Maintaining standards while cultivating sensitivity

[Bhagavatam class at Hillsborough, USA]

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
judgemental becoming judgemental so I’ll take this in three points three parts first is we look at the dynamic tension that is there in every tradition between fidelity and fluidity it is faithfulness and change then I’ll talk about the specific application with respect to relating with people And third I’ll talk about some practises that can be used.
Sometimes we have the idea that a tradition is something which is like a like a parcel which has been passed down generation after generation after generation. And we get that idea also because there is the idea that the Shuka Mukkad Amrut Dravya Samyitam that the tradition is like a the fruit of spiritual knowledge of Vedic knowledge which is given the Bhagavatam is like a fruit that is passed down from the spiritual master to disciple to disciple like that it goes on. And that is definitely true.
But when the fruit is passed down it is not that the fruit always has the same packaging. That in every generation the same message has to be presented in appropriate ways. And we see this substantially especially in our tradition in the difference between the way Gaudiya Vaishnavism was before Bhaktivinoda Thakur and the way he presented it.
But before that let’s understand this principle that when we say tradition, tradition is not just one unchanging object that is passed down. And certainly spiritual knowledge itself it has a core substance the score which is unchanging and the periphery which has to keep changing. So at a very simple level the Vedic scriptures are written in Sanskrit.
The Gaudiya Vaishnav tradition is in Bengali. Although Gaudiya Vaishnavism is considered to be the culmination of the teaching of Vedanta so there’s a clear difference in form. And we see that when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu went all over South India especially or even North India to speak with different people.
Say for example in Udupi he meets with the Madhava Brahmanas over there. Now in the Madhava Brahmanas obviously Chaitanya Charitamruta was written in Bengali. The Madhava Brahmanas did not know Bengali.
They would know the local language. They would know Sanskrit. So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu most probably had the discussions in Sanskrit.
But what is depicted there is in Bengali. So because the author has great insights in translation nothing is… in translation the essence is preserved. But still the form cannot be the same.
So for that matter Sridhar Swami in his Bhagavatam commentary explains that even the Ramayana and the Mahabharata they themselves are not necessarily literal depictions of everything that happened. So it is not necessary. The Ramayana and Mahabharata is poetry.
Ramayana especially is… Valmiki Muni has called it Adi Kavi. So now it is not that all the characters in the Ramayana whenever they spoke they always spoke in poetry. It is not that when they are about to fight in war at that time before shooting arrows they are speaking poetry at that time.
It’s not necessarily like that. It is a poetic composition. Valmiki, Vyasadev, these are all great sages who preserve the essence.
But it is always adaptation of the literary form. And so the point here is that when we talk about tradition it is not that there is everything which is unchanging. Even the text themselves are not necessarily exact replica of the actual events.
The essence is always preserved. Srila Prabhupada talks about this as the difference between principles and details. So now when we consider tradition there are two forces.
There is fidelity and there is fluidity or flexibility. So fidelity is what connects the tradition to the past. Fluidity is what connects the tradition to the present.
Now if there is an overemphasis on fidelity then the tradition becomes a museum exhibit. People just don’t find it relevant. People can’t understand.
People can’t connect it. There are so many religions in the world which were there in the past and they are just in history books now. Maybe some museum exhibits are there.
That’s all. So if a tradition doesn’t adapt itself, for example, if Srila Prabhupada had come to America and had insisted that Vedic scriptures are in Sanskrit so I’ll speak only in Sanskrit. Who would have understood? So the change of form was essential.
So if there is an overemphasis on fidelity then there is disconnection with the current generation, the current audience and then it becomes simply a piece in the museum. On the other hand if there is an overemphasis on fluidity then the tradition becomes simply the part of the current culture and there is no connection with the past. So there has to be this balance between flexibility and fluidity.
Sorry, fidelity and fluidity and this balance is what enables the tradition to remain traditional and at the same time be contemporary. I mean whatever generation it is. So Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur was the first of our Acharyas who actually presented Gaudiya Vaishnavism into the modern world.
So the age of what we call as the modern age that began from 18th century and actually it began soon after the scientific revolution which came in the 16th, 17th centuries but it came to India prominently in the 18th and 19th centuries and prior to that Gaudiya Vaishnavism had been quite insular. Insular means that it was practised by people who were caste Brahmins who were the priests. They would initiate and people would get initiated and people would chant and practise but there was no dialogue with the modern people.
So many people thought that this Gaudiya Vaishnavism is just sentimental. These people sing and dance and they don’t do anything. So Bhaktivinod Thakur, he actually wrote books where for example, Tattvavek is a book where he brings Gaudiya Vaishnavism in dialogue with Western philosophers.
This is what Western philosophers is. This is what we are saying. This is what he used the format of novels like Jaiva Dharma is a novel wherein he used that format to present that message in contemporary terms.
So his emphasis was much more on bringing things in dialogue. Prior to that it was mostly whoever were in the tradition were practising it and those outside the tradition, those modernity were thinking this is just a sentimental thing. So as a result of his presentation, the substantial changes that happened.
