4 regulative principles of freedom

From SB 1.17.38
The basic principles of irreligiosity, such as pride, prostitution, intoxication and falsehood, counteract the four principles of religion, namely austerity, cleanliness, mercy and truthfulness.

Pride>>>>>>> Austerity>>> No Meat Eating
Prostitution>>> Cleanliness>>No Illicit Connections
Intoxication>>> Mercy>>>>>No Intoxication
Falsehood>>>> Truthfulness>No Gambling

Difficulties: What prevented the bull from seeing Krsna's grace as the cause of his suffering?

Post continued from : 

Difficulties: Opportunity for introspection or opportunity for blame?

Srila Prabhupada's purport to 1.17.22:
"A devotee’s conclusion is that no one is directly responsible for being a benefactor or mischief-monger without the sanction of the Lord; therefore he does not consider anyone to be directly responsible for such action. But in both the cases he takes it for granted that either benefit or loss is God-sent, and thus it is His grace. In case of benefit, no one will deny that it is God-sent, but in case of loss or reverses one becomes doubtful about how the Lord could be so unkind to His devotee as to put him in great difficulty. Jesus Christ was seemingly put into such great difficulty, being crucified by the ignorant, but he was never angry at the mischief-mongers. That is the way of accepting a thing, either favorable or unfavorable. Thus for a devotee the identifier is equally a sinner, like the mischief-monger. By God’s grace, the devotee tolerates all reverses. Mahārāja Parīkṣit observed this, and therefore he could understand that the bull was no other than the personality of religion himself. In other words, a devotee has no suffering at all because so-called suffering is also God’s grace for a devotee who sees God in everything. The cow and bull never placed any complaint before the King for being tortured by the personality of Kali, although everyone lodges such complaints before the state authorities. The extraordinary behavior of the bull made the King conclude that the bull was certainly the personality of religion, for no one else could understand the finer intricacies of the codes of religion."

Why did Dharma not say it was God's grace? What prevents one from seeing Krsna and His mercy in all things?(From the purport to 1.17.23)

1. The personality of religion knew perfectly well that nothing can take place without the sanction of the Supreme Lord, and still he was put into doubts by the deluding energy, and thus he refrained from mentioning the supreme cause.
2. This doubtfulness was due to the contamination of both Kali and the material energy. The whole atmosphere of the Age of Kali is magnified by the deluding energy, and the proportion of measurement is inexplicable.

Should we just tolerate and not protect ourselves?

1. An accurate understanding of what occurs , therefore exists on more than one level. If one is being unreasonably beaten by a man with a stick, he will be injured and must defend himself or suffer great pain.
2. Despite the beating being ultimately "God's grace", the "beater" may not have one's best interest in mind. Dealing on this level demands prompt and practical action.
3. While acting practically, however one should nevertheless remember Krsna's ultimate control, because Krsna is the ultimate "doer".
4. Maintaining this awareness while acting will free one from envy, anxiety, and anger, and will carry one the Krsna's Lotus Feet
5. Seeing all that occurs as Krsna's will, a devotee understands that "not a blade of grass" moves without the will of Krsna.
6. Such a person remains free from anxiety amid even the greatest difficulties. 
7. Still along with maintaining this vision one must act practically while simultaneously remaining detached from the results of his action.

At another level, Krsna's desires cause our circumstances:

Because He desires that the living entities fully surrender to Him, become His devotees, and return to Him in the spiritual world.

Difficulties: Opportunity for introspection or opportunity for blame?

In the conversation between the Personality of Religion and Maharaja Pariksit where Dharma is asked to identify the cause of his suffering Dharma gives a very wonderful understanding:

1. Some philosophers claim it is one's own karma
2. Some say it is caused by Brahman- The Lord's Supreme Effulgence
3. Atheists say no cause exists beyond material nature

So based on these he advises the kin to reach his own conclusion.

How would I respond when asked this question?

1. Generally on reflecting on the cause of one's difficulty, one would answer with less philosophy and more accusation.
2. By identifying someone as a doer and viewing the person as an enemy, one comes to seek vengeance than practice introspection.
3. While one tends to justify thoughts of retaliation and the ensuing plan of action, one may not realize that those actions will implicate him/her in painful exchanges birth after birth
4. In addition by meditating on another's bad qualities , one will develop those bad qualities themselves. One's mentality is formed by the object of one's meditation
5. SB 7.1.28: A grassworm confined in a hole of a wall by a bee always thinks of the bee in fear and enmity and later becomes a bee simply because of such remembrance.

Therefore on hearing the bull's extraordinary and philosophical reply to his simple question, Maharaja Pariksit concluded that this bull must be religion personified.

The king thus pondered Dharma's words:

SB 1.17.22: The King said: O you, who are in the form of a bull! You know the truth of religion, and you are speaking according to the principle that the destination intended for the perpetrator of irreligious acts is also intended for one who identifies the perpetrator. You are no other than the personality of religion.

Post continued at 

Difficulties: What prevented the bull from seeing Krsna's grace as the cause of his suffering?