SB 1.7.27 – Forgiveness and Letting Go

Giriraj Swami:

oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya

oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya

oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya

Reading from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Canto One, Chapter Seven: “The Son of Drona Punished,”

TEXT 27

śrī-bhagavān uvāca
vetthedaṁ droṇa-putrasya
brāhmam astraṁ pradarśitam
naivāsau veda saṁhāraṁ
prāṇa-bādha upasthite

TRANSLATION

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Know from Me that this is the act of the son of Droṇa. He has thrown the hymns of nuclear energy [brahmāstra], and he does not know how to retract the glare. He has helplessly done this, being afraid of imminent death.

PURPORT by Srila Prabhupada

The brahmāstra is similar to the modern nuclear weapon manipulated by atomic energy. The atomic energy works wholly on total combustibility, and so the brahmāstra also acts. It creates an intolerable heat similar to atomic radiation, but the difference is that the atomic bomb is a gross type of nuclear weapon, whereas the brahmāstra is a subtle type of weapon produced by chanting hymns. It is a different science, and in the days gone by such science was cultivated in the land of Bhārata-varṣa. The subtle science of chanting hymns is also material, but it has yet to be known by the modern material scientists. Subtle material science is not spiritual, but it has a direct relationship with the spiritual method, which is still subtler. A chanter of hymns knew how to apply the weapon as well as how to retract it. That was perfect knowledge. But the son of Droṇācārya, who made use of this subtle science, did not know how to retract. He applied it, being afraid of his imminent death, and thus the practice was not only improper but also irreligious. As the son of a brāhmaṇa, he should not have made so many mistakes, and for such gross negligence of duty he was to be punished by the Lord Himself.

COMMENT

Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare

In the previous verses Arjuna offered prayers to the Lord and then he came to the point of his question that, “From where has this effulgence come?” And here the Lord gives the answer that the effulgence is caused by the brahmāstra released by the son of Drona when he was afraid of imminent death. Naturally when Arjuna heard about the release of the brahmāstra weapon, he would have wanted to know what to do, and in warfare the first approach should always be peaceful settlement. So Arjuna may have thought, “Well, if we appeal to the son of Drona he may call back the weapon, he may withdraw the weapon,” but here Lord Krishna informs Arjuna that he doesn’t know how to withdraw the weapon.

So although the brahmāstra causes similar effects as the atomic bomb, it is more subtle and exact. The atomic bomb may drop on a city and kill thousands and millions of people without discrimination. Old men, women, children, sick people, animals, they all are killed whereas the brahmāstra can be aimed at one specific person and it will seek out its target and not kill the innocent inadvertently. The brahmāstra is also more of an exact science or subtle science because the person who knows the science should be able to withdraw it, although here the son of Drona did not know the science completely. 

And thus the brahmāstra is like our words, once we release our words, we cannot withdraw them. And therefore we have to be careful before we speak. In India Srila Prabhupada gave the example, which later we discovered in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, but in India Srila Prabhupada said that the life members are like clay china, once they are broken, no matter how you try to mend them, they are never the same. So sometimes we may release some words that can break the heart of another person, and even though later we may regret the words that we spoke, we can never really take them back. Of course we can apologize and repent and we can try to counteract what we said after the fact, and in the society of devotees, as far as possible there should be forgiveness and reconciliation, but still, the best course is not to say things that will hurt another person that one may regret later. So therefore wise men have advised that once one releases one’s words, they can never be withdrawn.

So here, the son of Drona, and this Drona putra phrase is important as it will become more important later in the story, because Asvatthama is known as the son of Drona, Dronacharya, and Drona was an exalted brahman. He was actually an acharya and therefore, because of his position, on the one hand more was expected of Asvatthama, because he was the son of Drona. So we too, being sons or spiritual descendants of Srila Prabhupada, and his worthy sons and disciples like Tamal Krishna Goswami, we also have a great responsibility because people will expect something more from us because we are coming from such noble lineage. When we come to the spiritual science, we, as students of the great professor of the spiritual science Srila Prabhupada, we will be expected to know the science. Of course we may be students and if we are really not able to explain the science adequately, then also there is no harm, but then we should not pose ourselves as teachers or representatives of Srila Prabhupada or his representatives. But ideally we should be proper representatives and spiritual descendants who know the science.

There was one incident in maybe 1970 or 1971, we were in Boston, but the incident took place in Berkeley where one of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples had an encounter with a professor, Professor Staal, and Professor Staal did not appreciate the yuga-dharma for Kali-yuga, he did appreciate the value of chanting the Hare Krishna maha-mantra. So there was some discussion on topic between Professor Staal and Hansadutta Prabhu, but somehow Professor Staal was not satisfied, and Hansadutta Prabhu suggested, “Well, maybe my teacher can satisfy you.” 

