Hopes and Horrors of Householder Life by Jayadvaita Maharaja, part 4

Essential difficulty of materialistic household life
¬- SB 7.9.45 ‘Sex life is compared to the rubbing of two hands to relieve an itch. Gåhamedhis, so-called gåhasthas who have no spiritual knowledge, think that this itching is the greatest platform of happiness, although actually it is a source of distress. The kåpaëas, the fools who are just the opposite of brähmaëas, are not satisfied by repeated sensuous enjoyment. Those who are dhéra, however, who are sober and who tolerate this itching, are not subjected to the sufferings of fools and rascals’
- yan maithunädi-gåhamedhi-sukhaà: Happiness of materialistic householders is beginning from sex life
- From sex pleasure all other pleasures of materialistic family life expand: home, children,
- Even skyscrapers: Increasingly absorbing themselves in mode of passion and impelled by that mode of passion with sex life as essential point they building things, expanding their empires just for that one thing, sex life

- Hi tuccham—insignificant: Sex life is sensual happiness: A few minutes of happiness, in every species of life it is there, even mosquito do it, it is crucial for them, high point of his existence, how important is a mosquito’s sex life?
- kaëòüyanena karayor iva: it is like scratching an itch
- Someone has an itching sensation and he scratches it, the result of scratching is it itches more, and then he scratches more, itches more … simply scratching the itch, but the itch doesn’t go away
- duùkha-duùkham: consequence of sex life is unhappiness
- Because it is insignificant: everyone is disappointed
- Latin proverb: ‘All animals are sad after sex’ - so much endeavour, male elephants are fighting over female elephants …
- bahu-duùkha-bhäjaù
- After so much trouble comes:
- Either because it is illicit sex and there is abortion, contraception
- There is attachment:
- There is hatred also in the relationship
- Keep girl-friend, wife happy and knowing that …
- tåpyanti neha they are not satisfied
- I scratch and then it is still itching
- I am drinking but still I am thirsty
- I went through all this trouble but still my sexual desires are not fulfilled
- Kåpaëäù my valuable human life I am wasting like a miser
- Kaëòütivan manasijaà the whole thing is just a mental concoction
- The whole idea that:
- This is going to make me happy
- This is enjoyment
- This is love
- My wife is beautiful and my husband is handsome
- He or she loves
- The whole paradise is a mental concoction
- We think we are going to be so happy, expectation that we are going to be so happy is a kind of a intoxication, but once getting married everything is so dull
- It is disappointing because it is a mental concoction
- Sooner or later one sees what’s really there: It is not attractive, not enjoyable – still on is trying to enjoy and one pushes the mind to get some concocted enjoyment but one is not enjoying
- By mental concoction make some fantastic image of enjoyment (clubs) but it is just some mental concoction
- viñaheta dhéraù Therefore one should become sober and tolerate it
- Sober person means: Rather going to all that trouble to scratch that itch, to agitate the mind and try to satisfy that agitated mind
- Better to be sober and tolerate: Some itching is there – it wasn’t there before, later on it won’t be there – BG 2.14 It comes, it goes – let me tolerate (that’s brahmacari training) – now some desire is very powerful - some mental concoction has taken over the mind – let me not be agitated by it, it is a mental concoction
- In brahmacari and grhastha asrama one has to tolerate it
- If one expands the mental concoctions then one becomes a grhamedhi: trying to fulfil so many, many desires, one becomes disappointed and loses one’s KC
- One has to learn the art of toleration
- Therefore brahmacari training is there because he learns how to tolerate so that he becomes a self-controlled grhastha
- Self-controlled grhastha: tolerates so many desires that may arise
- Engages himself in service of Krsna and then desires practically evaporate
- The more one engages in the service of Krsna the more these things come under control or are swept away by the superior force of the spiritual energy, spiritual pleasure - so much so that Yamanuacarya says that when I think of sex life I just want to spit (by superior taste of devotional service)
- KC means to become dhira: sober and self-controlled

Prabhupada: Sex life is like the Delhi-ladhu
- The famous celebrated ladhus of Delhi
- You haven’t had or don’t have one, then you want one – in anxiety to get it
- Those you have gotten it they are also suffering because it is so rich
- Those who don’t have and those who have it are lamenting
- Those who are aspiring for sex enjoyment and those who are getting sex enjoyment are also suffering
- Those who are trying to control their senses – still there are some desires there so they are suffering – that suffering is minimized because they are becoming dhira – all right let me tolerate

A sober person loses attraction
- If left-over sexual thought or impulse comes he thinks this is so nasty
- BG 2.70 The ocean is still and maintains its level even though so many rivers are running into it – similarly a person who is sober he is also feeling some desires, but he controls them – understands some thoughts and desires come because I have this body, but it is non-sense so he is not disturbed – therefore he is peaceful

One becomes peaceful by tolerance
- Like on ekadasi, one has decided to fast
- Because you have decided even if during the day some thoughts come to you: I wonder what we will have for lunch today or you are walking the hallway seeing the nice preparations, but you have already decided – so you are not going to agitate your mind about it: Al right today I am not eating – mind is peaceful
- Otherwise if you haven’t decided, you think shall I, shall I not?
- But once decided today I am not going to eat, food doesn’t matter and you are peaceful
- Some desires come up but a KC-person tolerates them – he promised to the spiritual master not to do these things

Guidance of spiritual master is required
- Someone will make more progress in grhastha asrama because he is not peacefully able to execute his duties in brahmacari asrama so he is recommended by the spiritual master to get married
- Spiritual master gives individual prescription for individual patient – either prescribes brahmacari or grhastha asrama

Whole purpose is to reduce sex life and increase KC
- Some reduce sex life effectively through Brahmacari asrama
- Some reduce it through grhastha asrama
- Guru has to see which is more suitable

(23:53)

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu: Even when I see the wooden form of a woman my mind is agitated
- By nature’s arrangement the form of woman is so made as to agitate the mind of man
- Beautiful or not, doesn’t matter, but the agitation is there
- But a KC-person, situated on spiritual platform is not attracted, he is busy
- Like you are eating a Sunday feast and someone comes with some leftover dog biscuits – you are not getting agitated about because you have some better thing
- Similarly the more one advances the more that sex pleasure seems ridiculous or nasty
- Prabhupada: Actual advancement is that I can go into a room full with women and not be agitated
- This is the advanced stage of KC: One is so much absorbed in the beauty of KC that the so-called beauty of this material body appears nasty
- After all, what is it: Some skin, bones, blood, gats … all put together appear to be something nice – it does appear to be something nice by nature’s arrangement for a brief time and then it is not nice to anybody
- In her youth every woman looks beautiful but that only lasts for a little while and then it is over (old age)
- KC-person knows that: It is beautiful today but it is not going to be beautiful tomorrow – so how is it beautiful?
- Krsna is beautiful today, tomorrow, in 1000 years – he is beautiful always, that is beautiful
- Beautiful today and ghastly tomorrow – that’s not beauty, that’s illusion
- Beauty means permanently beautiful
- Not temporarily beautiful – like a bubble
- Bubble has no permanent meaning – it is finished
- The fruit of a water – it appears to be nice but you can’t hold on to it – therefore it is useless – it is just apparent
- A person not in knowledge or an animal thinks: wow all these nice fruits in the water
- But a person in knowledge knows that it looks good but it is not there – if I am going after it I am just getting wet, drowned, frustrated
- KC-person knows: She is beautiful but only for a few moments and then finished

- Pastime: One devotee on very early days was on roof of 26 2nd Avenue and said: Od Swamiji let’s see the beautiful sunset – Prabhupada: As long as you are attracted to the beauty of this MW you will never be able to go back to Godhead

- That’s one of the dangers: One becomes infatuated and thinks: My wife is so beautiful – one becomes enraptures – by sex combination the attachment becomes very strong, and whoever they are one thinks: so handsome or beautiful, and one forgets about spiritual life

- Real vision: what a living entity in MW: combination of matter and spirit
- Self-realized soul distinguishes between body and spirit soul

- Soul constitutionally is very nice: A servant of Krsna
- Body is not very nice

Self-realized soul sees:
- Soul has value
- Body has value as well, when engaged in Krsna’s service
- KC-conscious person sees a nice woman and thinks this person can be engaged in Krsna’s service (Materialist thinks that this person can be engaged in my service)
- Everything has value (even body) when engaged in Krsna’s service
- We are taking care of the body, we are interested in seeing that the body is nicely seen to (keeping body and soul together as Prabhupada said) for serving Krsna

In cultured civilization freely mixing is not there
- They know they are spirit soul
- They know that the combination of these two bodies kills spiritual realization
- Women are not hated – but we know what’s what
- Every woman is respected as mother

Mother is not meant for enjoyment
- No question in any civilized society to enjoy one’s own mother – that’s abominable
- Mother is respected – not meant for my enjoyment
- She is somebody else’s wife – she is to be respected
- ‘Where the women are worshipped there the demigods enjoy’

Women are respected and not exploited
- Basic focal point of exploitation is sex enjoyment
- The final pinnacle of exploitation is sexual intercourse: Let me enjoy this woman
- That’s the materialistic civilization somehow or other, by some arrangement, by candy, by liquor … to win over a woman and make her an object of enjoyment
- Point: This woman is meant for satisfying my senses – sense satisfaction culminates in sex life
- When you cut out that sexual contact then how much exploitation will there be?

- From one point of view: We are very heavy in ISKOCN we make them stand in the back during the arati or kirtan – the same woman in the material world in the same course of a year would be used by 50 men – that’s not exploitation, that’s love

Whole materialistic civilization is set up for that kind of cheating
- Women are simple
- When they are set free they can be victimized
- Otherwise in Vedic civilization her father, husband, grown son is there – no access
- But in materialistic civilization: free access
- Woman is so bewildered: She thinks this is very nice, I have free choice, I have so much opportunity for enjoyment, everyone is attracted to me
- But no one wants to accept any responsibility
- When you are pregnant they tell you to abort it
- When married for some years tell you that you are not beautiful any more and they look for some new cookie and throw you away – saw only as object of sense enjoyment and now find something else
- KC: Men and women are engaged in Krsna’s service – where is the exploitation

We have to learn how to be cultured
- No disagreement on philosophy: It is there in the books very clear: Who is who, what’s what
- But one has to be cultured
- Practical application of the philosophy in ordinary dealings is culture (how to treat people)

Business of brahmacari is to ignore matajis
- Because Brahmacaris have no business with women
- It is the husband’s duty to give a certain amount of time to see that she is cared for nicely, engaged in service nicely, happy …

Women in India have an independent society
- One thinks that in India women are oppressed and downtrodden
- But in India they have an independent society
- In the West it is always relative: Women have to orient themselves as to what will catch a man, engage a man, get him into like them, do something for them …
- In India women are not relative to the men – they have their own society
- Practically speaking all day long women are with other women
- In America all the men and women are together in an office
- In Vedic civilization: men are out working in some place – women are doing their business together, having their own society – brought together when appropriate
- Previously, house was divided into 2 sections: outside and inside section: outside section made did his business, received guests … - inside section women were there, hey were separate

- In offices where men and women are together it is like a pressure cooker
- Their minds are so disturbed – no one can be peaceful like this
- Peaceful mind means separation of men and women as far as possible

Prabhupada: Man is good, woman is good, but man and woman together is not good – that is my philosophy

(47:42)

Politeness
- In Western culture: Young woman and young man pass each other in the hall: he and she say ‘Good morning’ – everyone knows what’s going on – his and her mind are going – that’s polite – little smile and go through a few more body language
- In Vedic culture: Man and woman are passing and they make way for each other – that’s politeness –
- Generally women are trained to be very shy: man is coming by and the woman stands to the side and becomes a little inconspicuous, and the man passes by –
- That way she maintains her chastity: there is no interaction, somebody is going after somebody, making time with somebody – therefore she becomes very respectable – doesn’t mean she is shrinking into the shadows, insignificant – it means that she is so high-class that you can’t mix with her
- Like a high-class woman you can’t really get close to her, little unapproachable, if aristocratic then she is distant from ordinary men– with a low-class woman anyone can get mix with
- They are so respectable: Prabhupada says about his mother: She wouldn’t accept even an invitation from the neighbour except if she would be carried on a palanquin by four men and covered, nobody could see –
- Even the son couldn’t see her – that’s high-class
- Still to this day: Women are covering their faces when men are passing by – they are shy
- In Vedic culture shyness is considered to be cultured and a sign of respectability
- Such a woman no respectable man would approach
- Prabhupada: Some men were standing by a doorway – a sweeper woman was there (low-class) but she had to go through that doorway so she was standing there apart – three aristocratic gentlemen and the woman was standing on the side so they could understand that she wants to go through so they all had to move – by her behaviour they had to move – that’s Vedic culture: shyness

If deity worship is focus of attention that makes family life transcendental

Training in culture
- Real thing means to be trained from child
- Real culture means how you are trained from child
- Problem: Women and men are not properly trained – therefore all uncultured
- If we have any difficulties in our movement so many difficulties come from this point that we are uncultured
- We may know the philosophy but we are not cultured
- Men and women don’t know how to act: Men don’t know how to act for other men, women don’t know how to act for other women, men and women don’t know how to act with one another – superiors don’t know how to act towards inferiors, inferiors don’t know how to act toward superiors – this is culture
- Young boy is respectful to his superiors – he is cultured
- Young man wouldn’t put forward his opinion in the presence of his older brother (considered as superior)
- Now: son says to his parents: get lost!

