Analyzing Postmodernism – Tough Questions, Real Answers
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
So, is a mother's love for her child also selfish? Because she is caring only for her child, not for any other child. Ultimately all relationships are self-centered. Yes, at one level, we cannot ever be selfish.
In Prahlad Maharaj also he says that enlightenment to understand that real selfishness is in service to Krishna. na te svārtha gatim hi viṣṇu svārtha, svārtha is self-interest. So, we can talk it negatively selfishness, but self-interest.
Our real self-interest is in Krishna. So, there are, I would say, there is selfishness in tamas, in rajas, in sattva and in shuddha sattva. In pure devotion also.
So, selfishness in tamas would be I want everything and I want everyone else to suffer and see how I am enjoying. Say like Hitler wanted to do that. He wanted Germany to be great, Germans to be great.
And he was ready to inflict any pain on others so that he would get that. So, it's like if there is a pie, I am the only one who has the pie. Everybody should starve.
That is selfishness which is destructive towards others. Then there could be selfishness which is in rajas where I want the best. You can also have, but I should be better than you.
I get the biggest piece of the pie, you can also get some. Where we want others to also exist, we don't want to destroy them. But if they come in our way, then we destroy them.
Then in sattva, it is let us all share equally. That is also selfish because if I start encroaching on others part, they will encroach on my parts. So, that is, but let's do all equally.
And in sattva, people may also create systems by which there is equitable sharing. In shuddha sattva, everything is Krishna centered. Ultimately everything belongs to Krishna and it is he who has given it to us.
And let us use it in his service. Now, at one level, love for Krishna is selfish and another level is selfless. At least in sadhana bhakti stage, we practice bhakti because we want to become free from the miseries of this world.
Because we want to get the happiness of Krishna consciousness. So, at one level we could say it is selfish. At another level, especially pure devotees or very dedicated devotees, they are ready to take up even suffering for Krishna's sake.
Prabhupada in old age travelled across the world, taking great difficulties just to serve Krishna. Go peace, they are ready to go to hell just to avoid giving Krishna a headache, just to cure Krishna's headache for even one moment. That is a very exalted level of devotion.
Now, at one level, we can say everything is sattva, rajas, tamas, everything is selfish. But, sometimes we differentiate this is spiritual, this is material. I feel that differentiation is valid, it is not complete.
It is not adequate for analyzing the world, for functioning in the world. For functioning in the world, tamas is very damaging. Sattva is actually very beneficial.
So, for example, if somebody is a sadist, then their pleasure is causing pain to others. And that is very destructive. On the other hand, if a mother's love for a child, even if this is my child, that's okay, you could call it selfish.
But, actually she is taking care of the child. And, in general, in our philosophy, basically if you see, Arjun was in sattva, Krishna took him to shuddha sattva. Parishit Maharaj was in sattva, he was pious, he was devoted, he was living in the world.
And then, he went to shuddha sattva, when he devoted himself to Krishna wholeheartedly. So, because our tradition is often talking about taking people from sattva to shuddha sattva, so often, sattva is minimized, even to the point of sometimes being demonized. Sattva is no good, shuddha sattva is what is required.
That is true from the ultimate perspective. From the perspective of functioning in this world, sattva is very important. Without sattva, there would not be any stability in the world by which to practice shuddha sattva also.
So, we, especially in the western world, where families are crumbling apart, where parents don't care for their children, children don't care for their parents, husband don't care for his wife, wife don't care for husband, society is crumbling. So, some amount of, now, just a man-woman wanting to enjoy together, that is rajas. If they enjoy and then they abort a child, that is tamas.
But a man-woman come together in a responsible, committed relationship, I wouldn't call that as rajas. That would be some rajas and sattva. If they are also practicing dharma, then that is sattva.
And that is, sattva is what maintains things. So, Prabhupada writes in the second chance introduction, not introduction, chapter over there, he says, Mother's, a parent's affection for their children is natural and necessary. In every species, a monkey takes care of its baby monkeys, a cat takes care of the kittens.
And it is natural and necessary, but it is not spiritual. So, our focus often is, it is not spiritual. That's true, it is not spiritual, but it is natural and necessary.
And among all species, it is in human species itself that the human offspring depends on its parents far more than any other species. No offspring generally can survive without some parental care. But humans are helpless for quite a good amount of time.
And that is an arrangement of nature. Nature works under Krishna. So, in a sense, these horizontal relationships between parents and children, between husband and wife, between brothers and sisters, they can be attachments that entangle us.
They can be expressions of selfishness also. At the same time, that is sattvic selfishness, which can create a good foundation of culture, of responsibility, of commitment, that can help people to practice bhakti. So, now we could say that that mother is taking care only of her child, not of somebody else's child.
