornadoes, extreme heat, or extreme cold, we can’t function. All three circles are needed for our basic survival.

Not only that, but all these circles provide us sustenance. The body is our basic tool for functioning in society. We go about our activity as social creatures, needing to learn from the community, and nature provides us with universal utilities. So, these three circles are required for our survival and for our functioning. From a positive perspective, they are needed.

Now, from a negative perspective, all three can give us closure. The body can develop diseases, society can have terrorism, robbery, or dishonesty—these are the adhyatmik, adhibhautik, and adhidai mik closures. In many traditional Vedic ceremonies, at the end of the ceremony, especially the chandamantra, we chant “Om Shanti Shanti Shanti.” The reason for the three shantis is that it is an invocation of these three circles:
Om adhyatmik le shanti
Om adhibhautik le shanti
Om adhidai mik le shanti

These three circles can cause disturbance, and all of these require pacification. These three activities—tapa, dana, and yajna—are our way of harmonizing with each circle.

Tapa is how we return what we take from the body. We take from the body, we have desires, and the body is our tool for getting energy and things by which we do things. We return to the body through tapa. For instance, when we do regulation or austerity, the body gets rest. For example, fasting on Ekadashi allows the digestive system to rest. While it may feel unpleasant for the mind, there is actually a lot of research showing that intermittent fasting is one of the best ways to improve health and lose weight.

As an old Egyptian proverb says, “You live on 25% of what you eat, and the remaining 75% of what you eat lives your doctor.” This idea highlights that most people eat too much, which leads to diseases, and that’s how doctors survive. Of course, the exact percentage isn’t true, but the point is that fasting is actually very good for health. When the body is constantly working, it doesn’t get the time to clean itself or rest. A machine needs time to clean, revamp, and restore itself. So, fasting gives the body time to do that. Tapa is the way we harmonize with the body, and it can be compared to yoga or asanas—many yogis perform austerities, and sitting in a particular pose can also be seen as tapa.

Dana (charity) is how we harmonize with society. We take many things from society, and we are meant to return them. Now, of course, you might say, “I pay taxes,” but taxes are more or less mandatory. Austerity and charity are meant to be voluntary. You could say, “I work for my survival and my family’s survival,” and while that is a form of duty, it is not voluntary austerity.

Charity, on the other hand, is voluntary. For example, one devotee was saying that we should give 50% of our wealth to charity. If someone says, “I give my entire wealth to my family,” that is not charity—it’s a responsibility. Taking care of your family is mandatory, not voluntary.

And then we return to the environment, and that is through yajna. Yajna is not just a simple ritual of fire sacrifice; it is a way of offering. In the Rigveda, it is said that agni (fire) is the lowest in terms of accessibility. This doesn’t mean it is the least powerful; it means that it is the most accessible. Agni is the medium through which our offerings go to the devatas. Vishnu is the highest and most transcendental, and in one sense, Vishnu is the least accessible for everyone. When the devatas are in trouble, they go to Brahma, who prays to Vishnu, and we know the story. At that time, Brahmaji doesn’t see Vishnu directly but hears a voice, often from his own heart. Vishnu is very powerful, but agni is the means by which sacrifices go to all the devatas, ultimately to Vishnu.

In modern times, most people find fire sacrifices either sensational or silly. “Sensational” means that the idea of a fire sacrifice with chanting mantras and the sight of the fire spreading might seem bizarre or strange. When Prabhupada first did an initiation, they performed a fire sacrifice, and the neighbors called the fire alarm, thinking the house was on fire. Firefighters came and told them they couldn’t continue the ritual, as it was considered a risk.

So, we just need to comprehend it. Fire sacrifice can seem very sensational, or to some people, they might say, “What is this? You’re taking nice food, nice ghee, fruits, and putting them in the fire?” Once, when Prabhupada was performing a fire sacrifice for initiation, he gave all the devotees bananas. They sat through the rituals, and Prabhupada gave a lecture while they were thinking, “When can we eat the bananas?” They were holding the bananas, waiting eagerly, and then Prabhupada put the bananas into the fire. “What? You’re not supposed to do that!” they thought. The bananas were so delicious, and they had been holding them for so long. They were wondering, “When will we eat them?”

