(Gita-2) Our strong tendency to resist the Truth || Acharya Prashant, on Bhagavad Gita (2023)

Acharya Prashant (AP): Śrīmad Bhagavad Gītā , chapter one, verse 21.

We have seen so far, the predicament of the one who finds himself hopelessly caged against the Truth. We have seen the anxiety and the nervousness of Duryodhana in the first half of the first chapter. In spite of having a larger army and more experienced fighters, Duryodhana still is in an internal turmoil. Numbers suggest to him that all is well with his side, yet those numbers he can sense are just a loose mass. There is no center to keep those numbers together, and that's what is making him almost delirious.

He approaches Drona and it is very strange, starts counting to him the names of the warriors on the Pandava side, as if Drona does not know. And having told Drona of the warriors and the strength on the Pandava side, he tells him the Pandavas are well and sufficient in terms of strength—their force is paryāpta , sufficient. And my side, in spite of having fighters like you and the hundred brothers and the invincible Bhisma, we are still insufficient. It's as if in a moment of epiphany, reality has struck Duryodhana. He sees that he has lost out on the one central thing that enables you to fight any war in life. He has missed out on Krishna, even though he always had the opportunity to have him.

In terms of relationship, formal relationship, Krishna and Duryodhana are almost as near as are Krishna and Arjuna, almost. In terms of access too, Duryodhana was never unfortunate or deprived. But he never realized that one central thing that's important in life; therefore, he never knew what to choose. Therefore, he was rather elated when he got Krishna’s army rather than Krishna himself. And even more so, when he learnt that Krishna is not going to pick up weapons during the war. He didn't realize the value of consciousness compared to the value of material.

When it came to choosing between the material that could be had from Krishna and the guidance that could be had from Krishna, he opted for the material; and that's the central mistake each of us makes. Krishna says elsewhere in the Gītā , “You can have either me or my Māyā . These are the only two options that you have. There is no third thing to have. In fact, there is not even a second thing to have, because even the Māyā that you rush after is mine. And the more you will get entangled, embroiled there, the more you will be forced to remember me. After all, it's my Māyā .”

But nevertheless, still most people opt for Māyā , so did Duryodhana. And just before the war is to begin, Duryodhana seems to have realized that he has made an irreversible blunder. So, we see all kinds of scattered and loose statements from him, all denoting a realization of weakness.

Then we come to Arjuna, another case study. What does Duryodhana stand for? Duryodhana stands for someone who has made repeatedly such bad judgments in life, that now it has become practically impossible for him to be redeemed—that's who Duryodhana stands for. That's one extreme of consciousness—a type of consciousness that continuously denies and defies Truth all its life and find itself finally cornered into a spot from where it cannot recover. Even if it has just seen the Truth in a moment, even if it has just realized that it has been making blunders; yet the weight of all the misjudgments in the past is so heavy that it is now just impossible or too late to recover or make amends. That's who Duryodhana stands for.

And it's a very tragic situation, you know. Just when you are at the end of your life, and if Duryodhana can see this much that his forces are insufficient, he can also probably see that all those, including him, who are arranged against Krishna’s side are very near their end, right? If the Duryodhana can see that in spite of having an army that's almost 50% larger than the army of the Pandavas, he is still insufficient and incapable, if he can see that; obviously he can see the clear conclusion as well. And the conclusion is that all of you are going to be finished.

How will it feel to us, when we have lived through several precious decades of life, to realize that it's too late? That realization will be so painful. Let's wish that we never realize at all then. Let's wish that we die in our ignorance without ever having had the realization that Duryodhana is having in the first chapter.

You have invested all your time, energy, money, everything in your existence into a particular centre, into a particular kind of life. And then, in the evening of life, you realize that you have just wasted it all. Please experience it today, before that experience comes too late. If you experience that when you are sixty or seventy or eighty, won't it be too late? So, let's pre-live that experience. Let's put imagination to some useful service. Imagine how would it feel? You are seventy and then you realize that you have totally wasted life. How would it be? Very tragic, no? A chill run down the spine, almost as if you have seen a ghost. That kind of scare. And that's what Duryodhana is going through.

Even before the war has begun, he has seen that he has lost not only the war, but his entire life. In a sense, he has seen that he is already dead. Worse than that, he has seen that he never lived at all. That's the nature of reality you know. Often it shows up in very unexpected moments—moments of significance, moments of great pressure and challenge have this characteristic. What you have been trying to hide to yourself just gets revealed in that moment; because that moment is extremely significant, because the pressure of that moment just shatters your pretense. The fact of that moment, the heaviness of that fact, your pretense gets collapsed under it. It breaks down and then you have no option but to confront the reality as it is. And for the Duryodhana, the reality is quite gory.

Then we come to Arjuna. Let's see how Arjuna is feeling and Arjuna is the other end of consciousness. Where does Arjuna stand? Duryodhana stands in an almost hopeless state, the state is of near hopelessness; we cannot say perfect hopelessness. Why not perfect hopelessness? Because the war has yet not begun, Duryodhana can still choose to rush to Krishna side and say, “I can see that I have been erring. I admit my mistakes, I realize I have been operating from just the wrong centre of greed, covetousness, envy. I see that and I surrender.” Duryodhana can say that, right? But Duryodhana won't say that. So, I am saying Duryodhana is in a state of near helplessness.

The option to correct yourself is always available, right? And that's the beauty about life. It involves choice. You always have the choice to begin anew, irrespective of how badly mistaken you have been in your past. Irrespective of how misplaced and blunderous your choices in the past have been, you can still choose to disown your previous self and start afresh. That's the beauty about life. That's the thing with consciousness. Consciousness is simply choice. But Duryodhana won't exercise the right choice, though the option is there. So, we said his is a near-ended state, he is finished off nearly. That one percent choice is still available, though he won't use it.

Then you come to Arjuna and Arjuna is close to perfection—perfection in the form of Krishna, but nearly; he is still maintaining a distance. Duryodhana is nearly finished, and Arjuna is nearly saved. Yet even when it comes to Arjuna, a distance remains from perfection, a gap remains. Arjuna is not yet fully surrendered. Arjuna is maintaining his personal self, that comes from both biology and society. And here on, we will hear arguments coming from those centers from Arjuna—from the social center, and from the biological centre.

The biological center will obviously talk of feelings of attachment, relationships of blood. And the social center will talk of all the prevalent social customs and beliefs that Arjuna is not feeling courageous enough or clear enough to violate. So, let's just listen to what Arjuna says and does.

अर्जुन उवाच ।

सेनयोरुभयोर्मध्ये रथं स्थापय मेऽच्युत ।।21।।

यावदेतान्निरीक्षेऽहं योद्धुकामानवस्थितान् ।

कैर्मया सह योद्धव्यमस्मिन् रणसमुद्यमे ।।22।।

arjuna uvācha

senayor ubhayor madhye rathaṁ sthāpaya me ’chyuta

yāvadetān nirīkṣhe ’haṁ yoddhu-kāmān avasthitān

kairmayā saha yoddhavyam asmin raṇa-samudyame

Meaning Arjuna said: Krishna, please take my chariot to a place between the two armies, so, I may see those who stand here for war. I must know the ones I am going to fight. ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 21-22)

Arjuna says, “Krishna, please take my chariot to a place between the two armies, so that I may see those who stand here for war.” Take me to a place between the two armies, I want to see everybody who is assembled here for war. I must know the ones I am going to fight. So, that reflects Arjuna’s condition.

On one hand, he is with Krishna. He does not say, “I will go there on my own Krishna, you stay here.” So, he wants to maintain his company with Krishna. He says, “You remain here, but remaining with you, I also want to see the ones I am going to fight.” Obviously, I have a deep relationship with you, I am not abandoning you. But I also don't want to immediately give up on the ones who have come here to fight; I want to have a look at them as well.”

So, Arjuna is with Krishna, but not perfectly with Krishna. He still has other interests, and those other interests show up in the very first utterance of Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gītā . He says, “Take me to a place between the two armies, I want to see what is going on,” right? But then, is that really something to Arjuna’s discredit? Not really. Because the others are all welded to their positions. Nobody else is saying, “I want to observe both the armies;” Arjuna alone says, “I want to observe both the armies.” The others are all welded to their positions, and their positions do not include Krishna.

