Is Living in an Ashram or Temple More Spiritual?

Aum Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya.

Haribol.

So, a continuation with our ongoing series on Wisdom from the Bhagavad-gita. And the topic I was handed is: Is Living in an Ashram or Temple More Spiritual?

So, this topic really deals with the subject of the world, of worldly entanglement, and of renunciation. We see these topics discussed in a lot of different religious and spiritual traditions. In fact, they can actually be quite, in many ways, central to how people practice in different traditions. And we see evidence of the, at least in the past, the importance of some of these traditions, in that within all of them you see different orders of renunciates, or priests, or nuns, or monks, or what’s called sannyasis, and so they really do feature.

And often people are sort of like influenced by this idea that the world is perhaps evil or bad somehow, and that because it is evil or bad, there is a need to get away from it, to escape it, or to, yeah, kind of leave it all behind. And this is quite often, if not promoted, in some places it’s even demanded. And of course, what it does for the average person is leave them feeling like, “Wow, but I don’t know if I’m ready to do something like that, so then where does that leave me? How am I going to manage in my life to become more spiritually oriented?”

This idea was actually really quite strong within Christianity for a long time, and I’m just mentioning that because it is something that people in the Western world are probably more familiar with. Although, sort of like in the last few decades, like the last 30 or 40 years, that’s sort of like—or even up to 50 years, but 40 years, it’s sort of like fallen out of fashion. There have been new types of ideas promoted.

They have what they call prosperity theology. Anybody heard that term? Probably not, but it’s something that’s become quite familiar. There was a belief, at least amongst certain groups of people, that said they were Christians, that, if I am somehow favoured by God, then I’m going to get all the goodies in this world. I’ll become healthy, and lots of money will pour in, and I’ll have lots of facility to enjoy. And the reason I’ll be able to do it is because it’s all God’s blessing, and this is something that’s really desirable. And so by my faith in that and my proclamations, and—and it was often tied into the idea of tithing or donating money every week, and if I do that, it’s going to come back many, many fold. So, it’s kind of like a little bit of a—it’s like a business enterprise. I’ll give you this, but you give me a whole bunch back in return.

But that idea is quite seriously at odds with some of the serious verses or proclamations that we find in the Bible. And I’m just going to quote a couple of them. And this is all just background stuff to helping us develop a framework for this discussion.

So, there’s one verse in Mark, chapter 10, that states,

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” [Mark 10:25]

And of course, nobody wants to say that anymore. That’s kind of like, let’s move that one on into the closet and close the door on that one, because that’s not what we want, and it’s sort of like, wow! But then it sort of like makes people a little bit fearful. Where do I find a balance? How should I be living?

In another verse, it says,

“No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon” [Matthew 6:24]

And Mammon means this world and things of this world. You cannot serve that and serve God. It’s not a possibility, at least in this statement.

And the third one I’ll just read is,

“Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.” [Colossian 3:2]

So, these are sort of like within the framework of Christianity. We’re pretty, wow, this is like, so what’s the pathway for me? What am I meant to be doing, and how do I move forward?

Within the Bhagavad-gita, we do have similar types of statements, but what we’ll do is try to address the more appropriate or—meaning of these verses.

But it states,

“In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and to material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination of loving service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.” [Bhagavad-gītā 2.44]

So, that’s pretty much in line with the other verses that I’ve read. And people would see these types of things, and it would become an impetus for them to now consider, wow, giving up things and withdrawing from the world and leaving things behind.

So, in the dharmic traditions, this word, when I say dharmic traditions, we’re talking about mostly the religious and spiritual practices that have developed out of East Asia, like Buddhism, many of the branches of Hinduism, and the Vedic tradition, and yoga, Jainism, there’s a whole number of them. And the way that people in these practices—there is a Sanskrit word, tyaga. Tyaga was considered something that was a necessary, even essential part of a spiritual practice. And in English, this is most often translated as renunciation.

