1 Empower your outreach: Using logic. Dhanbad

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.

My dear Lord, please guide us on, so that we can understand your words, your wisdom and your love, and be inspired to lovingly harmonize with you. Hare Krishna! Hare Krishna! I am grateful and delighted to be here. For several years, Radhe Shambhu has been telling me about Dhanbad and how dynamic the devotees over here are, and I have been.

I was introduced through Youth Outreach in 1996-97. Then from 2014 to 2022-23, I was focused mostly on Western outreach. So, almost 8-9 months a year, I was outside India.

After the pandemic, I started, I would say, rediscovering India. I was always in India, but in one sense, I was a bit disconnected from the college outreach for some time. I would come for the college camps, Udhkar camps and others.

But since then, I have been traveling across India and especially youth centers and the temples also. So, it is a joy to be here. And since all of you are actively involved in different capacities, in trying to share Krishna Bhakti.

So, I was planning to talk today and tomorrow morning about how to share Bhakti effectively. So, this is a course I have conducted at many places. I call it as EYB.

It is Empower Your Preaching. So, there are many different aspects to it, but I will talk about two aspects today and two aspects tomorrow. So, let us, we will begin with, so this is a, some of you have got a copy of this book? A few of you may be having.

So, you can open, go to verse 11.32, that is page 190 in your book. You also read it from here. So, basically this is a, I have been writing on the Bhagavad Gita for the last 15 years almost every day one article.

So, recently I started writing prayers inspired by the Bhagavad Gita. So, here we have pictures of various deities from different parts of the world. And then we have the Gita verse rendered poetically and then a prayer inspired by that.

So, 11.32, let us come to it. If you like you can repeat after me. My dear Lord, though time may be destructive, let me be creative in holding on while letting go.

Sri Bhagavan uvacha Kaalo Smiloka Shekrut Pravritto Lokan Samahartham Iha Pravritta Hrute Pitvam Na Bhavishyanti Sarve Yeh Avasthita Pratyah Keshv Yoja Yeh Avasthita Pratyah Keshv Yoja The Supreme Lord said, I am time, the world-destroying flame, Arriving here with deadly aim. Even without your arrows in play, These warriors are doomed this day. This is Bhagavad Gita 11.32. So, I request different participants to read one paragraph.

Who would like to read the first paragraph? Yes, please. My dear Lord, among all realities, death is the most denied, the most bleated, and yet the most depleted. Nonetheless, when I learn to become conscious of You, it changes my vision of everything.

Yes. So, I will write and draw certain things over here as we discuss. Now, when we discuss the Bhagavad Gita, the Bhagavad Gita is spoken at a particular time.

So, the Gita, like all sacred books, it has a timely message and it has a timeless message. Timely means what it means for Arjuna at that time. Timeless means that what extends beyond that time for all time.

So, when Krishna is speaking to Arjuna and telling him to fight, now that fight, he is referring actually to physical fight. Pick up your bow and fight. And that’s what Arjuna does at the end of the Gita.

Yatra Yogeshwara Krishna, Yatra Partho, Dhanur Dharaha. He has picked up his bow in readiness to fight. So, there what has happened is actually Arjuna has become ready to fight.

So, fight is the timely message. Now, is that everybody who applies the Bhagavad Gita should raise weapons and start fighting? Sometimes that may be required. But that is not the, so, that is not the specific message of the Gita for all time.

What is the message of the Bhagavad Gita for all time? Align with God. Arjuna himself tells this when he concludes, he said, I will do your will. So, there is a timely message and there is a timeless message.

So, the idea is within scripture, when we want to share scripture with others, we need to recognize that time changes things and at the same time, there is things which stay unchanging. So, Krishna is telling her, Kalos, time I am, the destroyer, the all destroying flame. So, the idea is the Kauravas are going to be destroyed over there.

But is God only the destroyer? No, we have three phases, there is creation, maintenance and destruction. And all three are happening simultaneously. If you look at a biological level, at this very moment some cells are dying in our body, some cells are being regenerated, some cells are being maintained.

So, creation, maintenance, destruction are all happening simultaneously. But at that particular time, what was occupying Arjuna’s mind was the destruction. I have to kill my relatives, I have to kill Bhishma and Drona.

How can I do that? So, Krishna is telling that this is the phase of destructive time. And destruction is going to happen. So, what is going to be destroyed cannot be protected from destruction.

But that does not mean everything is going to be destroyed. So, there is a higher purpose, a purpose of establishing Dharma, of inspiring Bhakti. And that is the higher purpose that Arjuna should hold on to.

So, many times for us, when we understand death or destruction as the inescapable reality of the world, quite often it leads to discouragement. If everything is temporary, why do anything at all? Sometimes we say that, live every day to think as if you are going to die today. So, one devotee is asking this question, if I think I am going to die today, then why should I cook food today? Why should I go for my office today? Why should I do anything? The point is, that is one way of living.

We want to be conscious of death, but we don’t want to be death conscious. Isn’t it? What that means is, that life is temporary. Should be something which we should not forget.

But that is not the only thing we remember. So, when I say conscious of death means, if this is my consciousness, then death is one thing in my consciousness. So, that is, we are conscious of death.

But when we are death conscious, what it means is, our consciousness is filled with nothing but death. So, see, in one sense, almost everyone, at least a large number of people in India are conscious of Krishna. But they are not Krishna conscious.

Isn’t it? Yeah, oh yeah, Krishna is. I have seen the Mahabharata. Krishna, nice character.

Yeah, I like something about Krishna. I don’t like something about Krishna. So, for us, we want to be Krishna conscious, not death conscious.

But that does not mean we want to be death unconscious. Be aware of death, but for us, the consciousness of death, what it should do is, it should make Krishna bigger in our consciousness. The whole point of remembering death is that Krishna becomes bigger in our consciousness.

So, we don’t want to remember death simply to become fearful by remembering death. We don’t want to remember the temporariness of the world to become fearful of the temporariness of the world. Or to become fearful of the world.

So, death, destruction of the world or the destructiveness, the temporariness of the world should not make us discouraged thinking that everything is pointless. Oh, everything is pointless. Why do anything at all? That is not the point.

Destruction should lead us actually to awareness of destruction or it should lead us to detachment, not discouragement. Now, when we say what is the difference between discouragement and detachment? Detachment is basically, it has two aspects to it. We let go of some things and we hold on to something else.

Detachment does not mean we empty our consciousness. That is not possible. Sri Prabhupada gives the example that when he is speaking about the Goswamis.

Tyaktvā tūrṇam aśeṣa-maṇḍalapati. They gave up wealth and opulence and power like that of the kings. But why did they do that? So that they could hold on to Krishna.

Hold on more tightly to the service of Krishna in the form of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. So, that’s why in one sense detachment is about understanding what to let go and what to hold on. So, Krishna is telling Arjuna, let go of your eagerness to protect Bhishma and Durga.

That you will not need to do. Time I have the destroyer. But still you can hold on.

You can hold on to the fact that they are eternal souls. That you can benefit their eternal souls by freeing them from the entanglement with the wicked Kauravas that they are presently caught in. And you can help me in promoting dharma.

In establishing bhakti. Let’s move ahead. Could I read the next paragraph? Anyone else? Of all including Lord, you declare that it is you yourself who comes as death.

As you are always benevolent, your emphasis is not on how death finishes everything at the material level, but how it furnishes a portal to another level of being. Though death is destructive, it is meant to inspire me to be creative in my choices. My most consequential choice is in learning balance.

As I live as an eternal spiritual being within a temporary material world. This balance centers on learning how to hold on while letting go. Yeah.

You can continue. Hold on, hold on. I think I got an older version of the book.

Okay, that’s fine. Hold on. I will continue afterwards.

So, see, what does this mean both in terms of our practice and our sharing of bhakti? So, there are constantly things which we need to hold on to, constantly need to let go of. At a practical level, detachment means we may make a particular plan. I want to do things this way.

And when things don’t work out that way, at that time sometimes what happens if things don’t work according to my plan, then I won’t do anything at all. I just quit. No.

So, okay, this opportunity, this is not working out. So, what is working out? If this doesn’t move forward, what can move forward? So, in one sense, when we talk about detachment, it is So, what do we let go? Of the plan that is not working. And what do we hold on? We hold on the plan that is working.

So, as we are serving Krishna, we need to be able to be dynamic. When Prabhupada went to America, he wanted to reach out to influential people. But there were practically no influential people who came to him.

So, then in one sense, he went to the most uninfluential people. Those, normally we would consider influential people as people who are well-educated, people who are well-placed in society, people who are wealthy. Krishna talks about yad yad acharati sreshtha.

So, Prabhupada would have liked to go to those people. But the people who came at that time, people who were spiritually interested were people who had no career, they had no salaries, they had no family. Not because they were renounced, because they were frustrated.

They were disillusioned. So, then Prabhupada went to them. Because they were interested.

So, Prabhupada was flexible. Whatever. Okay, this plan is not working out.

Let me try this plan. And in that way, he kept moving forward. So, plan that is not working, we let go.

And plan that is working, we hold on to. Now, this is important to understand when we try to share Krishna Bhakti. So, our topic was, try to give a philosophical background to how outreach works.

So, if we consider, this is the message of Shastra. And these are our audience’s interests. So, now, Shastra is timeless.

But at different times, so if we consider this is 2026. So, if we consider 1976. If we consider 1926.

We can go backward, backward. So, the interests of people may change. So, we need to find out what are the interests of people.

And so, what is timeless is the message of scripture. But the same teaching within scripture may not be so important or so applicable or so interesting for people at different times. So, let’s look at a purport of Srila Prabhupada which illustrates this point.

This is 1.4.1. Okay. Who would like to read personal realization? Who would like to read this? You have not read till now. Personal realization does not mean that one should out of vanity attempt to show one’s own learning by trying to surpass the previous acharya.

He must have full confidence in the previous acharya and at the same time he must realize the subject matter so nicely that he can present the matter for the particular circumstances in a suitable manner. So, realize the matter so nicely so that you can present in particular circumstances in a suitable manner. Prabhupada also goes further.

Presented in an interesting manner for the understanding of the audience. This is called realization. So, in one sense, if we expand this particular idea, this is shastra and if these are the audiences, then the teacher of shastra needs to be able to act like a bridge.

That be in the world of scripture and be in the world of the contemporary audience. And based on that we find out where the two overlap. So, when we are able to find out where the two overlap, that is where our outreach will become effective.

So, for example, if say if you organize, if I go to America and say in MIT somebody organize, they organize a one time program for me. And I will say in Massachusetts, I will speak on how Achintya Bheda will be superior to Advaita Vidhanta. Now, only if the students are studying Hindu philosophy and they are interested in that subject, then they will come.

Otherwise for most students that will not be a very relevant subject. So, it is an important teaching from our scripture. But that is not what is primarily relevant at that particular time.

So, what is of interest? As I said normally one time program we have, we will talk about say mind management, we will talk about stress management, we will talk about focus in the age of distraction. We will have topics which are of interest. So, let us look at how this particular dynamic applies.

I will talk about two acharyas examples and of course we will talk about Srila Prabhupada. So, Jiva Goswami, Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Srila Prabhupada. So, I will speak about Jiva Goswami today.

Tomorrow morning I will speak more about Bhaktivinoda Thakur. And then we will see how it applies in our time also. Now, Jiva Goswami faced a very difficult challenge.

And what was that challenge? When Mahaprabhu was there, so at that time, so if we consider, okay, this is the map of India. So, here you have, here you have Mayapur, here you have Bengal, here you have Odisha and here you have Vrindavan approximately. Now, these were three main places where Mahaprabhu’s impact was the most.

In Mayapur he was, in Vrindavan, Bengal he was born. Then in Vrindavan he visited and that is the place of Krishna Bhakti. And then in Puri and Odisha overall, he stayed for a significant part of his life after sannyas.

So, the Goswamis, most of the Goswamis were from Bengal, but somewhere from South India also. The Goswamis basically from various places, they were brought to Vrindavan. They sent by Mahaprabhu to Vrindavan and Jiva Goswami was the youngest among them.

So, now Vrindavan at that time was the hub, the center of Krishna Bhakti. And Mahaprabhu had come and two months that he had been there, that had been a ecstatic, extraordinary stream of Krishna Bhakti. But then he had gone.

And now the Goswamis had to lay a foundation over there. So, we will see three distinct aspects. The language, the subject and the emphasis.

So, the Gaudiya Vaishnavas in Bengal, all the books were written in Bengali. So, if you look at Murali Gupta’s Karchas, they are written in Bengali. But when they came to Vrindavan, would Bengali work over there? No.

So, there it was Vrindavan, Mathura were the places of refined learning. So, the language they chose was Sanskrit. They had to write in that language if they were to be relevant.

Now, Sanskrit language they chose. Now, the subject was Krishna. It was not Mahaprabhu.

Generally, if you see the books that were written in Vrindavan, the books that were written in Bengal, the language was Bangla, Bengali and the subject was Mahaprabhu. Because Mahaprabhu, now the Goswamis they talk about Mahaprabhu. But they talk about him, he is our teacher, he is our inspirer, he is the manifestation of Krishna.

But that is not the emphasis of their teachings. The emphasis of their teachings is about Krishna. Because Krishna is what is relevant in Vrindavan.

Now, they will of course be presenting Krishna the way Mahaprabhu has taught. The special love of the Gopis and separation, but the focus on Krishna. Now, the biggest challenge that Jiva Goswami faced was that what does he emphasize.

In every historical epoch, that means every phase in history, there are certain sources of authority that are important. Like say in today’s world, science may be considered to be important. So, that’s why when we talk about the existence of soul or we talk about the existence of God, then one of the concept is this scientific, is this rational? What are the scientific pointers or evidences for this? So, everybody who has to explain their message has to explain it in a way that can be understood for people within their sources of authority.

Everybody has their sources of authority. Now, we can say to people, your sources of authority are all wrong. They are all false.

And just reject all the sources of authority and accept Shastra or accept this tradition’s understanding of Shastra as the source of authority. That is possible, but that’s going to take a long time for people. Most people cannot take a leap of faith like that.

So, the idea is that when we want to explain things, when Prabhupada was doing a morning walk in Venice Beach in Los Angeles, so, he was talking with his devotees, especially he was trying to emphasize scientific outreach. So, one of his disciples quoted from the Bhagavad Gita. Prabhupada said, forget Shastra.

Explain based on logic. He says, you will quote your scripture and Christians will quote their scripture and Muslims will quote their scripture. He said, we should be able to explain our philosophy, we should be able to explain the teachings of scripture without needing to refer to scripture.

We should be able to explain it based on logic. So, logic is not our source of authority. But for those who will not accept Shastra right now, how will we explain to them? So, it’s like, if there is, this is our, I’ll just use the word I say, source, S-O-A, source of authority.

