Bhagavad Gita Overview Chapter 3

Hare Krishna. So we move to the third chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, and now let us do a big road recap. In the second chapter, Arjuna surrenders to Krishna and asks a question: what is the right thing to do? And in response to that, Krishna first gives Atma Gyan to help him understand that killing is not necessarily wrong because the soul is eternal. Now, that does not necessarily mean that killing is automatically right. All that it means is that Arjuna should not reject killing as an entirely unethical activity.

Now, after he has done that, Krishna says, “Okay, then how do you determine what is the right thing to do?” So he first talks about winning or losing: both ways, actually, will be the beginner’s gain. And then he says, look for a bigger result beyond winning and losing. So that’s how Krishna first offered Karma Kanda, and then he talks about Karma Yoga.

And then Arjuna wants to know what are the characteristics of a Sthita Prajna, and Krishna answers in the second chapter from verses 54 to 72. Now, is it okay? So, after that has been done, now the third chapter begins. It begins with a question by Arjuna. So let’s look to see what is Arjuna’s question. Actually, let’s look at Krishna’s answer because the question is a little complicated, but what he is saying is Vyamishreneva Vakyena.

So Mishra means mixed. Sometimes some people send a mixed message. A mixed message means: I like him, but I don’t like him. So what is it actually? So Vyamishreneva Vakyena. Now, Arjuna is being respectful. He is not saying, “Your message is mixed.” He is saying, “It seems mixed to me.” Vakyena. So Vyamishreneva Vakyena.

Because of your mixed-sounding words, what has happened? Intelligence is Mohai—it’s bewildered. Now it’s interesting. The poorest temptations generally bewilder our mind. But spiritual instructions—if they’re ambiguous—they will bewilder not our mind, they will bewilder our intelligence. So he is actually saying Buddhim Mohayasi, not Manam Mohayasi. So it’s my intelligence that is not able to figure it out.

Generally, if the mind gets bewildered, it just says, “I like it, and I want it. I don’t care whether it is good or bad.” But when the intelligence is bewildered, it says, “I can’t understand this.”

So Buddhim Mohayasi Iva Me. Therefore, because I am confused, Ekam Vada Nishchitya. Please tell me one thing. So one thing you can tell me, first of all, is Nishchitya—but what one thing? By which Shreya, long-term good, can be obtained.

So let’s see what are the words of Krishna that seem confusing to Arjuna—that seem ambiguous. So basically, Arjuna is thinking that I have two options among which I need to choose. The two options are fight or don’t fight, and he is putting these actions in a broader context.

So he says fighting is broadly the path of action. Not fight is the path of renunciation. So he is seeing these two paths, and for him, he associates peace with which path? Don’t fight. Obviously, we think that is what will give peace to us.

So if that is what is going to give peace, then Krishna, towards the end of the last chapter, in verses 70 and 71, uses the word peace.

He says Krishna is talking about Shanti over there, and then again, he also talks about Shanti a little later. So Krishna, in verses 70 and 71 of the second chapter, has talked about the person who is a perfected yogi.

Now, Arjuna understands this perfectly. Krishna has talked about, at that time, clearly Karma Yogi. He’s talking about the path of action. The perfected state of that path of action is that the person will attain peace. Arjuna asks about the characteristics of that person. So he says the characteristics are that this person attains peace.

Now Arjuna is thinking, if the ultimate purpose is to attain peace, then why is Krishna telling me to fight? Fighting is the opposite of being peaceful. Therefore, he says…

And now the confusion arises because both Krishna and Arjuna are talking about the same thing—peace. Krishna is talking about peace. Arjuna is also thinking about peace. But Krishna is talking about inner peace. Arjuna is thinking about outer peace. So because they are talking about two different kinds of peace, what happens is Arjuna’s intelligence is not in one piece.

So therefore, he says…

And now what Krishna will do is he will start explaining things more systematically. When the Bhagavad Gita begins from its context on the battlefield, it is not that Krishna has made a systematic plan: “I talk about Karma Yoga, then I talk about Bhakti Yoga, then I talk about Gyaan Yoga,” or different paths like that. Krishna is simply addressing Arjuna’s question. And as a part of addressing that question, the discussion moves forward.

So we could say, using contemporary language, the Gita is not actually like a class. It is more like a podcast. You know, nowadays podcasts have become very common. And what is the characteristic of a podcast? It’s more like a free-flowing discussion. Now, because it’s a free-flowing discussion, it doesn’t mean that there is no meaningful content in it. It doesn’t mean that there is no structure that can be discerned afterwards.

If you watch a long podcast on YouTube, below them there are timestamps. You know, from here to here, this topic is discussed. Sometimes YouTube itself takes those time divisions. Sometimes those who post the video can themselves make an input also, whichever way they want. But the point is that even if there is one discussion, it need not necessarily be that everything within that particular section is only about that discussion, because it’s more of a free-flowing discussion.

