Transcription (edited) by – Bhaktin Raji Nachiappan

Question- Are the Gods of different religions, different?

Answer (short)-

• No, Gods of different religions are not different, they are all referring to same one God.
• For example, Sun can be called by different names (Surya, Bhaskar etc.) in different languages, similarly the same God can be referred to as with different names (Allah, Ram, Jehova etc.) in different religions.

Answer (long)- No, all religions are different ways to go to the same one God. But depending on time, place and circumstance that God is referred to differently in different religions.

Just as the same one object, Sun, can be called as Surya, Bhaskar, Ravi, Suraj. It can be called by different names in different languages. Similarly, the same one being, the Absolute truth, God, is referred to by different names in different religions. Allah can refer to His all merciful/all-kind aspect, Jehovah can refer to His all-powerful aspect, Ram refers to His all-happy aspect, and Krishna (sarva-akarshiti iti-krishna) refers to his all attractive aspect. So, it is that same one being who is referred to by different names.

If we carefully study the scriptures of the great religions- the Bible, the Quran or the Bhagavad gita (BG) we find that similar attributes are described for God. For example, the Bible says that I am the alpha and the omega of all things and Krishna says in BG 10.33 (aksharanam akarosmi) that I am the beginning of everything, I’m the letter A and (sargāṇām ādir antaś ca madhyaṁ caivāham arjuna, BG 10.32) I’m the beginning, middle, and the end. Similarly, in the Quran also it is said about how Allah is the beginning, middle, and end of all things.

If we look beyond the names to the attributes of God, just like we look beyond the names of sun, to the actual object sun, then we will see that although the names are different the object is the same. Similarly, if we look beyond the names used for God, to the attributes of God, then we will find that actually all the religions are referring to the same one God.

The post Are the gods of different religions different? (PK answered 25) appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcriber: Sharan Shetty
Edited by: Keshavgopal Das

Question: Are jnana and karma complementary instead of hierarchical?
Answer: Karma and jnana can broadly refer to action and intellectual analysis whereas karma yoga
and jnana yoga are specific processes. Beyond these two, there is the path of bhakti yoga.
Karma yoga and jnana yoga, as yoga sadhanas, are not complimentary. They are mutually exclusive,
and it is not that karma yogi’s practice is incomplete without jnana yoga or vice versa. Both are two
distinct processes of yoga and if a person is practicing karma yoga then he cannot be practicing
jnana yoga which requires renunciation of action. Their essential methodologies involve opposite
courses of action because karma yoga involves action and jnana yoga involves inaction.
With respect to their intention, in the Fifth Chapter, Lord Krishna talks about their common goal. The
analysis of Third and Fifth Chapter is same but in the Fifth Chapter, Krishna goes deeper into certain
subjects. In Bhagavad-gita 5.4 and 5.5, Krishna says,

sankhya-yogau prthag balah pravadanti na panditah
ekam apy asthitah samyag ubhayor vindate phalam

“Only the ignorant speak of devotional service [karma-yoga] as being different from the analytical
study of the material world [sankhya]. Those who are actually learned say that he who applies
himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both.”

yat sankhyaih prapyate sthanam tad yogair api gamyate
ekam sankhyam ca yogam ca yaḥ pasyati sa pasyati

“One who knows that the position reached by means of analytical study can also be attained by
devotional service, and who therefore sees analytical study and devotional service to be on the same
level, sees things as they are.”
Therefore, it is clear from the above two verses that those who think that the paths of sankhya and
yoga are two different paths have a childish mentality and Krishna further states that actually if one
who attains perfection in one process then one attains the destination that is intended from both
the processes. Ultimately, both are meant to take us towards transcendence which is explained by
Lord Krishna in Gita 5.2, sannyasaḥ karma-yogas ca niḥsreyasa-karav ubhau (The Personality of
Godhead replied – The renunciation of work and work in devotion are both good for liberation).
The important point to recognise here is that when Krishna is saying both paths lead to the same
ultimate destination; he is not combining the two processes. He is not saying that one is dependent
on the other. Ultimately, in terms of their own sadhanas, both lead to transcendence.
The process of bhakti yoga integrates and synergises the strengths of both these processes by
leaving out their weaknesses. What bhakti yoga does is, it adopts activity as a means to offer service,
thus allowing to use our natural ability to act but in a detached way. Bhakti yoga accommodates
activity which is a natural element of karma yoga. The advantage of jnana yoga is that it is not
entangling because due to absence of fruitive activities, the practitioner does not get entangled.
Bhakti yoga incorporates the contemplative and non-reactive aspect of jnana by its process of
internal remembrance of Krishna. That means, within bhakti, the aspects of karma yoga and jnana

