84: True Worship

CHAPTER 18, TEXT 70: And I declare that he who studies this sacred conversation of ours worships Me by his intelligence.

I just Googled "worship" and here's an image that pops up:

I've been to a few Christian services, rock concert style, and sung at the top of my lungs. I've also attended Buddhist prayers, Catholic mass, Vaishnava congregational singing (kirtan), and bowing in the Islamic call to prayer (azaan). Each ritual and service has touched my soul in a special way. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the verb worship means to "show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites." 

But in this verse of the Gita, Krishna is declaring to Arjuna that by studying this sacred conversation, one "worships" Him with one's intelligence. There is no requirement here for a religious rite.  

So then what IS worship? 

The word "worship" is derived from the Old English weorthscipe, which means "worthiness, acknowledgment of worth" (see worth, -ship)" (Oxford Dictionary). Fascinating, no? The core of worship is to acknowledge worth. 

As in, I value spirit, I value God as more valuable than any diamond of this world and so I'll acknowledge His worth in any way I know how: bells and incense and rock concerts. 

The essence of all of these expressions, though, is to acknowledge God's / the Divine's worth. In this verse, Krishna is saying that if we engage our intelligence in understanding with our hearts this conversation, we are acknowledging His worth. 

That is worship. 

It's so easy to reject scripture as arcane, irrelevant, and a source of dogma and strife within this world. These conclusions usually come, though, from either ignoring, misconstruing, or blindly following the teachings of scripture. 

But if one would just apply one's divine power of discernment to any scripture of the world, we would experience the priceless worth that these scriptures provide to elevate the soul to become pure and learn how to love. 

At the core, worship is not a ritual or a religious rite. Worship is to acknowledge the greatest worth of God, the priceless diamond we are all searching for in our heart of hearts. 

Full text here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/18/70/

82: Choose Wisely

CHAPTER 18, TEXT 63: Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.

When I am facing a big decision in life, I sit down and make a Pros and Cons list for each possible decision. 

After all, no decision is free of "Cons" - there are costs and concerns for every decision we make, no matter how obvious and wonderful that decision may seem. 

In Arjuna's case, he has two clear options:

Fight?

Or don't fight? 

And throughout the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna and Arjuna have been supplying Pros and Cons for each side. Overwhelmingly, one decision is outweighing the other: 

Fight. 

Even though Krishna has directly instructed Arjuna to fight (2.38), still, Krishna respects and honors the free will of Arjuna, and that his friend must be given the space to surrender to his own decision, heart and soul. Prabhupad writes, "Before surrendering, one is free to deliberate on this subject as far as the intelligence goes; that is the best way to accept the instruction of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Prabhupad often condemns "blind following". He insists that one should apply one's intelligence to consider the guru's and God's instructions. 

Using one's intelligence - which is the capacity to make distinctions - is the cleanest way to access that divine function of the soul, free will. Using intelligence is the "best way" to accept instruction. 

Krishna even emphasizes "Deliberate on this fully." 

Once we deliberate, we make a decision. In a way, making a decision is a kind of surrender. Even the word "decision" contains the Latin root "cis" or "cid" which means "to cut." When we make a decision, like a surgeon we are cutting off the other possibilities. It is difficult to reverse or repair a cut, just like it's hard to reverse or repair a decision. This means that we are surrendering to one decision over another and living with the consequences of that decision, for better or worse. 

Ultimately, some decisions lead us to the highest destiny of the soul - to love and be loved. Prabhupad writes, "Surrender to the Supreme Personality of Godhead is in the best interest of the living entities. It is not for the interest of the Supreme." Cutting off all other possibilities to enjoy the drama and pleasure of this material world and deciding to turn toward God is in our highest interest. 

The "Pros" far outweigh the "Cons."

Far. 

But Krishna never forces anyone to turn to Him. After all, how authentic would our love be if our hearts were forced? Prabhupad notes, "Here the words yathecchasi tathā kuru – “As you like, you may act” – indicate that God does not interfere with the little independence of the living entity." Prabhupad uses the phrase "little independence" which seems almost laughable, because the soul is so tiny and God is so big, but God never interferes with that spark of free will. 

Krishna always allows us to make our own decisions. 

Always. 

He has delivered the entire Bhagavad-gita to His friend Arjuna in the mood of presenting truth. He does not harp on his friend, berate him, preach to him, or in any way force him to believe anything. Ultimately, He is speaking in this way to me, who is reading the Gita thousands of years later. He has been speaking in this way to the millions and billions of souls who have heard and studied the Gita throughout history. 

Here are the Pros and Cons, Krishna seems to say. Come up with your own Pros and Cons, based on what I've shared. Deliberate on this fully. Since you are making your own choice, you shall also live with all the consequences of that choice. 

Choose wisely. 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/18/63/

80: Freedom to Choose

CHAPTER 18, TEXT 60: Under illusion you are now declining to act according to My direction. But, compelled by the work born of your own nature, you will act all the same, O son of Kuntī.

In the beginning of the Bhagavad-gita Arjuna had a meltdown: faced with the prospect of killing his friends and family in the battle of Kurukshetra, he trembled, fell to his knees, and dropped his bow. He offered many reasons to his friend Lord Krishna to not fight in the battle of Kurukshetra. Objectively, his reasons were solid. Convincing. 

But if Arjuna was in so much emotional distress and his arguments were so solid, then why didn't he just walk away? I mean, it would've made sense.   

Nevertheless, something seemed to have nagged at Arjuna that his experience and perspective were not complete. 

So he asked his friend, Krishna, for guidance.

In response, Krishna spoke the entire Bhagavad-gita with the direction that yes, Arjuna should fight. 

As you can imagine, Arjuna's overwhelming desire to not fight and Krishna's strong urging to fight are at odds. Here, Krishna circles back to His friend's dilemma, stating with simple logic that he can either fight in this battle according to His (God's) direction or... he will "act all the same." 

Basically, Arjuna is bound to fight. The real question is under what energy will he be acting from - material or spiritual? 

This is a question for all of us. 

We're all bound to eat, sleep, and work in this world. Maybe our nature is to be a car mechanic, teacher, small business owner, a CEO, and usually our nature calls us to be a spouse - husband or wife - and parents - a father or mother. We're going to do these things, there's no escaping. "Escaping" implies that, well, I'm under the control or directive of something else. 

Prabhupad emphasizes that the nature of the soul is to be subordinate. He writes, "If one refuses to act under the direction of the Supreme Lord, then he is compelled to act by the modes in which he is situated." Note here how Prabhupad says "under the direction" and "compelled" - either way, the soul is not fully independent. 

Not fully independent. We still have some independence - we have our precious, priceless free will. 

We can choose which energy to be under - God's directive or the material creation's directive. One gives us greater freedom, one gives us greater bondage. The modes of nature are always binding us. Prabhupad writes that, "Everyone is under the spell of a particular combination of the modes of nature and is acting in that way." In America we value freedom to such a high degree, but Prabhupad is stating here that everyone is under the spell of the modes of nature. True freedom is an illusion as long as we're entangled in this world. 

Choosing spirit, though, opens the gateway to the deepest freedom. But to choose spirit is sometimes really, really hard. For Arjuna to choose to fight under Krishna's directive, instead of being roped in and moved around by his nature and the modes, is hard. It means that Arjuna needs to actually use the faculty of his free will to follow God's directive. If he doesn't follow God's directive, then he becomes a victim of circumstance - oh, well I was born with a certain nature, or my brothers forced me to fight, or I couldn't help myself. Arjuna thus becomes a victim of material nature, out of touch with his divine capacity to choose. 

But if Arjuna chooses to fight based on Krishna's directive, a difficult but conscious decision, he is no longer governed by his nature, or the circumstances of his family, or his emotions or mind. He is no longer a victim. Although Arjuna is still governed (by Krishna) he made a choice to be governed by divine will. Prabhupad writes, "But anyone who voluntarily engages himself under the direction of the Supreme Lord becomes glorious." The key word here is "voluntarily" - forcing oneself or being forced to be engaged under the direction of God means that the soul is not fully expressed. God may give His directions, but unless we accept those directions with our heart and soul, then we might as well be under material nature. But if we can access that free will, the gates of glory open wide - the glory of freedom, the glory of love. 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/18/60/

79: Levels of Happiness

CHAPTER 18, TEXT 38: That happiness which is derived from contact of the senses with their objects and which appears like nectar at first but poison at the end is said to be of the nature of passion. 