Now, if my source of authority and other’s source of authority, if there is no intersection in between, then what will happen is, the two people are discussing or debating. Say, one is quoting from the Quran, other is quoting from the Bible. And both the people can just keep quoting each other.

And there will be no way of persuading, even communicating. So, in any kind of communication, we have to see how our source of authority and other’s source of authority. Where they intersect.

So, in today’s world, one of the biggest intersections is logic. We’ll come to today’s world later. Another is experience.

Experience means anubhav. So, we will discuss this later as we move forward. But Jiva Goswami’s challenge was that at that time, the primary source of authority was what was called as prasthanatraya.

Prasthanatraya means that any tradition, especially a Vedantic tradition, if it had to establish itself as authority, it had to have a commentary on three books. Prasthanatraya. So, what is the prasthanatraya? Does anyone know what is the prasthanatraya? Sorry? Gita, Brahma Sutras and Upanishads.

Yes. Nice. So, these three are the prasthanatraya.

Now, actually, to the modern mind, Vedanta Sutra. So, Vedanta Sutra. Now, what happened was, Mahaprabhu said that the Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedanta Sutra.

The same author Vyasadeva in his maturity has explained in the Bhagavatam. Now, this is a very powerful argument. But at the same time, before Mahaprabhu, no one else had made this particular argument.

Ramacharya did not make this argument. Madhvacharya did not make this argument. Shankaracharya, of course, did not make this argument.

So, for many people, those who did not accept the authority of Mahaprabhu, when we, when avatyacharyas like Jiva Goswami, they said that the Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedanta Sutra. For them, that is just your excuse for saying that you don’t have a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra. So, it like, how it feels is that there is this book which is universally accepted by everyone.

And there is one book which our tradition considers very important. And you say this book is the natural commentary. Now, that is what we are basically trying to say is that you are trying to avoid taking a responsibility to writing a commentary.

Because traditionally, how was a commentary? A commentary was, okay, this is the original verse, this is the explanation of that verse. This is the verse, this is the explanation of that verse. So, now, the Bhagavatam is not like that.

It is not that, okay, this particular sutra and this is the explanation of it. This particular sutra, this particular expression. So, natural commentary means what? Say, like, today evening I gave a class.

And say, what I speak is, is a bit too complicated. One devotee told me once that, Appa, class sunta hu, toh dimaag se dhruva aata hai. So, now, say, okay, so, I say, tomorrow morning, I will explain the same thing.

But it is not that if I am going to explain tomorrow morning, okay, I will play a recording of what I spoke yesterday. Okay, I spoke the sentence, this is what it means. No, I will take the same topic but approach it from a different way.

So, a natural commentary is different from a textual commentary. Textual commentary is this text, this is the meaning. So, the same theme is explored from a different way.

So, Jiva Goswami faced the challenge that Mahaprabhu had said there is no need for a commentary on the Bhagavata, on the Vedanta Sutra. But at the same time, the audience, the scholarly audience, they considered that you don’t have a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra. Therefore, you are not authority to Sampradaya.

So, what to do at that time? Like, we have to follow Mahaprabhu but we also have to address the needs of the audience. So, here the audience is the scholarly community of Vrindavan. And not just Vrindavan, it was generally within the Vedantic tradition all over India.

That’s what the Prince Acharyas had done. So, now the explicit writing of the commentary, this was done later by Baldev Vidyamaksha in our tradition, a couple of centuries later. But Jiva Goswami came up with a very creative solution.

So, I talk about hold on and let go. I talk about the effect of time is, something we have to hold on, something we need to let go. So, what he did was, he wrote the Sandarbhas.

Now, the Sandarbhas are elaborate philosophical treaties. And what he has done is, there are Shat Sandarbhas and these are like six steps in a staircase. And so, he has basically established the teachings of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu starting from Bhagavat Sandarbha where he establishes the authority of the Bhagavatam.

And then after that there are Tattva Sandarbha, Bhagat Sandarbha like that. Tattva Sandarbha is first establishes the tattva, what it is, how do we know the truth. So, he uses the six Sandarbhas to explain systematically the teachings of Mahaprabhu.

And within that, he takes as an example, he takes the Vedanta Sutra and he takes the Bhagavatam. And he takes the first four sutras of the Vedanta Sutra and he shows how they are explained within the Bhagavatam. Now, he does not do this systematically for each sutra, but he gives an indicative commentary.

He gives an indicative commentary and indicative illustration. And in that way, he satisfies the scholars at that time. Later on, at the time of Baldev Diyabhushi, when there is a far greater challenge that comes up, at that time, Baldev Diyabhushi has to write a commentary.

And he takes the blessings of Radha Govindji and he writes the commentary at that time. So, that is called the Govinda Bhashya. That is the Vedanta Sutra commentary of Baldev Diyabhushi.

So, according to time, place, circumstance, what is of interest to the audience, that has to be explained. So, what does this mean for us today? When we are trying to share Krishna Bhakti, I will focus today on the idea of logic and tomorrow morning I will focus on experience. So, we have this Pratyaksha, Anuman and Shabda.

Now, one of the fundamental misunderstandings we get is that sometimes is that Pratyaksha and Anuman are wrong and Shabda is right. No, that is completely wrong. All three are pramanas.

Pramana means all three are valid ways of gaining knowledge. All three are valid ways of gaining knowledge. They are just different ways of gaining knowledge.

In fact, later on, Krishna in the Uddhava Gita will explain how one can, the same teaching of scripture, we can learn from Pratyaksha and Anuman. Atmano Guru Atmaiva Purushasya Visheshata Yad Pratyakshanumanabhyam Shreyo Asavanuvindate So, Atmano Guru Atmaiva. The Atma can be the Guru of the Atma.

That means we can be our own Guru. Purushasya Visheshata. Visheshata in a specific sense.

What is the specific sense? Pratyakshanumanabhyam. Through Pratyaksha and Anuman. Shreyo Asavanuvindate.

What is the Shreya? What is the long term good? That Anuvindate. We can learn, we can reach. So, normally we say that through Guru Sadhu Shastra we learn.

That is true. But it is not that we learn only through Guru Sadhu Shastra and we shut down our Pratyaksha and Anuman. No, through Pratyaksha and Anuman also we can learn.

The problem becomes when we rely on Pratyaksha and Anuman so much that we reject Shabda. But through Pratyaksha and Anuman we can learn the same truths that Shabda can teach us. Let’s explain this in a little different way.

If I consider, let’s use the word S, A and P. S is Shabda. So Shabda points in a particular direction to us. Now Anuman can point in the same direction.

Anuman can point in the opposite direction. Pratyaksha can point in the same direction. Pratyaksha can point in the opposite direction.

So for us, I started by saying hold on and let go. You remember I started with that point. So this is what we need to hold on.

When Pratyaksha and Anuman point in the same direction in Shabda, we accept it. When Pratyaksha and Anuman point in the direction of the opposite, we let go. Let me explain what this means.

Otherwise it can seem a little confusing. But the idea is that when Anuman points in the right direction, that is called as Tarka or logic. When Pratyaksha points in the right direction, it is called Anubhav.

So Anubhav in the Brihad Bhagavata Amrita, when the Gopakumar is going through the various levels of reality to ultimate reality, in that context it’s explained that Anubhav or experience, that is the highest Brahman. Because if we have experienced something, then that is a reality for us. Like somebody may say, oh you got cancer, take allopathy, no chemotherapy.

Somebody says no, no, take naturopathy. Somebody says take Ayurveda. Now somebody who had that cancer has been cured of that cancer.

For them, the experience is the basis of the greatest conviction for them. Isn’t it? So Anubhav is a very very important Brahman. And Anubhav means what? It’s at the level of Pratyaksha.

It’s what I have experienced. I have experienced with my eyes, with my senses, with my own life experiences. So Pratyaksha and Anuman are also very important.

So I will make two more points and then we can open for question answers. Today I will talk about logic and tomorrow I will talk about experience. So if this is the teaching of scripture and say logic is the interest of the audience.

Now logic is not the only interest of the audience but logic is one interest of the audience. Then we need to be able to present things logically. And what does it mean to present things logically? In one sense it has two distinct aspects to it.

One is that minimum assumptions. There is no form of knowledge which does not require some assumptions. Right now I am speaking in English.

So there is an assumption that all of you understand English. Or you go further, there is an assumption that English is a meaningful language. Somebody says English is a lechha vashna.

Okay, that’s one way of looking at it. But still it is possible to convey meaning through language, through English language. Like people say science, science is pure facts.

No, science also is based on the assumption that our senses give us reliable knowledge. Now how reliable it is, that’s a different question. When Newton felt the apple fall on his head, if Newton had said actually I don’t believe my senses, then there would have been no further possibility of exploring the knowledge.

So every field of knowledge requires some assumptions. But try to keep the assumptions as less as possible. Minimum assumptions.

So what would be reasonable for the other person to accept? And the more I have travelled across the world, there are so many cultural things that are assumed by us when we speak. When I had gone to Australia for the first time in 2014 I had travelled. So I was speaking to primarily Australian audience.

And once somebody asked me a question, so how were you introduced to bhakti? So I started answering and then I told, you know, so when I passed out from my college in 1998, the audience started looking at each other. In the West passed out means fallen conscious. He passed out, you must have heard this word, like somebody passes out because of exhaustion.

Like sometimes the heat is so much that you pass out. So the same word that you pass out, what happened? Why did you pass out? So like that sometimes, earlier we used to use the word inmate for our voice residents. In America the word inmate is used primarily for people who are in a jail.

So people who are in a prison or people who are in a mental hospital. So consciously, you know, at least in America we never use the word inmates. We use the word residents.

So the words have different meanings. So there are certain assumptions which are always there. But try to make them assumptions as less as possible.

So what should the other person have to accept to accept this? So when we try to go to that minimum level of assumption, then we don’t come off as unreasonable. Why do you accept this? Because the Bhagavad Gita says so. That means you are not thinking, you are simply following the Bhagavad Gita.

Then people start feeling you are not a very rational person, you are a fanatical person. Especially now if the Bhagavad Gita contains the statement which does not seem to make logical sense. Then it becomes even more difficult.

So to what extent is it possible to explain philosophy logically? Now there are aspects of every tradition’s teachings which are beyond the domain of logic. So the idea is that if we consider theology, what is the meaning of theology? Anyone knows this word theology? Things that cannot be comprehended by the senses. The study of those things.

Okay, that is an educated guess. It’s a good guess. But okay, let’s spread out.

What does the word theos mean? Okay, what does the word logos mean? Psychology. What is logic? Yeah, logos is study. And theos is what? Yes, theos is God.

So theology is basically the study of God. Philosophy is the study of truth, willingness to truth. So sophie is the logic or the analysis.

So theology, the study of God specifically has two aspects to it. There is the rational aspect and there is the revelational aspect. So rational is what can be understood through logic.

So for example, the existence of God, that is something which can be rationally explained. We can make a strong rational case that God exists. But the identity of God, that God is a bluish black cowherd boy who wears a peacock feather and plays a flute.

This requires revelation. Now that does not mean that revelation is not logical. Revelation also has rationality within it.

But there is rational theology and there is a revelational theology. So some things like the existence of the atma, it can be rationally discussed. But the nature of the spiritual world where the atma exists, that will require revelation.

So in one sense what happens? Rationality points in one direction but revelation takes us much further in that direction. At the same time revelation does not take us in the opposite direction. Revelation takes us further than where reason goes, not opposite to where reason goes.

So now why is Krishna, why is a bluish black, why do we consider a bluish black cowherd boy to be God? That is described in scripture. That is revelational theology. But within the revelational theology there are explanations.

That Krishna is a God who does not require opulence to prove his divinity. So Krishna lives close to nature. Krishna is simply attractive.

He does not need externals to become attractive. So the attractive features of Krishna is flute. It’s a simple instrument, very easily made.

Peacock feather is a naturally available decoration. A bluish black complexion, that is the beautiful complexion of the sky when it is cloudy. Freshly formed rain clouds.

So there is some logical explanation of that. So we don’t rely solely on logic. Logic is not our complete final authority.

And logic is not the basis for explaining everything. But what happens? Right in the beginning, if we are not able to explain things logically and we ask people to have faith, then it becomes a problem. Because everybody will ask people to have faith.

So people from this group will talk, have faith in those teachings. People from that group will say have faith in those teachings. So that’s why at one level logic is the common language.

Now science builds from logic, which I will not go into how much science builds from logic and all that. But at this point we need to be able to explain what we speak logically. So that is, we have minimum assumptions and then we have, start with rational theology or rational teachings, not revelational.

Start with what is rational, not what is revelational. Why? Because rational is what is acceptable for people. So let’s take two quick examples of this and then I will conclude this and then we can have question and answer.

So just now I came, 3-4 days ago I came from Singapore. Now Singapore is a very interesting place that it is, it is quite westernized. But at the same time it’s like, there are few places in the world, there is the conservative culture of the east and the comfort and the technological advancement of the west.

That is there. And they have got a quite a ingenious government which is actually maintaining that. But so they have, it is the only country in the world apart from India, where one Indian language is actually one of the national languages.

So Tamil is one of the national languages over there. So they have Indian people of Tamil descent, then they have Chinese people, then they have Malaya people. So they have different groups of people.

So naturally when our devoting, when our devoting kids, that means those who are born in devoting families. So all of you have acquired bhakti. Acquired means when you chose to practice bhakti because you learned about it.

To some extent you may have known about it in your growing up. But the serious sadhana kind of bhakti you acquired. But for many people who are born in devoting families, now for them bhakti is not so much chosen as it is inherited.

And when it is inherited from the parents, at that time as they come into teenage they start questioning it. So they are asking that some of our, some of the kids. So when we apply tilak, it looks very weird.

And according to one particular, there is one particular Chinese group of people, with China is also a huge country. And within that there is one group which also applies some markings on the head. And within their tradition that particular group is not considered very respected within China.

So what they say is that, they say that this is like, what is this dirt you have applied on your head? So now how do we explain that in a way that is intelligible? So I told them that when I am asked this question, I have been asked this question in the West many times. I say that in our tradition our life is considered to be a blessing of God and nature. And this in our tradition represents God and this which represents a leaf represents nature.

So now this is a, we don’t have to get Tulsi, we don’t have to get Krishna’s lotus feet. Now why this represents God and why this represents nature, we don’t have to explain that. If we need to, we can explain it later.

But the idea is a minimum assumption approach. Start with as broad a framework as possible. The idea that our existence is a blessing of nature, that is something which everyone can accept.

Now that there is a God, maybe everybody doesn’t accept God. But that idea that our existence is a blessing of God, that is not an irrational idea. That is an intelligible idea for people.