yoga are subordinated and harmonised in a complimentary sense. Srila Prabhupada’s use of the
word “devotional service” as the translation for bhakti indicates this particular point.
The process of karma and jnana are themselves not to be given up. It is stated in Bhakti Rasamrta
Sindhu 01.01.11, anyabhilaṣita-sunyam jnana-karmady-anavṛtam (One should render
transcendental loving service to the Supreme Lord Krishna favourably and without desire for
material profit or gain through fruitive activities or philosophical speculation).
In the definition of bhakti, it is stated, jnana and karma are uncovered. This covering is of selfish
desires. When the covering is removed, then jnana and karma become purified and harmonised
towards the service of Krishna, in the process of bhakti.
To get a simplistic yet broad understanding of these three, consider our hands, our head and our
heart where karma yoga co-relates with the hands, jnana yoga with the head and bhakti yoga with
the heart. But bhakti does not co-relate only with the heart because the heart directs the head and
the hands.
Similarly, bhakti incorporates and integrates everything. We have an intellectual rational side and we
also have a practical action-oriented side. We would be incomplete without either. That is why,
within our bhakti, if we just contemplate, it would be very difficult for us to sustain. Similarly, if we
just run around doing things without thinking about the goal, Krishna, then that would reduce our
bhakti to just karma. The synthesis of action and contemplation which is done in bhakti brings about
the complementarity of karma and jnana.

The post Are jnana and karma complementary instead of hierarchical? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcribed by: Anupama Kulkarni Mataji

Question: Should one take saffron only when one is convinced that Krishna is God?

Answer: Different devotees may have different personal convictions which inspire them in their spiritual lives, and they may emphasize more on their convictions when they present Krishna consciousness to others. Those convictions may not disagree with the philosophy, but they may not be universal convictions for everyone. We need to ask ourselves, are we convinced that Krishna is the supreme personality of Godhead.

Once, Srila Prabhupada asked some of his GBC (the Governing Body Commission) disciples that if you are convinced that Krishna is God, you will be able to make the whole world Krishna conscious just in eighteen days. However, none of his disciples could say that they were convinced. Does that mean that they were not convinced? No, if they had not been convinced, at least to some extent, they would not have been able to dedicate their lives and do so much for Srila Prabhupada. So, rather than seeing conviction as a digital one or zero progression, we need to see conviction as an analog progression. If we are reasonably convinced about Krishna’s divinity and supremacy, then we can surely take steps forward in our spiritual life – be it becoming a brahmachari or taking saffron – and that conviction will gradually deepen.

However, if one has serious reservations, like one may cite other purana and not accept Lord Krishna’s divinity and supremacy and says something else, then that is a different issue. But for somebody who has already become a brahmachari and has been serving in the movement for a good amount of time, there should not be any major doubt about their accepting Krishna’s supremacy. One may be at a level where if somebody very learned in scriptures brings up some contrary quotes about Lord Shiva being supreme or Goddess Devi being supreme, one may not know how to answer it, though this is unlikely to disturb one’s personal convictions. The Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu says madhyama-adhikari platform is where one is convinced; one’s faith is not disturbed but one may not know how to respond to arguments. The uttama-adhikari platform is where one knows how to respond to arguments as well as inspire people to come closer towards Krishna.
We should have some basic conviction that the person to whom we are dedicating our life is the ultimate lord of our heart and we are not just rejecting the world and its love but we are directing our love to the original and the best object of love. With that conviction, one can say no to the worldly temptations with a greater firmness and not with reluctance or half-heartedness.

