Our purpose in this world is to serve Krishna by contributing with different talents he has given us and inthe process, move closer to him. Our service to Krishna should be our supreme virtue to decide what we should and should not do. We cannot elevate anything except our relationship with Krishna as the supreme virtue. Sometimes for our service to Krishna, we may have to tolerate but if tolerance means giving up our service to Krishna, then that is not the right kind of tolerance. Here service does not simply mean chanting or bhakti related activities, but it also includes the service and the role we have in this world.

Tolerance is the virtue that enables us to keep small things small so that we can focus on big things. Tolerance does not mean that we let big things go down the drain. For example, if we are going for an important meeting in a vehicle and somebody just cuts the vehicle dangerously, we get angry because such an act could have caused a fatal accident. The person starts escaping from the scene and in our anger, we start chasing the person so that we can chastise. We drive all over the town and get late for our important meeting. Alternatively, we could have just tolerated the act and focused on our important meeting.

In another example, we see how Pandavas responded differently at different times in their lives. Initially, when Kauravas tried to poison them, and later burn them, the Pandavas ignored it thinking, “It is a conflict amongst us, let us keep it among ourselves and not publicize it, hopefully the animosity will go down.” However, when their cousins try to dishonor their wife and things started to go beyond limit, then they even fought a war. Later in their lives, eventually when Krishna departed from the world, they decided enough is enough and just walked away from the situation.

Whenever there is a difficulty in our life, there are three alternatives available: (i) change ourselves and tolerate the difficulty (ii) change the person or the situation (iii) walk away from the situation. Here, walking away is not the same as running away. Walking away means, “I have better things to do in my life, I don’t want to get caught in this.” Each of the three responses may be appropriate in different situations. Executing each of these responses also require tolerance because when something goes wrong an impulse within us often makes things worse. Tolerance enables us to check such impulse so that using our higher intelligence we can decide what to do.

If a relationship is repeatedly hurting us and there is no indication that things will improve then we may have to create some safe distance in the relationship. Tolerance does not mean that we allow ourselves to hurt continuously. However, in any relationship, just like we are imperfect and have our conditionings, others also have their conditionings. We should not make small differences in a relationship big to the extent we eventually end a relationship. There has to be a sense of perspective which comes when we look at the issue from some distance. Tolerance facilitates such sense of perspective. The basic application of tolerance is to avoid knee-jerk reactions. We do not act immediately but allow some time to pass so that the emotions subside and we can decide intelligently. When we think calmly we can understand the issue better. If we find the issue not so important we ignore it otherwise we address it with an appropriate response.

The post How do we differentiate between tolerating a situation by being patient or just leaving the situation because we are getting too much hurt? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

लिप्यंतरण तथा संपादन: अम्बुज गुप्ता तथा केशवगोपाल दास
प्रश्न- यदि हम अपनी क्षमता के उनुसार भगवान की सेवा नहीं कर पा रहे हैं, किन्तु पूरी क्षमता से भौतिक जगत में लगे हुए हैं और वहाँ पर खतरा लेकर प्रगति करने का प्रयास कर रहे हैं, तो इससे हम कैसे निकलें ?
उत्तर (संक्षिप्त) –
 पहली बात तो यहाँ यह समझना आवश्यक है कि हम अपने भौतिक कार्यों को भी आध्यात्मिक बना सकते हैं, यदि उन्हें हम सेवा की भावना से करें।
 कई बार अपने जीवन में हम अनेक भौतिक जिम्मेदारियों से घिरे होते हैं और हमारे पास आध्यात्मिक कार्यों के लिए इतना समय नहीं होता। ऐसे में हमें अपनी जिम्मेदारियों से भागना नहीं है किन्तु उन्हें पूरे उत्साह के साथ निर्वाह करना है किन्तु साथ ही साथ आध्यात्मिक कार्यों को भी जितना सम्भव हो सके समय देना है।
 श्रील प्रभुपाद भी अपने गृहस्थ जीवन में हर समय आध्यात्मिक गतिविधियों से जुड़े नहीं थे, वे व्यापार के माध्यम से बहुत धन कमाना चाहते थे ताकि वे पारिवारिक जिम्मेदारियों के साथ-साथ अपने गुरु के आंदोलन में भी योगदान कर सकें।