Arjuna is the only one who is with Krishna, but also says I want to see the other world. My eyes are still on the world, my eyes are not perfectly with Krishna, right? That's Arjuna’s situation. Krishna is with Arjuna and yet Arjuna’s mind is feeling pulled towards his worldly affiliations. What do we credit him for? We credit him for being with Krishna and not abandoning Krishna. And in this, we get a clue as to how to operate when the world starts meaning too much to you.

Go wherever you want to because that has become your situation. You find yourself unable to resist the pull of the world. Just as Arjuna is saying, “Please take me near to the opposing army. Please take me to the center so that I can watch both the armies.” You too are feeling a very strong pull to go near to the world, fine go; but the trick is to take Krishna along. Arjuna would have totally lost it, the Gītā would have never happened, had Arjuna said, “Krishna, would you mind waiting here for a while? I have some sightseeing to do. After all, they are my relatives. I want to have a quick word with them before I kill them down. You please wait here.” Arjuna might have as well said that right?

Even if you find that you have to proceed towards something quite ignoble, take Krishna with yourself wherever you are going, and you will find a Gītā coming your way to save you. Because if you are already in a great position, you do not need the Gītā . Gītā is needed when you are in trouble. It's another matter that we are always in trouble; so, we always need the Gītā . But don't make the mistake of abandoning Krishna, when you are entering a place that is likely to swallow you up, don't do that.

On the other hand, our Karma kāṇḍa runs totally the opposite way. Suppose you keep a small picture of your favorite deity in your pocket; in general, you will find that when you are going to enter some kind of mischief, you will keep that picture aside. You will say, “You keep it here, because right now I know I am going to do something quite mean. So, I cannot keep this picture and do that kind of thing. So, I am keeping this here and then I will proceed and do all that.”

No, the approach has to be opposite. If you find yourself incapable of stopping in the matter of mischief, do whatever you feel like; but take Krishna along with you. Do not keep the idols and the pictures only in some specified prayer room. Keep them where you are most likely to be your beastly self, that's where they should be. Because that's where, that’s when you need support. That's when you need a Krishna to remind you of the Truth. Instead, we confine godliness to some God forsaken sacred spot, so that godliness does not come to trouble or obstruct when we are pursuing our daily fallen kind of agendas. We do that or not?

So fine, Arjuna says, “I want to look at both the armies. You take me there, Krishna, you take me there.” Even if I am going to a place that's likely to consume me, I will ask Krishna to take me there. “You take me there. I might be committing a mistake, but if I am asking you to take me there, I am sure you will save me as well.” I might have made a great mistake, but I have not made the final mistake. The final mistake is the one that Duryodhana has made, and that final mistake is to abandon Krishna.

Arjuna is probably making a mistake in being attached, in being oblivious of Dharma ; but that one mistake that will totally devastate you, he is not prepared to make that one. So fine, take me there.

योत्स्यमानानवेक्षेऽहं य एतेऽत्र समागता: ।

धार्तराष्ट्रस्य दुर्बुद्धेर्युद्धे प्रियचिकीर्षव: ।।23।।

सञ्जय उवाच ।

एवमुक्तो हृषीकेशो गुडाकेशेन भारत ।

सेनयोरुभयोर्मध्ये स्थापयित्वा रथोत्तमम् ।।24।।

भीष्मद्रोणप्रमुखत: सर्वेषां च महीक्षिताम् ।

उवाच पार्थ पश्यैतान्समवेतान्कुरूनिति ।।25।।

yotsyamānān avekṣhe ’haṁ ya ete ’tra samāgatāḥ

dhārtarāṣhṭrasya durbuddher yuddhe priya-chikīrṣhavaḥ

sañjaya uvācha

evam ukto hṛiṣhīkeśho guḍākeśhena bhārata

senayor ubhayor madhye sthāpayitvā rathottamam

bhīṣhma-droṇa-pramukhataḥ sarveṣhāṁ cha mahī-kṣhitām

uvācha pārtha paśhyaitān samavetān kurūn iti

Meaning I wish to observe those who are assembled here for the war, those who want to please the evil Duryodhana by taking his side, who are they? Having been requested this way by Arjuna, Krishna drove the chariot to a place between the two armies facing Bhisma, Drona and all the other mighty warriors and said, “Behold Arjuna, here are all the Kurus gathered. ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 23, 24, 25)

And says, “I wish to observe those who are assembled here for the war, those who want to please the evil Duryodhana by taking his side, who are they? So, having been requested this way by Arjuna, Rishikesh Krishna drove the chariot to a place between the two armies facing Bhisma, Drona and all the other mighty warriors and said, “Behold, look Arjuna, here are all the Kurus gathered. And then what does Arjuna see?

तत्रापश्यत्स्थितान् पार्थ: पितृ नथ पितामहान् ।

आचार्यान्मातुलान्भ्रातृ न्पुत्रान्पौत्रान्सखींस्तथा ।।26।।

श्वशुरान्सुहृदश्चैव सेनयोरुभयोरपि ।

tatrāpaśhyat sthitān pārthaḥ pitṝīn atha pitāmahān

āchāryān mātulān bhrātṝīn putrān pautrān sakhīṁs tathā

śhvaśhurān suhṛidaśh chaiva senayor ubhayor api

Meaning Pãrtha sees there stationed the two armies, the grandfathers, the fathers-in-law, uncles, brothers, cousins, his own sons, the sons of the Kurus, grandsons, various friends, teachers, and other associates. ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 26)

Pãrtha sees there stationed the armies, the two armies, the grandfathers, the fathers-in-law, uncles, brothers, cousins, his own sons, the sons of the Kurus, also the grandsons, the various friends, teachers, and other associates. All he sees is relationships, relationships, past, affiliations, associations, attachments. They are already there in a subtle form within him, before he says that he wants to be driven to the centre. Else, why would he first of all want to come to the center?

Arjuna is no novice, he has fought so many wars, and it is uncharacteristic of a fighter to say that he wants to go to the centre just when the fight is to begin. Arjuna has never done that before. If Arjuna is found doing that here, the reason is obvious—the attachment is already there in him even before the war begins. Even before he sees them physically, even before he looks at their forms and is reminded of the memories, even before the visible nostalgia captures him, the subtle attachment is still there; and it is that subtle thing that has first of all forced him to come to the center.

तान्समीक्ष्य स कौन्तेय: सर्वान्बन्धूनवस्थितान् ।।27।।

कृपया परयाविष्टो विषीदन्निदमब्रवीत् ।

अर्जुन उवाच ।

दृष्ट्वेमं स्वजनं कृष्ण युयुत्सुं समुपस्थितम् ।।28।।

सीदन्ति मम गात्राणि मुखं च परिशुष्यति ।

वेपथुश्च शरीरे मे रोमहर्षश्च जायते ।।29।।

गाण्डीवं स्रंसते हस्तात्त्वक्चै व परिदह्यते ।

tān samīkṣhya sa kaunteyaḥ sarvān bandhūn avasthitān

kṛipayā parayāviṣhṭo viṣhīdann idam abravīt

arjuna uvācha

dṛiṣhṭvemaṁ sva-janaṁ kṛiṣhṇa yuyutsuṁ samupasthitam

sīdanti mama gātrāṇi mukhaṁ cha pariśhuṣhyati

vepathuśh cha śharīre me roma-harṣhaśh cha jāyate

gāṇḍīvaṁ sraṁsate hastāt tvak chaiva paridahyate

Meaning Arjuna, the son of Kunti, looking at all his kinsmen, spoke full of sorrow. Arjuna said: Krishna, seeing these my relatives gathered here eager to fight, my body is failing me. My limbs shiver and my mouth gets parched. My body is shivering, my hair stands on end. Even this bow seems to be slipping from my hand and my skin is burning ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 27, 28, 29)

Then Arjuna, the son of Kunti, looking at all his kinsmen, spoke full of sorrow. Krishna, seeing these, my relatives gathered here eager to fight. My body is failing me. My limbs shiver and my mouth gets parched. My hair stands on end. My limbs are failing me, my mouth is parched, my body is shivering, and my hair stands on end. Even this Gāṇḍīva , that I am so proud of, that never fails me, seems to be slipping from my hand. Further, my skin is burning. The symptoms that Arjuna narrates here are all physical gross.