When we talk about a class, it is highly scripted. Scripted means that it is like a script is written—not necessarily literally every single word—but it is scripted and well-structured. So Krishna gives a broad overview with a conclusion to Arjuna, and Arjuna needs a more systematic explanation, and that is what Krishna will start now.

So Krishna starts by first of all talking about the concept of Adhikaar. Now Adhikaar in today’s language—what is your right or what is your authority? That is the way the word is used nowadays. So Adhikari is an authority figure. That’s the word.

But in the tradition, the word Adhikaar has a slightly different meaning. In tradition, it refers to qualification. It’s similar, but there is a slight difference over there. The focus is more on that Adhikaar is generally—if somebody says Adhikaar, this is what you can do.

That’s the contemporary sense. But in the traditional sense, the meaning is more: this is what you are qualified to do; this is what you can understand; this is where you are at.

So Krishna will now start talking about different levels at which a person will act, and based on that, he will analyze how a person should act. So, broadly, Krishna will talk about the level of being attached and the level of being detached. These are the two broad levels he talks about.

Now, within attached and detached: do these refer to externals or internals?

Yes, attached and detached—these terms themselves refer to the internals. This is Arjuna’s conception. He is equating this with engaged and disengaged. So, engaged means engaged in activity. Arjuna equates attached with engaged and detached with disengaged. So, engaged means in action, and disengaged is from action.

Arjuna is thinking, broadly speaking, that if I am engaged, then why would I be engaged unless I am attached? So although Krishna has talked about the concept of Karma Yoga, it is a bit of a complex concept, and Krishna will need to elaborate on that.

Now, Krishna says that this is too simplistic. There is truth to it, but this is simplistic, Krishna says. Why is it simplistic? He says because the attached can actually be both engaged and disengaged. He will explain how, and similarly, the detached can also be engaged and disengaged.

So, the attached may act, or the detached may renounce action. The detached may act, or the detached may renounce action. So how is this possible?

Now, if this is complicated, let me make it a little more complicated. In general, education has these two aspects: education means to show the complexity in the simple and the simplicity in the complex. Both aspects are part of education.

Sometimes somebody will think, “This is so simple. Okay, I am sick, and this is the medicine that cures the sickness. You give me this medicine.” It’s so simple. But if medicine were that simple, you know, all of us would just go to the pharmacy and take medicines. But there are other factors involved: what is the case history of the patient? What are the possible side effects? Is this medicine contraindicated for something?

The law also: this is the crime, and this is the punishment. This is straightforward; it’s simple. If you do wrong, you’ll be punished. True, but the context matters. If somebody has killed someone, if they kill with a cold-blooded plan, if they kill in a moment of anger, if they kill in self-defense—these three are very different situations. At least the first and second are slightly different, but the third is totally different.

So, what happens is, at one level, it’s important to understand that things that seem simple may not be that simple, and human intelligence can go both ways. One is to make things unnecessarily complex, thinking they are simple. But the intelligence can go in the other direction also: to make things unnecessarily simple.

In this case, Krishna’s education is going in which direction? Right now, he’s going towards showing the complexity in the simple.

Now, the simplicity in the complex will be shown by Krishna in his conclusion: Sarva dharmaan parityajya, maamekam sharanam vraja. If all this is very complex, all that I have spoken to you till now, then just understand this conclusion.

But he comes to that elaborate process of reasoning, and we’ll see why he’s doing the reasoning. There are many, many reasons, but one of the key points of Krishna’s method of teaching is that Krishna’s method is not centered on an authority-centered approach. An authority-centered approach would mean, “I am God, yet obey me.”

If that had been Krishna’s approach, Krishna would have finished the whole Gita in just six words: I am God, obey me, fight.

So Krishna’s approach is not an authority-centered approach, as much as it is a wisdom-centered approach. A wisdom-centered approach means Krishna is giving reasoning to Arjuna. Krishna is appealing to Arjuna’s intelligence, and thereby Krishna is persuading Arjuna.

The idea is that the wisdom-centered approach equips Arjuna for decision-making. The authority-centered approach, on the other hand, makes the individual more dependent on the authority for the decision. The authority is not always available to a human being. Now, of course, sometimes we need authority, but Krishna’s overall approach is to make Arjuna equal to Him in making decisions through the education he is receiving in the Gita.

So, we could say, “Go to the authority, do whatever the authority tells you.” That’s a simple principle, and it is true—it’s simple. But the problem is life is not so simple. Sometimes authority may not be available; sometimes authority may be available, but we may not be able to communicate our situation properly.

It’s like a patient who is sick. Just do what the doctor tells you to do. But what if the doctor is not available, and you have some issues? What if you go to a doctor, but you forget to mention some of the details? What if the doctor doesn’t remember something from your past medical history, which you forgot to tell them?

What happens is, you could say that following the doctor is a straightforward principle, but in real life, there’s complexity. And that’s why sometimes major decisions require a second opinion. If someone is advised to undergo life-changing surgery, a major surgery with potential risks to life, most people would say, “Okay, I’m willing to do it,” but they might also seek a second opinion.