उत्तर (विस्तृत)– भगवद्गीता के अनुसार – स्वकर्मणा तमभ्यर्च्य, सिद्धिं विन्दति मानवः (भ.गी. 18.46) – हम अपने कर्म के द्वारा भी भगवान की पूजा कर सकते हैं। भगवान यह नहीं कहते कि – ‘कर्म ही पूजा है’। भगवान कहते हैं – हम ‘कर्म के द्वारा पूजा’ कर सकते हैं।
कहने का तात्पर्य यह है कि आमतौर पर हम अपने भौतिक और आध्यात्मिक जीवन को अलग-अलग देखते हैं। हम आध्यात्मिक जीवन के लिए अलग समय रखते हैं। जप के लिए, सत्संग के लिए अलग समय रखते हैं। इस प्रकार हम अपने आध्यात्मिक जीवन को और भौतिक जीवन को अलग-अलग देखते हैं। समय देने के दृष्टिकोण से हम जीवन को इस प्रकार विभाजित कर सकते हैं। किन्तु इस प्रकार विभाजन करने के बाद यदि हम अपने कार्य के बारे में इस प्रकार सोचें कि ये तो भौतिक कार्य है। तो इस प्रकार सोचने का प्रभाव यह होगा कि हम हतोत्साहित हो जाएँगे।

हमें समझना चाहिए कि वास्तव में भौतिक और आध्यात्मिक का अर्थ क्या है। ये दोनों भावनाऐं हैं। मैं सेवा भावना का अनुशीलन अपने भौतिक कार्यों में भी कर सकता हूँ। हर परिस्थिति को मैं भगवान की एक योजना के रूप में देख सकता हूँ और उस परिस्तिथि में अपनी नौकरी कर सकता हूँ और उस क्षेत्र में अपनी क्षमता दिखा सकता हूँ। ऐसा नहीं कि मुझे हर कार्य को करते समय यह सोचना है कि अरे यह तो भौतिक कार्य है, मैं इसे क्यों करुँ। इसके विपरीत हमें यह सोचना है कि मैं इसमें सेवा का भाव कैसे बढ़ा सकता हूँ। ऐसा करने का परिणाम यह होगा कि हम जो भी भौतिक कार्य करेंगे उसे सकारात्मक दृष्टिकोण से करेंगे।

यहाँ सकारात्मक दृष्टिकोण का अर्थ है कि जैसे कई बार हमारी भौतिक जीवन में जिम्मेदारियाँ होती हैं, महत्वकांक्षाऐं होती हैं, तो कुछ लोग अपने आध्यात्मिक जीवन में इतनी रुचि प्राप्त कर लेते हैं कि वे अपनी भौतिक महत्वकांक्षाओं को आध्यात्मिक महत्वकांक्षाओं में परिवर्तित कर लेते हैं। कुछ ऐसी महत्वकांक्षाऐं हो सकती हैं जिन्हें कोई व्यक्ति तुरंत नहीं छोड़ सकता है, तो व्यक्ति ऐसी महत्वकांक्षाओं को पूरी करने के बाद भक्ति में लग सकता है। ऐसा भी किया जा सकता है।

कहने का तात्पर्य है कि हमें जो भी करना है उसे पूरे उत्साह से, पूरे समर्पण से करना है। यदि हमारी परिवार के प्रति कुछ जिम्मेदारी है, या नौकरी के प्रति कोई जिम्मेदारी है, तो अगर हम उसे अच्छी तरह से नहीं करते हैं तो इसका परिणाम यह होता कि अकसर वही काम हमको दोबारा करना पड़ता है। इसलिए जब भी हम किसी कार्य की जिम्मेदारी स्वीकार करते हैं तो हमें इतना जिम्मेदार जरूर होना चाहिए कि हम भक्ति के लिए पर्याप्त समय निकाल सकें। ऐसा नहीं कि मैं दिनभर, चौबीस घण्टे, हफ्ते भर, महीने भर, साल भर सिर्फ भौतिक कार्य करुँगा और उन्हें ही भक्ति कहूँगा। हमें भक्ति के कार्यों के लिए अलग से समय देना चाहिए और उसके लिए अलग समय रखना है। उसके बाद हमें यह सोचना है कि मैं अपना सारा जीवन भगवान की सेवा में कैसे लगा सकता हूँ। अपने भौतिक कार्य
को भी हम इस विचारधारा के अंतर्गत ला सकते हैं कि कैसे मैं इस कार्य के द्वारा भगवान की सेवा कर सकता हूँ। इस तरह हम धीरे-धीरे अपने भौतिक कार्यों के द्वारा भी आध्यात्मिक प्रगति कर सकते हैं।

