Download by “right-click and save”

Transcription by: Sriman (Dr) Suresh Gupta Prabhu (Muzaffarnagar)

Question: How is mantra meditation different from other forms of meditation?

Answer: Firstly, any form of meditation is beneficial in terms of deepening our thinking, understanding and appreciation of the nature of things. The word “meditation” is typically used in two different ways – (i) general (ii) technical. In a general sense, often meditation refers to any form of deep thinking, e.g. a person may read a book and may get lost in it. Later he would refer to his experience as, “I was meditating on the book”. However, if we consider spirituality, then meditation does not have a general sense but a technical sense. Just like the word “energy” can have a general sense and a technical sense, e.g. a scientist performs an experiment in the laboratory which requires thermal or chemical energy. If the energy source gets exhausted, the scientist may say, “Oh, I have run out of energy”. Later, after a long day’s work, when the scientist comes back home tired, he may exclaim, “Oh, I have run out of energy”. Here, the same word “energy” is used but in two different senses. In the lab, the scientist uses word “energy” in a technical sense whereas at home it is referred in a general sense.

Similarly, meditation in general sense can refer to any form of deep thinking but in a spiritual context, meditation has a technical meaning which refers to the process by which we shift our consciousness from the changing material to the unchanging spiritual. We draw our mind away from material things and focus on spiritual things. For starting this journey, many different objects may be used. Some people may start meditating on the candle or some natural scenery, some source of light or a spot on the wall. In such forms of meditation, one’s capacity to concentrate depends primarily on one’s own will power. Since the mind is extremely restless, such meditation often becomes a demanding task especially if it needs to be sustained for long period of time.

Meditation is a process which take our consciousness from material to spiritual reality where it elevates our consciousness upwards. The various forms of meditation (other than mantra meditation) are like climbing the stairs to go up in a multi-storey building. The stairs take us up, but it requires effort. On the other hand, mantra meditation is like entering an elevator. When we chant mantras, specifically the mantras that invoke the supreme consciousness, for example, the Hare Krishna mahamantra, this connects us with the Absolute Truth. When we prayerfully, reverentially, attentively utter the sound vibration of holy names then the infinite power of the infinite consciousness is invoked and that power aids us in raising our consciousness upwards. Just as in an elevator there is a power (the electric power) other than ours which raises us up, easily and swiftly, similarly, when we practice mantra meditation then the omnipotence of infinite consciousness raises our consciousness upwards easily and rapidly. That is why, mantra meditation is considered to be the most joyful and efficacious form of meditation among all because it gives us a tool, i.e. spiritual sound, which acts like an elevator enabling the ascent of consciousness. Hence, by chanting mantras we connect with the Absolute Truth, experience joy along with elevation of consciousness and experience it all very quickly and effectively.

Endo of transcription.

The post How is mantra meditation different from other forms of meditation? 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.

प्रश्न – कर्म क्या है? क्या कर्म और कर्तव्य समान हैं? एक छात्र होने के नाते मेरा कर्तव्य क्या है?

उत्तर – “कर्म” शब्द के चार अर्थ हो सकते हैं।

पहला, हम जो भी कार्य करते हैं उसे कर्म कहते हैं। कोई भी ऐसा कार्य जो बीज उत्पन्न करता है, जिसका फल हमें भुगतना होता है, वह कर्म कहलाता है।
दूसरा, “कर्म” का एक अन्य अर्थ “कर्मफल” भी होता है। यह कर्मफल हमें अपने किसी पूर्व में किए कार्य की प्रतिक्रिया के रूप में प्राप्त होता है। उदाहरणार्थ, जैसे कई बार लोग कहते हैं – “मैं अपने कर्म का फल भुगत रहा हूँ।“
तीसरा, कई बार हम “कर्म के सिद्धांत” को भी मात्र “कर्म” कह देते हैं।

