Transcription
Before we begin this episode, I want to thank Zerodha's media network, Zero01. Sir, I would like to come directly to the point. First, let's talk about animals, then about God. Let's start with the controversial topic. I have never had a pet. And, when I spent some time with my friends' or relatives' pets, I realised that animals and humans are very similar. In fact, a human is technically an animal. Animals also have diabetes, arthritis, periods, cancer, attachment, detachment. They also feel pain, basically. So, what is your opinion? Is an animal equal to a human? And is it wrong to eat animals?
Everything depends on your relationship with that animal. If you are the kind of person who sees something and thinks, "How can I use it to satiate myself, or fill my stomach?" Then you will eat it. You can't be stopped. Because that's your attitude towards life and the world. That everything is for your consumption. Because you view everything as something meant to fulfill your desires. Just because you can, you kill an animal and eat it. It's a matter of your philosophy. Who are you and how do you feel connected to the world.
I see a tree. I immediately see how much wood it has. If I cut it, how much money will I get? Or what can I pluck from it? You must have seen some people. They stand next to trees and plants. They don't even realise, they start plucking leaves from it. This is your view towards life. It's a particular relationship with the world in which you exist just to consume and destroy the world. Why does this happen?
But the same people, -If you bring in dogs, -Hmmm. Many will say, "I am a dog lover. -Hmmm. -I love dogs a lot. My dogs will get half my possessions, they're in my will." But they will eat animals and use leather and other things. There are many countries where the social norm is to eat dogs. So a lot of dogs are eaten. There is a lot of dog slaughter and dog meat is popular. There are other countries where dogs are not killed. It's a matter of their mental conditioning. It's not that they have fallen in love with dogs. It's just that they have been influenced. They have been told that dogs are good. So they don't want to eat dogs.
If you talk about India, for example, the love for dogs in India was introduced by the Britishers. Otherwise, there was no tradition of breeding dogs in India. We saw that the Britishers had big dogs. So people imitated them, upward mobility. That we can become like them, so we started breeding dogs.
In India, I teach the Bhagavad Gita. The recent shloka that I taught, says that, there can be three levels of consciousness. There is a person who has humility and knowledge. Then there are animals. Who is at the top? There is a person who has attained a very high level of consciousness. After that, there are animals. Shri Krishna takes the names of elephants, cows, and dogs. And then there is the lowest level of consciousness. Do you know whose name he takes? The man who eats dog meat. But he is talking about dog meat. He is not talking about any other animal. He talks about all kinds of meat. He talks about all kinds of violence, that's the thing.
There is a word called 'samdarshita'. This shloka has the word 'samdarshita'. 'Samdarshita' means, that I cannot differentiate between them, based on my selfishness. Let me give you an example. What did the learned people say? They said, "Peer saban ki ek si, murgi, hirni, gaay". I cannot discriminate based on my selfishness, that I eat one and don't eat the other. 'Peer' means pain. But when there is selfishness, a person categorises. When there is conditioning, there is categorisation. He says, "I can kill a goat, but I can't kill a dog". This is only your conditioning. Your consciousness is not involved anywhere in this. Sir, am I correct to say, that the Gita states that one must not eat animals? Is that correct?
The Gita says that when you find out who you are, it will be impossible for you, to kill someone who was born to live and who is at no fault, and has done no crime. And if a man, let's say, kills a lion, it is considered violence. But if a lion kills a man, it will not be considered violence. Because humans are the only ones, who have a choice. We have consciousness, we can choose. A lion cannot choose. Whatever a lion does is his nature. But you had the choice and option, to not kill him. Because you can be healthy, even without consuming the animal. But you still consciously chose to kill him, so it's violence.
Now I want to calculate, how many animals do we eat per day? How many animals are consumed in a day, in the whole world? Let's break it down one by one. What is the non-veg population in the world? The world has 8 billion people. Around 700 crore must be the non-veg population. So there are 700 crore non-vegetarians in the world. Non-veg meals per day. People eat breakfast, lunch, dinner. Some people eat 4 meals. But they are not eating non-veg for all 4 meals. -Sometimes they eat vegetarian meals. -Yes. On average, how many non-veg meals are they eating in a day? One by three will be fine. However, people who eat the most, -usually eat non-veg for all three meals. -Yes. But in India and other developing countries, people can't eat much owing to economic constraints. -Hmmm. -So the average will reduce. If people eat three meals a day, one can be considered as non-veg. -So I am taking it as one. -One.
Now let's discuss an interesting topic. Animals killed per meal. We said 700 crore meals per day are non-veg. But people are not eating a whole chicken at a time. People are not eating a whole goat at a meal. -So one chicken provides many meals. -Yes. So, how many animals are killed for one meal? If we can take an average. Actually, that average will not be very small. Because the animals that are slaughtered for consumption, -Yes. -when you consider the large animals, their proportion is considerably low. -Hmmm. -The global estimate in 2025, is about 100 crore animals, including fish, 100 crore animals will be slaughtered for human consumption, per day. We are talking about per day. But there are more small animals. So, 60-70 crore of these animals are fish. And 20-25 crore are chickens. And then there are 10 lakh cows. And there are goats and sheep. So, there are 15-20 lakh goats and 15-20 lakh sheep. And then there are ducks. And there are smaller animals that are slaughtered more. So if our argument is, that one big buffalo is slaughtered and then over 15-20 days... I think the right number will be somewhere between 1/5 and 1/8. -So, shall we say an average of 1/7th? -Let's take 1/7. So we are considering that one animal provides seven portions of meat. For example, many people eat one fish in one go. But they'll take ten days to eat a bigger animal. So, we are considering 1/7th as the average.
