Bhagavad Gita Overview Chapter 8

So, he asked him about those various terms and Krishna replies by explaining those terms. But Krishna’s definitions are very terse, very brief, very condensed, and we won’t go into the definitions of those terms, but we will focus on the point that Krishna focuses on. One of the points that he makes is that such a person, even at the time of death, will remember what he had attained. So, Arjuna asks, “Okay, how can they remember you at the time of death? How can you remember you remembered at the time of death?” And that is what Krishna elaborates mostly in this chapter, at least in the first half of the chapter. And that will be the focus of our discussion today. But before we go into that, we’ll just look at one of the terms. So, that is karma. The definition of karma that Krishna gives is very interesting.
Bhut Bhava Uddhbhava Karo. Visargaha Karma Sangeetaha. Sangeetaha means it is known as. So, Bhut Bhava Uddhbhava Karo. Uddhbhava is that which leads to creation. So, the Bhut is the living beings. The Bhava refers to the manifestation. So, manifestation can refer to the mind. It can also refer to the body, in the sense that the soul exists in this world through the material body, which is the body-mind machine. So, Krishna is saying that which leads, that which contributes to the shaping of the body-mind machine, that is called karma.
So, Bhut Bhava Uddhbhava Karo. Visargaha Karma Sangeetaha. Now, this is an interesting definition of karma because quite often, if we consider karma, it is an extraordinarily complicated word. It’s a very familiar word, but its familiarity is deceptive. So, the familiarity, sometimes it conceals complexity. Just because, say, we have met a person many times, we say, “I know that person.” But sometimes they behave in a way which is completely unexpected. We say, “Do I know this person?” So, it’s like, so karma, if we just consider from our own daily perspective, it can, at one level, simply refer to activity. Then, it can refer to reaction. Isn’t it? Reaction to activity. So, Karmanniva Adhikarasthi refers to, that we all have to do our karma, means we have to do our activity. But it can also refer to reaction to activity. That means, we all have to endure our karma. That means, we have to endure the reactions to our karma.
Then, karma can also refer to the law of action-reaction connection. The law of karma, karma is inescapable. So, what connects it, nobody can escape karma. That can mean the karmic reaction, but also it can mean the law of karma. We use the law of karma, we use karma to refer to karmic justice when we say. Justice of karma, that is the law by which these are connected.
Now, karma can also refer to good action, or that means, action that gives a good reaction, like our karma, vikarma, and sukarma, or simply it is, sometimes it is just karma. Then, it can refer to, you know, specifically activity that causes any reaction at all.
So, the difference between the first and the last is, that here activity and inactivity. But let’s actually, let’s differentiate between activity and, you could say, action. So, activity means, “I am active,” or “I am inactive.” So, if somebody is sleeping, generally they are physically inactive. So, but action refers to, when we have done an action, you get a reaction. So, action that causes, specifically not all activity will cause karmic reaction. Sometimes inactivity will also cause karmic reaction. So, activity that causes reactions.
So, karma itself has all these meanings at a basic level itself. But beyond that, karma, good action, you can also mean duty. So, in that sense, sometimes karma is used as a synonym of dharma. You cannot give up your karma. One cannot stop karma at all. That means, we all are active, we cannot be inactive. But you cannot give up your karma. That means, you cannot give up your duty.
So, now in this particular context, Krishna is defining karma as this action that, So, I think this is 8.4. Krishna is saying this has a definition.
No, 8.3. That’s the definition that he uses here.
So, like that, the word karma can have multiple different meanings. In English, there is the word “run,” which is said to have 540 meanings. It is the champion in English with respect to meanings of words. “I am going for a run. I am going jogging. Now, I am running because my car has stopped running. I am running away from this country, because that person is running for the president of this country.” So, you see, there are so many different meanings of the word “running.” And these are just common.
But now, by context, we understand the meaning of the word. But so, in English, there is only one word which has more than 500 meanings. In Sanskrit, there are more than 500 words which have more than 500 meanings. So, that is why Sanskrit was never the language for the common language. So, that is why Sanskrit was never the language for the common language. Because Sanskrit is a complex language. It is a beautiful language in terms of its grammatical profundity and artistic capacity within it. But it can be remarkably complex. And the word karma has many different meanings. But here, Krishna’s focus will be on the Antaka. So, let’s look at that. Krishna talks about three distinct verses over here. So, we will focus on the first. Krishna gives a specific point he makes, that if you remember me, you will attain me. And then, he gives a broader principle of which this is a specific application.
So, yam yam, yam yam. Generally, words start with y, and especially repetitive repeating. yoyo yadayadahi, yato yato. So, yoyo yam yam dhanum bhaktah. Whoever, wherever one worships, yadayadahi dharmasya, yato yato nishchalati, wherever and whenever the mind monitors. So, this repetition of words starting with y, it is a poetic characteristic within Sanskrit and which indicates basically a broad scope, a wide or inclusive scope. So, yam yam, yam yam means whatever. So, whatever or whoever somebody remembers at the time of death.
So, api at that time, whatever it is that one remembers, smaran, and it is bhavam, it is not just an intellectual remembrance, it is bhavam, it is associated with emotion. Whatever state one remembers, tajatya at the time of ante kalevaram. So, when one is about to, kalevaram is the body. tajatya ante kalevaram. Tam tam. So, generally, wherever there is yadayada, there is always a correlate with something else. So, yadayadahi dharmasya glaner bhavati bhārata avyuttāna dharmasya tadātmāni. So, here there is only one tadā. Yato yato nishchalati, manas chanchalavasita, tatas tato niyam yaitāt. So, generally the y is always correlated with something with t. So, tam tam eva iti kaunte. So, whatever, whoever one remembers, that thing, that being, eva iti kaunte, eva iti, that person, certain, that state, that being, certainly of Arjuna, kaunte, one let it.
Tam tam eva iti kaunte yā, tam tam eva iti kaunte yā, sada, sada is always. Tat bhava bhavitaha. That bhava, that state of existence will be attained, bhavitaha will become manifested. Now, bhava is also one of the complicated words in the Gita. So, let’s recite this verse together once and then we’ll discuss the meaning.

So, one of the key themes in the Gita is inner change. Inner change. In one sense, Arjuna wants to fight, doesn’t want to fight, Krishna wants him to fight. Arjuna is concerned that fighting will lead to sinful action. But Krishna tells him that if you change your perspective, if you are able to see things from a different perspective, that your consciousness has changed, then you’ll not be bound. That’s the key thing. So, the whole theme of the Bhagavad Gita is inner change. Before the Gita, Arjuna had to fight the war. At the end of the Gita, Arjuna had to fight the same war. But before hearing the Gita, he was disheartened. After hearing the Gita, he was enlivened. What happened was some inner change happened. Now, what is this inner change? Krishna is saying that this is foundational even for our post-mortem destination. Normally, you use the word post-mortem to mean what? Sorry? Enquiry after death. Yes, post-mortem. Enquiry after death. Basically, after a person has died. So, actually, it is a post-mortem examination. But the word “examination” has been deleted more or less. So, it says post-mortem we have to do. But post-mortem is actually simply an adjective. Mortem is death. Like mortuary is the place where a person is taken at the time of death. So, post-mortem destination. That means, after death, where does the person go? We can say, so, mortem is one end of life. Natal is the other end of life. Like when a newborn baby is there, there is prenatal care. That means, before the baby is born, you have to give care. And there is postnatal care. Postnatal care. Postnatal means that after the baby is born, then the baby needs some care. So, there is post-mortem and there is also pre-mortem. Pre-mortem is not that common news, but that is also there. Pre-mortem means that especially there is a hospital and there is a hospice. Hospice is the place where people who are more or less sure to die, and they also accept that they are going to die now. So, then they go there. And the hospice is the place where things are more or less arranged for them to leave their body comfortably.