Cultured women
- Shy
- Not wanting to have friendly talks
- Reserved
- Always engaged in Krsna’s service
Cultured men
- Self-controlled
- Know how to be polite
- Men and women are passing each other – they have no business with each other and therefore just pass – that is politeness – doesn’t mean I hate your gats, you hate my gats – but you are not my wife, somebody else’s wife - therefore no business – we stay pure in that way – everybody engaged in the service of Krsna

Hopes and Horrors of Householder Life by Jayadvaita Maharaja, part 3

Attachment in household life – Prahlada’s instructions
Canto 7.6.8-14
- 7.6.9pp While in the material world we manufacture so many duties in the name of so many isms, but our actual duty is to free ourselves from the cycle of birth, death, old age and disease. For this purpose, one must first be liberated from material bondage, and especially from household life. Household life is actually a kind of license for a materially attached person by which to enjoy sense gratification under regulative principles. Otherwise there is no need of entering household life
- In this way he [the brahmacari] learns how to control his senses and sacrifice everything for the guru. When he is fully trained, if he likes he is allowed to marry. Thus he is not an ordinary gåhastha who has learned only how to satisfy his senses. A trained gåhastha can gradually give up household life and go to the forest to become increasingly enlightened in spiritual life and at last take sannyasa

Greatest danger in household life:
- Attachment to the opposite sex is very strong and is the cause of material existence
- Attachments of Sannyasi is much easier to break

Attachment is so strong
- Prabhupada: One of his god brothers was given Sannyasa – during the Sannyasa ceremony the wife came and dragged him off
- Bhaktisiddhanta was crying I could not save this person
- Sometimes a Sannyasi goes back to his wife
- There is no other source of entanglement that causes deeper attachment than women

For a successful householder brahmacari training is necessary
- brahmacari training: brahmacari is acting for satisfaction of guru and dependent on Krsna and Krsna’s representative
- As grhastha the same principle applies: he is only working for guru and Krsna – is dependent on Krsna – becomes a sober grhastha due to brahmacari training
- One is trained not to be attached to one’s wife but trained to be faithful to one’s duty
- Marriage is a vow (like initiation vows: 4 regs, 16 rounds): Man vows to take care for a woman for her whole life – woman vows to serve a husband for a whole life
- In Vedic culture making a vow means one Is under obligation
- If you don’t like it – good that shows detached – still you have to do your duty
- Ex. Prabhupada asked his father to marry a 2nd woman because he didn’t like his wife, didn’t find her very attractive – his father: It is Krsna’s blessing that you do not have a attractive wife because in this way you see Krsna as more attractive
- Advantage: If you don’t like your wife you are fortunate
- One of the enemies: your beautiful wife

One should not be too much attached to one’s wife – one should be detached as much as possible - one should be dutiful
- Certain attachment will be there that’s natural in household life

Vedic culture arranges marriages
- It wasn’t according to the taste of sense gratification but it was according to the superior judgement of the parents
- Prabhupada: Psychology: When one is married by such an arrangement he accepts whatever he gets – like when you are hungry someone gives you food, whatever it is you take it – whatever kind of nonsense you get you accept because you are hungry
- Similarly whatever nonsense husband or wife you get you accept it
- Naturally you will like it like when you are hungry and get some food naturally you think it is very nice
- Boy wants a girl, girl wants a boy – parents arranged it and with that arrangement they were happy yes I got a partner

Child is an extension of the body
- ‘My own flesh and blood’ - it is practically another you
- Mother thinks she lives on in the form of her descendents
- That attachment by nature’s way is very strong
- I love him – Who can take better care than me?
- Still Vedic tradition is that the child was sent to the gurukula for training in brahmacari

Materialistic parents – why send child to gurukula?
- What happens to me? My material life is finished
- There will be no happiness of grand-children
- Child will not come back to live with us and support us in old age
- Won’t have happiness of household life – he’ll miss out
- Forces of maya are very strong
- Must withstand the attacks by the illusory energy

Ladies in KC
- If ladies dedicate themselves to preaching and serving Krsna can do that as brahmacarinis
- Otherwise woman is trained to get married, a nice wife: how to cook, clean, be chaste and faithful to husband, serve the deities, also preach (can speak, distribute books … Prabhupada: sometimes even better than the men)
(<-> Brahmacari is trained for independence)
- If they somehow or other don’t get husband then all the skills can be used for Krsna – and they get the best husband
- Rukmini: What’s the use of a husband who is just a bag of mucus, bile and air with eyebrows, moustache and some hair on his head
- She got the SPOG as her husband
- Laksmi: Women in illusion are praying to me for a husband but what are they going to get? Someone who can’t protect them, can’t protect their children, their home – better accept Krsna as the husband

Duty of husband
- To see daughter to be married in puberty/young age
- Prabhupada married his wife when she was 11 years old
- When one of Prabhupada’s daughter was 15 his wife was so much agitated

Householder life means duties
- Training up the girl in chastity and competence
- Find suitable boy
- Spend for marriage
- Then father concerned about boy’s family
- If child is daughter that means so many responsibilities
- If child is son you send him to gurukula – very easy business
- Girls are not sent to gurukula but trained by family: mother, grandmother, relatives …

Unless you can save the person under your charge from the clutches of birth and death don’t become a father, mother, guru, teacher …
- One has a great responsibility to bring the people back to Godhead


Why should I accept so much trouble just for some sex life?
- Let me just focus on this one business: Going back to Godhead
- The other business I have already been through so many lifetimes as cat, dog, pigeon … In all different species of life I had the opportunity for sex enjoyment, I had a wife, children, home – I have done that – If I spend one life without these things to go back to Godhead, what’s the loss?

Any responsibility you take involves trouble
- But this householder life is particularly troublesome
- One is advised to avoid
- If you do then undergo this trouble for Krsna

Attachment
- In household life one is attached to opposite sex on the basis of the body – one has to continue repeated birth and death (one is forced to come back due to attachment)
- Guru disciple relationship doesn’t have that and therefore doesn’t bind one to material existence (guru may voluntarily come back to save the disciple)

Must be dutiful
- For a Krsna-conscious person: Love is for Krsna, duty is toward husband and child (naturally as human being you feel some affection for them)
- Essential thing: This is my duty to please Krsna
- Because sometimes it may not be very pleasing:
- If he doesn’t treat me with affection, doesn’t support, not serious about KC – this person is so nice if I were just married to him – I may like it or not it is my duty – I may feel love or not - it is my duty towards my husband

Romantic idea of family life based on love
- Illusory idea that family life is based on love
- Everyone is looking around for love
- They are trying to get love in their family
- If they don’t get love in their family then they break it and try to get love in another family
- All is based on love, love, love which nobody gets
- Therefore everyone is frustrated, disappointed, let down, what did I wrong, or it is his fault – because original expectation is wrong to find love in this MW
- There is no love on this MW

- Love means love Krsna
- Everything else is cheating arrangement: When a man says to his girl-friend: I love you so much – really what he is saying is:
- If you gratify my senses I gratify your senses

Hopes and Horrors of Householder Life by Jayadvaita Maharaja, part 2

5.Canto:
In the forest of material enjoyment there are comparisons made
- The merchant is beset by thieves and plunderers - he is attacked by jackals and tigers
- Thieves and plunderers are uncontrollable senses because one works very hard but the uncontrolled senses steal everything away: I want this and that
- Tigers and jackals are the wife and children who are also crying we want this, we want that

Children
- Children are trouble
- Materially inclined living entity wants to enjoy sex – but the consequence of sex is pregnancy
- What they try to avoid: contraceptives, abortion or even kill (Airport locker in Japan)
- One is trying to avoid the trouble but the trouble comes: Either you kill, abort child, take contraceptives or
- You have the child: That’s also troublesome

Children are troublesome
- May not be able to have children – then you are distressed ex. Mah Anga
- When child is girl then you have much responsibility but she has no earning capability – it some countries they therefore test whether girl then they abort
- Child may die, be sick or crippled
- May have twins or triples
- So many expenditures – In USA to bring a child up to majority costs 280.000$ (to raise a karmi child)
- Child may not become Krsna-conscious – Mah Anga’s son became a rascal – Prabhupada’s son or a pure devotee’s son was not a devotee
- 4 enemies in householder life according to Canakya Pandit:
- a) If father dies in debts because other family members must pay the debts
- b) If mother gets remarried because son is considered representative of father
- c) If wife is too beautiful because you remain attached
- d) If son is not Krsna-conscious but a fool or rascal
- -> Another danger: your enemy may take birth in your family

In householder life one seeks householder life for enjoyment but some of these troubles are bound to be there – either in greater or lesser proportions

Householder life may be worth the trouble: If we can maintain a nice family and make the child Krsna-conscious then it is counted as devotional service – all trouble, difficulties you went through but when raising a Krsna-conscious child then it becomes glorious – but it may just be frustration


Ladies-asrama
- Prabhupada thought about it and sanctioned it in one case
- But it is another kind of troublesome situation
- Few ladies may not be properly protected
- Prabhupada: Ladies have a tendency to pick up fights with each other
- Other kinds of difficulties

In general: If woman is protected by a husband that’s an ideal arrangement
- Prabhupada tried that but was not very satisfied with the results


Prabhupada: Devotional service is counted when child becomes a devotee
On other side: Krsna says we should be detached from results – if I try to bring up a child Krsna-conscious then that’s all I could do – not the result but the endeavour is the success in KC


Everything to the right time
- In youth tendency for association with opposite sex is very strong – so there is a Vedic arrangement for that
- If getting into your older life why getting back to that
- Vedic arrangement is there so there is a certain time for everything
- There are different stages of one’s life and according to the time in your life what may be appropriate when you are young may not be appropriate when you are old
- There is a time for everything
- Leaving family life when 20 and then getting married again when 30
- In general, an older person should be thinking to get free from family life

Why getting married if you don’t want any children?


SB 3.30.3-9 Instructions of Lord Kapila meant for Grhamedis – Non-devotee householders
- Powerful purports about householder life:
- 3.30.7 The family we maintain is created by mäyä; it is the perverted reflection of the family in Kåñëaloka
- 3.30.8 Womanly love is just to agitate the mind of man. Actually, in the material world there is no love. Both the woman and the man are interested in their sense gratification
- 3.30.9 In Bhagavad-gétä the Personality of Godhead Himself certifies the material world as an impermanent place that is full of miseries. There is no question of happiness in this material world, either individually or in terms of family, society or country. If something is going on in the name of happiness, that is also illusion. Here in this material world, happiness means successful counteraction to the effects of distress.