So we try to explain what we are practicing in as broad a framework as possible. Minimum assumptions. Now of course there is much more to that.

This is not just nature and God. The idea of God is a person. And we are not just accepting God’s blessings, we are actually placing God on our head.

His lotus feet on our head. So it’s much deeper. And this is not just nature, this is a very special manifestation of nature.

That is Tulsi Devi. But we don’t have to get into the specifics immediately. So a minimum assumption approach.

Start with as broad a framework as possible. So when we are answering a question, if we go back over here. What is my source of authority and what is their source of authority? Where do the two intersect? So I was in quite a big podcast in Australia.

And that podcast, this Australian lady, she asked this question that she is, a lot of people from the west have been to India. Especially for the alternative crowd. And most of them they come to yoga primarily.

And they are into fitness, but they are not only into fitness. They are into looks, but they are not only into looks. They actually also want some peace of mind.

And many of them further become open to philosophy. But then they go more in the direction of yoga. And some of them go into more of Advaita Vata.

So there is this idea that bhakti, so bhakti is sentimentality. So when in the podcast, she asked many different questions and then she said, you are a very analytical intellectual person. So how come you are practicing bhakti and not jnana? Now I could go into what is actual teaching of scripture.

Is it bhakti? Is it jnana? But, so this is, I am going to elaborate on this in tomorrow’s session more. That about the role of experience in life. But then I said my understanding of bhakti is that our existence, I base this on 1846 in the Bhagavad Gita, that what we have, what we have is God’s gift to us.

What we do with what we have is our gift to God. So bhakti has many different aspects to it. There is the cultural aspect, there is the ritual aspect, there is the pilgrimage aspect, there is the worship aspect.

My gift is intelligence, is rationality. So I see bhakti not simply as a stereotypical idea, this is bhakti, that is bhakti. Bhakti means the gifts that have come to me from a divine source are meant to be used in a mode of service to direct me and others towards the divine source.

Now this is again, I am not saying that this is the only explanation. I am not saying this is the ideal explanation. I am saying that this is one way in which we don’t have to get into too many assumptions for the other person to be accepted.

So try to explain things in as universal a way as possible. That we have been given some gifts and we use them in a mode of service to offer some gifts. What we have is God’s gift to us, what we do is our gift to God.

yathaham pravartir bhūtānāṁ yena sarvaṁ tam tatam sva-karmaṇā tam abhyarca siddhim viddhi mānavā So when we learn to consider from the other person’s perspective, what is interesting, what is the source of authority, what is easily understandable for this person and learn to present scripture accordingly, then we will be able to connect more and more people and will stop alienating people. So I will summarize what I discussed today. Our topic was on broadly on how to reach or how to reach effectively.

I talked about three main points. The first point was that about how when we understand that Krishna’s teachings, the Gita has a timely aspect and a timeless aspect. So we need to be able to let go of the timely and focus on the timeless.

And so then as illustration we talked about Krishna as time. So what does it mean if Krishna as time means everything is temporary and then we become discouraged. No, that is not the point of Krishna as time.

Everything is temporary so be discouraged. No, it is be detached. And what is detachment means? We intelligently understand what to let go and what to hold on.

So now how does this apply in the domain of teaching or outreach? I gave the example that Prabhupada says that whatever is the interest of the audience, we need to be able to present accordingly. So, shastra and audience interest. And I gave the example of Jiva Goswami that, so what did Jiva Goswami do? He wrote in Sanskrit, he wrote about Krishna and he explained, he didn’t write a Vedanta Sutra commentary, but he explained Vedanta Sutra through his sandarbhas.

Giving a example of how the first four sutras can be explained. And then for us today, what does it mean? That today, most people don’t necessarily have faith in shastra. They may have some respect for the Gita.

But they don’t consider that to be the word of God. I am interested in what the Gita teaches. Not that I am going to accept everything that the Gita teaches.

There is a very big difference between the two. So, we talked about today, one source of authority is logic. So, we discussed that if for any communication is to happen, then our source of authority and other source of authority, there has to be some overlap.

So, then what is the overlap? One overlap is logic. And to find this overlap, we discussed two principles. One is minimum assumption.

Try to explain things in such a way that the least assumptions are required to be accepted by the other person. And then we started to focus on the rational theology, rational teachings, not the revelational. So, when we do this, I gave two examples.

One is about tilak and the other is about bhakti itself, bhakti yoga and intelligence. So, each one of us, when we study, when we read Prabhupada’s books, when we hear the classes of different devotees, what we try to see is that okay, how is bhakti being presented? How is bhakti being explained? So, it is not that because we have to follow shastra, because we have to follow authority, because we are not meant to speculate, that does not mean there is no use for our intelligence. Our intelligence is we accept scripture.

At the same time, we also consider which aspect of scripture is interesting, is intelligible, is relevant for the audience. And then we focus on that and that is how we make our outreach more and more effective. Thank you very much.

Hare Krishna. So, are there any questions or comments? Thank you very much for your lecture. So, there are two questions.

One is you have told that what is relevant for outside people that you should discuss or approach. Not exactly that. From within scripture, what is relevant? But just like you can see in professional reciters, they are taking the 10th Tantra path and making the bhagavatam as a business.

So, this is also, whatever you can say, bad effect or bad outcome of our… See, there are two different ways of looking at this. That there are people who are professional bhagavatam reciters. Our shastras explain that everything is a sattva, rajas and tamas.

So, even we cannot really, we cannot be mayavadi in looking at people. So, just because somebody is taking some money for teaching and speaking the bhagavatam, that does not mean all people fall in the same category. So, see, in the past there were kings who would offer patronage, support to the artists, to the authors and to the saints, to the spiritualists.

Now today there is no such system of patronage, at least not from the state. So, then if the tradition has to go on, how will it go on? So, there could be some people who charge something for speaking the bhagavatam. But if they are not living in opulence, it’s not that, like there is in America.

You know, from our Indian perspective, America we think of it as a very materialistic country. We consider it as Hollywood. But actually, I mean, in the western world, America is the most religious country.

America is much more religious than France or UK or Australia or New Zealand. So, especially the Texas part, it’s huge. It’s hugely evangelically religious.

Now there are these mega churches. One church at one time 50,000 people can sit. And every Sunday 50,000 people come and there are sometimes 20,000 people outside.

They are sitting in the cars and they don’t have space. So, in the car park they have 20,000 people. And they attend talks.

So, now, it’s not that every Sunday 50,000 people come. These are huge churches, where 50,000, I think 5,000, 2,000 come there. But my point is, there is one particular pastor.

He has six private jets. Not one, but six. And what is his reasoning? He said, I am doing God’s work.

So, I don’t have time to waste. So, now, do you really need six private jets? Okay. So, what is happening is, this is like horrendous level of luxury.

So, but suppose somebody is a preacher and they have a car. Is that luxury? It depends, you know, where you are living, where you are going. If somebody is staying in a village and just going to five places in the village, they don’t need a car if nobody is using a car.

Isn’t it? So, if somebody is earning from speaking the Bhagavatam, I don’t think that intrinsically is a bad thing. When Prabhupada criticized it, it is primarily from the Rajasic and Tamasic perspective. So, sattvic perspective is, somebody just wants to teach Shastra and they want to earn a living.

So, is there a facility for that today? Now, somebody becomes a brahmachari, there is a facility for that within many traditions. But if somebody is a grahastha, can they do it? How can they do it? So, one of the main reasons why Christianity spread so fast, or not just Christianity, among Christians there are Catholics and there are Protestants. So, Protestants have spread much faster than Catholics.

And one reason is that Protestants don’t, Protestants they engage both the husband and wife together. Catholics they insist that there should be monks. So, they have their pastors who are well paid and then they engage them in preaching and they support them.

But there are some pastors who live in obvious, as I said, terrible luxury. But there are many who do not. When I go to Australia, especially America, when I do interfaith programs, you know, there are many young students who go to Christian colleges and they say as a part of their teaching, they will offer one or two years to God.

That means, after their education is completed, then they go to Africa, they come to India and they come on missionary work. So, they may not themselves be preachers, but they assist in various kinds of services. And, you know, at that time the church supports them.

They don’t have to pay for it. The church supports them for it. So, the idea is that we cannot separate finances from teaching completely.

So, there are, you could say in sattva, the some kind of artha is a by-product of paramartha. It is not irrelevant, but it is not the most important thing. In rajas, it becomes a very important thing.

It becomes, you know, okay, how ostentatious, how showy a preacher is. In tamas, it becomes the sole purpose. So, that means, so in that case, just to become popular and earn more money, that person will speak whatever the audience wants to hear.

They will just basically become entertainers. So, the actual Bhagavatam story may be 5% and 95% is just entertaining stuff. Why? Because they want to entertain and they want to attract people and they want to earn money.

Now, is that bad? Well, if they are calling themselves as Bhagavatam teachers, then that’s definitely not acceptable. So, there is always the possibility, the danger that whenever we try to do any adaptation, some things can go wrong and they can go terribly wrong. But then you can go to the opposite side also.

If somebody says, I will never do any adaptation, then what does that mean? The Gita is in Sanskrit. So, the Gita cannot be translated at all. There cannot be any accurate translation.

It is in Sanskrit. Only when you learn Sanskrit, only then you can actually understand the Gita. Should we go in that much extreme? So, that idea that we stay connected with the past and we stay connected with the present.

So, both are important. So, it’s like the timeless or rather let’s not use the word timeless over here. The scriptural and the contemporary.

So, if we are only connected with the scriptural, not with the contemporary, then we become irrelevant. Basically, we will end up becoming a museum exhibit. Oh, there were this group of people who lived like this at a particular time.

So, it’s just like an object of historical curiosity. There is nobody living like that today. If we are only contemporary, then basically we will become impotent.

Because we are not teaching Krishna’s message. Then basically what we will become? We will become a fashion fad. Oh, this is what people are interested in, let’s speak this today.

That’s what people are interested in, let’s speak that today. So, we need to find out the balance of both, scriptural and contemporary. And ideally how it should be? If we consider the progress, may be initially, okay, let’s put it this way, initially the contemporary part might be more, the scriptural part might be less.

Eventually the scriptural part becomes more, the contemporary part becomes less. That’s how we grow spiritually. So, for example, the way we speak in a one-time college program.

Sometimes we may not even use the word Krishna, may use the word divinity. I have, this is Bhaktimarg Maharaj in Canada. So, he goes across or walks across the whole continent.

He has walked across whole of Canada twice, four, five times actually, the whole continent. So, he says that when he travels across people, he talks to people in different ways. So, in Star Wars, there is this, may the force be with you.

There is a slogan over there. So, he says, he talks to people, may the source be with you. So, it is contemporary way of presenting.

So, the God people don’t like the word God so much. So, we use the word source. And we use the word divine.

But we are not going to use the word divine in a Bhagavatam class. We may use it once or twice, but in a Bhagavatam class we will use Krishna. So, yes.

So, it is not that we stay stuck at people’s source of authority and stay stuck over there. We need to come to scripture and we need to teach scripture more and more. But initially it’s required that we connect with people.

So, if somebody is only connecting with people, so now even I would say that nowadays there are lots of movies coming about say Ramayana and about Mahabharata. Now it’s great if devotees make, devotees made a Mahavatar Narsimha movie. Now if devotees make many more movies like that, that’s good.

But if devotees don’t have the budget to make some movies like this, then somebody else makes a movie like that. Is that good? Is that bad? See, there may not be devotional potency within those movies. But still there is cultural reminder coming from that.

Now people may not become devotees of Krishna by that. But at least they will have some awareness of Krishna. Isn’t it? I was in Texas and, Texas only, no, Florida.

So, I was talking with a group of Hindu kids. So, I asked him, do you know who is Narsimha? And most of them looked at me as if, you know, as if they are watching a foreign language movie with no subtitles. And then one boy raises his hand.

He said, you look very enthusiastic. Yes, he is a former Prime Minister of India. Now, I felt sad, but at the same time it was, yes, like in the popular cultural imagination.

We don’t have, we have movies about Ramayana, we have TV series about Ramayana, but we didn’t have anything about Narsimha there. So, we have to recognize that the consciousness of Krishna can be at many different levels. And the pure devotional consciousness of Krishna comes from pure devotees or aspiring pure devotees.

But there could be cultural consciousness of Krishna, there could be historical consciousness of Krishna, there could be literary consciousness of Krishna, there could be architectural consciousness of Krishna. And Krishna becomes a component in the consciousness. And that is a good thing.

So, the problem is when people think just because I have watched some Mahabharata, so I know everything about Krishna. So, if people hear some professional Bhagavatam Kathakar and they think because I am hearing Bhagavatam Kathakar, that’s all, I don’t need to do anything more. That is when it becomes a problem.

But if that triggers their curiosity and they want to know more. And then they come to those who are sharing about bhakti directly, more purely, then that is good. Okay? Yeah, I think, you know, that problem comes not so much because people are earning money.

That comes because often people don’t consider philosophy important. So, philosophy is what actually teaches the importance of values. Philosophy is what sharpens the sense of logic, of analysis, of understanding what is right and what is wrong.

So, there are some cases of some sadhus, you know, who speak foul words and who slap their followers, kick their followers. And people think, yeh Maharaj Ji ke krupa hai yeh. Now, see, when we hear it, we are laughing at it.

We find it outrageous, absurd. But what happens is, if that’s the culture they have grown up in, then this is what it is. So, that’s why Prabhupada focused on philosophical education.

Philosophy is not just the nature of ultimate reality. But it’s also like a, it’s a intellectual compass for us to understand what is right and what is wrong. So, now we can say, is the idea of character something just, you don’t need philosophy to understand it.

Yes, you can say that character is perceivable without any philosophy also. That’s basic human character. But almost in every religious tradition, it happens that those who are considered religious authorities are often thought of as above criticism.

And like in Islam, there are anti-blasphemy laws. So, that blasphemy is, they say against Quran. But from that Quran it becomes to be, anybody criticizes a Muslim also, you are blaspheming me and you are blaspheming Allah by that.

You are blaspheming the Quran by that. So, in general, it can happen that a blind faith can deaden people’s morality and rationality. And then they start accepting what they would not accept in a normal person.

And when they are normally intelligent, what they would not accept, they start accepting. And that’s when it becomes a big problem. So, yeah, I think if people get philosophical education or at least they are consulting with people who have philosophical education, then what is right and what is wrong, they can discern it better.

Thank you. Thank you so much for answering us. And you have told that when we go in the same direction, then we should accept it.

And when it goes other direction, then we should not accept it. So, just like people say, just like Rupa is addressing that we cannot go to moon by our scientific approach. But now we are seeing that scientists go to moon.

So, their sastric point of view is going one direction and our protection, arman, is going in another direction. So, that means we should not accept it or we should not accept it. Okay.