So, from a material perspective, it might seem like a waste. Yes, the material vision might see it that way, but the thing is, if we consider that fire is a deity, then fire acts as a means of exchange. Through fire, our offerings go up, and blessings come down. The blessings might not be seen immediately. Traditionally, when fire sacrifices were performed, there were three levels of success in the ceremony:

1. Completion of the Fire Sacrifice: Just completing the fire sacrifice itself is considered an auspicious activity. Its mere completion is seen as a form of success. For example, when Vishwamitra Muni performed a sacrifice and demons tried to interfere, Lord Ram and Lakshman were asked to guard it. The idea is that demons know that if a sacrifice is completed, auspicious forces gain strength, which could threaten them, so they try to prevent it.
2. Appearance of Celestial Beings: The second level of success is that higher beings or celestial beings may appear to the priests. These beings may give offerings like payasam or simply smile upon the sacrifice.
3. Visible Appearance of Celestial Beings: The highest level of success is when everyone can see these celestial beings. This was extremely rare, but it signifies the ultimate blessing from the sacrifice.

The idea is that the celestial beings, the universe, and the gods don’t need the physical offerings. These material things are just symbols, but when we offer them, the intent behind the offering satisfies the higher beings. They get satisfaction from our offerings, and this is analogous to how we pay taxes.

Prabhupada compares yajna to paying a tax. Normally, we pay taxes to the state, but yajna is paid to the cosmic state, where the “state” refers to the cosmic order. So, when yajna is performed, it pleases the devatas (gods). Sometimes, just like with taxes, the devatas might notice the offering. If a substantial offering is made, the devatas might reveal themselves, acknowledging the sincerity of the offering.

Now, some may question this form of exchange, thinking it is bizarre. But in today’s world, we can understand it better through digital economy systems. For example, when someone deposits money at a bank and receives a credit or debit card, it might seem strange to someone unfamiliar with banking. The person may wonder, “You gave so much money, and you got just a card?” But the point is that, even though the exchange might seem unbelievable, it works. Similarly, yajna is a form of exchange, and the principle of exchange is universal, even if the form seems strange to us.

Now, Krishna explains how yajna, dana (charity), and tapa (austerity) can be performed in the three modes of nature—sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic. Let’s break it down:

• Sattvic Yajna: This is where the yajna is performed as a duty, as prescribed by the scriptures. One does it with a sense of responsibility, knowing that it is ordained by nature and the higher powers.
• Rajasic Yajna: In this case, the yajna might be performed to gain material benefits or for power, and it could be considered self-serving.
• Tamasic Yajna: This is where yajna is performed incorrectly or inauspiciously, such as animal sacrifices performed without proper rituals. In such cases, the priests may not chant the mantras properly, or the sacrifice may not be done in a pure way. This type of yajna would be considered tamasic (impure or inappropriate).

In Kaliyuga, it is asked whether Kaliyuga exists only on Earth or throughout the universe. The answer here is more nuanced: while Kaliyuga is traditionally described as being on Earth, it can be interpreted as part of a larger cosmic cycle. The cycle of ages exists throughout the universe, but the specific experiences of different yugas (ages) may vary depending on the context.

Where does this exist? Earth, isn’t it? The time flows differently in other places, doesn’t it? So, Kaliyuga exists only on Earth, and not in heaven or other places. In the past, interplanetary travel was common in the sense that the devatas (gods) would come to Earth, asuras (demons) would sometimes come here, and humans would travel to other planets. But in Kaliyuga, because Kali is a very destructive force, Kaliyuga is considered a dangerous age. That’s why, in this age, Earth is somewhat quarantined, like a red zone during a pandemic. People are not allowed to enter or leave. The exchanges between Earth and other planetary systems become very rare to prevent the toxic influence of Kaliyuga from spreading elsewhere.

Why am I talking about this? Because yajnas (sacrifices) are very difficult to perform in Kaliyuga due to a lack of resources. Furthermore, the results of those yajnas, in terms of fire sacrifices, are not easily attained. In Kaliyuga, the devatas will never be visible. So, yajnas are not performed as much. However, the principle of sacrifice is still there. Even when we chant the holy names, our consciousness can be focused on many things, but when we choose to focus on Krishna, that is a sacrifice. So, the principle of sacrifice is still present, but the specific act of fire sacrifice is not as common.