Krishna is describing the different kinds of  happiness within the modes of nature. I created the below chart as a map to understanding the patterns of how things begin and how things end. 

	Goodness (sattva)	Passion (rajas)	Ignorance (tamas)
Beginning	poison	nectar	poison
End	nectar	poison	poison

An example of happiness in the mode of goodness (sattva) is a college education. Working for a college degree means paying a lot of money for years and years without any income - this often means living in a simple place with simple food, going to class at sometimes early times of the day or late at night after work, hours upon hours of homework, grueling projects and exams, [often] unpaid internships, and more. 

This is like poison. 

But in the end, the nectar of knowledge, a degree, and improved job prospects is what makes college worth it for most people. People with college degrees have been shown to earn more income not only for themselves but for society at large (aplu.org), they have a greater chance of staying married (pewresearch.com), and they are even less likely to be obese and to just have greater health overall (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). This is the "nectar" of happiness in the mode of goodness.

Happiness in the mode of passion is nectar at first and poison in the end. The classic example that Prabhupad gives is - you guessed it - falling in "love." He writes, "A young man and a young woman meet, and the senses drive the young man to see her, to touch her and to have sexual intercourse." This is considered to be "nectar," a source of pleasure, excitement, and all-consuming absorption. Some dating apps exist solely to facilitate this kind of happiness in the mode of passion - meeting and having sex. Prabhupad continues, "In the beginning this may be very pleasing to the senses, but at the end, or after some time, it becomes just like poison. They are separated or there is divorce, there is lamentation, there is sorrow, etc." I once read an article about a woman who had just had sex with a man through using the dating app Tinder and as she was getting dressed he was already swiping through his phone again, looking for the next meet-up. She was appalled, but what could she say? What right did she have to be appalled? The sorrow of this woman and women and men who have used the app or engaged in this pattern is pervasive. 

This is poison. 

While Tinder is a crude example, it is also very relevant to Prabhupad's purport and today's reality.

Something about the fact that happiness in the mode of passion starts off as nectar makes it addictive. We HAD an experience of that pleasure, that high, but we lost it. So if only I would try again, and again, and again... maybe the nectar will last. 

But it never lasts. 

Prabhupad writes, "Happiness derived from a combination of the senses and the sense objects is always a cause of distress and should be avoided by all means." This means that enjoying the objects of my senses with my eyes and ears and hands and tongue is temporary and always fades. 

And quickly. 

How long does the act of sex last? How long can one eat an ice cream cone? How long can one watch Game of Thrones or how many new phones or houses or cars can one buy? The temporary nature of this happiness is what causes distress. The pleasure is there, it's there! And then poof - gone. So this happiness is nectar in the beginning and poison in the end. 

And finally, happiness in the mode of ignorance is poison in the beginning and poison in the end. 

One may wonder how on earth one could experience happiness by tasting poison in the beginning. Wouldn't you just stop even trying for that kind of happiness if it's so poisonous, even from the first taste?

This is the mode of ignorance, though. As I have come to think of ignorance, it is not just "not knowing" something. Ignorance means ignoring something. This implies an active turning away from knowledge, understanding, and growth. 

So in this context, one ignores the poison - the pain, the discomfort, the burn - of that first sip of alcohol, first puff of cigarette, or first taste of meat as a child (https://family-medicine.ca/). With enough ignoring, one even begins to enjoy that poison. The word used in verse 39 is the word sukham, or happiness. 

An example of this kind of happiness is alcohol. I have only ever tasted one drop of alcohol. When I was about thirteen years old, I went to a party with middle school friends and there was beer. I tried a drop and then kind of spit it back out. I never tried it again.  

Alcohol is always some kind of fermented grain or fruit or vegetable, which means that it's rotting. This process of decomposing is in the mode of ignorance - the mode of goodness means maintenance and the mode of passion means creation, but destruction is the mode of ignorance. This is why, traditionally, fermented foods are prohibited in Vaishnava tradition, or they are not recommended or offerable to Krishna.  

Of course, alcohol has been enjoyed around the world for millennia. Still, according to this definition of happiness in the mode of ignorance, alcohol fits the bill. It is poison in the beginning, and while one may still experience happiness from this poison (loosening up inhibitions, relaxing etc), it is still poison in the end - throwing up, headaches, and lack of consciousness or awareness of one's words or actions. In more severe cases if alcohol or any drug use becomes an addiction, one's body can begin to sour, or one's character can even rot through abusive language or behavior. Addiction can lead one to feeling trapped into using the substance to function or numb the pain or maybe to even feel alive. 

Krishna describes happiness in these three modes of nature, but ultimately, we are meant to transcend happiness in any of these modes, we're meant to come to a kind of happiness to "which [we] sometimes come to the end of all distress" (18.36). We're meant to experience happiness that is nectar in the beginning and nectar in the end. This kind of happiness can only be experienced by transcending the modes of nature and this world and coming to God, to Krishna. We're meant to end our distress by loving and serving God. 

Of course, if we're not there yet, we can at least look at these verses to get a sense of "Okay, what mode of happiness am I primarily in right now? How can I elevate my approach to happiness?" 

If I'm in the mode of ignorance, how can I elevate to the mode of passion?   

If I'm in the mode of passion, how can I elevate to the mode of goodness?

If I'm in the mode of goodness, how do I elevate to suddha-sattva (pure goodness) by serving and loving Krishna? 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/18/38/

78: Distinguishing Reality From Illusion

CHAPTER 18, TEXT 32: That understanding which considers irreligion to be religion and religion to be irreligion, under the spell of illusion and darkness, and strives always in the wrong direction, O Pārtha, is in the mode of ignorance.

Based on this verse of the Gita, Prabhupad offers three ways that intelligence works in the opposite way that it should:

1) "It accepts religions which are not actually religions and rejects actual religion." 

The word "religion" in 2020 has taken on such heavy baggage, with connotations of "patriarchy," "oppression," "judgement," and being "fake," and "outdated." Thus religion is rejected on a wholesale level. 

But religion is simply a practical path for the soul to engage with spirit.

If one does not follow an established religion of the world, the soul still craves a practical way to evolve and connect to the divine. So then what do human beings do who crave to connect with God but are not engaged in a legitimate religion? 

They invent their own. 

Jeff Brown, a popular "grounded spiritualist," has written a "Humanifesto" to state his beliefs, what he strives to do for humanity, and the labels of the people who follow his particular brand of spirituality ("enrealment activists" or "Souldiers") and the things that they do. This "Humanifesto" is replete with invented words such as "gender-ation," "enrealment," and "womanifestation." In this way he is inventing a system of spirituality, and he is at the helm. 

Brown does not cite a single authority or a single source of inspiration for his own journey. In fact, he rejects them all. He writes, "[I endeavor to] liberate the species from the idea that those who came before have all the answers we seek. They don’t. We are a species in-process, endlessly evolving" (https://jeffbrown.co/humanifesto/) Note that he writes that "he" endeavors to liberate the species - he does. As in, he believes that by his own endeavors he can actually liberate human beings from the concept that those who came before us (any authorities, sages, saints, or self-realized beings) have  answers or truth that the soul is searching for. This directly counters the teachings of the Gita that if one wants to learn the truth, one must approach a spiritual master, render service, and inquire submissively (4.34). Basically, Jeff Brown and those who follow Jeff Brown reject the paths of genuine religions and invent their own religions and ideas based on subjective, personal experiences. This is considering "religion to be irreligion and irreligion to be religion." 