चौथा, शास्त्र के अनुसार किए गए “कर्तव्य कर्म” को भी “कर्म” (अथवा सत्कर्म) कह दिया जाता है। “कर्म” का यह अर्थ पहली श्रेणी के अर्थ से ही सम्बंधित है। इसके अंतर्गत सत्कार्य अथवा नैतिक कार्य आते हैं जो शास्त्रसम्मत होते हैं। इन कार्यों का फल अच्छा होता है। इसका विपरीत शब्द है “विकर्म” जिसका अर्थ है “बुरे कार्य” जिनका फल बुरा होता है। “कर्म” और “विकर्म” के अतिरिक्त एक अन्य मिलता जुलता शब्द है “अकर्म” जिसका अर्थ होता है ऐसे कर्म जिनकी कोई प्रतिक्रया नहीं होती। इसके अंतर्गत दैवीय अथवा आध्यात्मिक कार्य आते हैं।

कर्तव्य और कर्म समान हो सकते हैं, यदि “कर्म” शब्द का चौथा अर्थ लिया जाए। हमें अपने कर्तव्यों का ज्ञान शास्त्रों से प्राप्त होता है। इसके अतिरिक्त, यदि हम कोई कार्य करते हैं और हमारी अंतरात्मा संतुष्ट हो तो ऐसा कार्य भी कर्तव्य की श्रेणी में कहा जा सकता है।

छात्र होने के नाते हमारे कर्तव्य क्या हैं यह समझने के लिए हमें पहले यह समझना होगा कि हमारे जीवन के दो पक्ष होते हैं – (i) भौतिक (ii) आध्यात्मिक।

हम एक आध्यात्मिक जीव हैं जो भौतिक प्रकृति में एक स्थूल शरीर में निवास कर रहे हैं। चूँकि हमारे जीवन के दो पक्ष हैं इसलिए हमारे कर्तव्य भी दो अलग-अलग हैं।

भौतिक दृष्टि से एक छात्र होने के कारण हमारा कर्तव्य यह होगा कि हम मन लगाकर पढ़ाई करें, एक अच्छे व्यवसाय में लगें, और अपनी भविष्य की जिम्मेदारियों को ठीक से निभाऐं। इसे नैमित्तिक स्वधर्म भी कहा जाता है।

आध्यात्मिक दृष्टि से हम भगवान श्रीकृष्ण के अंश हैं अर्थात हम उनके सेवक हैं। यह हमारा नित्य अथवा शाश्वत स्वधर्म है। एक छात्र होने के नाते हमारा कर्तव्य श्रीकृष्ण की सेवा करना भी है। जैसे भक्तों का संग, शास्त्रों का अध्ययन, भगवन्नाम जप, भगवान को भोग लगाकर भोजन करना।

हमें अपने भौतिक और आध्यात्मिक कर्तव्यों में एक संतुलन बनाकर रखना चाहिए। इस संतुलन को कैसे बनाना है यह हम भक्तों के संग से सीख सकते हैं।

End of transcription.

The post What is Karma? Is kartavya and karma same? As a student what are my karma and kartavya? – Hindi appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcription :

Transcriber: Suresh Gupta

Question: Why is the Vedic Sanskrit and Puranic Sanskrit different?

Answer: The Sanskrit is different because the two bodies of knowledge are addressed to different people.

Vedas primarily consist of karma kanda or jnana kanda where the primary focus is always on the rituals and thus, the literal recitation of the words is more important. That is why, the grammatical form is preserved in a very specific way in the lineage of panditas who recite Vedic scriptures such as Rigveda where the precise pronunciation is very important. In the Puranas, the primary focus is not just on the literal recitation, it is also in the meaning.

Puranas are part of the body of literature called smriti and Vedas are part of shruti. Since the purpose is different, the use of Sanskrit changes. More importantly, we also need to look at the context. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was asked, why the language of Puranas is more recent. He answered, “A person will change his dress according to the environment, climate and situation, similarly the same essential knowledge is presented according to time, place and circumstance. The focus of the Puranas is on understanding hence, the Sanskrit in them is relatively simpler. When the language is for recitational purpose (in terms of precise recitation) and not so much for comprehension then the ornamental form is considered more important.”

Although the Puranas are simpler and the Sanskrit of the Vedas is slightly different, if we look at Srimad Bhagavatam, its Sanskrit is much more Vedic than Puranic. The verse meter, the verses, the grammar and the structure are actually not of the typical Puranic genre, it is much more sophisticated. The reason is, it is spotless Purana (amala purana), where the conclusion of all the body of Vedic literature (the Vedas and the Puranas) is brought together. If somebody argues that earlier the language was very pure and later it became simpler, we can suggest that the Srimad Bhagavatam is the last of the Vedic literature and its language is so lofty.