That is that he stressed more on publication of magazines, of books and distribution. So Bhaktivinod Thakur was not a sannyasi. So he couldn’t travel so much and preach.
So he actually cultivated people primarily through his writings. So regularly he would write magazines and through those magazines and through the which later he made into books. He was cultivating a lot of people by that.
So this kind of magazine circulation itself is very different from the traditional way. Traditionally every village or every town would have its own sadhus and those people would speak and people would learn from them. So the significant shift from the oral tradition to the written tradition was started by Bhaktivinod Thakur.
Now of course there was a written tradition earlier also, but in the past books were primarily for scholars. Books were written by scholars for scholars. So because in the past books were also not very easily available.
You had to actually handwrite them on paper leaves and replicate them. So the printing press in many ways was a revolution that democratised knowledge and after that the idea of in the past idea was of knowledge dissemination was more through hearing than through reading. So the idea of reading for learning that came about and Bhaktivinod Thakur adapted.
So and he was enormously successful and Bhaktivinod Thakur and Shila Prabhupada they continued that. Bhaktivinod Thakur practically gave only two instructions to Prabhupada. One was preach in the West and print books.
So a substantial shift from the oral tradition to the written tradition that happened during Bhaktivinod Thakur’s times. So now if we see there were Bhaktivinod Thakur wrote a book called Krishna Samhita where he tried to reconcile scientific understanding with scriptural understanding especially with respect to cosmological and chronological aspects of the Bhagavatam. How to make sense of the cosmos description, how to make sense of the time scales.
So now his book was severely criticised by the traditional scholars and they just didn’t understand what he was trying to do. So this tension between modernity and tradition that is always there. At the same time of Bhaktivinod Thakur.
So Bhaktivinod Thakur was connecting with the contemporary people. But there was others also who were considered themselves very traditionalists. They said we are just following simply Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
When they were following Chaitanya Mahaprabhu they would discuss esoteric pastimes and they were what Bhaktivinod Thakur classified as Appasampradayas. They were simply literally imitating the pastimes of Krishna and Gopis. So externally it might appear actually they were dressing like Krishna, they were dressing like the Gopis.
But actually they were deviating. So deviation can come from the contemporary culture, deviation can also come from the tradition. It is not that everything in the past is wonderful.
Like we see the caste system that is traditional in India. It is traditional but it is not scriptural. And our Acharyas, they did not accept the caste system as it is present, caste by birth.
So we have and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not really insist on taking Arthandas Thakur in the temple. But as the Bhakti movement overall gained momentum, Arthandas Thakur went to such an extent that although he was a non-Brahmana, he actually initiated Brahmanas. It is interesting that the Goswamis, especially Rupa and Sanatan, they never initiated anyone.
The only disciple of Rupa Goswami is Jiva Goswami. And Jiva Goswami also had mostly Shiksha disciples. Jiva Goswami had students, he had disciples.
But the point was Rupa and Sanatan, because they had converted to Islam, so they were considered fallen. Although Chaitanya Mahaprabhu elevated them, but still they were aware of the social stigma at those times. And that is why they did not provoke people by initiating.
They wrote books and they had Jiva Goswami initiate. So and then of course, then Jiva Goswami of Vrindavan, then they came back to Bengal, we had Srinivasa Acharya and Arthandas Thakur and Shaman Pandit. They initiated.
And in fact, we see that the point I am making is that the same thing, how to deal with the traditional caste system. There are different approaches. Narottam Das Thakur had a different approach.
He openly initiated, because by that time things were more receptive, things were changing. So the form can and needs to change and the substance needs to remain the same. This is in principle.
Srila Prabhupada himself, as I said, that he gave Brahman Diksha to women. He gave, in fact, the very fact that he gave Diksha to non-Indians, those people not born in Aryavarta and he may give not the Diksha, Brahman Diksha. He said that they can become preachers.
Prabhupada is also actually quite dynamic and resourceful in his presentation of Krishnamukhi. So there is the danger of going off track, which can come from the contemporary things, it can also come from the past. So there has to be the Radhami buddhi yogam tam yena mam upayantate.
Krishna gives the intelligence by which we can move forwards. Now this is with respect to the principle. Now with respect to specific contemporary culture, in every culture there are certain things which are very sensitive for the people over there.
The Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, when he stayed in Varanasi, he stayed at the house of Chandrashekhar Acharya, but every day he would go for prasad to the house of Tapanishad. Now imagine a sannyasi staying in somebody’s house but doesn’t take prasad at their house. It may look very odd, but Chandrashekhar Acharya was not a Brahmana, was not born in the Brahmana family and that time the idea was that sannyasis should take prasad only in Brahmanas’ houses.
So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, especially in Varanasi, throughout also, but especially in Varanasi, he deferred to that tradition because in Varanasi, in the Mayavada sannyasa, you don’t even know basic culture. You don’t even know what is Shuchi, Muchi, what will you talk Vedanta. So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was so open, so radical about, so openly radical about form that he even took sannyas from Mayavadi sampradaya, just so that he would have respectability by which he could present Gaudiya Vaishnavism in a respectable way.