Total animals eaten per day will be, 100 crore per day. That is almost as much as India's population. -100 crore per day. -Per day. -Worldwide, we are consuming 100 crore. -100 crore. If you calculate per minute, it will become more compelling. How many minutes are there in a day? 24 x 60 = 1440 minutes. -That's the number of minutes in a day. -Yes. And if you are talking about 100 crore animals, per minute will be, 1,000 million divided by 1440 minutes. -Yes. -This comes to 0.7 million per minute. Which comes to 7 lakh per minute. Let's say we have taken 10 minutes to calculate all of this. In these 10 minutes, 70 lakh animals have been killed, just for consumption. In the time we spent on this calculation, in just this time, 70 lakh animals have been killed, just for humans to eat them. Those who are even mildly sensitive, if they were to close their eyes for a minute and imagine, during the time we were talking, and doing all of this, during the same time, 70 lakh animals... Can you imagine the blade coming to their neck? Can you imagine the blood gushing out? Can you imagine the life vanishing out of their eyes? And all this has happened within these 10 minutes. Why? Because we casually say, "chicken burger". Because we say, "I like the taste". And that is a living creature. 70 lakh in the last 10 minutes, and this goes on. The time I've spent talking, 10 lakh more. In the time you're thinking, one lakh more. This is us. Do we really deserve to call ourselves 100 times more important than an animal? No animal does this.
Sir, but some people present counterarguments. I am not giving my own opinion right now. Right now, I am saying it for the sake of argument. You just said, "No animal does this". But people will say that a lion or many other animals, eat other animals in a very violent way. How would you respond? We are not lions. On one hand, we feel proud that we are humans. We have come out of the jungle. We are not lions. You can't keep a lion alive by feeding it bread. A lion can't eat grass, he won't eat fruits. A lion is like a machine. Can you run a diesel car on petrol? And if you put petrol in a diesel car, or diesel in a petrol car, then you have to take it all the way, and it has to be drained completely. Otherwise, the engine will fail. A lion is like that. A lion does not have consciousness, just like a machine or a car does not have consciousness. It has a fixed fuel, it will only run on that. It will not run anything else. And if you feed it something else, the lion will die. We have a choice, a lion does not. That's why, like I said, if a human kills a lion, it is violence. But if a lion kills a human just for his hunger, then it is not violence, because a lion has no choice. If there is no choice, then how can it be violence. You are breathing, I am breathing. Even in our breathing, there are small microorganisms, which are dying in our respiratory tract. We are talking about small bacteria and fungus. They may also be dying in our alimentary canal. We cannot call it violence because we don't have a say in it. We don't have a choice. -Hmmm. -So that's not violence. But what we are doing is definitely violence.
But what if... here's another counterargument. Some people say that as a caveman, we have been eating animals for thousands of years. Look at our ancestors, look at cavemen. They used to eat. So what is the problem if we are eating now? Because we are cavemen no more. If we are talking about cavemen, cavemen did not wear clothes. -Hmmm. -Did the caveman run Twitter? Did the caveman converse using language? Even if he had a language, it was very primitive. Cavemen didn't get married either. So don't follow the caveman selectively, that you follow one thing, and ignore the other. You follow everything. The caveman did not even brush his teeth. The caveman did not even have a school. And the caveman did not even have the technology, with which he could run mechanised, organised slaughterhouses. If the caveman ever killed, he used his own hands. If you also want to become a caveman, then become a caveman and stay in the cave. And go and slaughter with your own hands and then eat. You selectively make hypocritical arguments to fuel your selfishness. You use the lion's example at one point, and the caveman's at another. You are neither a lion nor a caveman. You are not even a human. If you're making these arguments, you're worse than a human.
Sir, the third thing that people say, that you talk about animals, but you eat plants, and plants are also alive. How would you respond, if someone says, plants also give life. They're alive, so why are you eating them? They do not even need a reply on ethical grounds. Those who say they are eating a goat, to save a plant's life. They don't need an ethical reply, they need a mathematical reply. If you eat one kg of lentil rice or flatbread and vegetables. Hmmm. How many plants did that take? And when you eat one kg of goat meat, what does it take? I will tell you the ratio. To produce one kg of meat, the animal would have eaten 17 kgs of vegetable matter. That's when one kg of meat is created. So when you eat goat meat, you kill 17 times more plants. Because the goat has eaten a lot of plants, grass, and grains to produce that amount of meat. So, when you are eating goat meat, that meat also comes from plants. But it reaches you very inefficiently. The efficiency is 1/17. This is the efficiency. Got it.