SB 3.31.34-42
- 3.31.42 In these instructions of Lord Kapiladeva it is explained that not only is woman the gateway to hell for man, but man is also the gateway to hell for woman. It is a question of attachment. A man becomes attached to a woman because of her service, her beauty and many other assets, and similarly a woman becomes attached to a man for his giving her a nice place to live, ornaments, dress and children. It is a question of attachment for one another. As long as either is attached to the other for such material enjoyment, the woman is dangerous for the man, and the man is also dangerous for the woman. But if the attachment is transferred to Kåñëa, both of them become Kåñëa conscious, and then marriage is very nice.
 Only solution within householder life is to transfer the attachment to Krsna – otherwise it is a dangerous business


Dealings of Non-devotee householders
- If husband is accepting service from the wife for his sense gratification which she is offering for her sense gratification that it is gateway to hell

Dealings of devotee householders
- In KC one has to perform one’s duties
- Husband is duty-bound to accept certain services from the wife and is duty-bound to reciprocate that service spiritually


Both women and men are suffering
- To have a woman’s mind and body means suffering
- To have a man’s body and mind means suffering

Women are more in trouble
- Practically everywhere we find that woman are dissatisfied: they are being exploited, downtrodden, left out of leadership …
- One way or other they are in trouble
- If not married they are unhappy, if married they are unhappy
- From Vedic culture we understand that due to impious activities one takes the body of a woman – therefore due to impious activities it Is expected that there is more suffering
- Like a sudra has to suffer more than a brahmana: has to work harder, face more misery … than expected for a brahmana due to his past sinful activities
- One takes birth in a jewish family to get persecuted: if have karma to get persecuted …
- Similarly if one has performed sinful activity by which one is destined to suffer in certain ways one takes the body of a woman: Woman has no independence and is dependent on other people, who may not be there or may not be very good

 BG 9.32 Still KC means whatever bad deal you got: born as woman, man, American … it’s all bad – but you live with it and make the best use of whatever bad bargain you got, serve Krsna and go back home to Godhead

Ultimately what’s the difference?
- From a relative point of view the woman is suffering more than a man
- But, from another point of view: What’s the difference? The world is such a mess of suffering that if you suffer 0.3% more …
- It’s like dry and wet stool
- It is all mental concoction: This is good or bad – It is all Maya
- Whatever deal you got it is all bad
- Any material situation is bad
- Anyone, he or she, who identifies with the body is a fool – sa eva go-kharah
- Lower birth (BG 9.32 women, sudra … ) means more trouble

In Kali-yuga everybody is a mess
- Men and women are not so qualified
- Men are not very manly and women are not very womanly
- Men are not very dutiful and women are not very shy


Following Vedic social system reduces miseries as far as possible
- However, people are climbing over the fence: getting divorced, remarried to get happy - but because you are disregarding dharma or the Vedic system of duty you make your life more complicated and invite more trouble
- If we are trying to be happy from householder life we are inviting distress
- If we are performing prescribed duties in householder life then we are going on the path back to Godhead

Prabhupada: There is no happiness in householder life (looking for happiness in the wrong place)
- Happiness is only with Krsna
- Some happiness may be there as result of performing one’s prescribed duties
- But I have to perform the duties without considering happiness and distress (Either side: I want to be happy and look for another wife … - I don’t like my wife, I’ll give her up…) – it is a question of duty

Prabhupada: In our society there should be no re-marriage
- People are doing it not because Prabhupada recommended, not because the acaryas have said that it is the best way to advance in KC - but they are doing it because they think they are going to be happy that way


Consciousness determines happiness
- Perform duties, please Krsna and spiritual master: Will be unlimitedly happy
- I make certain adjustments in the way I am living so that I can be happy – guaranteed you will be frustrated

Training the mind to become our friend - lecture by Devamrita Swami on BG, chapter 6, verse 5

 In physically comfortable circumstances but with disturbed mind – everything is ruined
- in physically uncomfortable situations when mind is appease – then you are satisfied
 A person with an unsatisfied – can’t satisfy month after month – such a person can’t live and is committing suicide: mind is troubling him so much

How to live a life that the mind nourishes you – is your friend?
<-> and not harasses you, drains all your energy and takes your time
- in his anger, anxiety, future plans ….

Conditioned life: spiritual soul is inside the covering of gross and subtle matter -
and all the attention is given to the gross and subtle coverings though they are useless without the presence of the soul

 Uncontrolled mind causes pain and disturbance to you and you then cause disturbance to others

You must deliver yourself with the help of the mind
<-> the same mind that causes you so much anxiety, harassment… can deliver you

In KC don’t deny/ negate the mind but making it our best friend
 the mind can be your friend or your enemy
 acc. to your lifestyle, the mind acts differently
 KC is a culture for training the mind so it will deliver you

Without such a culture the mind is the greatest enemy: thinks of so many crazy things
- the mind comes up with so many impressions which you identify with
 To be in love with one’s own mind: the basis of conditioned existence
 People are so much enraptured by their thoughts they have in their mind – the thoughts are leading them around – oh I just had this thought – an extreme version of how everyone is
 People think: because it’s my mind therefore I have to take it seriously, it’s my mind – it’s so important

13:30 - looking back at thoughts we have had on the mind – they were not at all important
BUT at the time we were thinking them they appeared to be very important
 all day, all night the mind is accepting and rejecting … I like this, don’t like this, shall I do this, don’t do this, this is a good place, this is a bad place …
 so much time is wasted being absorbed in your own mind:
- so much time wasted when you are in your mental world – think you are just thinking about something and no time is passing – but so much time has passed

It is your responsibility to deliver yourself with the help of your mind. Is your mind helping you to become delivered from material existence?

The mind should be trained in not to be attracted by the glitter of material energy
- Symptom of friendly mind: it is always thinking of how to serve Krsna
- Symptom of enemy mind: always thinking of how to try to satisfy the material senses
 Here you see whether your mind is your friend your enemy
What is it always thinking about?
 Bhakti-yoga is all about to train the mind that it always thinks of how to satisfy the senses of Krsna

------ You MUST think of satisfying someone, of someone’s satisfaction – usually it’s yourself, or family members, friends, society etc.
 Now find the best person to satisfy the senses
 Bhakti-yoga means you can find no better person to satisfy than Krsna

We always think that my mental needs are legitimate – whereas others are way over the top

Men’s mentality:
- always have to feel like that they are solving problems (you gotta fix s.th. whether a car, computer, financial problem) in a very respected way -> in that way he shows his peacock feather to the female – playing his manhood in that way
Women’s mentality:
- don’t care so much about solving problems, whether there is problem or not
- they just want exude emotions and have these emotions soaked up by a spunge, (they want someone to soak up their emotions)
 All these various responses are in relationship to an uncontrolled mind

30:10 - Men don’t want to speak about their problems rather keep them inside, try to solve them within: Never talk about problems, broadcast only the solution
- Women always want to talk about their problems

 must train our mind to be detached from the glitter of material energy
 After proper training and some years spent towards that goal of mind control, the mind actually becomes your friend by nourishing your life with thoughts of Krsna, plans of how to serve Krsna – then you have a happy life

- Dirty mind – filled with thoughts of sense gratification - is like a dirty room
Nowadays a dirty mind is considered to be a complement – because the mind is so much out of control therefore the standards sink lower and lower

Train your mind so that it nourishes you. If you treat your mind properly, nourish it – then it will treat you properly and nourish you.

 It is our individual responsibility to fill our mind with Krsna discussion and His glories
 Then you see your mind demonstrate his real potential to take you back to Godhead
It starts chanting and meditating on Krsna’s glories and nourishing you in that way

 After some years of practicing sadhana-bhakti – practicing the rules and regulations of KC the mind starts to submit to Krsna – starts to become attached to the lotus feet of Krsna -> your own mind fills your life with wonderful Krsna content
 Then you see how KC works: you got to see the change in your mind – that requires training and culture

Therefore there are rules for ashrama-living (grhastas, brahmacaris…everyone) so that your life style will be conducive for making your mind your friend

Maharaj Ambarisa set the example of what to do with the mind:
 Always thinking of Krsna by using the various limbs of the body


Intelligence should predominate the mind.
-> The mind doesn’t make priorities. Mind just receives sense perceptions, stimuli – can see in small children: completely under influence of the mind – for every perception there is immediate response. Adults have different responses: act on their thoughts

 Intelligence should devise a lifestyle to make your mind your friend, so that your mind fills with Krsna content
 Come up with an active programme for dealing with the mind
 Protect yourself from the powerful mind and engage that powerful mind in Krsna’s service

When focusing on the holy name – transcendental sound vibration - the mind becomes submissive – after years of doing this the mind starts to chant back to you, starts reciting slokas to you… the mind tells you: let’s just think of Krsna -> the friendly mind

-> The same mind that tells you think of material sense grat – the same mind can tell you to think of Krsna

 The same mind that has the tendency to absorb you in material thoughts, that same mind pushes you to absorb yourself in Krsna thoughts -> Then you see that Bhakti-yoga process actually works

When learning this from young age then you are really fortunate. Fortunate when starting KC from young age:
- avoid filling mind with so much garbage
- can train the mind to be attached to Krsna’s lotus feet
 the younger you start the better, because the longer you wait the more bad habits the mind assembles
 still there is hope at every stage of your life when you take shelter of the holy name which immediately focuses your mind on Krsna’s lotus feet

Our process is not to repress the mind but to engage it in something superior – to place it at Krsna’s lotus feet

Sense control is part of KC
 Bhakti – yoga includes both positive and negative:
To deny yourself the glitter of material existence and to fill yourself with attraction to Krsna


 must have a supportive lifestyle for our spiritual goals

 you can do it yourself: you choose to think about certain things, and live a certain way – therefore you get a certain result

Hopes and Horrors of Householder Life by Jayadvaita Maharaja, part 1

One of the legendary seminars by HH Jayadvaita Swami. Enjoy:



Alarming rate of divorces, remarriages, failed marriages
- There are false assumptions we enter into household life and when assumptions are not met we think there is something wrong and take to rather harsh remedies

Grhastas vs. Grhamedis
- Grhasta: Krsna-conscious – goal is spiritual advancement
- Grhamedi: Interested in sex enjoyment – Prabhupada: in materialistic way of life the centre of interest is the genitals of the wife – has to do a lot of work for his sensual adventures

Pros – Householder life
- Good institution for spiritual life: Offers steady situation in an insecure society
- Many acaryas were householders: Bhaktivinoda Thakur, of 12 Mahajanas 7 were householders, we have ideal household couples within ISKCON
- Grhasta asrama supports other 3 spiritual orders

Cons – Householder life
- Blanked statements of SB about unpleasant things in household life is referred to materialistic household life
- Still devotees are not exemptions from difficulties
- 5. Canto: Jada Bharata describes the forest of enjoyment – analogies are used – all kinds of persons, things are described that give him a hard time
- The more you try to enjoy the more you are slapped by Maya
- Householder life is an arrangement for enjoyment – a concession for sex life
- Enjoyment means sex – without the impelling force of sex enjoyment what is left in this MW? Everyone would skip it and go back to Godhead – Maya would lose its force
- 3.Canto: When Brahma saw conditioned souls were not sufficiently entangled in material existence then he created the form of woman
- As soon as there is that pair of man and woman Maya becomes very powerful
- When man and woman unite a hard knot forms in the heart: Then home, then land, then children, relatives, money – then one becomes bewildered thinking I am this body and this is mine