So every culture has some of its, some things are like sore spots for it, some things are sensitivities for it and we need to be aware of that and we need to adjust our presentation in a way that doesn’t unnecessarily provoke people. So sometimes we say that, we give the example that, you know, as you know, the spiritual master’s words are like a knife, a surgeon’s scalpel is meant to cut. It’s meant to cut, that is true, but at the same time there are many qualifications.
Now the surgeon has to be qualified. Not everybody is qualified to be a surgeon and a surgeon cannot just operate anyone. First of all the subject has to consent, the patient has to consent.
Then also there is painkiller that is given, anaesthesia that is given before the medicine, there’s painkiller that is given after the before the surgery, after the surgery. So sometimes we just take that, you know, people have misconceptions and we have to correct those misconceptions and we can just become very insensitive and alienate a lot of people. So we need to be aware of people’s sensitivities and as a surgery means pain has to be caused, but a surgeon’s duty is to cause minimum pain, not just cause indiscriminate pain and rationalise it in the name of I’m doing surgery.
Or simply say, like once I was quite sick and I was in hospital and I had been repeatedly given like blood and injections. So it was whenever you have to take a blood sample or to give an injection, so my whole hand was filled with holes because of that. So then when a nurse came to actually give another injection, almost seven, eight minutes that nurse spent just finding out where to put a pin.
That nurse could very well have said, you know, I have to put a pin. If it hurts, what is your problem? That’s your problem. That’s not my problem.
But the nurse didn’t do that. So if there are some points which hurt people, then we have to be very careful how we present ourselves with it. So it’s not that because there is so many holes, I cannot put the injection.
I have to put the injection. I have to put in a way that it doesn’t hurt. So fidelity is not an excuse for insensitivity.
Saying that I am faithful, I am repeating, that does not give me a licence to speak what hurts people. If I can adjust, it’s not that I have to change things, but maybe I can do things in a way that doesn’t hurt people so much. So there are things in today’s world, today’s world there is, it’s very much, the ethos is very much about equality, about everything.
So everybody has equal rights to do whatever they want. A defining difference between, say, first world countries and third world countries is attitude towards women. In the first world, at least in principle, they said that women are equal to men.
In practise, whether that is true or not, that is still a matter of debate. But in principle, that is like that. In third world countries, the idea is that women are expected to work with women.
Now, how Krishna consciousness is presented in the first world will be different from how it is presented in third world, because the dynamics are different. Vishal Prabhupada had women doing deity worship in America, but he told, especially in Vrindavan, that even there people didn’t expect women to do deity worship on the altar. So he said that let’s not have women over there.
So sometimes some things need to be adjusted. So we need to be aware of the cultural sensitivities of people and adaptation of form to take care of people’s cultural sensitivity, that is not wrong. At the same time, there are standards which have to be preserved.
So the problem comes not just by our wanting to preserve standards. The problem comes by our attitude towards those who are not up to the standards. We can preserve our holiness without having a holier-than-thou attitude.
That means we may have our standards and we can preserve them, but we don’t have to come off as you are lower, you are useless. I gave a three-part seminar in Brisbane on cultivating non-judgemental attitude. After that one couple came and the Mataji told that she was from a very pious, religious Shakta background, Bengali, and among Shaktas, meat-eating is common.
So she came to a temple and she came to the temple for the first time and there she saw some Mataji doing garlands. So she’s very educated, she’s a PhD or something, but she went there and started making garlands and suddenly some devotee came and asked her, do you eat meat? In front of everyone, she just showed. She just didn’t know what to say.
Do you eat meat? She just nodded her head. That devotee took the garland she was making, picked it up and hurled it on the ground. She said, you cannot even touch the garland that is to be offered to the Lord.
She went and cried, shattered. You know, it is her sincerity and her fortune that she met some other devotees who were more sensitive, more mature, and she tolerated that and then she still came back. Now she’s a wonderful devotee.
So the thing is that, yes, we may say that for the Deities, we have to have particular standards, but then our purpose, the standards are for raising consciousness. They are not for pushing people away from the process for raising consciousness. The purpose is standards.
Standards are there. Okay, I want to rise till here. Standards are meant to inspire us to raise our consciousness.
But the standards can very well become means by which we judge others and we push people away from the whole process by which they can raise their standards. So I was in Texas. I saw a car bumper sticker.
It was probably by some atheist Oh God, please save me from your preachers. So actually, God saves us through his preachers. But if the preachers come up as self-righteous, come as holier than thou, condescending, then what happens? I don’t want to have anything to do with this kind of people.
So there is a tendency that when we follow standards strictly, that there is a tendency to look down at others who don’t follow standards. Now, this is a whole big subject, but I’ll mention it briefly that following standards requires some renunciation. And renunciation can come by the practise of bhakti.
Vasudeva bhagwati bhakti-yoga-prayojita, janeti ashu vairagyam jnanam cheda hetukam, that in practise bhakti, vairagya comes. But actually, renunciation is also one of the six opulences of Krishna, like beauty, strength, knowledge, fame, wealth. Now, just as wealth can come by past good karma, good looks can come by past good karma, similarly for some people renunciation can also come by past good karma.