So, what is the post-mortem destination? That will be determined by the change that has happened inside us. So, yam yam vapi smaran bhavam tajatya ante kalevaram. So, what is the remembrance internally? That will shape the external state. So, if you consider mortem, mortem is death basically. So, the pre-mortem remembrance will determine the post-mortem state. Tat bhava bhavita. So, now why is the moment of death so significant? And is it the moment of death alone that is significant? And does how a person lives throughout life not matter at all? Is it only death that matters? No, it is important to understand that what does this remembrance mean over here?

See, remembrance can mean many different things. Remembrance can be factual remembrance. Like say if somebody asks you, what is the square of 25? Now, we may learn in math and use it. So, we know it. It’s a fact we may remember, we may not remember. What is the capital of Japan? I told you I remember, I don’t remember it. That’s factual remembrance. But this has got nothing to do with our heart. No connection with the heart, isn’t it? This is not the kind of remembrance that is talked about. Then there is also rational remembrance. Rational remembrance also has no connection with the heart. What do you mean by rational remembrance? What are the four proofs of reincarnation? We say, okay, x, y, z, past life memories, there are near-death experiences, there are consciousness studies, there are déjà vu feelings, this, that. This is rational. It’s all connected with spirituality, but this is rational remembrance. This is even okay. Okay, why did Krishna tell Arjuna to shoot Karna when he was on the ground? He could have some reasons for that. It’s rational remembrance. It’s connected with Krishna, but still it’s rational. Even an academic scholar who does not believe in the existence of Krishna also, that person can also recite the reasons. This is also not what is being referred to over here.

Now, what is being referred to over here is personal remembrance. Personal remembrance means what? That it is where the investment of the heart is there. And it is generally when you remember a person, there are the four things associated with a person: Nama, Rupa, Guna, and Leela. So, name, form, activities, qualities, and activities. These are what we think of when we think of a person. And that also, it’s both of these. The investment of the heart is there. So, okay, this is a tall person. It’s a short person. Okay, that’s just a physical attribute. But it’s very rare that we love someone because they are so tall or because they are so short. That would be one feature. Somebody has fair skin, that’s why somebody might get infatuated by the person. That’s very possible. But that’s just one attribute. But here, what is talked about? It’s remembrance is talked about as the natural movement of the heart. So, remembrance is not just the recollection of facts from the head. It is when we remember something or someone. It is conveying the, it’s almost like the natural or default movement of our heart, movement of our thoughts, feelings, consciousness, everything. So, this will generally go towards the object of greatest attachment for us. The object of greatest attachment.

Now, when we, so there are three points I talk about is remembrance. First is, it is a remembrance of a person. It’s a personal remembrance. A person is not just a person. I can also remember, okay, who was the 25th president of America? Who was the third president of India? That’s also a personal remembrance. But again, that is factual. It’s about a person, but I’m talking person means that it’s more like a personal or you can say, relational remembrance. The person in relationship with me, the person in a personal relationship with me. So, why at the time of death? So, I’ll talk about three aspects of remembrance. What kind of, so what kind of remembrance it is, it’s a personal relation remembrance. And then, what does this remembrance signify? Remembrance signifies that this is the thing or the person to which we are most attached, the object of greatest attachment. And later Krishna will say, then he says, how does one remember him at the time of death? Smāt sarveṣu kāleṣu mām anusmaryuṭhya caśi. Therefore, always remember me. And how do you remember me? Mayi arpita mano buddhi. So, mana and buddhi, both of them are important. If you consider in our lives with respect to our remembrance, our mana and buddhi often go in different directions. So, for example, right now your intelligence may consider that, hey, what we are studying here is important right now. Your mind may say, hey, today is Ekadashi, we have to fast, you know, I have to fast and I have to apply my head also, saying too much of brain power. I would rather rest or maybe I want to sleep, I want to do this. So, mind generally goes towards what feels good, what appeals to our emotion. Feels good can be in a cheap sense, but it can be what appeals to our emotion. And what is good in the sense that what is valuable actually. So, the ideal is if we have both, that what feels valuable or good and what is valuable. Remember, we had discussed earlier about this mismatch between the two, when a person’s values are off. And what happens is, what they feel valuable is different from what is value. For demoniac people, it’s completely off. So, when Krishna is saying that you remember me, it’s not, while I said it’s not off the head, it’s off the heart, but it is not just off the heart. It is basically when we remember him, that means both our mind and intelligence have asserted that this is the thing of greatest value. So, logically, intellectually, philosophically, we are convinced that there is nothing, no reality greater than Krishna. That’s the intellectual part. So, we are convinced with our intelligence. At the same time, we have also experienced in terms of our emotions. Remembering Krishna is so sweet that there is nothing as sweet, nothing as relishable as the remembrance of Krishna. So, these two combine together, the head, the head and the heart of the mind and intelligence. So, when both of these are there together, that is the kind of remembrance Krishna is talking about. So, it’s a remembrance coming from the determination that this is of the greatest value, both by the mind and the intelligence. So, now after I talk about this, now I’ll talk about remembrance at death. So, what is the significance of remembrance at death specifically? See, this is that generally when there is danger, we look for shelter. Say, if there is a storm, maybe in America there are tornadoes.

In situations of extreme danger, like a fierce storm, people seek shelter where they feel safest. For instance, during a tornado, a person might take refuge in a basement, which is more secure than staying in a house above ground. Similarly, at the time of death, our consciousness will gravitate towards the place where we have felt the most secure during our life. This means that the greatest shelter, the place we turn to in moments of crisis, is often tied to our deepest attachment, which is why Krishna advises us to remember Him at the time of death.

However, remembering Krishna isn’t just a matter of reciting His name; it’s about genuinely understanding that He is the ultimate shelter. If, throughout our life, we have made Krishna the object of our heart’s deepest love and attachment, then, at the time of death, that remembrance will naturally lead us to Him. But if someone has spent their life focused on material desires, their attachment will remain elsewhere, and at death, they might remember those worldly things instead of Krishna.

A person cannot trick Krishna by merely saying His name at the time of death without having a genuine connection with Him. For example, if someone leads a life filled with materialism and tries to remember Krishna just before death, their attachment will likely remain with their desires, making it difficult for them to connect with Krishna. But if someone’s life has been dedicated to remembering Krishna, even if they forget at the time of death, Krishna Himself will intervene, entering their heart and ensuring they remember Him, as He wants to bring His devotees back to Him.

