CHAPTER 18, TEXT 39: And that happiness which is blind to self-realization, which is delusion from beginning to end and which arises from sleep, laziness and illusion is said to be of the nature of ignorance.
Full Purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/18/39/
Creative Expression: Hand Lettering
I chose to highlight a selection of divine qualities from Chapter 16, Verses 1-3:
Full text here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/16/1-3/
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/
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.
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/
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/
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/
CHAPTER 17, TEXT 10: Food prepared more than three hours before being eaten, food that is tasteless, decomposed and putrid, and food consisting of remnants and untouchable things is dear to those in the mode of darkness.
Okay, hold up.
Waaaaait a second.
So here we have a 5,000 year old scripture, an epic conversation between God and His warrior friend Arjuna and they're standing between armies of oceanic proportions. Krishna has described the nature of the soul, death, and has even revealed his terrifying universal form of creation and all-devouring time. Yes, yes, this all seems fitting to be featured in an ancient religious scripture.
And now Krishna is talking about... old food?
Yes.
"Food that is prepared more than three hours before being eaten" is in the mode of darkness and should not be eaten - this information is so crucial that Krishna is sharing this knowledge with Arjuna on that battlefield, the poised armies facing each other like scorpions, the fate of the world at stake.
The Bhagavad-Gita translates as "The Song of God" - this means that the verses that describe Krishna's universal form and verses that talk about old food are just as crucial for God realization as any other verse in this epic. So what is going on here?
The Gita is a manual for living a fulfilled, purposeful life of fearlessness, joy, and love. Krishna is not suggesting that Arjuna just be a nice, pious person who goes to church on Sunday, or to ruminate about lofty theological ideas in university classrooms. Krishna declares to his friend that he should, "in all circumstances, be a yogī" (6.46). Being a yogi is about living and breathing self-realization.
A yogi is a spiritual athlete.
Professional athletes have a coach, a diet, a regimen, a lifestyle, a way of thinking about goals. Tom Brady, a professional football player widely considered to be the Greatest Of All Time (GOAT), trains hard and is careful about what he eats even when it's not football season. And even though he's the GOAT, he still has a coach, he still takes directions, he still practices and practices.
This is the Gita - an invigorating training regimen to bring us in alignment with our soul and love of God.
Who's our coach? Krishna - God Himself. And when God says, hey, old food is in the mode of darkness and should not be eaten, well, maybe we should listen. And follow.
But here's the deal - this advice is tough. After all, what about frozen food and frozen meals? Or leftovers from Thanksgiving? Or just leftovers from lunch? What about all those dishes they have at restaurants and fast food chains that have obviously been prepared days, maybe even weeks beforehand?
This is where the Gita shows up in our lives, where we make a choice. Do we take the advice of the coach? Do we follow, and do we trust the process?
This particular verse, Text 10, is surrounded by other verses that talk about lifestyle choices in the various modes of material nature. So Krishna does describe food that one should eat, food in the mode of goodness that elevates our consciousness. Prabhupad elaborates, "The purpose of food is to increase the duration of life, purify the mind and aid bodily strength. This is its only purpose." These words seem very much to come from a coach who is identifying the benefits of a particular training regimen - longer life, purified mind, bodily strength. Those goals are there to assist in self-realization. And to achieve those goals, one must eat food in the mode of goodness, not mode of darkness (ignorance).
Prabhupad emphasizes here "This is [food's] only purpose" which I find a bit hard to swallow, pardon the pun. After all, food can be delicious! Sometimes I feel the only purpose of food to taste and experience textures, flavors, and temperatures in my mouth. I'm certainly not thinking about a longer life or purified mind. Food's purpose in those moments seem to be about enjoying.
There is a crucial distinction here, though. Enjoying food is not the purpose of food - it's a side effect. One can enjoy food no matter what mode of nature - in fact, Krishna even says in this verse that old, putrid, and untouchable food (or meat) is "dear" to those in the mode of darkness. Just because it's dear to them does not make it right or recommended.
So Krishna - our coach - gives us the information and lets us choose.
These simple - but hard - choices determines the course of our entire spiritual life.
That's why Krishna is talking about old food on the midst of a battlefield, poised between armies. Becoming the GOAT is about the big things - understanding the soul and death and time - and it's also about little things - so you gonna eat Thanksgiving leftovers or what?
Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/17/10/
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/
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/
CHAPTER 14, TEXT 16: The result of pious action is pure and is said to be in the mode of goodness. But action done in the mode of passion results in misery, and action performed in the mode of ignorance results in foolishness.
In this purport, Prabhupad lays out clear logic that "indulgence in animal killing for the taste of the tongue is the grossest kind of ignorance." This is not Prabhupad being judgmental or disgusted. He is simply building upon this verse, 14.16, especially "action performed in the mode of ignorance results in foolishness."