What is it that is actually shivering and burning? The mind is actually shivering and burning. The mind is shivering, burning. One reason we can immediately see, the reason is physical—the reason of blood and the body. As is narrated, grandfather, uncles, sons, sons of sons, all other kind of relatives and any number of friends and associates, people he has known in the past. There is hardly a face on either side that Arjuna does not already know of, and that's turning him quite uncertain, feeling very weak within.

What's this going to happen? This one is unlike any war I have fought in the past. First of all, I never have had to face my relatives, and even on the few occasions when I indeed had to face Duryodhana etc., the war was never supposed to be final. I could defeat them and let them go. But here, first of all entire range of relationships has converged. There is hardly a kingdom in entire Bharatvarsha that is not represented here on this battlefield. So first of all, practically the entire community has assembled here. Secondly, the war is going to be till the end. We are not going to take any prisoners here; people are going to be fatally defeated. The defeat is going to be final, mortal, not just mental. Nobody is going to be defeated and get out of here alive—to be defeated is to be killed. So, the same description continues.

न च शक्नोम्यवस्थातुं भ्रमतीव च मे मन: ।।30।।

निमित्तानि च पश्यामि विपरीतानि केशव ।

न च श्रेयोऽनुपश्यामि हत्वा स्वजनमाहवे ।।31।।

na cha śhaknomy avasthātuṁ bhramatīva cha me manaḥ

nimittāni cha paśhyāmi viparītāni keśhava

na cha śhreyo ’nupaśhyāmi hatvā sva-janam āhave

Meaning Keshava, I cannot even stand upright. The mind is quivering so much. I fell I will fall. My mind is in a whirl. And I see adverse omens. ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 30-31)

Keshava, I cannot even stand upright. The mind is quivering so much. I feel I will fall. My mind is in a whirl, and I see adverse omens. Just as you were talking of negative energy and negative vibrations, Arjuna says I am seeing negative omens. Are the negative omens outside of Arjuna? It's all in his mind and when it's in your mind then you start seeing it all over the place, getting it?

This description of Arjuna’s condition, does it sound totally alien, totally inexperienced, or have you been through this? Not always, not daily, but don't we know what it means to be in such a condition? It's a condition of tear. One is being pulled apart by opposing forces, so one is torn. And when you are in that condition, you find yourself energy less, indecisive as if you will be no more. You just want to avoid that situation. Usually when there is a situation of such deep tension, we escape away, or we want to fall asleep, right? When inner stress is so much, we want to somehow escape that. And we will come to Arjuna’s plea for escape very soon.

“So, neither can I stand up nor do I want to fight, also I see bad omens, and I do not see any good in killing these my own people in battle. I do not desire anything. I do not want victory or empire or pleasure. I don't want any of these.” What is it? Dispassion showing up? Detachment showing up? No, this is not detachment or dispassion, this is not even indecisiveness. Arjuna is making a very clear decision and the clear decision is in the favor of the body.

Though he says that he is feeling indecisive, he is saying he feels weak; but he is taking a very strong decision. He says that he is shivering, but he is quite firmly making up his mind to not to fight, to run away. Do you see this discrepancy between what Arjuna is saying and what he is about to do? He's saying, “I am feeling uncertain,” but inwardly he is becoming more and more certain that I don't have to be here, I am going. And this certainty that is arising within him is a certainty from his body.

The body, out of a long process of evolution is designed to not to kill its skin. That's why most species don't eat their own. Have you seen that? And even among members of those species, you won't often find blood relations assaulting each other. The reason is simple. The body wants to propagate the DNA. So, if it has to kill, it chooses to kill a distant DNA. If you kill your brother, you are in terms of DNA, killing almost yourself. You and your brother share same DNA. So, if you kill your brother, it's your own DNA that will have a lower chance of proliferation. Do you get this? So biologically, we are designed, programmed, to be predisposed towards our family members. That's the reason parents care so much for their offspring because the offspring is carrying their DNA.

That's the reason, when someone who does not want to produce a kid, tells of her decision to her parents, they say, “But you know, your baby is, after all, your own. If you will adopt a baby, it won't be the same thing.” And if you question the parents, “Why is an adopted baby not the same as my own baby?” They will not know the answer. They will not know the answer because they have not studied evolutionary biology. The answer is simple, your baby does not carry your DNA. And the entire thing about reproduction is the furtherance of your own DNA. That's what the animal inside us wants, “My DNA should continue, my DNA should continue.”

So, now you know why when you propose adoption as a substitute to reproduction, people don't find that very appealing and they will not know. You will ask them for some logic, some argument, they will not know. You say, “You adopt a little baby. Is it not the same as having your own?” They will not know. They will not know because the animal inside lives in darkness about itself. It lives in a very dark cave within where it cannot see even its own face. So, it does not know itself. That's the reason we have feelings, but we do not know where those feelings come from.

You want to have a baby. Somebody asks you, “Why do you want to have a baby?” You will not know, because the animal has no self-knowledge. The animal is not designed to know itself. The animal can act, but never know why it is acting; the animal can feel but will never know why it feels this way. Same thing is happening here. Blood relationships, blood relationships. The body is militating against Dharma . The body says, “I am bigger than Dharma , I am higher than Dharma .” Getting it? And after the body, there is a lot more, we are coming to that.

न काङ्क्षे विजयं कृष्ण न च राज्यं सुखानि च ।

किं नो राज्येन गोविन्द किं भोगैर्जीवितेन वा ।।32।।

येषामर्थे काङ्क्षितं नो राज्यं भोगा: सुखानि च ।

त इमेऽवस्थिता युद्धे प्राणांस्त्यक्त्वा धनानि च ।।33।।

आचार्या: पितर: पुत्रास्तथैव च पितामहा: ।

मातुला: श्वशुरा: पौत्रा: श्याला: सम्बन्धिनस्तथा ।।34।।

na kāṅkṣhe vijayaṁ kṛiṣhṇa na cha rājyaṁ sukhāni cha

kiṁ no rājyena govinda kiṁ bhogair jīvitena vā

yeṣhām arthe kāṅkṣhitaṁ no rājyaṁ bhogāḥ sukhāni cha

ta ime ’vasthitā yuddhe prāṇāṁs tyaktvā dhanāni cha

āchāryāḥ pitaraḥ putrās tathaiva cha pitāmahāḥ

mātulāḥ śhvaśhurāḥ pautrāḥ śhyālāḥ sambandhinas tathā

Meaning Of what use is kingdom to us? Of what avail our pleasures and even life if these (the ones who are standing to fight), if these for whose sake we desire that empire or pleasure or enjoyment? For ourselves, as they stand here in battle having renounced life and wealth. All the ones that I see teachers, uncles, sons and also grandfathers, maternal uncles, fathers in law, grandsons, brothers in law, besides other kinsmen. ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 32-34)

Of what use is kingdom, or pleasures, or wealth if it comes at the cost of those for whom we desire these things? So, the argument is when you want happiness, you want happiness for those who are your relatives and your kinsmen. So, of what use is happiness if it is going to come by slaughtering your kinsman?

This again is a body centric argument. Arjuna is placing pleasure as the highest thing one strives for. And he says, “One strives for pleasure so that one can share pleasure with his relatives.” Now this is a very lowly definition of pleasure. But Arjuna is presenting it as the highest goal of life. Arjuna says, “One wants riches, wealth, joyous, power. For whose sake? For the sake of the family.“ When I say I want to become somebody, why do I want to become somebody? So that I can please those around me. I go to the office, and I earn money. Why? So that I may provide a better future to my kids. The little bird goes and picks up edible stuff from here and there. Why? So that it can bring that stuff, those grains, etc. to its nest and feed the babies.

So, Arjuna is basically drawing an analogy from the animal kingdom. He says, “Whatever we do, we do it for the sake of the relatives. So, of what use is the doing, if the doing happens by killing the relatives?” Now, the argument is fundamentally flawed. The highest pleasure is not biological. Joy is not about bringing happiness to your relatives; joy is about bringing liberation to yourself. And that is something that Krishna would be teaching very laboriously in the course of the Gītā . But right now, Arjuna is presenting his own personal philosophy and it is good that he is exposing himself clearly to Krishna, that will enable Krishna to come up with a suitable response.