Therefore, we do need some basic conviction. However, instead of making that conviction as a digital one-zero thing, we should give it a proper philosophical context. We should understand the principle that we are to redirect our love, especially even more intensely in the renounced order compared to other ashrams. For doing the effort of sadhana bhakti, we need commitment and for that commitment, we need the conviction that Krishna is the supreme Lord. He is the lord of our heart. However, not having this conviction cent-percent, should not deter us to dedicate our life to Krishna.

End of transcription.

The post Should one take saffron only when one is convinced that Krishna is God? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcription :

Transcriber: Suresh Gupta

Editor: Raji Nachiappan

Question: How can we distribute our time between hearing and chanting?

Answer: The essence of bhakti is neither hearing nor chanting. Rather, it is remembering Krishna.
smartavyaḥ satataṁ viṣṇur vismartavyo na jātucit
sarve vidhi-niṣedhāḥ syur etayor eva kiṅkarāḥ
(CC Madya Lila 22.113)

Krishna is the origin of Lord Vishu. He should always be remembered and never forgotten at any time. All the rules and prohibitions mentioned in the shastras should be the servants of these two principles.

Therefore, the purpose of all those rules and regulations is to always to remember Krishna and never forget Krishna. Hence, both hearing and chanting are meant to help us remember Krishna. Chanting is the yuga dharma, and we definitely have a prescribed number of rounds to chant. At the same time, chanting can very easily become mechanical if there is not adequate intellectual conviction for chanting. Intellectual conviction or spiritual inspiration for chanting comes largely by hearing.

Bhakti is a whole culture and there are so many activities which are done for Krishna. Chanting is important but we do not have to reduce all of bhakti to chanting alone. There is room for individuality in bhakti. There may be some devotees who may decide that every festival they will chant sixty-four rounds. While that is very good, there is no need for that to be universalised. We all have a prescribed number of rounds to chant and we do that. Beyond that, each of us has to take up individual responsibility, to find out, how best we can connect with Krishna and do that. Some devotees may find chanting very inspiring, while some others find hearing or deity worship or book distribution more inspiring, and devotees can engage in these activities as per their inspiration. Hence, there is prescribed minimum that we do, but just because some devotees practice one limb of bhakti more, that does not mean everybody has to do the same.

Once, Srila Prabhupada was in London which was at that time the European headquarters. Devotees from various parts of Europe like Germany and France came there and were reporting to Srila Prabhupada on how the outreach was progressing in their respective places. There was one devotee, Ishan Prabhu, who felt that everybody had something to do for Srila Prabhupada but that he did not have anything to do. Then, he went to Srila Prabhupada and asked Prabhupada what he could do for him. Prabhupada asked “What do you want to do?”. Ishan prabhu replied that he will do whatever Prabhupada tells him to do. Prabhupada insisted and asked him what he wanted to do for Krishna. Ishan prabhu thought Prabhupada was testing him, and he again replied that he will do whatever Prabhupada tells him to do. Prabhupada then told him to understand our philosophy and our philosophy entails that we find out what we want to do and then do it for Krishna.

Ishan prabhu thought about it. Next day he came to Prabhupada and said, “We have these mridangas that we bring from India and often they fall and break. Getting new mridangas from India are very difficult. Hence, I was thinking that we can make mridangas here in the west itself, using other materials which will be steadier and hence will not break”. Prabhupada was very happy. Prabhupad said, “Very good. Your western godbrothers are very passionate. So, make the mridangas so strong that even if they throw them down, they will not break.”

Therefore, the point is that at one level, we have to follow the instructions of spiritual master. That is true, however one instruction of spiritual master is to always remember Krishna. Hence, we have to find out how we can always remember Krishna. In general, there are many limbs of bhakti and we cannot connect with Krishna, with equal intensity through all the limbs. However, the important thing is to connect with Krishna. Yena kena prakarena manah kṛishne niveshayet – One should fix his mind on Krishna by any means. Hence, if we can find one limb of bhakti by which we can intensely connect with Krishna, then through that our purification will happen rapidly. As a result, when we experience Krishna more and more, we will be able to connect to Krishna through the other limbs of bhakti also.