Yeah, this is a good example. Yeah, I will explain this to you. I have, I will answer this briefly.

I have on my YouTube channel, there is an elaborate answer to this question. And how to understand Prabhupada’s statements about the moon. So, see, Prabhupada has made many different statements about the moon.

One is they didn’t go to the moon. The second is they went somewhere else. One is they went but they were diverted.

The second is they went but they just got back some dust. What was the value of it? Fourth is that, what he says in the introduction to Bhagavad Gita, that if there is so much effort that is put for going to the moon, for then why not put some effort for raising your consciousness. So, Prabhupada has made many different statements about it.

And Prabhupada’s point was that the moon is Svargaloka. It is a higher planetary system. So, we cannot go to there by physical means.

Now, Prabhupada, is that absolute statement? Now, Prabhupada made these statements when the moon mission came up. That was 1969. Prabhupada wrote the Isopanishad long before that.

Prabhupada wrote the Isopanishad as a series of articles in the Back to Godhead magazine which he was publishing in 1944. And then later it was compiled as a book. So, there he says in the Isopanishad purport that there are three ways to go to higher planets.

One is by transmigration. You worship the particular devata, go to that planet. Second is by mystic powers, like yogis can go there.

And third is by spacecrafts. So, mystic, the devata worship is yantra devata devan, that’s straight forward. The mystic powers like Durvasamuni goes to Brahmaloka and other places.

Now, spacecrafts, there are examples of Dasuras attacking heavens. Dasuras don’t have punya. But they attack and they reach heaven.

They overpower heaven at times. Now, Arjuna goes in a self-same body to the heavens and Mahadasa and Artham. He sits on the throne of Indra, along with Indra.

So, reality is much more complex than what we think it is. And Prabhupada’s statements themselves are much more complex than what we think they are. So, somehow within his Kaun, this one statement has become emphasized.

But this is not the only statement that Prabhupada made. When our own Acharya has made multiple statements, why should we emphasize one and consider the only when you accept the statement you are faithful to Prabhupada. So, what does it mean? So, my understanding is, so, my understanding of this is that Prabhupada was not, Prabhupada did not start the International Society for debunking the munja.

It was the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Now, at that particular time, people were so, the promise of science and technology was so great. The space race was going on between Europe, between America and Soviet Russia.

So, it was like that we went to the moon. That means humanity has achieved something so spectacular. People were super excited by it.

And the 1960s was the time when the Time magazine had written that God is dead. Then Pratik Nisha said that long ago. But they had made it a popular self-centred.

So, the idea that science and technology will replace God and there is no need for God. That was very very prominent at that time. Now, today that is not the case.

People may be excited whether we go to the moon or whether we go to the Mars or wherever. But that is not affecting or even challenging people’s faith in God. In one sense, today people turn towards God.

When tomorrow we talk of experience, people are turning towards God not because they got some rational evidence for the existence of God. It is more because there is an experiential transformation. They experience peace, they experience sense of purpose.

So, the moon mission is not an obstacle today for people to have faith in God, for people to commit to bhakti. So, at that time it was an obstacle. Now, today criticizing it is the obstacle.

So, deshakaal pathra is important. So, now how do we understand Prabhupada’s statements? One understanding is that just like the earth, if we go to Vrindavan, we understand Vrindavan. There is the Vrindavan that we perceive with our senses and there is Vrindavan which we perceive when we are purified.

So, like that there is a concept of adhikar and the concept of adhikar means that in swarga, it is chandra is a physically visible structure, place, object. But it is not only that. It is described that in the yagyas, even the devatas would come to the earth.

Sometimes yagyas would come to the earth but devatas would not be seen. Just that the sacrifice is completed without any interruption. That itself indicates that the devatas have come and accepted the sacrifice.

Sometimes they are extremely pleased they become visible. So, that means even if we go to the physical location called swarga, called chandra loka, we are not really accessing that. So, there is like if you have a computer system where there is a clerk working on the computer and there is a CEO working on the computer.

The clerk may have access to only a particular level of files. The CEO may have access to the whole set of files. So, it depends on the adhikar.

So, like that even if we get the adhikar to physically go to chandra, that does not mean that we are actually accessing chandra loka. So, Prabhupada’s statements are made in a particular context and especially when Prabhupada has made multiple statements on a particular issue. There is no need to absolutize one statement and then consider acceptance of that statement as the test of faith.

So, I have explained this briefly. If you want Prabhupada’s statements on the moon mission, you can go on my YouTube channel Chaitanya Charan. I have given, there is a powerpoint with the various kinds of statements which Prabhupada has made at different times.

And whatever I explain, I explain in more detail over there. Thank you. Yes.

Come to you. Very interesting. So, you mentioned about outreach.

What is the goal behind it? What should be the goal for a devotee behind outreach of sharing krishna bhakti? Sometimes, you mentioned devotees, you know, one may feel like sharing krishna with many people. And he may not get engaged in cultivating them or, you know, training them and spending time with them for years. But he just wants to let people know about krishna, like making movies or other things.

So, there are two different kinds of outreach, where a cultivation happens and where no cultivation happens, just connection happens. So, just like you mentioned, you know, how we are making people aware of the culture. So, do you think a devotee should consider that kind of outreach valuable? Which kind of outreach is more valuable to the society and what, how do we measure the success of our outreach is the final question.

Okay. Okay. How do we measure the success of our outreach? I think let’s look at the seven purposes of ISKCON.

That should have Prabhupada had. The first is very broad. To correct the imbalance between material and spiritual values of society and to systematically spread spiritual knowledge.

Have any of you had a class on seven purposes of ISKCON in time? Are you aware of the seven purposes of ISKCON? Broadly might be aware. Okay. So, the idea is that the first purpose is a very broad purpose.

When later on Prabhupada talks about to erect a place of worship for Krishna, to bring all people closer to each other and closer to Krishna, the prime entity, to distribute literature. So, there are many different purposes given. And in general, if we consider that Prabhupada started the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

So, we can call this like a mega umbrella. Now within that different preachers take up different umbrellas. Now some umbrellas may actually almost be at the opposite extremes.

So, for example, Prabhupada wanted simple living, high thinking. He said let’s start our own farms. We raise our own crops and we take care of cows and we have our own milk.

Devotees are working to make that a reality. But then Prabhupada also asked what is the best place for a temple? And Prabhupada said temple is like a spiritual hospital. So, a hospital, what is the best place? Where there are the most patients.

Since cities are most infected by Rajas and Tamas, that’s why cities are the best places. So, we could say one aspect of Prabhupada’s mission is farm communities. The other is city temples.

So, both of them are valid, but they are almost opposite. The emphasis is going to be almost entirely opposite. If you are going to have temples in the cities, then we are going to use modern technology, we are going to use modern amenities and we will have to adjust.

So, we have farm communities. Now, if you consider, another is Prabhupada often talked about how modern education system is like a spiritual slaughterhouse. And he said we should have our own educational systems, we should have our own gurukuls.

But then Prabhupada would love to talk with scholars. If some devotees would bring some scholars to talk with him, he would spend time with them, talk with them. Why? If the education system is a slaughterhouse system, then the scholars are basically the chief slaughterers.

Isn’t it? Why give them any special respect? Why spend time with them? No, within that particular educational system, they have worked hard, they have talent. That’s how they are risen to a particular level. And they have influence in society.

So, one vision is that we create an alternative society. We create an alternative education, we create an alternative place of staying. The other is we penetrate into the mainstream society.

And through that we reach people. So, there are many different visions of outreach. And some may be almost opposite.

So, generally when we are introduced to bhakti, we are introduced to bhakti by particular teachers who have particular visions. So, for example, most of us are introduced through youth outreach. So, youth outreach has a particular emphasis, a particular mood, a particular method which is fine.

So, generally it is best to follow whatever we are told. We don’t generally become inspired by Krishna abstractly. We become inspired by Krishna by associating with those who are inspired by Krishna.

So, often their inspiration becomes our inspiration. And naturally therefore, we feel inspired to assist them in their mission. Their mission is within Prabhupada’s mission.

But as our movement will spread, there will be different kinds of outreach required. And some forms of outreach will have more immediate effects. Some will have more gradual effects.

So, over a period of time, say a devotee who spends 5 years, 10 years, 20 years in bhakti, they may feel inspired that these are the kind of talents I have. And this is the kind of service I want to do. And if they feel inspired to do like that, then that’s perfectly fine.

So, they may take up some other umbrella. So, now you cannot have the same definition of success for various kinds of outreach. I will talk about one more last principle over here and we will continue this tomorrow.

See, there are insiders and there are outsiders. I am specifically using this word and not devotees and non-devotees. Because, you know, ISKCON does not have a monopoly on devotion.

There can be many other people from other traditions who may also be devotees. So, we can say we have insiders who are teachers and we have insiders who are students. And there are outsiders who can be teachers in their own way.

And there can be outsiders who are students. So, we can have four different forms of communication. So, this is what we call normally as preaching.

So, during Prabhupada’s time this was all that was happening. Insiders who became experts, they were preaching to outsiders. But by the 1970s and by 1980s, we started seeing that our movement had become like a revolving door.

Lots of people were coming in and lots of people were going out. So, people were not staying on. That’s when we started this.

This is more of education. This is more, you could call this preaching is also education, but this is more like spiritual education. This is more scriptural education.

So, Bhakti Shastri, Bhakti Vaibhav, all these serious scriptural teaching. Now, if there is scriptural education happening, by that there are no devotees being made. People are already devotees.

And they are being taken further. So, if somebody devotes their life to teaching Shastra to those who are already insiders, how are you going to quantify their teaching? Isn’t it? So, people are mostly already initiated. People are already 16th rounders.

So, is it that after conducting Bhakti Shastri course a person becomes, starts sending more rounds? It’s going to be very difficult to quantify. But this is very very important. Otherwise, what was happening is that the Krishna Consciousness Movement was becoming like a college where the junior KG student and the PhD student, all of them have to attend the same class.

And not just once, for the rest of their life everybody attend the same class. You know, it is just, for people who are at the PhD level, it will become suffocating for them. It will become frustrating.

You know, I need something more. So, the idea is that the systematic education is required. So, the parameter for success for the insider to outsider and the parameter for success for insider to insider, that will be very different.

Isn’t it? Now, we could say, there is one more, I won’t go into all of it now, that there is outsider to outsider. This is what determines our reputation. Let me say, if you have a center over here.

Now, there are people staying in the neighborhood. And somebody else is passing by and they join the neighborhood. They ask their neighbors, you know, okay, what do you think about this conduct? Now, that is determining our reputation.

Now, we may say, oh, these outside people are also in maya, they are all in maya, we don’t care for them. No, but they have influence. And among them, some people are more influential than others.

So, now sometimes we may choose to sort of, we place ourselves in this role. We place ourselves in this role so that we can influence people who may not necessarily come to our temples directly. What does that mean? That means, devotees may enter into academia.

And if somebody, if a devotee gets an academic PhD, they cannot teach Bhagavad Gita as it is in a mainstream university. They will have to fulfill the purposes of that university. That means, what they teach will be somewhat limited.

If somebody decides to make movies. Now, movies are primarily for entertainment. Along with entertainment, some values and some other things can be given.

Then they will have to focus on that. Now, can they be satisfied by that? It depends. Some people may be more satisfied by that and they can do that.

So, we cannot evaluate the success of say a devotee who makes a movie by the same parameter by which say a devotee who teaches Bhakti Shastra. Or a devotee who cultivates and makes people into devotees. So, there will be different parameters of success.

And this is the last point I will make. The parameters of success, how do you decide? I would say, for success, there are internal parameters and there are external parameters. So, internal is, is that devotee feeling contentment that I am doing something valuable.

I am doing something that is justice to my God given talents. I am doing something of value to Krishna. And the external is a contribution.

So, contribution could be, somebody makes movies, okay, how many views the movies get, how much revenues are earned from it. There will be appropriate parameters for that. Say, somebody teaching Bhakti Shastri, okay, so, how many courses did you conduct, how many students joined for the courses, how much was the marks of the student in the courses.

So, there will be different kinds of parameters for that. So, there will be, this will be more measurable. This will be more non-measurable.

At least not objectively measurable. But outreach can happen in many many different ways. And I was at a interfaith conference in Washington DC and there was this Christian pastor, they were openly speaking this, that they were saying that, you know, right now, there is like a reverse missionary effect in America.

Like I said, Catholics, they don’t have, they still insist that the main priest in the church should be a monk. And they are not getting monks in people in the west to become monks. So, when I had gone to America for the first time, I told, so, the devotee in America asked me, okay, where do you come from? So, I said, we are in Pune and Mumbai, we have about 150 Brahmacharis in each place.

So, he said, we don’t have 150 Brahmacharis in North America and South America combined together. So, what is happening that in churches in America, they are actually having Indians and Africans become priests over there. Why? Because these are the people who are ready to be monks.

So, now, what they are saying is that, in India and Africa, they were doing preaching for a long time. But they realized that initially the preaching was not happening. So, Christians started their preaching in almost 18th century.

But the direct preaching, some people became converted. But it didn’t happen. So, their indirect preaching was, they got into convent school, big schools.

They got into establishing hospitals. They got into social service. And through that, they created a very positive reputation.

If you look at the history of Christianity, Christianity has also been very hard line. Like Islam is perceived quite negatively. Although there is always any criticism, Islam comes with immediate criticism, Islamophobia.

But the point is, Christianity has also had its extreme radicals. And Christians have had, you know, people being burnt at the fire, those who are considered deviators. They were burnt at the stake.

And those women who were considered witches were stoned to death. So, horrible things have happened. But the public perception of Christianity, especially in India, is very very positive.

Now, some questionable conversion practices may lead to people thinking negatively about them. But that’s a small pocket. So, they built their reputation for centuries.

And now, as per the Catholic Church itself, they say India is the biggest, what is the word they use for it? They use the word harvesting of souls. So, India is the richest field for the harvesting of souls. Because they say China is also there, but China is controlled by a communist government, by a atheist government.

Africa is quite polarized. There are about 40-45%, Muslims are there, 40-45% Christians are there and remaining are native African religions. So, for them to spread further is difficult.

But India is the richest ground for them. So, it’s reputation. So, the reputation was built over centuries and then afterwards the impact happened.

So, I think there are many different ways of doing outreach. But one challenge is that if we are following in a particular, within a particular umbrella and then we want to do something different, then we won’t get the shade of that umbrella. Till our own umbrella comes up or we join somebody else who has an umbrella.

We feel that I have no shade, I have no shelter over there. So, that could be a problem. We have to navigate that and deal with that.

Okay. So, we will stop here. We will continue tomorrow.