That's true, and that's selfish, but at least she is taking care of it. So many mothers who abort their child, abandon their child, parents who just don't care, parents walk away from their families, fathers walk away from their families today. So, sattva is required for sustainability, sattva is required for maintenance.
So, that selfishness, which is not only self-centered, I and I alone, but for my maintenance, others also need to be maintained. That selfishness is not, it is not spiritual, but it creates a foundation from which spirituality can be practiced equally. Did I answer your question? Good question.
Some people find peace in anarchy and some people feel that sadness is not a bad thing. That's also anarchy, disorder, chaos, no structure at all. So, is sattva required? We can't explain the concept to that person, sattva concept.
Ok, I understand what you are saying. Now, this, what you are expressing is typical of post-modernism. We have modern times and post-modern times.
In pre-modern times, people more or less in East or West accepted scripture as authority, whether it is Bible or Vedas or Quran or whatever. In the modern times, people accepted science as authority. But in the post-modern times, people accept nothing as authority.
It is only their experience. They feel science is a power play, religion of course is seen as power play. So, only my experience.
If this works for me, this is true for me. That works for you, that is true for you. So, the post-modern thought is that there is no universal truth.
And with respect to this, if you see, there is much post-modern architecture. Instead of having symmetry, there are all kinds of strange, unusual angles and very haphazard kind of constructions. And there are people who are fascinated by that also.
At the same time, no matter how post-modern a building may be in its superstructure, you cannot be post-modern in the foundation. The foundation has to be constructed according to strict engineering principles. Of course, the superstructure also has to be.
But the point is, the superstructure might appear anarchic. But the foundation cannot be anarchic. The foundation is anarchic because the building itself will collapse.
So, when people talk about anarchy or disorder, the whole point is that people have not seen systems that work very well. Or they have seen systems being abused, being misused and being abused. Because of which they feel all systems are bad.
I think Winston Churchill said that democracy is a terrible form of government. But it is the best among all the forms of government that we are trying to learn. He didn't say it is a good system.
It's terrible. As far as many of these philosophers who led to the development of post-modern thought, they were extreme pessimists. Albert Camus said that existence is misery.
Therefore, the only philosophical question worth asking is whether to commit suicide today or tomorrow. And his conclusion was don't commit it today. Many of them were very nihilistic.
Friedrich Nietzsche, who said that God is dead, he said that life is so miserable, it is best to never be born. If you are born, it is good to die young. If you live a long life, that is misery.
So they could see that there is distress in the world. And that became their defining reality. Distress is definitely there in the world.
Existentialism is a philosophy that was developed through this, where the idea is that we just try to make the best of existence in this world without considering anything else. How do we live in this world? And that's how the idea comes that distress is also not a bad thing. We have to live with distress.
It is true, we have to live with distress. But even people who are relativists, they cannot be relativists in every field. When they write a book, when they give a speech, they follow the rules of grammar.
Otherwise their message would not be communicated. When they, also relativists, when they drive a car, they follow the rules of traffic. So, it's generally where they say anarchy is with respect to morality.
With respect to functionality, if you see, in India, traffic rules are not followed so strictly. But in the western world, they are very strict about traffic rules. Small infraction and huge fine, even here also.
So, in the western world, when they talk about relativism, it is not practically. They are very insistent that rules need to be followed for practical purposes. But Voltaire, he would talk about atheism.
And whenever he would talk, he would close all the doors of his house. And his idea was that if my servants hear that there is no God, then there is nothing stopping them from robbing me. So, he recognized that at a practical level, morality is required.
So, we cannot have absolute relativism, absolute anarchy at all. At a functional level, hierarchy and order is required. A cop has to pull over.
And the citizen, the driver has to pull over. If there is absolute equality and no hierarchy, no traffic rules would have chaos. Now, with respect to morality, there are two broad things here.
Yes, sometimes morality is imposed on people in a way that is stifling for them. And that's why the idea today is of moral relativism. But even among people who are moral relativists, they don't necessarily accept that everything is relativism.
I was in Seattle. I was giving a talk. One person was making this point about moral relativism.
So, I asked him this question. Is there anything in the world right now going on which is wrong? He said, of course, terrorists are killing innocent people. There are pedophiles who are molesting children.
Women are being accused in the MeToo campaign because of protests for that. He said, there are so many things that are going wrong. So, I said, but the terrorists who kill innocent people, they don't think they are doing wrong.
A pedophile who abuses a child doesn't think that they are doing anything wrong. So, from their perspective, it is not wrong. So, is it wrong or is it not wrong? It's wrong.