So we talked about three things. We talked about the lion, the caveman and plants. Now let's get to the fourth point. Health. Protein. Health. It is scientifically proven that animals have a lot of protein. And there are many other vitamins, which are difficult to get in a plant-based diet, like B12. What would you say if someone eats non-vegetarian food for health. Look, it is clearly scientifically proven... There is no scope for debate. All the nutrients a human body needs, proteins, amino acids are fully available in a plant-based diet. Forget about flesh, you don't even need to consume dairy. You get everything from a plant-based diet, -with the possible exception of B12. -Hmmm. You can get B12 too, but you will have to arrange for it. And that arrangement is not easy in a developing country like India. -Okay. -Take organic supplements for B12. Buy factory-produced B12. And the factory-produced B12 can come from organic or vegan sources. You are right about B12. Protein is also in a plant-based diet. It is in tofu and soya. But people say that animal products are more convenient. It is easier to get this protein. You will have to look for tofu. So I think people say this based on convenience and taste. I will not shed anyone's blood for my convenience and taste. Full stop. The point here is that I find it easy. How is it convenient? Is it convenient to kill someone? What kind of argument is this? When an animal product is produced, there is a huge production and supply line behind it. How is it convenient? How is this convenience? You don't just get packaged meat. It is an organised, multi-billion-dollar industry. It is not convenient to just pick up a chicken and eat it. 99% of the meat you eat is factory-produced. It is artificially produced. Where is the convenience? It is not like you plucked a fruit from the tree and ate it. A lot has been done by way of human organisation, and human effort to bring that animal carcass to you. That is when you eat it.
I know many bodybuilders, you might know too, it's not my personal knowledge, who are completely-- 100%. One of the world's strongest men is vegan. -Djokovic, who is the world's... -GOAT. -The GOAT is vegan. -The GOAT is literally vegan. The GOAT is vegan. I find this interesting. He is 38 years old. He just defeated the 21-year-old emerging champion, Carlos. -Yes. -And being a vegan at the age of 38. -Did you watch the match? -Yes, I did. Look at his nimbleness... -Against Alcaraz. -Yes, against Alcaraz. Look at his movement, look at his thought process. He's 38. There is almost a generational gap. And the fellow is vegan, and he's the greatest tennis player of all time. And people are talking about lack of protein and weakness. So those who say there's no protein, look at Djokovic. Don't look at us, look at Djokovic. So this is a very powerful argument. So many people are very scientific, very data-driven. Because if you see these numbers, they are shocking. And unfortunately... I'm sure you know Yuval Noah Hariri, the author. He also said that humans think in stories, not in facts. So we don't think on the basis of numbers... If someone slaps a dog, we feel very bad. But if we say that 100 million animals die every day. It doesn't pinch us that much. And, now you'll ask me to sit, before that, let me tell you, the figure that was in lakhs per minute, has now turned into crores. Because it was seven lakh a minute. We must have spent 20 minutes talking here, right? -Yes. -Yes, so it has crossed a crore. In the time we have spent standing here, the total population of Nepal, Australia and Sri Lanka, is the number of animals we have killed. Just in the time we have stood here, Australia, Nepal, Sri Lanka... we have killed animals equivalent to the population of Delhi/NCR. The amount of animals we eat in an hour, If you consider, over the last two to four thousand years, every bomb blast that occurred, or the Holocaust, If you consider everything and cumulate it. The number of humans we have killed in total. We eat more animals than that in an hour.
When we started talking, I said something to you. The person who is like this, won't just feel this way about one aspect, he will be destructive towards the world. 90% of the animals that we eat, are factory produced. They are farm produced. We produce them ourselves. We forcefully produce them. They are not being produced naturally. We breed them, keep them in inhuman conditions and then we kill and eat them. That's about the factory. Now let's talk about the jungle. And when we look at the jungle, we see that in just the last 50 years, 75% of the animals in the jungle have been killed by humans. And they have not necessarily been killed to be eaten. We just have a desire to kill. There is something that sits within this particular species called Homo sapiens. Which is very evil. We want to consume everything. We want to destroy everything. Without realising that in the process we are destroying ourselves. This, we very well know, is intimately connected to the fact of the climate catastrophe. This animal food consumption, flesh consumption, is the second biggest source of carbon dioxide and methane emissions. We talk about EVs, we talk about fossil fuel burning, and only consider transportation. Transportation, energy generation. Nobody talks about this, the data is hidden from everyone. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from transportation, the same amount is emitted from animal agriculture.
Sir, why is it that so many intelligent people in the world, who are sitting in high places, Elon Musk and so many other big people, they also talk about the environment at times, but why don't they talk about this? Intelligence is not consciousness. Intelligence, is like a lion running towards a deer, or a goat running towards the grass. Intelligence is a biological thing. You are born with your brain cells. Intelligence is not consciousness. So it is possible that you have a very high IQ, but you could still be a very stupid person. Information and knowledge are on one side, but wisdom is different. Wisdom has nothing to do with consciousness. So, for example, people like Elon Musk, might have a high IQ. but not necessarily wisdom. And you haven't contributed much to your IQ. You are born that way. It's almost like a giraffe having a long neck. The giraffe has not done anything for it. But the one thing that is in your hands, is choice. The same choice that I referred to, in the lion and human example, that humans have a choice to kill an animal or not. Lions do not have a choice. Consciousness is choice.