Hearing specifically gives us two things, intellectual conviction and spiritual inspiration for chanting. Before chanting, even if we just take a few minutes, to read relevant scriptural verses about chanting or if we read a holy name meditation, then we find that our chanting becomes much better. Therefore, we should not reduce bhakti down to some externals, whether it is hearing or chanting or something else. Bhakti essentially is remembrance of Krishna and hearing, chanting, deity worship etc. are all meant to help us remember Krishna.

Smaranam is a limb of bhakti and it is also the essence of bhakti. One particular activity within bhakti is that we just absorb ourselves in remembrance. However, that activity of remembrance can be done through various other forms also and that is the essence. Only when we are hearing, our chanting will have quality and we will be able to connect with Krishna. Otherwise, our chanting basically becomes a counting game. We start wondering whether our mala has 108 beads or 1008 beads. Therefore, if we start feeling that chanting has become a boredom or a burden, that means that our hearing has gone down. Investing a little time in hearing will give us a lot more substance to bring spiritual experience in our chanting.

If we chant regularly, either because we have taken vows during our initiation ceremony or even otherwise, we are going to spend some time for the activity of chanting. Therefore, why let ourselves underuse that time by not being attentive? For example, if someone wants to build muscles, then he or she may lift weights. By lifting weights, the person will be able to build their muscles. However, if the person goes to the gymnasium and thinks that the lifting of weights is very painful, and hence, they decide to just move their hands up and down without the weights. By moving the hands up and down and the person may move them for a long time, no muscles are going to be built. Therefore, the whole purpose of bhakti is to expand our consciousness to become Krishna conscious. We want to lift Krishna in our consciousness through chanting. However, if while we are uttering the holy name, we are not remembering Krishna, then it is just like lifting the hand up and down without any weights. There will be some benefit because at least the sound of the holy name is being uttered but it is minimal benefit. Therefore, when we hear, then we remember Krishna and we get reasons for remembering Krishna. Then our chanting becomes more inspired and more convincing that way. The specific balance between hearing and chanting will vary from individual to individual.

We find what inspires us the most and do that. Through that inspiration, we bring spiritual strength in our chanting. Important is how we connect with Krishna and not which specific form of bhakti we use to connect. Since, hearing gives us the rationale to connect with Krishna, that is why it is the foundation. Srila Prabhupada also writes that, the essence of spiritual life, begins with hearing. Therefore, only when we hear we will get the inspiration and conviction to chant nicely.

End of transcription.

The post How can we distribute our time between hearing and chanting? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcription :

Transcribed by: Suresh Gupta

Edited by: Raji Nachiappan

Question: Do the modes come from Krishna or from prakriti?
Bhagavad Gita 7.12 says that modes of nature comes from Lord, but 13.20 says that modes comes from prakriti, how do we reconcile this contradiction?

Answer: Both statements are true. The different levels of causation are being described here. For example, we can say that a child comes from its parents and that is true. At the same time, we can also say that the child comes from Krishna. That is also true because Krishna is the ultimate cause. Therefore, the ultimate cause and immediate cause are not contradictory, rather they are complementary.

Similarly, if we look at the context in the seventh chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, which Prabhupada titles as Knowledge of the Absolute, Krishna focuses on showing the connection of everything with him. Hence, he says that material nature and the modes of material nature, come from him.

If we look at the thirteenth chapter, Krishna says prakritim purusham chaiva viddhy anadi ubhav api vikaramsh ca gunamsh chaiva viddhi prakriti-sambhavan (13.20) – (Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature). Earlier also in thirteenth chapter verse 6 and 7, Krishna talks about various material elements coming from material nature. Here, Krishna is discussing in terms of the sankhya frame of analysis, wherein everything is being analysed in terms of purusha and prakriti. Therefore, the material gunas which comprise material nature, are said to come from prakriti. For that purpose, Krishna states that the gunas, come from prakriti.

The conventional sankhya focuses primarily on the analysis in terms of purusha and prakriti. The Bhagavad-gita presents the analysis in a devotional perspective by describing the presence of prakriti, purusha and the Purshottama and establishing that the Purushottama is the source of both purusha and prakriti. Krishna has mentioned earlier in seventh chapter that he possesses two prakritis – para and apara prakriti.