And so, there was this idea in these dharmic traditions that the abandonment of the pursuit of material comforts should be done in the interests of achieving enlightenment, or liberation. Added to this, you had this notion, or idea, of refraining from all types of material activity. And the problem that was associated with this idea was that material activity was considered specific types of actions, like earning money, like being married and having a family, the idea of owning property. A lot of these sorts of ideas were considered detrimental for becoming spiritually enlightened, and so you have to give them up, somehow or other, at some point, you’ve got to get rid of everything. Right? We’re familiar with this idea, more or less? I mean, that’s the way people have been thinking.

So, in the Vedic tradition, it was actually very interesting. They divided a person’s life into two areas. One had to do with my natural tendencies towards work, and the other one has to do with organizing my life for spiritual purposes; and they referred to this as the varnashrama system.

The varnas were people’s attraction to work, and so they broadly categorized that you had a class of people that were considered the intellectual leaders of society. And this included, of course, educators, it included a priestly class, people that were guiding society, not politically, but in terms of spiritual direction, they were called the brahmanas.

Then you had a group of people known as ksatriya. Ksatriya refers to the ruling class, the ones who are more involved nowadays like in politics, in the police force and the army, in the civil service also, that support structuring and running a society.

Then you had what were called the vaishas. The vaishas were the people that were involved in banking and commerce and in farming. That was their activity.

And then the fourth class were called sudra. Sudra were those who did not have a proclivity in those different areas, but they work as like labourers, they support the other groups in organizing and running society.

The ashramas had to do with what was suggested as guidance for how people should live in their life. So, the first stage they called it brahmacharya. Brahmacharya had to do with living a life, as a young person, of some simplicity, learning from an educator and a spiritual teacher, and not just developing an education that would help you in your trade or craft later in life, but a spiritual foundation.

When a person was finished this training, they became what was called a grihasta. Grihasta means they often married and took on the responsibilities of supporting a family and being a productive part of a larger community, but to do it in a spiritually directed way.

Then they had what were called vanaprastha. Vanaprastha, they advised everybody, by the time you’re 60 years of age or thereabouts, you need to stop it with the working and looking for money and being really involved. You need to step back and take on a different focus. You have a certain amount of—finite amount of time left in your life before you face death, and you need to focus on where to go from here to make your life successful by spiritual cultivation.

And while they would not be involved in family affairs from the point of view of running and controlling families, they would act as the guides within families. People would come to them for direction, “How should I deal with this? How do I manage this situation?” And they provided, older people provided a hugely, an indispensable service to society by directing people in right living and being focused on what’s important.

Then they had a fourth order, and this ashrama is called sannyasa. In sannyasa—and I’ll just say, somebody that lived like a monk kind of life, the brahmacharya, they may decide, I want to dedicate my life to this lifestyle, and they may, at the end of their time as a student, decide I’m going to make a commitment to a life, this kind of life, or a person may move through most of their life, and then, in the later part of their life, take a vow of perpetual celibacy. And they would mostly move around, live by simply begging, but their presence in society was to guide and direct society, and they were known as being very renounced in this way.

So, when we think of the question, “Is living in an ashram or a temple more spiritual?” well, we’re confronted now with this—there is a need to go beyond that which is superficial, that simply externally adopting a way of living doesn’t make you spiritual internally.

So, I have a couple of verses—and it doesn’t make you genuinely renounced. So a couple of verses from the Bhagavad-gita, one from the third chapter, the fourth verse, it says:

“Not by merely abstaining from work can one achieve freedom from reactions [or karmic reactions], nor by renunciation alone can one attain perfection.” [ Bhagavad-gītā 3.4]

So that’s just like, okay, wow, there’s way more to it than the external things.

Then there’s another verse, a couple of verses on, where it says:

“One who restrains the senses and the organs of action, but whose mind dwells on sense objects certainly deludes himself and is a pretender.” [Bhagavad-gītā 3.6]

 And that’s just like, wow!