I have to say one last thing, then we will move to the other segment. If someone says it is in their culture to eat non-veg. For example, according to my religion, for a particular occasion, I should slaughter an animal, or my parents have, for years... my grandmother has a chicken recipe, or they talk about an emotional connection. So, if someone says that non-veg is a part of their culture, chicken biryani is part of their culture, what would you say? What does culture mean? What do you mean by culture? A flow of traditional habits. Whatever you have been doing for the last 100-200 years is culture. I'm saying 100-200 years, because whatever happened before that, you yourself have discarded. When we talk about culture, we don't follow what was done 500-1000 years ago. Everything comes under culture. It's not just food. Culture includes clothes, and language too. Those who talk about culture, are they wearing the same clothes they used to wear 500 years ago? They changed the culture, right? We changed it ourselves, right? Culture is time-dependent. And culture should follow consciousness. Culture is constantly changing, and we should let it change consciously. But we lean on culture, for our selfish interests. Just like the argument that came up, you had given the argument of caveman and lion. These were not my arguments. I want to be clear. These were not my arguments. -Yes, yes. -This is what people say. You are doing a very good job. I know you are representing... For selfish interests, one takes the example of the caveman, they will also address the example of culture. I would say, if you want to follow your culture, why are you eating potato chips? How is that part of your culture? If you want to follow your culture, why are you wearing trousers? You say for the last 1000 years, your culture is to sacrifice animals. If this is about culture, then your culture... Then you should go back to where you were 1000-1500 years ago. Don't change anything. Don't use phones. Don't use vaccines. Don't use modern education. Don't use satellites. Don't use anything. Culture should change.
Then we talk about religion. The thing central to religion, is compassion. Compassion. If anyone says, my religion asks me to murder others, then you haven't understood your religion. If someone says, this is my religion and my religion says, 'kill', then you have not understood your religion. The intention of religion is to help you connect with your heart. And this is true of every religion? It is true in every religion. Their forms can be different. Their beliefs can be different. Their practices can be different. Their scriptures are different. But if religion is really a religion, then there will definitely be compassion at its core. And if there is no compassion at the center of it, it's not a religion. It is a violent belief system. And belief systems do not deserve to be called religions. Religion is a very valuable word. Religion is a very beautiful word. Religion means to take a person back to himself. In everything else, you are very happy that culture is progressing. So why do you call on culture only for this? My culture says eat meat. There was a time when people said, "Sati is a part of our culture". Does that even make sense? At one time, the entire slave trade was justified in the name of culture. So just because something has been happening for thousands of years, does not make it right. Humans are not cavemen anymore. We have changed with time. And 200 years ago, people justified slavery of black people, saying it was right. But now we have realised that it is wrong. 200 years ago, someone used to say Sati is right. Now we say it is wrong. -Some said untouchability is right-- -Racial superiority. Racial superiority. The white man is great. All these things were a part of culture. Indians and dogs not allowed. This was also prevalent. We have left all that. We have left all that behind, after making a conscious decision that we do not want to do all this. Similarly, the regressive elements of culture, -Leave them -Leave them. Isn't that progress? Okay. We will end this section here. It was a very enlightening discussion. It was very thoughtful. I hope you all enjoyed it and you'll give all this a thought, and you will hopefully change some habits too. -And now we will go to the next segment. -Sure.
So that was a very thought-provoking discussion we had. Let's move on to the second segment. It is around God and religion. The second question I want to ask you is, does God exist? And if yes, what is the proof? What is your opinion on this? It is all about God. It comes under the scope of belief. It does not even come under spirituality. It comes under the scope of belief. So religion, the popular religion has a component, "What is our dogma"? What is it that we believe in? Belief without any proof or any discussion of any kind. You're not even allowed to talk much about it. God is relevant there. When it comes to spirituality, the keyword is truth, not God. What is the truth? What is the truth? So when you bring up the question of God, from a spiritual perspective, then I will ask, what is God? You are asking, does God exist? Then I will ask, does what exist? What does God mean? First, we are talking about its existence or non-existence. We should know what we're talking about. What is God? You tell me, what do people think? People say, for example, there is a figure in the sky who is controlling everything. He is watching over people, whether they are doing right or wrong. Then whoever is doing wrong, will be sent to hell. This is their opinion about what God does. Every religion has different forms of Gods. That is my definition. Being virtuous is wonderful. So there is an incarnation. That is a very beautiful thing. That in which godliness is seen, and a very high degree of virtuosity is seen, that is called God. That is a very good thing. But when we say, does God exist? We don't say, did Sri Ramachandra exist? We know that he exists and we call him God. Or we say, Bhagwan Mahavir. or Bhagwan Buddha. They are historical characters, we know that. And calling them God is a very good thing. Because through their existence and grace a lot of good happened to people. So in that sense, calling someone God is one thing. But the context of the question, does God exist. That is a completely different context. That is the concept of the sky. That someone is sitting in the sky. So the sky is a physical thing. It comes in the realm of physics. So we will have to ask a physicist, if there is someone sitting in this universe? Or does the universe work according to its own laws. You say that if you do something, you get its result. What result you get, It is inherent in the work. You don't need a third party for that. You don't believe in God. It is a matter of belief system. You don't believe in God. I do. What will happen if you eat poison? You will die. What will happen if I eat poison? I will die. So what is the difference? -What difference did our belief make? -Nothing. So the universe is based on laws. The universe is based on laws. It's not like you need someone to hand you the lessons of your actions. You will get the results of your actions. You don't need anyone else to give you what you deserve. If you act stupidly, you will get hurt. Hmmm? If you live with love, you will be blissful. You don't need someone else to do the result distribution.