So, how many of you have questions at this stage? So, according to tomorrow I will decide how long to take the class of 1, 2, 3. So, I will speak about Bhaktivinoda Thakur briefly. Then we will talk about experience. And then we will have question answers tomorrow morning.

Thank you very much.

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

My dear Lord, please guide us on, so that we can understand your words, your wisdom and your love, and be inspired to lovingly harmonize with you. Hare Krishna! Hare Krishna! I am grateful and delighted to be here. For several years, Radhe Shambhu has been telling me about Dhanbad and how dynamic the devotees over here are, and I have been.

I was introduced through Youth Outreach in 1996-97. Then from 2014 to 2022-23, I was focused mostly on Western outreach. So, almost 8-9 months a year, I was outside India.

After the pandemic, I started, I would say, rediscovering India. I was always in India, but in one sense, I was a bit disconnected from the college outreach for some time. I would come for the college camps, Udhkar camps and others.

But since then, I have been traveling across India and especially youth centers and the temples also. So, it is a joy to be here. And since all of you are actively involved in different capacities, in trying to share Krishna Bhakti.

So, I was planning to talk today and tomorrow morning about how to share Bhakti effectively. So, this is a course I have conducted at many places. I call it as EYB.

It is Empower Your Preaching. So, there are many different aspects to it, but I will talk about two aspects today and two aspects tomorrow. So, let us, we will begin with, so this is a, some of you have got a copy of this book? A few of you may be having.

So, you can open, go to verse 11.32, that is page 190 in your book. You also read it from here. So, basically this is a, I have been writing on the Bhagavad Gita for the last 15 years almost every day one article.

So, recently I started writing prayers inspired by the Bhagavad Gita. So, here we have pictures of various deities from different parts of the world. And then we have the Gita verse rendered poetically and then a prayer inspired by that.

So, 11.32, let us come to it. If you like you can repeat after me. My dear Lord, though time may be destructive, let me be creative in holding on while letting go.

Sri Bhagavan uvacha Kaalo Smiloka Shekrut Pravritto Lokan Samahartham Iha Pravritta Hrute Pitvam Na Bhavishyanti Sarve Yeh Avasthita Pratyah Keshv Yoja Yeh Avasthita Pratyah Keshv Yoja The Supreme Lord said, I am time, the world-destroying flame, Arriving here with deadly aim. Even without your arrows in play, These warriors are doomed this day. This is Bhagavad Gita 11.32. So, I request different participants to read one paragraph.

Who would like to read the first paragraph? Yes, please. My dear Lord, among all realities, death is the most denied, the most bleated, and yet the most depleted. Nonetheless, when I learn to become conscious of You, it changes my vision of everything.

Yes. So, I will write and draw certain things over here as we discuss. Now, when we discuss the Bhagavad Gita, the Bhagavad Gita is spoken at a particular time.

So, the Gita, like all sacred books, it has a timely message and it has a timeless message. Timely means what it means for Arjuna at that time. Timeless means that what extends beyond that time for all time.

So, when Krishna is speaking to Arjuna and telling him to fight, now that fight, he is referring actually to physical fight. Pick up your bow and fight. And that's what Arjuna does at the end of the Gita.

Yatra Yogeshwara Krishna, Yatra Partho, Dhanur Dharaha. He has picked up his bow in readiness to fight. So, there what has happened is actually Arjuna has become ready to fight.

So, fight is the timely message. Now, is that everybody who applies the Bhagavad Gita should raise weapons and start fighting? Sometimes that may be required. But that is not the, so, that is not the specific message of the Gita for all time.

What is the message of the Bhagavad Gita for all time? Align with God. Arjuna himself tells this when he concludes, he said, I will do your will. So, there is a timely message and there is a timeless message.

So, the idea is within scripture, when we want to share scripture with others, we need to recognize that time changes things and at the same time, there is things which stay unchanging. So, Krishna is telling her, Kalos, time I am, the destroyer, the all destroying flame. So, the idea is the Kauravas are going to be destroyed over there.

But is God only the destroyer? No, we have three phases, there is creation, maintenance and destruction. And all three are happening simultaneously. If you look at a biological level, at this very moment some cells are dying in our body, some cells are being regenerated, some cells are being maintained.

So, creation, maintenance, destruction are all happening simultaneously. But at that particular time, what was occupying Arjuna's mind was the destruction. I have to kill my relatives, I have to kill Bhishma and Drona.

How can I do that? So, Krishna is telling that this is the phase of destructive time. And destruction is going to happen. So, what is going to be destroyed cannot be protected from destruction.

But that does not mean everything is going to be destroyed. So, there is a higher purpose, a purpose of establishing Dharma, of inspiring Bhakti. And that is the higher purpose that Arjuna should hold on to.

So, many times for us, when we understand death or destruction as the inescapable reality of the world, quite often it leads to discouragement. If everything is temporary, why do anything at all? Sometimes we say that, live every day to think as if you are going to die today. So, one devotee is asking this question, if I think I am going to die today, then why should I cook food today? Why should I go for my office today? Why should I do anything? The point is, that is one way of living.

We want to be conscious of death, but we don't want to be death conscious. Isn't it? What that means is, that life is temporary. Should be something which we should not forget.

But that is not the only thing we remember. So, when I say conscious of death means, if this is my consciousness, then death is one thing in my consciousness. So, that is, we are conscious of death.

But when we are death conscious, what it means is, our consciousness is filled with nothing but death. So, see, in one sense, almost everyone, at least a large number of people in India are conscious of Krishna. But they are not Krishna conscious.

Isn't it? Yeah, oh yeah, Krishna is. I have seen the Mahabharata. Krishna, nice character.

Yeah, I like something about Krishna. I don't like something about Krishna. So, for us, we want to be Krishna conscious, not death conscious.

But that does not mean we want to be death unconscious. Be aware of death, but for us, the consciousness of death, what it should do is, it should make Krishna bigger in our consciousness. The whole point of remembering death is that Krishna becomes bigger in our consciousness.

So, we don't want to remember death simply to become fearful by remembering death. We don't want to remember the temporariness of the world to become fearful of the temporariness of the world. Or to become fearful of the world.

So, death, destruction of the world or the destructiveness, the temporariness of the world should not make us discouraged thinking that everything is pointless. Oh, everything is pointless. Why do anything at all? That is not the point.

Destruction should lead us actually to awareness of destruction or it should lead us to detachment, not discouragement. Now, when we say what is the difference between discouragement and detachment? Detachment is basically, it has two aspects to it. We let go of some things and we hold on to something else.

Detachment does not mean we empty our consciousness. That is not possible. Sri Prabhupada gives the example that when he is speaking about the Goswamis.

Tyaktvā tūrṇam aśeṣa-maṇḍalapati. They gave up wealth and opulence and power like that of the kings. But why did they do that? So that they could hold on to Krishna.

Hold on more tightly to the service of Krishna in the form of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. So, that's why in one sense detachment is about understanding what to let go and what to hold on. So, Krishna is telling Arjuna, let go of your eagerness to protect Bhishma and Durga.

That you will not need to do. Time I have the destroyer. But still you can hold on.

You can hold on to the fact that they are eternal souls. That you can benefit their eternal souls by freeing them from the entanglement with the wicked Kauravas that they are presently caught in. And you can help me in promoting dharma.

In establishing bhakti. Let's move ahead. Could I read the next paragraph? Anyone else? Of all including Lord, you declare that it is you yourself who comes as death.

As you are always benevolent, your emphasis is not on how death finishes everything at the material level, but how it furnishes a portal to another level of being. Though death is destructive, it is meant to inspire me to be creative in my choices. My most consequential choice is in learning balance.

As I live as an eternal spiritual being within a temporary material world. This balance centers on learning how to hold on while letting go. Yeah.

You can continue. Hold on, hold on. I think I got an older version of the book.

Okay, that's fine. Hold on. I will continue afterwards.

So, see, what does this mean both in terms of our practice and our sharing of bhakti? So, there are constantly things which we need to hold on to, constantly need to let go of. At a practical level, detachment means we may make a particular plan. I want to do things this way.

And when things don't work out that way, at that time sometimes what happens if things don't work according to my plan, then I won't do anything at all. I just quit. No.

So, okay, this opportunity, this is not working out. So, what is working out? If this doesn't move forward, what can move forward? So, in one sense, when we talk about detachment, it is So, what do we let go? Of the plan that is not working. And what do we hold on? We hold on the plan that is working.

So, as we are serving Krishna, we need to be able to be dynamic. When Prabhupada went to America, he wanted to reach out to influential people. But there were practically no influential people who came to him.

So, then in one sense, he went to the most uninfluential people. Those, normally we would consider influential people as people who are well-educated, people who are well-placed in society, people who are wealthy. Krishna talks about yad yad acharati sreshtha.

So, Prabhupada would have liked to go to those people. But the people who came at that time, people who were spiritually interested were people who had no career, they had no salaries, they had no family. Not because they were renounced, because they were frustrated.

They were disillusioned. So, then Prabhupada went to them. Because they were interested.

So, Prabhupada was flexible. Whatever. Okay, this plan is not working out.

Let me try this plan. And in that way, he kept moving forward. So, plan that is not working, we let go.

And plan that is working, we hold on to. Now, this is important to understand when we try to share Krishna Bhakti. So, our topic was, try to give a philosophical background to how outreach works.

So, if we consider, this is the message of Shastra. And these are our audience's interests. So, now, Shastra is timeless.

But at different times, so if we consider this is 2026. So, if we consider 1976. If we consider 1926.

We can go backward, backward. So, the interests of people may change. So, we need to find out what are the interests of people.

And so, what is timeless is the message of scripture. But the same teaching within scripture may not be so important or so applicable or so interesting for people at different times. So, let's look at a purport of Srila Prabhupada which illustrates this point.

This is 1.4.1. Okay. Who would like to read personal realization? Who would like to read this? You have not read till now. Personal realization does not mean that one should out of vanity attempt to show one's own learning by trying to surpass the previous acharya.

He must have full confidence in the previous acharya and at the same time he must realize the subject matter so nicely that he can present the matter for the particular circumstances in a suitable manner. So, realize the matter so nicely so that you can present in particular circumstances in a suitable manner. Prabhupada also goes further.

Presented in an interesting manner for the understanding of the audience. This is called realization. So, in one sense, if we expand this particular idea, this is shastra and if these are the audiences, then the teacher of shastra needs to be able to act like a bridge.

That be in the world of scripture and be in the world of the contemporary audience. And based on that we find out where the two overlap. So, when we are able to find out where the two overlap, that is where our outreach will become effective.

So, for example, if say if you organize, if I go to America and say in MIT somebody organize, they organize a one time program for me. And I will say in Massachusetts, I will speak on how Achintya Bheda will be superior to Advaita Vidhanta. Now, only if the students are studying Hindu philosophy and they are interested in that subject, then they will come.

Otherwise for most students that will not be a very relevant subject. So, it is an important teaching from our scripture. But that is not what is primarily relevant at that particular time.

So, what is of interest? As I said normally one time program we have, we will talk about say mind management, we will talk about stress management, we will talk about focus in the age of distraction. We will have topics which are of interest. So, let us look at how this particular dynamic applies.

I will talk about two acharyas examples and of course we will talk about Srila Prabhupada. So, Jiva Goswami, Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Srila Prabhupada. So, I will speak about Jiva Goswami today.

Tomorrow morning I will speak more about Bhaktivinoda Thakur. And then we will see how it applies in our time also. Now, Jiva Goswami faced a very difficult challenge.

And what was that challenge? When Mahaprabhu was there, so at that time, so if we consider, okay, this is the map of India. So, here you have, here you have Mayapur, here you have Bengal, here you have Odisha and here you have Vrindavan approximately. Now, these were three main places where Mahaprabhu's impact was the most.

In Mayapur he was, in Vrindavan, Bengal he was born. Then in Vrindavan he visited and that is the place of Krishna Bhakti. And then in Puri and Odisha overall, he stayed for a significant part of his life after sannyas.

So, the Goswamis, most of the Goswamis were from Bengal, but somewhere from South India also. The Goswamis basically from various places, they were brought to Vrindavan. They sent by Mahaprabhu to Vrindavan and Jiva Goswami was the youngest among them.

So, now Vrindavan at that time was the hub, the center of Krishna Bhakti. And Mahaprabhu had come and two months that he had been there, that had been a ecstatic, extraordinary stream of Krishna Bhakti. But then he had gone.

And now the Goswamis had to lay a foundation over there. So, we will see three distinct aspects. The language, the subject and the emphasis.

So, the Gaudiya Vaishnavas in Bengal, all the books were written in Bengali. So, if you look at Murali Gupta's Karchas, they are written in Bengali. But when they came to Vrindavan, would Bengali work over there? No.

So, there it was Vrindavan, Mathura were the places of refined learning. So, the language they chose was Sanskrit. They had to write in that language if they were to be relevant.

Now, Sanskrit language they chose. Now, the subject was Krishna. It was not Mahaprabhu.

Generally, if you see the books that were written in Vrindavan, the books that were written in Bengal, the language was Bangla, Bengali and the subject was Mahaprabhu. Because Mahaprabhu, now the Goswamis they talk about Mahaprabhu. But they talk about him, he is our teacher, he is our inspirer, he is the manifestation of Krishna.

But that is not the emphasis of their teachings. The emphasis of their teachings is about Krishna. Because Krishna is what is relevant in Vrindavan.

Now, they will of course be presenting Krishna the way Mahaprabhu has taught. The special love of the Gopis and separation, but the focus on Krishna. Now, the biggest challenge that Jiva Goswami faced was that what does he emphasize.

In every historical epoch, that means every phase in history, there are certain sources of authority that are important. Like say in today's world, science may be considered to be important. So, that's why when we talk about the existence of soul or we talk about the existence of God, then one of the concept is this scientific, is this rational? What are the scientific pointers or evidences for this? So, everybody who has to explain their message has to explain it in a way that can be understood for people within their sources of authority.

Everybody has their sources of authority. Now, we can say to people, your sources of authority are all wrong. They are all false.

And just reject all the sources of authority and accept Shastra or accept this tradition's understanding of Shastra as the source of authority. That is possible, but that's going to take a long time for people. Most people cannot take a leap of faith like that.

So, the idea is that when we want to explain things, when Prabhupada was doing a morning walk in Venice Beach in Los Angeles, so, he was talking with his devotees, especially he was trying to emphasize scientific outreach. So, one of his disciples quoted from the Bhagavad Gita. Prabhupada said, forget Shastra.

Explain based on logic. He says, you will quote your scripture and Christians will quote their scripture and Muslims will quote their scripture. He said, we should be able to explain our philosophy, we should be able to explain the teachings of scripture without needing to refer to scripture.