As a note, there is a grain of truth to Brown's statement that human beings are endlessly evolving, and that the soul is full of knowledge by nature. In fact, great souls emphasize that the soul is eternally full of knowledge (chit). So Brown is speaking of some truth, but it's a half-truth - it's not complete. In the purport to the Sri Isopanishad, Mantra 12, Prabhupad condemns spiritual leaders who present half-truths to the population. He writes, "If such foolish men have any knowledge at all, it is more dangerous in their hands than ignorance itself." This means that the general populace resonates with the grain of truth presented, but because it is couched within ignorance, ultimately even intelligent, thoughtful people can be lead astray. 

This approach leads to Prabhupad's second point of intelligence in the mode of ignorance: 

2) "Men in ignorance understand a great soul to be a common man and accept a common man as a great soul." 

Jeff Brown, although putting forth himself as a man who endeavors to "liberate," "awaken," and "remind humanity," he is simply an ordinary man. He may have some interesting ideas, but ultimately his ideas have little substance because they are not based upon the foundation of tried and tested knowledge, truth, and realization of great souls or the scripture. In fact, he rejects all of these things, calling the great souls common men or women. He does not accept or acknowledge that there are great souls or scripture who have more knowledge, understanding, or realization than him. He puts forth himself - in so many words - as a great soul (his website states that he has been featured on CBS, NPR, and Good Morning America), and he has a following who believe him to be a great soul. 

But in fact, Brown is a common man. 

Thus, he considers great souls to be common men, and he is a common man who is considered to be a great soul (or considers himself to be a great soul), which is intelligence in the mode of ignorance. 

And the final point that Prabhupad makes in this purport is that:

3) "They think truth to be untruth and accept untruth as truth." 

Brown states in his "Humanifesto" - essentially, his own created scripture: "Simply put, an absolute state of enlightenment does not exist—enrealment does. And it’s a relative process, changing form as we change form. We are form, and we are here to in-form our humanness." Brown is declaring that absolute enlightenment does not exist. This goes directly against the truth as stated in the major scriptures of the world and the teachings of the great souls that liberation from this material world is possible and real. For example, Krishna states in the Bhagavad-gita that "After attaining Me, the great souls, who are yogīs in devotion, never return to this temporary world, which is full of miseries, because they have attained the highest perfection" (8.15). Krishna says that these yogis in devotion "never" return to this temporary world - thus absolute enlightenment exists. So Brown is stating truth to be untruth.

Brown posits that enlightenment is a "relative process, changing form as we change form." But enlightenment, according to the Gita,  is a specific state of the soul in connection with God and all other souls - this is not relative. The soul - the unchanging, eternal soul - does not change form.  

Brown then invents his own word, enrealment, to describe a kind of relative process of how we are the form of our bodies and we "in-form" our humanness.

???

Honestly, I'm bewildered by Brown's philosophy. 

I have no intention of figuring it out, either. I see that he's posing an untruth as truth, which is intelligence in the mode of ignorance, where "intelligence is working the opposite way that it should."  

While certainly Brown's endeavors to uplift himself and humanity contain sparks of sincerity and striving for truth, his striving is upside down and flipped around. He insists that 2 + 2 = 5. He insists on creating his own path. But Prabhupad writes that "In all activities they simply take the wrong path; therefore their intelligence is in the mode of ignorance." Brown is taking the wrong path. If he was even to read this post, he would probably reject what I've written and declare that his path is the right path, everything is relative after all. 

I've done my best to base my analysis on the ancient words of the Bhagavad-gita and the words of Bhaktivedanta Swami, a man who is within an unbroken lineage of great souls who are handing down spiritual knowledge and realization. While I may be a fool, clouded by my own pride at times in my writing and thoughts, I trust at least that the great souls can help me distinguish reality from illusion, to help strengthen my intelligence to be in the mode of goodness. 

While I can see some small kernels of truth here and there in Brown's "Humanifesto" (which, again, can be more dangerous than pure ignorance) I can say with confidence that his approach to wisdom and transformation is intelligence in the mode of  ignorance. Jeff Brown is not a "grounded spiritualist" in any way. After all, what and who is he grounded in? 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/18/32/

73: The Heat of Speaking (and not speaking!)

CHAPTER 17, TEXT 15: Austerity of speech consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others, and also in regularly reciting Vedic literature.

"Austerity" is one of those arcane words that kind of has the average person going, "Huh?"

Either "austerity" is a foreign word or concept, or there are some vague connections to being rigid, extreme simplicity, or, as Oxford Languages puts it, "conditions characterized by severity, sternness, or asceticism." This last definition comes the closest to the original meaning of austerity. 

But none of these point to why on earth anyone would undergo extreme simplicity, sternness or asceticism. No one in their right mind really wants to be an ascetic. In fact, austerity seems rather like self-harm (masochism)!

The Sanskrit word used in this verse is "tapa" which translates literally as "heat." This is because doing austerity generates a kind of heat, a personal power (or shakti) that ripples out into one's life. 

This is the phenomenon of performing voluntary suffering - we are empowered to achieve a result.

In this way, most of us have all performed austerity for some reason or other - attending school and completing all that homework in order to receive a diploma, putting in overtime hours at a job to make extra money, working out at the gym in order to get a shapely body.   

This is a law of the material world, just like the law of karma. Anyone who undergoes voluntary suffering generates power. This law can be applied in dark ways in order to gain power over others and to reach some exploitative goal, or this law can be applied in auspicious ways in order to be empowered to serve and love others with a clean and open heart. 

For text 15 of chapter 17, we see that Krishna is describing austerity of speech in the mode of goodness. What's fascinating about the wording of this verse is that to be truthful, pleasing, and beneficial in one's speech is austerity - voluntary suffering.

How could be speaking in a truthful and pleasing way be voluntary suffering? 

Because speaking in a deceitful and unpleasant and purposeless way is the default in this world. It's so easy. 

Too easy. 

To speak in a truthful, pleasing, and beneficial way takes hard work. It's depriving us of the delicious and easy tendency to gossip, complain, vent anger, blame, and criticize others. Prabhupad emphasizes that "One should not speak in such a way as to agitate the minds of others." But it's so easy to speak in such a way to agitate the minds of others! So easy! 

Especially loved ones. We know their soft and vulnerable spots - with a well-aimed word we could incite agitation and pain in their minds and hearts. Just a word.

In this verse, Krishna does not give any advice about how to speak; He simply shares the nature of austerity of speech and what it looks like. In a way, He leaves it up to us to decide what we wish to create with our personal power. 

To refrain from speaking words that agitates others is actually voluntary suffering and generates power. 

By being austere in our speech, our hearts become powerful and strong, the heat of austerity coming back to nourish us and strengthen us to love and be loved at our highest potential. 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/17/15/

71: The Function of the Soul

CHAPTER 16, TEXT 21: There are three gates leading to this hell – lust, anger and greed. Every sane man should give these up, for they lead to the degradation of the soul.

One evening many years ago, I was traveling on a bus. The driver of the bus, an elderly, spiritual man, was having a conversation with another traveler, and I eavesdropped on their conversation. 

The man asked, "What is the function of the soul?"

The traveler was silent. My ears perked up and I leaned in to hear the man answer his own question:

"To desire. The function of the soul is to desire," 

Those simple words rang with an eternal truth, and they have echoed in my mind in the many years since. Interesting, no? I can still remember the deep blue evening light, the headlights from oncoming vehicles, the silhouettes of spiky trees as they rushed by. Those words anchor me to that time and space: The function of the soul is to desire. 

I have seen this eternal truth play out in my life and in the world.

When the soul is in touch with material energy, that eternal propensity to desire transforms into lust. Trying to satisfy the soul's eternal, spiritual desires with temporary, material things is a recipe for frustration, drama, and pain. I speak from experience, here, and I'm sure anyone reading this post would say the same. 

In this verse of the Gita, Krishna is saying that there are three gates leading to hell - lust, anger, and greed. Prabhupad emphasizes, though, that lust is the origin: "One tries to satisfy his lust, and when he cannot, anger and greed arise." Note that Prabhupad writes that one "tries" to satisfy lust, but he "cannot" - it is simply impossible to satisfy lust, like trying to put out a raging fire by feeding it logs soaked with gasoline. It is eventual that one will get to the point of anger and an even more inflamed greed. In verse 12 of this chapter, Krishna describes that an ungodly person is "bound by a network of hundreds of thousands of desires" which is not an exaggeration. Hundreds of thousands of desires may even be an understatement. Those desires lead to the degradation of the soul, as Krishna says in this verse. 