So, you can have somebody that’s got all the gear on. They’re looking like the holy person sitting on the big chair and maybe have lots and lots of followers, but what’s the internal working? What is actually important to them? What is the desire? Are they internally the same as they look externally? And we’re asked to consider this reality. And this is really, really important, because if you don’t approach things intelligently like this, the possibility of being deceived or misled is very great.

So, the real problem is not really the idea of material things or dealing with the material world or material energy. I mean the idea so far that we’ve discussed is, many people think, “Okay, I’ll withdraw, I’ll run away to the mountains, I’ll go join a monastery or an ashram, and then I can be really spiritual.” And I’m going to say, no, that’s not a smart idea. That is a massive lack of understanding.

Yeah?

Question from the audience: So what if you’re trying to avoid a negative culture or family or something like that? [ACD: Again?] What if you’re trying to, say, get away from a negative sort of culture or family and stuff like that? [ACD: Yeah okay.] Can you sort of rewrire your brain, or…?

ACD: Can I, can I, I’ll address that as we go forward. If I don’t, remind me. [Audience member: Hard to hear, possibly “All good.”]

So, the problem is not material energy, or material relationships, or money, or any of these things. The material energy is neutral. It’s neither good nor bad. It’s nothing. It’s just neutral. The problem is my consciousness, the way I’m seeing things, the way I’m relating to people, the way I’m relating to this world.

When I see myself at the centre of everything—and we’ve discussed this before, this is a big problem, where people are—the way we talk, it’s all about “me.” My husband, my wife, my children, my parents, my friends, my community, whatever, mine. I see myself at the centre of things. And all I think about most of the time is how I can build my little world where I will live happily ever after. I see myself as being the central, enjoying agent, and I’m trying to construct something for my personal benefit. I am working, I’m endeavouring, I am praying, I am struggling to make this little kingdom with me at the centre. This is the big problem. And in doing that, we begin to lay claim to the world.

And this is an underlying problem when we consider what real renunciation means. If I understand that I do not and cannot own anything, how can I give anything up? It’s not mine anyway. For me to renounce, in this idea, I have to first possess, “Oh, this is my phone, and now I’m going to renounce it and leave for the mountains.” So I’m trapped in this idea of ownership of things which I am now going to renounce. But that was not considered a very mature spiritual concept.

I am a transient in this world. I come and spend some time, and then I leave. I arrive with nothing, and I take nothing with me. And if we lived with that appreciation, it would really alter our relationship with other people, with the world, in many ways.

So there is one famous text is called the—it’s one of the Upanisads, the Isa Upanisad, and it states in the first mantra:

“Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord, and one should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong.” [Śrī Īśopaniṣad mantra 1]

And if one embraced that principle in their life, it would unburden your heart and your mind in very significant ways.

So, there is a deeper understanding to this word, the Sanskrit word tyaga, which is often translated as renunciation, and it’s closer to the English word dispassion. Anybody familiar with that word, or not really? Dispassionate, it means, it’s sort of characterized by a calmness and an impartiality. I’m not for it, I’m not against it. I’m not hunting for it, desiring it, nor am I hating it or despising it. I am just observing things as they are, with some clarity.

So, what does that mean in relation to this idea of renunciation? So, I’ll read another verse, or a couple of verses from the Bhagavad-gita:

“The Blessed Lord said: One who is unattached to the fruits of his work and who works as he is obligated is in the renounced order of life [or sannyasa], and he is the true mystic: not he who lights no fire and performs no work.” [Bhagavad-gītā 6.1]

So this is just like, wow! I mean actually, the Bhagavad-gita, it’s just like mind-blowing. You’ve got a warrior prince who is going to battle over a kingdom. His cousins, who have usurped the kingdom, seek to exploit it for their own enjoyment and to take advantage of all the citizens. And this prince was part of a family that was very spiritually motivated, and they were asked to fight for what is rightly theirs to administer, not for their own sake, to try and enjoy, but as a duty and obligation to all of the people.