जहाँ तक क्षमता का सवाल है तो हमें यह समझना चाहिए कि हमारे जीवन में अलग-अलग अवस्थाऐं होती हैं। हम अलग-अलग परिस्तिथियों से गुजरते हैं। कभी-कभी जब हम सड़क पर होते हैं और ट्रैफिक बहुत ज्यादा होता है, तो हम चाहें भी तो ज्यादा तेज नहीं जा सकते हैं, और जब रास्ता साफ हो जाता है तो हम तेजी से जा सकते हैं। तो वैसे ही भगवान के पास जाने के रास्ते में कभी- कभी भौतिक जिम्मेदारियों का ट्रैफिक बहुत ज्यादा हो सकता है। ऐसे में हम बाहरी रूप से आध्यात्मिक कार्य इतने नहीं कर पाएँगे। उसका मतलब यह नहीं कि हम आध्यात्मिक जीवन छोड़ दें। हम फिर भी आगे बढ़ सकते हैं पर धीरे-धीरे। पर बाद में जब हमारा रास्ता साफ हो जाएगा, तो हमें धीरे-धीरे नहीं जाना है, तब हमें तेजी से जाना है। हम दिशा एक रख सकते हैं और अलग-अलग समय पर रफ्तार अलग-अलग हो सकती है। कभी-कभी भौतिक जिम्मेदारियों पर ज्यादा समय देना पड़ता है। इसका मतलब यह नहीं है कि
हम आध्यात्मिक नहीं हैं।

जब श्रील प्रभुपादजी, महाभागवत परम भक्त, इलाहाबाद में थे, वे अपनी कम्पनी प्रयाग फार्मास्यूटिकल चलाते थे। उनकी जीवनी ‘लीलामृत’ में एक वर्णन आता है जिसमें उनके एक पड़ोसी ने एक इंटरव्यू में बताया कि अभय चरणजी (श्रील प्रभुपाद का गृहस्थ जीवन में नाम) बड़े धार्मिक पुरुष थे। उस समय उनको एक ही चिन्ता रहती थी कि मैं और पैसे कैसे कमाऊँ। क्यों? उस समय वे गृहस्थ आश्रम में थे, उन पर बहुत जिम्मेदारियाँ थी और उन्हें यह भी इच्छा थी कि यदि और धन कमाएँगे तो अपने गुरु के आन्दोलन में वे और अधिक योगदान दे सकते हैं। ऐसा नहीं है कि प्रभुपादजी हमेशा जीवनभर, चौबीस घण्टे, बाहरी रूप से आध्यात्मिक कार्य कर पाए। उनकी भी परिस्तिथि ऐसी आ गई थी कि उनको अपनी भौतिक जिम्मेदारियों के लिए व्यापार करना पड़ रहा था। यदि आप प्रभुपाद जी का जीवन देखें तो उन्होंने धन कमाने के लिए बहुत प्रयास किया। एक बार उन्होंने कलकत्ता में अपनी दुकान शुरु की।
फिर वे बम्बई गए, फिर इलाहाबाद गए।

इस प्रकार हमें भौतिक चीजों को ही सब कुछ नहीं मानना है और आध्यात्मिक को छोड़ना नहीं है। किन्तु जब हम भौतिक कार्य कर रहे हैं, तो हर बार उन्हें भौतिक सोचकर उस कार्य की उपेक्षा भी नहीं करना है। उसमें भी पूरे उत्साह से कार्य करना है और देखना है ये भी मैं भगवान की सेवा के लिए कर रहा हूँ। ऐसा करने से हम उत्साहित रह सकते हैं और आध्यात्मिक जीवन के लिए समय निकाल कर उसमें भी प्रगति कर सकते हैं।

The post If we are working wholeheartedly in our material life but can’t work similarly in our spiritual life what can we do–Hindi appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

maam hi partha vyapashritya, ye ’pi syuh papa-yonayah
striyo vaishyas tatha shudras, te ’pi yanti param gatim

Here, what is the thrust of the verse? That even those who are vaishyas, shudras, women and the
lowborn can also attain perfection. The thrust of the verse is not to show how women are, rather to show how potent bhakti is. The potency of bhakti is such that whoever you are, bhakti can elevate to the supreme perfection.

Equating women with a particular social grouping is not a teaching of the Bhagavad-gita. That is just a statement where Lord Krishna is just echoing the conceptions of society at that time. Earlier in the Bhagavad-gita, Lord Krishna says sa kalenaha mahata yogo nashtah parantapa (BG 4.2) which means that by the power of time, that primeval knowledge which he had given was lost. That means that the culture that Lord Krishna appeared in, is not the ideal culture. The culture that the Mahabharata describes is the deviated culture. That is why Lord Krishna had to come to correct the situation, dharma samsthapnarthaya (BG 4.8). Therefore, were the cultural conceptions at that time necessarily right? We do not know which one is right and which is not. However, one thing is that, it is clearly not the teaching of the Gita. Everything that is in the scripture is not necessarily the teaching of the scripture. Sometimes scripture may just be describing the socio-cultural reality at that time.