The second opinion is not necessarily showing a lack of trust in the doctor. It’s just an acknowledgment of the gravity of the situation, the gravity of the decision. So Krishna is taking a wisdom-centered approach. His focus is on equipping Arjuna to make decisions.

With that in mind, Krishna’s focus is on the complexity of the situation. So, we said that the detached can be both engaged and disengaged, and the same applies to the attached. Now, engagement can also be in two ways. One can be engaged sinfully, selfishly, or selflessly.

Now, sinful and selfish actions are not the same thing. The Sanskrit words for these are as follows: sinful engagement is vikarma. Now, is there any problem in what I’m explaining here? I said something deliberately contradictory. I said that engagement can be in two categories, and then I gave three categories. Is there any problem with these categories?

What’s the problem with selflessness? It’s a good thing, isn’t it?

[Pause for audience response]

Yes, okay, good point. Thank you. So, engaged can be either sinfully or selfishly engaged.

Sinful action is called vikarma. In Sanskrit, vikarma refers to bad or harmful karma. Now, selfish action is called karma kanda. Karma kanda means that I’m doing action because I want the results. For example, I may perform a yajna (ritual), but it’s not so much for the pleasure of God as it is for the fruits I want. This could be seen as karma kanda in a broader sense, where the person is largely self-centered.

Now, how might the attached be disengaged? The attached could be disengaged because that person is simply irresponsible.

Irresponsibility means that a person wants pleasure but doesn’t want to work for it. In general, irresponsibility means wanting the result but not putting in the effort. This is the broad definition of irresponsibility. Now, irresponsibility can have many different meanings, but in a practical sense, someone who is irresponsible is not doing what is expected of them. In every situation, we get something, but we are expected to give something else. So, if someone only wants to get but doesn’t want to give, that is irresponsibility.

So, someone might say, “There’s too much work here. I don’t want to do it.” But they are not detached—they are still attached. They still want worldly pleasures. Krishna calls this person a mithyachari.

Mithyachari: What is this term? Acharya refers to behavior or action, while Mithya means false or illusory. So, in this context, it’s not that the action itself is illusory, but rather that the person’s actions are deceptive. A Mithyachari is someone who pretends to be renounced but is, in fact, not detached. This person may crave worldly pleasures internally and, whenever an opportunity arises, will seize it.

Krishna warns about such deceptive behavior in Bhagavad Gita 3.6, which we’ll address in detail later in the Gita. To be attached and disengaged—does that seem good? Definitely not. Krishna categorically rejects this.

For example, someone might renounce the world or disengage from work, not because they are detached, but because they seek the prestige associated with renunciation. However, even while claiming to be detached, they still crave worldly pleasures and seize opportunities when they arise. This becomes very deceptive.

There’s a story about a movie released recently that describes a 19th-century situation where a Swami, who claimed to be renounced, actually pretended to be Krishna himself. He was highly respected, and many women would come to him. He claimed that Radha had entered into him and that others could experience this divine presence too. The point is that when someone abuses a position of power, especially in a renounced state, this kind of behavior becomes atrocious.

This is the worst type of behavior. Krishna doesn’t say to Arjuna, “You will become like this,” but he does caution that simply being disengaged or detached does not equate to true renunciation. Being disengaged does not automatically mean you are detached. Premature renunciation, where a person is not mature enough to let go of attachments, is dangerous. Even if someone does not intend to be hypocritical, without the proper qualification (Adhika), they may slide into this behavior over time.

Krishna is saying that a Kshatriya who renounces the world but is still constantly dreaming of power, position, and prestige is not truly renounced. This is not a healthy approach, and it’s definitely something to be reproached.

Now, let’s look at this verse:
Karma Indriyani refers to the action senses—the senses with which we perform actions, such as eating, engaging in sexual activity, etc. Krishna says that the person who restrains their senses (Sanyam) and is still remembering sense objects (Indriyarthan) in their mind is deceiving themselves.

What are they remembering? The normal purpose of the senses, which is to seek out sense objects. Krishna says such a person is a Vimudhatma (a fool), and if they make others believe they are renounced, they are a Mithyachara (a deceiver).

This is where we see a level of self-criticism within the tradition itself. The tradition doesn’t demand blind faith, nor does it say that anyone wearing the dress of a renunciant should be automatically respected. No, the scripture itself asks us to be thoughtful, evaluative, and self-critical—to look at ourselves objectively. Many traditions demand unwavering faith and claim that if anything seems wrong, the fault lies with you, not with them. Krishna’s teaching here is different; it encourages scrutiny of one’s actions and intentions.

Now, Krishna warns against premature renunciation. If someone disengages from work not out of genuine detachment but out of a desire for prestige, this becomes hypocritical. Such a person may grab opportunities when they arise, which creates a deceptive appearance of renunciation.