And so in the beginning of Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna’s going, “I don’t want to do this, I can’t do this, this is nuts. This is fratricidal. I’m fighting with family members. My own beloved grandfather will die on the opposite side to ours in this battle. Friends, relatives—” It was just like, “I can’t do this! It’s freaking me out.” And he was encouraged to actually participate in that horrific war because it is a duty, and he should do it without attachment to the idea of success or failure, and he should make an offering of his endeavour to God. That’s what he was encouraged. He—his idea was, in the beginning, he goes, “No, that’s it. I’m out of here. I’m not doing this anymore. I’m off to the mountains. I’m going to take sannyasa and become a renunciate and live in the mountains.” And Krishna told him, “Hey, not possible. You’re just too passionate as a person. You have a nature, and if you try to fight that nature, you will fall down because of it. You will be compelled to act according to your nature. So you’ve got to get it together here and understand what it means to engage spiritually.”

And so in this verse, the idea was not to refrain from work and engagement in the world. No, you should do that. But you should do it as a duty, as a responsibility, and you shouldn’t be hungry to get the fruit of your work and enjoy it for yourself. You should do it in a selfless way. And when you do that, you are a true renunciate, not a person that’s run away from work and all kinds of religious or spiritual obligations and things. No, that’s not a real renounced person. That is somebody trying to, kind of like an ostrich, putting its head in the sand, and [blocks his ears, pokes out his tongue] “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you, nya, nya.” You know, kids trying to hide from trying to hide from the reality of the world.

So then in the next verse it says,

“What is called renunciation is the same as yoga, or linking oneself with the Supreme, for no one can become a yogi unless he renounces the desire for sense gratification.” [Bhagavad-gītā 6.2]

So, the problem is not the engagement with the world, but your reason for it, what’s driving you. That’s where the problem lies.

Is this too cold? It’s getting a bit cold or drafty? If it is, we can close one of the windows. I’m okay, I’m just worried about you guys.

So, when we ask that question, “Is it more spiritual to live in an ashram or a temple?” the simple answer is no. No, it’s not.

We’ve mentioned before the foundation of spirituality is the embracing of the reality that I am an eternal spiritual being temporarily residing within this body. My body is going to have many designations. Like for me, I’m like, meant to be 70 something years old, and I’m a white dude from New Zealand, and I’m a male. But none of that has anything to do with me. That will all be left behind when I leave this body, when I move on, that’s all left behind.

Similarly, even the idea of becoming a monk or a sannyasi, or the idea of being a brahmana or a sudra, these are designations of the body. They have nothing to do with the reality of your spiritual identity. This is a really huge idea. So I’d mentioned the varnashrama system, the four varnas. In Sanskrit, they called them a brahmana, ksatriya, vaishya, sudra, and they called the four ashramas—brahmachari, grihasta, vanaprastha, and then sannyasa.

So, there is a verse in one text, called Caitanya-caritamrta, where it says—and it was quoted from another source,

“I am not a brāhmaṇa, I am not a kṣatriya, I am not a vaiśya, I’m not a śūdra. Nor am I a brahmacārī, a householder, a vānaprastha or a sannyāsī. I identify Myself only as being a servant of the servant of the servant of the lotus feet of the Lord ….” [Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta Madhya-līlā 13.80]

And so that’s a really profound idea, because material life means to be caught up in the external designations, even if that designation is so-called a brahmana, a priest, or a sannyasi, or a monk, or whatever. These are external designations and don’t relate to the spiritual being within.

So living in an ashram or in a temple environment, it is no guarantee of spiritual enlightenment. It can help (and this is addressing your question) it can help kick-start one’s spiritual journey, that possibility exists, and sometimes we need a bit of a break from things. We’re trying to create a new pattern of how we’re living and how we’re thinking, and so adopting, even for some time, that kind of lifestyle, can be helpful in breaking that pattern, but it’s not essential, and it’s not a guarantee that that’s going to work. It’s not a guarantee.