This concept of remembrance is crucial because it shows that what we hold most dear in life will determine where we go after death. It is not just about the amount of time spent practicing devotion; it’s about the sincerity and depth of our conviction. Krishna emphasizes that our attachment to Him, cultivated throughout our life, will decide our destination after death.

The Bhagavad Gita is discussed in the context of a battlefield, where thoughts of death are very present. Soldiers in war are acutely aware of death’s proximity, which makes them more receptive to spiritual teachings. For instance, one American soldier, after surviving a near-death experience in Iraq, started talking about the soul and its eternity to his comrades. He used the opportunity to share his spiritual beliefs, reminding his fellow soldiers that they are souls and have nothing to fear, regardless of the circumstances.

The concept of death in the Gita is not just a physical end, but a transition. It is both a time of change and a test, as it forces us to face where we have placed our deepest attachments throughout life. This test of remembrance at death is crucial because it will determine our progress. The Gita, in this context, speaks not only of life and death on a battlefield but of the universal journey of the soul and the importance of aligning our heart with Krishna’s remembrance.

Finally, Krishna explains that cultivating remembrance of Him can be achieved through meditation and conscious effort. It’s not just a random event; it’s a deliberate practice to ensure that, at the moment of death, we naturally remember Him, thus securing our eternal connection with Him.

So, he will talk about remembrance through Dhyana Yoga and remembrance through Bhakti Yoga. So, remembrance means remembrance at death. He will explain the practice that one can follow to cultivate remembrance at the time of death. That’s what he does in the subsequent verses. The sixth is: whatever one remembers, therefore, remember me. And how does one remember me? Practice. From the eighth verse till the thirteenth verse, Krishna will explain how to cultivate remembrance of him through the process of Dhyana Yoga. He says that what he talked about in the previous chapter—he doesn’t mention yamas, niyamas, asana, pranayama, but he talks about pratyahara, and then discusses taking one’s consciousness into words and cultivating it, trying to find the inner reality. So, he says, “Let’s look at the thirteenth verse.”

Om is omkara, which is considered a monosyllabic mantra. Brahma—this is why it is considered the spiritual reality. Vyahara means uttering. Maa manuskara—externally, one is uttering Om, but internally, one needs to realize that Om is Krishna. Om can be chanted by different people with different conceptions. Someone might say Om is a generic reference to the ultimate reality. For example, we could say “head of state,” and the head of state could be a prime minister, president, king, queen, or an oligarchy. “Head of state” is a generic reference; then, the “prime minister” is a more specific reference, and “Modi” is the most specific reference. Likewise, Om is the most generic reference, then Bhagavan is a more specific reference, and Krishna is the most specific reference. So, essentially, the same reality is being referred to, but there are degrees of specificity.

Now, does it make a difference whether we are calling the head of state or a particular person? Does it make any difference? How many of you think yes? How many of you think no? Does it make a difference whether I say “head of state,” “prime minister,” or whether we mention the name of the prime minister? How does it make a difference?

Yes, it’s a good point. In principle, there is no difference—we are calling the same person, but in terms of what it evokes inside us, it is different. There was a debate whether India should be renamed Bharat, and critics argued that there’s poverty and corruption in India, so would that change just by renaming the country? No, it wouldn’t change that. But in the philosophy of language, a name is essentially a link between the object and the subject. Changing the name doesn’t necessarily change the object, but it can change the subjective experience. Whether we call it India or Bharat, the country remains the same, but the change in name leads to a change in subjective experience. The same applies to us—each person has a name, and sometimes in families, because of affection, the name is shortened. If someone refers to a shortened name, it indicates familiarity. In America, for instance, if parents are upset with their child, they’ll often call them by their full name. So, if a girl’s full name is Annalisa and the teacher normally calls her Anna, but then says, “Annalisa Margaret Baker, what have you done in your exam today?” the full name indicates formality. The name doesn’t change the object, but it changes the subjective experience. What memories are triggered within us?

So, “head of state” will trigger one memory, and “Modi” will trigger another. In terms of subjective experience, it’s different. So, when Krishna says “Om iti,” if they are remembering Krishna, why are they chanting Krishna’s name? Why do they chant Om? Because they are yogis. In yoga practice, at first, they don’t realize Krishna is the ultimate reality, so they start by uttering Om. Over time, they realize it is Krishna, but they chant Om. The outer habit is to utter Om. Om iti ekakshara brahma. The inner realization is that Om is Krishna, and therefore they remember Krishna. So, when these two things are there, Krishna is saying in 8.13, “Om iti ekakshara brahma vyahran mam anusmaran.” When they remember me, what happens? When they give up the body, they will go to the paramaam gathim, the ultimate destination, which is Krishna. But from the yogi’s perspective, they will go to the ultimate goal. This is by chanting Om—remembering Krishna and cultivating remembrance of Krishna at the time of death through Dhyana Yoga.

In the next verse, Krishna will contrast that with remembering him through the practice of Bhakti Yoga. The next three verses will focus primarily on Bhakti Yoga. He says, “Ananya chetaha satatam”—without letting one’s mind get deviated, “satatam” constantly, “yo mam smarati nityah.” One who practices and cultivates the remembrance of me constantly—what happens to such a person? “Tasya”—for that person, “sulabha”—easily attain “paratam.” Always engage in this way.

Let’s recite this verse first: “Tasya hamsulabha paratah, Kya yuktasya yoginah.”

Here, if you see, Krishna says four times: “satatam,” “nityah,” “nitya yuktasya,” and “ananya chetaha.” The focus is on him. Now, at one level, this might seem very demanding, constantly remembering Krishna. But at another level, this is very accommodating. Krishna means that it is not that first you have to practice one path, then another, and then another, before remembering him. He says, whatever state you’re in, from that point onward, you can start directing your consciousness towards him. Krishna elaborates this in the 18th chapter, 18.56, when he says, “Sarve pete”—whatever situation you are in, from there, “sarva karmanya pesata kuruvano madhya pashraya, mat prasada davapnoti shasvatam padam avyayam.”

“Sarva karmanya pesata” means whatever your karma—whether you’re a householder, whether you’re a nun, whether you’re fighting a war as a kshatriya, whether you’re a young girl as a brahmana, whether you’re in a forest, whether you’re working in a concrete jungle—doesn’t matter.

This verse, “Ananya cheeta,” is saying that wherever we are, we can start cultivating the remembrance of Krishna. And that’s how this “sulabha”—meaning “easy”—works. If Krishna says four times, “Ananya cheeta,” “satatam,” “nitya sha,” “nitya yuktasya”—constant, constant, undivided focus—it’s easy. What’s easy? The easy part isn’t necessarily the practice itself; it’s the availability of the practice.

What’s the difference between the two? Traveling in this bus could be easy for two reasons: the bus ride could be smooth, or the bus system could cover the whole city. So, whichever part of the city you are in, you can get on the bus from there.