Let’s move on and discuss this in more detail. Krishna will explain the two broad paths for someone who is detached and disengaged: Gyana Yoga (knowledge) and Dhyana Yoga (meditation). These will be discussed in chapters 6 and 13–18, respectively.

Krishna also discusses two categories for those who are engaged but detached: Karma Yoga (selfless action) and Bhakti Yoga (devotion). Karma Yoga will be discussed from chapters 3 to 6, while Bhakti Yoga will be discussed in chapters 7 to 12.

This is a broad overview of what will unfold in the Bhagavad Gita. Now Krishna will begin elaborating on these concepts.

Sacrifice and Duty:
The point here is that we generally expect people who come to hear a spiritual talk to have some level of impulse control. Even if they are angry or frustrated, they still conform to certain standards of behavior. For example, all of you are sitting here—some might be tired, others might not be very interested in the class. But none of you are turning your back to the speaker or looking elsewhere.

In a classroom, if a student is completely inattentive, the teacher might ask them to leave or stop disturbing others. If you want to be part of a class and gain knowledge, you need to behave in a certain way. This behavior might not always be the most enjoyable in the moment, but it is where the idea of sacrifice comes in. Sacrifice means giving up impulsive pleasures for the sake of belonging to a larger group.

To belong to any larger group—whether it’s a classroom, family, or society—we must give up some personal, impulsive pleasure. For example, if you’re sitting alone at home, you can sleep or eat whenever you want. But when you join a classroom or workplace, you must sacrifice some of those spontaneous impulses. If someone gets married, their behavior changes; they are now committed to one person. If they belong to a family with children, their children must come first. These adjustments can be seen as sacrifices, but they are also duties.

In today’s increasingly materialistic society, people are becoming more self-centered and reluctant to give up their immediate pleasures for any greater cause. This self-centeredness is one reason why people avoid marriage. During my travels abroad, I’ve observed that society is crumbling from a sociological and psychological perspective. Addictions are rising, mental health issues are increasing, and divorce rates are climbing.

When I visited New Zealand, some devotees asked me not to speak about rising divorce rates. They said people in New Zealand don’t like the term “divorce” anymore—they prefer to say they are “separated.” But when I asked why, they explained that divorces are not increasing in New Zealand because fewer people are getting married at all.

If people want something without giving anything in return, it leads to imbalance in society. This is echoed in the famous quote from President John F. Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” It’s a reciprocal relationship: the country provides services and benefits to individuals, and individuals must contribute to the country in return. If everyone only thinks about what the country can do for them and not what they can do for the country, society will collapse. Eventually, individuals will suffer too, as a nation cannot survive if its foundational structures are not supported.

This concept also applies to sacrifice. On one level, sacrifice is selfless because we are giving or doing something for others, but it’s also selfish because we give in order to receive something in return. As Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is the golden rule. Of course, there is another “golden rule” in the modern age: “Whoever has the gold rules.”

The idea behind the golden rule is that if we don’t want people to be rude to us, we should not be rude to them. By being polite and well-behaved, we increase the likelihood that others will treat us the same way. While we cannot control the behavior of others, our actions make a difference.

In the case of sacrifice, we restrain our immediate urges, like yelling at someone who has upset us, not because we are forced to, but because we understand it is for our own good. Krishna illustrates this principle at the universal level: we take from the universe, and we need to give back to it. Society is increasingly aware of this idea because the environment is being severely damaged due to indiscriminate industrialization, deforestation, soil desertification, and the destruction of biodiversity. These environmental issues are becoming critical, and society is now focusing on sustainability.

As Krishna says, we belong to a larger whole and need to contribute to it in order to receive from it. This concept applies not just to society but also to the environment. For example, when we use technologies like sound systems, we benefit from the contributions of others—those who designed and implemented these systems. Therefore, we must give back to society, just as we take from it.

Krishna uses the term lokasangraha (maintenance of the world) to explain this. Loka has two meanings: the world and the people. The world and its people are interconnected, and maintenance of one requires the maintenance of the other. Every individual plays a part in this larger society. For instance, if everyone in a country enjoys the facilities without paying taxes, the government cannot function. Thus, Krishna’s teaching about contributing to the larger whole applies to both societal and universal levels.

Now, for Arjuna’s specific role, Krishna explains that he, as a warrior and leader (Kshatriya), is part of society and holds a position of prestige and power. However, a Kshatriya must give something in return—protection. Protection may require fighting, and sometimes it involves defense, which still requires conflict. Krishna is telling Arjuna that, as a part of society, it is his duty to fight. If Arjuna neglects this duty, it would be foolish, especially because he would be neglecting his responsibility as a Kshatriya.

Arjuna’s duty is tested in difficult times. It is easy to perform one’s duty in peaceful circumstances, but true dedication is revealed when difficult challenges arise. A soldier may not want to kill or engage in violence, but when the call of duty comes, they must fulfill it. If a soldier receives a salary to defend their country but refuses to fight in times of war, that would be unacceptable. Arjuna’s situation is particularly difficult because he must fight against his own relatives, but his duty must still be fulfilled.