Remember in the fourth chapter, we discussed how sacrifice can take many forms. Krishna told Arjuna that even the act of fighting on the battlefield is a form of sacrifice. The battlefield is like the yajna kunda (the fire altar), and the Kauravas are like the offerings being sacrificed. The specific act of sacrifice, such as a fire sacrifice, is just one way to perform a sacrifice. But the principle is that we give something for a higher cause, and that is what we need to do. If we do not perform sacrifices at all, or if we do them improperly, it causes disruption.

Now, let’s focus on tapa (austerity) and dana (charity). We’ll look at these verses briefly. Bodily austerity is relatively simple. For example, the austerity of the mind involves showing respect to deities, teachers, and wise people. This includes being straightforward and truthful. Why is this considered austerity? Because it’s easy to become angry or violent. Men generally become physically violent, while women tend to become verbally violent. Both can exhibit violence in different forms, but the tendency is there in everyone.

Violence can also appear in other ways, such as gossip or body-shaming. Women, for example, can be very judgmental of each other when it comes to body image, often criticizing each other for being overweight or not fitting societal standards. The tendency to harm others, whether physically or verbally, is part of human nature, but we train ourselves to show respect instead.

Shari ram tapa uchchate: This means that bodily austerity refers to controlling our physical tendencies, such as avoiding violence. Psychology and sociology have observed many differences between men and women. For example, women attempt suicide more often than men, but men are more likely to commit suicide successfully. This might seem paradoxical, but it’s due to emotional tendencies in women and the physical strength of men. In the case of suicide attempts, failure to commit suicide is a success because survival is the true success.

Now, let’s talk about austerity of speech. Our words should not agitate others. They should be truthful (satyam), pleasing (priya), and beneficial (hitam).

Self-study can basically mean studying in your mind. It’s interesting because, in the past, books were not easily available. Before the invention of the printing press, reading was never an individual activity. It was a social activity: one person would read aloud, and others would listen. Even now, you might see this—someone reads aloud, and everyone listens. The idea of reading silently in your mind is a modern concept. In the past, reading meant reading aloud, and this is still evident in group reading sessions, where everyone reads aloud together.

Reading aloud is similar to chanting aloud—it’s often more calming and absorbing. It’s slower, but if you find yourself struggling to concentrate while reading silently, try reading aloud (of course, not too loud to disturb others). This is why reciting scripture aloud can be beneficial. So, this is the austerity of speech—swadhyaya, or self-study, through recitation. Austerity of speech could involve reading aloud, remembering and reciting, or using the tongue to recite scripture. These all fall under the category of vanmayam (related to speech) and are considered an austerity of speech.

Now, what does austerity do? If you consider austerity as a form of discipline, discipline makes things more effective. If we exercise our body, it becomes stronger. Similarly, when we practice austerity in speech, our speech becomes more effective. It communicates better and can transform others more powerfully. Krishna describes two essential qualities of speech: sensible and sensitive. Sensible speech appeals to the intellect, and sensitive speech appeals to the emotions.

Krishna emphasizes four qualities of speech: it should be truthful (satyam), helpful (hitam), non-agitating (anudvega karam), and pleasing (priyam). The best speech combines all these qualities. At the very least, our speech should be non-agitating. Sometimes we may have to speak the truth, but even the harsh truth can be spoken in a respectful and polite manner. Speaking the truth does not require being harsh.

The goal is to speak in a way that respects the dignity of others. For instance, if someone has done something wrong and needs to be corrected, it’s better to do it privately rather than publicly shaming them. We should always respect others’ dignity, as every individual is a part of Krishna.

Now, moving on to austerity of the mind. Austerity means voluntary restraint—choosing to restrain oneself from certain actions or desires. For example, fasting means voluntarily choosing not to eat certain foods, or in some cases, not eating at all. Similarly, austerity of speech means voluntarily choosing not to speak hurtfully, even though we have the power to do so.

