In the 20th verse of the 16th chapter, even though they know the scriptural rules, there is mention of performing good deeds like charity, service, and benevolence while ignoring them. Which is not that bad. Because their deeds like charity are not in accordance with scriptural rules, but they are not forbidden by the scriptures either. Here, it is about performing contrary deeds in an arbitrary manner, believing that what is not prescribed in the scriptures is the best, then what is the difference between the two? So, the people mentioned in the 23rd verse of the 16th chapter will not attain perfection, happiness, and the supreme state. Meaning, their good deeds will be considered only in name, but there will be no fruit. They get public prestige. By violating the scriptural rules, by not maintaining the scriptural rules, they do good work. And by not maintaining the scriptural rules, they do work that is condemned by the public. So, those who do good work by violating the scriptural rules, it was mentioned in the first verse. It was mentioned in the first verse, right? 'Shastra vidhim utsrujya', what is 'utsrujya' called? 'Yajante shraddhayanvitah'. Yes, that 'utsrujya', 'yajante shraddhayanvitah'. 'Tesham nishtha tu ka krishna krishna 1) An avatãr of Bhagvãn. He incarnated in the svarup of a cowherd. This is considered to be a greater avatãr than the others, as Shree Krishna possessed all of the powers of Bhagvãn, whereas other avatãrs possessed less power. Shree Krishna conveyed the message of love and humanity to the world. Also, He recited the epic poem, the Bhagvad Geetã, to Arjun in which He stated: ‘Whenever dharma declines and adharma increases, I shall incarnate myself as a human to save the holy, to destroy the sin of the sinner, and to establish dharma. I come into being from yug to yug’. 2) In the Vachanãmrut, Shreeji Mahãrãj also uses the name “Shree Krishna” to describe Bhagvãn Purushottam Nãrãyan. Tap to open in glossary → Here, it is 'shastravidhimutsrujya yajante shraddhayanvitah'. 'Na sa siddhimavapnoti na sukham na param gatim'. They do not attain such happiness. Then what do they attain? They attain prestige. They attain prestige in this world. People praise them, saying 'Wow, wow, brother, brother'. So how does it feel to all of us? That is very nice. If you look at society, it feels that way. That prestige is gained. Don't we say, like Tyag Swami used to say, that a brother earned a lot in Surat, so he built a temple. In that, he installed a living Mataji and built a temple. So is that considered a good deed or a bad one? So, is it 'shastravidhimutsrujya' or 'shastravidhim anusrutya'? It is called 'utsrujya'. That is why, by destroying the scriptural rules, they do good work. Still, 'na sa siddhimavapnoti na sukham na param gatim'. This does not happen. That happens. Then what is its fruit? So, 'pratishtha avapnoti'. Prestige is attained. He is considered good among the people. The scriptures might not have opposed it. What? If the scriptures have not opposed it, does it become Vedic Vedic From the Veds. Tap to open in glossary → Then if it is a good ritual, it becomes Vedic Vedic From the Veds. Tap to open in glossary → In this, they perform penance by abandoning the scriptural rules. They perform yajna. They give charity. Still, what of it? What do you say? If someone builds a temple like this, does good work, and though it is not written anywhere in the scriptures, if it is not against the scriptures, is it considered Vedic Vedic From the Veds. Tap to open in glossary → If it is not against the scriptures, it is called Vedic Vedic From the Veds. Tap to open in glossary → it is a non-prescribed but righteous conduct, a distinguished righteous conduct. There might not be scriptural support in it. Even then, it is considered to have priority over the Vedas. There must be righteous conduct. There must be an element of righteous conduct in it. And it must be non-prescribed. It must not be condemned. It must not be condemned by the public, but it must also not be condemned by the Vedas. There must be no opposition to the Vedas. And if it is righteous conduct, some great souls must have done it. Now, if great souls have not done it, and it is not established in the Vedas either, then it is considered a good deed done by violating the scriptural rules. He only gets public prestige. And if it is righteous conduct, practiced by righteous men, and is non-prescribed, not condemned, then it is considered equal to the Vedas. Because those righteous men must have taken it from the Vedas and done it. And