The more important point is that if we look at the characters – Indra, Chandra, Surya, Agni, all of them are mentioned in the Vedas as well as the Puranas. We can infer a few things about them based on the generic connotation but more detailed description and stories about them come in the Puranas. If the Vedas and the Puranas are completely disconnected body of knowledge then why are the characters same, it is because, the Vedas are focussing more on karma kanda whereas the Puranas focus more on bhakti. Although some characters may be new, but the main essential characters are the same and overall the cultural context is also the same. Yajna, sacrifices, mantras etc. are mentioned in the Vedas as well as in the Puranas. But the essential point from the perspective of Vaishnav Acharyas is that there is continuity.

If we consider the analogy of Y axis, it contains – negative, zero and positive. Godless material life is like being in the negative axis. When we move forward towards Godly life then it is like moving upwards in the negative Y axis. This Godly material life is karma kanda. Moving upwards we come to point zero which are the Upanishadas. There one understands that he is different from his material form and gets hint of a spiritual form. Further, in the positive axis, there are the Puranas and especially the Bhagavat Purana which talks about spiritual forms, spiritual personalities, spiritual activities etc. and in that way there is continuity in the development of thought.

One important thing we need to understand about language is that, just because a person knows a language, it does not mean that the person understands everything written in that language. Assume there is a book about ancient medicines written in Chinese and there is a Chinese physician who has studied that book and has cured thousands of patients, based on that book. Later, this physician learns English and translates the book into English. On the other hand, there is another person, who is an English scholar linguist. This person learns Chinese and becomes a scholar in both English and Chinese and then translates the Chinese book on ancient medicine into English. Now, which book do you think will be more reliable? Naturally the one by Chinese physician, because he has the experience of curing the patients.

The point is, for study of ancient medicines, a separate kind of training is required. Similarly, mere knowledge of Sanskrit is not enough to understand the import, depth and continuity of Vedic literature. To understand these fully, one has to be like a spiritual doctor and such a person is referred to as Guru. Thus, all the scholars, as far as their linguistic skills or academic diligence are concerned, they can be respected but as far as their capacity to transform themselves or others through spiritual wisdom, it is actually near zero. For them these Vedic scriptures are not transformational books but just nonhistorical or mythological books. Hence, despite their scholarship, they do not see these books as a means for personal transformation. However, the acharyas are like the Chinese physician who have treated the material disease and transformed the lives of thousands of people. One example is the life of Srila Prabhupada who learned and presented this Vedic knowledge in English and transformed people all over the world.

Hence, we have to understand that if our objective in studying scripture is to become a better human being, a better devotee or more self-empowered person, then we should study from those, who are studying the book with the same perspective. That is why, it is accepted that there is a difference between the Vedas and the Puranas, but the reason is that the target audience is different, the subject matter is different, the thrust of the subject matter is different. However, we see that the characters and many of the themes are same. Traditional acharyas who have been teaching this body of knowledge, they see that there is continuity – from material form to formlessness and then to spiritual form. When we understand this continuity, we realise that these are continuous and harmonious bodies of evolving spiritual knowledge.

End of transcription.

The post Why is the Vedic Sanskrit and Puranic Sanskrit different? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

The post During animal sacrifices in Vedic times, did the animals experience pain – what was the rationale for such sacrifices? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

The post Where do butchers and prostitutes fall among the four varnas – are they outcastes? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

The post What does follow your heart mean – does it involve the conscience or the soul? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Is Maya one of the characteristics of the three modes of nature – the capacity to cover one’s ability to perceive the truth (avarna sakthi) and the capacity to projects other than the truth (viksepa sakti)? Is the mind the manifestation of this maya energy?

To hear the answer podcast, please click here

Transcription :

Transcriber: Keshavgopal Das

Question: What is the relationship between Maya and the three modes of nature?

Answer: In scriptures, the word Maya is used differently depending upon the context. I will try to answer in principle from a broader perspective.