Living in these kind of environments can also provide stumbling blocks to one’s spiritual growth. For instance, it is not uncommon in these environments to feel pride, that I am better than others, I’m not like the common materialist, I am a saintly person, on the basis of my external trappings and my friends and the environment that I’m living in. And those ideas are material ideas. So even though you’re immersed in this external appearance and everything, it is a material misconception.

The idea of being better than anyone else, of feeling pride in my spiritual development, is crushing for real spiritual enlightenment and experience. Anybody that’s growing spiritually will, by nature, become increasingly humble and feel themselves to actually be lower than others. I am not great, I am not the big one, I see everybody else as being greater than myself. This is a deep idea, and it has a profound spiritual reality to it.

It can also, living in those environments, can create a complacency with people and also a dependency. Meaning when I’m in that environment, I feel like I’m safe and everything, and if I move outside that environment, I’m no longer safe. And so I’m seeing that environment as spiritual, and that’s material, and I’m afraid of that. That condition is not a spiritual condition.

This may be appropriate for people in the neophyte condition, in a starting condition, but if it continues it becomes an impediment to real spiritual growth and realization. And in that kind of situation, a person can end up lacking firm determination in their spiritual practice, because they feel all safe in this little cocoon and everything, and physically if I move outside of it, I feel threatened, and I feel challenged. And when that is happening, I am not being challenged to transform my consciousness and how I see the world and how I see others.

So, one must—the foundation for becoming more spiritual is a very simple principle, and in one verse from the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says:

“For one who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am never lost, nor is he ever lost to Me.” [Bhagavad-gītā 6.30]

This is what it means to be spiritual, where you can operate and move in the world, and everything is reminding you of God, of a higher spiritual reality. You are seeing everyone and everything through this lens, so even when you are connecting with people that see you as a relative or whatever, yeah, you have that relationship, but you have a higher perspective also, looking at things through a more spiritual lens.

So, when we consider that this material energy, the world, is neutral and is an expansion of the energy of God, it’s kind of like, well, what’s wrong with that? Exactly, what’s wrong with that? Nothing. But when I have the consciousness that I start looking at stuff, and I’m greedy, and I’m trying to grab as much of it as I can, to try and dominate and control and enjoy, the problem is my consciousness. It’s not the world. So when one has that vision of seeing everything as being connected to God, then the way that they live will become spiritualized.

So, another verse it says, the blessed Lord said:

“To give up the results of all activities is called renunciation or tyaga…”

So, I’ll just stop there for a second. This word tyaga, or renunciation: renunciation means it’s not about not having a connection to it or not being involved with it, but it’s about giving up the results of all activities, meaning when I engage in activity, when I engage in relationship, it’s not based upon me seeking to exploit, to get something from others, whether that’s love, attention, affection, comfort. It’s not about what I can get. I engage in relationship based upon what I can give, what I can offer, what I can do. And when I have a deep concern for the well-being of others, then I am always looking at how can I direct and guide these connections and relationships in a way that this person becomes benefited, that they grow in spiritual understanding, that they become free from suffering and unhappiness, that they actually experience deep spiritual happiness. What should I be doing in my relationship with them in everyday life to guide them and to help them develop in this way?

And when one lives this way, giving up the seeking to enjoy the result of all your work—;ike it’s so common in relationship, somebody says something shitty to you, then, you go, “Yeah, I really loved you. Look what you’re doing to me.” And it’s kind of like, okay, that’s a merchant relationship. I love you, and I expect you to behave a certain way with me. I’m going to do something for you, and you must in return do something for me. And if you’re not going to play by those rules, then I get really bummed. I will feel hurt, or I will get angry. That’s a merchant relationship, and we’re talking about a whole other level of living.