So, specifics of what is right and what is wrong may vary. But the principle that there is right and there is wrong, that is not relative. Specific.
You are getting this difference? I understood what you meant. The principle about right and wrong. The principle means that there is something which is right and there is something which is wrong.
What things are right and what things are wrong, that can vary. But that there is something right and something wrong, that is quite an absolute principle. In postmodern circles, you absolutely should not refer to African-American people as the n-word or things like that.
So, there are rules over there also. And these are moral rules basically. This is not right.
Because legally, what is the problem in using a particular word to refer to them? So, we may reject a particular system of morality, but we will create some other system of morality. So, even anarchists are actually not anarchists. Even relativists are not really relativists.
Because relativists, if you have your opinion, I have my opinion. But if somebody has a conservative opinion, relativists are very critical about it. How can you be so dogmatic? How can you be so conservative? So, there is intolerance.
I think there is a book written about the illiberality of liberalism. How liberals are actually not liberal to those who oppose them. Liberals are not liberal to our conservatives.
So, anarchy in principle is not possible as a principle for living. And it is more, as you pointed out, anarchy and hierarchy. Anarchy is more a reaction to hierarchy not working.
But anarchy is not a solution. It is simply a postmortem to dealing with the problem. And sooner or later some kind of structure has to come up.
And that is one reason why religion has resurged across the world. I was in Australia and had a panel discussion with different religious representatives. The topic was, why has God not died till now? So, the idea is that God, mainstream academic doesn't believe in God as a person.
But the concept of God in the religion, sociologists have been thinking that people as they become more scientific, they will give up God. But it has not happened. There are many reasons for this.
One reason of course is that people need some kind of hierarchy in their life. And when science has been more or less rejected, technology has not been rejected, but science as a source of good knowledge is not accepted in today's mainstream world. So then where do people go? People turn towards religion.
And people turn towards fundamentalist religion. As I said, if you see, religious fundamentalism is rising because people want to embrace some authority structure. We need hierarchy, we need authority, we need guidance.
And let's conclude this point that those people who say they find peace in anarchy, that is actually just a way of, I would say, rationalizing the state for which they feel there is no alternative. That they have not seen any hierarchy that works. So just accept anarchy and live on that.
But it's not a sustainable way of living. It's a way which will actually bring down society. In America, now the population of the Caucasians is going down.
In many Caucasian families, the number of dogs is more than the number of children. And the population that is growing is immigrants, Muslims, Indians, Chinese, Asians basically. So that society itself will not be sustained if there is overemphasis on the rejection of hierarchy.
So we need, my understanding, education and training. So that those who get power, there are checks and balances, they don't abuse power. And those who are subordinates, they also don't blindly follow authority.
They also recognize that authorities also need to be evaluated. That's when things will work. Hierarchy is only for functional purposes.
Ultimately, if we grow up, we won't need anyone to take care of us. There is no purpose, we just created a purpose for ourselves. These are all different issues, I would say.
But firstly, that is true that there is ritual and there is spiritual. So people who are ritualists, they emphasize hierarchy a lot. And that's why we can have caste system in India.
We can have different kinds of exploitative power structures that come in different parts of the world. So at a functional level, there is hierarchy. At a fundamental level, there is equality.
So those who are ritualists, they emphasize hierarchy so much, the equality is almost forgotten. But those who are spiritualists, they see the equality as fundamental. And the hierarchy as functional.
In fact, that's a Vidhya Vinaya Sampanne Brahmane Gavi Hastine, Shuncha Yosha Pandita Samadarshine. That Pandit Rishikesh 5.8 says, all people equally. He sees that there is a hierarchy, this is a Brahmana, this is a Chandala.
But they are all souls, in that sense they are all equal. Now, if you turn this around and say there should be no hierarchy. That there should be equality only.
Now, why do we have a longing for equality at all? If you see, take any material parameter. IQ, EQ, physical strength, financial expertise, music, whatever parameter you might use for measuring people's abilities. By no parameter are people equal.
By every parameter we see that people are different. So, when everybody is so undeniably different. Some are better, some are not so good.
Why do we have this longing for equality itself? This postmodernism, relativism uses frames of reference on which it has no rights. Within the relativistic framework, why should there be equality at all? Relativism holds that there is no higher reality, matter is all that exists. And materially everyone is different.
So, our longing for equality itself points to something beyond matter. There must be some aspect of us that is equal. Now, people may say it's our humanity.
But even humanity is not adequate because nowadays there is a lot of awakening of animal rights movements. We have to take care of animals also. Animal liberation is also a slogan like we have women's liberation or African-American liberation like that.