We will see even in material life, some people, they may not be religious, they may not be spiritual, but still they live a little simple. They are happy that way. Some people even live single throughout their lives.
So, they have detachment. They have no spirituality, instead they have detachment. So, detachment and renunciation can sometimes simply be the result of past good karma.
People have lived in the past in goodness, and now they are detached. Such detachment can be helpful in the practise of bhakti, but that detachment itself is not bhakti, and that detachment need not have come from bhakti. So, ideally speaking, just as wealth, if somebody has wealth, that is a resource they can use in Krishna’s service, but wealth can also take people away from Krishna.
So, similarly renunciation, it is an asset, and those who are renounced, they can have far lesser distractions in their life, and they can practise bhakti in a much more focused way. But, so renunciation can help us undistractedly look up at Krishna, but that same renunciation, that same capacity to follow standards can make us look down at others, become proud. So, say there is Ekadashi, I am fasting nirjala, and then I go to the kitchen and see who all are hitting what.
Attached! Sense gratifier! Hopeless! So, my body is fasting, but my ego is feasting. And such fasting, such critical attitude, judgemental attitude is not going to lead to spiritual advancement. So, the purpose of standards is to help us focus on Krishna, and certainly it is good if somebody fasts on Ekadashi, and whatever level we are at, we can try to come to higher level.
But the point is that whatever standards we have, they are meant to help us focus on Krishna. And for some people, following some standards might be easier than for others, just by past conditioning, past upbringing. So, when we make the following of standards as the primary criteria for judging a devotee’s seriousness, or even judging a seeker’s receptivity, then we may be missing the point.
The central thing is one’s desire to come close to Krishna, one’s attachment to Krishna, one’s attraction to Krishna. If that is there, for some people, coming to certain standards may take a very long time. For others, they may just effortlessly be there, because that’s how they were brought up.
So, therefore, the idea is that we shouldn’t be judgemental towards others. Judgemental means that we don’t think that this is a bad person, or this is like that. Rather than judging people based on how they are practising, we can focus more on the fact that they are going closer to Krishna, they’re coming closer to Krishna, and how we can facilitate them in coming closer, and they’re coming closer to Krishna.
At the same time, a Madhyamadhikari is meant to discriminate. The word discriminate nowadays has a very negative connotation, like racial discrimination, caste discrimination, gender discrimination, like that. But discrimination also means simply the act of differentiating.
So, a Madhyamadhikari differentiates between the Supreme Lord, Ishwara, Adhineshu, Balisheshu, Dushyasuja, Prema, Maitri, Krupa, Upeksha, Yaha, Karoti, Samadhyamaha. So, the Lord is the object of love and devotion for us. The devotees, they are to be made friends into.
The innocent, we try to share Krishna Consciousness with them, and the envious, we keep a distance from them. So, we are meant to differentiate between the way we deal with different people. But at the same time, underlying this differentiation is a commonality, that is the attitude of service.
Even when we keep a distance from the envious, what is the idea? Idea is the envious, the more they hear about Krishna’s glories, the more envious they will become. So, therefore, keep a distance from them. Don’t speak about Krishna’s glories to them, because that will increase their envy.
And then from a distance, we serve them with our prayers. So, the commonality is that we serve everyone, have a service attitude towards everyone. Because we are limited beings, how much whom we can serve, people who are Mayavadis, we might want to help them to come closer to Krishna also.
People who are atheists, we want them to come close to Krishna also. But if they are active proponents of their ideology, then their association may influence us and we may get contaminated. So, we might keep a distance from them.
But throughout it all, with whoever we are dealing, we have a service attitude. So now, when we are discerning and we are saying, okay, this is what is favourable for my bhakti, this is what is not favourable for my bhakti. So, this is not from a judgemental attitude, it is from a discerning attitude.
So, when we use the word judge, basically, if you consider a court, that is where a judge is, the word judge often comes. A judge sits on a higher platform. So, when we judge others, we put ourselves on a higher moral pedestal, high moral pedestal, and then we look down, this is not good, this is not good.
Instead of doing that, we understand that there are, that what is favourable for my bhakti. We consider that this world is like a hospital. Some of us may have a less lethal disease, somebody else may have a more lethal disease.
So, yes, I have to make sure that I don’t get somebody else’s disease. So, I will have to differentiate, okay, what is favourable for me, what is unfavourable for me. But while differentiating, it is not that I have to judge or condemn others.
So, that which is favourable for my treatment, and that which is not favourable for my treatment, avoid that. And I can understand that a hospital may have different units. And in these different units, different kinds of patients may be treated.
And sometimes the procedure for treatment may be different in different units of a hospital. So, that we accommodate. So, now, here, when we talk about differentiating, it is both at an individual level and even at a group level.
Sometimes some people feel that we all should be together. And there should be no differentiation. Yes, that is true.
At the same time, the very nature, the very basic philosophy of ours is that we are all individuals. And we cannot dissolve differences entirely. We are all not just individual, we are irreducibly individual.