Austerity of the mind involves keeping the mind cheerful and calm. The mind can be very restless, but with practice, we can learn to calm it. For example, Mauna (silence) is often considered an austerity of speech, but Krishna links it to the mind. It’s easier to silence our mouth, but the mind can still be noisy. We may not speak, but our mind may be filled with thoughts of anger or dissatisfaction. To silence the mind is the true austerity.

Most people struggle to silence their minds, and in response, they seek external distractions like watching TV or other noise. However, the goal is to control the mind and resist the urge to indulge in distracting thoughts or fantasies. Instead, we focus on things that purify us. This is the true austerity of the mind.

Cheerfulness (prasada) is the key to mental austerity. The key to being cheerful is gratitude. In life, there are always two categories of things: things we have and things we don’t have. The things we don’t have will always seem to be more than the things we do have. If we focus on what we don’t have, we will feel dissatisfied. However, if we focus on what we do have, we can be content and cheerful.

Consider this example: After this program, there might be prasada (blessed food) available. But let’s say there’s a special feast where everyone gets different sweets. In your plate, there’s gulab jamun, jalebi, peda, barfi, and so on, while in my plate, there might be a sandesh (sweet). As I eat the sandesh, I enjoy it, but at the same time, I start looking at what’s on your plate. I wonder, “What’s on his plate? What’s in his plate?” While I’m eating, my attention is distracted, and suddenly, my sandesh feels like chalk. Why? Because my consciousness is elsewhere.

It seems ridiculous when we talk about food—why not just enjoy your own sandesh? But we all do this in life. We have things that are good and right in our lives, but we focus on what we don’t have, letting our minds become agitated. In a sense, keeping our mind satisfied is an austerity of the mind. We must consciously choose to look at what we have, not at what we don’t have. The more we focus on what we lack, the more dissatisfied we become. This creates a cycle of increasing dissatisfaction.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where advertising amplifies this by constantly showing us things we don’t have, and even making us feel dissatisfied with what we do have. For example, I have a phone, but then I see there’s a newer model. The advertising industry thrives on creating dissatisfaction. They say the fuel of the consumer economy is consumer dissatisfaction. We never see ads for basic things like rice, dal, or chapati because those are necessities that people already have. But the more we focus on what we lack, the more dissatisfied we become.

Consciously making an effort to focus on what we have can be very helpful. One way to do this is by practicing gratitude. A simple saying is to “count your blessings,” but it’s not just about counting them—it’s about making those blessings count. Write down what you’re grateful for, and think about why each item on your list is valuable to you. When you feel dissatisfied, consciously refer to this list, and don’t just read the list—read the descriptions of why each item is meaningful. This practice helps our minds become satisfied.

Gratitude increases our mental energy. So much of our energy is drained by craving things we don’t have and resenting what others have. But if we practice gratitude, we conserve and even multiply our mental energy. This helps us focus on what we need to do. For example, if we enter a class and see our friend with the latest phone we want, we might become agitated, which makes it hard to concentrate. Gratitude helps conserve our energy and keeps our minds focused. That’s why it’s the first austerity of the mind.

Now, moving on to charity. Charity can also be performed in three modes: goodness, passion, and ignorance. Krishna explains that charity can be given at the wrong time or to unworthy recipients. If charity is given without considering the time, place, or circumstance, or is done disrespectfully, it’s considered tamasic (in the mode of ignorance).

For example, if you give charity to someone in a way that makes them feel bad, such as insulting them by saying, “You’re a beggar, you need this,” it’s not charitable—it’s disrespectful. This is called asatkrutam (disrespectful charity) and is tamasic.

Krishna also explains that charity can be done with the right intention, at the right time, and to the right person. The action itself can be good, but to truly evaluate its goodness, we need to consider the intent behind it and the consequences it causes. This is known as contextual ethics.

For instance, charity is generally seen as a good act, but if it’s given to someone who will only use it for harmful purposes, it can cause more harm than good. If someone is a drug addict, giving them money might just enable their addiction and lead to greater harm. So, when giving charity, we need to consider not just the action, but also the intent and the outcome.