Hence, the point here is that there is no contradiction between the two because they are talking about different levels of origin. At the ultimate level, the modes come from Krishna and at the level of sankhya analysis, the modes come from prakriti.

End of transcription.

The post Do the modes come from Krishna or from prakriti? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcription :

Transcription: Suresh Gupta

Editing: Sharan Shetty

Question: When an eye for an eye will make everyone blind, why does the Gita teach that?

Answer: Bhagavad-gita does not teach the philosophy of “an eye for an eye”. Rather, it teaches that we should act out of spiritual love and do whatever that is best for the expression of ours and others spiritual love. Krishna told Arjuna to fight the battle not just to avenge the wrongs done to him by Duryodhana but because Duryodhana was disrupting society, disrupting dharma and taking all of society towards adharma which was causing distress, disorder and disaster. Focusing on this point, “an eye for an eye will make everyone blind” reminds us of a respected Indian spiritual teacher who adapted this biblical saying which in simple term means “Tit for Tat”. For such sayings, there is a time and a place where they can be applied and there is also a time, place, circumstance where this philosophy will not apply. For example, when two people are having a street fight and both fight with each other and break each other’s teeth, both will become toothless. But if there is a larger interest involved, in the sense, that there are two states and each state is trying to conquer the other state. If one state attacks and the other state stays silent then the first state will become more and more threatening. Rather, if the first state hits and the other state hits back as harder as it can, and this goes on for a while then essentially it will lead to both states becoming cautious of each other and leading to deterrence. Deterrence means a state may avoid an attack thinking it can lead to a counter-attack but if there is no hitting back from the state which is being attacked, then the attacking state will exploit, destroy, dominate or even enslave the other state and there will be complete misery for the ruler who was submissive. For example, Hitler was on a rampage, tormenting the Jews and this Indian leader wrote him a letter asking him to not fight and tried to bring out the nobility within him, but it was in vain. There are some people who are so despotic that when they see someone surrender to them, they do not see that as an opportunity for expressing compassion but rather as an opportunity for expressing domination. Such people see surrender as weakness and a reason to destroy. Thus, when there are small petty trifles and if we start thinking of avenging each and every one of them then there will be continuous animosity and it will degrade the relationship of both people. But when one of the parties is anyway hostile and exploitative, the relationship between them will remain hostile at some level. In a situation where a husband and a wife are living together or two brothers or two sisters are living together in a family, “an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth” is going to create continuous animosity and therefore they will need to overlook the small faults since they have to live together but say if we have a situation of countries like India and Pakistan where Pakistan keeps provoking and provoking and India keeps tolerating and enduring passively then Pakistan will become more brazen leading to a continuous and growing threat of terrorism, insurgency, violence in India. But when India hits back, Pakistan will understand that it should avoid posing any threat and be careful, else India may hit back harder. I am not recommending a war against Pakistan but simply pointing out, that in real politics, the simplistic forgiving attitude will simply lead to self-destruction.

The Bhagwad Gita teaching is that if there can be individual morality then that must be separated from social or state morality. For example, in Chapter 18, when Krishna talks about the qualities of people in different varnas, he describes kshama – forgiveness as one of the characteristics of brahmanas but when he is talking about kshatriyas he says (BG 18.43), yuddhe capy apalayanam – courage in battle as one of their characteristics. Why is this difference? Because the brahmanas at the individual level can be forgiving, but if a king at state level is forgiving, that will lead to transgressors exploiting, dominating, destroying the kingdom. This misconceived sense of charitability or forgiveness cannot be used when the opponent is hostile and bound to exploit and dominate. In history, many Indian kings who were indiscriminately forgiving thought they were very dharmic but unfortunately they did not understand the serving of dharma. They did not understand that kshatriya dharma and brahmana dharma are to be very different. Often the invaders used this forgiveness for their benefit and came back attacking. Each time they were forgiven, they repeatedly came back and attacked and eventually when they conquered, they did not forgive, they slaughtered.