Secondly, even if we consider the social situation at that time, the whole Bhagavad-gita is a
description about attaining transcendence or spiritual reality. For gaining spiritual knowledge and
attaining spiritual reality, in the broad human society, there are certain dispositions which are moresuitable. The brahmanas are more analytical and intellectual and they are best suited for spiritual understanding. Kshatriyas also have some amount of sattva which regulates their rajas and hence they are also suitable for understanding the spiritual reality. Then, there are the vaishyas and the shudras. We need to understand that at times, there are certain people who would be very money minded, not necessarily in a sinful materialistic way. For such people, it is very difficult to think about the other world. In the same way, it was acknowledged that vaishyas and shudras may never be able to take sannyas and they may not even take vanaprastha. Usually brahmanas take sannyas and kshatriyas take vanaprastha.

For the shudras, it is said that the only reformatory ceremony is vivaha or marriage. What does this mean? This means that in the Vedic culture, it was acknowledged that certain people may not be at a level to embrace renunciation or the path of spiritual elevation. This is simply a fact of life with respect to peoples’ spiritual receptivity.

Similarly, with regards to women. Generally, in the female body, the primary purpose is to nurture
and nourish. For nourishing a new life, emotionality is very important. Children or babies are not
rational, and similarly if mothers were rational, they may not be best suited to take care of the baby.

For mothers to have that emotional connect with children, they will need to have emotional nature.
This is not a disadvantage. It is needed for the purpose of nurturing and it is a great strength also.

To achieve spiritual growth, one way is through philosophical analysis, wherein we understand the futility of the material world and then look for a higher alternative. There are certain kind of people, who are just not suitable for that path because they may not be philosophical enough. Hence, Lord Krishna is saying is that some varnas are not qualified for the analytical and intellectual approach to spirituality. However, they are still qualified for the path of bhakti. Therefore, the thrust is that bhakti is possible for everyone. The psychophysical nature and its limitation is a limitation on the path of intellectual spirituality but it is not a limitation on devotional spirituality. In that sense it is not an accusation or condemnation.

Thirdly, Gita begins by saying that we are not our bodies and that we are souls. That means our
bodily designation is our temporary situation. There is a dynamic balance or tension between how we act spiritually and how we act physically. Different people grow spiritually in a different way. There are exceptions also in the broad Vedic tradition. There are examples of great sages who were females. In the Upanishads, there is an example of a lady sage, Gargi. It is mentioned that when there was a debate in Mithila, she defeats everyone. No social categorization is watertight. The Shrimad Bhagavatam also says lakshane prokta – ultimately it is by characteristics that we are meant to be known. There are some women who may be very philosophical and analytical. Such women are not to be deprived.

Therefore, if we understand the context, then such statements will not seem very jarring. It is only
when we see the statement in isolation from what is being spoken, then they become very jarring.

The post Isn’t the Gita’s comparing women with vaishyas and shudras derogatory? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life,

they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind.
In this verse Lord Krishna talks about six senses, and He includes mind among the six senses.
In the tenth chapter also, we find a verse where Krishna tells, indriyāṇāṁ manaś cāsmi (BG 10.22) –
of the senses I am the mind. In this verse also He counts mind as one of the senses.
There are other verses in the Gita, where the mind is categorized as distinct from the senses. In BG 2.67,
Krishna mentions indriyāṇāṁ hi caratāṁ, yan mano ’nuvidhīyate – even one of the roaming senses
on which the mind focuses can carry away a man’s intelligence. Here Krishna differentiates between the
senses and the mind.
However, we should not get caught in the technicalities of what is what, but recognize essential
principles. The principle is that senses are associated with the gross physical body (e.g. we have sensory
organs like eyes), and the mind is a subtle interface between the gross body and the soul. Who is driving
us, the senses or the mind? It can work both ways.
Sometimes we see some temptation externally and the desire for the temptation enters from the senses
and then goes into the mind. The mind then gets agitated, and then we are driven to fulfil that particular

craving. In this instance the craving is coming from the senses to the mind and then to the
consciousness.
On the other hand, sometimes it may happen that mind itself may get triggered even without external
temptation. Some impression from the past when it rises up in the mind we feel agitated. In such
situation, we ourselves through our senses look for some temptation and then we get stimulated. In this
case the mind became the initial trigger for the agitation.
So, it can be either the senses or the mind that can drive us depending upon whether the trigger comes
from external objects or internal recollection.

The post We differentiate our senses from our mind and say that the senses are driving us but is it notthat ultimately the mind is driving us? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

vedyaṁ vāstavam atra vastu śivadaṁ tāpa-trayonmūlanam

(SB1.1.2)

Completely rejecting all religious activities which are materially motivated, this Bhāgavata Purāṇa
propounds the highest truth, which is understandable by those devotees who are fully pure in heart.
Srimad Bhagvatam is the culmination of all Vedic knowledge. It contains the highest truth. It is also said,
nirmatsarāṇāṁ satāṁ (SB 1.1.2) i.e. it is meant for non-envious people. It can be relished by everyone,
both by very advanced souls and even by people who are less intelligent.