So, like sometimes you have to catch a bus, but to catch a bus, you have to say bus because you have to go so far away. You have to run there, get on time, and catch the bus. But sometimes there are some school buses which come and stop right outside the child’s home. So, the child can just come out of the home and pick up the bus. So, that is what the emphasis here is. Krishna is saying that otherwise, our sulabha doesn’t make much sense. And Krishna is talking about always—always means it’s not so much that yes, eventually we have to come to the level where we are always remembering Krishna. But always means that whichever place we are in life, whichever stage we are in life, from there the remembrance of Krishna is available. So, sulabha.

So, in this particular verse, this 8.14, sulabha is easy. And whether we use this word or four words, like ananya chetaha and so on, they don’t seem easy together. But is that together? Because this is not so much talking about, it’s not the focus here on our practice; it is on the opportunity to practice, the accessibility of practice. So, if somebody wants to shut out all the senses and turn inwards and meditate on the prana vayu and get it to the head—now that is very difficult to do if you’re operating heavy machinery in a factory. That is very difficult to do if—how can I shut off all my senses if I am in a Zoom meeting also? But at that time, I can still practically do remembrance of Krishna. So, the focus here is on the two being together because remembrance of Krishna is possible everywhere.

So, after describing this accessibility of the remembrance of Krishna, Krishna now slightly shifts back. What does he do over here? How is the flow of these chapters going? The flow is that the sixth chapter ended with “remember me,” and the topmost yogi is one who remembers. The seventh chapter talks about how Krishna is the essence of all of existence, and that’s how, even while perceiving the world, we can remember him. Now, the eighth chapter talks about remembering Krishna at the time of death.

So, in general, human psychology, there are two kinds of motivation for any action. There is positive motivation and negative motivation. Positive motivation means that if you do this, you’ll get this, this, and this. If you don’t do this, there’ll be all this trouble. This is a basic feature of human psychology. And that’s why, quite often, in the most effective education, it is educating by contrasting. Contrasting means, if you do this, this will happen. If you do this, this will happen. So Krishna will do this kind of thing now, educating by contrasting. And Krishna does this many times throughout the Gita. He’s already done it many times. For example, he did this in the previous chapter 439-40. He talked about those who have faith and those who have doubt—they’ll have different destinations. So, educating by contrasting.

Krishna will, toward the end of the chapter, in the 18th chapter, 1858, talk about whether you are conscious of me or not conscious of me. So educating by contrasting is very helpful. The patient and the doctor may tell the patient, “If you take this medicine, this is what will happen to you. If, however, you forget to take the medicine, if you neglect to take the medicine, this is what will happen to you.” So, educating by contrasting. Remember to take versus forget to take.

Now, see, our mind is a funny thing. So, in general, we say that just telling a person, “Don’t do this, don’t do this,” telling us “don’t do, don’t do, don’t do,” that is not going to be very helpful. Just saying no to our desires is not enough. We have to have something positive to do. That is true in terms of principle. But in terms of practice, what will motivate us at a particular time, that we don’t know. The mind is tricky. The mind never works by one formula.

For example, if you’re going to study for an exam, now what will motivate the mind more? “Oh, if I study, I’ll come first in my class. I’ll get glory.” Or “If I don’t study, I’ll fail. And what face will I show to my friends and my parents?” Now, which will motivate us more?

Well, sometimes it can be the second, sometimes it can be the first. It depends. You know, that human mind is complex. Sometimes the wonderful result that can be achieved can motivate us. Sometimes the dreadful result that we don’t want, where it will go to, that can motivate us. So, we have to have both motivations ready with us. And most of the times, when temptation comes, we have neither motivation ready with us. It’s like we have two weapons, and it’s like the enemy is wearing armor. Now, against which enemy, which weapon they have the armor, we don’t know. So, if we have neither weapon, we are definitely going to be lost. But if we have the wrong weapon, you know, that enemy has come with the armor, okay, this is so wonderful, okay, the mind will say, but yeah, that’d be wonderful, but this is also not so bad. But it’s a big deal. You will have to work so hard to get there. But you just go on right now. Life will like—life will like right now. You go on like that. What’s the big deal?

You have to remind the mind, now don’t think things will go on like that. If I don’t fight the war against temptation, it’s not that I will stay where I am. Because generally, in the war against temptation, there is no neutral zone for too long. If we are not winning, then temptation is winning. Or at least, temptation is prepared to attack in a way that it will win eventually.

So, okay, even if I don’t get there, I won’t stay here, I can be pulled down. Sometimes the negative motivation will help us. So, we have to find out what works for us. So, Krishna will be using both of these strategies. And how does he use the two strategies? He says that if you become liberated, you will come to me. But then he will say that if you don’t, you’ll stay in this world. And he’ll talk about the nature of the world over here.

So, most of us know this verse. So let’s recite it together.

[Recitation omitted for clarity.]

One of my friends did an academic PhD in the Bhagavad Gita. So, you can’t just do a PhD in Bhagavad Gita. You have to do it from a particular angle. So, he did it in comparing modern commentators on the Bhagavad Gita. So, he did a study, basically, which modern commentators quote which verses of the Gita, and what part of the Gita is emphasized by whom. Among all modern commentators in the Gita, Prabhupada is the only teacher who emphasizes this verse. There are other people who emphasize, “Oh, you know, Karmandeva Adhikaaraste,” or there is, what is that? “Sva Karmana Tamabhyarche” (work is worship). There’s one modern commentator who thinks, for him, the essence of the Gita is “Nigraha Kim Karish,” which means “What can repression accomplish?” And who is that? Osho. And the idea is just enjoy. What can repression accomplish? For him, that is the essence of the Gita. Well, if somebody thinks that is the essence of the Gita, they have no sense. Yes, Krishna does quote that, but that is definitely not the essence, by far not the essence.

Anyway, so now, is this the essence of the Gita? Well, it may not be the essence, but it is a very important truth for us to understand. The way we live in the world, most people suffer from living in the modern world or modern world and modern culture, especially. Modern world and culture and propaganda. These three things cause a cognitive dissonance. Has anyone heard this word cognitive dissonance? What does it mean?

Okay, that’s a specific application. See, cognitive dissonance, we make resonance. You have heard the word resonance? Resonance means what? Two things come together, two things match. Then what happens? The volume increases, you feel the resonance. Dissonance means two mismatch. So basically, cognitive dissonance means there are two facts which are irreconcilable. So, for example, if everybody tells us, “This person is very polite,” and in our experience, that person is always very rude. Then is this person polite? And is my experience wrong? Am I thinking that this person is rude when actually that person is not rude? Am I being hypersensitive in thinking this person is rude? Or is it that everybody is misled and I alone am right? It’s difficult, isn’t it? It’s difficult to reconsider. It’s cognitive dissonance. When two facts are there, they just don’t seem to be reconcilable.