From linguistic point of view, Maya means “that (ya) which is not (ma)”. That means our ascribing to a property to an object which is not there in it. Maya does not mean that nothing exists. What Maya means is that we think of an object as something which the object is not. For example, when there is a mirage, a person may see water in a desert. It is not that the water or desert is not a reality, but seeing the water in a desert when the water is not present there is due to illusion. Similarly, thinking of material (temporary) to be spiritual (eternal) is an illusion (or Maya). Both material and spiritual are real, but to ascribe the property of one to the other is an illusion.

From the perspective of implementation mechanism, i.e. how this illusion is brought about, there is a complete process involve in it. In that process, Maya, three modes of material nature, mind form a hierarchy in the chain of command. You may have seen a picture in Bhagavad-gita, where three females are holding ropes and moving people around. So, these female personalities holding ropes are the modes. Maya Devi acts through these three females on our mind. From functional point of view, Maya and mind are non-different.

When we say somebody is falling in Maya, it means that the person’s mind is deluding the person. It is not that there is some place called Maya and the person is falling into a ditch. From ontological point of view, (ontology means what really exists), mind and Maya are different. Mind is subtle material energy of Krishna, which exists as part of our subtle body. Whereas Maya is another energy of Krishna, a very powerful demigoddess who is a person. She is not subtle matter, but a conscious living being. She is the consort of Lord Shiva. She is also the devotee of Supreme Lord. Her service to Krishna is to purify us by tempting us in the wrong direction to make us realize the futility of succumbing to the wrong temptations.

Maya acts upon us through three modes of material nature. Mode of goodness covers us in a certain way and make us think of as someone and makes us desirable of certain things. In mode of goodness, I can think myself as an intellectual, as a scholar, and start thinking that when I go around the world, I can impress people, and when people praise me then I feel so wonderful. If I am in passion, then I may start thinking that I am young, I need this to enjoy. When I am in ignorance, I just think that my body is so tired, and I just need to sleep. The modes shape our perception of who we are and what we think is desirable in this world.

How does this work out? From Vedic philosophical context, there are different classifications used for different purposes. One way of classification is sattva, rajas, tamas. Another classification is avaranatmika and prakshepatmika (or vikshepa) shakti. Each mode brings about a different kind of covering (avarana) and a different kind of throwing (prakshepa) into material existence. When a person is covered by goodness, there is a particular kind of self-conception, which is not necessarily enlightenment or spiritual. If a person is properly in goodness and guided by scripture, the person can think that he is a soul, servant of Krishna. Goodness, which is not necessarily God loving, that can still have a material conception that I am an intellectual. Getting awards, recognition is the prakshepatmika shakti. Avaranatmika makes us forget and prakshepatmika makes us think what is desirable for me. Both avaranatmika and prakshepatmika are intrinsic within each mode. Each mode creates an avarana and prakshepa.

In general, it is not a sound policy to superimpose different taxonomical schemes over each other (taxonomy means “a system of classification”). In Srimad Bhagavatam, 11th canto, Uddhava-gita, Krishna talks about sankhya. He says that different rishis analyse the world in a different way. This way they exhibit intelligence which is ultimately given by me. I am pleased by this. Some sankhya philosophers may say that there are twenty-four elements, some may say sixteen, some may say eight. If all these ultimately help people to become detached, and they help people to transcend the world and come back to Krishna, then Krishna is happy with that intelligence. Hence, these are two taxonomical schemata, and superimposing them creates confusion.

If we want to superimpose, then in general, every mode creates its own avarana and prakshepa. The mode is not a harmonious thing. Within the same mode, different people may have different type of avarana and prakshepa. One person in mode of passion may conceive of primarily as a male and may want to chase a female. Another person in mode of passion may have an avarana thinking that I am a millionaire and want to become a billionaire. It may vary according to person to person. Its better to classify them as two different classification schemata. One is talking about the way modes shape our perception and response and the other is talking about how the soul come under illusion.

If we want to take it entirely separately, avaranatmika simply means that we forget that we are souls or servant of Krishna, and prakshepatmika means we get another identity (e.g. I am Indian, male etc.). Whatever is the system, there is a hierarchy. Soul is covered by the mind, mind deludes the soul through the temptations, mind is influenced by the modes, and the modes are under the control of Maya Devi, and she is under the control of Krishna. If we surrender to Krishna, then we become free from the troubles of our mind. Krishna instructs Maya and she stops tempting and alluring us and the mind stop pestering us. That is why Krishna instructs us to surrender to Him and go beyond the influence of Maya.