Srimad Bhagvatam is the commentary on the Vedanta Sutra which gives the final word in the Vedic
literature. Srimad Bhagvatam is a book of huge expanse which both simple and most intelligent people
can appreciate.
Similarly we can understand for Mahabharata. It is a vast book whose stories attract even the less
intelligent people but once such people are attracted, the Bhagwat Gita is available for the reader as the
most shining jewel in the broad setting of Mahabharata. Bhagwad Gita reveals the spiritual knowledge
that is to be treasured. Bhagwad Gita is not just the knowledge of Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha,
themes which are illustrated in the various stories of the Mahabharata, but it is the knowledge of pure
devotion (bhakti) and establishes bhakti as the highest truth that needs to be treasured.
Even Sripad Shankaracharya, who knows that Bhagvad-Gita is a part of Mahabharata (a Smriti Shastra),
mentions following in the Gita-mahatmya:

sarvo panishado gavo
dogdha gopala nandanah
partho vatsah sudhir bhokta
dugdham gita amritam mahat
(Gita-mahatmya 6)

All the Upanishads are like a cow. Just as the essence of the cow is milk, similarly the essence of all
Upanishadic knowledge is the Bhagwat Gita, the Gitopanishad.
Although, the setting of the Mahabharata is used to attract the less intelligent people to illumine them
with the highest knowledge of Bhagvad Gita, but Bhagvad Gita’s profundity can put even the wisest of
people into devotional and intellectual rapture.

The post Are the Bhagvad Gita and Shrimad-Bhagvatam meant for less intelligent people? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcribed by: Raji Nachiappan

Question: What is the bhakti perspective on feminism – not the man-bashing extreme feminism, but the equal opportunity for women feminism?

Answer: Bhakti wisdom is inclusive. It gives everyone an opportunity to grow. We understand that we are souls, every soul is equally a part of God and every soul is dear to God.
In bhakti, God is revealed to be Krishna and the soul that is the dearest to him, we could say is female, his female consort, Radha. She gets the opportunity to be the closest to him. Therefore, without going too much into theological intricacies, let us analyze how does this philosophical principle of the soul’s spiritual equality translate into gender dynamics?
There is not a one standard formula. If we look at the epics themselves, we will see significant difference in the overall character of Ramayana’s Sita and Mahabharatha’s Draupadi. Sita is much more tolerant and sacrificial, a symbol of strength in tolerating adversity. In contrast, Draupadi is much more firebrand. She raises her voice against atrocities, takes a position for dharma even when her husbands and other elders are silent. She does not hesitate to speak her mind. Both women are considered extraordinarily virtuous, despite their radical difference in personalities.

Hence, is there one way in which all women work? Not necessarily. The essential principle in bhakti is that one’s spiritual growth should be harmonious with one’s material nature. Whatever is one’s psychophysical nature, that should be channelled in such a way that at the very least it does not obstruct one’s spiritual growth rather it aids and energizes it.
For example, if someone has lifelong lived close to nature with simplicity and if they are now put in midst of urban complexity, then they might find it very difficult to performing bhakti in an urban setting. Similarly, if somebody has lived lifelong in comforts of urban society and moved to a simple rural setting, then they may also find it very difficult to perform bhakti.
Similar principle applies to when it comes to the role of women in society. The material nature of a woman should be harmonised with the spiritual purpose. Let us see how exactly this can be done?

There are two broad categories:
i. One category is where a woman has grown in a predominantly traditional society (traditional here has neither a positive or a negative connotation) where there are well-defined gender roles. By her upbringing and disposition, if she is best suited to carry on those traditional gender roles, then there is no need to force her to adopt non-traditional gender roles to perform services. Srila Prabhupada also encouraged that those with a traditional upbringing serve in a traditional way.

ii. Other category is where a woman has grown in a more westernized setting. Such women by their upbringing and social culture are trained to be equal to men in every way. Srila Prabhupada was accommodating to such differences. He was even resourceful enough and as a result engaged such ladies in services accordingly. He did not suppress their energy by insisting that they conform to traditional gender roles.

Bhakti principles operate not just according to the individual nature but also according to the social culture. For example, Lord Chaitanya’s followers in Bengal wrote their books in Bengali whereas his followers in Vrindavan like the Gosvamis wrote their literature primarily in Sanskrit because in Vrindavan, not many people would understand Bengali.