You get the argument that Arjuna is presenting? Arjuna is saying, “When I want pleasure, I want pleasure so that I share it with my friends, relatives, etc. So, of what use will be pleasure if it comes by killing these same people? So, I don't want that.” It's such a convincing argument, you see. And any lesser mind than Krishna would have found it difficult to counter this argument. “When I earn good things in life, I want to share them with my family and relatives; I do it for their sake. So, what use is any endeavor in life if it comes at the cost of the family and their relatives?” Krishna obviously has heard it all so many times and he knows how it happens, he also knows how to end it. So, he will do that when it comes to that.

एतान्न हन्तुमिच्छामि घ्नतोऽपि मधुसूदन । अपि त्रैलोक्यराज्यस्य हेतो: किं नु महीकृते ।।35।।

etān na hantum ichchhāmi ghnato ’pi madhusūdana

api trailokya-rājyasya hetoḥ kiṁ nu mahī-kṛite

Meaning Even though these were to kill me O Madhusūdana, I do not want to kill them. Not for the sake of the kingdom, not for the sake of sovereignty over three worlds (several worlds, all worlds possible), and how can it be for the sake of just this Earth. ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 35)

Even if the kingdom of all three Lokas , all the universes possible were to be given to me, I would still not kill these people. Of what value is the kingship of this earth alone? I am not going to fight them. There is no way.

Arjuna is representing here the common body identified individual. And it is because Arjuna is so relatable, that the Bhagavad Gītā is so precious. How many of you today or at some point in life have found that it is your body and your blood—by blood, I mean your blood relations—that it is your body and your blood that stands between you and your endeavor for the Truth? How many of you have found it at some point or the other? That's the reason I say that you have to see that Arjuna is a great exemplification of the situation of the common man. And that's the reason why the Bhagavad Gītā could become so commonly acceptable, because Arjuna is each of us.

Since Arjuna represents each of us, therefore the Bhagavad Gītā is useful to each of us. Do you see this? So, that's one thing that we learn about Arjuna—he is very body identified and very attached to his family and relationships, and that's what makes him very similar to us. In Arjuna we will now find many other things that are very similar to us.

He has already spoken of how we share our bodily concerns with him. And now we will come to the conditioning of his mind and see how several of the prejudices of this age, this time that we live in, are present in Arjuna as well. So, that makes Arjuna in some sense our very identical kind of twin. Bodily we are same as Arjuna, and now soon we are going to see that even mentally we are same as Arjuna; in the sense that Arjuna carries many of the same thoughts and beliefs and conditionings that we all do. It's as if we are looking in the mirror and finding Arjuna equal to us in body and equal to us in mind. So, the body centric argument continues still.

निहत्य धार्तराष्ट्रान्न: का प्रीति: स्याज्जनार्दन ।

पापमेवाश्रयेदस्मान्हत्वैतानाततायिन: ।।36।।

nihatya dhārtarāṣhṭrān naḥ kā prītiḥ syāj janārdana

pāpam evāśhrayed asmān hatvaitān ātatāyinaḥ

Meaning: What pleasure indeed could be ours, O Janardan Krishna, from killing these sons of Dhritarashtra? We will only earn sin if we slay them. ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 36)

In the language of the flesh, it is sin to kill your own blood. And in the language of consciousness, what is sin? It is sin to identify yourself with the flesh, and it is sin to look at the other as flesh; not as consciousness. Arjuna is speaking the language of flesh and in that language your own flesh is the biggest value possible. When you are centered in the flesh the highest value obviously will be to the flesh. Arjuna is speaking that language.

But when you are centered in consciousness, then it is not flesh you value but consciousness. Then you will say, “Oh, it is a great sin to let Duryodhana win.” Why? Because he will totally corrupt the consciousness of the entire nation. If somebody like Duryodhana ascends to the throne, it's not a small number of people who will be corrupted; he will corrupt the minds of the entire country. Therefore, it is a sin to not to fight. It will be a great sin to give Duryodhana a walk over.

Do you see how your language changes when your center changes? When you speak as the body, then all arguments fly one way; and when you speak as the consciousness, then you find that the old arguments all appear so childish and invalid. Are we together till here?

So, Arjuna, as if he has already made a point, as if he has already proven something, says “Therefore Krishna (in a manner of conclusion it's a one-sided argument, and from his own place he feels that he has made a point and the issue is done and dusted, matter is sealed closed.) Therefore Krishna, (it stands decided that) we must not kill all these people who stand here.”

See, I have given you brilliant arguments and hence I think we can agree that the war is futile. We have seen the needlessness of this war as a matter of principle, also I am telling you that I need some kind of sick leave. So, both principally and physically, we must now withdraw, Hence proved.

And Krishna has not even started speaking. He is just watching, and Arjuna will keep talking for the entire first chapter and also for the first ten verses of the second chapter. And then Krishna will say what he has to, and he will find that he needs to say a lot. Arjuna is a tough nut to crack.

तस्मान्नार्हा वयं हन्तुं धार्तराष्ट्रान्स्वबान्धवान् ।

स्वजनं हि कथं हत्वा सुखिन: स्याम माधव ।।37।।

tasmān nārhā vayaṁ hantuṁ dhārtarāṣhṭrān sa-bāndhavān

sva-janaṁ hi kathaṁ hatvā sukhinaḥ syāma mādhava

Meaning Therefore Krishna , we must not kill all these people who stand here. How can anybody gain happiness by slaying his own relatives? ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 37)

So, we can justifiably conclude Krishna that we will not kill the sons of the Dhṛitraṣhṭra . How can anybody gain happiness by slaying his own relatives?

And then I will take the next two verses together.

यद्यप्येते न पश्यन्ति लोभोपहतचेतस: ।

कुलक्षयकृतं दोषं मित्रद्रोहे च पातकम् ।।38।।

yady apy ete na paśhyanti lobhopahata-chetasaḥ

kula-kṣhaya-kṛitaṁ doṣhaṁ mitra-drohe cha pātakam

Meaning Though these with their understanding totally clouded by greed, they see no evil in killing their families. They see no sin in being hostile to their friends. But aren't we superior Krishna? Why should we act like Duryodhana? ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 38)

Duryodhana sees no sin in killing his family members, the Pandavas. Duryodhana sees no sin in attacking his friends. But aren't we better people, Krishna? Aren't you better than Duryodhana, Krishna? So, we should not emulate Duryodhana, let him do what he does, let's not fall to his level. Let's leave him alone. Let him become the king, it's a small thing. He is a baby; we are grown up fellows. If he wants to have the kingdom of entire India, let him have that, it's such a small thing. We can just abstain from these things and walk away honorably.

कथं न ज्ञेयमस्माभि: पापादस्मान्निवर्तितुम् ।

कुलक्षयकृतं दोषं प्रपश्यद्भिर्जनार्दन ।।39।।

kathaṁ na jñeyam asmābhiḥ pāpād asmān nivartitum

kula-kṣhaya-kṛitaṁ doṣhaṁ prapaśhyadbhir janārdana

Meaning We are the ones who clearly see the evil due to the decay of families. We should turn away from this sin ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 39)

“So, Janardan, we are the ones who clearly see the evil due to the decay of families. We should turn away from this sin. We should not partake in whatever is bound to happen.” Now that he has talked of family, something else comes up. Now we see the social side of Arjuna coming up and this is very important. So, far we had seen the physical, the biological side of Arjuna. Now we see what kind of a social mind Arjuna is. Let's listen what he says.

कुलक्षये प्रणश्यन्ति कुलधर्मा: सनातना: ।

धर्मे नष्टे कुलं कृत्स्नमधर्मोऽभिभवत्युत ।।40।।

kula-kṣhaye praṇaśhyanti kula-dharmāḥ sanātanāḥ

dharme naṣhṭe kulaṁ kṛitsnam adharmo ’bhibhavaty uta

Meaning If all the people here who are all males are killed then the family decays. And if the family decays, then all the religious rites of that family will die out. And if that happens, then Dharma is no more as there is nobody to conduct the religious rites and then Adharma will overpower the entire family. ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 40)

He says, “If all the people here who are all males if they are killed, then the family decays. And if the family decays, then all the religious rights of that family they too will die out. And if that happens, then Dharma is no more, because there is nobody conducting the religious rights. And when Dharma is no more, then Adharma will overpower the entire family.