And then Professor Staal entered into a correspondence with Srila Prabhupada where they argued back and forth. And the way of scripture is such that if one knows the scripture well enough, means is acquainted with enough verses, he can pretty much quote verses to support any position. Even Lord Chaitanya, with His students, sometimes He would take one position and He would defeat them, and then He would take the opposite position and defeat them. So back and forth Srila Prabhupada cited his authorities’ verses from the Vedic scripture and Professor Staal cited his verses in support of his position. And then finally in the end Srila Prabhupada said, “We may argue back and forth like lawyers,”—they argue back and forth on the basis of the same books. The one lawyer will say that he is innocent and quote the law book and the other lawyer will argue he is guilty and he will quote the same law book—so similarly they were going back and forth on the basis of the same body of knowledge, but there was no conclusion. So Srila Prabhupada said, “Who will be the judge now? There has to be some judge.” And Srila Prabhupada said that, “The judge has to be Sri Krishna Chaitanya because He is the Supreme Lord who has descended in the present age of Kali to give us the proper knowledge.” And then of course we know from Lord Chaitanya:

harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam

kalua nāsty eva nāsty eva nāsty eva gatir anyathā

But the point is, as we heard it, Srila Prabhupada was a little disappointed that Hansadutta Prabhu wasn’t able to answer the professor’s questions and satisfy him. And therefore Prabhupada wanted us to study his books and discuss his books.

I recently. . . either I think I heard a tape where. . . maybe I read in a purport, Srila Prabhupada said that ISKCON is an educational institution, and I know within the first year in Boston we were having class or reading five books every day. The Sri Īśopaniṣad had just come out and Srila Prabhupada had instructed every morning after maṅgala-ārati we should chant responsively one verse from Sri Īśopaniṣad until we had all memorized it. And then in our case in Boston, Satsvarupa Maharaja who was the temple president would read the purport. But Srila Prabhupada wanted us to memorize every verse in Sri Īśopaniṣad with the proper incantation also so that people would know that we have some knowledge, that we have studied properly and learnt from our teacher.

Then, of course, after śṛṅgāra darshan we would have Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam class. Then in the evening, before the sandhya-ārati, from six to seven, we would have Nectar of Devotion, and then after sandhya-ārati, at seven-thirty, we would have Bhagavad-gītā class. And then before we took rest, we would hear the Kṛṣṇa book. So every day we would study or discuss or at least hear five different books. 

And when we would go out on the street to chant or when we would do anything, even service in the temple, but whatever we did, it was like the experimental part. Like in science classes they have the theory and then the practical part where you go into the laboratory, and so we had the same sense that we would learn in the class about the theory of Krishna consciousness and then we would do devotional service in the temple or go out and do hari-nāma-saṅkīrtana, and that was like the practical part, the laboratory part. And we would all feel that, yes, what Srila Prabhupada wrote in the books or what the scriptures said is true because when we do service in the temple or when we chant in the streets, we can feel, we get the result that is predicted in the scientific books.

So yesterday Mr. Varma, I forget his first name, but Mr. Varma came for lunch—probably he is a regular visitor and donor—so he asked what was ISKCON like when I joined and what is the difference between ISKCON then and ISKCON now. But the way the discussion went, I couldn’t give a very thorough answer, but now, discussing about the science, I think one of the differences is that ISKCON was more of an educational institution, and it seemed more like an educational institution. It is, it must be, and it always will be; it is more a matter of emphasis.

But, anyway, we should know the science. That is the point here. We should know the science and we should know it fully. Like Asvatthama knew the science partially, he knew how to release the weapon, but he didn’t know how to withdraw it. And ultimately he was considered irreligious because he was dealing with something very powerful, but he didn’t know the science fully, and therefore he released it improperly and he couldn’t rectify the situation by retracting it. 

This is a subtle science. Bhagavad-gītā explains that there are eight material elements: earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence, and ego or false ego. But basically modern science deals with earth, water, and fire, which are relatively gross. They don’t have much idea of ether and less of mind, intelligence, and false ego. In fact, there is some scientists that say that unless you can see it and feel it and smell it and taste it, it is not worthy of study. But here, the subtle science of mantra which is sound, which is carried through ether, conveyed through ether, they don’t know. And the subtle is always more powerful than the gross or at least we can say the gross comes from the subtle. 

And in Bhagavad-gītā also, we have that the mind is higher than the senses, the intelligence is higher than the mind, and ultimately the soul is higher or more subtle, even than the intelligence.