But when we talk that the universe is based on laws, then a belief system is instantly established. I am speaking from a spiritual perspective. Because spirituality is the search for truth. Truth and God are two different things. I am speaking from the perspective of truth. So when I say that the universe is based on laws, and the work of physicists is to find the laws, then people will ask, where did the universe come from? Who is the creator of this universe? Let me tell you something interesting. The point where contemporary physics has reached in the last 20-30 years, and I am glad I have been following it keenly. They say that there is no one universe. According to every person, there is a separate universe behind them. So which universe are you talking of? There are multiple universes. And I am not talking about multiverse theory. When people ask about the history since the Big Bang, what has been the history in the last 10-15 billion years, those histories are also different. There are so many histories. But since physicists are also Homo sapiens, say... it is so interesting. He says that I will consider only those histories, which may result in an intelligent being called the human being. Physics says that it could have been like this, or like this, or then like this. There are almost an infinite number of possible histories. We are talking about the universe, about the creator of the universe. So we want to go back in history. We are saying that there was someone in the past who created the universe. So if you are going back, then there is no linearity. Almost an infinite number of possible histories are there. But due to our anthropomorphism, that is, man-centricity, human-centricity, we only want to consider those histories, where if this was the contour of history, then a great species could be born, the human beings. So the histories which could not have led to the birth of man, will not be considered. So when you say this universe, as if there is one single, unique, objective universe, there is no single objective universe. Your universe depends on you. Even the history of this universe depends on you. And if you don't believe me, go and speak to Stephen Hawking or Richard Feynman. If you read their work, you will understand. Not only are there many universes, but there are many histories of the universe depending on who you are. So when this universe depends on me, then spirituality says, "Explore the truth within. Do not deal in speculation and conjecture". The whole thing about God is simply speculation and imagination. That is why religions fight. Someone says, "My God is like this", someone says, "My God is like that". Someone says... you know the Christian dogma. They say that the Earth was created only 4,004 years before Jesus. Which means the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Now, if you bring up archaeology, or radiocarbon dating with them, they will fight with you. Someone talks about another theory. Someone says, "No, it was God, then Noah's Ark, then Abraham, and the whole story of the prophets". -So is it wrong? -It is a belief. Is that belief wrong? Belief is belief. Can any belief be right? Belief is belief. Belief is not considered right or wrong. There is another way of seeing belief. Belief is either useful or harmful. Religion gives you beliefs. But many beliefs, at least in the initial stages, can be useful. For example, there is a small child. He is repeatedly saying, "I want to go out, I have to go out..." The thing is, it's very cold outside. He is my son, and it's very cold outside. But he will not feel the cold in an instant. When he goes out and roams around, he will feel cold, he won't realise that the temperature difference can harm him. So if I tell him the fact that if you go out you'll catch a cold, he will not believe it. He will say, "I just went for two minutes, I didn't catch a cold, how come? I spent ten minutes before that, I didn't catch a cold, how come?" So then I will tell him that a crocodile is roaming outside. And someone else has sent that crocodile. So if you go out, they will catch you. Now I have given him a belief that a crocodile is roaming outside. This may be a useful belief for a while. Useful in the sense that if he doesn't go out, he won't feel cold. Similarly, all religions have myths. Those myths are given so that a person lives well. Those myths have some benefits. But you benefit only when you understand those myths gradually. The one who does not understand that myth at all, will remain a child. Because a lot of myths were made for whom? To explain to small children. And by a small child, we mean those who haven't grown here. Whose consciousness is unable to grow, and who need to be fed stories. But if you want growth, you will have to understand those stories. And there are very beautiful stories. Those belief systems or mythological stories related to them, which includes God as well, they can be beautiful, but you will have to use your consciousness to understand them. That is why, those who explained, never denied the existence of God. They gave a very good, beautiful, useful, creative meaning to the question. They said, God is truth. How good is that? They said, there can be two types of God. One God, who is only your story. And one God, which is the truth. Tell me, which God do you want? So, it is not a good thing to say that there is no God. Truth is God. This is the right thing to say. So, there can be two types of God. One God, who we've given a physical form, like you said, the one sitting in the skies. That is one God. And spirituality says, there is one God who sits here. This, truth. Because all falseness sits within. All the filth, diseases, and useless dogma and bigotry, and all these things, all the useless beliefs, they are all inside us. So, to remove them is Godliness. God is truth. And that truth has to be uncovered within. That truth has to be discovered inside. It is clouded and covered by a blanket of our own beliefs. That needs to be removed. Then, what arises within, is the truth. And that truth can be called God. But, if God is only your story, this happened and that happened and so on, then this story will not be of much use to you. Got it.