- The usual plan of enjoyment for conditioned souls is the plan of association with the opposite sex – that tendency is very strong
- Therefore Vedic society regulates that so that he does not become totally lost or frustrated – You can have but in a limited form
- Vedic plan is actually to avoid sex life completely: Brahamcari, Vanaprasta, Sannyasa asrama
- Whole plan is to restrict sex life – even in householder life it is so restricted that there is almost no sex
- Why should it be restricted?
- Ex of liquor: If you want to buy you have to buy it in a liquor shop, must be over a certain age, pay huge taxes: Because it is not good – bread for example can buy anywhere, without age restrictions, no tax it is good
- Therefore sex should be avoided as far as possible
- It causes so much trouble:
- Main Problem: Sex brings about forgetfulness of Krsna which causes so much trouble to the conditioned soul
- Whole problem of material existence is the problem of forgetting Krsna
- Right hear the root of that problem is that attachment to sex life
Sex life -> Forgetfulness of Krsna -> Material existence


Householder life is constitutionally troublesome
- Because householder life means sex life either restricted or unrestricted
- Sex life means trouble
- Or in general material enjoyment means trouble – the more I want to enjoy the more I am in trouble
- The more one forgets Krsna the more troublesome it is – to the degree we are Krsna-conscious we can reduce the problems

Brahmacari - Sannyasi:
- Constitutionally an asrama of freedom
- Association with women restricted done to the point of nil -> Therefore it is immediately freedom
- Prabhupada: If one can stay Brahmacari he is 50% liberated
- Because one has removes oneself what is THE cause (or anchor) of material existence

- When one is entangled in association with opposite sex one first has to get free from that – One has to counteract this by very strong KC
- Sometimes it says you can’t: 2.Canto: First have to get out of grhasta asrama to get liberated
- Or when you are completely KC-conscious then it doesn’t matter but that’s not so easy

Brahmacari has it easy:
- Chants Hare Krsna
- Serves the spiritual master
- Preaches
- Engages in the service of Lord in various ways
- Has nothing to do with earning a living, maintaining a family
 He is really a free soul

Householder
- Has so many material responsibilities
- Though done for Krsna they are material responsibilities that are in relationship with his body
- These things are required in householder life

Training asrama is brahmacari asrama
- Person who gets married is supposed to be trained
- If he hasn’t been trained as Brahmacari his householder life will be troublesome
- Brahmacari means: He is taught how to control the senses
- If he doesn’t know how to control his senses he will have an enormously difficult time in householder life – and so has his wife
- Training to responsibility is the brahmacari-asrama
- Grhasta-asrama is the acceptance of responsibility
- Of course Brahmacaris also have responsibilities: preaching, serving the spiritual master
- If one takes up Grhasta-asrama as a matter of duty one is well-situated
- If one takes it up as path of enjoyment he is going to be frustrated

Some are more responsible and some are less

Some who will never be responsible
- Prabhupada: Some are just not fit to be householders – they can’t do it – they get overwhelmed one way or the other
- Unsuitable candidates who shouldn’t get married – they can’t do it
- Better they stay brahmacari
- If you can’t perform the duties don’t take up the asrama
- If you can’t perform the duties of a householder don’t become a householder


Householder life means responsibility
Brahmacari life means tapasya, hard work but it is of a different nature


Problem of protection of women within institution has not been solved yet
- Prabhupada started but then changed his course
- Every approach of solving that problem hasn’t solved the problem
- Srila Prabhupada’s attempt to get everyone nicely married in the beginning created so much difficulty – Prabhupada became disgusted in the end - it didn’t work
- Prabhupada ended up with: Let them marry at their own risk – or alternatively let them stay celibate, women, too
- Householder life had some many problems even amongst his disciples that he was no longer willing to arrange it and push it but only sanction it: Let them get married at their own risk and accept the responsibilities and consequences

All men should stay single and all women should get married

SB 5.18.19 Only Narayana is the real husband and protector


Only real solution for all the problems of life
- Control of the senses and engagement in the service of the Lord – then we get free from trouble
- Otherwise the more we want to enjoy the senses we get in trouble


Brahmacari
- Controls his senses
- Engages in service of Krsna and spiritual master
- Sanskrit-dictionary definition: Person who is moving towards Brahman
- Person always going in that direction is a brahmacari
- Otherwise if he is thinking about satisfying his senses he is not able to stay brahmacari because he is agitated from the brahmacari-platform


Legal or illegal, sex life causes problems

Problem is the body – family life means more bodies therefore more problems …
 But for one who is Krsna-conscious he transcends the problems


Brahmacari-asrama as material asrama one is 50% liberated (when Krsna-conscious)
- The same can’t be said about grhasta asrama
- However if both are Krsna-conscious they become free

Маяпур преди и сега

Ето как изглеждаше Маяпур само допреди два месеца:









Ето как изглежда сега:

Suhotra Maharaja explains Bhagavad gita 12.12

Dear Maharaja,

Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I am a student in Melbourne who visits the Melbourne Temple weekly
to attend (and sometimes preach in) a youth program that is held on
Saturdays.

I write to you expressing a doubt that I have had for quite some time -
it concerns the Sanskrit-to-English translation by Srila Prabhupada of
certain slokas of Bhagavad Gita As It Is, the following two slokas in
particular:

* 12.12: I always have a habit of trying to turn the word-for-word
transliteration into a full translation myself before I read a verse
translated by Srila Prabhupada. Normally when I do this, I
end up with my "own" translation being either identical with or extremely
close to Srila Prabhupada's translation. With sloka 12.12 of Bhagavad
Gita, however, not only was "my" translation not consistent with
Prabhupada's, but my translation of the first line of Sanskrit appeared
to be exactly opposite to the translation given by Srila Prabhupada. At
first I thought I was at error, but after much consultation I discovered
that my version of the first line of this verse was one that was commonly
accepted, even by the previous Vaisnava acaryas. What I still cannot
understand is how to make any connection between the given translation and
the Sanskrit words spoken by Krsna. I wonder whether you might just be
able to help me out in this regard.

* 3.9: In this famous verse the word "yajna" is translated as Visnu. Thus,
Prabhupada's translation suggests that any work other than work done for
Lord Visnu (including, I assume, work done for the demigods) causes
bondage to this material world. However, in the verses immediately following
3.9, the same word yajna clearly refers to sacrifice done for the
demigods. I simply cannot see how in one verse, Krsna can use yajna to
mean Lord Visnu, and then all of a sudden use the same word to refer to
sacrifice for the devas. Such a sudden change of meaning just does not
seem to be very logical. I understand that Krsna emphasises in later
chapters that He is the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices (and
therefore that He should be the object of all sacrifices), but this does
not seem to me to be Krsna's main emphasis in Chapter 3. So, my question is:
Why does not the "yajna" in Verse 3.9 refer to sacrifice for the demigods,
as it does in the rest of Chapter 3?

These are questions that have been on my mind for well over a year now,
and in a way they have impeded my steady growth in Krsna consciousness. I
hope that you might be able to find some time to answer them.

Please forgive me for any offenses I may have committed above.

Hare Krsna.

Your fallen servant,
Karuppiah Chockalingam

---------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Karuppiah,

Hare Krsna. Please accept my greetings. Thank you for your letter of
31 December.

Your question is about *sabda.* According to standard Sanskrit
dictionaries, *sabda* means "sound, noise, voice; speech, language;
right word, correct expression; name; verbal testimony, oral tradition,
verbal evidence."

*Sabda* is the manifestation (in thought and speech) of Goddess Vac,
the Veda-mata, Mother Veda personified. There are two statements in
the Rg-Veda concerning Vac which I would like to share with you here.

*Rig-Veda* 10.71.3:

*yajnena vaacah padaviiyam aayan taam
anv avindann rsisu pravistaam taam*

"By means of *yajna* (sacrifice), they followed the tracks of
Vac and found she had entered in the sages."

The second, from *Rig-Veda* 10.125.5, is spoken by Vac herself.

*yam kaamaye tam-tam ugram krnomi tam
brahmaanam tam rsim tam sumedhaam*

"He whom I love, that one I make terribly powerful, that one
I make a *brahmana*, that one a *rsi*, that one a wise sage."

The idea that I hope comes across in this *pramana* is that knowing
*sabda*, or Vac, is not a matter of academic scholarship. First of
all, seeking the true repose of *sabda* (taking its meaning to be "the
right word," since your questions focus on this concern) requires
sacrifice, like that described by Krsna in the verses leading up to Bg
4.34. Then, after having done sacrifice, one finds that *sabda*
(again, taking "the right word" as the meaning) is known only to the
sages. Now, who is a sage? One who is *ugram krnomi*, terribly
powerful with Vedic knowledge.

Srila Prabhupada once explained,

Not that I am talking something nonsense. It is
because...Sruti-pramanam. Whatever we talk, it must be
supported by Vedic injunction. Then it is right. Just like
we sometimes challenge these big, big scientists and others,
and what is our strength? I am not a scientist, but how I can
challenge? The Veda gaya. We are got evidence from the
Vedas. Just like so many people are thinking that the moon
planet is first. We are challenging, "No, moon planet is
second." What is the strength? The strength is Vedic
knowledge. We cannot accept it. So vede gaya yanhara carita.
Vedic knowledge is so perfect that you can challenge so many
scientists.

Srila Prabhupada's presentation of Bhagavad-gita is not one of academic
scholarship. It is one of empowerment by the Veda-mata herself.

Regarding the verses you mention, the English wording for Bg 12.12 is
congruent with Krsna's presentation elsewhere in the Gita. In 4.33,
the sacrifice of knowledge is said to be higher than the sacrifice of
material things. This is echoed in 12.11, where Krsna advises Arjuna
to give up the results of work and be self-situated (which presupposes
knowledge of the self). If Arjuna is unable to give up the results of
work, then in 12.12 the Lord says he should cultivate knowledge of the
self, since, as was explained in 4.37, knowledge burns up the reaction
to material work. Better than knowledge, however, is meditation, as
confirmed in 6.46 (the yogi is better than the tapasvi, jnani and karmi).
Better than yoga meditation is renunciation (sannyasa) of the fruits of
action, as confirmed in 6.2 (na hy asannyasta-sankalpo yogi bhavati
kascana).

As for your concern about yajna, since from the evidence of the 11th
chapter you can have no doubt that the devatas are angas (limbs) of
Lord Visnu's Visvarupa, then what is the use of trying to argue that
yajna in 3.9 refers only to the demigods and not to Visnu? This is not
logical. If you place a sweet in the hand (anga) of a child and tell
her, "This is for you," is it logical to insist that the "you" that you
mean is only her hand and not her mouth? In the Vedic sacrifices, the
flame of homa is Visnu's tongue. All the offerings go to Visnu, even
though the names of different devatas are chanted. It is exactly like
giving a child a sweet. You put can put it in her hand--it will go to
her mouth. You can also ask her to open wide and drop it directly into
her mouth. Doesn't matter.

Thank you for writing. I hope the above answers are satisfactory.

Suhotra Swami

------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Maharaja,

Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you very much for your detailed reply to my query on Srila
Prabhupada's translations. I hope you do not mind if I ask you a few
further questions.

I have no doubt that one needs special mercy and qualifications to
properly understand and translate a scriptural text from Sanskrit to
English (and therefore there are certain parts of Bhagavad-gita that
only a pure devotee or sage can properly grasp and explain). However,
surely any translation or explanation of a Sanskrit text must expand and
elaborate on the Sanskrit words at hand. To give a wild example of what
I'm trying to say (it certainly need not apply to Srila Prabhupada), in
an attempt to elaborate a Sanskrit verse a devotee/sage might give a
theory or explanation that is perfectly valid (and in-line with other
scriptures) in its own right, but has absolutely nothing to do with the
verse actually being discussed.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Prabhupada's understanding of the essense
of the vedas is impeccable. Therefore, the translations to Verses 3.9 and
12.12 of Bhagavad Gita As It Is may make perfect philosophical and
devotional sense of their own accord (as philosophical assertions). But
do they *accurately* represent what Krsna is trying to say in those
respective portions of the Gita? This is my question.