So, you get here an idea of the social and religious orientation of Arjuna here. And that's not merely Arjuna’s, that represents the prevailing social and religious dogmas of that time. Not only that time, it is quite interesting how what Arjuna is saying is applicable squarely to our times as well because Arjuna’s religious beliefs are exactly the beliefs of our age, our times. What is Arjuna saying? Arjuna is saying that Dharma equals ceremonies. If the families decay, then there will be nobody conducting the ceremonies . And if the ceremonies are not there, then Dharma is not there. So, Dharma equals ceremonies .

Is that also not the view that the biggest part of population holds today as well? That Dharma means ceremonies. Do this, do this, and you are Dharmik . On that particular day, do not cross that line, close that room, paint the wall, wear some mark on your forehead; in a particular month, go and visit that particular shrine. And if you do these things, ‘Do’, if you do these pre-scripted things, then you are religious, right? So, Dharma is about doing certain prescribed things. It's a particular set of pre-appointed actions that constitute Dharma , right? That's the notion Arjuna is coming from. And is that also not a prevalent notion today? Please tell me, is that also not the prevalent notion today? It is!

So, we are Arjuna. We are Arjuna, both physically and mentally or socially. Look at the argument—so many people will die, who will perform the rites and the ceremonies? And if there are no ceremonies, Adharma will loom large over the entire country. And so, Krishna, you see, you are such a Dharmik person, you should not be telling me to fight; because if I fight, that will mean the victory of Adharma .

Do you see how ego acts? It acts as the teacher of the teacher. Here Arjuna does not even know that he is trying to teach Krishna. Arjuna is telling Krishna, “If you are telling me to fight, then you are telling me to promote Adharma .” And if you tell Arjuna in his face that you are trying to usurp Krishna’s position, you are actually trying to become a teacher to Krishna, Arjuna will say, “I cannot even think of that. I respect Krishna so much; will I ever try to teach Krishna?” But that's what exactly you are doing here, sir. That's exactly what you are doing.

The ego takes itself to be the Truth, right? Nobody considers himself as a mere fallacy, a shadow, an apparition. Do we do that? We take ourselves as real, don't we? So, the ego thinks of itself as the Truth; and if the ego is the Truth, why will the Truth accept any teacher? The ego really cannot accept any teacher. In some sense, the teacher has to fool the ego to get himself to be heard. The central belief of the ego is ‘I am the Truth’. Through various means and tricks and methods, the teacher needs to display to the ego that it is not the Truth. Otherwise, the ego has a deep and unquestionable belief, “I am the Truth. I am the Truth.”

Though it will pretend to be humble on the surface, right? You ask the ego, “You think you are the Truth, right? And there can be no two Truths. Therefore, Krishna is not the Truth. You are the Truth standing in front of Krishna, and you cannot have two Truths, therefore Krishna is not the Truth.” And the ego will say, “God forbid, I am such a humble ego, how can I pretend to be bigger than Krishna? No, no. I am not saying Krishna is not the Truth.” But sir, that's exactly reflecting in your thoughts and words and deeds. Look at what you are saying and doing. It is very clear that you are taking yourself to be the Truth.

So, Arjuna is presenting his case this way to Krishna. What do you think of Arjuna? A character coming from the tenth or fifteenth century BC? Or is he someone sitting in the middle of us? Is there anything that Arjuna has said that has become outdated? Any argument that Arjuna is making is very topical, very relevant, right? If you are not told that the text is in Sanskrit, and you are not told that the setting is in an ancient battlefield; you will immediately say, “Oh, this is happening right in middle of us.”

That's the reason Gītā is so important, that's where its sacredness comes from. That also gives us a definition of sacredness. The sacred is not necessarily that which has been told of as sacred, the sacred is not necessarily that which has been thought of as sacred, the sacred is only that which liberates you in this moment. That's the definition of sacredness—that which liberates you today is sacred and only that is sacred.

If an ancient text is sacred, then it must liberate you today. And that's what the Gītā does. Therefore, Gītā passes the test of sacredness. Not all the books that you call as Śāstra pass the test of sacredness, they do nothing to liberate you today; they should not even be called as Śāstra . Only a very small number of books today deserve to be called as scriptures, and those scriptures must be respected unconditionally, but only those scriptures. Not every old book in Sanskrit can be held as respectable just because it is old and it is in Sanskrit, and it talks of religious matters. No.

अधर्माभिभवात्कृष्ण प्रदुष्यन्ति कुलस्त्रिय: ।

स्त्रीषु दुष्टासु वार्ष्णेय जायते वर्णसङ्कर: ।।41।।

adharmābhibhavāt kṛiṣhṇa praduṣhyanti kula-striyaḥ

strīṣhu duṣhṭāsu vārṣhṇeya jāyate varṇa-saṅkaraḥ

Meaning When Adharma prevails, O Krishna, the women of the family become corrupt. And once the women are corrupted there is intermingling of castes. ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 41)

Now look at Arjuna’s mental disposition.

And when Adharma rules prevails, impiety rules, the women of the family become corrupt Krishna.

Male attitude towards females, is that a thing of the Mahabharat era or do you find that today as well? The women will become corrupt. And what is meant by women becoming corrupt? You know, they will start having sex here and there. So, corruption is to be measured on the yardstick of sex.

Arjuna does not say women become corrupt, when they do not know the Truth, or women become corrupt when they cannot see through Māyā , or women become corrupt when they become greedy and envious. He does not say any of these things. He says, “Women become corrupt when they start having sex with someone other than their husband.” So, what is the very definition of corruption? Not just biological, but sexual. Not just bodily but confined to the sexual parts in the body. That's the prevailing social morality. And is that a morality that you find only then or is that something you find today as well?

Very interestingly, it's Kurukshetra where these words are being uttered; and it is in that region of the country, even today, that we find the greatest kind of misogyny. Where is Kurukshetra? Haryana. That's also where such attitudes prevail even today—women have to be kept pure. What is purity about? The purity is not about the mind, purity is about the genitals; the genitals have to be kept pure. So, the biggest allegation you can levy on someone is not that he is mad, or insane, or totally badly conditioned; the biggest allegation is that you know he had sex somewhere. Does that happen not today? Does that happen or not?

If you want to destroy someone, you need not prove that the fellow is unwise. If you prove someone to be unwise, people say, “Fine, unwise is okay.” But if you can prove that the fellow has been sleeping somewhere, then you have destroyed him. And if the fellow happens to be a woman, then you have completely destroyed her by proving that she has slept with five or six men.

Times have changed, minds have not changed, and that's the reason Gītā is so useful because Gītā represents the contemporary mind. Look at the impunity, the unabashed-ness, with which Arjuna is uttering these words to Krishna—to someone no lesser than Krishna—look at Arjuna's conviction. He is saying, “The women will be all corrupted.” To Krishna he is saying this. Think of how strong the social conditioning is. He is uttering these words as if these are the truth, as if Krishna cannot object to these words.

Now you also know who Krishna is—Krishna is the destroyer of prevalent social conditioning. Arjuna represents himself as the one who has a certain attitude towards women, and Krishna comes as the one who destroys all kinds of feeble attitudes towards women. Are you getting this? What is the function of Krishna in today's society? To liberate it of all kinds of nonsensical attitudes that we have towards women. Krishna was doing that then, and Krishna will have to do that today as well. The men folk, all the men were having very poor attitudes towards women back in those times, they continue to have equally bad attitudes towards women even today. These words are so contemporary, right? Even today you can hear these things being said almost everywhere.

The women of the family become corrupt and then see how the argument proceeds. And once the women are corrupted, there is intermingling of castes. So, one kind of attitude towards women very quickly followed by an attitude towards castes, and these two things go really inter meshed you know—purity of women and purity of caste. There can be no caste system without keeping the women pure. If there is intermarriage therefore among the castes, the caste system is gone. To survive the caste system, you have to keep the women pure, especially the women of the so-called higher castes.

The caste system or the Varna Vyavastha as it was prevalent then, and more or less it's prevalent in the same way today as well, kind of sanctions the men from higher castes to have sex or marriage with women from so-called lower castes. But what is absolutely forbidden is women from higher castes mingling with men from lower castes. No, no, no, that's a nightmare that the higher caste men cannot allow. “My woman has gone to a Śhūdra , what hell.”

And that's what also is Arjuna's problem. He is saying, “All the Kṣhatriya will be gone. So, our women, our property will be then going to all these ordinary people, and having sex, and then kids will be born, and those kids will be no good. They will be called Varṇa-saṅkara .”