That means our individuality is not coming from our body or mind. Ultimately, souls also, we are individuals. So, we see that even amongst Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s immediate followers, we consider there are actually three different, distinct forms of Vaishnavism that developed.
When it was in Vrindavan, it was more scholarly, Sanskrit. The Goswamis wrote in Sanskrit. And basically, the Goswamis in Vrindavan, how many people will understand Bengali over there in Vrindavan? So, they wrote in Sanskrit.
And they did not, in Bengal, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had come once, stayed for two months and gone. So, not in Bengal, in Vrindavan. So, the kind of impact that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had in Bengal, they did not have in Vrindavan.
So, the Goswamis, when they wrote books, they wrote primarily to make Gaudiya Vaishnavism relevant and respectable in Vrindavan. So, they did not write books about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu at all. All their books are about Krishna and the philosophy, the teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
They offer obeisances to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. They pray to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. But the Goswamis, the Rupa Sanatana Jiva and all of them, they did not write a single book in Bengali.
They did not write a single book about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s pastimes. So, why? Because it was, so the Vrajya Vaishnavism, Rajya Gaudiya Vaishnavism was very scholarly, Sanskritic and based, centred on Krishna. The Bengali Vaishnavism, on the other hand, was in Bengal and was centred on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
So, most of the, almost all the biographies of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu were written in Bengali. Some were written in Sanskrit. But the writings of the Bengali Vaishnavas were centred on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu because that was the, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was of course devoted to Krishna.
But still, it was adaptation was there. If you see, even with respect to Kirtan, the way the Odiya Vaishnavas did Kirtan. So, the third part where Gaudiya Vaishnavism was there was Utkal.
Utkal is Orissa. Now, the Chaitanya Mahaprabhu asked the Goswamis to build temples in Vrindavan. But he did not ask the Bengali Vaishnavas to build any temples.
Because Bengal was ruled by Nawab Hussain Shah and at that time, building temples was next to impossible. So, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu just emphasised Hariram Sankirtan over there. So, if we look at the followers of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and in Orissa, there was state sponsorship.
Pratap Rudra himself was the supporter. And everything was done in big scale in public with the support, royal support. So, very different dynamics in each place and things adapted accordingly.
So, the whole system of Varnashram at one level is a system of differentiation. So, the idea of there can be groups without groupism. There will naturally be groups because different people have different mentalities and based on their mentalities, they have different needs.
So, what is important is that there can be differentiation without confrontation, without dispute. How is that possible? The main thing is that there has to be clear understanding of expectations. When there is clear communication by which we understand, this is what we are doing, this is what you are doing.
Once that clear communication takes place, much of the misunderstandings can be avoided. So, after the Pandavas get married to Draupadi, at that time, after they come back to Khandava, which they converted from Khandavaprastha into Indaprastha, at that time, just soon after their marriage, soon after their marriage, Narada Muni comes to meet the Pandavas. The main thing that Narada Muni speaks at that time is that, he tells the story of two demons, Sunda and Upasunda.
They had been given a benediction by Brahma that they would be invincible by anyone except the other person. Sunda could only be killed by Upasunda. Upasunda could only be killed by Sunda and both of them were the best of friends.
They were brothers and best of friends and they just wreaked havoc all over the universe. And the devatas were frustrated and they just went to Brahma. And Brahmaji created an apsara and Tilottama, extremely beautiful.
And as soon as both of them saw Tilottama, so Sunda said, she will be my wife and your sister. So Upasunda said, she will be my wife and your sister. And both of them started fighting.
And fighting, they killed each other. So Narada Muni told the story and he told the Pandavas, you five are united now, but there can be great disunity. And basically the whole talk of Narada Muni and the Pandavas was to create some system by which conflict can be avoided.
And they decided that there will be days when each of them would be with Draupadi. And at that time, when one of them was with Draupadi, nobody else would be there. And we know Arjuna had to go in when he was with Yudhishthira.
And then he took it so seriously that he actually went to the forest for one year in exile. The point is the Pandavas are pure devotees. Draupadi is a pure devotee.
But still, they had to have some clear understanding. Without that clear understanding, even a sage like Narada Muni, he is a sannyasi, he is renunciate, he is coming to householder’s house and he is speaking about something which might seem very private matter. But he sees that this can be a source of conflict and he addresses that.
So therefore, whenever there has to be, we recognise the need for different kinds of presentations of Krishna Bhakti. And standards have to be preserved. Sometimes different standards may be there for different people in different contexts.
So, say for example, if we are going to engineering college and speaking, so at that time, now they are well-educated people. And sometimes if it’s a very good engineering college, good university, people have their pride also. Now, if people are pious who come to a temple, they come to a temple and they’re already ready to do some seva.
But if some people who are very proud of their intelligence, they come to a temple and you cut subjis. Why should I do that? You’re not cutting subji, you have no seriousness, you are ego. Actually, you already have a lot of ego, you should cut more subjis than others.
They’ll just go away. So for one group of people, we may say, oh, they’re doing a lot of services, this is good, they’re advancing. But for another group of people, we may need something entirely different.