Broadly speaking, we have two political ideologies: the right and the left. Have you heard of these terms? What do they mean to you?

Yes, the right is conservative, and the left is liberal. But what does that mean practically?

In any society, there’s always some hierarchy—people at the top and people at the bottom. And the number of people at the bottom is usually greater than those at the top. So, the right and left are concerned with this hierarchy. The right is concerned with maintaining the existing systems, especially those that have worked in the past. They argue that these systems have allowed society to survive, and therefore, we should respect and preserve them.

For example, many criticize the caste system in India, claiming it’s discriminatory. And yes, it has its flaws. But if the caste system were truly so terrible, why is India still one of the most resilient civilizations in human history, while others like the Egyptian or Aztec civilizations have vanished? We’re not saying the caste system is perfect, but there must be something about it that contributed to India’s survival.

On the other hand, the left focuses on those who are left out by the existing system. While the right may argue that the current system works, the left points out that it may be discriminatory, and some people are being harmed or sidelined by it. Ideally, both the right and the left should coexist in society. The right helps preserve what’s good from the past, while the left looks for ways to rectify the harms caused by the system.

The right believes that traditions and systems are experiments that have worked over time and should be respected. If some people are struggling, the solution is for them to work harder and adapt. The left, on the other hand, believes the system itself is flawed and needs to be changed. The right emphasizes individual responsibility, while the left focuses on social justice—correcting societal inequities.

Why am I talking about this? The leftist ideology has become influential worldwide, even though communism, a more extreme form of leftism, collapsed. The left believes those with less power are often discriminated against and need support. For example, in many Western countries, there are welfare states where the government helps those who can’t find work. It’s believed that if someone is unemployed, it’s society’s fault, and the state should provide maintenance for them.

However, there’s a downside. If people are supported without any expectations of work, they may become lazy and stop looking for jobs. This was evident during the pandemic when the American government gave large sums of money to people to stay at home. As a result, many didn’t want to return to work, leading to economic problems. Support is necessary for those who genuinely cannot work, but if someone is capable of working but chooses not to, then supporting them only encourages their laziness.

This concept highlights the idea that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” After World War II, the U.S. was geographically fortunate, with oceans protecting it and weaker countries surrounding it. America was the most geopolitically secure country, and it was successful in the aftermath of the war. Many of the soldiers returning home were wounded, so the government decided to create veteran homes to take care of them. However, this decision broke the intergenerational family link—traditionally, in India, it’s the children’s responsibility to take care of elderly parents, but in the West, this was largely replaced by government programs.

Afterward, with the sexual revolution, a similar shift happened. In the leftist ideology, women who became pregnant outside of marriage were seen as victims of toxic men who didn’t take responsibility. As a result, society began to support these women, providing for single mothers without expecting them to work. Over time, this led to an unintended incentive for single women to have children without getting married, as the state would support them.

In some U.S. states, for example, single mothers get a complete fee waiver for their college education. While the intention is to help, this creates a distortion of social values. The result is that the state becomes the caretaker of the family, rather than the family unit itself. This breaks the family bond, leading to long-term societal consequences.

The charitable instinct behind this welfare system is not inherently bad, but it can cause harm if it’s not properly implemented. The same goes for charity: it’s important to consider who receives charity and the effects it has. Should women and children be protected? Absolutely. But the proper way to protect them is through a strong family unit. When charity undermines family bonds and encourages dependency, it can lead to chaos, rather than welfare. In some cases, charity may end up causing more harm than good.

Krishna talks about a concept called “harm-causing charity,” using the example of drug addiction. In some liberal states in America, individuals who are drug addicts can get a certificate from a doctor stating they are addicts. With this certificate, they can go to a hospital where doctors will legally give them drugs.

At first glance, this might seem like a way to help addicts, but it’s actually enabling their addiction. The argument is that if addicts aren’t given legal drugs, they’ll resort to crime or take dangerous, unregulated drugs, which would lead to health problems and increase emergency healthcare costs. While this may seem cost-effective in the short term, the real issue lies in the long-term consequences. By giving addicts drugs, society removes the incentive for them to stop using and seek recovery.