Now this is the problem that Krishna is facing. Chapter one of the Bhagavad Gītā enunciates the problem statement. The rest of the chapters solve that problem. We keep quoting from all the chapters of the Gītā without knowing why those solutions were offered in the first place. Seventeen chapters of the solution and one chapter of the problem. Do we first of all understand what the problem is? The problem is that Arjuna is first of all, body centered and second, he has very regressive kind of social attitudes. And the attitudes that he has show up towards two categories of population: a, Women, b, lower castes.

So, who is Krishna then? Define Krishna. Someone who comes to liberate women and someone who comes to help the so-called lower castes. Someone who will tolerate neither misogyny, nor casteism; that is who Krishna is and that is what true spirituality is about. Instead, we find misogyny and casteism prevailing in the name of religion.

Look at the inversion, the complete inversion. Today if you have bad attitudes towards women and today if you have gross casteism, all that is in the name of religion. But here we have true religion in which Krishna is saying, “All this is nonsense Arjuna, what are these attitudes you have towards women? Come on, grow up.” So, true spirituality destroys misogyny. True spirituality does not admit casteism. And that's the reason why religious people will be bloodthirsty against spiritual people; and that's the reason why, when the true spirit of the Gītā will be revealed, the revealer will have to face a lot of attacks.

Do you understand what the Gītā is about? Arjuna has a certain problem and Krishna is solving that problem. That problem is at two levels, biological and social. I put it this way—the problem is at two levels, Vṛtti and Sanskṛiti . The vṛtti is flawed because the vṛtti is shārīrik , bodily. And the sanskṛiti is a big problem; unfortunately, that same sanskṛiti continues today as well. And we are out to glorify that sanskṛiti , are we not? More and more we are hearing of culture, culture, culture; as if culture is religion, as if culture is spirituality.

Krishna here is a destroyer of sanskṛiti . Do you see this? Krishna is destroying not just vṛtti , but also the prevailing sanskṛiti of those times. Do you see this? Never again must you allow someone to talk sanskṛiti to you. Arjuna is trying to talk sanskṛiti to Krishna, and Krishna is totally refusing. Never again say that the Gītā comes from sanskṛuti . No, Gītā has nothing to do with sanskṛiti ; in fact, sanskṛiti is totally opposed to Gītā . Who is representing sanskṛiti here, Arjuna or Krishna? Arjuna is representing sanskṛiti and Krishna is telling him your sanskṛiti is of no value, keep it aside. Do you see this? Is it too difficult to swallow? I am not adding anything on my own. These are the verses.

सङ्करो नरकायैव कुलघ्नानां कुलस्य च ।

पतन्ति पितरो ह्येषां लुप्तपिण्डोदकक्रिया: ।।42।।

saṅkaro narakāyaiva kula-ghnānāṁ kulasya cha

patanti pitaro hy eṣhāṁ lupta-piṇḍodaka-kriyāḥ

Meaning And this mixing of castes indeed puts the family to hell. Also, the souls and the spirits of the ancestors, they fall because they are deprived of the offerings of rice ball and water. ( Bhagavad Gītā , Chapter 1, Verse 42)

Now the diatribe continues. And this mixing of castes indeed puts the family to hell. So, that's how a social mind thinks. The definition of hell according to a social mind—when you mix with someone from another caste, then this is hell. And when you go to spirituality, I never get tired of quoting this one—what do the Upaniṣads name as hell? Arjuna is saying, “Mixing with person of another caste is hell.” And you go to Nirālamba Upaniṣhad , what does that one says about hell? That says, “Mixing with a person of poor consciousness is hell.” That is the difference between sanskṛiti and spirituality; that is the difference between culture and true spirituality.

Arjuna represents culture here. Arjuna is saying, “Mixing with some other caste is hell, especially when a man mixes with a woman; that is hell.” And when you go to the sage in Nirālamba Upaniṣhad , he says, “Mixing with a person of poor consciousness, that is hell.” Great difference; great, great, great difference. Do you understand this?

The person might belong to your caste, you might have had a well-arranged marriage with all the ceremonies as most of us do, but still the person is of poor consciousness, as are most people; and that exactly is what is called hell. It is not the other caste that is hell; it is the level of consciousness that decides hell or heaven. Equally the Upaniṣhad says, “Heaven is the company of people with great consciousness. That alone is heaven.” Caste, etc. or creed, they do not matter. Do you get this?

Another level of social conditioning. So, we have seen attitude towards women, attitude towards castes; now the third thing is coming through. And you will be astounded how this third thing again is a replica of our times.

“So, when these castes mixes, then the family goes to hell, the family is destroyed. Also, the souls and the spirits of the ancestors, they fall because they are deprived of the offerings of rice-ball and water.” Do you understand that ceremony offering rice-ball and water to the Pretātmā of Jīvātmā or whatever of the ones who have died. So, the third level is of superstition. Physical, social and superstition.

Arjuna cannot be someone from the previous centuries, Arjuna has to be someone sitting right in middle of us, right? Maybe he is sitting right in the middle of our mind, possible? Casteist, misogynist and now superstitious as well. Who is Krishna? Someone who fights superstitions. The arguments in favor of superstition are coming from the culturally conditioned Arjuna, and Krishna is now someone who will fight all these arguments.

“See, what nonsense is this? Ancestors are flying and the ancestors are hungry and thirsty. So, every few months you offer them rice and water, and then they eat the rice and drink the water and the ancestors are then quenched. What nonsense is this Arjuna, what's going on?” But Arjuna is coming up with these arguments and he is taking these as very solid, very indisputable, and great arguments.

“What will happen to the souls of the ancestors if our great high caste women go and procreate with the lower caste men; and our ancestors too, mind you are very caste conscious. They will not accept rice and water from the wrong kinds of kids, the progeny has to be perfect. All the flying souls are very choosy, they will prefer to remain hungry and thirsty, rather than accept rice and water from the progeny of a lower caste father.” That is the argument that Arjuna is making; that is the problem that Krishna will be solving in the entire Bhagavad Gītā .

Did we know that this is the problem that Krishna is solving? No. We used to think that Krishna is talking of some great principles, you know, Niṣhkāma karma , this, that. All that has to be talked of to solve just this little problem. All those seventeen chapters exist just to solve this problem. This is Arjuna’s problem—attachment, women, caste, superstition—this is the problem. I am asking you the nth time, is this an ancient or outdated problem? It is very much a problem of the current time, is it or is it not? That's why, those who know, realize that in this document lies the solution to a lot of problems of today, probably to all the fundamental problems of today.

You know to top it—because I am speaking more and more on the Gītā now, initially it was only in Hindi, now in English as well—people come and say that you see, the caste system has to be valid. Why? Because it is mentioned in the Gītā as well. Mentioned by whom, Krishna or Arjuna? But that's the argument that they present. And all these bogus ceremonies, when I speak on them, they say you are violating the Gītā . Why? Because even in the Gītā it is said that these ceremonies are there, it is mentioned in the Gītā . Mentioned, all right; but mentioned in what sense? It is mentioned in the sense of foolishness, not in the sense of prescription. Are you getting it?

Gītā , in that sense is an extremely liberal and modern book. Gītā is not orthodox, Gītā is not conservative. Now this is one epithet that we don't usually associate with the Gītā , right? ‘Liberal’. Gītā is as liberal as a book can be. You have to be liberal If you are talking of liberation. No? How can there be liberation without liberty? So, the Gītā is liberal, not orthodox.

In the whole tradition of Hinduism, Vedānta represents the liberal side. Vedānta is the side that says caste is bogus, men and women—the bodies don't matter; it is the consciousness that matters. Come on, don't talk of heaven and hell, or souls and spirits. Vedānta dismisses all these things; Vedānta represents the leading liberal side of Hinduism.

And then there is the Paurāṇika side and the Smṛitis and all that, they mostly represent the orthodox conservative side. So, all the problems that you find today with Hinduism are mostly because Vedānta , which is Upaniṣhad , Gītā , Brahmasutra ; they have not become mainstream. When they become mainstream, Hinduism becomes very, very liberal.