They come, we just focus more on having classes, question answers, getting them to meet people who can answer their questions. And they may also do service, but they do a different kind of service at the appropriate time. So we may have standards for one kind of people, which are very helpful.
Standard means, how is the person going, that how much more services they’re doing. But the kind of services one person may be doing may be very different from the kind of services somebody else may do. So there has to be this.
So I talk about two things over here. The one is that, if there are different kinds of presentations, which are needed for different kinds of people, then there has to be mutual understanding of, so that there is no conflict because of overlap. This is what you are doing, this is what we are doing.
And the world is a very big place. The world is a very big place and there are so many souls in this world. So we have to understand that, otherwise, when you start fighting over people, it’s like, you know, there is a patient who is sick and two departments in the hospital are saying, no, he has to come to my department.
He’s saying, I have to come to my department. And the poor patient is sick and suffering and the doctors are fighting, come to my department. The patient says, forget it, I’m going away now.
I’ll go to some other hospital. So if somebody, say, goes to some other unit of the hospital and drags the patient from there to our hospital, why do you need to do that? There are so many patients out there, treat them. So if we keep the ultimate purpose in mind, that ultimately people have to be healed of their materialism, that people have to be brought closer to Krishna, then how to do that specifically, we can find out ways to do that.
So we do need to have standards, but we shouldn’t impose standards on those who are not ready for them. To conclude with one point, when you talk about a ninth offence to the Holy Name, to instruct a faithless person about the glories of the Holy Name. Now one understanding of it is also that we should not instruct people in things that they cannot have faith in.
We know where people are coming from. And so there’s a conversation of Shri Prabhupada where one devotee tells Prabhupada. Prabhupada Ugrasen had some astronomical number of bodyguards.
That’s what is told in the 10th Canto of Bhagavatam. See the scholars start laughing. How could so many people live in Dwarka? How could so many people, where were their living quarters? Where were their toilets? How were they living? Now Prabhupada could have said, no, Krishna can do anything.
But Prabhupada gave a surprisingly non-confrontational answer. He said, among all the thousands of verses in the Bhagavatam, was that the only section he found to speak to the scholars? Was it the only section? We don’t have to speak that. So many other things which can inspire people to come closer to Krishna.
So now for people who are rational, some astronomical figures from the Bhagavatam may be very difficult to accept. So now it is not that we are denying those things, but when we are with people, our focus should be, what can I speak which inspires these people to come closer to Krishna? Our purpose is not just to speak the truth. It is to speak the truth in a way that attracts people to the truth.
Krishna says, They speak satya, but satya in a way is anudvega karam, non-agitating. So, this way, when we recognise this point that whatever it is, standards are there, standards have to be communicated, but standards have to be communicated in a way that inspires people to come closer to Krishna, not makes them go away from Krishna. If we keep this in mind, then we understand that different people are at different levels and from wherever they are, how can I help them to take one step forward? Now, we don’t want somebody who is here to see somebody who is here and think that they are accepted, so I can also go over there.
So, overall the progression should be clear. While we are giving education, we talk about standards, we talk about the levels of bhakti, we talk about the progression. So, in general, in classes, we do need to speak these things at appropriate forums.
But at the same time, at an individual level, we need to help people move from where they are to the next step forward. Sometimes, if we go to some temples, they are on top of hill stations, they are on top of hills, so people have to climb up. And many people just think it’s too difficult to climb up.
If there are buses, they go, otherwise they don’t go to the temple. Or if they come to a temple and you have a step which is like this big, so people literally have to do a high jump to climb up that step. Then most people will say, no, I can’t do it.
So, there might be a, there are smaller steps over there by which they come up. The purpose is to go to the temple. So, similarly, for some people, certain standards may be like a huge jump up and they can’t take it.
So, for them, there might be some smaller steps that are required by which they can enter the temple. So, sometimes, there may be a temple on top of a hill and there will be another temple at the bottom. Those who can’t go to temple, at least come here and take darshan.
So, like that, there may be presentations of Krishna consciousness. Krishna can be made accessible to different people at different levels. And when we do that, then we are able to be accommodating to people and help them to take one step forward from where they are, while also helping people understand that if you are here, that is not the standard for you.
From wherever we are, we should look at what is above us and aspire for that. And that way, all of us, from wherever we are, we can keep moving towards Krishna. So, I’ll summarise.
I spoke today about maintaining standards while also remaining sensitive. And I spoke about how a tradition has two aspects. There is the fidelity which connects it with the past and there is flexibility or fluidity which connects it with the present.
And if it has too much connection with the past, fidelity, then it becomes irrelevant, becomes like a museum piece. If it becomes too much fluidity, then it becomes a part of the current culture and there’s nothing about traditional left about it. So, this balance, it requires intelligence, dhami buddhi yogamtam.
So, we understand that there are principles and there are details. There is essence, core and there is periphery. So, language, especially, as well as other things, they are in the periphery which need to be changed.