So, Bhagat Singh ji, the freedom fighter, was an atheist. And he said, "Religion is the outcome of human weakness or the limitation of human knowledge". So, he was saying that, many times, just to give people hope... People do not have hope, and through religion, they find hope that something good will happen. And often, it is used as a tool to explain that which cannot be explained. If there's something we don't know. We don't know what happens after death. So, we bring in God and create a story about what happens. Who can argue with Bhagat Singh? He is on point. It's absolutely right. It is like that. When a person does not want to accept the limitations of one's knowledge, then he goes into conjecture, into guesswork. And most of the religions are the same. That is why Bhagat Singh said, "I am an atheist". His atheism was not against the truth. He was crazy about the truth. Freedom, liberation, these are the highest spiritual ideals. Bhagat Singh sacrificed his life for freedom. He used to say, "Freedom is my bride". He had so much love for freedom. And freedom, liberation, those are the highest spiritual ideals. So, Bhagat Singh was spiritual to the core. But, he was not religious in the sense that most people are religious. Bhagat Singh would never believe in the religions people spoke of. I believe that if someone is courageous and a wise young man, then he should not follow the popular belief or religion. Believe in the true religion. Be a follower of truth. I look for the truth. Without and within.
But Sir, like most people, I would say 99.9% of people are following the religion of their parents. But is that a correct thing to do and what should you do? Sir, religion cannot come from parents. Tradition can come from parents. The fact that I got my religion from my parents, is strange. You can get your genetics from your parents. You can get your money from your parents. You can get your belief system from your parents. Religion is a purely individual pursuit.
Would you agree if I told you that all of us are born atheists, and then slowly, we are brainwashed into whatever religion our parents tell us is right. How can you be born an atheist? Like you are born without a belief. Then that's not atheism. Then you have nothing to do with any theistic concept. You can't even say that you are an atheist. When you are born, you are born an animal. You don't call an animal an atheist.
What is your belief, not your belief, but... does Karma exist, or is it to please ourselves, that the world is fair. We will get a reward later. People are struggling, and later in the afterlife, they will get a reward. Even if you do something wrong now, you will get a reward later. Or is there any actual merit in that? What does Karma mean? People say if your actions are wrong, wrong will be done to you. If you do something good, good will happen. And people also say that, let's say there is a child. Suppose the child died within a day. People say he must have sinned in the previous life, that's why he died. Or he will get justice in his next life. So people use Karma sometimes to justify--
So the entire paradigm of Karma, as you are stating it, or as it is popularly taken is, there are good deeds and bad deeds. There is this list and the other list. Okay? So here I am. I do not know who I am. Neither does anybody else know who they are or who I am. But what I have been handed over is a couple of lists. The first list is good and the second is bad. The good list details the good deeds. These are the good deeds. And the second list says, these are the bad deeds. So if you do these good deeds, you will get something good in the future. And what is that good? The society has defined that too. Or my body has given it. That if you get pleasure, it is good. And here is the bad work. If you do something, it will be bad. What will be bad? There can be a social review in it. Or in the next life, you will become a lizard. This is it. This is so childish, isn't it? What should I say? If you tell a small child, he will be very happy. This is how it is and so on. What to do with this? What do we do with this? What is this? And we want to call ourselves an intelligent species. By holding dogmas like these? No, this is not what Shri Krishna, elucidates in the Bhagavad Gita.