So the real point is to come to the soul, to come to the point of the soul. So when modern material science has no knowledge even of subtle matter, mantra, and how to create gross from subtle, then where’s the question of them knowing the soul which is more subtle. So they are ignorant of the soul and the soul is the main factor in life. The soul itself is alive. The gross elements are not alive, but in the conditioned state, the soul is covered by the gross elements in the form of the gross body and the subtle elements in the form of the subtle body. So in that sense we could say that conditioned life is a combination of matter and spirit, but spirit is more important than matter. As long as the soul is present in the body, it can function. And as soon as the soul leaves the body then just the dead material elements remain. 

So, people are ignorant. In the modern era people accept science as the new religion, as the future hope of humanity. The new religion is like completely lacking in more subtle knowledge and therefore the Krishna consciousness movement is so important because it can teach people—scientists and religionists and people in general—about the soul and also subtle material science, but most important, about the soul and the Supreme Soul and the relationship between the Supreme Soul and the individual soul. Therefore, to rectify the defect in the modern civilization that has given so much attention to matter and almost no attention to the soul or the spirit, we need to know this science and present it for the benefit of the world. Hare Krishna.

Are there any question or comments?

She says that sometimes someone may hurt us and then we will forgive the person, but there is still some residue of the pain or grudge. So what can we do?

Of course there are degrees of forgiving. One can officially forgive, “Yes, Prabhu, I forgive you,” but within one’s heart one really hasn’t forgiven the person. Or one may have forgiven the person to some extent within the heart but not fully. And there are some subtleties here because I have discussed the subject with some senior devotees, with Tamal Krishna Goswami as well, and I told him of an experience I had where somehow I felt a great sense of forgiveness in a general sense and the way people are and maybe more the way institutions are one does get hurt time and time again. So, when you get to be our age, you have quite a long list of. . . of course there is probably quite a long list of the people we have hurt, but there is a long list of the times we ourselves were hurt. 

So, I had the experience of having a great sense of forgiveness. It was a general sense of forgiveness to anyone and anything. And then my mind started to go from person to person, not by any deliberate effort to direct the mind, but naturally the mind went to a few people that had hurt me and I forgave them all. Then I came to one person and I didn’t forgive him. So, I discussed the experience with Tamal Krishna Goswami and what he said was, and it is not the end of the discussion, but what he said was that the difference between the one person and the others was that the one person was still continuing whereas the others had done something and stopped. So he felt because the person was persisting, that may have been the reason why internally I couldn’t really forgive him.

But then I had a similar discussion with His Holiness Śrīdhara Swami and Śrīdhara Swami made a statement which I later discovered was in the bible or a paraphrase from a statement from the bible that unless we can forgive our fellow men, how can we expect God to forgive us. And I told him about the other discussion that I had with Tamal Krishna Goswami and he said, “Well, we have to forgive. For our own sake we have to forgive.” 

But, coming back to the one person that I couldn’t forgive, later I realized that there was another factor which was that the person had hurt not only me, but someone else, and the damage done to the other person was more severe and more long lasting than the hurt I felt. Now I have sort of come to the stage where I think I have forgiven him for what he did to me, but. . . that is the main thing, but still I feel. . . I guess I have. Like in this holy association here my ten-year struggle or whatever it is, has been completed.

I thought, coming back to your question of what to do, obviously one alternative is to speak to the person. And I consulted some friends about the person in question in my case and they said to be careful because approaching the person and discussing with the person might not end up that nice. But the conclusion was that if the situation arose when we. . . if by some arrangement we were placed together with each other in a situation where we could talk to each other, but that has never happened. So I guess it was an internal process. But again, depending on who the person is, it may just be good to discuss it.

Last year a senior devotee—it is very interesting how this happened—he came to visit me, he is another godbrother, very advanced devotee I would say, and so he phoned and he said he wanted to visit me. So I was very happy and very excited that he was going to come to visit me. But in the morning of the day before he was going to come or maybe even the same day, somehow I just remembered something that he did that I pretty much forgotten that it really came very strongly in my mind that he did this. So, I thought, “Wow, I hadn’t thought of that for a long time. I had almost forgotten about it.” But it was very much there. So I thought maybe I don’t even want him to come. Then I thought I can’t tell him not to come.

So he came and there were a few godbrothers there at the time and he said he wanted to speak to me alone. And then he brought up what he had done several years earlier because he said somehow it was on his mind and he wanted to clear it and he never really had properly discussed with me and apologized. And he said a lot of things, but I didn’t really let it go, because I also wanted it to come out of my heart. I wanted it to be purged out of my heart. So when he said things that didn’t completely satisfy me—but of course the mood was very congenial from the beginning—and so he would say, “I am sorry I did this, but at the time such-and-such,” and I would say, “Well, yes, okay, at the time such-and-such, but. . .” and I didn’t let it go until I brought out everything that was in my heart. And then I think at the end we all got out of our hearts whatever was there about this particular incident, and it was very purifying.