So, now materially there is nothing similar between us and animals. They are very different. So, then our very longing for equality points to our spirituality.
At a material level, there is no reason for us to believe that we should be equal. But still we strongly believe it. It's an unquestioned value that we are all equal.
It's a postmodern value also. But where does it come from? So, nihilistic ideas, say for example, like equality, like justice. Now, if matter were all that exists, justice is not a physical object.
Justice is a metaphysical concept. You could say in nature there is no justice. So, why should there be justice in human society? Why should we long for justice? In nature, it is simply survival of the fittest.
If we were simply creatures of matter, then we would all be driven by the instinct for survival and the fittest would survive. But even one big value for postmodern people is what they call as social justice. That so many people have been discriminated against in the past and now we should correct those wrongs.
But why should we correct them? If we are operating simply by survival of the fittest, then they are not fit. Objectively it's true that women are weaker than men physically. So then, if survival of the fittest is a rule, then men should dominate women.
Why should we consider men to be equal? Why should we consider men and women to be equal? So if you see that what we are driven by at a deeper level, there is our body which does function by the principle of survival of the fittest. But within us there is something higher which wants a higher operating principle. That higher operating principle is sacrifice by the fittest.
When the twin towers were collapsing, the firefighters ran inside to rescue people. Although they knew they might die and many of them died. But they did that and that's not considered a wrong thing.
They considered it a glorious thing to do. So the whole idea for social justice is that those who had power, they should cede power and give it to those who are disempowered. Why should we do that? If we are simply materialistic creatures, if there is nothing higher to life beyond matter, So in that sense, if you see, the postmodern world view is not justifiable with a materialistic world view.
A materialistic world view would go towards hierarchy, not towards anarchy. The strong will dominate the weak. So therefore, there is something higher to life.
And postmodernism is basically a misdirection of that search for the higher. Where we reject the higher and try to create equality at this level itself. We reject the idea of some higher world and then we reject the idea of some spiritual paradise.
And then we try to create a technological paradise or a paradise to social justice in this world. But the very longing for equality, the very longing for freedom, the very longing for justice. These itself have no basis in a nihilistic world view.
Why should it be there at all? So nihilism rejects the foundation from which have grown the values that it wants to champion. So that's why it's self-contradictory. If you go deep into it.
It's like if I say that the next, if I say statement A and statement B. Statement A is the next statement is true. And statement B is the previous statement is false. Now you cannot reconcile the two together.
So the idea is that postmodernism, it states equality is good, justice is good, freedom is good. So that's one statement. But then if you go deeper, it assumes also that there is nothing spiritual, nothing higher.
Then where do we get the idea that equality, justice and freedom are good values? Where do we see them in nature inherently? So postmodernism has serious foundational issues with it. And it's less of a philosophy and more of a reactionary school of thought. So if there could be authority structures which worked, then people would adopt them.
If there were authorities who did not exploit, did not abuse, then people would embrace them. But unfortunately they are not there. And that's why we are having this coming up.
About that there is actually no purpose, but so we have created a subjective purpose for ourselves. Yes, that's possible. And it is not just possible, it's true that we are all created subject to purposes for ourselves.
But why do we need a purpose for ourselves? If again we look at nature itself, animals live simply for eating, sleeping, mating differently. We humans, if we were simply just evolved animals, then why would we want a purpose? Animals don't get existential crisis in their life, what is the meaning of my life? So yes, we may have created a purpose when there is no purpose. But why do we feel the need for a purpose itself? Again if evolution were true, if we were products of evolution alone, then evolution is concerned with survival.
Evolution is not concerned with purpose and meaning. So why do we have a sense that we need a purpose? And that is not just a superficial need, it's a very deep need. There was a Jewish psychologist, psychiatrist, Hector Frankel, who wrote that book Man's Search for Meaning.
It's a classic book. And there he was in Nazi concentration camps and he saw that the people who survived there were not the people who were the fittest. But the people who had the strongest sense of purpose.
There was a scientist who had written some papers. He said, I have to live so that I can pass on the scientific knowledge for humanity. Like that somebody, those who had some purpose they were able to live.
So psychologists are more or less unanimous now in recognizing that deeper than the need for food and sex is humanity's need for purpose. So if there were no purpose, we have need for food and there is food. We have a need for, we feel a need for bonding and there is nature's arrangement for that.
So similarly, if there is a need for purpose, how can we say objective, how can we presume that there will be no purpose at all? Yes, we have created our purposes, but why do we feel the need to create a purpose? And if we feel a need to create a purpose, then how can we presume that there is no purpose at all inherently to the universe? Yes, certain purposes which are dogmatically imposed on society, we may reject them. And it should not be dogmatically imposed. But it's more again the same that I don't want anyone to tell me what is the purpose of my life.