I understand that one needs special mercy (i.e. the favour of Veda-mata)
to properly explain a Sanskrit verse. But surely any explanation must
stem from the Sanskrit words of interest. In Bhagavad Gita Sloka 12.12
the first words Krsna uses (sreyo hi jnanam abhyasat) literally translate as
"Knowledge is better than practice". Prabhupada's first statement seems
to imply the opposite of this. True, Prabhupada's statements may be
consistent with the rest of Bhagavad Gita and, for that matter, the rest
of the Vedas. But is it consistent with Krsna's words in Verse 12.12
itself? This is my doubt.

As for Verse 3.9, yes, there is no doubt that by satisfying the stomach
all limbs are satisfied (and thus by satisfying Lord Visnu all demigods
are satisfied). Therefore, I have absolutely no trouble accepting
Prabhupada's translation to Verse 3.9 of Bhagavad Gita - as a statement in
its own right. But what word does Krsna use? "Yajna". Throughout the
Third Chapter it is clear that Krsna points to one main thing when he uses
the word "yajna" - sacrifice (for the devas). My question is: How is it
that, in one solitary verse, the same word yajna represents Lord Visnu?
Yes, by satisfying Visnu the demigods are automatically satisfied, but is this
Krsna's main emphasis in *Chapter 3*? In this particular verse, why isn't
Krsna being consistent with His statements in the rest of Chapter 3 by
referring to sacrifice (for the devas) with the word "yajna"?

Even though Krsna's instructions are confidential and not easy to
understand "as it is" without the help of someone qualified, I always
thought Krsna, being God, would employ some degree of logic and natural
flow of reason in His instructions. Inconsistencies in the flow of
reasoning from one verse to the next in certain chapters of Bhagavad Gita
As It Is has led me to ask you the questions that I have in this letter.
I hope you will forgive me for my sometimes open way of putting forward my
questions.

Hare Krsna.

Your servant,
Karuppiah
----------------------------------------------

Dear Karuppiah,

Hare Krsna. Thank you for your second letter. In it, you wrote:

>>In Bhagavad Gita Sloka 12.12 the first words Krsna uses (sreyo hi
jnanam abhyasat) literally translate as "Knowledge is better than
practice". Prabhupada's first statement seems to imply the opposite of
this.<<

I am glad you specified where you find the problem you see in Srila
Prabhupada's translation. That was not clear to me in your first letter.
But then again, now that you've specified it, I fail to follow why you see
this as a problem.

The plaintext rendition of the first line of Bg 12.12 is: "certainly
knowledge is better than *abhyasa.*" *Abhyasa* means, according to the
dictionary, "repeated exercise, discipline, habit, custom, repeated
reading, study, military practice, effort of the mind." What Prabhupada
says in his translation is a direct consequence of this, namely,
considering that knowledge is better than repeated exercise,
discipline, habit, custom, repeated reading, etc., "if you cannot take
to this practice, then engage yourself in the cultivation of
knowledge." Prabhupada's translation is not "exactly opposite to the
literal meaning of the first line," as you propose in your first
letter.

If you are wondering why, if it is admitted that knowledge is better, that
Prabhupada's rendition is "if you can't practice, then take to knowledge;"
why it doesn't flatly state "knowledge is superior, practice is lesser;" I
indicated the answer in my last letter. I wrote that in 12.11 Krsna
advises Arjuna to give up the results of work and be self-situated. That
He tells Arjuna *sarva karma phala tyagam* (give up all results of your
work) and *tatah kuru yatatmavan* (be self-situated) presupposes that
Arjuna has already cultivated knowledge of the self, in which he can be
self-situated as Lord Krsna directs. In the next verse, the point is that
if Arjuna does *not* have knowledge of the self, his *abhyasa* (practice
of *karma-phala-tyaga*) will be defective, because knowledge is
indeed better than the mere practice of the sacrifice of material
possessions. I noted in my last letter that 4.33 confirms this. What
Srila Prabhupada brings out in his translation is that if Arjuna has not
cultivated knowledge, he will be unsuccessful in giving up the results
of work--therefore the logical consequence is, "if you cannot take to
this practice" etc., because the *abhyasa* Krsna refers to presupposes
knowledge. You cannot deny that, because the word *yatatmavan* is used
in 12.11. One has to know *atman* to be situated in *atman.* Any number
of parallel examples could be given: medical practice, for instance.
The term "medical practice" presupposes that the practicioner is a
qualified doctor. If he is not, his practice is illegal. By law, he's
*unable* to take up such practice. The best advice for him is, "If you
are unable to take up medical practice, then engage yourself in
cultivating medical knowledge." Therefore in 12.12 the idea is that before
attempting to renounce, Arjuna should cultivate knowledge of the self,
since, as was explained in 4.37, such knowledge burns up the reaction to
material work. Meaning: now, without knowledge, you will not be
successful in renunciation, so there will be reaction--but if you get
knowledge, that reaction will be destroyed.

You have written that you expect to see "some degree of logic and
natural flow of reason" in Krsna's instructions. To my way of
understanding, Srila Prabhupada's translation is quite fitting to the
natural flow of reason throughout the 12th chapter and the entire
Bhagavad-gita. If you are suggesting that in 12.12 Krsna is saying
categorically that knowledge is better than *any* abhyasa, that breaks
the flow of reason in these verses, and in the Gita as a whole. Verse
12 follows verse 11. The natural flow of reason compels us to seek the
context of the *abhyasa* mentioned in 12 in the previous verse. The
*abhyasa* referred to in 11 is renunciation of the fruits of work; but
that is explicitly married to situation in the self. In 12, Lord Krsna
states that of these two, knowledge of the self is better. So Arjuna
should better get knowledge. *Then* he can practice. If your idea is
that Krsna means to say practice can be curtailed completely in favor of
knowledge, then what is the use of Krsna's conclusion that Arjuna must
fight? That would instead mean that Arjuna's proposal in chapters 1 and 2
to give up his duty as a ksatriya and become a nonviolent sadhu is
correct. The Gita is not in the category of a *jnana-kanda sastra*.
Therefore the conclusion of 12.12 is not that *jnana* is supreme over all
other practices, and that all other practices may be stopped when one has
*jnana*. Such an interpretation of this verse would be logically
incoherent, because Gita is undeniably a *bhakti-sastra*. Even in terms
of *jnana-kanda*, it would be incoherent, because the practice in question
is renunciation, and *jnana* is always associated with *vairagya*
(nonattachment). The proof of Arjuna's *jnana* would be seen in his
practice (*abhyasa*) of fighting without attachment. Anyway, *bhakti*
subsumes both *jnana* and *vairagya*. As Bhagavatam says,

vasudeve bhagavati
bhakti-yogah prayojitah
janayaty asu vairagyam
jnanam ca yad ahaitukam

TRANSLATION

By rendering devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead,
Sri Krsna, one immediately acquires causeless knowledge and detachment
from the world. (Bhag. 1.2.7)

Knowledge and detachment are included in *bhakti-yoga*. Arjuna's
devotional service to Krsna was to fight. Therein are two components: 1)
selfless duty (*vairagya*, renunciation of personal attachment to
results) and 2) transcendental knowledge (*jnana*). There is no
question of choosing one over the other. But if one has to muster
these components in order to get the determination to fight for Krsna,
one should start with *jnana*, because without *jnana*, *vairagya* will
be extremely difficult.

Regarding the word *yajna*, Gita 8.4 explains:

adhibhutam ksaro bhavah
purusas cadhidaivatam
adhiyajno 'ham evatra
dehe deha-bhrtam vara

"O best of the embodied beings, the physical nature, which is
constantly changing, is called adhibhuta [the material manifestation].
The universal form of the Lord, which includes all the demigods, like
those of the sun and moon, is called adhidaiva. And I, the Supreme
Lord, represented as the Supersoul in the heart of every embodied
being, am called adhiyajna [the Lord of sacrifice]."

In his Rig-Veda commentary, Madhvacarya explains that the names of the
demigods have three levels of meanings, corresponding to *adhi-
daivika,* *adhy-atmika,* and *adhi-bhautika.* The names Indra, Varuna
etc. on one level refer to qualities of Krsna. On another level, they
refer to the *angas* of the Visvarupa of the Lord, who are the cosmic
administrators. On yet another level, they refer to natural phenomena.
Thus Monier-Williams says that *yajna* means a name of Visnu, a name of
Indra, and worship, etc. In Treta-yuga *yajna* was the *yuga-dharma*
of worship of the Supreme Lord. It was also the worship of the
*devatas* who administer the departments of universal order. It was
also the way people related to nature in order to do agriculture, fight
against non-Aryas, etc., because *yajna* was the sonic technology of the
Vedic age. Which definition of *yajna* a person in Treta-yuga would favor
would be determined by the factors mentioned in *Bhag*. 5.11.11: *dravya-
svabhavasaya-karma-kalair*--the object (*dravya*) of his attraction, his
*svabhava* (conditioned nature), his *asaya* (culture), his *karma* and
the *kala* (time, place, circumstances). But since this same *Bhagavatam*
verses states, *ksetrajnato na mitho na svatah syuh*, these considerations
are not self-manifest, but are arranged by the Supreme Knower
(*ksetrajna*), then at the deeper level, *yajna* refers to Him only.

There is a timeless level of *sabda* known as *para-vak.* On this level,
*yajna* refers not to "a" *dharma* as it is defined in some particular
age, but to "the" *dharma,* the essence of all of the *yuga-dharmas* (the
root of *dharma* is *dhri*, which means "essence"). This essence is, as
Srila Prabhupada so often pointed out, service to the Supreme Lord. Thus
nowadays we have our *sankirtana-yajna.* The demigods are also included
even in this: *siva-suka-narada preme gadagada*: "Great personalities like
Siva, Sukadeva Gosvami and Narada Muni are overwhelmed in ecstacy by the
sankirtana of Lord Caitanya." However, though the demigod Siva is
mentioned in this line of *Gaura-arati*, it is not an essential conclusion
that since the complete understanding of the term *sankirtana-yajna*
includes Siva, therefore the complete performance of *sankirtana-yajna*
requires worship of Siva as per the Saiva-agamas.

We are not in Treta-yuga any longer nor is the Rig-Veda the main
*sastra* of our present age. We are certainly not restricted, in our
reading of Gita chapter 3, to only one level of Rig-Vedic meaning of
*yajna* as the names of the cosmic administrators. After all,
Bhagavad-gita was spoken at Kuruksetra 5,000 years ago, which was not
the Treta or Rig-Vedic age. In the Gita verse cited above, the Lord
specifically says *adhiyajno 'ham*, "I am Yajna." Krsna is not a
demigod. He is the Paramapurusa. So when He says in Gita "I am
Yajna," that is the primary meaning in the context not only of the
Gita but of all Vedic *sastras*, because *vedais ca sarvair aham eva
vedyah.*

If you see compelling reasons why *yajna* must only mean demigods
in the 3rd chapter, then again I question your understanding of the
flow of reason throughout Bhagavad-gita as a whole. We are not simply
discussing the meanings of words in some abstract academic context.
The *sabda* has consequences in life. So the consequence of your
interpretation (if I have understood it correctly) is that worship of
demigods is intrinsic to the complete meaning of *yajna* given by Krsna
in Bhagavad-gita. In other words, complete *bhakti-yoga* should
include demigod worship. Then what about the words *avidhi-purvakam*
Krsna uses in 9.23? Here demigod worship is rejected as being
incorrect *yajna* (the words *yajante* is used in this very verse).
You can't suck sugarcane and whistle at the same time. In Gita,
*yajna* means Visnu. It *can* mean demigod worship, on a *laukika*
(conventional) level. Krsna does use *yajna* in that way in ch 3, in
reference to the means given by Prajapati by which the material desires of
humanity might be satisfied. But nontheless, Yajna *does* mean Visnu at
the deepest level. In *every* case.