End of transcription.

The post What is the relationship between Maya and the Three Modes of Nature? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Download by “right-click and save content”

Transcription :

Transcription: Suresh Gupta

Question: How do we reconcile Bhagavatam cosmology with scientific cosmology? For example, Bhagavatam cosmology talks about fourteen planetary systems whereas we have nine or ten planets, so how do we reconcile this?

Answer: We have a very simplistic notion of the cosmology that is given and explained in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Usually we say, heaven is up but if the earth is round and America and India are more or less on opposite sides of the earth then the question would arise – is the heaven above America or is it above India? There are two upper opposites. When the scriptures talk about heaven being up, that is not a simplistic geographical “up”. The Bhagavatam is talking about different levels of the cosmos. There are different levels of reality in the universe and we live at a particular level of reality. Within the Indian knowledge of cosmology, there are two broad systems of cosmological knowledge – one is called as Puranic cosmology and the other is called as Jyotisha cosmology. Jyotisha is also called as Siddhantic cosmology and Surya Siddhanta is one famous book from that set of books. Both these give very different vision of the cosmos and if we go to the Jyotisha cosmology, it gives many figures which are very similar to the figures that are in modern cosmology. For example – the distance between the earth and the moon and the earth and the sun as described in Jyotisha cosmology is found to be remarkably similar to what science has found in modern cosmology.

In the same system of knowledge, these two systems of cosmology were very closely connected. Astronomy is the study of planetary distances and astrology is study of their effects on people. For any astrological calculation, even the Vaishnava acharyas or devotee scholars have never used the Bhagavatam cosmology. They all use Jyotisha cosmology which shows that they knew that these two branches of astronomy existed. They themselves had their primary life dedicated to teaching the Bhagavatam, living the teachings of Bhagavatam, explaining the Bhagavatam, but when it came to astrology, they did not use the Bhagavatam cosmology, they used Jyotisha cosmology. What this means is that they too recognised that the Bhagavatam cosmology is not for functional purposes in this world, it is more for a vision of theistic universe (when I say vision, it does not mean that this is just a conception). It is a way of looking at the world which shows how God, devotion, dharma – are all pervading the universe. As far as operating in this universe is concerned, they used Jyotisha cosmology and they never put the two in conflict. Bhagavatam itself describes two important things in Canto 5. First is, studying this will enhance our devotion and second, ultimately because this cosmos manifests the glories of the Lord and since the Lord is infinite and cannot be completely understood, similarly the cosmos cannot be fully understood. Therefore, the Bhagavatam itself is telling that if we do not understand its vision of the cosmos, we do not need to agonise over it too much because the purpose is to enhance our devotion. For functioning in this world, we do use the modern cosmology and there is nothing wrong in that.

We need not position scripture as a competitor of science. Scriptures are primarily about spiritual knowledge, to learn how to evaluate our consciousness. When we position scripture as the competitor of science, we devalue scripture. Scripture has given us spiritual knowledge to elevate our consciousness and Science can give us some material knowledge about how to function in this world. There may be some areas of overlap or some contradictions and how to resolve all of them is for specialist to discuss. I have seminars on this where I have told how good scholars are already working on this but as far as we are concerned, we don’t have to unnecessarily highlight or aggravate this conflict because within the tradition itself there are the example of two different vision of the cosmos and both being used – the Bhagavatam cosmology for increasing ones focus on the Lord and the Jyotisha cosmology being used for doing practical functioning in the world.

Similarly, we can have for modern cosmology and Bhagavatam cosmology.

The Srimad Bhagavatam talking about fourteen planetary systems is talking about cosmos, seen from a different scale of perception, it is not a human centred scale of perception. If whatever Sukadeva Goswami was describing in the Bhagavatam was readily visible to the eyes, then Parikshit Maharaj could have simply looked at the sky and saw it. Sukadeva Goswami is describing it because that is not visible through the naked eyes. It is a different vision of universe, seen from a different scale of observation and the scale of observation can significantly change the object of observation. For example, if we have a chalk and charcoal and we mix them together, we will see grey powder but if we see the same thing under microscope, we would not see grey powder but instead would see black particles and white particles. So, the question arises, what is it really? Is it white particle or black particle or is it grey powder? Well, what it is, depends from where we perceive it.