This is an example of harm-causing charity. The intention is charitable—helping people who are suffering—but the result is ultimately harmful. Charitable actions must be guided properly, with a clear understanding of their consequences. Krishna points out that charity, like any sacrifice, must be connected to the higher truth (the absolute truth) for it to be truly beneficial. Without this connection, any sacrifice is futile.

In this chapter, Krishna stresses that faith can be understood through the actions we take, particularly in terms of what we receive and what we give. What we take is the food we consume, and what we give is through yajna (sacrificial acts). We are part of three circles: the body, society, and nature. For the body, we provide nourishment (through food); for society, we give through charity (dana); and for nature, we give through yajna.

Yajna is a cosmic tax, where the exchange between us and the universe is important. Even though the traditional forms of yajna (rituals) are not recommended in the current age (Kali Yuga), the principle of exchange remains. The universe gives us something, and we need to return something in kind.

We also discussed tapa (austerity), focusing on how the body, speech, and mind can be purified. For the mind, gratitude is key—choosing to focus on what we have, not on what we lack. Speech should be both sensible and sensitive, while the body should be disciplined through various practices.

Then, we explored the concept of charity. While charity is important, it can cause harm if it is not properly thought through. Charity should not enable irresponsibility. For example, facilitating single motherhood or encouraging irresponsible behavior can lead to the disintegration of the family, which is a harmful consequence. The intention may be good, but the result can be destructive.

I’ll share one final example of harm-causing charity. I once stayed with a couple in the U.S. who were planning to divorce. They had a son with a severe heart condition, and they couldn’t afford the medical expenses, as their insurance didn’t cover it. A doctor suggested that the wife divorce her husband, gain custody of the child, and become a single mother to qualify for government assistance. In order to get the necessary medical care for their child, they had to consider destroying their family unit. This is an extreme example of harm-causing charity, where the intention is to help but the consequences are devastating.

So, when we practice charity or help others, it’s important to consider not just the action but also its intent and consequences. Charity should support responsibility and strengthen, not weaken, the family or social fabric.

So, of course, they brutalized, they didn’t civilize, they exploited, but the point is that sometimes, when we value what we don’t have, we don’t value others. So if we can actually value what we have and value others, then our gratitude does not lead to pride. But then, after that, we share what we have with others because we value others also. That is the greatest thing. Somebody who has wealth, they can just give charity, that’s good, but if they have wealth and they create something, they will build a company where they can employ other people. They’re not giving charity, but they’re sharing the gifts that they have.

So, if I have speaking ability, singing ability, or any other gifts, I’m going to use that for good. That’s where the gratitude will stay on.

Yes, please.

Being satisfied with what we have, does it lead to lethargy? Yes, it can definitely lead to lethargy if it’s not connected with a higher purpose. See, if my pleasure comes from service, then I will want to use what I have in service. Some people can sing with the intention of gaining fame, while others can sing to spread joy. See, a gift in one person can be a gift for everyone. If one person has a beautiful singing voice, hearing that voice is a joy for them. If one person has artistic ability, the art they make brings joy to everyone. If one person has engineering ability, they can create something that brings comfort or relief to everyone.

So the idea is that whatever ability I have, if I’m using it for my own fame, prestige, or power, then that is unhealthy. I’ll never be satisfied, and I’ll always crave more and more. But if I truly value what I have, and it’s not just, “Okay, I’ll be satisfied,” I want to use it in the mood of service. Then we won’t become complacent; we won’t become lethargic. So gratitude does not take away our ambition. Gratitude elevates the motivation for our ambition.

Somebody who is a grateful singer, or somebody grateful for whatever they have, will still produce good content, but they will produce it so that others benefit.

So that is gratitude. Yes, it is a common notion that gratitude will take away our ambition. It won’t take away our ambition, but that is a possibility. But actually, in bhakti, we understand all gifts come from Krishna, and all gifts are going to be useful in the service of Krishna. It elevates the motivation for our ambition.

So, I want to compose songs; I want to sing songs not to become the most famous singer in the world, but to sing songs about Krishna or uplifting things, so that people can find joy, people can find contentment, and their consciousness can rise afterward.

So, gratitude can change our motivation.

Okay, thank you very much.