So, modern culture and modern propaganda, it actually subjects humanity to cognitive dissonance. What is the dissonance? The propaganda will tell us life is wonderful. Oh, you know, all the advertisements will show people happy. The culture will show people in parties enjoying. Life is wonderful. So this is the portrayal. And if we look at our own experience, at the very least, we can say life is tough.

When I speak to Western audiences, often I start with this point.

I say that, you know, we all may come from different backgrounds. We may have different conceptions about God, different conceptions about religion, different conceptions about life. But we all can agree on one thing: life is tough. If I start by telling you that the world is Dukkha Laya, get lost. They will not agree to that. But see what happens: life is tough. It is something with which we all agree.

But what happens is, the propaganda in the world is that everybody seems to be happy. Oh, this person seems to be going to his party. This person has got this job. This person has come first over here. This person looks so smart. This person is wearing expensive clothes. And okay, movies also show people suffering and all that. But generally, it’s a happy ending. And at the end, “happily ever after.” So it’s almost like we are taught by the culture to believe that happiness is our right, that we are entitled to be happy. But in our actual life, happiness is extremely elusive. “Elusive” means it just seems to slip away, to elude. It’s just going, and then the result of this is that most people start thinking something must be wrong with me because I’m not happy.

And the biggest dissonance in this regard is with respect to sex. Because the whole propaganda is that, oh, sex is the source of ultimate happiness. And everybody is having romantic fantasies. Nowadays, especially with access to porn being so easily available, people have such unrealistic ideas of what kind of sexual pleasure is available. And then in real life, somebody may have dreamt for days and weeks and months and years, and it’s just over in a few minutes. There was one sex addict—there are many books written about this, isn’t it?—he wrote, “Sex is the biggest anticlimax of my life.”

Hormones come up, and the body gets excited, and it’s like, you feel so thrilled, and then suddenly, come—it’s over. I just can’t believe it. And what is the result? People start thinking, “Maybe something is wrong with the way I am having sex.” So therefore, maybe go to a psychologist or a coach. And that’s why it’s only in the last 100 years, or even the last 50 years, that a new profession has emerged. I mentioned yesterday, the sexual revolution came in the 1960s-70s. After that, there was the creation of a whole profession called sexologists. People have been having sex throughout history, isn’t it? Okay, you can say we are talking about sexually transmitted diseases that exist, but when people go to sexologists, that is not for those diseases—there are other doctors for that. It’s just that their sex life is not satisfactory. It’s a very common problem.

Now, what happens is this: This is the cognitive dissonance. We are taught that sex is the source of such great pleasure, and now, with mental imagination always present throughout history, that’s the way nature is. The Bhagavad Gita says that unless we believe sex has enormous pleasure, we wouldn’t go through all the trouble of having sex, and the human species would not survive. There is some pleasure in that. That pleasure mitigates all the suffering that comes with having progeny and taking care of progeny. Of course, there’s fulfillment in taking care of children. But the point is whatever is the natural stimulation for sex, that has been enormously exaggerated in today’s society.

And because of that, people have such an imagination that, “Oh, sex should be such a wonderful thing.” And then the actual experience is there. It’s so meager. It’s just gone. Maybe I’m not doing something right. And that’s how people start going to the sexologist, and people start reading books about sex. Then they try to experiment with sex: trying with different partners, trying with people of the same gender. There are even people with a form called bestiality, where humans have sex with animals. So they think something will give me some stimulation.

Now, we can say this is such a deviant thing. Yes, it is deviant, but more than deviant, it is tragic. It is tragic because what has happened is people are just so misled by this cognitive dissonance: “Oh, this should be so wonderful,” and actually, there’s nothing great about it. And then, when this dissonance occurs, people start thinking, “Maybe something is wrong with me.”

So, before the time of modernity, almost all major cultures understood implicitly that this world is a tough place to live. In Christianity, the idea is that this world is a veil of tears. In Buddhism, the first noble truth is Dukkha—that Dukkha is the defining feature of the world. So this was a universal understanding: life is tough, and there is distress, and we have to make the best of it. We have to use all the resources we have and make the best we can.

Now, this whole idea of feminism: Nowadays, what happens is there is the feminist retelling of history. Their idea is that, “Oh, men have been exploiting women throughout history. It’s only now that we will break free from the shackles of patriarchy.” But it’s such a short-sighted and erroneous retelling of history. Because if you go back 200, 300 years ago, before the industrial revolution, even men didn’t have much autonomy because society was so structured and life was so tough. I’m not talking about Satyuga times; I’m talking from a modern historical perspective. Life was tough.

If somebody was born in a farmer’s family, that was the only career available to them throughout their life. In the West, there was no caste system. But just because there was no caste system doesn’t mean there was no class system. There was a class system, and there was no such conception of upward mobility. If you were born into a particular family, that was the job you had. And if you were a farmer and a flood came and destroyed your farm, it was very difficult to get another job. So even men didn’t have much autonomy. For everyone, their path was laid out.

For women, yes, they were mostly homemakers, but it is not that men had it easy and were lording it over women. Life was tough, and both men and women were doing the best they could to make a life amid the toughness of the world.

So that was the nature of the world. Now, after the industrial revolution, people could take different kinds of jobs, and men gained some autonomy. Within about 200 to 250 years, women also became autonomous, to whatever extent autonomy is possible. So, yes, has there been exploitation throughout history? Of course, that has been there. But it is not that men were exploiting women. It is that a few powerful men would exploit both men and women. If there is a powerful autocratic king, that king is not only going to target women; that king is going to target men also. So men and women both were targeted.

If a war were to happen, would women be raped? Of course, women would be raped. But is it that the men would be spared? No, men would be slaughtered. So life was never easy. Life has always been tough. And this was easily understood by most people. Now, we all also understand it to some extent because that’s our lived experience. But the thing is, we are taught to believe that actually everyone else is happy.

And why am I suffering? What’s wrong with me that I am suffering?

This cognitive dissonance, this understanding of the word dukkha laya, can resolve that cognitive dissonance for us. The world is a tough place to live in. Some people think this is a pessimistic statement. And yes, it can be pessimistic. I’ll go further and talk about how it is not. But I met one American devotee, and he said that he had a very tough life. And of course, life is tough for everyone. But his brother passed away because his mother was an addict and didn’t even know he would exist. His father was a good person, but his father was just so overburdened by things that he was no longer emotionally available. He was a beautiful father; he did his job and earned his money, but he was not emotionally available for his children. So he had a very tough life. And he said, “I came to the Harikeshwara temple somehow and came from Sunday. This class was about this world being a place of distress.”

And he said, “When I heard that, I felt such a relief. At last, someone is echoing my experience. At last, someone is telling the truth.” Otherwise, it’s like we start believing that, you know, my life is tough, but everybody else is enjoying. Okay, maybe everybody else has it bad, but I have it worse. So that is what makes life very difficult.

Now, we all want to be happy. And to some extent, we can be happy in life. But the problem is, we want to be happier than others. And all the time, we imagine others to be happier than they actually are. And that’s why, when we are seeking happiness, we are not even competing with others. We are competing with our imagination about others.