If you still have a problem in accepting the above explanations, then you
should be prepared to argue the full consequences of your philosophical
position. You speak of the natural flow of reason. I do not see any
natural reason in either of your positions--on knowledge vs. *abhyasa, and
on *yajna*. It is not reasonable to quibble over the translation of these
terms outside the context of the meaning and practice of *Bhagavad-gita*
as a whole. Such a proposal is similar to the modern trend of literary
criticism known as deconstructionism, in which words are extracted from a
text and analyzed with no reference whatsoever to the intent of the author
himself, but simply according to all manner of concocted meanings imposed
by the critic. Jacques Derrida, a famous French deconstructionist, wrote
at length on a margin note made by Nietzche in one of his manuscripts.
The margin note said, "I've forgotten my umbrella." Derrida tried to
prove that remark to be the key to the understanding of the whole of
Nietzche's manuscript. This is unreasonable. One has to show by reason,
not unreason, that the main text deals with forgotten umbrellas.
Similarly, if you wish to reasonably put forward your interpretation, you
have to argue with reason that it is supported by Krsna throughout the
whole text of the Gita. Indeed, in this respect you have undermined your
own position with these words from your second letter: >>True,
Prabhupada's statements may be consistent with the rest of Bhagavad Gita
and, for that matter, the rest of the Vedas. But is it consistent with
Krsna's words in Verse 12.12 itself? This is my doubt.<< Your doubt, so
expressed, is not a reasonable one.

Hare Krsna,

Suhotra Swami

Лекция на Бхакти Видя Пурна Свами върху Бхагаватам 3.30.8, дадена на 15.11.2009 в Маяпур, Индия.

äkñiptätmendriyaù stréëäm
asaténäà ca mäyayä
raho racitayäläpaiù
çiçünäà kala-bhäñiëäm
SYNONYMS
äkñipta—charmed; ätma—heart; indriyaù—his senses; stréëäm—of women; asaténäm—false; ca—and; mäyayä—by mäyä; rahaù—in a solitary place; racitayä—displayed; äläpaiù—by the talking; çiçünäm—of the children; kala-bhäñiëäm—with sweet words.
TRANSLATION
He gives heart and senses to a woman, who falsely charms him with mäyä. He enjoys solitary embraces and talking with her, and he is enchanted by the sweet words of the small children.

Family life within the kingdom of illusory energy, mäyä, is just like a prison for the eternal living entity. In prison a prisoner is shackled by iron chains and iron bars. Similarly, a conditioned soul is shackled by the charming beauty of a woman, by her solitary embraces and talks of so-called love, and by the sweet words of his small children. Thus he forgets his real identity.
In this verse the words stréëäm asaténäm indicate that womanly love is just to agitate the mind of man. Actually, in the material world there is no love. Both the woman and the man are interested in their sense gratification. For sense gratification a woman creates an illusory love, and the man becomes enchanted by such false love and forgets his real duty. When there are children as the result of such a combination, the next attraction is to the sweet words of the children. The love of the woman at home and the talk of the children make one a secure prisoner, and thus he cannot leave his home. Such a person is termed, in Vedic language, a gåhamedhé, which means "one whose center of attraction is home." Gåhastha refers to one who lives with family, wife and children, but whose real purpose of living is to develop Kåñëa consciousness. One is therefore advised to become a gåhastha and not a gåhamedhé. The gåhastha's concern is to get out of the family life created by illusion and enter into real family life with Kåñëa, whereas the gåhamedhi s business is to repeatedly chain himself to so-called family life, in one life after another, and perpetually remain in the darkness of mäyä.


БВПС: Има няколко глави в Бхагаватам които дават тази перспектива върху нещата. Повечето пъти на преден план излизат техническите описания, които акцентират върху аспекта на бхакти и са окуражаващи. Но тази глава описва трудностите с които ще се сблъскат живите същества, които работят вътре в материалната сфера. Това което се описва тук е истина. Трудността е как да приложим това знание. Защото истината никога не е проблем. Истина значи това което е свързано с Кришна. Това е винаги нещо добро, прогресивно и много ценно. Но при приложението на тази истина, тук е мястото където нещата работят добре или не. За един грихамеди вдъхновението и мотивацията в живота му идват от тази любов която той обменя със съпругата си, от сладкия говор на децата му. Това са все малки неща, това не са големи неща. Но въпреки че са малки, тези неща са трудни за преодоляване, защото това са неговите цели в живота. Той иска да види своята съпруга и децата си щастливи. Когато тези неща са там, той е щастлив, когато времето мине и децата започнат да съзряват, тогава започват проблемите и той става много разочарован. Защото тогава нещата заради които той всъщност е работил изчезват или започват да избледняват. Това е един аспект.

Другия аспект е, че ние сме предани и не се занимаваме с такива неща, не искаме да сме въвлечени в материални привързаности и сетивно наслаждение. Да имаш такова разбиране и такава решителност е много добре. За нещастие има такава концепция, че формата на грихаста ашрама ще изглежда различно. И това е грешката. Защото ние можем да видим тук, в този стих, ние не дискутираме садхана или нещо подобно, тук ние дискутираме истинската причина заради която някой е станал грихаста. За съжаление преданите в миналото, даже и сега, си мислят, че когато станат семейни тази форма се променя. И затова тези неща не съществуват. И ако тази идея работи за тях, добре, ако обаче не работи, както на практика се получава за повечето от тях, тогава те решават, че формата на семейния живот практикувана от грихамедите е по-практична.

И тогава това което се получава е, че той ще бъде по-посветен на грихамеди ашрама, или на липсата на ашрама, както и да е, отколкото истинският, неосъзнат грихамеди. Защото неосъзнатият грихамеди действа по този начин спонтанно, защото така е свикнал и го прави неосъзнато, той не мисли, той няма философия, концепция по въпроса. Той си мисли, това е което трябва да правиш за да станеш щастлив, той се е установил в своята позиция следваики своите привързаности. И защото тези привързаности са неговата главна мотивация за действие, затова той е в тази позиция, едиствената причина да бъде в тази позиция са неговите привързаности. Той няма философия.

Но преданият, който не разбира правилно приложението на семейния живот и заема позицията на грихамеди... и ако забелязахте тук не се споменава нито една греховна дейност, никога за миг не си помисляите, че грихамеди значи, че той извършва греховни дейности, защото по-късно, когато описанието на грихамедите продължава, се описва как съпругата му става все по-красива и по-красива с наближаването на деня на гарбадана самскара. Само благочестивите хора извършват гарбадана самскара. Грихамеди може да бъде най-благочестивата личност във вселената. Грихамеди означава че той не е осъзнат за Бога. Не че грихамеди трябва да е греховен, мръсен, гаден, отвратителен...това е лесния начин: Всички тези са грихамеди, а аз съм примерен грихаста. Грихаста е състояние на ума. Ако тази елементи описани тук в този стих са главния елемент в твоя живот, причината поради която правиш нещата, ти си грихамеди, много е просто. Грихаста е отвъд това. Това беше между другото.

Ако предания не е прилагал грихаста ашрама правилно и е решил да приеме живота на грихамеди, той трябва да направи тази смяна използвайки философия. Защото да бъдеш грихаста е философия и ако те не искат да бъдат грихасти а грихамеди, те трябва да създадат философия за да бъдат грихамеди. Но тази философия, разбира се, ще съдържа елементи че това не е грихамеди, че всъщност е истински, практичен, искрен, естествен, напреднал, зрял, нефанатичен грихаста, които е стъпил здраво на земята, бла бла бла...Тези неща можеш да ги чуеш всеки ден, специално когато се чете тази глава съм сигурен, че това е главна тема за разговор тук в Маяпур.

Това ни довежда до момента какво всъщност представлява грихаста ашрама, как изглежда? Виждаме, че тази глава идва след най-съвършения пример за грихаста живот – Кардама Муни и Девахути. Първо се обяснява каква е истината, какъв е стандарта, кое е правилно, това е методът на обучение във Ведическата култура. След като това е разбрано, тогава обясняваш какви са изключенията и аномалиите. Когато имаме комисии които започват с проблемите, изключенията, съмненията, това не е истинско обучение и не води до никъде. Ако знаеш кое е истина само тогава можеш да обсъждаш къде е допусната грешка. Но ако започнеш с това как нещата се развалят и къде са проблемите, ти ще станеш експерт в това как нещата могат да се развалят, но никога няма да разбереш какъв е стандарта.

Кардама Муни е бахмачари, той иска да изпълнява добре задълженията си, той е много сериозен и добър брахмачари и след като е добър брахмачари той ще бъде и добър грихаста. Докато практикува брахмачаря той има желание да изпита грихаста живота. Затова той се моли на Бога да му прати подходяща личност с която да може да практикува успешно грихаста живота, да има добър резултат от това, тоест той да бъде в Кришна съзнание и накрая да може да се отрече от илюзията на материалния свят (аз и мое) и да може да се установи на трансцедентална платформа. Това е била неговата цел. И така той се оженва за подходяща личност, не просто за някой, той установява че простото Кришна съзнание е стандарта, но след като вижда че жена му не се чувства комфортно той прави аранжимент за да удовлетвори нуждите и като се основава на принципите на Кришна съзнание. Така прекарват живота си, имат десет деца и всичко работи много добре.

При Кардама и Девахути никога не виждаме груби или сухи, формални отношения. Няма ги варварствата на модерното общество. Те и двамата са щастливи, децата им са в Кришна съзнание, всъщност едно от децата им е Кришна.

Тази ситуация значи, че грихаста разбира полето на дейността си, разбира че то е поле на привързаност и илюзия. Защото идеята, че това е моето семейство е илюзия. Добре, да кажем че е твоето семейство, но за колко време ги имаш? Те са заети от някъде другаде. Не можеш да кажеш те са мои защото след време всички си тръгват, включително и ти самия. Така че човек може да вкуси от семейните отношения, но те са временни, така че е илюзия да се мисли че те са истински. И докато вкусва тези неща естествената тенденция е да не бъдеш Кришна осъзнат. Докато истинските грихасти са всъщност почти целия духовен свят, има само няколко изключения, Нарада Муни и няколко други. В духовния свят те са грихасти, те вкусват от семейните отношения, но всичко е свързано с Кришна. Това е истинският семеен живот за който Прабхупада говори. Това което имаме тук е отражение на истината така че не е реално, но понеже човек има тази идея, че това е нещо много важно и ние трябва да опитаме от него. Така че ако преданият е семеен, формата на грихаста ашрама ще бъде винаги същата. Но със знание и реализация той разбира, че това не е истинската позиция. Той ще прави всички тези неща описани в стиха, но той ще разбира, че това не е истинското му семейство. Така че той трябва да извършва тези дейности, той е в грихаста ашрама точно заради тези неща. И ако някой каже, че той не е заради това той или е голям сметкаджия или е в пълна илюзия. Близостта и интимността със съпругата, сладките отношения с децата, това са наградите и насладите на семейния живот. Ако това не е там тогава какво друго има? Някой мие чиниите, пере, това може и майка ти да го направи. Италианците са разбрали това, затова те си остават в къщи и не се женят. Той може да е адвокат и да прави много пари, но никой не може да готви по-добре от майка ти, тя знае всичко за тебе, знае къде да ти сложи чорапите и прочие...Идеята е, че няма да работи ако не приложиш съзнанието за Бога. Проблемът е в това, че ние, както маявадите, мислим че съзнание за Бога значи нещо различно от формите които виждаме в този свят. Така че ако семейния живот при материалистите е емоционален и приятен, при нас бхактите трябва да бъде много сух, отегчителен и без никакви емоции и това се предполага да е духовно. Но това ще то ги каже всеки маяавади. Но виждаме, че при Девахути и Кардама не е сухо и отегчително. Така че разликата между грихасти и грихамеди не е в дейностите които те извършват или в преживявянията които получават от семейния живот, а в това дали тези неща са целта на живота както е при грихамедите, или са средстство да реализират разликата между материя и дух и целта е Кришна съзнание, както е при грихастите. Но формата ще изглежда същата. Някои може да не хареса този извод, но дали формата се променя? Ако един предан вари картофи за Кришна или един карми вари картофи за себе си, каква е разликата? Само целта, съзнанието. Единият вари картофи за Кришна, другият вари картофи за себе си. Формата изглежда същата. Това е главната грешка която преданите допускат. Но, естествено, да се допусне тази грешка е нормално, защото ако не си осъзнат за Бога, ако не се замисляш какво правиш и защо го правиш, ако си в семейния живот и тези неща се случват там, интимността със децата и съпругата, приятните моменти заедно, тогава тези неща ще започнат да те отклоняват от Кришна съзнание и тогава преданият решава, че за да се предпази от това трябва да направи всичко сухо и отегчително. И правеики това те поддържат някаква фасада на Кришна съзнание. Тъй като Кришна съзнание е най-важното нещо, да правиш това е по-добре отколкото да бъдеш напълно в мая. И тази политика е ОК, ако можеш да правиш това през целия си живот, да бъдеш удовлетворен и накрая да се върнеш при Бога. Обаче ако след като си правил това в продължение на 20-30 години, сухарски семеен живот, и след това се разочароваш и започнеш да говориш плява от сорта на „трябва да бъда практичен, трябва да съм земен, здраво стъпил на земята, трябва да съм себе си а не някакъв изкуствен човек”, тогава ти си си направил много лоша услуга сам на себе си. Естествено, преданото служене което си отдал ще бъде с тебе завинаги, освен ако не предприемеш някакви допълнителни мерки да унищожиш своя кредит като преданоотдаден, но така ти поемаш по пътя на ново раждане в материалния свят. И това за което говоря е изключително практично и реално. Кредита от преданото служене си остава, но ти поемаш по пътя на раждането и смъртта.