Why? Where does lust come from, this raging fire of desire?

The soul. 

The function of the soul is to desire. 

To quench this fire of desire IS impossible, because to do so would snuff out our very existence. 

The key, then, is to understand that this nature to desire something and someone, always, is divine. Originally, the soul desires to love and be loved, and ultimately to love God and be loved by God. 

The whole process of bhakti yoga is about taking those tendencies of the soul offering them to Krishna. In this way the soul is not degraded, but uplifted.  

Desire Krishna. Desire to serve, desire to connect, desire to love. 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/16/21/

70: Looking in the Mirror

CHAPTER 16, TEXT 17: Self-complacent and always impudent, deluded by wealth and false prestige, [the demons] sometimes proudly perform sacrifices in name only, without following any rules or regulations.

The 16th Chapter is entitled "The Divine and Demoniac Natures". I don't know about you, but the word "demoniac" or "demon" brings to mind a red, horned devil with a tail, cackling in hell. 

This is not what is meant when Krishna speaks about the "demons" or "the demoniac." The root Sanskrit word for divine beings (demigods) who favor God is the word sura. These beings possess divine qualities, such as truthfulness, self-control, and modesty (16.1). The word for "demon" is asura, which by the prefix a- tells us that these beings are the opposite of suras - those who oppose God, negate His existence, and possess a host of negative qualities such as lust, impudence, and false prestige (as stated above). 

The demigods and demons are not mythical creatures that hold epic battles in the sky over good and evil. The point of this sixteenth chapter is not to give us a lesson in Hindu cosmology or lore. 

This sixteenth chapter is meant to be a mirror that we hold up to our own hearts. We are meant to read these verses and identify when these qualities resonate in our lives - am I cultivating my divine nature?

Or am I cultivating my demoniac nature? 

I know it's a simplistic, cliched image, but there is even a modern equivalent of this struggle between choosing the divine or the demoniac: the angel and the devil on your shoulder. 

Often, though, this struggle is depicted as a rather vague struggle of conscience and "choosing the right thing" - whatever the "right" thing is (good luck with that). 

The 16th chapter makes this process clear with excruciating detail. An excruciating detail from this Text 17 is the phrase "without following any rules or regulations." Following rules and regulations is a concrete, powerful way to look in the mirror to determine whether one is cultivating a divine or demoniac nature. Rules and regulations are meant to elevate the soul to the mode of goodness, to bring about clean and pure habits. But when rules and regulations are disregarded, this is a red flag that one is sliding towards a demoniac nature. Prabhupad writes, "The word avidhi-pūrvakam, meaning a disregard for the rules and regulations, is especially stressed here." How come? Aren't rules and regulations just restrictions on the spirit, ways to suppress and oppress? 

We find a healthy application of rules and regulations in all spheres of life, from the rules and regulations of a highway, to health codes for restaurants to follow in the preparation and serving of food, to building codes, to the way a school or government or business is run. If one is to drive or serve food or construct a building or manage a government with any degree of success, rules and regulations must be followed. 

This same principle is applied for spiritual life - there are rules and regulations to follow in order to advance on the spiritual path with any success. A defining feature of a rule or regulation is that it is not only applied by one person on a whim - they are applied to any and all people who are participating in that  process. Meaning, there is a somewhat universal standard. 

But "the demons, however, do not care for such restrictions. They think that whatever path one can create is one’s own path; there is no such thing as a standard path one has to follow." Creating one's own path or believing that everything is all relative is a negative tendency, a trait that leads one to cultivate the demoniac nature. 

Why? 

How come not following a standard path is considered so... wrong? What could be so bad about creating something new - you know, blazing a new trail and stuff? 

Often, the desire to not follow a rule or regulation is from a kind of weakness of heart, not because one actually wants to revolutionize the world and do something positive. This "creating" of one's own path is often a guise for a few ways to avoid surrender. 

One - avoid the vulnerable and scary process of submitting to an authority and a higher order, especially if full trust has not been established. 

For example, "My new principal is telling me to write all of these detailed lesson plans in this particular way? Oh whatever, she doesn't know what she's talking about, I'll do them my own way." 

Or, "My spiritual teacher is telling me to lay off the alcohol? He doesn't understand the pain I'm going through with the loss of my mother, I'll drink when and how I need to,"

Two - avoid the hard or frustrating work of actually following a regulation.

For example, "To make sure we follow this building code, we'll have to spend thousands of dollars to hire an architect! We'll just do it our own way..." 

Or, "Vedic scriptures say I should not eat cow? Well, I'll eat free-range beef, at least the cows had a happy life," 

No matter what reasons or excuses are given to not follow a rule or regulation, these are often ways we avoid surrender. We avoid surrender "due to ignorance and illusion." If we had full knowledge, we would see that following the rules and regulations benefits not only ourselves but others, even the entire world. 

Following speed limits, health codes, and building codes is meant to prevent pain and drama and hardship. Rules and regulations are for our own good! They seem restricting but actually offer the greatest freedom. 

Cultivating a demoniac nature is about taking the easy, lazy way out, compromising one's integrity in the process. 

Cultivating a divine nature is about taking the hard, strenuous path which strengthens one's integrity and cleanses the heart. 

I'll finish this post with one of my favorite quotes: 

“If you are willing to do only what's easy, life will be hard. But if you are willing to do what's hard, life will be easy.” - Harv Eker

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/16/17/

65: Transcendental Bystander

 Arjuna asks three questions to Krishna (Chapter 14, Verse 21) and Krishna responds with the below verses (22-25), which are traditionally grouped together. I will be focusing on the words and phrases that I bold and underline.  

CHAPTER 14, TEXTS 22-25: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Pāṇḍu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities – such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature.

Talking about religion and saying the word "God" is now taboo. But the soul craves some kind of way to seek righteousness through reform and behavior. As a result, social and political issues and involvement seem to be the new religion. 

On the social level, there's the Me Too movement, Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ+ equality and pride, affirmative action, school shootings, abortion, and many more.

On the political level, there's the matter of Donald Trump being president, America's handling of its borders with Mexico, illegal immigrants, North Korea, involvement in the Paris Climate Agreement, voting, and many more.   

Of course, social and political issues overlap - Black Lives Matter is sometimes considered a political issue, the handling of illegal immigrants sometimes considered a social issue. In either case, in the past few years there seem to be marches and protests and riots on a regular basis; the people who participate are fighting for their voices and opinion to be heard, for a change to be made.

From what I have observed on social media and in person, the engagement with these issues escalates to an almost religious fervor. If one chooses to not engage with any or all of these issues, one runs the risk of being a "bystander" - one who just lets things happen without taking a stand for what is right. 

Krishna has a different perspective, though. 

In the previous verse, Arjuna has asked Krishna: What is the behavior of a person who has transcended the modes of nature?  

This fourteenth chapter has explored the modes of nature, specifically goodness, passion, and ignorance, and how they permeate this world and our existence. These modes are binding, even goodness. And so Arjuna is asking how to move beyond them. 

Yes, even goodness. 

Krishna replies that the symptom of one who has transcended these modes has "renounced all material activities." This could mean many things and this response could, quite frankly, be bewildering. But Prabhupad elaborates on this particular phrase in two sentences. 

In the first sentence, he says, "[The transcendentalist] is equally disposed and sees everything on an equal level because he knows perfectly well that he has nothing to do with material existence." This seeing everything on an "equal level" is key here, but what is important is to be able to see reality and then be on an equal level. If I deeply identify with being a woman, there is no way I can be equally disposed towards all. This goes for any material identity (such as race, age, sexual orientation, religious orientation, etc.). True equality and neutrality must come from a spiritually informed perspective that we are a spirit soul, that we have "nothing to do with material existence." That is spiritual reality and the foundation for an equal disposition. 

