77: Description, Not Condemnation

CHAPTER 18, TEXT 28: The worker who is always engaged in work against the injunctions of the scripture, who is materialistic, obstinate, cheating and expert in insulting others, and who is lazy, always morose and procrastinating is said to be a worker in the mode of ignorance.

There is something very, very fascinating about how Krishna phrases His words in this verse. Well, not only this verse but any verse that describes types of people within the modes of natures. 

He does not instruct.  

He does not condemn.

He simply describes. 

Sure, the words "obstinate" and "lazy" sound judgmental, but Krishna is not judgmental or petty in that way. He is objectively describing the mental habits and behavior of a worker who is cocooned within the mode of ignorance. 

To be honest? I find myself being described here. But I don't feel condemned by God. In fact, I feel understood. 

I feel understood for my habits of working in a lazy and morose way and constantly procrastinating. Prabhupad writes, "[Workers in the mode of ignorance] procrastinate; anything which can be done in an hour they drag on for years." I had to laugh at this statement, because I find such truth here. I can pull up a list in my mind of projects or "to-do"s that could be completed literally within an hour, but they go on uncompleted, year after year. 

When I read this verse of the Gita I feel as though I am looking into the mirror. I see more clearly that, ah yes, I am often a worker in the mode of ignorance. 

So I'll start there, by simply saying that I resonate with this verse, and I do not feel condemned, but understood. 

Consequently, and naturally, I feel this lacking within my heart, this sense that I want to not be in the mode of ignorance. I want to be described in a different way. I do. 

My next point now has to deal with the world that I observe around me, especially on social media. 

1) I've begun to notice how there seems to be a confusion about what should be done and what should not be done. Recently I've seen some women share about the deep pain and challenge of motherhood. And while I understand that that's a reality, still... it's a stage of life. Billions of women have endured motherhood for millennia, how come suddenly motherhood is so shocking? Granted, I am not a mother, and I sound like I am condemning women for complaining about the challenge. Still, this verse from the Gita mentions that one who is "always morose" implies someone who is working with a kind of dread, frustration, and resisting the reality of one's duty day after day. While moroseness and the pain and challenge of motherhood is natural, to hang out in that space for a prolonged period of time seems to be resisting one's duty and to be working in the mode of ignorance. 

2) I am seeing a lack of gentility in communication, and a prevalence of cutting insults towards others. I see name-calling, such as "racist", "neo-Nazi", "Karen", "white supremacist", "Uncle Tom", "baby-killers", "snowflake", "wimp" and more. Name-calling is a kind of laziness, labeling others in a way that demeans and disrespects without much consideration. Prabhupad writes that "Such workers are not very gentle, and generally they are always cunning and expert in insulting others." In fact, this brashness and cutting personality is even glorified in modern media. Youtube videos of personalities who condemn and name-call others are wildly popular. The problem with this new kind of gossip and name-calling is that it's out of touch with humanity. If we were all to relate with each other personally, one-on-one, this kind of painful communication would hurt and maim others in a deep way.

3) I am also seeing a kind of obstinate way of dealing with authority, a kind of obnoxious "push back" against being told what to do, especially according to any kind of scriptural injunction (which this verse of the Gita mentions). Authority is rejected and generally seen as an oppressive force that should be questioned at all times. At no point should authority be accepted and respected in any kind of deep way. This obstinate nature and refusal to accept authority is a trademark of workers in the mode of ignorance. 

This post started out by saying that Krishna does not condemn workers in the mode of ignorance. Sure, His language is strong, but he is simply describing the truth of workers in this mode, just as he describes workers in the modes of passion and goodness. Krishna does not even instruct us to work in the mode of goodness. 

He leaves it up to us. 

We read how these workers are described. We look in the mirror and nod when we resonate. 

And we make our own choice: what kind of worker do I want to be? 

Okay, okay, show me the description of the worker in the mode of goodness. Let's do this. Because... that's how I want to be described. I want to look in the mirror and see that person. 

So here it is: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/18/26/

***

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/18/28/

11: Language Reflects Consciousness

CHAPTER 2, TEXT 54: Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa, what are the symptoms of one whose consciousness is thus merged in transcendence? How does he speak, and what is his language? How does he sit, and how does he walk?

This is Arjuna's first question in the Bhagavad-gita. Up to this point, Krishna has been explaining deep philosophical concepts, such as the nature of the soul and being detached from one's work in this world. And just like any time we hear a good amount of philosophy, we want to know how that philosophy is applied into everyday life, into one's everyday behavior. We don't want to be "armchair philosophers", speculating about life from our green squishy armchair in a stuffy drawing room. We want to be practical.

Arjuna is a warrior, and Arjuna is practical. He speaks for all of us. So he asks: what are the symptoms of a person in transcendence? Give me the basics: how does he speak, sit, and walk?

But we all speak, sit, and walk every day, all day. How would a person in transcendence be any different?

Srila Prabhupad emphasizes that of the three activities mentioned, one activity is the most important, which is "how the man in Krsna consciousness speaks; for speech is the most important quality of any man" (116). From this perspective, then, to speak is no longer ordinary.

Speech is power.

So often we just go through life speaking about anything and everything off the top of our minds. Complaining, chatting, cursing, explaining, and more.

We reveal our character, though, at every moment through what we choose to say or not say. Prabhupad writes that "It is said that a fool is undiscovered as long as he does not speak, and certainly a well-dressed fool cannot be identified unless he speaks, but as soon as he speaks, he reveals himself at once" (116). Walking through the streets and subways of New York City, I see many well-dressed people. If I was going off of appearances, I could consider all of these people supremely intelligent and wise. After all, there's no real way to identify a fool if he or she is dressed in a magnificent suit or a tailored dress.

In connection to Arjuna's question, though, language reflects consciousness. Peering into the minds of people to assess their consciousness is a job best left up to the psychics or psychiatrists (take your pick), and probably just a little unreliable. But if we were to listen in or engage in a conversation with any of these people on the street, we may observe their use of language to discern their level of consciousness. Most importantly, I may analyze my own use of language to discern my level of consciousness.

If language truly reflects consciousness, then it's what we say and not so much how we say it. The speech of an ideal person does not necessarily require eloquence, such as accent, pitch, and sophisticated vocabulary. The content of one's speech is far more important.

Naturally, then one may ask that if the content of our speech is the most important, what does a person in transcendence speak about?

Prabhupad writes, "The immediate symptom of a Krsna conscious man is that he speaks only of Krsna and of matters relating to Him" (116). So a well-dressed politician on the streets of New York could be speaking about very nuanced aspects of foreign policy in refined language, but he is not necessarily a person in transcendence. Using the power of speech to discuss spiritual matters and Krishna is a true symptom of someone who is rising above this world.

I have found that when I am searching for people to connect to who are on the spiritual path, I must look past the dress and the face. I need to look for a person who loves to speak from the heart about God and Krishna. In this way they may inspire within me my own desire to speak about God and search Him out with all of my heart.