The Role of Duty and Sacrifice in Spiritual Practice:

Arjuna’s challenge is that he has to fight a difficult war—against his own relatives. However, this is the duty he must fulfill. Krishna explains that Arjuna is part of a larger whole and must contribute to that whole. Krishna discusses the concept of Yajna (sacrifice), which, while not directly relevant to our modern context (since we don’t perform fire sacrifices today), carries an important principle: the principle of sacrifice itself.

Sacrifice means that when we seek belonging to a larger whole, we must be willing to give up certain impulses—especially those that prevent us from being part of that larger whole. Arjuna might ask, What if I am detached? This question arises from verses 3.11–16, where Arjuna wonders if detachment offers an alternative path. Krishna will address this in the following section.

But before we delve into that, let’s consider a key question Arjuna poses: Why, Krishna, do you want me to fight, if attaining peace through wisdom is the right path? This question leads to a deeper discussion, which Krishna explains as follows:

“There are two distinct paths, both of which lead to inner peace: the path of action and the path of renunciation. Renouncing external things while still craving internally only makes one a deceiver (Nitya-chara). True purification comes through detached dutifulness, where you act in accordance with your duty without attachment.”

This idea of purification through duty is central. When we act in alignment with our duties—especially those tied to a larger purpose—we subordinate our impulses and gradually purify ourselves. Sacrifice, in this sense, brings humans into alignment with the cosmic order. Krishna uses the example of the cosmos to illustrate this, but the principle applies to any larger unit we belong to.

If we fail to sacrifice, we fall out of alignment with the universe. By returning to the larger whole what we have taken, we experience contentment. For instance, when we feel valued in a family or community, or when we are respected and accepted, it brings a sense of joy and fulfillment. The same applies to our relationship with the universe.

Krishna further explains that the attachment-driven individual, through fulfilling their duties, moves toward detachment. As they discipline their impulses, they gradually become more detached. But the key point is that those who are already detached have no reason to work out of obligation, yet they still work to set an example for others. By doing so, they provide a path for the attached to follow, showing that they too can move toward detachment.

Arjuna might say, “I’m not interested in ruling a kingdom; I could just live in the forest as a simple ascetic.” Krishna acknowledges this option but points out that if Arjuna were to abandon his duty, people might perceive it as an excuse to dodge responsibility when the going gets tough. This can set a bad example. For instance, if a doctor in charge of a hospital during a pandemic suddenly abandons their duties, others may follow suit, thinking it’s acceptable to avoid tough situations.

However, when a detached person works, they provide an example for the attached. Others see this and understand that while it might be easier to avoid duty, true fulfillment comes from facing and fulfilling our responsibilities.

Krishna himself exemplifies this. Despite being free from any obligation, he performs his duties as a king of Dwarka. He oversees royal affairs, performs sacrifices, gives charity to citizens, and fulfills his duties not because he must, but because he wants to set an example for humanity.

Krishna then addresses a potential objection: Why should detached individuals set an example for others? Why not just give them instructions to become detached? Krishna explains that teachings should be tailored to the level of the person being taught. Instructions that could agitate or disturb someone’s mind should be avoided. Instead, the path to spiritual elevation should be shown in a way that is appropriate for the individual’s understanding. This idea is expressed in verse 3.26:

“Na buddhibhedam janayed,
Jnanayad karma-sanghena,
Joshayet sarva karmani.”

This means that one should not disturb the intelligence of those who are attached to worldly activities. Their minds should be gently guided, without causing confusion or agitation, so they can progress on their spiritual path without unnecessary turmoil.

Gradual Elevation Through Proper Guidance:

The wise guide others toward gradual elevation. To understand this, we must recognize that there are two types of people: one who is detached and wise, and another who is attached and ignorant. Krishna teaches that when guiding others, we should not expect them to make a sudden leap. If we simply tell them to become detached or enlightened, they may try to jump ahead and fail, which will only discourage them. Instead, Krishna advises a gradual approach.

Krishna says, “Gradually elevate them by creating steps they can follow,” ensuring they can progress incrementally from where they are now. This gradual process is essential because people need time and proper guidance to advance. For example, students often get excited about spirituality and think they need to renounce the world immediately. But this kind of drastic change can lead to disappointment if they are not ready.

In the 1960s and 1970s, when people in the U.S. joined temples, they often jumped into renunciation without preparation, but their social context was different. In contrast, in India, students are advised to study well first. While there’s no guarantee that studying well will lead to spiritual growth, neglecting studies will guarantee that they don’t grow spiritually.