Prabhupad then specifically writes that a person who has renounced all material activities renounces connections to these ever-changing social and political issues. In the second sentence he writes, "Social and political issues do not affect him, because he knows the situation of temporary upheavals and disturbances." The material world is in constant flux, the modes of material nature in perpetual competition for supremacy (14.10). But our true, divine nature is not in flux - the soul and the Supersoul is steady, eternal, at peace. Getting deeply absorbed in the comings and goings of material problems is a never-ending, turbulent storm.  

For example, Donald Trump has been president for four years. The maximum term he could have held was eight years. People opposed him and supported him with feverish, religious fervor, but at the end of the day, his "reign" was four years, and if he had been voted into office for a second term, a maximum of eight years.  

Then the next upheaval would've come. 

Many of the issues listed earlier in this post have been under scrutiny for decades, but the past few years we've seen an explosion of talking about and shedding light on them. 

But they will come and they will go. This is not a pessimistic opinion dismissing important issues of the world. The statement that these issues will come and go is based on reality - social and political issues are temporary because they are born of the material world and the modes of nature. Material issues deal with the body, country borders, and the environment; for each of these issues there is a perpetual merry-go-round of goodness, passion, and ignorance fighting for supremacy. 

These are not issues of the soul. 

An important distinction to make here is that Krishna and Prabhupad are not recommending anyone to renounce material activities. Krishna and Prabhupad are describing the symptoms of a person who has transcended the modes of nature. 

So in this way, Arjuna could've asked the question flipped around: What is the behavior of a person who has not transcended the modes of nature?

And Krishna would've responded, logically, "He is deeply absorbed in material activities" and Prabhupad would've elaborated, "He is affected by social and political issues, thinking the problem to be permanent and that he must be the one to solve the problem." 

As a reader, we are now faced with a choice: which person do I want to be? 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/14/22-25/

62: Illuminating Presence

CHAPTER 13, TEXT 34: O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates all this universe, so does the living entity, one within the body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness.

So simple. 

So sublime. 

The sun is one, and yet it illuminates and animates the whole earth. A symptom that the sun exists is that we see light. 

Krishna says in this verse that similarly, the tiny spark of the soul illuminates the body. A symptom that the soul exists is that we experience consciousness. Prabhupad writes, "Thus consciousness is the proof of the presence of the soul, as sunshine or light is the proof of the presence of the sun." One may ask how  consciousness is "proof" of the presence of the soul - why are there no other ways to prove the presence of the soul - say a microscope? Of some kind of energy meter...? 

In the previous verse, Krishna compares the soul to the sky - how the sky mixes with everything and at the same time is aloof and is never contaminated. The purport reads, "Similarly, the living entity, even though situated in varieties of bodies, is aloof from them due to his subtle nature. Therefore it is impossible to see with the material eyes how the living entity is in contact with this body and how he is out of it after the destruction of the body. No one in science can ascertain this" (13.33). The very nature of the soul is subtle and immeasurable to some kind of microscope or energy meter. Trying to manufacture some method to directly perceive the soul is pointless. As Prabhupad mentions here, "no one in science can ascertain" the soul or how or when it moves and functions. The soul itself is subtle. 

But we can perceive the soul through the symptoms of the soul, and the most obvious symptom is consciousness. We don't need fancy instruments or fancy scientific calculations to perceive the soul. The logic is simple: "When the soul is present in the body, there is consciousness all over the body, and as soon as the soul has passed from the body there is no more consciousness. 

"This can be easily understood by any intelligent man." 

Yes! The key word here is "easily" - this is easily understood! How is someone who has died referenced?

"She left us."

"He is gone."

"She is no longer with us."

Or maybe someone in grief, weeping at the bedside crying out, "Where are you?"

In all these situations, the body is right there. How is he or she "gone" or "no longer with us" and why would one say, "where are you?" if we can touch and see the body? 

The soul has gone, the soul is no longer with us, we are asking where the soul is. The soul is what illuminated the body with consciousness, like the sun illuminating the earth. "Therefore consciousness is not a product of the combinations of matter. It is the symptom of the living entity."

The living entity is not a product of matter - the soul is of a spiritual, divine nature. 

So simple. 

So sublime. 

The most reassuring part is that over and over again in the Gita and in other Vedic scriptures the soul is described as "eternal" and "undying", so when the soul "leaves" the body it's not like the soul is snuffed out like a candle, forever extinguished into oblivion. (This is a common belief of atheists.)

No. The soul leaves the body and moves on to another body. I mean, if the soul is eternal (and not just snuffed out) and it's not ready to go to heaven or back to God, what else would the soul do? The soul has a journey. Each body is a portion of the soul's journey.

I hope I can use this time wisely while my soul is in this current body. 

I hope to cultivate love and cleanse my heart, and seek God. 

I hope to live a life of purpose with each day, no matter how simple. 

And when the day comes when the lights go out forever on this life in this body and my soul travels on to my next destination, I hope the journey will take me ever closer to love and to God. 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/13/34/

57: Fight or Flight or...?

CHAPTER 13, TEXTS 1-2: Arjuna said: O my dear Kṛṣṇa, I wish to know about prakṛti [nature], puruṣa [the enjoyer], and the field and the knower of the field, and of knowledge and the object of knowledge. The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: This body, O son of Kuntī, is called the field, and one who knows this body is called the knower of the field.

Animals live in fear. 

Always. 

Think about it - for the most part, animals/aquatics/insects/etc. are eaten alive. If they are not eaten alive, they are always in fear of being eaten alive. Imagine that. You are still alive and conscious, and another animal is eating your body. 

Maybe this sounds graphic, but this is just the reality of the material world. 

Human beings are animals too, you know. 

Maybe we don't live in fear of being eaten alive (other than those villains in Indiana Jones movies) but our fear manifests in two basic ways:

Fight

or

Flight. 

Either ramp up the adrenaline and start arguing/kicking/screaming/punching or

Turn away from the conflict/problem/situation as soon as possible and run away as far as possible. 

Fight or flight. So often we operate in these two modes of existence. Fear manifests in countless ways in our physical, and emotional lives, often plaguing our mental health. 

But there is a third option: 

Observe. 

Don't fight. Don't take flight. 

Just be. Watch. Observe. 

In his book Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey writes how between stimulus and response, there is a space. Living a conscious, effective, and inspiring life sometimes boils down to a simple process: widening that space. Acting from that space. 

Instead of reacting out of fear - fighting it out or running away - stop, pause, and consider the situation. Make a decision from a place of clear knowledge and presence. 

Conscious life and indeed spiritual life begins when we realize that we *can* make a choice and not operate from some automatic fear reaction. Making conscious choices is waking up to the most powerful function of the soul - free will. 

Making choices begins with understanding that we each have a body, and within that body is a soul. In this verse of the Gita, Arjuna is inquiring about the field (ksetram) and the knower of the field (ksetra-jna). Prabhupad writes how the body is the field of activity for the conditioned soul, and "the person, who should not identify himself with the body, is called kṣetra-jña, the knower of the field." 

This is the crux of the matter: the understanding that I - the soul - am the witness. Prabhupad writes how even a child can understand that the body goes through so many changes, but the person inside of the body does not change. The soul is the witness. 

Here in this verse, it's clear that there is a difference between the body (the field) and the soul (the knower of the field). Prabhupad emphasizes that "The owner is distinctly ksetra-jna." The field may be destroyed, but the knower of the field continues to exist. There is no need to fear. 

Being a little removed from all the drama of life alleviates fear, because I understand that all the pain and horror and death is happening within the field, not to me, the soul, the knower of the field. 

Our greatest challenge of fear will come for us all one day: death. We probably wont be eaten alive, but we will definitely die - whether that is tomorrow or fifty years from now.

Do I fight against death? Do I run away from it and numb myself? 

Or do I observe?

That's my choice. 

Making this choice is the beginning of conscious living. 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/13/1-2/

53: Krishna at Face Value

CHAPTER 11, TEXT 51: When Arjuna thus saw Kṛṣṇa in His original form, he said: O Janārdana, seeing this humanlike form, so very beautiful, I am now composed in mind, and I am restored to my original nature.