So again, I’ll read the verse and complete it.

“The Blessed Lord said, To give up the results of all activities is called renunciation [or tyāga] by the wise. And that state is called the renounced order of life [or sannyāsa] by great learned men.” [Bhagavad-gītā 18.2]

So this, it’s just like, whoa! So it’s not the guy in the robes that is necessarily the renunciate, the sannyasi, but it is the person who can live in this world regardless of what is their station in life, but a living to be pleasing to God and to offer service to Him and to all my brothers and sisters, all living beings in this world.

Another verse:

“It is indeed impossible for an embodied being to give up all activities….” [Bhagavad-gītā 18.11]

This is a massive reality. When you’re in this state of occupying a body, you can’t give up all activities. You are going to be compelled to be active. Just sitting there, you’re going to end up tapping your feet, scratching, looking around. You’re going to be doing stuff. You’re going to be talking to someone. You check your phone out. It’s like, it’s not possible to give up all activity.

“It is indeed impossible for an embodied being to give up all activities. Therefore, it is said that he who renounces the fruits of action is one who has truly renounced.” [Bhagavad-gītā 18.11]

So this is like, oh my God, this is a whole ‘nother way of looking at things. It’s not just a question of running away to the mountains or a monastery or an ashram, giving up your current clothing and just putting on some simple clothing—all of that can be helpful, but that doesn’t mean that you are renounced. It doesn’t mean that you are more spiritual. Somebody else could be living in this world, fully engaged in it.

A good example is the brother of this warrior prince that’s hearing the Bhagavad Gita, that’s engaged in the conversation, Arjuna. His elder brother, Yudhishthira, he was like, oh my God, not only was he an amazing warrior, but he was like a living saint. He sought out the company of saintly persons and wanted to always hear spiritual discourse. When they regained this kingdom, he was so loved by the population that whenever they saw him, they would bow on the ground. None of just yelling and cheering, they would bow on the ground, prostrate themselves, and offer the deepest respect, seeing him as being like a living representative of God. He was such a saintly character.

They would gladly give him 25% of all their wealth that was accumulated out of their work every year. And he, in turn, would take it, and it’s described, just like the rain cloud, the sun, because of its action on the ocean, the water becomes clouds, the clouds move inland, and then the water is all delivered again to the countryside where all the food is grown and the grass for the animals, and everything is grown. So, it’s said that the saintly kings (they call them raja rishi, raja means king, rishi is like a great sage), that they would live this way, and when they collected money from people, it wasn’t to exploit them, but it was to engage them in their service and to build better communities.

But, because he had this high office, he lived in unimaginable luxury, like fabulous wealth, fabulous wealth, it’s like unimaginable. After he had finished what he considered was his time as king, he simply rose up one night, when everyone was sleeping, removed all his clothing, his jewelled rings, and a belt, a jewelled belt they used to wear. In his underwear, kaupina, he walked out of the palace, and when the guards saw him, they all raised the alarm. And everybody was freaking out because they knew what was coming, and they cried and begged him, as family, not to leave.

He would not even turn and look back at them. He simply stoically began to walk. He stopped one time to bend down and pick up some torn cloth from the street to wrap around his body, and walked, and went to live in the Himalayas, where he spent the last part of his life before departing consciously from this body.

And it’s like, how could he do that? How could he live in such luxury, and it—more than a fan club, people worshiped him, how could he just walk away from that? Because he was living in that state of consciousness that I am an eternal spiritual being. Somehow or other I am in this position right now, I do not seek to exploit it or use it. I will utilize my breath, my thought, my speech, my activities in order to serve the Lord and to serve all others. So, it’s not like he suddenly renounced things. He was always renounced. He never laid claim to anything. He accepted things because it was appropriate for his position in life.