Instead, what you find mainstream is stuff like Garuda Purāṇa . All the Paurāṇika things have become mainstream. And Garuda Purāṇa and books like that are continuously saying exactly what Arjuna is saying here. They talk of the spirits and how the spirits move, and what you have to give to the spirits to please them. That's exactly what Arjuna is saying here, maybe Arjuna has come here after a reading of the Garuda Purāṇa . And you see what Krishna does in the Gītā , he dismisses all that Paurāṇika stuff. So, never talk of Veda and Purāṇa in the same breath. I hate to say this, but they are poles apart, they are two different categories of literature.

But because we have read neither the Veda nor the Purāṇa , so we speak as if the Veda , Purāṇa are the same thing, they are not, they are not. Most of the Paurāṇika literature is incompatible with Vedānta , both cannot be true together. If Vedānta is true, then most of the Paurāṇika stuff has to be dismissed, either dismissed or interpreted in the light of Vedānta . In the Paurāṇika compilation, there are indeed some beautiful stories at a symbolic level; but even that symbolism can be revealed only in the light of Vedānta . If you want to liberate Hinduism of its evils, you will have to come to Vedānta . In fact, if you want to help the entire world, you will have to come to Vedānta .

Remember the definition of scripture. Folklore does not constitute scripture; tradition does not constitute scripture; stories from here and there, and genealogy that does not constitute scripture. Scripture is only when you are talking of your identity and its liberation. That's why the Bhagavad Gītā qualifies to be called as scripture, and most other books that are called as scriptures are not scriptures. They are just old books, just old books; not scriptures, not Śhāstra .

Questioner (Q): Sir, why is religion so obsessed with sex? In the sense that the normal kind of religious people, who are socially respectable, all that they have in their mind regarding religion contains a lot of sexual connotations. So, for example, they will keep saying that abstain from the other gender and practice celibacy. Instead of talking about core scriptures, I find them talking of women. Don't do this to women, don't look at women, don't talk to women, don't have relationship with women.

Now, I am not saying that men should have a lot of sexual relationships. No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that instead of focusing on scriptures and knowledge and the removal of one's own inner ignorance, why are the social and moral and religious people talking so much of sex and women?

AP: See, what has happened is Rajdeep (questioner), social morality in some way has become conflated with religiosity. If you ask a normal man, he will be unable to tell the difference between social morality and religiosity. And what you call as social morality has so much to do with sex, everything to do with sex; it is as if sexuality becomes the touchstone of morality. Not consciousness, not knowledge, not realization, but sexuality. So, it becomes a very probable kind of thing for a religious person to start thinking of sexuality as very important, and then it starts hovering in your mind.

What does true spirituality have to say about sex? The answer might surprise you. It has not much to say about sex. It is popular culture and morality etc. that wax eloquent on sex. Sex, sex, sex. He's a good man. Why? Because he doesn't have sex. What kind of definition is this of a good man? Somebody is a bad man. Why? Oh, you know, there are some…What kind of definition is this?

Arjuna is talking in a body centric way. He says the war is not to be fought for the sake of keeping the women chaste; and women, so first of all the women come in from nowhere. So just as women circle in your mind, you have someone else who faces the same situation. Think of Arjuna—in the middle of the war, only men are assembled there, and animals and weapons. Arjuna is suddenly thinking of the women. And what will happen to the women?

Obviously, it's not that he is thinking of the women, he is thinking of himself with respect to the women. “If I am not there, what will my woman do?” Do you see the orientation? The orientation is sexual. And that's what happens to most religious people. Their orientation becomes sexual. A normal man does not think of sex so much, but a so-called religious mind just keeps thinking of sex all the time. And not his fault, because he has been told that religiosity and sex are very interwind. So, he's thinking of sex, sex, sex. And when he's thinking of sex, he has to suppress sex a lot.

Take lesson from this. Sex has to become something small, something not very important, not a great monster that you are fighting all the time. Just as you do not remember what you took for breakfast yesterday, sex is something you should not even remember. If it is instead present in the mind all the time, what to do?

Q: So, sometimes it happens that, especially while reading scriptures. Normal times, I am thinking about sex and women and then I think that okay, let me start studying scriptures; in this way the thoughts about women and sex will go away. But while studying scripture, I continuously keep a look whether the thoughts about women and sex have gone away or not.

AP: This will not succeed Rajdeep (Questioner). This is a very traditional route you are taking, it's doom to fail. See, when we began today in the afternoon, we said Prakṛiti ensnares you, traps you, only because you do not understand it, you don't know it. What you do not understand, you fall for. In some way the un-understood will torment you. It will remain a bit of a knot unresolved.

Because you are body identified, therefore you remain distant from women, right? As a man, you have to be separated from woman, that's an identity you have accorded yourself—I am a man. That puts you at a distance from women. And that which you are distanced from, you will never understand. To know something, you have to go close to it.

But what does sex mean, or a sexual orientation mean? It means you will be most of the times away from the object of your desire. And even if you go close to it, you will go close only with the purpose of exploitation and consumption. You will never go close with a view to understand. So, common morality means that men will never understand women, and women will never understand men. Because common morality keeps men away from women and women away from men, right?

In common morality, if you find men and women mingling too much, you say, “Oh, lose character, cheap fellow. All the time he's hanging around with women.” Are you getting this? The problem, do you understand? If you are so separated from women, how will you ever understand women? And we said that in Prakṛiti which you do not understand, you will never be liberated from. Once I had said that you are attracted to so many women, because you have never understood even one woman. If you can understand even one woman, you will be liberated from all women.

The un-understood remains unresolved. The further you keep yourself from something, the more that thing remains an attractive enigma to you. Have you not heard men saying this way? “Nobody can understand the mind of a woman.” How can you ever understand her? You never really went close to her. Whenever you went close, your only purpose was sex. Otherwise, you never tried to enter her mind, because you never tried to enter your own mind either. You understand neither yourself, nor the woman. So, you feel a very animalistic compulsion towards her and nothing more.

Just as you want to know of everything in the universe, you must also know woman. And women must also know men. And that cannot happen if your mediocre kind of morality keeps you at a distance from the other gender. If you cannot sit across the table and talk to the other as a person, as a being of consciousness, how will you ever understand the other person? But our sex laden society amplifies the sexual component in the personality so much, that when someone from the other gender comes to you, all you see is a huge genital. You do not realize that sex is only a small part of the entire personality.

Why can't you talk politics? Why can't you talk sociology? Why can't you talk economics or science or spirituality or sports or whatever? We live in a distorted culture. It does not allow us to remain at ease with the other gender. Sahaja , sahaja that's a word that you do not have when it comes to women, neither do women have it when it comes to men. Don't you experience a certain unease?

Recently there was this news item, a very tragic one, but look at this. One fellow was to write his board exams and he was sent to an examination center where there were five hundred girls, and he got a heart attack and actually died. That kind of unease. Think of it. He was thinking of women all the time. And so, when he found so many of them around himself, he just couldn't take it. It's tragic, obviously, but look at the lesson. Just fainted.

Q: There is a coincidence. I mean, you won't believe regarding this only. So, one of my friends actually sent that news to me and said that, look this is your younger self. I mean, I don't know how even my college friends come to know about this problem. I mean, that day I started thinking that have I even progressed an inch in spirituality? That was a serious day for me when I received that message.

AP: My teacher, he told me, "Sādho sahaj samādhi bhalī” (O sadhu! The simple union is the best). No pretense, no convoluted methods, no mumbo jumbo, just being the essential self is sufficient. Sahaja — not excited, not distracted, not attracted, not repulsed. A person has come in front of me, I acknowledge the person is from another gender, that's all I acknowledge. And I can talk now, that's fine. Half the population is women, how can you avoid them or remain in confusion about them?

At some point in your time, you will enter a relationship. What will become the quality of your life if you do not understand woman? The relationship will eat you up, and unfortunately the other person also. Have easy relationships with both the genders. Do not make sex such a big thing. If sex comes as an output of an easy relationship, it is okay. If it does not come your entire life, that too is okay. It is not a big thing. You know what the big is? The ease is the big thing, the sahajatā is the big thing. If it just happens, happens. If it doesn't happen, don't force it.

Q2: Sir, my first question is that, it has been asked by a few of my friends that in the Śhrīmad Bhagavad Gītā , Shri Krishna declared himself to God. Then what is the need to read other scriptures like Upaniṣhads and Brahmasūtra which has come from humans, like Rishis and all?