How is killing animals for the sake of the tongue foolish? How come it's it in the mode of ignorance?
The foundation of this logic begins with the word ignorance, which is translated as "lack of knowledge or information" (Oxford Languages).
Simple.
If one performs an action without appropriate knowledge or information, the action and the results are often harmful to the self and to others.
For example, I am ignorant of surgical procedures. I have a lack of knowledge and information (A BIG LACK) in order to produce a result that won't harm my patient (stab an artery...??) or harm myself (all those malpractice lawsuits!). In this regard, "the performer is without knowledge, and therefore all his activities result in present misery." This means that a lack of knowledge (ignorance) when we perform an action results in misery, not just a hazy confusion or discomfort.
Misery.
And misery for everyone.
Lack of awareness and the repeated choosing to ignore and turn away from knowledge and reality leads the soul to "go on toward animal life. Animal life is always miserable, although, under the spell of the illusory energy, māyā, the animals do not understand this." Animals are all in varying states of ignorance, surviving from day to day, operating from a place of instinct and driven to eat, mate, and defend. This is a miserable existence, but souls in these bodies are not even aware just how miserable they are. In a sense, animals are innocent. Animals do not produce karma, or reaction to their actions, because they are simply acting out of instinct.
But human beings can choose to act from a place beyond instinct, humans can act from a place of knowledge. Prabhupad writes, "Slaughtering poor animals is also due to the mode of ignorance. The animal killers do not know that in the future the animal will have a body suitable to kill them. That is the law of nature." Only human beings who kill animals or participate in the process of killing and eating animals recur this reaction to one day be slaughtered in kind. As Prabhupad says here, "That is the law of nature." If karma is working in all other spheres of existence as a divine system of justice, then this system also applies for killing animals. Thus, if one kills an animal to enjoy the tongue, "one has to pay for it." Action and reaction is a law of nature.
Thus we come to where we began this post: "indulgence in animal killing for the taste of the tongue is the grossest kind of ignorance." Animal killing is the grossest kind of ignorance because there is such a fundamental lack of knowledge and information that if I kill another living being I am responsible for its death.
What's more, "A human being has no need to kill animals, because God has supplied so many nice things." Nowadays, some would reject this statement and assert that some people just can't not eat meat because of his or her blood type or constitution. My sister professes that if she does not eat meat she becomes very unhealthy. I confess, I'm not a nutritionist or health science expert. That said, I am going off of Prabhupad's purport here, and he is emphasizing that [all] human beings do not need to eat meat, as "God has supplied so many nice things."
Okay, so if one is aware of the law of karma and aware that killing animals to enjoy meat is not the best for a bunch of reasons, how come this post or any debate or discussion is unlikely to change anyone's stance on eating meat?
I once debated this topic of vegetarianism in a Bioethics class in my undergraduate degree. We discussed all the reasons, from environmental impacts, to health reasons, and for this class especially, the ethical obligations of slaughtering animals for meat.
The conclusion was pretty obvious: don't eat meat.
But no one in the class, including my professor, was moved to make a change in behavior.
One day, I approached my professor after class to assert that really there is only one reason that people eat meat and will not give it up: the taste. People enjoy the taste, texture, and experience of meat.
The professor, a highly educated, sharp man in his thirties, at last conceded. He said, "I find it to be one of the greatest failings in my life that I'm not a vegetarian. But... I just love the taste of meat,"
One may have the knowledge and philosophical reasons to not eat meat, but at the end of the day, the fact that meat tastes good trumps all. In this sense, if one has the knowledge and information to not eat meat - that's not ignorance any more, right? In this case, then, ignorance is a true "ignore-ing" of what meat is (flesh of animals) and what the consequences are (being killed in kind). So "If one indulges in meat-eating anyway, it is to be understood that he is acting in ignorance and is making his future very dark."
Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/14/16/
CHAPTER 12, TEXT 20: Those who follow this imperishable path of devotional service and who completely engage themselves with faith, making Me the supreme goal, are very, very dear to Me.
Arjuna asked which is better - "one who is engaged in the path of impersonal Brahman or one who is engaged in the personal service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead" - and Lord Krishna replies here without a shadow of a doubt that devotional service is the best of all processes of spiritual realization (Purport, 12.20).
But even though personally serving Lord Krishna with devotion is the process recommended here as the highest, most direct path to loving God, the process is also somewhat shrouded in mystery.
A great Vaishnava saint and scholar, Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur, makes this point in his commentary on a famous verse in the Srimad Bhagavatam that describes bhakti as causeless. He writes, "Here the work ahaituki, causeless, means that devotional service has no material cause (hetu)" (Madhurya Kadambini, 3).