So Sir, am I right to say that good begets good. And bad begets bad. How will you know whether a deed is good or bad? That whole laundry list, where did you get it from? How do you know if a deed is good? Bear with me if this appears childish, but tell me, I have been told to do good deeds, and I will get good results in the future. So, the greed for good results, inspires good deeds. First of all, this involves greed. Secondly, this lacks consciousness because the quality of the deed, has not determined by me with my own consciousness. How do I know whether a deed is good or bad? The same deed can be considered good in one country and bad in another. A deed that is considered good in one religion, I am talking about action, a particular act, a deed that is considered good in one religion, is considered bad in another. The deed that is considered good by the father, and bad by the son. In the same place, among like-minded people, in the same community, the deed that was considered good 100 years ago, is considered bad today. So, the definitions of good and bad are constantly changing. And even in time, they are constantly changing. How do I know what is good and what is bad? The entire Law of Karma in the Bhagavad Gita says, focus on the state of the doer, the actor, If you are doing something, or choosing something, that will reduce your suffering, and you always need courage to reduce your suffering. Because our bondages are chosen by us, out of fear. If you are make a choice, or take such a decision, which will reduce your inner sadness, then your actions are right. The Bhagavad Gita says, forget the action, look at the actor. Forget the deed, look at the doer. And this is the theory of Karma. Karma is not, do good and get good. It is not that. Karma is not that at all. So, action doesn't matter. My state matters. If my state is good, I don't need anyone's opinion on whether I'm right or wrong. This is the theory of Karma. And there is no place for the future in this. It is not that if you do a good deed, you will get something good in the future. If you are doing a good deed now, the good result is inherent. The fruit of the action is inherent in the action itself. When you steal, we consider stealing as a bad deed. When you steal, you are immediately punished. Spontaneously. In the moment. What did you get? You became a thief. But now you will say, you will get punished in the future. It is possible to get punished in the future. We know all know how the legal system is. You will say, you will go to hell. Someone can say, I don't believe in heaven and hell. I will steal. But as soon as you see, that the punishment for stealing, is in the act itself. In fact, you get punished before stealing. Because, the action of stealing will happen later. The thought of stealing comes in first. That in itself is the punishment. The popular theory of Karma says, you will be punished after a bad deed. And the actual theory of Karma says, you will get punished for a bad deed before doing it. Because the punishment is to have bad thoughts. You have become dirty and you have been punished on the inside. The external punishment may also come by. Because, when you have become dirty, everything you do on the outside will also go wrong. It is like getting infected with a virus. You got infected with HIV. It is not necessarily, immediately, that AIDS breaks out. You have been punished. You did something. In a very unconscious moment, you took such a decision that you attracted HIV with your own unconsciousness. You have been punished. The external outcome may show up after 8 years. Or anything else. You smoke. On the outside, you may get cancer after 20 years. You just don't realise that you are being punished. This is the actual theory of Karma. Whatever you do in your unconsciousness, it will immediately, instantaneously, drown you. This is the real principle of Karma. Got it. Amazing. That's very intellectual.
Another question is, if there is religion, if there is God, then why is there so much evil in the world? I had also written this book 9 years ago. Actually, I wrote it 10 years ago, it was published 9 years ago. And I had written, "Where was God during the Holocaust? There are two types of disasters, man-made and natural disasters. Since God made man, why don't we blame God for man-made disasters? Every day, several newborn babies die immediately after they are born. What wrong did these babies do? On what basis will God decide whether they will go to heaven or hell? I want to ask one last question. Is man God-made or is God man-made?" You have answered it. This is the classical argument against God. And I am privileged to say something on it. Look, God is truth. God is truth. Or, if God is not truth, then God is simply man's belief and imagination, okay? If it is belief and imagination, then what you said ends right there. It is a man-made God. Then the argument is over. It is a lie. Imagination is not the truth, it's a lie. So there's no argument. But, we were discussing that simply call truth as God. If by God you imply the highest, then let truth be the highest. So, if you want to talk about God, then say God is truth, truth is God. The highest, the ultimate. Truth. Call that God. And if God is truth, then truth is always a choice. Whose choice? Mine and yours. God is a choice. It depends on you, whether you want to live your life with truth or not. If you want, you can save people from death. And if you want, you can put them in great pain. It is your choice. So, God is a potential within you. Just a potential. A beautiful potential. Yet, just a potential. A probability. Whether you want it or not, and whether you will make the required effort for it or not, and whether you will pay the price for it or not, it is your choice, Sir. So, I am summarising, God is a potential within us. Potential. Through which, either we can harm or gain benefits. No, no, no. We cannot harm. As you move towards that potential, you become better for yourself and also for others. Okay. God...no one can force you to become virtuous. Becoming virtuous, being good, having a high consciousness, are all options you always have. And you equally have the option of living a disgusting life, a life like a spineless demon, killing people, making people sad, killing, raping, murdering and manipulating. All these are options. This happens, right? You know the story of the two wolves. Which one wins? The one that you want to win. Right? You have two wolves within you. So, one of those wolves is the God wolf. It's an old story. You have two wolves within you who are always at war. So, the grandpa narrates a story, dear, you have two wolves within you who are always at war. So, the girl asks very innocently. Which of these two wolves wins, grandpa? So, the grandpa says, the one that you want to win. Similarly, God is also within you. If you want to God to win the God will. If you don't want God to win, then God won't. God does not win by force. He
does not force you. He is always available like a choice in front of you. Truth is always a choice—when it comes to you.
So, God is a potential within us. But, am I right to say that God by itself, it's not that God can stop a Tsunami or can stop a flood? We can take some actions to stop a... No, you cannot take actions to stop a Tsunami. However, since all suffering exists within you, therefore, internally, you can be someone who is least affected by random natural events. We may not have control over what's happening in the world; it can fall on our heads right now. I won't be able to control if it falls on my head. But, what will my response be when it falls? I have the potential to control it. God is that potential. God is that potential. And God, then, is very helplessly dependent on you. Because you choose whether you want God or not. And by God, I mean truth here. Truth, truth. Got it. You decide if you want to live a cheap and fake life or a flourishing and true life. You have to decide. God can at most keep calling. You know that beautiful figure of Krishna's flute. He's playing the flute. And the beautiful sounds are wafting, traveling to you; they are beckoning. But it depends on you whether you choose to respond. There's a saying, "Murli baaj uthi anghaata." The flute is playing, they are calling, but there are other things in the world, a lot of noise. If you are lost in the noise, you won't hear the flute. So, it's a potential. It's a voice. It's an echo. It's very slow, soft music that keeps calling us all. Most of us ignore it. That is truth. That is God.