We should be able to explain it based on logic. So, logic is not our source of authority. But for those who will not accept Shastra right now, how will we explain to them? So, it's like, if there is, this is our, I'll just use the word I say, source, S-O-A, source of authority.

Now, if my source of authority and other's source of authority, if there is no intersection in between, then what will happen is, the two people are discussing or debating. Say, one is quoting from the Quran, other is quoting from the Bible. And both the people can just keep quoting each other.

And there will be no way of persuading, even communicating. So, in any kind of communication, we have to see how our source of authority and other's source of authority. Where they intersect.

So, in today's world, one of the biggest intersections is logic. We'll come to today's world later. Another is experience.

Experience means anubhav. So, we will discuss this later as we move forward. But Jiva Goswami's challenge was that at that time, the primary source of authority was what was called as prasthanatraya.

Prasthanatraya means that any tradition, especially a Vedantic tradition, if it had to establish itself as authority, it had to have a commentary on three books. Prasthanatraya. So, what is the prasthanatraya? Does anyone know what is the prasthanatraya? Sorry? Gita, Brahma Sutras and Upanishads.

Yes. Nice. So, these three are the prasthanatraya.

Now, actually, to the modern mind, Vedanta Sutra. So, Vedanta Sutra. Now, what happened was, Mahaprabhu said that the Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedanta Sutra.

The same author Vyasadeva in his maturity has explained in the Bhagavatam. Now, this is a very powerful argument. But at the same time, before Mahaprabhu, no one else had made this particular argument.

Ramacharya did not make this argument. Madhvacharya did not make this argument. Shankaracharya, of course, did not make this argument.

So, for many people, those who did not accept the authority of Mahaprabhu, when we, when avatyacharyas like Jiva Goswami, they said that the Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedanta Sutra. For them, that is just your excuse for saying that you don't have a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra. So, it like, how it feels is that there is this book which is universally accepted by everyone.

And there is one book which our tradition considers very important. And you say this book is the natural commentary. Now, that is what we are basically trying to say is that you are trying to avoid taking a responsibility to writing a commentary.

Because traditionally, how was a commentary? A commentary was, okay, this is the original verse, this is the explanation of that verse. This is the verse, this is the explanation of that verse. So, now, the Bhagavatam is not like that.

It is not that, okay, this particular sutra and this is the explanation of it. This particular sutra, this particular expression. So, natural commentary means what? Say, like, today evening I gave a class.

And say, what I speak is, is a bit too complicated. One devotee told me once that, Appa, class sunta hu, toh dimaag se dhruva aata hai. So, now, say, okay, so, I say, tomorrow morning, I will explain the same thing.

But it is not that if I am going to explain tomorrow morning, okay, I will play a recording of what I spoke yesterday. Okay, I spoke the sentence, this is what it means. No, I will take the same topic but approach it from a different way.

So, a natural commentary is different from a textual commentary. Textual commentary is this text, this is the meaning. So, the same theme is explored from a different way.

So, Jiva Goswami faced the challenge that Mahaprabhu had said there is no need for a commentary on the Bhagavata, on the Vedanta Sutra. But at the same time, the audience, the scholarly audience, they considered that you don't have a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra. Therefore, you are not authority to Sampradaya.

So, what to do at that time? Like, we have to follow Mahaprabhu but we also have to address the needs of the audience. So, here the audience is the scholarly community of Vrindavan. And not just Vrindavan, it was generally within the Vedantic tradition all over India.

That's what the Prince Acharyas had done. So, now the explicit writing of the commentary, this was done later by Baldev Vidyamaksha in our tradition, a couple of centuries later. But Jiva Goswami came up with a very creative solution.

So, I talk about hold on and let go. I talk about the effect of time is, something we have to hold on, something we need to let go. So, what he did was, he wrote the Sandarbhas.

Now, the Sandarbhas are elaborate philosophical treaties. And what he has done is, there are Shat Sandarbhas and these are like six steps in a staircase. And so, he has basically established the teachings of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu starting from Bhagavat Sandarbha where he establishes the authority of the Bhagavatam.

And then after that there are Tattva Sandarbha, Bhagat Sandarbha like that. Tattva Sandarbha is first establishes the tattva, what it is, how do we know the truth. So, he uses the six Sandarbhas to explain systematically the teachings of Mahaprabhu.

And within that, he takes as an example, he takes the Vedanta Sutra and he takes the Bhagavatam. And he takes the first four sutras of the Vedanta Sutra and he shows how they are explained within the Bhagavatam. Now, he does not do this systematically for each sutra, but he gives an indicative commentary.

He gives an indicative commentary and indicative illustration. And in that way, he satisfies the scholars at that time. Later on, at the time of Baldev Diyabhushi, when there is a far greater challenge that comes up, at that time, Baldev Diyabhushi has to write a commentary.

And he takes the blessings of Radha Govindji and he writes the commentary at that time. So, that is called the Govinda Bhashya. That is the Vedanta Sutra commentary of Baldev Diyabhushi.

So, according to time, place, circumstance, what is of interest to the audience, that has to be explained. So, what does this mean for us today? When we are trying to share Krishna Bhakti, I will focus today on the idea of logic and tomorrow morning I will focus on experience. So, we have this Pratyaksha, Anuman and Shabda.

Now, one of the fundamental misunderstandings we get is that sometimes is that Pratyaksha and Anuman are wrong and Shabda is right. No, that is completely wrong. All three are pramanas.

Pramana means all three are valid ways of gaining knowledge. All three are valid ways of gaining knowledge. They are just different ways of gaining knowledge.

In fact, later on, Krishna in the Uddhava Gita will explain how one can, the same teaching of scripture, we can learn from Pratyaksha and Anuman. Atmano Guru Atmaiva Purushasya Visheshata Yad Pratyakshanumanabhyam Shreyo Asavanuvindate So, Atmano Guru Atmaiva. The Atma can be the Guru of the Atma.

That means we can be our own Guru. Purushasya Visheshata. Visheshata in a specific sense.

What is the specific sense? Pratyakshanumanabhyam. Through Pratyaksha and Anuman. Shreyo Asavanuvindate.

What is the Shreya? What is the long term good? That Anuvindate. We can learn, we can reach. So, normally we say that through Guru Sadhu Shastra we learn.

That is true. But it is not that we learn only through Guru Sadhu Shastra and we shut down our Pratyaksha and Anuman. No, through Pratyaksha and Anuman also we can learn.

The problem becomes when we rely on Pratyaksha and Anuman so much that we reject Shabda. But through Pratyaksha and Anuman we can learn the same truths that Shabda can teach us. Let's explain this in a little different way.

If I consider, let's use the word S, A and P. S is Shabda. So Shabda points in a particular direction to us. Now Anuman can point in the same direction.

Anuman can point in the opposite direction. Pratyaksha can point in the same direction. Pratyaksha can point in the opposite direction.

So for us, I started by saying hold on and let go. You remember I started with that point. So this is what we need to hold on.

When Pratyaksha and Anuman point in the same direction in Shabda, we accept it. When Pratyaksha and Anuman point in the direction of the opposite, we let go. Let me explain what this means.

Otherwise it can seem a little confusing. But the idea is that when Anuman points in the right direction, that is called as Tarka or logic. When Pratyaksha points in the right direction, it is called Anubhav.

So Anubhav in the Brihad Bhagavata Amrita, when the Gopakumar is going through the various levels of reality to ultimate reality, in that context it's explained that Anubhav or experience, that is the highest Brahman. Because if we have experienced something, then that is a reality for us. Like somebody may say, oh you got cancer, take allopathy, no chemotherapy.

Somebody says no, no, take naturopathy. Somebody says take Ayurveda. Now somebody who had that cancer has been cured of that cancer.

For them, the experience is the basis of the greatest conviction for them. Isn't it? So Anubhav is a very very important Brahman. And Anubhav means what? It's at the level of Pratyaksha.

It's what I have experienced. I have experienced with my eyes, with my senses, with my own life experiences. So Pratyaksha and Anuman are also very important.

So I will make two more points and then we can open for question answers. Today I will talk about logic and tomorrow I will talk about experience. So if this is the teaching of scripture and say logic is the interest of the audience.

Now logic is not the only interest of the audience but logic is one interest of the audience. Then we need to be able to present things logically. And what does it mean to present things logically? In one sense it has two distinct aspects to it.

One is that minimum assumptions. There is no form of knowledge which does not require some assumptions. Right now I am speaking in English.

So there is an assumption that all of you understand English. Or you go further, there is an assumption that English is a meaningful language. Somebody says English is a lechha vashna.

Okay, that's one way of looking at it. But still it is possible to convey meaning through language, through English language. Like people say science, science is pure facts.

No, science also is based on the assumption that our senses give us reliable knowledge. Now how reliable it is, that's a different question. When Newton felt the apple fall on his head, if Newton had said actually I don't believe my senses, then there would have been no further possibility of exploring the knowledge.

So every field of knowledge requires some assumptions. But try to keep the assumptions as less as possible. Minimum assumptions.

So what would be reasonable for the other person to accept? And the more I have travelled across the world, there are so many cultural things that are assumed by us when we speak. When I had gone to Australia for the first time in 2014 I had travelled. So I was speaking to primarily Australian audience.

And once somebody asked me a question, so how were you introduced to bhakti? So I started answering and then I told, you know, so when I passed out from my college in 1998, the audience started looking at each other. In the West passed out means fallen conscious. He passed out, you must have heard this word, like somebody passes out because of exhaustion.

Like sometimes the heat is so much that you pass out. So the same word that you pass out, what happened? Why did you pass out? So like that sometimes, earlier we used to use the word inmate for our voice residents. In America the word inmate is used primarily for people who are in a jail.

So people who are in a prison or people who are in a mental hospital. So consciously, you know, at least in America we never use the word inmates. We use the word residents.

So the words have different meanings. So there are certain assumptions which are always there. But try to make them assumptions as less as possible.

So what should the other person have to accept to accept this? So when we try to go to that minimum level of assumption, then we don't come off as unreasonable. Why do you accept this? Because the Bhagavad Gita says so. That means you are not thinking, you are simply following the Bhagavad Gita.

Then people start feeling you are not a very rational person, you are a fanatical person. Especially now if the Bhagavad Gita contains the statement which does not seem to make logical sense. Then it becomes even more difficult.

So to what extent is it possible to explain philosophy logically? Now there are aspects of every tradition's teachings which are beyond the domain of logic. So the idea is that if we consider theology, what is the meaning of theology? Anyone knows this word theology? Things that cannot be comprehended by the senses. The study of those things.

Okay, that is an educated guess. It's a good guess. But okay, let's spread out.

What does the word theos mean? Okay, what does the word logos mean? Psychology. What is logic? Yeah, logos is study. And theos is what? Yes, theos is God.

So theology is basically the study of God. Philosophy is the study of truth, willingness to truth. So sophie is the logic or the analysis.

So theology, the study of God specifically has two aspects to it. There is the rational aspect and there is the revelational aspect. So rational is what can be understood through logic.

So for example, the existence of God, that is something which can be rationally explained. We can make a strong rational case that God exists. But the identity of God, that God is a bluish black cowherd boy who wears a peacock feather and plays a flute.

This requires revelation. Now that does not mean that revelation is not logical. Revelation also has rationality within it.

But there is rational theology and there is a revelational theology. So some things like the existence of the atma, it can be rationally discussed. But the nature of the spiritual world where the atma exists, that will require revelation.

So in one sense what happens? Rationality points in one direction but revelation takes us much further in that direction. At the same time revelation does not take us in the opposite direction. Revelation takes us further than where reason goes, not opposite to where reason goes.

So now why is Krishna, why is a bluish black, why do we consider a bluish black cowherd boy to be God? That is described in scripture. That is revelational theology. But within the revelational theology there are explanations.

That Krishna is a God who does not require opulence to prove his divinity. So Krishna lives close to nature. Krishna is simply attractive.

He does not need externals to become attractive. So the attractive features of Krishna is flute. It's a simple instrument, very easily made.

Peacock feather is a naturally available decoration. A bluish black complexion, that is the beautiful complexion of the sky when it is cloudy. Freshly formed rain clouds.

So there is some logical explanation of that. So we don't rely solely on logic. Logic is not our complete final authority.

And logic is not the basis for explaining everything. But what happens? Right in the beginning, if we are not able to explain things logically and we ask people to have faith, then it becomes a problem. Because everybody will ask people to have faith.

So people from this group will talk, have faith in those teachings. People from that group will say have faith in those teachings. So that's why at one level logic is the common language.

Now science builds from logic, which I will not go into how much science builds from logic and all that. But at this point we need to be able to explain what we speak logically. So that is, we have minimum assumptions and then we have, start with rational theology or rational teachings, not revelational.

Start with what is rational, not what is revelational. Why? Because rational is what is acceptable for people. So let's take two quick examples of this and then I will conclude this and then we can have question and answer.

So just now I came, 3-4 days ago I came from Singapore. Now Singapore is a very interesting place that it is, it is quite westernized. But at the same time it's like, there are few places in the world, there is the conservative culture of the east and the comfort and the technological advancement of the west.

That is there. And they have got a quite a ingenious government which is actually maintaining that. But so they have, it is the only country in the world apart from India, where one Indian language is actually one of the national languages.

So Tamil is one of the national languages over there. So they have Indian people of Tamil descent, then they have Chinese people, then they have Malaya people. So they have different groups of people.

So naturally when our devoting, when our devoting kids, that means those who are born in devoting families. So all of you have acquired bhakti. Acquired means when you chose to practice bhakti because you learned about it.

To some extent you may have known about it in your growing up. But the serious sadhana kind of bhakti you acquired. But for many people who are born in devoting families, now for them bhakti is not so much chosen as it is inherited.

And when it is inherited from the parents, at that time as they come into teenage they start questioning it. So they are asking that some of our, some of the kids. So when we apply tilak, it looks very weird.

And according to one particular, there is one particular Chinese group of people, with China is also a huge country. And within that there is one group which also applies some markings on the head. And within their tradition that particular group is not considered very respected within China.

So what they say is that, they say that this is like, what is this dirt you have applied on your head? So now how do we explain that in a way that is intelligible? So I told them that when I am asked this question, I have been asked this question in the West many times. I say that in our tradition our life is considered to be a blessing of God and nature. And this in our tradition represents God and this which represents a leaf represents nature.

So now this is a, we don't have to get Tulsi, we don't have to get Krishna's lotus feet. Now why this represents God and why this represents nature, we don't have to explain that. If we need to, we can explain it later.

But the idea is a minimum assumption approach. Start with as broad a framework as possible. The idea that our existence is a blessing of nature, that is something which everyone can accept.

Now that there is a God, maybe everybody doesn't accept God. But that idea that our existence is a blessing of God, that is not an irrational idea. That is an intelligible idea for people.