It's not possible to simply serve God and then after a preordained amount of time love would flood my heart. This would make love a business exchange, a kind of calculation on the grocery store receipt - 3 prayers, 5 fasts, 10 times giving in charity = love of God.
Loving devotion, or bhakti, has no material cause. I could engage in these processes of prayer, fasts, and giving in charity for a million years and still not experience love of God, because bhakti is not dependent upon my material endeavors.
So. The million dollar question:
If I can't endeavor for bhakti, how do I get it?
???
Association with a pure devotee.
Srila Prabhupad writes that this kind of association is essential to the cultivation of bhakti within the heart. In fact, Prabhupad emphasizes the essential nature of association by saying that "as long as one does not have the chance to associate with a pure devotee, the impersonal conception may be beneficial." How interesting! Krishna has just emphasized to Arjuna that bhakti yoga, without a doubt, is the best and highest path for spiritual realization, but here Prabhupad is saying that if one does not have the association of a devotee, the path of jnana (knowledge, meditation) yoga is beneficial.
This means that associating with a devotee is a necessity for cultivating bhakti.
But if one does not have that association, then this process of jnana yoga is your second best bet.
Jnana yoga involves working without fruitive result, meditating and cultivating knowledge to understand spirit and matter (Purport, 12.20). These activities are all confirmed by Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur as referring to "bhakti in the material mode of goodness (sattviki-bhakti) which acts as a limb of the system of jnana" (Madhurya Kadambini, 5). Being in the mode of goodness in our devotion is a great stepping stone to elevating our souls. Sattviki bhakti may never take us to our ultimate destination of love of God, but it opens the heart up to receive the love when it does come. That is why Prabhupad says that this process of jnana may be "necessary as long as one is not in the association of a pure devotee" (Purport, 12.20).
So how come association is so essential to cultivating love in our hearts? The answer lies within a devotee's mercy.
One may say that when or how a devotee gives mercy is dependent upon situations, so this is a material cause. But "Without the devotee having bhakti, there is no possibility of him giving mercy to others. Bhakti causes the devotee's mercy which causes bhakti in another person.
"Bhakti causes bhakti."
This is why we cannot huff and puff away at our prayers and fasts and charities, expecting love of God to sprout in our hearts on its accord from all of these endeavors. Bhakti can only be given by one who possesses bhakti, someone with love and mercy in his/her heart.
So either I engage in jnana yoga for lifetime upon lifetime, or I can seek out the association of pure devotees in order to take the highest, direct path to Krishna. The choice is mine, the choice is yours.
Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/12/20/
CHAPTER 10, TEXT 38: Among all means of suppressing lawlessness I am punishment, and of those who seek victory I am morality. Of secret things I am silence, and of the wise I am the wisdom.
When an elite athlete competes in the Olympics, a gold medal is burning within his or her heart. The athlete desires to vault that podium and be decorated by the presiding judge. This is the ultimate sign of victory for the whole world to see and remember forever in history.
I mean, besides a war general, this is what I envision to be the pinnacle of someone seeking victory.
In these verses in Chapter 10, Krishna is describing ways that He can be recognized in this material world. In this verse 38, I am intrigued by this declaration: "Of those who seek victory I am morality."
Morality?
What does morality have to do with a gold medal? The war that is won? The trophy? The Award - Oscar, Pulitzer, Emmy, Newbery, etc. etc.?
What does morality have to do with victory?
Srila Prabhupad writes, "Among those who are trying to be victorious in some field of activity, the most victorious element is morality." So whether someone is trying to be victorious in swimming (Michael Phelps), battles (Napoleon), or the Oscars (Katharine Hepburn), Prabhupad is emphasizing that morality is the most important element to all of these victories.
I'm still somewhat confounded here.
When all else fails, look up the definition.
So the definition of morality is, according to Cambridge Dictionary, "a set of personal or social standards for good or bad behavior and character."
I must say, this definition does not resonate for me. In fact, I challenge this definition as being superficial. Cambridge is saying that standards for morality are derived only from personal standards or social standards. Inherent rightness or goodness is not a factor, which means that morality is relative.
When all else fails, look up another definition.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." This definition resonates much more deeply, because morality is now a matter of principle that helps us to distinguish between different kinds of behavior. Making these distinctions and choosing the right and the good decision is at the heart of moral behavior.
Making the right and the good decision is hard. Living a virtuous, moral life is really, really hard.
I have not been victorious at much in my life - I'm certainly no Napoleon or Oscar winner. But I do know what it feels like to make a right and good moral decision after a long battle of discernment. Sure, no one even really knows that I came out victorious, but for me? Making the right decision is worth ten gold medals.
That victory is Krishna Himself.
Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/10/38/
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.
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/