Okay. That's a great segment. We'll wrap this segment off right now. Now, I'll ask you one last question. Not only about religion, but it's kind of connected. At least, some people say it's connected. Do you have any opinion about astrology? Numerology is also considered in the same bracket as astrology. Some people say, "I'll buy a car at a certain number. I'll do this on a particular number." People read the future; what will happen after 10 years? Is all this superstition or is there any merit in it?
Bogus.
Everything is bogus? Astrology is bogus? Absolutely. Bogus. And the more dangerous thing is that, we don't know what's inside us that's eager to know the future. We don't know. We are very scared people. So, we want certainty where there can't be any. And where there can be certainty, we don't create it. You can have no certainty in the external world. But you can have great certainty and security in the internal world. We are weak and hollow internally, but on the outside we want to create an illusion of security, certainty, and predictability. And for that we say, "My name starts like this. Tell me my future by my name. When will I get married? When will I get a job? Tell me all this." There are many types of things. Someone shows a horoscope. Someone shows their forehead. Someone shows their palms. Someone shows something. All these attempts arise from internal hollowness. And when you make such attempts from internal hollowness, then there will be demand and there will be supply. Many people will come forward to tell you your future. The question is, "Why am I so interested in the future?" The reason is because my present is very poor.
Some people say astrologers are very credible. There are some big names. And I have never personally experienced it. But my own parents and my relatives have had experiences where they didn't share all their details with the astrologer, and the astrologer was able to share some of their personal details. They were shocked at how the astrologer knew all those details. So, people share such incidents, and I wasn't a believer earlier, but I am starting to believe it now.
An incident is just a single instance, right? To know the authenticity of something, you have to consider the entire space of outcomes. We all have heard of that. Give enough number of monkeys, enough number of computers, and one of them will come up with the entire work of Shakespeare. This is simply probability theory. If you say something to 100 people, it'll be true for at least two, based on sheer probability. Merely by probability. It will turn out to be correct. And it will turn out to be correct because it turned out wrong for the other 98 people. So, when you see the entire space of all 100 predictions, you will realize that the probability is only 1/50, 2/100. But no one talks about those 98 things which were totally useless and turned out to be wrong. Because there is something inside us that has an affinity towards lies. So, wherever we get a chance to inflate a lie, to blow up a bubble, we immediately blow it up.
I will give you another classic example. The number 13 is problematic. Number 13 is problematic, fine. How? On the 13th, a number of people die in the world. A certain number of suicides took place from the 13th floor of a hotel. Vehicles with the number 13 met with a certain number of accidents. Okay? And you will say, "See, this proves that the number 13 is an evil number. It is the devil's number." You can say that. But have we considered the entire sample space? The rest of the numbers are also the same. The rest of the numbers are also the same. But you have not read so much probability. And even if you have read, as I said, something in us always wants to side with lies. It won't even ask how it is with the 11th and 12th. There are so many people sitting here; I will start making predictions about everyone. I will manage to say something right about at least someone here.
I will definitely get it right.
Yes, you will say something. And whoever that is, will say, "See, he came here, a great astrologer." And the rest of the people will remain silent. They will not say that I talked nonsense. So this is how the entire game works. I'm not saying anything against those who run these businesses. I am asking a human being, what is the weakness within you that you want to make life so predictable? This is a random universe. This is a random universe. The deterministic model that we had created, even about the material objects, has broken down. There was time we used to say, if the conditions of the present universe and all its variables are known to us, then we can predict the future. That was determinism. Today, physics is also well aware that the universe is not deterministic; that there is uncertainty. We know about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If you go very close to something and locate it and specify its location, then you can't tell its velocity. There are things even physics cannot predict. And your basis is so strange. You say your life can be predicted based on the planets and stars. If someone asks how it will happen, then you say it's scientific, it's gravitational pull. Gravitational pull follows the inverse square law. It is proportional to 1 by r squared. It is so far away; how much of its pull reaches you? This table here, if I come close to it, the table is applying greater gravitational pull on me than Jupiter. So if my destiny is determined by gravitational pull of big bodies, then it should be dependent on this table. These big walls in the house, and you sit by them, eat near them, and even sleep on your bed next to the wall. The gravitational pull of that wall is greater than the gravitational pull of Saturn and Jupiter on you. But then people will unnecessarily quote pseudoscience and gravitation. Why? Tides also come from gravitation. So if the sea gets affected by tides, then it will also affect humans. That is a column of 10 km deep fluid. Its physics is different. Firstly, the human body does not have that much fluid. Secondly, it is not such a big column that gravitation can show its effect on. But we don't want to consider these things. It's not the fault of those who spread this propaganda; it is our fault. We live in such a wrong way that we are always scared, and we rely on predictions for future security.
Thank you so much, Sir. It was great, great talking. And I hope this reaches millions of people.