So, then I talked about how within our tradition itself, Bhaktivinoda Thakur used the written medium, magazine instead of the oral medium for dissemination of knowledge. He dealt with modern thought systems, which were not dealt with in the past. So, Srila Prabhupada also adapted many things when he presented Krishnamurti.
He used English language. He initiated western people. He gave second initiation to women, like that.
Many things Srila Prabhupada did, which were essential for reaching out to people. And then I talked about, while doing this, I took three different examples. One is of a hospital in which the purpose is to cure people, but because different people have different diseases, so they need to be treated differently and treatment has to be customised accordingly.
And just because we are treating a person, just because we are operating a person, does not give us a licence to cause pain. We have to cause pain, but it has to be minimum pain. So, if people have certain sensitivities, we have to be especially careful while dealing with those sensitivities.
Just as, say, a doctor does not inject in a place where there is already pain, and like that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was sensitive with respect to the caste system. He took food only at the house of brahmanas. He did not force that Haridas Thakur coming to the temple.
But then Arutam Das Thakur initiated brahmanas also, because by that time things had changed. So, according to time and place circumstances, we have to adjust. So, a hospital was one example, cause minimum pain.
Second example was of a judge. Now, we are not meant to look down upon others and jaya others. Our renunciation, our adherence to standards is meant to help us to look up at Krishna, not to look down at others.
So, renunciation is not necessarily a sign of the seriousness of our bhakti. Renunciation is simply, can very well be the result of our past good karma, our past life in sattva guna. So, somebody might have a great sincerity to come closer to Krishna, but they may not be following certain standard at this stage.
So, we accept their sincerity and facilitate them in coming closer to Krishna. And while there can be customised, we can have groups without groupism, by being clear about what the purpose of the various groups are. So, and then just as the Pandavas had a system by which they could interact with Ropadi, like that if there are different groups in the same place, there can be some system by which conflicts can be avoided.
And the essential principle, which will enable us to move on, is to recognise that everybody has to be given facility to take accessible steps towards Krishna. So, some steps will be too big for people and they have to take smaller, smaller steps. And some people, if they are at a higher level, they shouldn’t think that what is lower is the standard.
But those who are at a lower level, shouldn’t be present the highest standard and be discouraged. So, everybody, the principle if we have, that we have a service attitude towards everyone. And service attitude means that based on their situation, we present Krishna consciousness to them.
That we don’t just speak the truth, but we speak the truth in a way that attracts people to the truth, that encourages them to come closer to the truth. In this way, we can follow in our Acharya’s footsteps and make sure that their tradition stays faithful as well as fruitful, fruitful in terms of bearing fruits in this world, in terms of attracting people towards Krishna. So, it is said that the tradition is not like a museum, it is a garden.
Museum means, okay, you had a museum in India, you had a museum in America, just keep everything the same as it is, replicated. But a garden means, is adaptation. In this weather, how will this fruit grow? The Bhakti Lata beach, in this environment, how it will grow? So, we are the gardeners of a garden and we have to ensure that we do the needful so that the fruits that are, the plant, the creeper that are in under our care, they nourish, they are nourished and they grow and blossom and give the fruits of love of God.
Thank you very much. Hare Krishna. There you go.
Any questions or comments? Yes, please. Thanks so much for the talk. It’s like, actually, it’s so much, so many thoughts are coming to our mind and some thoughts I know, I know I need to think more of them.
But, I think you wrote down a list of questions, but the first one, actually, the one, like as a society, when we are, as a society, we have, we have our preaching. So, yes, there are, like, there are, like, too many thoughts. So, I’m not going to say much of them.
But, like, one thing is, okay, okay, the first point. So, Prabhupada actually has established some level of fluidity. So, how can we make sure that, okay, we are going to, let’s say, increase that fluidity as time progresses, but still we are not letting the influence of Kali, actually, degrade the Kali.
So, Prabhupada has established some level of, so Prabhupada has established some level of fluidity. How can we ensure that, that level of fluidity is maintained, but, or it is extended, but we do not have further contamination of Kali coming in. Yeah, actually, there are three different schools of thought right now in our movement, trains of thought, I would say, not schools of thought.
One is that Prabhupada was an Acharya, he made some changes. And because he was an Acharya, he could make changes, he could make adjustments. We cannot make any adjustments.
So, we should just stick to the adjustments that he had made, nothing more. That is one school of thought. The other is, towards the other extreme, that Prabhupada made changes, and following in his spirit, and understanding his teachings, we also need to make changes.
So, the other, this is on one extreme, the other is that Prabhupada made some changes, but Prabhupada also gave standard in his book. So, as ISKCON becomes bigger, ISKCON should actually return to the standard that is given by Prabhupada in his books and roll back even the changes that he made. So, for example, with respect to the women’s issue.
So, the idea is that Prabhupada empowered women in many ways, but he gave a standard in his books. So, some people say that we should go back to that standard. And some people say that Prabhupada empowered women and we should continue empowering women in various ways.
So, now, this is going to be an ongoing discussion. And it’s unlikely that there will be a resolution that satisfies everyone. But the important thing is that we should know that Krishna is bigger than my understanding of Krishna.