I am thinking this person is so happy, and why am I not happy there? Competing with our imagination of others’ happiness is a doomed competition. And that’s what makes us suffer more than others. So our search for happiness is a natural search. But in today’s society, what happens is the search for happiness becomes a competition with others’ happiness. No, it is a competition with our imagination about others’ happiness. And we always imagine that others are happier than they are.

So now, this is one point. Now, is this statement pessimistic?

“Oh, this world is a place of distress.”

If you want to consider that it’s pessimistic, let’s look at the context. Generally, any statement can be interpreted in many ways. But we have to look at the context. So we’ll look at three contexts: the textual context, the physical context, and the philosophical context.

The textual context means that in the text, this is actually not the emphasis of the text, is it? It is just one-fourth of a verse. It’s just one-fourth of the verse. If you see, what is the emphasis of the verse? That if you worship me, if you become devoted to me, you will attain me, and you will not return to this world, which is a place of distress. So the emphasis is on going beyond distress. Add to that, the word is dukkhaale mishashvatam. It’s just like a passing detail that Krishna is mentioning. So when something is mentioned as a passing detail, when do we mention something as a passing detail? When it is completely non-controversial, when it is completely acceptable to the other person. Only then will we just make that point and move forward.

So if I say, “India is a poor country,” well, maybe 20 or 30 years ago, nobody would doubt that. Now we may say, “Okay, we are not that poor,” but India still has a large number of poor people. Now, I don’t have to explain that, but it’s just a self-evident truth. If I say, “India is filled with the worst people in the world,” how can you say that? What is the basis for that? That’s a controversial statement to make.

So when something is just a passing detail, it means it is utterly uncontroversial. That is not the emphasis. So Arjuna also, yeah, this word dukkhaale. So one-fourth of the verse, it’s just a passing detail. That is not the emphasis of the verse because it is non-controversial.

Now, if you look at the physical context, physical context means, physically, where is this word spoken? It is spoken in the battlefield. Now, if we consider the start of the Gita, Arjuna is in tears. And now, in the middle of the Gita, in 8.15, Krishna is saying this world is dukkhaale.

Now, Krishna could have ended the Gita here: “Arjuna, you are dukkhi (suffering), this world is a place of dukkhaale. My Gita is proven to be true. Gita over.” But Krishna doesn’t stop there. Rather, by the end of the Gita, Arjuna is composed. So it is amazing that the message which says this world is dukkhaale actually frees Arjuna from dukkha (suffering), isn’t it? So it cannot be a pessimistic statement. If you have a pessimistic statement, Krishna will say, “Yeah, you are dukkhi, stay dukkhi. That is the nature of this world.” But that’s not the point. So Arjuna is dukkhi here, and Arjuna is not dukkhi there. So the Gita cannot be considered a pessimistic statement in that perspective.

And now this brings me to one of the key differences. The last point is the philosophical context. The philosophical context is that when we say this world is a place of distress, what is implied is that there is another world, which is a place of happiness. It’s implicit by Kuntam. In the modern worldview, there is no idea of any such other world. And therefore, when the idea comes that this world is a place of distress, it means distress is what we have to be in from birth to death—that there is no hope for anything beyond this. So that’s what makes it seem like a very pessimistic statement.

So there is this world, and there is another world…

So the Gita’s emphasis is that this world is a place of distress, but there is another world, which is a place of happiness. And the idea is not that you stay in distress, but that we can go from this world to another world, and then we can attain happiness. The Gita will also say that we can live in this world in such a way that we don’t experience too much distress. That is also very much there. But that’s not the key point in this context.

Now, if we want to explain the Gita’s worldview in one diagram to people, this diagram, in my understanding, conveys that. Basically, you consider this world and the other world, with four quadrants: real, this world is real, and the other world is real; this world is unreal, and the other world is unreal. But this itself is a whole class, so I’ll go very briefly on this.

See, basically, if you consider these four quadrants—one, two, three, and four—where does today’s worldview fall? In which quadrant? Today’s worldview falls in the first quadrant, isn’t it? People think this world is real, and the other world is just a pre-scientific religious imagination. So, this is the worldview of materialism. This material world is the only real world, and that’s all there is to it. There is nothing beyond this.

Now, in this worldview, the fact of the matter is that we cannot live like this. We cannot live in distress. And that’s why what we try to do is we try to create a technological paradise. We use technology to make this world a better place. And yes, we can make it better in some ways, but it will never become a paradise. And if we make it better in some ways, we often end up making it worse in some other ways as well.

So that’s why what has happened is our attempt is to make this world a technological paradise. It’s like it has definitely increased the comfort externally, but that comfort has not led to happiness internally. And how do we know that? We know from the increased mental health problems that are there. What is happening is nowadays people are comfortably miserable. So technology has succeeded spectacularly in making life more comfortable, but it has failed equally spectacularly in making people happy.

So because we cannot live in distress and we have rejected the idea that there is some other world, we try to create a tech paradise. We try to convert this world into a technological paradise. That has not worked. The other thing we try to do is we try to create a fictional paradise. Fictional paradise means it is through TV, movies, video games, and virtual reality. It’s like, you know, I can’t get an attractive partner to enjoy with, so I watch a movie in which there is an attractive partner, and I imagine if I would be there, it would be so nice.

So it is not even eating, sleeping, mating, defending. It is second-hand eating, second-hand sleeping, second-hand mating, second-hand defending. And that is why most people, when they watch movies, they want to eat some popcorn or something because everything is imaginary, and something has to be real.

So the fact is rejecting the other world has not led to us necessarily becoming happier in this world. And the attempts to disconnect from this world are becoming so frantic now. Like earlier, I talked about how entertainment is so feverishly sought by people today. Entertainment is not a break from reality for many people. Reality is a break from entertainment.

This is the result of materialism. Now, the other way is nihilism. Nihilism is that neither this world is real, nor is the other world real. This is the darkest world you could have. Even in modern times, in the last century, there were philosophers called existentialists. Some of them were brilliant people, and because of their brilliance, they saw through the promises of technology. They saw through the promises of modernity. None of this is substantial. But then what happened? They had rejected the idea of any meaning from another world, and now they say the promises of this world are becoming better or false.

So what is the point then? The philosopher Albert Camus said that life is suffering, and the more you try to relieve the suffering, the worse it becomes. Therefore, now this is Prahlad Maharaj’s teaching also. The more you try to relieve the stress, the stress increases. But Prahlad Maharaj’s conclusion is to practice bhakti. He has rejected the other world. He has rejected God. So his conclusion is: life is suffering. The more we try to mitigate suffering, the worse it becomes. Therefore, the only philosophical question worth asking is whether you commit suicide today or tomorrow. Such a terrible worldview.

Albert Camus was another philosopher. He said, you know, every time I go by a fourth-story window, so many times I have to resist the temptation to jump off and end it. What is the point of living? He might be talking about a very dark place, and we can empathize with the suffering that he’s going through. But this is not just a result of some personal injury that a person has had. It’s definitely there, personal emotional wounds. But it’s also an existential angst, and we see no meaning either in this world or the other world.