For bhakti principles to stay relevant, they have to be applied according to the context. How a soul in a female body will be engaged in a service will be shaped not just by the individual nature but also by social culture. Therefore, if a society is very contemporarily oriented, then for a woman to play traditional gender roles will be almost impossible. Hence, in such situation it will be vital that they be given the opportunity to serve in the society they are presently in. The key thing is to give everyone the opportunity to practice according to the situation they are in.

Can women do all things men can do? It is not so much a matter of whether they can or cannot. There are physical differences and those cannot be denied. We cannot take extreme positions and claim that there are no biological differences. Not just biological, psychological differences are also there. Equality is always an appealing principle, but how equality is translated into reality requires a lot of serious thought. In the name of equality for women, do we want to equalise men and women doing laborious and physically demanding tasks? Not necessarily. Rather than sticking to the literalistic meaning of equality if we focus on the presence of opportunity that is compatible with one’s psychophysical nature then that is most realistic. Within our individual nature and social culture, we can take the initiative to find out how best we can serve Krishna. We can also try to associate with those devotees who understand our need for a particular kind of space and who also provide us that space. Then we can move forward progressively.

End of transcription.

The post What is the bhakti perspective on feminism – not the man-bashing extreme feminism, but the equal opportunity for women feminism? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcription :

Transcription by: Suresh Gupta

Question: Is spirituality the only way to overcome bad habits?

Answer: Definitely there are people who are non-devotees and who have given up bad habits. Basically, the mind is like a programable device. It is running a particular program and we need to re-program it. It depends on what new program we try to put in. Some people may give up drinking but replace it with smoking. If they smoke they may replace it with drinking. They might reprogram their minds into thinking that smoking is not as dangerous as drinking or vice versa. Ultimately this does not really get them out of bad habits, it is just replacing one bad habit with another.

Similarly, somebody might replace a bad habit with a good one. However, some people succeed, and some people fail. Along with the impetus that makes them pick a bad habit, it is also due to the strength of impressions. For example, if somebody is a social drinker then all that they need to do to give up their bad habits is change their social circle. Just by hanging out with more sober people, their drinking will go away. Such people are not so much interested in drinking but are more interested in the sense of belonging and acceptance.

Other than that, somebody might be drinking so that they may get some break from life’s worries. Even if such people change their social circle, they might not give up their drinking because their need is different. Maybe when such people start doing something else that gives them a break (for example, hearing music, gardening etc) then they might give up drinking. Therefore, in terms of specific extreme expressions of anarthas, by certain practices which may not be necessarily devotional, people can give up those habits. However, in terms of complete anartha nivritti, that is difficult because in the conditioned stage, anarthas are what are seen as a source of pleasure. One may think, if I give them up then what will I do with my life?

However, should we complement our practice of bhakti with something else? It depends on what we are doing. Many devotees, in their chanting, when their mind is just wandering too much, they stop for some time and take a few deep breaths. What happens by this, the deep breathing itself just calms the mind down. Taking deep breaths and breathing slowly for some time can help calm the mind and then one can chant. However, if somebody says, “Okay, actually breathing calms my mind and chanting does not. Then instead of chanting, I will just do slow breathing for two hours”, then this will be a wrong understanding.

There are two things – pacification of the mind and purification of the mind. Deep breathing will basically just pacify the mind. It is not really removing the anarthas, it is just distancing us from them for a particular time. This is more like a pain killer and not a curative medicine. Pain killers are cheap but provide immediate temporary relief whereas curative medicines are expensive and require patience. Out of temptation for immediate relief, one cannot say, that if pain killer can give immediate relief then why to take curative medicine at all. Similarly, when we do something which brings us temporarily to sattva guna then such an alternative might seem easier. For example, there are people who do laughter therapy. We might laugh at it but those who do it get some relief. It is not that they are being foolish but If someone thinks that this is all I need to do then that is a problem.

With respect to pain killers, it is best to do what one needs to do. Do not campaign for it and do not campaign against it, because each person’s pain might be different and a pain killer that works for someone, may not work for someone else. Someone may not even need it, but another person might need it. However, if one starts campaigning for it then they are just burdening people with something which they do not need. Similarly, if we campaign against it then we are depriving someone of something they need. Therefore, it is best that if there are certain practices which calm our mind, then we can adopt them. It is only when we start seeing them as alternatives to bhakti, that is when it becomes a problem.

End of transcription.

The post Is spirituality the only way to overcome bad habits? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcription :

Transcriber: Suresh Gupta

Question: Did God help Gajendra only when he stopped helping himself?