The Gita has been studied for thousands of years. Scholars often recognize certain philosophical points in the Gita as truths and laws of nature, such as the law of karma, the eternality of the soul, the modes of material nature, and much more (https://www.ancient.eu/Bhagavad_Gita/). Krishna's words are taken at face value, no metaphorical bending or interpretation required.  

But when it comes to Krishna's statements that fools deride him when he descends in human form (9.11) or that one should worship Him with love and devotion by meditating on His form (9.22), Krishna's words suddenly are not taken at face value. They're seen as metaphorical.  

Many scholars take one of two standpoints: 1) Either Krishna is seen as an ordinary human being who gave some great wisdom to his friend on a battlefield, or 2) this battle at Kurukshetra never actually took place - the whole Bhagavad-gita is interpreted as a metaphor for the soul's battle for goodness and truth. 

There's a third possibility, though: 3) The battle of Kurukshetra took place, Krishna is God in human form conversing with his dear friend, instructing him how to live in this world and become a loving devotee. Bhaktivedanta Swami's commentary on the Bhagavad-gita is aptly entitled As It Is. 

Take everything Krishna says at face value. As it is. No metaphorical mind-bending.

If He says that there's a law of karma, there's a law of karma. 

If He says that there are three modes of material nature, there are three modes of material nature. 

If Krishna displays the universal, cosmic form, a form that only God can display, then that is Krishna's power and Krishna is God. 

If Krishna is described in His original form as having two hands and being very beautiful, then His original form has two hands and He is very beautiful. 

Prabhupad writes, "Here the words mānuṣaṁ rūpam clearly indicate the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be originally two-handed." This is clear. There is no need for a twisted interpretation to this verse and these statements. 

If Krishna's other statements of profound philosophical truths are so often taken at face value, why not these statements that He is the Supreme Controller, the Supreme Source of All, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead who comes in the form of a human to exchange love with His devotees? Although Krishna may look ordinary, He is not. Prabhupad argues this point, "If Kṛṣṇa is like an ordinary human being, then how is it possible for Him to show the universal form and again to show the four-handed Nārāyaṇa form?" Krishna has already shown and stated that He has displayed His universal form as well as his Narayan form - this is certainly not something an ordinary human being can do. So then the only other option is to see all of Krishna's words as metaphor. That option seems to be a little bit like cherry-picking the verses and ideas that are comfortable and leaving the rest as vaguely "metaphorical." 

After experiencing the terrifying universal form, Arjuna is now satisfied and at peace in his heart to behold his dear friend, Krishna, in his original two-armed form. This form is beautiful, a form that Arjuna can look in the eyes, a form that he can see with his ordinary eyes. 

Two seemingly opposing possibilities - that Krishna is in a human form and Krishna is all-powerful God - are reconciled once we just take Krishna's words at face value, As They Are. 

Prabhupad concludes his commentary on this verse by emphasizing that "the original verses of Bhagavad-gītā are as clear as the sun; they do not require lamplight from foolish commentators." 

I often feel like one of those foolish commentators as I do this Gita Project, trying to shed lamplight upon the brilliance of the sun of Krishna's and Prabhupads' words. That said, I just want to be as loyal and true to their words as possible, and if by God's grace I can accomplish this, then I am content to be a little lamp basking in the radiance of the sun of Krishna's teachings which illuminate the world. 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/11/51/

45: The Darkness of IGNORE-ance, The Light of Service

CHAPTER 10, TEXT 11: To show [the devotees] special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.

People on the path of bhakti yoga focus on cultivating love and devotion, but this focus on love can sometimes be seen as a weakness. 

What about logic? 

What about philosophy? 

What about truth in all of its clear and grounded glory? 

Huh?

Prabhupad writes that sometimes "philosophers criticize the devotees because they think that most of the devotees are in the darkness of ignorance and are philosophically naive sentimentalists." I can almost hear the philosophers scoff at bhakti yogis: Your focus on "love" makes you naive and weak with sentimentality, you fools!  

Prabhupad refutes this idea by mentioning that there are many Vaishnava scholars of bhakti who illuminate the scripture with deep clarity and logic as well as devotion. 

That said, still, devotion is not a matter of philosophy or logic. Love knows no bounds. The source of all knowledge is God, and ultimately, God is dwelling in our hearts. So Prabhupad writes, "[E]ven if a devotee does not take advantage of [Vaishnava scholar] literatures or of his spiritual master, if he is sincere in his devotional service he is helped by Kṛṣṇa Himself within his heart." God is the source of all knowledge, all philosophy, all logic, all truth, and lucky us - he dwells right within our own hearts as Paramatma. If the Lord so desires, he can turn on the lamp of truth and illuminate our hearts, which are so shrouded with ignorance. 

But what does it take for Paramatma to turn on that lamp? 

Prabhupad writes that "The only qualification is that one carry out devotional service in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness." Loving service to Krishna is what illuminates the heart. No amount of studying can flood our hearts with the light of understanding, only loving service. In fact, "it is not possible to understand Him or to achieve Him simply by making a mental effort. Man can go on speculating for several millions of years, and if he is not devoted, if he is not a lover of the Supreme Truth, he will never understand Kṛṣṇa, or the Supreme Truth." I love how Prabhupad emphasizes that man could speculate for millions of years and never know God. After all, the lamp of knowledge destroys ignorance, and what is ignorance? 

I once heard ignorance defined as IGNORE-ance. To what degree am I ignoring the truth, ignoring God? The truth and God is right there. Nevertheless, for so many reasons I ignore Him, and this creates so much darkness in my own heart and in the world. The philosopher who is speculating about God for millennia could actually be coldly ignoring God. 

If I would just stop ignoring God and turn to Him within my own heart and offer my love and attention, then the light of truth and knowledge can come flooding back. No speculation for millions of years required. 

"The pure devotee always has Kṛṣṇa within his heart; and with the presence of Kṛṣṇa, who is just like the sun, the darkness of ignorance is at once dissipated."

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/10/11/

44: All Souls Are Created Equal

CHAPTER 9, TEXT 32: O son of Pṛthā, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth – women, vaiśyas [merchants] and śūdras [workers] – can attain the supreme destination.

Let's be honest. If the CEO of any company made this statement today (substituting out "Me" for God, of course), he or she would probably be fired and his or her career and standing in society would come crashing down in smoldering ruins. 

Why? 

Krishna states here that women, merchants, and workers are of lower birth. 

This implies that men and, let's say, world leaders, are of a higher birth. 

Note the term "birth", which implies that if someone is born a certain way, there is nothing that can be done about it - no amount of surgeries or education degrees or work experience can change the manner in which one is born. A woman is a woman. A worker is a worker. One could argue that this kind of reasoning breeds discrimination and permits persecution and abuse in the name of religion. 

This verse (and others) are often cited as quite controversial, verses and commentaries that sometimes break people's faith in the Bhagavad-gita, the path of bhakti, and maybe even spiritual life. 

Americans hold equality of all to be a very sacred principle, and this Gita verse seems to violate that principle. Within a founding document of the United States of America, Thomas Jefferson penned these famous words in the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal." I am certainly a benefactor of America's pursuit of equality - as a woman living in 2020, I could literally do anything and everything I truly wanted to do, including go to college, buy land, or even become the President. What's more, America has inspired many other countries of the world to pursue equality for all. 

Of course, Jefferson is now criticized as a white man of privilege who had slaves and excluded women from this famous statement. On a material level, Jefferson (and most of the other founding fathers) was a hypocrite. 

So now we still have a problem - even people who espouse liberty, equality, and justice for all don't actually live those principles. 

Let's return to the drawing board then, and see where we have gone amiss in our interpretation of this Gita verse. Here is the problem: the phrase "lower birth" is all that is focused on. The truth is that this verse is stating something closer to what Jefferson himself meant in the deepest way: we are all truly created equal. 