The point is, certainly Bhagwad Gita is not a book which calls for violence. It is very clear about morality and codes of war. The battle took place on a war field between two armies who were prepared, equipped and trained to fight without causing any harm to innocent civilians. It in no way propagates terrorism in the name of religion where terrorists kill defenceless, innocent and unsuspecting people, such a thing is completely against any principle of dharma. Now a brahmana, who is not having a state position, can be forgiving at an individual level, but such a thing can be disastrous at state level because at the state level there are actions which affect the entire kingdom. Therefore, if a king forgives the aggressor and the aggressor attacks and destroys the king and lays pillage on the whole kingdom then sense of forgiveness is mistaken. The real world is such, that a king needs to use force – sometimes to punish criminals within and sometimes to attack and counterattack invaders from without.

Therefore, “an eye for an eye” when it is used in petty trifles among people living together in a family or in a close setting, then it leads to escalation of hostilities but when there is aggression between two states, at that time, the possible strategy of counter-attacking helps in creating deterrence and prevents the escalation of hostility and violence in that situation. Hence, the dharma of a brahmana is different from the dharma of a kshatriya. Forgiveness is the dharma of brahmana and fearlessness in terms of not fleeing from a fight and being willing to fight when necessary for the sake of protection, that is the characteristic of a kshatriya.

To summarise, the Bhagwad Gita does not recommend indiscriminate violence nor does it recommend revengeful attitude like “an eye for an eye” or “a tooth for a tooth” rather the Bhagwad Gita talks about doing whatever it takes to establish dharma and to keep those who are opponents of dharma out of power.

End of transcription.

The post When an eye for an eye will make everyone blind, why does the Gita teach that? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcription :

Transcription: Suresh Gupta

Editing: Sharan Shetty

Question: If bhakti is the conclusion of the Vedas, shouldn’t the Vedas be filled with bhakti?

Answer: There are three different things – Summary, Conclusion and the Essence. Summary is more like a briefly re-telling of what has been told. Certainly, bhakti is not a summary of the Vedas because the Vedas contain a variety of things. Usually, conclusion is thought of as something which is spoken at the end but that may not necessarily be a conclusion. When things are told in a sequence, there might be some concluding points but sometimes concluding points of the class may not be the most striking points. For example, speaker may tell some stories and then conclude the class. Now within the story some striking points may have been told and that might have an emphasis, however, that might not be repeated again in the conclusion. If there is an explicit call for action given at the end, then we can say it is a conclusion otherwise the conclusion does not necessarily come at the end. There is chronological conclusion which comes at the end but what is to be primarily told that may not come at the end, it may come somewhere in the middle also.

Now, essence means that which is the crux which the speaker wanted to speak.

To identify the essence is very difficult. Srila Jiva Gosvami in his sandarbhas takes a traditional tool which is called as taatparya linga where linga means “symbol” and taatparya means “meaning”. Therefore, taatparya linga means “markers of meaning” and he uses it to explain how one can know the meaning of a book. They are:
i. Upakrama – Beginning or commencement
ii. Upasamhara – Conclusion
iii. Abhyasa – That which is repeated, reiteration
iv. Apurvata – Uniqueness or novelty, special example not told anywhere else
v. Phala – Fruit that is promised

Srila Jiva Goswami says that by looking at these markers, we can understand what the essential message of a book is. He does an elaborate analysis in the sandarbhas and first talks of Srimad Bhagavtam as the essence of Vedas. He says Srimad Bhagavatam is sarva pramanam chakravarti (emperor of all evidences). After that he talks about how Srimad Bhagavatam’s conclusion is pure devotion to Krishna. He uses these five tools to explain this point.

Apart from these five tools, the essence is something which requires our thoughts to understand it and guidance to do it correctly. It may even require Lord Krishna’s mercy in terms of revelation. To understand the essence, we see it from the perspective of the author and the originator. The author of Vedas is Srila Vyasadeva. It is known that Vyasadeva put the entire Vedas in written form but at the end he was not satisfied by it (explained in Srimad Bhagavatam). Finally, when he compiled the Srimad Bhagavatam in written form, at that time he became satisfied (yayatma suprasidati). Therefore, from the author’s perspective, we see that the essence is pure devotion or bhakti. Ultimately, as Vedas are coming from God, that same Supreme Lord is speaking the Bhagavad-gita in which he says, sarva dharman parityajya mam ekam sharanam vraja (BG 18.66). Apart from Srila Jiva Goswami’s sandarbhas there are many other perspectives pointing towards the same essence.