Answer: It is important to note that even surrender requires trying. Gajendra did not give up sinking in self-pity but instead looked up to call out to the Lord which also requires endeavour. In bhakti, there is a dual dynamic, there is dependence on Krishna and there is also diligence for Krishna, and both are integral to devotion. For things that are in our control, we need to have diligence to do them as nicely as we can. Arjuna practised archery painstakingly where he learnt the art all day and practised all night and that is how he became a champion archer and got the name Gudakesha. He did not think that he will depend on Krishna and shoot the arrow and Krishna will make it hit the target. Instead, Arjuna was practising painstakingly and that diligence was also his devotion. Therefore, for the things which are in our control, we need to be diligent and for the things which are not in our control, we need to be dependent. However, in some situations, we may think that it is in our control and we keep trying again and again but eventually realise that it is not in our control and then we surrender to Krishna.

Draupadi was also in a similar situation. She was trying to protect herself but when her endeavours failed, she finally surrendered to Krishna by raising her hands. But there is a big difference between Draupadi’s and Gajendra’s consciousness. Gajendra was completely in an enjoying mentality when he was out there in the lake for a picnic but Draupadi throughout her life was in a dharmic consciousness and at the time of disrobing she tried to persuade everyone to see dharma by questioning the stand of the elder members of the Kuru family. Hence, it is not that Draupadi was not surrendered before, it was out of surrender itself that she was trying to stay out of that calamity. Similarly, it is not that Arjuna was not surrendered when he was fighting. However, Gajendra was in materialistic consciousness and the emergency in his life put him in spiritual consciousness.

Both Arjuna and Draupadi were throughout their life in devotional consciousness and did their best in the mood of devotion to Krishna but at a particular point when they found that all the diligence was not enough then they shifted to depend on Krishna. In that sense, Gajendra’s evolution is from material to spiritual consciousness whereas for Draupadi and Arjuna, it is always spiritual consciousness, but from diligence in spiritual consciousness to dependence in spiritual consciousness. Both situations are not similar.

Sometimes we get caught in doership mentality thinking ourselves to be the cause and might also not remember Krishna but when things do not work out, we become humble and pray to Krishna. This is how we go from material to spiritual consciousness like Gajendra. At the same time, we should not think that in the name of dependence of Krishna, we do not do our part well. About 20 years ago, when I started giving spiritual classes for the first time, I received ten guidelines on “How to speak in public for Krishna” and the last guideline was – depend on Krishna (only after you have prepared).

Hence, if I do not prepare for a class and say that I am dependent on Krishna, then it is not dependence, it is irresponsibility. That is why, we should not think that dependence on Krishna is same as irresponsibility, we have to be extremely responsible in doing what we can but we should also try to have a consciousness of service where instead of doers we think ourselves as instruments, doing our duties for the pleasure of Krishna and knowing that it is he who will enable me to do it. In Bhagavad Gita 7.8, Krishna says paurusham nrsu: I am ability in man. Without ability, we cannot do anything and at the same time, our abilities are not our entitlements, they are endowments. They have been given to us or gifted to us by Krishna.

Thus, if we are in material consciousness like Gajendra where helplessness in individual situations take us towards spiritual consciousness then that is good but in normal when we are doing service, we should not think ourselves to be in material consciousness. We try to remain in devotional consciousness by being diligent towards Krishna and even after working diligently if sometimes things do not work out then we shift towards dependence.

End of transcription.

The post Did God help Gajendra only when he stopped helping himself? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcription :

Transcriber: Sharan Shetty

Edited by: Keshavgopal Das

Question: Even when we know that worldly pleasures are temporary, why do we still crave for them?

Answer: There are two ways of looking at this. One is that this world is a place of illusion and like a trap. Gita 8.15 says, this world is dukhalayam, place of distress. Does that mean that there is no happiness in this world? Prahalada Maharaj answers this in SB 7.9.25 using the word madhu lavaih, i.e. the amount of happiness is similar to drops of honey. The illusion is not about the presence of pleasure, the illusion is about the quantity of pleasure. We think there is a lot of pleasure in this material world. Most of the times, we gravely dream about sense pleasure but afterwards it is just an anti-climax and in conclusion, we all feel, “I dreamed so much about it but got so little”.

Interestingly, there is enough pleasure in this world to keep us attached to all the troubles that come with them. If there is only trouble, we would just give it up and if there is only pleasure, we won’t think about anything else. However, there is enough pleasure in this world to make us believe that all the troubles are worthwhile. The worth of such pleasures is open to question but because we are pursuing those pleasures, we think them to be great. Therefore, our way is not just saying no to the pleasures of the world. In bhakti, we focus not so much on renunciation as on devotion. Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita 10.41,

yad yad vibhutimat sattvam shrimad urjitam eva va
tat tad evavagaccha tvam mama tejo-’msha-sambhavam

“Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but a spark of My splendour.”

That means Krishna is saying that everything attractive in this world is not false. If we compare an ocean to a few drops of water, then Krishna is like the ocean and the pleasures of this world are like the drops of water. If Krishna is like the sun, then the pleasures of this world are like the sparks.