No material designation, whether that is a body or an occupation, can keep us from our divine nature and our divine purpose in this world. Prabhupad writes, "It is clearly declared here by the Supreme Lord that in devotional service there is no distinction between the lower and higher classes of people." All that would be focused on if the CEO made this statement would be that he had classified women and workers as a lower birth, but not the essence of the verse, which is that anyone can participate in spiritual life, regardless of birth and class. 

The bigger thing to accept, then, is that there *are* classes of men and women in this world. This is the reality. There have always been classes in society, there always will be classes in society. This is just the nature of the material world. Prabhupad continues, "In the material conception of life there are such divisions, but for a person engaged in transcendental devotional service to the Lord there are not." This distinction is crucial. If we are engaged in transcendental service, these divisions become irrelevant. But if one switches into a material conception of life, then yes, suddenly these distinctions and classes of birth become important, almost overpowering. 

For example, men and women have separate competitions in the Olympics. This is understandable, considering the obvious physiological differences between a man's body and a woman's body.

But - men and women also have separate competitions for chess. 

Chess? 

How can this be? 

Being good at chess is a strong indicator of a high IQ (thechessworld.com), so if there is a separate championship for women, this means that on average, even the intellects of men outperform the intellects of women. This is simply the reality. Being stronger and also more intelligent is a sign of a "higher birth." 

But Krishna is saying here that none of those considerations of lower and higher birth matter when it comes to love and devotion.  

Prabhupad emphasizes, "[D]evotional service and the guidance of a pure devotee are so strong that there is no discrimination between the lower and higher classes of men; anyone can take to it." This is true equality. We all hunger to be treated as equals in life and in love. This is why the founding fathers laid down equality as a principle for the United States to be built upon - our soul hungers to be recognized for who we are, not just for some material condition. But the Declaration of Independence is a material document. 

The Gita is spiritual document. Contrary to how this verse is misinterpreted, the Gita is meant to lift us out of these cages of designations that trap us into discrimination, hatred, and persecution. Krishna is saying here that actually, none of these designations matter when there is love and devotion to God.  

More important than the reality that there are higher and lower births in this world is the reality that we are all spirit souls and all spirit souls are equal. When I operate from that level, I see the truth that I am just as eligible as any man, as any world leader, as anyone more beautiful or more intelligent or wealthier than me. I am a spirit soul, capable of offering my love and my heart to God with purity and devotion. That is within my power, that is within the power of every human being on this planet, that is an inalienable right within each and every one of us. No one can take away the right to love. I believe that this divine truth is what the founding fathers of America were aiming for when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. This is the truth that God himself is emphasizing in the Gita. 

So I'll just accept right now that as a woman, according to the Gita, I've been born into a "lower birth." 

Yep. Last I checked, I still love myself. I'm just accepting the reality of my birth. 

Being born a woman does not stop me from learning to love. I am a spirit soul, capable of opening my heart to God and attaining the "highest perfection of life." 

I trust that that is the message of the Gita, that is the message of Srila Prabhupad, that is the message of any genuine spiritual path. 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/9/32/

43: The Devotee of His Devotee

CHAPTER 9, TEXT 29: I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.

A few years ago, I decided to take on an unpaid internship at a school in New York City because I simply wanted to be there. Eventually, I built such a warm and supportive relationship with the teachers that I was asked to step in for a long-term substitute position, and eventually as a full-time teacher. 

For both positions, I was still required to go through the full interview process. Other applicants were interviewed, so we were all given a fair chance at the position.

In fact, other applicants were sometimes even more qualified than me - they had more training, more experience, etc. I remember sitting in my chair outside of the principal's office and seeing these interviewees come in and thinking to myself, "This is nuts. I'm a total newb at teaching, these people look so qualified."

But I was given the job. 

Both times, there was never a question in the principal's mind that she wanted to give the job to me. 

Why? 

There's only one reason. 

We had a relationship. Not only the principal and me, but I also had relationship with almost every teacher at the school, along many of the students. Those relationships took precedence over everything else, from degrees to years of experience. 

This verse of the Gita, 9.29, addresses this seeming contradiction in spiritual life between God's fairness and His special treatment. Srila Prabhupad addresses this contradiction within the very first sentence of his purport: "One may question here that if Kṛṣṇa is equal to everyone and no one is His special friend, then why does He take a special interest in the devotees who are always engaged in His transcendental service?" Indeed, one could argue that true impartiality means that even if there is any kind of a relationship, decisions will be made only upon the laws and objective qualifications. We take great pains in this world to make sure judges and jurors are neutral, and that they are not swayed by personal relationships. 

That is also an aspect of God, which he addresses in this verse: I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. God IS the neutral judge, meting out punishment and reward through the machinations of material nature. 

But that judge in the courtroom - she or he also goes home, right? That judge may have a family. A husband or a wife. A child. Friends. That judge is not only a judge - that judge is a person. At home, that judge is partial to his wife and his child and his friends. He exchanges love with each person in a unique, special way. 

Similarly, God is a person. He is not only the supreme judge and maintainer of  the universe. Krishna is a person whose heart opens to the person whose heart opens to Him. As Srila Prabhbupad says, "[T]his is not discrimination; it is natural." Indeed, for a judge to be partial to his wife or child is not discrimination - it is  natural! Similarly, God is a person who is partial to those He has a loving relationship with. 

Of course, the presupposition here is that God is a person. Prabhupad writes, "If a reciprocal relationship is not present between the devotee and the Lord, then there is no personalist philosophy. In the impersonal philosophy there is no reciprocation between the Supreme and the living entity, but in the personalist philosophy there is." 

The impersonalist philosophy would say that God is an all-powerful force of light that maintains the universe, brilliant like the sun. There's no reciprocation with the sun. The sun simply exists and shines upon all in utter impartiality. 

The personalist philosophy would say that God is a conscious person who has feelings and a heart. This person is inclined to give attention and affection to those who give attention and affection to Him, as any person is.  

The wondrous thing about this verse is that Krishna validates both the impersonalist and personalist approach! He is the impartial sun AND the partial person. He is equal to all AND a friend. Both are needed, both are aspects of God. 

Ultimately, though, a loving relationship is emphasized. And how beautiful that God is partial to His devotees - in this way he so tenderly cares for those who express some faith and love in Him, and try to serve Him in any small way. In fact, God reciprocates so beautifully to the point of serving his devotees. Prabhupad writes, "The Supreme Lord becomes the devotee of His devotees." Note the phrasing of this sentence, and that Prabhupad uses the title of "The Supreme Lord" to emphasize that wonder of God Himself becoming a devotee of His devotee. In this way, God is not just partial to His devotee because He likes being served and likes all the attention for Himself. No. Krishna - The Supreme Lord - reciprocates and takes great joy in serving and loving His devotees with all of His heart. 

Full purport: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/9/29/

40: gigantic, miniscule, and... medium-sized?

CHAPTER 9, TEXT 11: Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

In a few days, the results will come in for who is voted in to office as the next President of the United States. The President will have control over so many aspects of the United States, which is widely considered as one of the most powerful countries in the world. 

And if the United States is one of the most powerful countries in the world, then the  President is one of the most powerful men on earth. 

Still, the President is controlled by others - the people in the Senate, Congress, and other checks and balances in the United States government; it is not set up to be a dictatorship or a monarchy.

So the most powerful man on earth is still controlled by others. 

Think about it - our sphere of influence is so very, very small. Sometimes we climb the  "corporate" ladder to gain power and influence, or we claw our way to fame to be more widely known, or we pursue some other outlandish goal so that we may expand that tiny sphere of influence. We want to affect other people.  

Prabhupad writes in the purport to this verse that, "Each of [us] is a controller, but one is controlled by another." There is no escaping that the President is not only controlled by the Senate and Congress, but he's also controlled by his own bodily urges - to eat, to sleep, to evacuate, and more. The President is controlled by the movements of the sun - the span of a day - and  he is controlled by the weather - if it's raining, he must wear a raincoat. The president cannot control natural disasters like raging wildfires or cataclysmic floods. 

Prabhupad continues to write in this verse: "In the Brahma-saṁhitā it is said that Kṛṣṇa is the supreme controller." This means that Krishna controls all the machinations of this world and all of the universes in creation. 