they just follow it. But if they do not want to do even that, then it is called arbitrary. And if it is arbitrary and good, then public prestige is gained. No fruit is obtained in the next world. The scriptures say so. If you put all this together, this is what happens. In the 20th verse of the 16th chapter, even though they know the scriptural rules, ignoring them, performing good deeds like charity, service, benevolence, is mentioned. Which is not that bad. Because their deeds like charity are not in accordance with scriptural rules, but they are not forbidden by the scriptures either. Here, it is about performing contrary deeds in an arbitrary manner, believing that what is not prescribed in the scriptures is the best, then what is the difference between the two? So, the people mentioned in the 23rd verse of the 16th chapter will not attain perfection, happiness, and the supreme state. Meaning, their good deeds will be considered only in name, but there will be no fruit. Here, 'only in name' means they get public prestige. Where do they get public prestige? Among people like them. If someone knows the scriptural rules, he would not say so. So, among people like him, among ignorant people, he is praised. His praises are sung. Saying, 'Swami made a very good video'. But now, if the learned people know, they know that there is this objection, that objection, this objection in this. If people like us who do not know, they clap. Congratulations, good job. Bravo. Thank you very much. Others, please tell me a few, I need many more. So, the people mentioned in the 23rd verse of the 16th chapter will not attain perfection, happiness, and the supreme state. Meaning, their good deeds will be considered only in name. So, the adjective 'kamakaratah' is used there. 'Yah shastravidhimutsrujya vartate kamakaratah na sa siddhimavapnoti na sukham na param gatim'. Like that. In that, 'kamakaratah' is added more, right? Meaning arbitrary. 'Kamakaratah' means performing arbitrary, true, good deeds. Even if arbitrary, they perform good deeds. And others say, if it is according to the scriptures, or according to tradition, or by the command of some great person, then it is of second quality. It is not highly highlighted, second quality. Even then, its fruit is obtained. He attains perfection, attains happiness, and also attains the supreme state. The people shown here will attain lower births and hells. Because, as the driving force of the good deeds mentioned here, 'Tanviddhi aasura nishchayan'. It is said so in this verse. 'Tanviddhi aasura nishchayan'. What does he do? He performs penance. Whatever he does, he performs penance. Even then, 'tanviddhi aasura nishchayan'. So, what is the difference between that and this? It is that this prestige will be attained by him. Karna's prestige is still not gone. If any generous person gives charity, Karna is remembered first. See, where his prestige was cast, into the netherworld. The action was demoniac. The action was demoniac, and the foundation of prestige was laid in the netherworld. King Bali's action was not demoniac. It was divine. Both were giving charity. Both were giving charity. King Bali believed in giving whatever was asked. King Karna believed in giving whatever was asked. Then what is the difference between the charity of the two? What? God went to ask from both of them. God went to ask from Karna too. And God went to ask from King Bali too. Both had given everything. Then what is the difference in that? Karna did not get its fruit. King Bali got its fruit. 'Na sa siddhimavapnoti na sukham na param gatim'. That is not obtained. What is the reason? Because 'shastravidhimutsrujya vartate kamakaratah'. The vow that Karna took was his own arbitrary vow. What vow did he take? That until I kill Arjuna, until then, I will give whatever anyone asks of me. I will even give my body, give my head. And he used to give it. He also fulfilled it. He didn't say, 'Now you won't die, and if I have to die, I will die, otherwise not, why should I die?' He did not say so. I will give. He tore off his living body. He tore off his armor and tore off his earrings. And gave them away. And God went to test both of them. AI translation of the Gujarati transcript above, produced in the same pass that transcribed the audio, one English segment per Gujarati segment. Devotional and technical terms with no precise English equivalent (kirtan, satsang, vasana, samskara, and similar) are kept as their plain transliteration rather than force-translated. Not human-proofread., AI-translated, unverified · Source details