One particular incident comes to mind: A student at IIT Kharagpur wanted to join a temple after just a few months of practicing bhakti. I advised him to gradually get involved—chant a few rounds, attend evening programs, and take on small responsibilities. But he came back later, saying that while reading the Bhagavatam, he had a realization that he should fully surrender to Krishna. He joined the temple in Mayapur but soon left for the Himalayas and, eventually, returned home without practicing spirituality or studying. This illustrates how spirituality can sometimes become an escape for those not yet ready for it.

For many people, spirituality can become an excuse to avoid facing life’s challenges. In such cases, giving them guidance that is too advanced for them can backfire. They might try to follow it, fail, and then give up entirely, thinking they can’t do it. This is why a personal guide is essential. A guide must understand the individual’s needs and provide customized advice.

I once met a man in Silicon Valley who had been introduced to bhakti after attending a youth program at IIT Kharagpur. Initially, he found the standards of spiritual practice too difficult to follow and left. However, years later, he became a key member of a different spiritual organization and a successful professional. He said that one of the standards he struggled with was reading only Srila Prabhupada’s books. He was an avid reader and found this restrictive. For people like him, reading other books was essential to their intellectual and spiritual growth, while for others, reading only Prabhupada’s books might work. This highlights the importance of tailoring spiritual guidance to each person’s needs.

Sometimes, we make Krishna consciousness more difficult than it needs to be by imposing rigid standards. The goal is to elevate people, not to suffocate them with rules. If standards are too high and create obstacles, people may abandon the path. It’s like climbing a mountain: if the steps are too large, only a few adventurous people will continue; but if the steps are more manageable, more people can follow.

Thus, we must give guidance appropriate to the person’s level of readiness and ability. Standards should help elevate people, not stifle them. As Krishna will explain later, whether one is engaged or disengaged is not as important as one’s consciousness. Someone can be detached and still perform their duties, while someone attached can be engaged in worldly activities. The real issue is the attitude with which they approach their work.

Krishna warns that thinking “I am renouncing the world” can inflate the ego. For instance, if someone fasts but spends the day watching others and judging them, their ego is feasting while their body is fasting. This defeats the purpose of renunciation, which is to shed ego and develop humility.

Krishna emphasizes that true liberation comes when one surrenders the ego, not when one thinks of themselves as the doer or renunciator. This is the illusion that must be shattered.

In the following verses, Krishna will discuss how faith in the process is essential for liberation. It’s not about the external actions as much as the internal attitude. Doubt, on the other hand, keeps us stuck in illusion. Krishna tells Arjuna that as a Kshatriya, he must act according to his nature and duties. No one can escape their inherent qualities through mere repression; regulation of the mind is necessary, but repression—suppressing desires entirely—will eventually lead to an emotional explosion.

In this teaching, the emphasis is on the nature of desire, particularly lust, and how it can be a powerful force in our lives. Lust, or kama, in itself is not inherently bad; it’s part of our biological condition. However, the destructive form of kama arises when it is paired with krodha (anger), which leads to a violation of boundaries, like in the case of Ravana. Lustful desires, when unchecked and unregulated, can become destructive, just as Ravana’s lust did, leading him to violate moral and ethical boundaries, ultimately causing his downfall.

The key point here is that desire is not who we are. It is a passing force, not an intrinsic part of our identity. Yet, when we identify with our desires, we become trapped by them, reducing our sense of self to those desires. A person may identify so strongly with their lust or other desires that they lose the ability to perceive spiritual truths or act with moral clarity. This leads to a situation where the person is not only ignorant but resistant to spiritual insights, and becomes disconnected from their true self.

Lust and desire in excess are like a fire. Initially, indulgence in desires might seem to provide temporary relief, much like throwing fuel on a fire. However, this relief is short-lived. The more we indulge, the more the fire inside us burns, increasing our craving. As in the analogy of putting a block of wood on a fire, it may seem like the fire is extinguished momentarily, but once the wood catches fire, it burns even stronger, making the problem worse.

This analogy highlights the vicious cycle of indulgence: short-term relief followed by stronger cravings, leading to greater torment. External indulgence in sense pleasures might seem to bring enjoyment, but in reality, it merely offers brief respite from the inner fire of desire. The desire for relief grows stronger each time, and the cycle repeats, reinforcing the idea that indulgence does not lead to satisfaction but to greater dissatisfaction.

Krishna’s teachings in the Bhagavad Gita encourage us to act according to our nature, as Arjuna was taught. If we try to act against our true nature, as Arjuna initially wanted to do by renouncing the world and taking on a different role, it will only cause inner turmoil and confusion. Similarly, fighting lust and desire is not about repression (which leads to further inner conflict) but about understanding and transforming our desires, staying mindful of boundaries, and cultivating the right attitude.

Ultimately, Krishna teaches that self-awareness, self-control, and proper guidance are essential in overcoming the destructive power of desire and leading a balanced, spiritual life.