If we just go by the numerical quantity, we will not find that the Vedas talk so much about bhakti. However, the essence is not always to be understood through numerical count. There are different ways in which the essence can be understood and here the numerical count can be misleading. Vedas are also reflecting what they are fulfilling i.e. human desires which are mostly material. So, naturally Vedas talk about the material things. Thus, we can recognise from the author and the original source, what is the essential message. Although there are talks about karma kanda but one should go beyond as explained in BG 2.45, trai gunya visaya veda nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna (the Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes). That is the essence which Lord Krishna speaks. Bhakti and Krishna are essence not in the sense of numerical quantity but as the ultimate purpose.

End of transcription.

The post If bhakti is the conclusion of the Vedas, shouldn;t the Vedas be filled with bhakti? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcription :

Transcription: Suresh Gupta

Editing: Sharan Shetty

bQuestion: How do we give up bad habits?

Answer: There are two aspects about changing habits – (i) rejection (ii) replacement.
Rejection of a habit is usually difficult whereas replacement is much easier. In general, the process of bhakti, focuses, not so much on rejection but on replacement. Some spiritualists reject things by focus on what they will not do. Srimad Bhagavatam (4.22.39) mentions that the jnanis and yogis try to stop the waves of sense gratification but cannot do so as it is very difficult for them.

When we try not think about something, it only increases our craving to do it. Therefore, we need some positive focus. We replace the negative habits with positive ones. Rather than rejecting bad habits we focus more on cultivating positive habits by (i) externally filling our schedule with positive activities (ii) internally filling the mind with positive thoughts. By doing so the old habits will fall away. However, this is a gradual process.

While doing this, we need to be patient. There is no instant cure for habits. We can create two kinds of supports for ourselves: (i) pushers towards the positive (ii) blockers from the negative.
“Pushers towards the positive” means that we should have a circle of friends, where we push each other towards the positive habits e.g. association of devotees, reading scriptures, mantra meditation etc. Along with pushers, we also need “blockers from negative”, which will block any opportunity for indulging in those habits which we want to break. For example, if somebody is addicted to alcohol, he should avoid mixing with the alcoholics. If someone has the habit of surfing wrong websites, then one can add filters or turn on firewalls.

Therefore, by filling our life with positive activities and by creating some pushers towards the positive and blockers from the negative, we will find it easier to replace the bad habits with good ones.

End of transcription.

The post How do we give up bad habits? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcriber: Dr Suresh Gupta

Edited by: Sharan Shetty

Question: What is the difference between destiny and freewill?

Answer: What happens to us is our destiny, how we respond to it is our free will.

Our life is determined less by what happens to us and more by how we respond to it because destiny determines the consequence of our actions, not our actions itself.
Destiny is about things which are not in our control whereas freewill is about what is in our control. We cannot determine what is going to happen, but we always have the option to choose our responses.

The more spiritual we become the more freedom we have to choose responsibly. This is because our freewill is maximised due to our connection with God which frees us from dependence on circumstance. When we are depended on circumstances, our options to choose are limited. For example, if a very ego-centred person feels insulted by someone then he constantly thinks about the insult. He uses his free will to come up with numerous ways to get back to the person to make him suffer. The thought process of such a person becomes constricted and filled with negative focus. However, if the same person is practising spiritual consciousness, then he is likely to use his free will to think maturely that although the person insulted me there is no need to let the negative thoughts dominate me.

In this case, destiny was that somebody insulted the person although he did not do anything wrong. His freewill was to choose between (i) there is no need to dwell on that person or (ii) get into a vengeance complex. A spiritual person would use his free will more constructively by choosing to respond appropriately and eventually move on with his life. Free will shapes how we respond to events, and destiny determines what events will happen in our life.

End of transcription.

The post What is the difference between destiny and free will? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

The post How can scripture be understood relevantly without deviant interpretations? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.