So we try to explain what we are practicing in as broad a framework as possible. Minimum assumptions. Now of course there is much more to that.

This is not just nature and God. The idea of God is a person. And we are not just accepting God's blessings, we are actually placing God on our head.

His lotus feet on our head. So it's much deeper. And this is not just nature, this is a very special manifestation of nature.

That is Tulsi Devi. But we don't have to get into the specifics immediately. So a minimum assumption approach.

Start with as broad a framework as possible. So when we are answering a question, if we go back over here. What is my source of authority and what is their source of authority? Where do the two intersect? So I was in quite a big podcast in Australia.

And that podcast, this Australian lady, she asked this question that she is, a lot of people from the west have been to India. Especially for the alternative crowd. And most of them they come to yoga primarily.

And they are into fitness, but they are not only into fitness. They are into looks, but they are not only into looks. They actually also want some peace of mind.

And many of them further become open to philosophy. But then they go more in the direction of yoga. And some of them go into more of Advaita Vata.

So there is this idea that bhakti, so bhakti is sentimentality. So when in the podcast, she asked many different questions and then she said, you are a very analytical intellectual person. So how come you are practicing bhakti and not jnana? Now I could go into what is actual teaching of scripture.

Is it bhakti? Is it jnana? But, so this is, I am going to elaborate on this in tomorrow's session more. That about the role of experience in life. But then I said my understanding of bhakti is that our existence, I base this on 1846 in the Bhagavad Gita, that what we have, what we have is God's gift to us.

What we do with what we have is our gift to God. So bhakti has many different aspects to it. There is the cultural aspect, there is the ritual aspect, there is the pilgrimage aspect, there is the worship aspect.

My gift is intelligence, is rationality. So I see bhakti not simply as a stereotypical idea, this is bhakti, that is bhakti. Bhakti means the gifts that have come to me from a divine source are meant to be used in a mode of service to direct me and others towards the divine source.

Now this is again, I am not saying that this is the only explanation. I am not saying this is the ideal explanation. I am saying that this is one way in which we don't have to get into too many assumptions for the other person to be accepted.

So try to explain things in as universal a way as possible. That we have been given some gifts and we use them in a mode of service to offer some gifts. What we have is God's gift to us, what we do is our gift to God.

yathaham pravartir bhūtānāṁ yena sarvaṁ tam tatam sva-karmaṇā tam abhyarca siddhim viddhi mānavā So when we learn to consider from the other person's perspective, what is interesting, what is the source of authority, what is easily understandable for this person and learn to present scripture accordingly, then we will be able to connect more and more people and will stop alienating people. So I will summarize what I discussed today. Our topic was on broadly on how to reach or how to reach effectively.

I talked about three main points. The first point was that about how when we understand that Krishna's teachings, the Gita has a timely aspect and a timeless aspect. So we need to be able to let go of the timely and focus on the timeless.

And so then as illustration we talked about Krishna as time. So what does it mean if Krishna as time means everything is temporary and then we become discouraged. No, that is not the point of Krishna as time.

Everything is temporary so be discouraged. No, it is be detached. And what is detachment means? We intelligently understand what to let go and what to hold on.

So now how does this apply in the domain of teaching or outreach? I gave the example that Prabhupada says that whatever is the interest of the audience, we need to be able to present accordingly. So, shastra and audience interest. And I gave the example of Jiva Goswami that, so what did Jiva Goswami do? He wrote in Sanskrit, he wrote about Krishna and he explained, he didn't write a Vedanta Sutra commentary, but he explained Vedanta Sutra through his sandarbhas.

Giving a example of how the first four sutras can be explained. And then for us today, what does it mean? That today, most people don't necessarily have faith in shastra. They may have some respect for the Gita.

But they don't consider that to be the word of God. I am interested in what the Gita teaches. Not that I am going to accept everything that the Gita teaches.

There is a very big difference between the two. So, we talked about today, one source of authority is logic. So, we discussed that if for any communication is to happen, then our source of authority and other source of authority, there has to be some overlap.

So, then what is the overlap? One overlap is logic. And to find this overlap, we discussed two principles. One is minimum assumption.

Try to explain things in such a way that the least assumptions are required to be accepted by the other person. And then we started to focus on the rational theology, rational teachings, not the revelational. So, when we do this, I gave two examples.

One is about tilak and the other is about bhakti itself, bhakti yoga and intelligence. So, each one of us, when we study, when we read Prabhupada's books, when we hear the classes of different devotees, what we try to see is that okay, how is bhakti being presented? How is bhakti being explained? So, it is not that because we have to follow shastra, because we have to follow authority, because we are not meant to speculate, that does not mean there is no use for our intelligence. Our intelligence is we accept scripture.

At the same time, we also consider which aspect of scripture is interesting, is intelligible, is relevant for the audience. And then we focus on that and that is how we make our outreach more and more effective. Thank you very much.

Hare Krishna. So, are there any questions or comments? Thank you very much for your lecture. So, there are two questions.

One is you have told that what is relevant for outside people that you should discuss or approach. Not exactly that. From within scripture, what is relevant? But just like you can see in professional reciters, they are taking the 10th Tantra path and making the bhagavatam as a business.

So, this is also, whatever you can say, bad effect or bad outcome of our… See, there are two different ways of looking at this. That there are people who are professional bhagavatam reciters. Our shastras explain that everything is a sattva, rajas and tamas.

So, even we cannot really, we cannot be mayavadi in looking at people. So, just because somebody is taking some money for teaching and speaking the bhagavatam, that does not mean all people fall in the same category. So, see, in the past there were kings who would offer patronage, support to the artists, to the authors and to the saints, to the spiritualists.

Now today there is no such system of patronage, at least not from the state. So, then if the tradition has to go on, how will it go on? So, there could be some people who charge something for speaking the bhagavatam. But if they are not living in opulence, it's not that, like there is in America.

You know, from our Indian perspective, America we think of it as a very materialistic country. We consider it as Hollywood. But actually, I mean, in the western world, America is the most religious country.

America is much more religious than France or UK or Australia or New Zealand. So, especially the Texas part, it's huge. It's hugely evangelically religious.

Now there are these mega churches. One church at one time 50,000 people can sit. And every Sunday 50,000 people come and there are sometimes 20,000 people outside.

They are sitting in the cars and they don't have space. So, in the car park they have 20,000 people. And they attend talks.

So, now, it's not that every Sunday 50,000 people come. These are huge churches, where 50,000, I think 5,000, 2,000 come there. But my point is, there is one particular pastor.

He has six private jets. Not one, but six. And what is his reasoning? He said, I am doing God's work.

So, I don't have time to waste. So, now, do you really need six private jets? Okay. So, what is happening is, this is like horrendous level of luxury.

So, but suppose somebody is a preacher and they have a car. Is that luxury? It depends, you know, where you are living, where you are going. If somebody is staying in a village and just going to five places in the village, they don't need a car if nobody is using a car.

Isn't it? So, if somebody is earning from speaking the Bhagavatam, I don't think that intrinsically is a bad thing. When Prabhupada criticized it, it is primarily from the Rajasic and Tamasic perspective. So, sattvic perspective is, somebody just wants to teach Shastra and they want to earn a living.

So, is there a facility for that today? Now, somebody becomes a brahmachari, there is a facility for that within many traditions. But if somebody is a grahastha, can they do it? How can they do it? So, one of the main reasons why Christianity spread so fast, or not just Christianity, among Christians there are Catholics and there are Protestants. So, Protestants have spread much faster than Catholics.

And one reason is that Protestants don't, Protestants they engage both the husband and wife together. Catholics they insist that there should be monks. So, they have their pastors who are well paid and then they engage them in preaching and they support them.

But there are some pastors who live in obvious, as I said, terrible luxury. But there are many who do not. When I go to Australia, especially America, when I do interfaith programs, you know, there are many young students who go to Christian colleges and they say as a part of their teaching, they will offer one or two years to God.

That means, after their education is completed, then they go to Africa, they come to India and they come on missionary work. So, they may not themselves be preachers, but they assist in various kinds of services. And, you know, at that time the church supports them.

They don't have to pay for it. The church supports them for it. So, the idea is that we cannot separate finances from teaching completely.

So, there are, you could say in sattva, the some kind of artha is a by-product of paramartha. It is not irrelevant, but it is not the most important thing. In rajas, it becomes a very important thing.

It becomes, you know, okay, how ostentatious, how showy a preacher is. In tamas, it becomes the sole purpose. So, that means, so in that case, just to become popular and earn more money, that person will speak whatever the audience wants to hear.

They will just basically become entertainers. So, the actual Bhagavatam story may be 5% and 95% is just entertaining stuff. Why? Because they want to entertain and they want to attract people and they want to earn money.

Now, is that bad? Well, if they are calling themselves as Bhagavatam teachers, then that's definitely not acceptable. So, there is always the possibility, the danger that whenever we try to do any adaptation, some things can go wrong and they can go terribly wrong. But then you can go to the opposite side also.

If somebody says, I will never do any adaptation, then what does that mean? The Gita is in Sanskrit. So, the Gita cannot be translated at all. There cannot be any accurate translation.

It is in Sanskrit. Only when you learn Sanskrit, only then you can actually understand the Gita. Should we go in that much extreme? So, that idea that we stay connected with the past and we stay connected with the present.

So, both are important. So, it's like the timeless or rather let's not use the word timeless over here. The scriptural and the contemporary.

So, if we are only connected with the scriptural, not with the contemporary, then we become irrelevant. Basically, we will end up becoming a museum exhibit. Oh, there were this group of people who lived like this at a particular time.

So, it's just like an object of historical curiosity. There is nobody living like that today. If we are only contemporary, then basically we will become impotent.

Because we are not teaching Krishna's message. Then basically what we will become? We will become a fashion fad. Oh, this is what people are interested in, let's speak this today.

That's what people are interested in, let's speak that today. So, we need to find out the balance of both, scriptural and contemporary. And ideally how it should be? If we consider the progress, may be initially, okay, let's put it this way, initially the contemporary part might be more, the scriptural part might be less.

Eventually the scriptural part becomes more, the contemporary part becomes less. That's how we grow spiritually. So, for example, the way we speak in a one-time college program.

Sometimes we may not even use the word Krishna, may use the word divinity. I have, this is Bhaktimarg Maharaj in Canada. So, he goes across or walks across the whole continent.

He has walked across whole of Canada twice, four, five times actually, the whole continent. So, he says that when he travels across people, he talks to people in different ways. So, in Star Wars, there is this, may the force be with you.

There is a slogan over there. So, he says, he talks to people, may the source be with you. So, it is contemporary way of presenting.

So, the God people don't like the word God so much. So, we use the word source. And we use the word divine.

But we are not going to use the word divine in a Bhagavatam class. We may use it once or twice, but in a Bhagavatam class we will use Krishna. So, yes.

So, it is not that we stay stuck at people's source of authority and stay stuck over there. We need to come to scripture and we need to teach scripture more and more. But initially it's required that we connect with people.

So, if somebody is only connecting with people, so now even I would say that nowadays there are lots of movies coming about say Ramayana and about Mahabharata. Now it's great if devotees make, devotees made a Mahavatar Narsimha movie. Now if devotees make many more movies like that, that's good.

But if devotees don't have the budget to make some movies like this, then somebody else makes a movie like that. Is that good? Is that bad? See, there may not be devotional potency within those movies. But still there is cultural reminder coming from that.

Now people may not become devotees of Krishna by that. But at least they will have some awareness of Krishna. Isn't it? I was in Texas and, Texas only, no, Florida.

So, I was talking with a group of Hindu kids. So, I asked him, do you know who is Narsimha? And most of them looked at me as if, you know, as if they are watching a foreign language movie with no subtitles. And then one boy raises his hand.

He said, you look very enthusiastic. Yes, he is a former Prime Minister of India. Now, I felt sad, but at the same time it was, yes, like in the popular cultural imagination.

We don't have, we have movies about Ramayana, we have TV series about Ramayana, but we didn't have anything about Narsimha there. So, we have to recognize that the consciousness of Krishna can be at many different levels. And the pure devotional consciousness of Krishna comes from pure devotees or aspiring pure devotees.

But there could be cultural consciousness of Krishna, there could be historical consciousness of Krishna, there could be literary consciousness of Krishna, there could be architectural consciousness of Krishna. And Krishna becomes a component in the consciousness. And that is a good thing.

So, the problem is when people think just because I have watched some Mahabharata, so I know everything about Krishna. So, if people hear some professional Bhagavatam Kathakar and they think because I am hearing Bhagavatam Kathakar, that's all, I don't need to do anything more. That is when it becomes a problem.

But if that triggers their curiosity and they want to know more. And then they come to those who are sharing about bhakti directly, more purely, then that is good. Okay? Yeah, I think, you know, that problem comes not so much because people are earning money.

That comes because often people don't consider philosophy important. So, philosophy is what actually teaches the importance of values. Philosophy is what sharpens the sense of logic, of analysis, of understanding what is right and what is wrong.

So, there are some cases of some sadhus, you know, who speak foul words and who slap their followers, kick their followers. And people think, yeh Maharaj Ji ke krupa hai yeh. Now, see, when we hear it, we are laughing at it.

We find it outrageous, absurd. But what happens is, if that's the culture they have grown up in, then this is what it is. So, that's why Prabhupada focused on philosophical education.

Philosophy is not just the nature of ultimate reality. But it's also like a, it's a intellectual compass for us to understand what is right and what is wrong. So, now we can say, is the idea of character something just, you don't need philosophy to understand it.

Yes, you can say that character is perceivable without any philosophy also. That's basic human character. But almost in every religious tradition, it happens that those who are considered religious authorities are often thought of as above criticism.

And like in Islam, there are anti-blasphemy laws. So, that blasphemy is, they say against Quran. But from that Quran it becomes to be, anybody criticizes a Muslim also, you are blaspheming me and you are blaspheming Allah by that.

You are blaspheming the Quran by that. So, in general, it can happen that a blind faith can deaden people's morality and rationality. And then they start accepting what they would not accept in a normal person.

And when they are normally intelligent, what they would not accept, they start accepting. And that's when it becomes a big problem. So, yeah, I think if people get philosophical education or at least they are consulting with people who have philosophical education, then what is right and what is wrong, they can discern it better.

Thank you. Thank you so much for answering us. And you have told that when we go in the same direction, then we should accept it.

And when it goes other direction, then we should not accept it. So, just like people say, just like Rupa is addressing that we cannot go to moon by our scientific approach. But now we are seeing that scientists go to moon.

So, their sastric point of view is going one direction and our protection, arman, is going in another direction. So, that means we should not accept it or we should not accept it. Okay.

Yeah, this is a good example. Yeah, I will explain this to you. I have, I will answer this briefly.