Now, the third worldview is impersonalism, Mayavada, that the other world is real in the sense that Brahman is real, Brahmasatya Jaganlithya. Now, this is very dark—the darkest world. In materialism, it is frustrating in the sense that neither a technological paradise nor a fictional paradise has actually lived up to the promise. Now, impersonalism induces terrible passivity. If this world is false and the only world that is real is the other world, then why bother to do anything in this world?

In the 18th century, especially when the British first came to India, they came for business, and initially, they didn’t really have colonial interests. Their commercial interest was in trading and going back. Colonial interest came later. At that time, they came here, they were curious, they studied. These were not just the British; even Europeans came—Portuguese, French, Spanish, Dutch. When they came here, they had a mixed reaction to Indian culture and wisdom. Some were negative, viewing it from the Christian lens, but when they studied the wisdom, they were amazed. They were stunned by it. But then they said, we just can’t figure out how—after 50 or 100 years, 200 years later, when Americans heard about this, Emerson, Thoreau, all of them called American Transcendentalists—they had the idea of some other world also. So they heard about India, and they were fascinated by the Bhagavad Gita.

Some of their students came to India, but they didn’t come. But when they came, they said that we just can’t figure out how these Indians, their thoughts are so lofty, and their country is so filthy. They are so disorderly, so apathetic, so uncaring, even the holy places. They say the places are holy, but the places are dirty.

So this, to some extent, is a result of this Advaitic worldview. Now, there are many factors to it. I’m not going to blame only the Advaitic worldview. But if this world is just a place where we have to live, why bother with anything about this world?

One of the biggest mysteries in history is how India, a civilization that has survived many aggressors—Alexander conquered the world, but he couldn’t conquer India—how did Muslims conquer India? And not just Muslims conquering India, for much of Indian history, different Muslim conquerors were fighting over India. The Turks came from one place, the Mughals from another place, the Lodhis from another place. So what happened to India?

Again, that’s a complex historical phenomenon. But one of the things that happened was that the philosophy of Mayavad spread too much. And the result was apathy toward this world. Just don’t care for this world. Who rules here? What difference does it make? Well, it does make a difference. It does make a significant difference. And this last is the Gita’s worldview. This is also what we can call the Bhakti worldview.

Krishna does not call this world false. In fact, he considers this world so important that whenever disorder arises, he personally comes to restore order. This is like a Prime Minister who personally visits a disaster area each time a calamity occurs, not just making announcements but actively addressing the situation. Krishna’s involvement in the world shows that he values it.

Unfortunately, the Bhakti tradition has, at times, been influenced by the Mayavadi worldview, where Bhakti is sometimes seen as a means to attain Moksha (liberation). In medieval times, Bhakti also became somewhat disconnected from practical engagement with the world. But, this was not Prabhupada’s mood—he emphasized the importance of engaging with the world. He traveled across the globe to deliver the message that the world, despite its distress, is important and meaningful.

The Bhagavad Gita presents a life-affirming worldview, asserting that what we do in this world matters. Through practicing Dharma (righteousness) and doing seva (service), we contribute to the well-being of this world and prepare ourselves for a better world beyond. Even though the world remains a place of suffering (Dukha), the Gita encourages us to act in this world with devotion, as this can bring us relief, benefit others, and ultimately lead us to a better destination beyond.

Krishna stresses that the goal is not to renounce this world to reach a higher spiritual realm, but to act with devotion and spiritual practice within this world. Bhakti Yoga is about connecting with Krishna with a devoted heart. The Gita teaches that through Bhakti Yoga, one can achieve everything that other paths like Dhyana Yoga offer—and more. Bhakti Yoga does not depend on specific timings or complex rituals; it depends on the heart’s connection to the divine.

Ultimately, the Gita establishes Bhakti as the supreme path, showing that through devotion to Krishna, one can transcend this world’s limitations and attain eternal happiness.

Are there any one or two questions?

Hare Krishna Guru, you told that in six words, it was told that at the time of death, what a person remembers, he gets that in his lifetime. So, for example, a person remembers something, but he doesn’t have that much of accumulated credits that he’ll get that thing. So, how is this possible?

Yeah. See, when the Gita speaks, it’s a natural flowing conversation. It’s not a, how should we put it? There are certain things that are unspoken, like I said, Krishna doesn’t have to establish the golden book. This is a given detail. So, we also need to have a qualification. That is implied. So, when it is being talked about as a remembrance, that is the part which is emphasized in the context of what we need to cultivate. But see, when we use the word smaran, that is sometimes when we use what we desire and what we deserve. So, when we are using the word smaran, is remembering and desiring the same thing? Not really. Remembrance is a much bigger thing. Actually, you know, I can remember and feel joy. I can remember and feel like serving rather than desiring for myself. So, desiring is like only one small activity in the, when we remember someone with love, we may desire to be with them, but there are so many other aspects of that relationship. So, what that means is if we are actually remembering, remembrance is actually bigger than desire. So, if somebody has come to the level of remembering the Lord, then in that particular case, along with the desire, a deserving has also already come. Because otherwise, how will they steadily remember the Lord? Now, in other cases where somebody is remembering something, but they don’t have the karma to get it, then there is some intermediate thing that has to be found out. That means, say somebody longs for America and they die thinking about America. But they don’t have the karma to be born in America, as unique. Then maybe they are born as some other animal in America.

Any other question?

Like you told that we have to remember at the 10th moment to go to that destination, but we see that some people don’t remember the Lord, but at the moment of death, just like I have an incident where Mahatma Gandhi, like when he was shot, he told “A Ram”. So, yes, actually they didn’t remember the Lord Ram, but they have a better destiny.

Yeah, definitely. The utterance of the Lord’s name is also beneficial. So, it is not in the name of Ram that was uttered at that time. And Gandhiji was a spiritually-minded person. He was not exactly a personalist devotee. He was a spiritually-minded person and chanted the name of Ram. So, that will lead to some elevation. Now, what degree the elevation will be, we don’t know that. Definitely some benefit will be there. During the waking state also, it is the same. Tempa, Vihas, Simva. At worst, if somebody just mockingly chants the name of Krishna, all is “Hare Krishna,” that is the foolish people. At Hare Krishna, also benefit will be there. But does that indicate the sign of a saintly, pure devotee? Not necessarily.

Yes, sir.

You were talking about positive and negative motivation. So, one can do actions or restrain from doing bad actions from either one. For example, when we have some temptation or something urgent, we have that negative motivation that if we do that, our senior will not feel or I will get some kind of, at that point of time, what should be our positive motivation for each and every action?