So, if the devotees involved are mature enough and have enough basic respect for each other and appreciation for each other, then talking about it could actually be very beneficial, but then again some people are. . . you don’t have that deep kind of a relationship or that long of a history of that relationship. You don’t really know what might happen. At least again, coming back to the first case, it just happened internally. I think another thing that made me forgive him or encourage me to forgive him was that he continued in Krishna consciousness. So I thought even though from one point of view what he did was really horrible, but the fact that he is continuing to do service so many years later suggests that he must have been sincere even thought I disagreed with what he did and maybe a lot of other people disagreed with what he did, but he must have been sincere, he must be doing sincere service, otherwise he couldn’t still be here after so many years.

There is no easy answer because we are dealing with individuals, but I have heard of cases of devotees where. . . this case was that a more junior devotee felt that she had offended a more senior devotee and the senior devotee officially forgave her, and I know the senior devotee, the senior devotee always tries to do the right thing, do what a pure devotee would do. But still, whenever that senior devotee would meet that more junior devotee, it wasn’t the same as before and in fact the senior devotee was quite cold to the junior devotee according to junior devotee. And knowing the senior devotee always trying to do the right thing, and what a pure devotee would do all the time, I felt she never really forgave the junior devotee from within her heart, that she just probably read if you offend and Vaishnava, you should ask for forgiveness and Vaishnavas are always merciful, so they will forgive you and she thought, “Okay, that is what the books say and so if she is approaching me so I have to forgive her because that is what devotees do.” But it didn’t really come from within the heart.

So, there I encouraged the junior devotee to keep trying to serve and please the senior devotee and also ask her to discuss it. 

So each case is different. Just try to do the best. We are dealing with the affairs of the heart, so if someone offends me, he could also officially apologize even, but within his heart he could still be harboring some of the offensive feelings or thoughts and then, ye yathā māṁ prapadyante, so he officially apologizes and I officially forgive him, but because he hasn’t really completely purged himself of his offensive mentality or mood, Krishna within my heart many not allow me to fully forgive him until the time that his heart does get completely cleansed of the offense. That is possible.

But the only subtle distinction I would make is that you were saying that it would only happen when the offensive person fully realized what his offense was and gave it up whereas in again applying the principle so that you said to my case with the one devotee, I don’t really know if he is thought deeply. Not that, “Well, some people say he is introspective, but he doesn’t show it that much.” It may be just by the process of purification without really deeply pondering the case he will give up his offensive mentality and I will give up my resentment and there won’t ever be a very deep analytical confrontation of what happened, but it’ll be cleansed away by the process of devotional service and the mercy of Guru and Gauranga.

But in principle I agree with what you said. After I have said all that I have said, I realize that it was perhaps like Govinda dasi said yesterday, she is seen that whenever devotees set themselves up in a position, even if it is in the line of service, but if they set themselves up in a position where they are supposed to be authorities on a certain subject then they always get slapped or something. So, I don’t. . . I just had an eerie sense that my statements here about having forgiven the one devotee, I started feeling uneasy that there may be some test and I may not. . . I would like to qualify what I said that that was just what I was thinking and feeling at the time, but I don’t really know if all of those bad feelings have been really heard or I don’t know. . . that was all just in the course of the discussion. I don’t really know what the reality is. 

So Maha-laksmi Mataji says that we think we are doing the right thing when we do it, but we could actually be acting on the material platform and not on the spiritual platform, a bit of false identification with the body. So how can we become sober and understand whether we are really acting according to Vaishnava principles or whether we are just acting under the influence of the modes?

We have the general answer, by chanting Hare Krishna without offense and serving the devotees. All that is inauspicious in the heart becomes destroyed.

Devotee: [unclear]

Giriraj Swami: That is a very good point that devotees have different degrees of faith and different realizations and what’s an appropriate realization for a person at a certain stage of development of faith maybe different from the realization of someone else who has another degree of development of faith. So that can cause conflict which is true. It is true; it is very tricky.

I think individually what may happen is that the more mature devotee will have a realization that he will act upon, but his acting on his realization will disturb other devotees who haven’t come to that realization yet. And then later—this is a hypothetical case—but then later he will realize that even though he was very enthusiastic about his realization and he wanted to talk about it and act upon it, it disturbed others, and therefore he will become more careful. 

But I agree with you, that is a good point. It could even work the other way, the lesser devotee. . . there is so many degrees. Like you said, there is so many degrees. But it could also happen that the lesser devotee could think, “Well, he is more experienced or more mature or more advanced, and maybe I don’t really understand why he is doing, what he is doing, or saying what he is saying. Maybe it is good for him and of course some others, but maybe it is not good for me,” and try not to be disturbed.