This teaching elaborates on the destructive nature of desires, particularly lust, when they become uncontrollable and unregulated. It explores the concept of addiction and how, when a person becomes addicted, they experience intense craving, and even when faced with negative consequences, the desire remains unrelenting. The craving becomes so strong that the individual feels almost powerless to resist it. The addict may experience a sense of being controlled by the desire, as if something else has taken over them. This state of losing control is a dangerous and destructive psychological condition.

The teaching highlights three key characteristics of addiction:

1. Strong craving: The desire becomes overwhelming.
2. Resistance to consequences: Even negative outcomes or punishment do not deter the person from indulging in the addiction. For instance, a drug addict might face jail time but still continue to seek out drugs, even in prison.
3. Loss of control: The individual feels like they are not in control of their actions, often describing the experience as if they are being controlled by the craving itself.

This state, where desire has taken over a person’s life, is the most perilous, as it leads to a complete loss of control over one’s actions and the ability to resist harmful behaviors.

Krishna advises Arjuna to avoid putting fuel on the fire of desire. Sensory regulation is the key—controlling the senses and not indulging in things that would amplify the craving. Krishna also emphasizes the importance of spirituality in overcoming desires. By deepening one’s connection with the divine, the craving for worldly pleasures naturally begins to diminish. Krishna’s teachings encourage individuals to recognize their spiritual nature, which helps them detach from the overwhelming cravings and desires.

Furthermore, Krishna talks about the importance of boundaries (dharma). When desires violate these boundaries, they become dangerous. Just as a fire needs to be controlled, so does our craving—if we feed it, it only grows stronger. The key to freedom from this internal torment is to control the desires and seek a higher, spiritual satisfaction, which will naturally diminish the cravings.

The discussion also involves a deeper analysis of Arjuna’s confusion, which Krishna addresses by explaining that external peace and internal peace are not necessarily the same. Disengagement or detachment does not mean renouncing action altogether, but renouncing the attachment to the results of actions. Arjuna needs to understand that detachment is not about avoiding action but doing action without attachment to the outcome. Krishna further advises Arjuna to rise above the false notion of “doership,” which creates pride and entanglement in the results of actions.

In summary, the key points of the teaching are:

• Lust and desire are natural, but when they violate boundaries, they become destructive.
• Addiction is characterized by strong cravings, resistance to consequences, and the loss of control.
• Self-regulation and controlling the senses are crucial to overcoming destructive desires.
• Spiritual connection with Krishna diminishes the craving for worldly pleasures.
• Boundaries (dharma) must be respected to prevent desires from becoming dangerous.
• Action without attachment leads to true freedom from desires and their torment.

This teaching serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of self-control, spirituality, and the recognition of our true nature to overcome the destructive forces of desire and addiction.

In this continuation of the discussion, the focus is on how individuals progress from an attached to a detached state, and how selfishness and selflessness play roles in karma kanda versus karma yoga.

1. Craving and Relief: The cycle of craving, indulgence, and relief is discussed, noting that the relief gained from indulgence may feel pleasurable initially but over time the craving intensifies, and the need for relief only grows. This process ultimately leads to a cycle of addiction where one seeks relief from an ever-increasing inner fire (craving) and begins to lose control.
2. Transition from Attachment to Detachment: The journey from being attached to being detached involves shifting from a selfish motivation to a selfless one. For example, someone may initially join the military for financial reasons (karma kanda) but over time may develop a genuine sense of duty and love for the country (karma yoga). Similarly, someone may initially take care of their family out of obligation, but as their consciousness expands, they may start doing so out of a sense of responsibility to the wider community, nation, or even to a higher spiritual cause.
3. Karma Kanda vs. Karma Yoga: Karma Kanda refers to actions done for selfish gains or material benefits, while Karma Yoga refers to actions performed selflessly, as an offering to a higher cause. As a person’s motives evolve, what initially may be selfish becomes selfless, and they are gradually drawn towards karma yoga.
4. The Role of Sacrifice: Sacrifice plays a crucial role in both karma kanda and karma yoga. The difference lies in the intention behind the sacrifice. In karma kanda, sacrifice may be performed for personal gain, while in karma yoga, sacrifice is done for the welfare of others or for spiritual purposes, such as serving Krishna. The transition from one type of sacrifice to the other reflects the movement from attachment to detachment.
5. Serving Krishna and Society: The question about whether it’s right or wrong for someone to dedicate themselves entirely to Krishna while neglecting their family and societal duties is raised. The speaker clarifies that while serving Krishna is the highest priority, practical responsibilities should not be neglected. For example, if someone has family obligations, they should fulfill them responsibly while trying to serve Krishna. Krishna’s will is contextual—sometimes it may be necessary to engage fully in worldly responsibilities (as in the case of Arjuna fighting in the battle), while at other times, detachment may be the preferred path (as in the case of Parikshit Maharaj after his curse).
6. Contextual Application of Krishna’s Will: Krishna’s will for each person can differ based on their situation and purpose. Arjuna’s purpose was to fight for dharma, while others may have different roles. The broader principle is that we should align with the will of God, which may require engaging with the world or detaching from it, depending on the circumstances.