Well, it depends. Positive motivation, ultimately it is that love of Krishna is Ananda Ambuddhi Vardhanam. So, there is so much happiness. My mind is telling me, if you don’t do this, you are missing out on happiness. But if I do this, I will miss out on so much happiness later. Every time I am indulging in this, I am staying away from Krishna, who is the ocean of happiness. Like this is a drop. When you say I am pursuing this drop, I am staying away from the ocean. That’s one way of looking at it. Another way of it is also that we can look at it. In this same time, I could be doing something else. The time that I am spending on this, I could be reading Shastra. I could be singing some Hare Krishna Mantra. I could be memorizing some verses. I could be learning some songs. I could be connecting with Krishna in a transcendental sense, also equipping myself to serve Krishna in some practical sense. So, the positive motivation can be helped. Because indulgence does take time. Indulgence, its negative effects are many. At one level, we can say indulgence, any kind of indulgence we do. At the ultimate level, there is some expense. In general, indulgence is expensive. So, the ultimate expense is that it keeps us away from Krishna. Not only keeps us, it can fix us further away from Krishna. Jnana Vijnana Nashana Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that it takes away our Jnana, but also our Vijnana, even our urge to know. So, this is at one level, the ultimate effect. But sometimes that may not, what do you want to say, be immediately clear. So, imagine what happens is that it takes time. Even if something is available easy, in the sense that we don’t have to spend money for it, it does take time.

So, it takes time and that time is quite a bit. Somebody is surfing the net for something enjoyable. It’s not that immediately somebody doesn’t find something stimulating one minute. You look for something, it’s not so stimulating, you look for something more. One minute becomes five minutes, five minutes becomes ten minutes, ten minutes becomes one, thirty minutes, but for one hour, two hours. So, it takes time and is Aghayur. Aghayur Indriya Ramoh Mogam Parthasaji. Mogam means it takes with so much time. Our life becomes filled with sin. Sin is a long-term consequence, but at a basic level, three point sixty minutes. Sixty or seventy, sixty meters. So, this is three forty-one. Three forty, something like that. Three third chapters.

So, anyway, basically, we can look at whatever expense works, whatever expense we see. It impacts us. Sometimes time is also a serious thing. We don’t have unlimited time. We are youth, we do feel we have a good amount of time available with us. We don’t have unlimited time. And what happens also is that one time action doesn’t give me a one-time action. Like it creates an impression. And if I’m spending ten minutes now, half an hour now, that means I’m likely to spend again, again I’m going to spend half an hour, maybe more than that also. So, it’s, if we accumulate some together, the half an hour spent, every week I’m spending half an hour on this. It’s a significant amount of time in a year. How does it mean? It’s twenty-six hours. Twenty-six hours probably, you know, we can read some small book completely, at the very least. It’s a significant amount of time. Like that we can think.

You have to find out whatever motivates us. Yes, please.

Do you mention how the last verse refers to yoga? How can we understand that yoga there is going to work?

See, it is context. Because the previous verse is: “Tasmat Sarveshu Kaleshu Yoga Kutab.” Naite Sruti Partha Janam Yogimuhiyati Kashi. Tasmat Sarveshu Kaleshu Yoga Kutab. That’s the previous verse. Now, that exact same Tasmat Sarveshu Kaleshu has been used earlier in Tasman Sarveshu Kaleshu Mamana Svarabhivacharya. So, that word is an indication. And if you also look at the broader context, then immediately after that 9.1, 9.2 is your doctor. So, if Krishna is saying, therefore be a yogi, again the doctor says, you know, now, you know, say this particular treatment is the best treatment, whatever benefit you will get from any other treatments, you’ll get all that and most of this treatment. And suddenly without warning, the doctor starts talking about other treatment. Well, what kind of doctor would do that, isn’t it? So, now the next chapter is clearly about Bhakti Yoga. That we will see when the 9th chapter starts off. But there is no ambiguity about the 9th chapter. And the last section of it is simply the glory of the Bhakti. So, from the context, the word yoga has many different meanings in different places. But in this context, when it is focused on the remembrance of Krishna and it is talking about the whole chapter centers on remembrance of Krishna. And the chapter is also said that remembrance of Krishna is much easier through the practice of Bhakti. Then yogi will refer to Bhakti Yoga. So, in the Vedic context, you know, we have grown in a particular culture. So, in our imagination or in our cultural perception, yoga and yogi are associated with Ashtami yogi and dhyana. And Prabhupada also in his purports generally uses yogi to refer to that. But if we look in the broader Vedic context, yoga refers to a spiritual seeker, somebody who is seeking a spiritual connection. It’s a general term of reference.

In the western world, when I use classes, I also use yogis generically. We don’t use the word devotee because people are not devotees. And the word devotee seems very strange to western ears. What happens is in India also, the word Bhakta, Bhakti has a positive connotation. Bhakta does not have a positive connotation. Bhakta is a derogatory term. It’s like the idea is that somebody has uncritical respect and devotion to some person or something. So, of course, it’s not that negative. Ashta Bhakti is a good thing. So, Bhakti has a good connotation. But Bhakta does not have a very positive connotation. So, that devotee doesn’t have really a very good connotation among new people in the west. So, we just use the word yogis and people understand. Yogis means that, I’m not saying so, yogis seek spiritual reality and many yogis nowadays are chanting the holy, are doing kirtan. They like kirtan. So, yogis is increasingly nowadays, it is becoming a more generic word also. Even the World Yoga Journal, the top most magazine on yoga. There are also articles about how yoga is not just a physical posture. Yoga is a way of living. Yoga is ultimately for connecting yourself. They don’t say with God, they say connecting yourself with yourself. And they say they are yourself, the lower cases and upper cases.

So, sarva bhutat to bhutat. I am the soul of all souls. They may not have the exact understanding, but I think yogis is a generic term and it is coming back into current territory. Last question.

We learned that apatti is easy in the sense that it is very accessible. And remembering all the time is not very easy. But Prabhupada said that you can go back to God by just eating and singing and why does he say that?

Well, if we do that consistently throughout our life, that will give us a higher taste. We cannot minimize that statement, but at the same time, we cannot absolutize that statement also. Because Prabhupada also said at other places that if you have the desire for one gulab jamun, you will come back. You have to eat that gulab jamun. So, both kinds of statements are there. So, generally when we look at Prabhupada’s statements or Acharya’s statements, there are two extremes. One is to absolutize every statement. This is the absolute reality. But the other extreme is to relativize the statement. Hey, you know, that’s not really true. But in between the two of them is contextualize it. Contextualize means we understand the context in which it is spoken and then we understand the underlying principle and we accept that the principle is true. But the specifics may not be true.

So, many times if you don’t adopt this particular way of looking at scripture, many scriptural statements can be either misunderstood, misapplied, or they can just seem unbelievable. The scripture says you chant once and you’ll purify and you’ll go back to God. One chanting of the holy names can destroy more sins than what we can commit in all our lives. Is that true? Yes. That chanting can destroy. But if that is destroyed, what is going to happen? After that we’ll develop love for Krishna. And the love for Krishna I develop, then we’ll want to chant more. So, it is not that I just chant once and leave it at that and expect that everything will be destroyed. So, is it true? It’s true. It’s a possibility. But we don’t demand that. We understand that. This indicates how merciful Krishna is. And therefore Krishna will be merciful to me. Let me seek his mercy. So, understanding scripture, this is important. Don’t absolutize. Don’t relativize. But contextualize.

Thank you very much.