If we consider the ocean at a distance and drops of water near us, then some drops will lead us towards, and some will take us away from the ocean. We do not deny the presence of the drops, we focus on where those drops are taking us. For example, a brahmana is someone who is intellectually inclined. Therefore, varnashrama recommends a brahmana be intellectual in a way that is spiritually harmonious. A kshatriya is someone who likes to lead and control. Gita 18.43 describes ishvara bhava or the attitude of God for the kshatriya. This is not same as if one is the Supreme Lord i.e. parameshwar bhava but it is like the attitude of controllership i.e. ishvara bhava.

Varnashrama’s principle is that things which are materially pleasurable for us, they take us to the source of supreme spiritual pleasure. Not that we reject all material pleasure, rather we harmonize the material pleasures with our spiritual purpose. The drops are there, and they are real. We do not focus so much on denying the pleasure, rather we understand that this pleasure is a pointer to the ultimate pleasure. That is why bhakti is not about giving up but taking up.

We cannot drive out worldly pleasures from our heart, but we can crowd them out. We focus on what we can do for Krishna and what we are not able to give up, we don’t obsess over them. At the same time, we should “deal with the surges of the urges”. In the process of bhakti, what we are saved from is not as important as what we are saved for. We are saved, delivered, protected for a purpose and that purpose is to serve Krishna more and more. We can find out ways that are needed to serve. If we obsess too much on giving up, then we will be stuck between “I will not do it” and “I want to do it” and eventually we will end up regretting “why I did it”.

Material indulgences are not worth thinking about too much either in terms of how I will give them up or how I will get them. Instead we should focus on the spiritual connection.

End of transcription.

The post Even when we know that worldly pleasures are temporary, why do we still crave for it? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcription :

Transcriber: Sharan Shetty

Question: When we are far away from the standards needed to attain the spiritual world, what is our hope?

Answer: There is a digital and an analogue conception of bhakti. Digital concept is zero or one. This means either we are a devotee or a non-devotee, either we are meeting the standard or not meeting the standard. Whereas analogue conception is that of a progression.

Bhagavad Gita is largely an analogue conception where Krishna gives multiple alternatives. If you cannot practice bhakti, then practice yoga. If you cannot practice yoga, then practice jnana. If you cannot practice jnana, then practice karma. And if you cannot worship Me then worship devatas (demigods).

Even within bhakti, from BG 12.08 to BG 12.12, Krishna gives a progression. At first, he says, spontaneously fix your mind on Me. If you cannot do that, then conscientiously strive to fix your mind on Me. If you cannot do that, then work for Me. If you cannot do that then work for a selfless cause. Thus, Krishna is giving us multiple levels to connect with him. We do not have to necessarily think that just because we are not at a particular standard of bhakti then we are not practicing bhakti. If we just keep doing what we can, Krishna promises in the Bhagavad Gita 09.22 – yogakshemam vahamyaham (I carry what you lack, and I preserve what you have). This applies not just to our material assets but also to our spiritual assets. Krishna says, if you strive to be devoted to me then I will protect whatever spiritual advancement you have made, and I will provide whatever spiritual advancement you are lacking.

We do not have to bother for coming up to a particular standard. We just dedicate ourselves doing the best we can right now. Either Krishna will make up for all that we are lacking and take us directly to him or will take us to some place where we are closer to him.

It is true that we all want to grow spiritually but it is important to note that wherever there are standards, the mind will try to rebel because the mind has tremendous potential in making even the most positive things negative. The purpose of standards is to inspire us, not to discourage us. If we hear how ecstatic the saints, Lord Chaitanya, the Six Goswamis were in their absorption and in their love for Krishna, then we may either become discouraged thinking that we are nowhere near them or we may feel inspired that such an advanced stage can be attained by following the process I am practicing right now. That is why, depending on our consciousness, we need to adjust our vision.

If we feel very proud thinking that we have advanced so much spiritually then we should look how far we have to go. When we become disheartened, we should see how far we have come. All of us have come a significant way in our spiritual journey. If we look at the many years that have past, we have made significant progress where our values have changed positively. If we are honest with ourselves, we will see, that we have progressed not because of us but in-spite of us. We are so distracted, so impure, so conditioned and in-spite of ourselves, we have made so much progress. Before leaving for India, a devotee friend wished me a safe trip. I replied that as long as I am with me, no trip is safe because we are often our worst enemies. Still we have covered significant distance and that too in-spite of us. This means despite of our half-hearted, distracted efforts, Krishna has got us this far. Therefore, if Krishna has got us this far, Krishna will take us all the way also.

End of transcription.

The post When we are far away from the standards needed to attain the spiritual world, what is our hope? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.