In summary:

• Selfishness leads to karma kanda, and selflessness leads to karma yoga.
• A person’s transition from attachment to detachment is marked by moving from selfish motives to selfless service.
• Sacrifice can be both selfish (karma kanda) or selfless (karma yoga), depending on the intention behind the action.
• Serving Krishna is the highest form of service, but practical responsibilities should still be honored.
• Krishna’s will varies based on individual situations, and the goal is to align with that will, whether it involves engagement with the world or detachment from it.
• My doubt is regarding, uh, like you said, the concept of “don’t disturb the minds of other people.”
• So, uh, like, uh, one day I, uh, like, one of my friends, uh, he was, he did, like, some kind of spirituality, like he had the philosophy of impersonalism, and he was, uh, determined in that. But I, I spoke about this Krishna consciousness and gave this, like, in enthusiasm, kind of thing.
• So what happened was he became detached from that philosophy also, and he did not pick up this philosophy either. He became kind of medievalistic after that, some kind of spiritual… like he was a kind of spiritual person before that, in a different way, but he now became a fully impersonal person.
• So, uh, what should I have done in that type of conversation?
• Yeah, thank you for sharing that. See, there are… our preaching sometimes has products, and sometimes it has casualties.
• So, in that, you know, preaching products is not the best word; maybe you can say where preaching brings us trophies. That’s why many people became devotees. But then there are also casualties. Like an army goes to fight, they may want to get some pressure from the opposite kingdom and show that this is what we want. But while they’re going along, there will be casualties. Now, the attempt should be to try to minimize the casualties. A responsible army will try to always minimize the casualties.
• So, generally, this is a complex subject, but let me quickly mention it. See, what happens is that the individual is there, and people have many different aspects to them. So their philosophy is often only one aspect. Maybe they have a cultural aspect, maybe they have a national aspect, maybe they have a humanitarian aspect, maybe they have a familial or hereditary aspect, maybe they have an artistic or cultural aspect.
• So, like that, people can have many different facets to them. Of course, we can say somebody has a political aspect. So, what I mean by this is that somebody may connect with a spiritual path or a spiritual organization for various reasons. Somebody in an organization they’re connected with might be an impersonalist, but for them, the fact that it is impersonalist is not a minor fact. They may not even know what impersonalism is, and they have gone there not because they like impersonalism at the cost of personalism. They may go there, you know, because in their school they read about a particular leader who went to America and gave a speech, very impressively.
• So, you know, it’s more like a nationalistic pride that has taken them there rather than philosophical interest. Or sometimes some people, you know, especially in America, this is happening more and more. Indian parents, they want to make sure… See, one thing about Indians is that they are very serious about their parenting responsibilities. So, when Indians go to America, initially, they may just want to enjoy. But once they get married and have children, they want to make sure their children are protected, and they don’t get into many of the unhealthy habits there.
• So, they want to pass on the culture. They start looking for various organizations that offer some teaching for their children, and they will join an organization. Now, one of my organizations is the biggest children’s outreach. People go to their organization not because they are attached to the philosophy but for cultural reasons—like to learn stories from Ramayana and Mahabharata. They’re going there more for the cultural aspect. Somebody may go there because they want artistic and cultural experiences.
• I know one girl from Australia. Her whole family, they are brilliant Bharatnatyam dancers, and they learned Bharatnatyam through one impersonalist organization because there they had teachers. Later, she met a devotee, and then she became attracted. She said, “I went there, I would almost every week, three times, go to that particular organization. But it was only for Bharatnatyam. I never heard the philosophy. I didn’t even know what the philosophy was.” And she said, “When I came to this devotee, this Mataji, and heard the philosophy, I thought, ‘Hey, this is so impressive!’”
• Then she came to know that the philosophy she was following was impersonalism. So, rather than simply thinking that, “Okay, this person is going to my organization, and I have to counter their philosophy,” we need to see what is it that is drawing this person there. Sometimes you could use family history: “Our family worshipped this way, so we can show them how whatever they are getting there, they can get in the bhakti tradition also.” This way, they can get more than they did before.
• Rather than challenging their impersonalism, we can focus on trying to fulfill their need in a similar or better way, and then the philosophy will take care of itself. Sometimes, people go for philosophical reasons, and at that time, the philosophical discussion may have to be quite animated. And sometimes we may not be equipped for that—we may need senior devotees who are more adept at philosophy to explain. But rather than simply labeling the person as a “mayavadi,” you see, one of the things is that bhakti philosophy says that we should give up all labels. But we have labels for everyone.
• First of all, people are souls, and they are parts of Krishna. Our labels should not blind us to the reality of who they are. So try to see that, basically, we are trying to outreach and don’t focus on refuting their philosophy. Whatever the philosophy might be, what is more important is addressing their need that is fulfilled by that path or organization. And then, if we can fulfill that need, people will be quite open to bhakti.

Thankyou!