And second question sir, when I read Śhrīmad Bhagavad Gītā or any scripture, my family oppose a lot and they say that this will not lead you anywhere and it is just a subjective thing. They say that you can just read for your knowledge, but it will not give you any solution in worldly matters. And then if I oppose it, they just say that you need to perform the ceremony and rituals only then you can please God. And like Shri Krishna, if you decorate him and give him as a bhoga (food offering), only then he will be pleased.

So, how to deal with such kind of a mindset of some very close people like my spouse or my in-laws, with whom we live everyday? And then if we just oppose them, they just term me as I am mannerless, or I am emotionless, or I am very straightforward, or listening to you has corrupted my mind. This is ruining my life and everybody around me. So, want to know how to deal with such kind of people?

AP: First of all, there is no concept of God in Vedānta . Vedānta is existentialism; Vedānta goes into who you are. And the highest for Vedānta is not God or something, the highest is Truth. God and Truth are not the same thing. God is someone you take as the creator of this universe. When you talk of God, you talk of this universe as real, whereas in Truth, the universe dissolves. All the gods dissolve in Truth, getting it?

And even if one to pursue the argument that Krishna declares himself as the highest in Bhagavad Gītā , the same can be said about the Vedas as well. They are called Apauruṣheyā , that they are not coming from any human source. So, even they are coming from a so-called God; equal, equal, no issues. If Gītā is coming from a supernatural source, the same thing can be said about the Vedas also, that they too are coming from a supernatural source. Does somebody tell you who wrote the Vedas ? It is said that they came from the mouth of Brahmā . So, even they are coming from God, fine, equal.

So, just as you can read the Gītā , you can also read Vedas and Upaniṣhads are part of Veda , fine? Truth is something one has to go to at all costs in whichever way possible, it is the highest value. Since it is the highest value, it does not matter what route you take to reach it. Are you getting it? Not even the scripture is the highest. That's the great and beautiful thing about Vedānta . It is not even the scripture that is the highest, it is the Truth that is at the highest. That is why it says, “Ekam sad viprā bahudhā vadanti” . Doesn't matter in what way you talk of it; it is the one Truth that matters.

And value a scripture by its power to take you to that Truth. Instead of taking you to the Truth, if it is taking you to the labyrinth of mentation and ideas and concepts, then that scripture is not very useful. But this is a new one, that since Gītā is coming from Krishna, why do you need to read even the Vedas ? And probably the dislike is mutual, because you find that Shri Krishna is someone who has been repeatedly destroying Vedic karma kāṇḍa in the Gītā . So, it does not quite surprise me that people see a dissonance there.

Q2: Sir, when we talk of the scriptures with our close family members, they say that it is not the scriptures which will help you, it is just a subjective matter. You can just gain knowledge, but it will be of no use in today's world and will not give you any solution in the worldly matters. It is like only the ceremonies or the rituals, that are important. How to deal with such kind of a people?

AP: If you can answer one question that I have, probably your question will be answered. So, when I was at IIT and we were studying advanced thermodynamics, there used to be one peon in the mess, who would tell me, “What is the point in reading thermodynamics? You come and help me with the dishes and the vegetables, that is what will take you through in life.”

How do I respond to that peon? And you know, there actually was one. He used to taunt all of us. He would say, “You know, you are going and attending all these things. They will not be useful in life, and I am the one who will tell you what to do with life. Look at my advanced condition. Look at all that I have achieved in life.” He used to present himself as a role model. How do I respond to him?

That fellow is passing a verdict on advanced thermodynamics, and all the thermal experience that he has had is, “I have been on the gas stove.” And yet he feels he is empowered and qualified to comment on advanced thermodynamics. Do you get your answer? Who are these fellows who are talking of what is spirituality and to what extent it is useful? What do you know of spirituality? Who are you to talk to me about it? What's your qualification?

Q2: They are associated with, I don't want to name the organization, but it's a very reputed organization and they call themselves very religious. And they say that they have dedicated their life to God, Yajña and all such things.

AP: That peon too was a member, not just a member, he was the president of the Delirious Physicist Association of India. You can form any organization, become its member or even its president. So what? And in general, when you are delirious your tendency to seek security in an organization is higher. See, the problem is not that you do not know the response to give, the problem is that you do not know yourself. The problem is that you know what is right, but you are just too body identified to speak the Truth to your relationships. That's the real problem.

The real problem is that somewhere your interests and svārtha is tied to these people around you, that's why you cannot loudly speak the Truth to them. Otherwise, if someone is talking stupidity, try to help them if they are amenable to listening; or if they are shouting too much, shut them down. And if they are getting uncontrollable, just walk away. It's as simple as that. Help them, shut them down or ignore and walk away. What else?

But you can exercise neither of these options if something worldly is at stake—comforts, pleasures or money or reputation. If something is at stake, then you can neither shut them down, nor walk away, not even help them; then you are left just to tolerate whatever nonsense is going on.

Q2: So, if I shut them down, they term me as very emotionless or maybe mannerless, very straightforward and do not know how to respect the elder.

AP: The right that they have, they can exercise that right, no? They can say whatever they want to. Against me people keep saying whatever they want to, what do I do? Nothing. That's the right to expression that everyone has, and they can exercise their right. The problem is not that they have said what they have, the problem is that you have given importance to what they have said. If you know something is coming from a stupid source, how much importance can you give to it?

Q2: If you don't give importance, they say you are very arrogant because you are working. Stop working.

AP: You are going in circles; you are not getting it. You are again saying they are saying, I have already answered this—they are saying thing. See where you are drawing benefits from them. Stop taking stuff from them, stop being dependent and then you will not face this problem.

Q3: Hello Sir. So, my question is, the Pandavas had this something that was unifying them, like a Dharma , which was keeping them together. And I see that at many moments in life, even though we know that our karma is a very direct path to the Truth, but a lot of times the path gets very convoluted, it's a labyrinth. In those states, how do you keep yourself aligned to that Dharma ?

AP: It has to be a non-negotiable love. Essentially, what you are asking is in one sentence, “How to remain with Krishna even in times of difficulty?” Full stop. The thing is, the times keep changing, the situations rise and fall. But within, I have to live with myself. And living with myself would require the presence of a sacred centre. How do I live without that? One can live with bad air, one cannot live without lungs. You can live without great air, but can you live without lungs? That's what does it. Sometimes the air is good, sometimes it is bad; irrespective of how stuff is outside of you, inside of you, there needs to be health.

Krishna is the name of that health, and it has to be non-negotiable. And it's a choice, you see, you have to make that commitment to yourself, “Come what may, certain things I cannot compromise on.” And the list of those things cannot be too long. Ideally, that list should stop at one. If it can't stop at one, let it be three or four things that you say that are very dear to you and you won't give up on them.

It's a choice, it's not a method that I can provide you. It's a choice. One cannot give someone a method to fall in love. Can there be a method to love someone? No. It's a choice that you make. You allow yourself to be captivated. You say, “I have something in front of me that's indeed very, very appealing, it's worth dying for. So, I make a decision. I make a very conscious decision that this is something I will never part ways with.” Why? Because it's beautiful and I love it, full stop. No other reason.

Q3: So, actively making choices at every..

AP: Actively, consciously and remembering your choice, reveling in your choice, celebrating your choice. Even when the conditions go bad, there must still be an inner celebration that I am a winner. The conditions were so bad I could have capitulated, I didn't. So, I celebrate within. And why only within? Throw a party if you can.

Q3: Yeah. Thank you.

Q4: Sometimes what happens is, when the pioneers of the field are asked how did they do this? They are not able to explain it. So, for example, when the Fermat’s last theorem was proved, Andrew Wise was asked how did you get to this proof? And he was not able to explain. So, some people say that this thing is divine, this thing is not something human. So, I want to know what is this? So, what is this divine thing?

AP: It is just a shutting down of the mental confusion, it is just a shutting down of the noise within, that's all. So, when you know what you are doing is important and you decide to not to care for anything else, that's when your performance reaches a maxima, that's all that is there to it. Nothing more. There is no divinity or magic in this.

When I am speaking to you, for example, I just don't remember any thought coming to me for hours. Must have been five hours by now. No way anything from anywhere has been able to enter me. It's as simple as that. I know what I am doing is sacred, how can I allow myself to be distracted by other things? It's as simple as that.

Q4: So, do we call it love?

AP: You can call it love. In fact, you must call it love only, it is love. Beautiful. Thank you.

show_less