For someone like me, who has so little control over when even I need to use the bathroom, the concept of one person controlling the universe is, frankly, preposterous. 

Still, let us return to the role of the President of the United States. He's considered one of the most powerful men on earth for a reason. He can suggest new laws, grant pardons, recognize foreign countries, act as a Commander-in-Chief during a war, and more (truman.gov). These are all capacities to affect the world on a much bigger scale than I ever have and ever will. 

And still, the president is one man. A person. 

In this verse, Krishna - who is a man - tells his friend Arjuna that "fools deride me when I descend in human form." In the impersonalist philosophical school, this conversation between Krishna and Arjuna is allegorical, and the battle of Kurukshetra never actually took place. It's all simply an analogy to represent the battle of consciousness. 

This particular verse, though, often confounds impersonalist philosophers. 

Krishna is emphasizing that yes, He is in a human form, and yes, fools deride Him in that form, that it's not possible for him to be the transcendental controller of all the universes if he's human. Prabhupad writes, "The biggest and the minutest are beyond [the impersonalists'] conception, so they cannot imagine that a form like that of a human being can simultaneously control the infinite and the minute." Although we have telescopes and microscopes to catch glimpses of the biggest and minutest, our capacity is so very limited. We cannot even conceive that one person could possibly control such a magnitude. 

In connection to this, another analogy comes to mind. 

The airport. 

Waiting for my plane at the airport. 

How many times have I gazed out of airport lobby windows to marvel at the gigantic planes wheeling in and out of the sky? Yet within that gigantic machine is one tiny man - the pilot - who controls the entire massive piece of metal and technology. What's more, he holds the lives of hundreds of people within his hands. 

One man. 

It doesn't matter how big that man is. He doesn't need to be as big as the plane, or even especially tall or impressive. That man controls the airplane. We understand that it's the intelligence of the human in the pilot's seat who is flying that airplane.

Similarly, God comes in human form. He's bigger than the biggest and smaller than the smallest, but he's also medium-sized. Why not? If He's God, why CAN'T he come in any size He wants, including human sized? That human form can simultaneously control all the machinations of the universes, just like a pilot controlling a gigantic plane. 

With this analogy, we can understand that God doesn't need to be as big as the universe or small as the atoms to control either one. He doesn't need to be invisible or in some alien form. 

He's simply God - the pilot - and He's in control. 

Most important of all, if God can come in medium size, in human form, then we can actually worship Him and love Him. It's hard to repose our love in a blazing universe or in a miniscule atom or an invisible force. But if God can come in the form of a beautiful, charming youth who plays the flute, someone I can look in the eyes, then this is where I may rest the love of my heart and soul. Krishna has such a loving friendship with Arjuna precisely because He has come in a human form. 

Ultimately, this human form of Krishna is what is worshiped in the temple as a sacred statue, or a murti. In this murti, we may worship God to our heart's content, in a form and size that we can actually connect to. Prabhupad writes, "There are also many impersonalists who deride temple worship. They say that since God is everywhere, why should one restrict himself to temple worship? But if God is everywhere, is He not in the temple or in the Deity?" Maybe God chooses to "restrict" himself by manifesting himself in the temple; he does so in order to exchange love with his devotees. 

In conclusion, the matter of who is in control is hotly debated. If we look at even the most  powerful man on earth, we can see that his scope of control is actually very limited. There is always someone controlling another in this world, including the President of the United States. 

But there is someone who controls everything and everyone, and that someone does not need to be a giant or microscopic amoeba. The Supreme Controller can manifest in a medium-sized form -  human - in order to exchange love with His devotees.   

https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/9/11/

33: Cultivating the Connection

CHAPTER 7, TEXT 8: O son of Kuntī, I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable oṁ in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man.

From personal experience, a broken heart from betrayed love is probably the most excruciating pain I've ever endured.

Also from personal experience, a whole heart to give and receive love with another human being is probably the most joy I've ever known.

Love is pain.

Love is joy.

See the problem here??

We all want love, but love could be our downfall OR our salvation. So what is love?

Love, at its core, is an exchange between two people. Brene Brown, a Ph.D. researcher on shame and connection, writes, "Love is not something we give or get; it is something that we nurture and grow, a connection that can only be cultivated between two people..."  (https://brenebrown.com/definitions/). This means that love is not an object to be given or an object to give away. And if love cannot be given or taken away, then that must mean that love eternally resides within the heart of each and every one of us. Essentially, love is a connection that is either cultivated or neglected.

Bhakti is the love that exists between God (Bhagavan) and the spirit soul (bhakta) - that love is not given to us, nor can it be given away. The propensity to love and serve God is intrinsic to our very nature. Bhakti is either dormant (and neglected) or active. What's more, "We cultivate love when we allow our most vulnerable and powerful selves to be seen and known" (Brene Brown, https://brenebrown.com/definitions/). Bhagavan in His most sweet and vulnerable form is when he goes by the personal name of Krishna. (An equivalent would be like calling President Obama by his first name, Barack.)

Calling God by His "first name" - Krishna - is very intimate. By saying the name Krishna, we are invoking God's most vulnerable and powerful self, and Krishna is allowing Himself to be seen and known.

So what does this all have to do with this Chapter 7, Verse 8 of the Bhagavad-gita?? What does being hardwired to love, being scared to love, and using God's personal name have to do with Krishna sharing that He is, say, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras?

Prabhupad writes, "Because the impersonalists are very much afraid of addressing the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa by His innumerable names, they prefer to vibrate the transcendental sound oṁ-kāra." The key word in this sentence is "afraid." The very reason why people become impersonalists and refute the existence of a personal God who has a form and a name is because they're afraid... of love.

We all know how painful love can be, and so impersonalists have simply chosen to not cultivate that connection of love with God the person. After all, a broken heart on the scale of loving God could be cataclysmic!

Still, there's a secret: "But [the impersonalists] do not realize that oṁ-kāra is the sound representation of Kṛṣṇa."

There's no escape ;)

Krishna says in this verse that He is the om-kara, so for those who are afraid to connect to God in a loving relationship, He still makes Himself accessible through an impersonal sound. Prabhupad writes, "The Supreme Lord can be preliminarily perceived by His different energies, and in this way He is realized impersonally." When loving God seems too far away, too scary, too impossible, then we can start here, in this preliminary way: experiencing His energies. They're all representations of Krishna Himself that we can experience right now, in this moment.

A glass of New York City tap water (which is famous for being drawn from natural springs) sits on my desk; I just took a sip. That clean taste is Krishna.

The morning sunlight shines with brilliance upon light brown bricks of the apartment building outside my window. That light is Krishna.

Sitting here at my desk, I just vibrated the syllable om. That syllable is Krishna.

Right now I can hear the clock tick. That sound vibrating through ether is Krishna.

I move my fingers across this keyboard and look upon this screen. The ability to do so is Krishna.

Right here, right now, I can experience God, if only I have the vision. No need to fear any kind of personal relationship or connection that could end in a broken heart, because maybe - if I'm honest - I'm scared and a little intimidated to really love God. So Krishna says here: Just experience the original and purest lights, sounds, smells, tastes, and movements of this world and You will know me.  

In this way, Krishna is allowing His most powerful self to be known through these energies. Maybe He's not so vulnerable - like using his personal name of Krishna - but that's okay. In this way, Krishna is emphasizing that all pathways to experiencing, knowing, and loving God are valid. Prabhupad points out, "Practically speaking, there is no conflict between personalism and impersonalism. One who knows God knows that the impersonal conception and personal conception are simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction." In this way, the spiritual journey is meant to be understandable and accessible to all.

Right now.

Right here.

Bhakti is meant to be cultivated through the simple medium of appreciation. Just appreciating the glass of water, the sunlight, and sound, our heart grows and softens. We begin to understand that God is not vaulted off in some inaccessible cloud in the sky looking down on us. He is infused within every moment and every movement of our lives, if we only have the vision to see.

"When we focus on our gratitude, the tide of disappointment goes out and the tide of love rushes in."
Kristin Armstrong

Full purport by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/7/8/