I have on my YouTube channel, there is an elaborate answer to this question. And how to understand Prabhupada's statements about the moon. So, see, Prabhupada has made many different statements about the moon.

One is they didn't go to the moon. The second is they went somewhere else. One is they went but they were diverted.

The second is they went but they just got back some dust. What was the value of it? Fourth is that, what he says in the introduction to Bhagavad Gita, that if there is so much effort that is put for going to the moon, for then why not put some effort for raising your consciousness. So, Prabhupada has made many different statements about it.

And Prabhupada's point was that the moon is Svargaloka. It is a higher planetary system. So, we cannot go to there by physical means.

Now, Prabhupada, is that absolute statement? Now, Prabhupada made these statements when the moon mission came up. That was 1969. Prabhupada wrote the Isopanishad long before that.

Prabhupada wrote the Isopanishad as a series of articles in the Back to Godhead magazine which he was publishing in 1944. And then later it was compiled as a book. So, there he says in the Isopanishad purport that there are three ways to go to higher planets.

One is by transmigration. You worship the particular devata, go to that planet. Second is by mystic powers, like yogis can go there.

And third is by spacecrafts. So, mystic, the devata worship is yantra devata devan, that's straight forward. The mystic powers like Durvasamuni goes to Brahmaloka and other places.

Now, spacecrafts, there are examples of Dasuras attacking heavens. Dasuras don't have punya. But they attack and they reach heaven.

They overpower heaven at times. Now, Arjuna goes in a self-same body to the heavens and Mahadasa and Artham. He sits on the throne of Indra, along with Indra.

So, reality is much more complex than what we think it is. And Prabhupada's statements themselves are much more complex than what we think they are. So, somehow within his Kaun, this one statement has become emphasized.

But this is not the only statement that Prabhupada made. When our own Acharya has made multiple statements, why should we emphasize one and consider the only when you accept the statement you are faithful to Prabhupada. So, what does it mean? So, my understanding is, so, my understanding of this is that Prabhupada was not, Prabhupada did not start the International Society for debunking the munja.

It was the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Now, at that particular time, people were so, the promise of science and technology was so great. The space race was going on between Europe, between America and Soviet Russia.

So, it was like that we went to the moon. That means humanity has achieved something so spectacular. People were super excited by it.

And the 1960s was the time when the Time magazine had written that God is dead. Then Pratik Nisha said that long ago. But they had made it a popular self-centred.

So, the idea that science and technology will replace God and there is no need for God. That was very very prominent at that time. Now, today that is not the case.

People may be excited whether we go to the moon or whether we go to the Mars or wherever. But that is not affecting or even challenging people's faith in God. In one sense, today people turn towards God.

When tomorrow we talk of experience, people are turning towards God not because they got some rational evidence for the existence of God. It is more because there is an experiential transformation. They experience peace, they experience sense of purpose.

So, the moon mission is not an obstacle today for people to have faith in God, for people to commit to bhakti. So, at that time it was an obstacle. Now, today criticizing it is the obstacle.

So, deshakaal pathra is important. So, now how do we understand Prabhupada's statements? One understanding is that just like the earth, if we go to Vrindavan, we understand Vrindavan. There is the Vrindavan that we perceive with our senses and there is Vrindavan which we perceive when we are purified.

So, like that there is a concept of adhikar and the concept of adhikar means that in swarga, it is chandra is a physically visible structure, place, object. But it is not only that. It is described that in the yagyas, even the devatas would come to the earth.

Sometimes yagyas would come to the earth but devatas would not be seen. Just that the sacrifice is completed without any interruption. That itself indicates that the devatas have come and accepted the sacrifice.

Sometimes they are extremely pleased they become visible. So, that means even if we go to the physical location called swarga, called chandra loka, we are not really accessing that. So, there is like if you have a computer system where there is a clerk working on the computer and there is a CEO working on the computer.

The clerk may have access to only a particular level of files. The CEO may have access to the whole set of files. So, it depends on the adhikar.

So, like that even if we get the adhikar to physically go to chandra, that does not mean that we are actually accessing chandra loka. So, Prabhupada's statements are made in a particular context and especially when Prabhupada has made multiple statements on a particular issue. There is no need to absolutize one statement and then consider acceptance of that statement as the test of faith.

So, I have explained this briefly. If you want Prabhupada's statements on the moon mission, you can go on my YouTube channel Chaitanya Charan. I have given, there is a powerpoint with the various kinds of statements which Prabhupada has made at different times.

And whatever I explain, I explain in more detail over there. Thank you. Yes.

Come to you. Very interesting. So, you mentioned about outreach.

What is the goal behind it? What should be the goal for a devotee behind outreach of sharing krishna bhakti? Sometimes, you mentioned devotees, you know, one may feel like sharing krishna with many people. And he may not get engaged in cultivating them or, you know, training them and spending time with them for years. But he just wants to let people know about krishna, like making movies or other things.

So, there are two different kinds of outreach, where a cultivation happens and where no cultivation happens, just connection happens. So, just like you mentioned, you know, how we are making people aware of the culture. So, do you think a devotee should consider that kind of outreach valuable? Which kind of outreach is more valuable to the society and what, how do we measure the success of our outreach is the final question.

Okay. Okay. How do we measure the success of our outreach? I think let's look at the seven purposes of ISKCON.

That should have Prabhupada had. The first is very broad. To correct the imbalance between material and spiritual values of society and to systematically spread spiritual knowledge.

Have any of you had a class on seven purposes of ISKCON in time? Are you aware of the seven purposes of ISKCON? Broadly might be aware. Okay. So, the idea is that the first purpose is a very broad purpose.

When later on Prabhupada talks about to erect a place of worship for Krishna, to bring all people closer to each other and closer to Krishna, the prime entity, to distribute literature. So, there are many different purposes given. And in general, if we consider that Prabhupada started the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

So, we can call this like a mega umbrella. Now within that different preachers take up different umbrellas. Now some umbrellas may actually almost be at the opposite extremes.

So, for example, Prabhupada wanted simple living, high thinking. He said let's start our own farms. We raise our own crops and we take care of cows and we have our own milk.

Devotees are working to make that a reality. But then Prabhupada also asked what is the best place for a temple? And Prabhupada said temple is like a spiritual hospital. So, a hospital, what is the best place? Where there are the most patients.

Since cities are most infected by Rajas and Tamas, that's why cities are the best places. So, we could say one aspect of Prabhupada's mission is farm communities. The other is city temples.

So, both of them are valid, but they are almost opposite. The emphasis is going to be almost entirely opposite. If you are going to have temples in the cities, then we are going to use modern technology, we are going to use modern amenities and we will have to adjust.

So, we have farm communities. Now, if you consider, another is Prabhupada often talked about how modern education system is like a spiritual slaughterhouse. And he said we should have our own educational systems, we should have our own gurukuls.

But then Prabhupada would love to talk with scholars. If some devotees would bring some scholars to talk with him, he would spend time with them, talk with them. Why? If the education system is a slaughterhouse system, then the scholars are basically the chief slaughterers.

Isn't it? Why give them any special respect? Why spend time with them? No, within that particular educational system, they have worked hard, they have talent. That's how they are risen to a particular level. And they have influence in society.

So, one vision is that we create an alternative society. We create an alternative education, we create an alternative place of staying. The other is we penetrate into the mainstream society.

And through that we reach people. So, there are many different visions of outreach. And some may be almost opposite.

So, generally when we are introduced to bhakti, we are introduced to bhakti by particular teachers who have particular visions. So, for example, most of us are introduced through youth outreach. So, youth outreach has a particular emphasis, a particular mood, a particular method which is fine.

So, generally it is best to follow whatever we are told. We don't generally become inspired by Krishna abstractly. We become inspired by Krishna by associating with those who are inspired by Krishna.

So, often their inspiration becomes our inspiration. And naturally therefore, we feel inspired to assist them in their mission. Their mission is within Prabhupada's mission.

But as our movement will spread, there will be different kinds of outreach required. And some forms of outreach will have more immediate effects. Some will have more gradual effects.

So, over a period of time, say a devotee who spends 5 years, 10 years, 20 years in bhakti, they may feel inspired that these are the kind of talents I have. And this is the kind of service I want to do. And if they feel inspired to do like that, then that's perfectly fine.

So, they may take up some other umbrella. So, now you cannot have the same definition of success for various kinds of outreach. I will talk about one more last principle over here and we will continue this tomorrow.

See, there are insiders and there are outsiders. I am specifically using this word and not devotees and non-devotees. Because, you know, ISKCON does not have a monopoly on devotion.

There can be many other people from other traditions who may also be devotees. So, we can say we have insiders who are teachers and we have insiders who are students. And there are outsiders who can be teachers in their own way.

And there can be outsiders who are students. So, we can have four different forms of communication. So, this is what we call normally as preaching.

So, during Prabhupada's time this was all that was happening. Insiders who became experts, they were preaching to outsiders. But by the 1970s and by 1980s, we started seeing that our movement had become like a revolving door.

Lots of people were coming in and lots of people were going out. So, people were not staying on. That's when we started this.

This is more of education. This is more, you could call this preaching is also education, but this is more like spiritual education. This is more scriptural education.

So, Bhakti Shastri, Bhakti Vaibhav, all these serious scriptural teaching. Now, if there is scriptural education happening, by that there are no devotees being made. People are already devotees.

And they are being taken further. So, if somebody devotes their life to teaching Shastra to those who are already insiders, how are you going to quantify their teaching? Isn't it? So, people are mostly already initiated. People are already 16th rounders.

So, is it that after conducting Bhakti Shastri course a person becomes, starts sending more rounds? It's going to be very difficult to quantify. But this is very very important. Otherwise, what was happening is that the Krishna Consciousness Movement was becoming like a college where the junior KG student and the PhD student, all of them have to attend the same class.

And not just once, for the rest of their life everybody attend the same class. You know, it is just, for people who are at the PhD level, it will become suffocating for them. It will become frustrating.

You know, I need something more. So, the idea is that the systematic education is required. So, the parameter for success for the insider to outsider and the parameter for success for insider to insider, that will be very different.

Isn't it? Now, we could say, there is one more, I won't go into all of it now, that there is outsider to outsider. This is what determines our reputation. Let me say, if you have a center over here.

Now, there are people staying in the neighborhood. And somebody else is passing by and they join the neighborhood. They ask their neighbors, you know, okay, what do you think about this conduct? Now, that is determining our reputation.

Now, we may say, oh, these outside people are also in maya, they are all in maya, we don't care for them. No, but they have influence. And among them, some people are more influential than others.

So, now sometimes we may choose to sort of, we place ourselves in this role. We place ourselves in this role so that we can influence people who may not necessarily come to our temples directly. What does that mean? That means, devotees may enter into academia.

And if somebody, if a devotee gets an academic PhD, they cannot teach Bhagavad Gita as it is in a mainstream university. They will have to fulfill the purposes of that university. That means, what they teach will be somewhat limited.

If somebody decides to make movies. Now, movies are primarily for entertainment. Along with entertainment, some values and some other things can be given.

Then they will have to focus on that. Now, can they be satisfied by that? It depends. Some people may be more satisfied by that and they can do that.

So, we cannot evaluate the success of say a devotee who makes a movie by the same parameter by which say a devotee who teaches Bhakti Shastra. Or a devotee who cultivates and makes people into devotees. So, there will be different parameters of success.

And this is the last point I will make. The parameters of success, how do you decide? I would say, for success, there are internal parameters and there are external parameters. So, internal is, is that devotee feeling contentment that I am doing something valuable.

I am doing something that is justice to my God given talents. I am doing something of value to Krishna. And the external is a contribution.

So, contribution could be, somebody makes movies, okay, how many views the movies get, how much revenues are earned from it. There will be appropriate parameters for that. Say, somebody teaching Bhakti Shastri, okay, so, how many courses did you conduct, how many students joined for the courses, how much was the marks of the student in the courses.

So, there will be different kinds of parameters for that. So, there will be, this will be more measurable. This will be more non-measurable.

At least not objectively measurable. But outreach can happen in many many different ways. And I was at a interfaith conference in Washington DC and there was this Christian pastor, they were openly speaking this, that they were saying that, you know, right now, there is like a reverse missionary effect in America.

Like I said, Catholics, they don't have, they still insist that the main priest in the church should be a monk. And they are not getting monks in people in the west to become monks. So, when I had gone to America for the first time, I told, so, the devotee in America asked me, okay, where do you come from? So, I said, we are in Pune and Mumbai, we have about 150 Brahmacharis in each place.

So, he said, we don't have 150 Brahmacharis in North America and South America combined together. So, what is happening that in churches in America, they are actually having Indians and Africans become priests over there. Why? Because these are the people who are ready to be monks.

So, now, what they are saying is that, in India and Africa, they were doing preaching for a long time. But they realized that initially the preaching was not happening. So, Christians started their preaching in almost 18th century.

But the direct preaching, some people became converted. But it didn't happen. So, their indirect preaching was, they got into convent school, big schools.

They got into establishing hospitals. They got into social service. And through that, they created a very positive reputation.

If you look at the history of Christianity, Christianity has also been very hard line. Like Islam is perceived quite negatively. Although there is always any criticism, Islam comes with immediate criticism, Islamophobia.

But the point is, Christianity has also had its extreme radicals. And Christians have had, you know, people being burnt at the fire, those who are considered deviators. They were burnt at the stake.

And those women who were considered witches were stoned to death. So, horrible things have happened. But the public perception of Christianity, especially in India, is very very positive.

Now, some questionable conversion practices may lead to people thinking negatively about them. But that's a small pocket. So, they built their reputation for centuries.

And now, as per the Catholic Church itself, they say India is the biggest, what is the word they use for it? They use the word harvesting of souls. So, India is the richest field for the harvesting of souls. Because they say China is also there, but China is controlled by a communist government, by a atheist government.

Africa is quite polarized. There are about 40-45%, Muslims are there, 40-45% Christians are there and remaining are native African religions. So, for them to spread further is difficult.

But India is the richest ground for them. So, it's reputation. So, the reputation was built over centuries and then afterwards the impact happened.

So, I think there are many different ways of doing outreach. But one challenge is that if we are following in a particular, within a particular umbrella and then we want to do something different, then we won't get the shade of that umbrella. Till our own umbrella comes up or we join somebody else who has an umbrella.

We feel that I have no shade, I have no shelter over there. So, that could be a problem. We have to navigate that and deal with that.

Okay. So, we will stop here. We will continue tomorrow.

So, how many of you have questions at this stage? So, according to tomorrow I will decide how long to take the class of 1, 2, 3. So, I will speak about Bhaktivinoda Thakur briefly. Then we will talk about experience. And then we will have question answers tomorrow morning.

Thank you very much.