Това за което говоря е много реално, изключително реално. Когато погледна към грихастите в ИСКОН, това е което виждам. В повечето случаи. Много малко предани разбират какво е Кришна осъзнат грихаста живот. Грихаста живота е определена ситуация. Когато си в тази ситуация ти можеш да си осъзнат за Бога грихаста или грихамеди. Както готвенето си е готвене независимо дали си осъзнат за Бога или не, техниката на готвенето е същата и приготовлението ще бъде същото. Разликата е дали това е крайната ти цел в живота или това е средство за постигане на целта.

Така че тази глава не е за брахмачарите и за санясите да започнат да злословят по адрес на семейните или пък семейните след това да се съберат и да започнат да злословят срещу санясите, те пък какво разбират от семеен живот и да започнат ашрамна война. Тази глава е предназначена за санясите и брахмачарите и грихастите да разберат, че това не е нашето място, ние не сме от тук, не сме си у дома. Обаче понеже така или иначе се отъждествяваме с материалните обозначения, защо поне да не се опитаме да ги свържем с Бога? Както в Голока почти всички са грихасти обаче те са поставили Кришна в центъра. Това е което се предлага тук. Посочват се моментите когато ти може да не си Кришна осъзнат. Както когато отиваш на работа, правиш пари, носиш ги в къщи, грижиш се за семейството, за децата, и си мислиш работата ми е свършена. Обаче ти търсиш тези неща на погрешното място. Мая не те хваща с тези неща. Тя би могла, но това е лесно. Това което наистина търсиш в грихаста ашрама и което наистина е трикът на мая са интимните моменти, когато си насаме с жена си. Както се казва в този стих:

„He gives heart and senses to a woman, who falsely charms him with mäyä. He enjoys solitary embraces and talking with her, and he is enchanted by the sweet words of the small children.”

Тук мая те хваща. Това което един грихаста търси в живота е тук. И той има избор - може да не се ангажира в нищо което се доближава до това, а пък ако се ангажира в тези неща той си има философия че това е ОК и „аз не съм фанатик”. Или той е в илюзия и даже и не забелязва, че това се случва.

Това е мястото и без тази глава как ще можем да разберем? Колко време през деня той всъщност може да изрази своята привързаност към съпругата си? И да има тези интимни моменти насаме с приятен разговор? Колко често децата произнасят сладки думи? Не много често. И понеже това е нещо към което има много силен стремеж, тези моменти са като утехата за всичко останало което става междувременно.

Съзнанието за Бога е единствения начин по които можеш едновременно да се погрижиш за материалните си нужди и да напреднеш духовно, ако се опиташ да се погрижиш за материалните си желания директно няма да се получи. Просто няма да стане. Защото ти може да получиш желаното преживяване и да си щастлив докато то е там, но в следващия момент него го няма. И къде е удовлетворението – няма го, къде е щастието – няма го. Ако си в Кришна съзнание когато се случи ти получаваш щастието, когато вече събитието го няма остава удовлетворението. Удовлетворението остава, щастието по дефиниция е временно и мимолетно. Материалното щастие е просто премахване на болката. Например били сте разделени дълго време и се срещате. Има щастие защото болката от раздялата е премахната. Или пък тя е била сърдита дълго време и не ти е говорила и накрая се сдобрявате и има разговор. Тогава има щастите от премахването на болката от кавгата. Затова колко време може да продължи щастието? След малко трябва да отидеш да ядеш нещо, да гледаш телевизия, да се обадиш на приятел...трябва да правиш нещо друго. Това е наука. Това значи, че накрая трябва да остане удовлетворение.

Удовлетворение може да доиде само от знание, което идва от гуната на доброто, която идва от правилно изпълняване на задълженията в Кришна съзнание. Така че когато казваме, бъди Кришна осъзнат и всичко ще е наред това си е точно така. Но това не значи, че ако не знаеш да готвиш и се опитваш да следваш рецептата и накрая нищо не стане, вината е в рецептата. Така че запомнете че шастра казва как да бъдем успешни грихасти и ако вие се опитвате да следвате и не работи не обвиняваите шастра. Това значи, че не сме го приложили както трябва, тогава трябва да опитаме отново. Докато стане добре.

Защото ако поемеш по някакъв друг път, след малко има една глава която обяснява как ще умреш. Как роднините ще седят около тебе с издължени лица и какво всъщност ще си мислят. Не си мислете, че тази глава не е за нас. Защото изглежда добре и понеже това е нещото към което ти си привързан, повърхността на нещата, общувай с тях съгласно шастра. Тогава ще го видиш като нещо повърхностно и жалко. Но с реализация. Както ако аз искам да разбера коя манджа е по-добра как мога да го направя? Трябва да ги опитам и двете. С други думи ти чуваш за грихаста живота и си казваш, това не е за мен. Но ако има някаква нужда да минеш от там, въпреки че разбираш че не е идеалната ситуация, като опиташ и го сравниш с Кришна съзнание тогава можеш да разбереш каква е разликата. Защото ако няма стандарт с които да сравняваш тогава как ще разбереш?

Коя е последната история на запад която описва наистина хубави отношения между мъж и жена? Ромео и Жулиета, Парис и Елена...обаче не чуваш какво става с тях след това. Нали Парис и Елена не са изчезнали някъде в пустинята? Обикновено се казва, че са живели щастливо от тук нататак обаче никога не виждаш следващия ден. Пепеляшка крещи на принца – къде ми е кристалната пантофка, оставих я точно тук! Не чуваме за тези неща.

Това е защото млечхите не са известни с добрите си семейни отношения. И ако някои от тях ги имат защо ги имат? Защото е следвал напълно материалистична „култура”? Добър семеен живот винаги значи, че се следва някаква религия, традиция. Затова техния семеен живот е успешен. Това работи даже и при млечхите. Така че ако ние си мислим, че ще отхърлим нашата собствена религия, варнашрама, и ще бъдем щастливи просто като имитираме материалистите, как ще работи? Не може да работи. Помнете, че тази книга не е за кармите, а за преданите. Кармите обикновено не четат тази книга. Затова не трябва да мислим, о, това е главата за гадните карми, не това е главата за преданите.

Поинтът е, че мъжът дава сърцето си на съпругата си заради тези моменти на интимност, разговори насаме и прочие. За един грихамеди това е целта; за един грихаста чувствата трябва да са там, сетивните дейности също, той трябва да е фокусиран и тогава съпругата му ще отговори по позитивен начин, но той разбира че това не е защото той е привързан а защото това е методът даден от Бога за успешен семеен живот. И това е за отношенията в грихаста ашрама, след това имаме отношенията с Бога. Нанда баба и майка Яшода имат прекрасни отношения помежду си. Но това не е фокусът, това е просто ситуацията, след това имаме Кришна съзнание. Ситуацията от която служиш на Кришна е грихаста ашрама. Това е което правят в духовния свят. Ако искаш да отидеш там прави това което те правят. Този метод ги е довел до там и ги държи там. Един грихаста действа правилно според ситуацията в която се намира (семеен живот) но тази ситуация не е крайната му цел; крайната му цел е Кришна съзнание. Тази концепция работи, проработила е за всички грихасти в тази книга, а тук има много грихасти които са описани.

Има толкова много примери за Кришна осъзнати грихасти в Бхагаватам от най-различни положения, защото има повече грихасти в обществото. Повечето хора са семейни. И имаме пример за брахмачари само с Нарада Муни. Защото брахмачарите са семпли, те са удовлетворени, те нямат нужда от разнообразие. Имат един пример в Бхагаватам за брахмачари и те са доволни. Ако има повече примери, супер. Обаче грихастите ако има само един пример те ще кажат, това не е точно моята позиция, моето положение е малко по-различно. Затова има толкова много примери за успешни грихасти и можеш да вземеш това от един, друго от друг и да наредиш пъзела.

Ако не следваш това проблемът е, че не можеш да излезеш от материалния свят. Прабхупада казва, че брахмачарите са наполовина извървели пътя обратно до Бога защото те не са всъщност заинтересувани от материалния свят. Те се разсейват от него в своето предно служене, това е така, те се притесняват за дхотито си, за чадъра си, за кантималата си и прочие, но това са дребни неща, това не са всъщност нещата които поробват душата в матераилния свят. Проблеми са, но не са сериозни проблеми. Но Прабхупада казва, че грихаста които има манталитета да е погълнат от семейния си живот, има само 25 процета шанс да се върне обратно при Бога. Затова грихаста живота трябва да се прилага съгласно шастра, тогава той става еквивалентно средтство за постигане на Кришна съзнание както брахмачари и саняса ашрама. Просто има повече проблеми, повече емоционално напрежение. Брахмачари има по-малко привързаности и така по-малко неща да се притеснява дали са свързани с Кришна съзнание. Грихаста има повече привързаности и повече неща може да ангажира в предано служене. Защото материалните привързаности се пречистват само ако ги ангажираш в предано служене. Ако не ги ангажираш те си остават. Например мъжът е привързан да говори с жени обаче не иска да говори с жена си защото това не е Кришна съзнание и какво става? Той започва да си говори с някоя чужда жена.

Така че грихаста ашрама е мястото където може да има такива интимни отношения между съпруга и съпругата, но ако тези отношения са регулирани от принципите на шастра чрез тази регулация човек се освобождава от нуждата да има такива отношения. Но затова дълга е толкова важен във Ведическата култура, защото след като съпруга е достатъчно напреднал и няма вече нужда да общува със съпругата си какво ще го накара да продължи да общува с нея? Дългът. Но тази концепция за дълг не е като тази суха западна концепция за дълг. Дълг значи, че го правиш за Кришна, така че е личностно и има отношения.

Майката има нужда да бъде с детето си. Колко време тя крещи на детето или го наказва? Понякога много. Приятел на семейството които идва на гости не е привързан към детето и затова е винаги добър с него. Но понеже родителят е ослепен от привързаност и не може да приложи винаги науката за това как се държиш с детето, затова често има проблеми. Това е директен пример как ако си непривързан получаваш по-добър резултат отколкото ако си привързан.