That is okay. But that doesn't mean that there is no purpose to life. I want to create my own purpose.
Okay, you create your own purpose, but why do you feel a need to create that purpose? So, it is purpose that gives meaning to life. And it is a fundamental human need. And therefore, it is at least a reasonable inference.
It's not a irrefutable argument. It's a reasonable inference that because it's such a deep need within us, there could be at least within the universe some way that this need is to be fulfilled. It's curious that Sir Richard Dawkins, he is not a relativist per se.
He is quite dogmatic about his atheism. I have read his God Delusion. God Delusion, yeah, I also read that.
So, now he at one level, one of his strongest arguments is that he says that one of his earlier books was the Blind Watchmaker. So, the earlier idea was that God is like a watchmaker. And he says evolution is a blind watchmaker.
Evolution doesn't have any purpose. So, he says that we are all products of evolution. And evolution is not driven by any purpose.
But he writes the God Delusion, he writes in the foreword of his book that my purpose is, any person who reads this book, if he is a believer before reading the book, he will become an atheist after reading this book. So, if he is simply his genes, and genes are produced by evolution, and evolution has no purpose, why does he have a purpose? So, now he has this curious argument which he says that humans have evolved to transcend the genetic impurity. But why? Why should we do that? Why should we, if we are simply the products of our genes, where in our genes would we get the impurity to go beyond the authority of the genes? So, the idea that atheists are very purposeful in writing their books to propagate atheism.
You know, they say that nature itself is purposeless. So, purpose is something which animates everyone's life. And even Prabhupada would talk about that J. J. Monod, he was a Nobel laureate scientist, and his whole theory was that everything came by chance.
And Prabhupada replied, but his theory didn't come by chance. If everything came by chance, then why is he claiming Nobel Prize for the theory that he wrote? If everything came by chance, his theory also came by chance. Then he should give the Nobel Prize to chance, not take it himself.
So, it's not a coherent position to say that existence has no purpose. What is true is that purpose being dogmatically imposed on people, people being forced to live in particular ways, that is undesirable, that is antithetical to today's mindset. But, just because it is antithetical doesn't mean it is intrinsically false.
Nancy, question? What you are essentially asking is that if we become intellectually convinced about Krishna Bhakti, then would we need to practice rituals to remember Krishna at the time of death? Wouldn't natural connection lead to a natural remembrance, natural absorption? So, yeah, I would say that the word ritual today has quite a negative connotation. I prefer the word practices. There are spiritual practices.
And the idea is that all of us have a head and a heart. But for some people, their heart is what is prominent. They are more, not I would say sentimental in a negative sense, but most people are driven by their emotions.
So, for most people, the head follows the heart. For some people, the heart follows the head. That means they think before they feel.
And for such people, Bhakti can be challenging if they don't have other intellectual people with them. So, when I take darshan of the deities, generally if I recite some verse glorifying Krishna, then I feel some devotional emotion. Just looking at the form doesn't stimulate much devotion.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. So, for those who have a strong intellectual side, then the way to the heart is through the head. Whereas, for most people in the Bhakti path especially, the way to the heart is direct.
So, for them, the head is there and some basic questions are there. Once basic questions are answered, then it's amazing. I sometimes feel, if you read Shastra, read Raghupath's books, every paragraph will raise so many questions.
But so many devotees read this, they say we read it daily, but most of them never get any questions. So, I actually feel surprised. But it's not that they are simplistic.
It's just that for them, for their whole constitutive personality, the head is only a small part of them. But for me, the head is central to who I am. And that's why for them, they had some intellectual reservations to their natural piety.
And when those intellectual reservations were removed, they just started acting on their natural piety, and their natural piety is making them follow the path of spirituality. But for me, and possibly for you also, the intellectual conviction is the fuel for our piety and our spirituality. So, unless we regularly get intellectual nourishment, we can't move forward.
So, for us, that intellectual conviction will lead to the adherence to the practices and to the absorption in the Lord, which is the result of those practices. For most of the devotees, it may not be that. It may just that they practice and as they practice, their devotion awakens and they become absorbed.
So, for us also, there is some amount of association with those who are intensely devoted. That is good. Ideally, if we could find some senior who is both intellectual and devoted, that would be very helpful.
Then our both devotional and intellectual and spiritual needs are taken care of. But yes, for us at least, for intellectuals, you cannot have a path to the heart by passing the head. So, intellectual conviction will be required for spiritual absorption.