Prabhupada is bigger than my understanding of Prabhupada. Therefore, if somebody who has been serving Prabhupada for many years feels inspired to present Prabhupada’s message in a way that I can’t understand, then I shouldn’t judge them. I understand that I can’t appreciate this.
So, this is what one of the very conservative leaders I met recently, he was very critical about certain things, but now he is old age, he is on the verge of leaving his body. So, he said, now I understand that the most important instruction of Prabhupada is that you should cooperate. So, cooperate means we have to understand that different devotees will have different inspirations for practising Krishna Bhakti.
It is very easy to label something as a deviation. And we have to be careful that we don’t offend people. Sometimes we may focus so much on thinking that I am protecting the Siddhanta that we just offend people terribly.
So, we have to avoid that. So, if that means, if we feel that something is like an influence of Kali coming in, then it is best for us to talk with some senior devotees with whom we can get a better understanding. So, yes, some things can be the influence of Kali, but then what is happening? Is the purpose changing? Somebody may suggest, are we using technology? Is it an influence of Kali? Well, it is.
But is it influencing our goals? Or is it simply influencing the process that we are using to go towards the goal? There is Sambandha, Abhidheya and Prayojan. Sambandha is philosophical knowledge about whom we are to form a relationship with. It is philosophical knowledge.
Prayojan, Prema, that is the goal. That is something which is the same. Everybody wants to experience love for God.
But the Abhidheya will be different. The process for fixing the mind on Krishna will be different at different times. So, Prabhupada says in a lecture, one of his lectures on NOD that, you know, I practically invented the Krishna Consciousness Movement.
At other times Prabhupada said, I did not change anything. I did everything just as my spiritual master did. But then the emphasis on book distribution, that was Prabhupada’s.
Bhaktsasana Thakur also had that, but not in such a way. And certainly, Bhaktsasana Thakur did not have unchaperoned women going out for book distribution in public. That would have been unacceptable in Indian culture at that time.
So, Prabhupada had young women going out for distribution also. So, the point is that, so Prabhupada writes over there, what is he saying, invented the Krishna Consciousness Movement. That means, he says that the spiritual master’s responsibility is to find ways and means by which the disciples can fix the mind on Krishna.
So, what will help people to fix the mind on Krishna will vary according to their culture, their background, their situation and that the spiritual teacher has to have the expertise for that. So, now, if instead of fixing the mind on Krishna, people are fixing the mind on something else, that is a problem. So, that is definitely a problem.
So, for example, technology. Through internet, we can actually reach out to so many people. So many people can reach out to Krishna.
At the same time, through internet, there are so many other things which can also be reached out to. So, what we have to see is whether the process is taking us towards the goal. The process in the sense of fixing the mind on Krishna, how specifically it is done.
Now, that is something which will change and which will need to change called time-place circumstances. So, if people are fixing the mind on Krishna, that is good. Now, whether it is if some specific issue is there, which we feel is like an influence of Kali, then we can always consult senior devotees and get clarification from them.
One of the differences between a Kanishta and a Madhyama is Kanishta Adhikaris talk about people. Madhyama Adhikaris talk with people. Talk about people.
Oh, he did like that. She did like that. A speaks to B, B speaks to C, C speaks to D and they are all talking about Z. And nobody goes and talks with Z. So, instead of that, Madhyama Adhikari says, okay, just talk with Z. Now, try to get understanding.
If you don’t get understanding by talking with Z, then maybe talk with somebody else who knows Z well and then try to get understanding. And Z needs to be corrected also. If we don’t have the Adhikara to correct, then we tell somebody senior and they will do the needful.
So, if we keep our purpose clear, that I have come here to be cured and I have come here to help others become cured. So, if I see it that way, then we will get the intelligence to do the needful. If we start thinking of, oh, this is happening here, that is happening there, this is going wrong, that is going wrong, you know, we have to know that Krishna’s movement is very big.
If I want in Krishna’s movement money, I can get so much money. If I want power, I can get a lot of power over people. Spiritual authority has tremendous power over one’s subordinates.
If I want prestige, where else do I go? As soon as I enter into a room, people bow down to me. If I want controversy, I can get a lot of controversy also. And if in Krishna’s movement, I want Krishna, I will get Krishna also.
But in Krishna’s movement, Krishna is not the only thing I will get. So, if we get caught in these things, we will get completely caught. If we keep our purpose clear, I am here to practise Krishna Bhakti, then we will stay focused.
And there are many other things that are happening in Krishna’s movement. In that sense, Krishna’s movement is also Kalpataru, desire fulfilling tree. You want power, you want prestige, you want money, you want controversy? Tathaastu.
You want Krishna? Tathaastu. So, we can see for ourselves that in Krishna’s movement also there are many devotees who are advanced, who are devoted to Krishna and they are actually born closer to Krishna. So, we can also see from our own life that we are going closer towards Krishna.
So, we keep moving towards Krishna and help others to move towards Krishna in a way that we can do. For others, we leave it between them and Krishna. You answer your question? Can we stop here? Yes, thank you very much.