Това е реалност. Може да не е много популярна защото ние си имаме нашите западни дефиниции какво е щастие, отношения, привързаност, непривързаност...Но за нещастие тези западни дефиниции нямат много общо с ведите и затова се провалят. Затова тук се обяснява как работят нещата в семейния живот.


Въпрос...

БВПС: Брахмачарите нямат тази нужда от личен живот както грихастите. За тях положението в ашрама и навън е общо всето същото. Затова ако има даже и малък проблем той се вижда. При грихастите понеже те имат много силна нужда от свое лично пространтсво когато са навън дори да имат сериозен проблем той не е толкова лесно да се забалежи.

Грихастите трябва да прилагат това знание за себе си. Да не се притесняват за брахмачарите. Освен ако не могат да ги обучават. Но ако един грихаста може да обучава брахмачарите това значи че той е добър грихаста. Ако един грихаста не е добър грихаста той няма да може да обучава брахмачарите. Никога, дори за една секунда не си мислете че можете да обучавате брахмачарите ако не сте били и не сте брахмачари. Кисело мляко се прави от кисело мляко. Брахмачари правят брахмачари. Така работи ведическата система, има брахмани които са били брахмачари и когато се оженят те отварят Гурукула и обучават други брахмачари. Или брахмачари които не се женят, те също отварят центрове и обучават новите брахмачари. Но общото е, че и двата типа са били брахмачари.

Иначе всеки може да намери грешки в санясите – те имат позиция, влияние, всички ги уважават, това може да ги главозамае...обаче обикновено тези неща замайват по-малко от сладките думи и прегръдки на една жена. Защото ако не е така, защо тези големи, големи свамита от миналото, сега тези които имаме не са толкова големи, защо те зарязват всичко заради една жена? Зарязват парите, властта, авторитета, сега никои не ги уважава даже напротив, всичко ги критикуват, заради интимните моменти с една жена? Винаги трябва да помним, че всичко се свежда до това, това е най-голямата привързаност. Саннясите и брахмачарите не са съвършени, те просто използват средствата на своите ашрами за да станат Кришна осъзнати както грихастите използват своя ашрам да станат Кришна осъзнати. Няма значение какво средство използваш.

Цялото това политизиране на институцията Гуру, например, трябва да имаме такъв процент Гуру които са жени, грихасти, от по-низшите варни...тогава защо никои не се е сетил че нямаме нито един ескимос Гуру? Или индианец Гуру? И току-що загубихме нашия черен Гуру...политическата гледна точка не е начина да се разрешат тези въпроси. Които е квалифициран той го прави, дали е грихаста или не какво значение има?

Нямаме много успешно завършили грихаста акдемията предани защото те не следват това което ни учи Бхагаватам.

Въпрос от Сурешвара Прабху:
Не е ли по-добре Гуру да бъде някои които е минал през всички ашрами и по-специално е бил грихаста за да може да обясни по-добре на учениците си как да бъдат добри грихасти?

БВПС: Ако някои няма нужда да бъде грихаста това е защото той вече е бил грихаста в предишен живот. Тази част често се забравя. Ако имаш някои които като чуе какво представлява грихаста живота каже нямам нужда от това значи, че той ги е правил вече тези неща в предишния си живот, значи има нещо ценно което да даде и да каже.

Но по-важно е да разбереш какво е Кришна съзнание и как да го приложиш в живота си. Защото иначе науката за грихаста живота я има но поне аз не съм виждал почти никой грихаста в нашето движение които да разбира, че проблемите в грихаста живота са следствие от мъжкото фалшиво его, което отказва да заеме истинската мъжка позиция и се опитва да представи женската позиция която заема за мъжка. Говорил съм с много мъже и това е нещото което те не могат да разберат. Просто не могат да разберат, не могат да видят. Защото те са големите мъже. Но докато се правят на мъже те правят много неща които Кришна, които е истинския мъж, никога не прави. Помислете как Кришна се държи със своите жени. И Той е много добър в тези отношения. Той има 16 108 съпруги в Дварака и милиони гопи в Голока. И на райските планети също, никои няма проблеми с Кришна защото Той всъщност е мъж. Той наистина е мъж. Всички жени харесват Кришна защото тои е истинския мъж.

Ако искаш да дадеш Кришна съзнание на едно куче как ще го направиш? Ще му дадеш прасадам. Ако искаш да дадеш Кришна съзнание на съпругата си, или на дъщеря си трябва да знаеш каква е природата на жените и да дадеш Кришна съзнание съгласно тази природа. Мъжете са толкова заети с това да докажат че са мъже, че нямат време да видят, да помислят и да разберат какво представляват жените, каква е природата им. И това е точно къде нашите бракове се разбиват, това е причината. Мъжете не знаят какво е да си мъж, не знаят каква е мъжката природа и каква е женската природа и нямат никаква представа как да се държат с жените си. Всичко което правят е че взимат няколко правила от тук от там като например жените трябва да им служат и трябва да ги следват и това е, тук свършва. И ако се опиташ да приложиш тези две правила се получава ситуацията при нас.

Когато описвам тези проблеми жените разбират много добре за какво говоря обаче понеже са практични те просто живеят с този проблем. Обаче мъжете са тези които имат цяла идеология за мъжкото достойнство, мачизъм и прочие...те са тези които не разбират и имат съмнения дали това което казва шастра е правилно. Те не могат да разберат, че можеш да бъдеш нежен и мъжествен в същото време. Казва се, че е по-лесно да управляваш империя отколкото семейство защото тези мачо хватки може да вървят при империята но при жените не. Но понеже това е всичко което се предлага наоколо те избират от него.

Както ако пазаруваш ябълки обаче се окаже че няма добри ябълки и всичко което има на пазара е един куп развалени ябълки, някои са много развалени, други по-малко, тогава тя си мисли, ще взема тази ябълка, ще я занеса в къщи, ще я измия, ще я почистя и ще имам ОК ябълка. Обаче мъжът си мисли, че това което тя прави е че го притеснява и тормози. Защо непрекъснато трябва да вика и да се цупи? Защото по този начин тя се опитва да те освободи от качествата в тебе които не са мъжки. Това е всичко което жените правят. Покажи ми един мъж които разбира това.

И ако имаш подръка някои грихаста-мечта, които разбита това тогава вземи това от него, но ако няма тогава вземи го от където можеш. Аз не виждам такива грихасти в ИСКОН. Ако искам да видя такова нещо трябва да отида извън ИСКОН в някое традиционно аристократично индийско семейство, там го има. Но понеже нашите бхакти са много против традициите и следването на авторитет те не могат да се домогнат даже до човешката платформа на живот, какво да говорим за Бхагаватам. Защото за да бъдеш грихаста трябва да си човек, а човешкото започва с приемането на авторитет, това е първото нещо което споменава Ману. Уважение към шастра, брахманите, Гуру, родителите. И това е нещо което абсолютно отсъства от нашето общество, изобщо не се приема като ценност. Без това не можеш дори да дискутираш човешки живот. Защото те не се държат в грихаста ашрама като истински грихасти защото грихаста е човек. Грихаста общува с женската природа.

Животните го правят спонтанно защото те работят с емоции. Но емоциите не работят на човешката платформа, трябва да знаеш какво всъщност правиш. Жените знаят как да бъдат жени. Те имат нужда от малко обучение и са готови. Но мъжете трябва да бъдат обучавани какво е да си мъж много сериозно защото ние дживите сме жени по природа. Дживите в женски тела могат да си бъдат те самите, но дживите в мъжки тела трябва да бъдат обучени какво е мъж. Те си мислят че ще доиде автоматично, без обучение, и какво получаваш, груб, недодялан мъж, той си мисли, всички тези неща не са Кришна съзнание, не искам да се занимавам с тях, но тогава защо си се оженил? Тези неща са част от сделката. Както ако си купиш кола, за да я караш трябва да сипваш гориво, да сменяш маслото и гумите, това си върви с колата. Всеки добър стопанин знае това, разбира се храмовите коли не са така защото никои не се грижи за тях. Те си мислят – това е колата на Кришна и значи тя трябва да си се поддържа сама. И мъжете така си мислят, жените трябва да престанат да флипват и да станат Кришна осъзнати. Да, обаче те са жени. И трябва да се държиш с тях на тази платформа, като с жени. Но това е материалистично! Да, но да се ожениш е най-материалистичното нещо. Защо си се оженил? Защото не се женят души, а груби и финни тела. И всъщност само грубите тела защото финните тела си отиват с тебе. Има връзка защото и ти и тя сте личности и имате финни тела и има споделяне. Мъртва материя се жени за мъртва материя. Не може да е по-грубо от това. Ако ще се занимававаме с материални неща по-добре да се научим как да се занимаваме с тях правилно, ако ще използваш нож по-добре се научи как да работиш с него за да не се порежеш. Ама защо трябва да спазвам всички тези правила? Защото това е начина, така го е направил Кришна. И ако не ги спазваш ще се порежеш и няма да постигнеш нищо. Грихаста живота е като нож, даже има повече правила, обаче западните хора не обичат правилата, те не разбират че следването на правилата е единствения начин да накараш нещо да заработи. Колко по-сложно и изтънчено е нещо има повече правила и обратното. Брахмачари ашрама – не е толкова сложно и затова има по-малко правила, грихаста ашрама – сложно и затова има много повече правила.

Но тук не става дума просто за правила а за основите на това какво е човешко същество, за приемането на авторитет. И приемането на авторитет не е популярно нещо в нашето общество в момента. Ако искаш да си щастлив в грихаста живота имаш само една опция – да се издигнеш до гуната на доброто. И как млечха и явана може да направи това? Само чрез повтаряне на Харе Кришна. Един благочестив човек роден в традиционно семейство може да бъде добър грихаста без да е преданоотдаден, въпреки че това по дефиниция е грихамеди. Защото той е научил тези неща в семейството си докато е бил възпитаван от родителите си. Той може да има хубав семеен живот защото е благочестив. Ние не сме благочестиви и затова без мантруване не може и дума да става за гуната на доброто. Това значи че ако садханата не е силна не можеш да бъдеш добър грихаста. И не е така, че ако обръщаш повече време внимание на смейството си ще е по-добре. Ако си седиш цял ден в къщи времето което жена ти ще ти обърне пълно внимание ще бъде 30 минути. Ако си си в къщи само един час пак получаваш 30 мин. Ако си 30 минути получаваш 30 мин. Защото ако си там цял ден тя ще има време за цялата подготовка и цял ден ще мине в подготовка. Ако си там само 30 минути тогава всички увертюри ще трябва да се вместят в тези 30 минути. Това е женска природа, това е наука. Но мъжът си мисли понеже съм женен аз знам всичко това. Това е болест.

Имаш знанието от шастра и след това трябва да го приложиш в семейния живот. Мантруване, храмова програма, това е директно предано служене. Грихаста елемента е индиректно предано служене, но Кришна казва във втора песен, директно и индиректно, и двата вида трябва да се извършват. Каквото и да цениш в живота си трябва да го виждаш във връзка с Кришна.

Почти всички инструкции в шастра за жените са изговорени от жени, така никои не може да каже, че това са просто мненията на мъжете. И много пъти откриваме, че жените говорят но Нарада Муни задава въпросите. Той пита каква е природата на жените, как се държат, какво искат и прочие. Първо защото той е брахмачари и за него е добре да знае тези неща за да бъде внимателен и второ, цялото творение работи на принципа на мъжкото и женското начало. Така че получаваш знание от авторитет. Така научаваш науката, от брахмачарите и санясите които са я разбрали, за практичното приложение, за изкуството как да приложиш тази наука на практика винаги е най-добре да питаш грихаста Гуру. Той може да даде детайлите. Другите знаят науката, но науката трябва да се приложи – това получаваш от грихаста.

Тъй като мъжкото начало значи Кришна, а женското начало е творението, това значи че всеки които разбира дълбоко философията може да ти каже как работи грихаста ашрама. Но изкуството се получава от грихаста.