Therefore, we see the universe a particular way through science which is from our level of perception. The Srimad Bhagavatam gives us another level of perception of the universe and we need not necessarily see them as contradictory because there is a different level and different kind of perception for different purposes.

End of transcription.

The post How do we reconcile Bhagavatam cosmology with scientific cosmology? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

can u explain them with each example.

To hear the answer podcast, please click here

Transcription :

Transcriber: Keshavgopal Das

Question: What are three modes of material nature? Explain with examples.

Answer: Three modes of material nature are three subtle forces that shape the interaction between consciousness and matter. Soul is spiritual and conscious, whereas matter is material and unconscious.

When we come to the material world, we are subjected to life in an alien atmosphere (i.e. spirit soul captured in material body). Soul is spiritual so it needs to take an appropriate material dress when it comes to the material world to interact with it. It is same as when humans go to outer space, they need to wear proper space suits to interact with the environment there. This material dress not only comprises of the gross body (made of earth, water, fire, air, ether) but also the subtle body (made of mind, intelligence and false ego).

Three modes are mode of goodness (sattva), passion (rajas) and ignorance (tamas). The three modes are the ways in which the external world is perceived by us and then based on that perception we have certain emotions which leads to certain actions. Therefore, modes shape our (i) perception and (ii) response towards the world. Let us see an example of each one of these.

Modes affecting perceptions: Visualize three people sitting in a bus. First is in goodness (named Sattva), second in passion (named Rajas) and third in ignorance (named Tamas). Sattva is trying to read a book while traveling in the bus. When the bus bumps, he looks out of window and sees a serene forest with soothing greenery. Sattva thinks, “It would be so nice, if I can just sit under a tree and assimilate the wisdom of this book.” Tamas is watching a movie on his mobile. When the bus bumps, he also sees the same view but thinks, “It would be so nice, if I had one partner, I can frolic, dance, romanticize in this forest.” Tamas, who is trying to sleep, also looks out on bumping of bus. He thinks, “So peaceful. It would be so nice if I can just lie down here and sleep comfortably.” All three people are seeing the same forest, but their responses are entirely different. This is because their perception is shaped by particular modes.

Modes affecting response: Imagine Sattva, Rajas and Tamas are watching a movie in a theatre and a fire breaks out. Tamas suddenly becomes terrified and freezes. Rajas starts running to the exit door to save himself. Sattva looks for a fire extinguisher and attempts to extinguish the fire. The example shows that in ignorance there is neither action, nor reflection. There is just frozen panic. In passion, there is instinctive action, but without much reflection. In goodness, there is action and reflection both. Mode of goodness is the most beneficial for our wellbeing, not only spiritually but also materially.

These modes are to some extent determined by our karma from previous lives, but not entirely. Besides karma, these modes are also dependent on (i) kind of choices we make (ii) the association we keep (iii) culture we expose ourselves to (iv) kind of books we read (v) kind of food we eat (vi) thoughts we cultivate etc. Thus, we can shape the modes based on what we decide to choose again and again. Let us understand with the help of an example.

Imagine, one afternoon we have taken a heavy lunch. We then decide to go to a room for study, but in the room, everybody is sleeping. We now sit down for study on a cosy chair, recline back holding a book and try to read. Naturally, the posture and the environment will lead us to fall in ignorance and soon we will be sleeping. On the other hand, if we eat light, go to a library where everybody is studying seriously for exams, we will also be affected by the environment and will feel inspired to study. The example indicates that by choosing our circumstances, we choose to either succumb to ignorance or go towards goodness. The choices we will make on a regular basis will strengthen a particular mode. If we always choose to sleep in the afternoon, that will become an unbreakable habit in the long run. On the other hand, if we choose to avoid sleeping in the afternoon, we may not even miss it throughout our lives.
Cultivating mode of goodness becomes very easy by following spiritual practices of Krishna consciousness. Mode of goodness make us more effective even in our material life. Regularly choosing activities in mode of goodness will purify our hearts and will even take us beyond material existence.

End of transcription.

The post What are the three modes of material nature? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.