So, the message of the Bhagavad Gita, it’s very unambiguous in declaring what is real renunciation. And they declare that the highest form of renunciation is the process called bhakti, bhakti yoga, loving devotional service to God, where one’s thoughts, deeds, and action are all intertwined as loving service to the Lord. That is the focus.

So, reading from a couple of verses:

“The wise, engaged in loving devotional service, take refuge in the Lord, and free themselves from the cycle of birth and death by renouncing the fruits of action [not the action, the fruits of action] in the material world. And in this way they can attain the state beyond all miseries.” [Bhagavad-gītā 2.51]

And in another verse:

“Unless one is engaged in the loving devotional service of the Lord, mere renunciation of activities cannot make one happy. The sages, purified by works of devotion, achieve the Supreme without delay.” [Bhagavad-gītā 5.6]

So it’s really not a question of whether you’re living in an ashram or a temple, or you are living in the world; what it means to be spiritual—it’s not tied to those things. It’s connected to your state of consciousness.

And so in conclusion, two verses which pretty much summarize what is truly spiritual living: Lord Krishna states:

“O son of Kuntī, all that you do, all that you eat, all that you offer and give away, as well as all austerities that you may perform, should be done as an offering unto Me. In this way, you will be freed from all reactions to good and evil deeds, and by this principle of renunciation, you will be liberated and come to Me.” [Bhagavad-gītā 9.27-28]

So, that is the definition of what true spirituality is. It’s not a question of trying, or trying to avoid, or whatever. It’s where one’s heart is completely given in a mood of deep, loving service, and every breath I take—that was a song, right? If that song—what’s the first line? Every what? [Audience: Every breath you take] Every what? Every breath I take – you, or, I mean, if that was directed towards the Supreme Soul, that is perfection. If it’s directed to another mundane personality, I’m sorry, you’re going to have some serious heartache coming, and disappointment, and lack of fulfillment. This is the essence of true and complete spirituality.

So, in closing, just a little story that’s sometimes told, that paints the picture. You have the materialistic person who’s looking at everything in the world as something for me to grab and try to suck some enjoyment out of it. Then you have what’s broadly categorized as the yogi, or the ascetic yogi, where they’re trying to avoid the world: “Ooh, oooh, the world’s bad, bad, get it away from me,” and don’t want to look at something or—’coz it might suck me in. And then you have a person that is actually, it’s called this word bhakta, is the person that is engaged in this process of devotion, whose life is immersed in loving service.

So, there’s like $50 on the ground, and you’ve got a materialist walking along, and they see it and it’s like, whoa, yeah! And I grab it, and I immediately think of all the things that I can do with the money to have a good time, “Let’s blow out with the guys down the pub,” or, “Let’s score some seriously good dope and find some people that smoke something worth,” or whatever, or I’m going to go and hang out at the adult entertainment or whatever. You get the money, and the immediate thought is, “How can I exploit it?”

Then you’ve got the mystic yogi and the ascetic who sees it, and is going, “Don’t look at it. Don’t look at it. If you touch it, it’s gonna suck you in.”

And then you’ve got a person that has actually cultivated a true spiritual perception, and they see it, and they go immediately, “This is the energy of God. Let me engage it in His service.”

That’s the three ways that somebody can look at the world. The first two ways are opposite sides of the same coin. It’s the same thing, just the opposite side of it. This one is completely different.

Okay, was that good or what? I get, I get a passing grade?

Audience: [Indistinct]

Yeah, life goes on.

So, of course, we know that the most important part of living a spiritual life and spirituality is the process of meditation, and that’s what really brings the transformation. It purifies the heart and the mind. It lifts the fog. It brings clarity of understanding and how we see. And it gives us a little taste of this mood of deep love that is an essential part of what is real spiritual life.

So when we chant these sacred sounds, these holy names, then we are directly exposed to the highest spiritual reality, and it’s transformative.

So we’ll just chant a little bit, and then after it, if you’ve got some questions, we’ll deal with it when we’re having a little dinner, okay?