The Monk’s Podcast 19 with Deva Madhava Prabhu – Understanding the Western Mind

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So welcome Dev Madhav Prabhu.
Happy to have you with us here. Thank you. So just, you know, I have visited your center in Ann Arbor and it’s a beautiful, beautiful, intimate community that you have created over there.
And especially for people with a more Western or Westernized mind, there are not many places where people can get a, get a sensitive and appealing presentation of bhakti. So maybe you could briefly introduce yourself and how the, how you develop that, how you started that community. And then we could go on to a discussion on how the bhakti tradition can stay relevant based on talking about talking with the Indian mind, American mind, spiritual mind.
The, my experience, I met bhakti practitioners in 2010 and I felt very inspired. I, you know, the divine had conspired to put me in a place in my life where I was really looking for an answer. And so when I came to the books of Srila Prabhupada, I really, I found those answers.
Prabhupada was ready to talk about the questions that everybody else would get upset with me when I asked those questions, nobody else wanted to touch. So after reading his instructions and associating with some devotees for some time, I went and started a place in Ann Arbor on the encouragement of some of the devotees at the Detroit temple. And our initial idea was to be a place for people to come in touch with bhakti for the first time.
This would be a place, as you mentioned, kind of comfortable for Western-oriented mindsets to connect to the tradition, which can sometimes be obscured by tradition and something that seems to be Indian or Hindu, et cetera. Quickly though, what we found and the name of the community, we call the Harmony Collective, we wound up becoming a kind of place for people who are already connected to the movement in some way to take shelter, because they hadn’t felt connected or engaged in the ways they expected in other places in the movement. So it went from being a place of outreach to more in-reach and giving the devotees who had been around for a little while, but didn’t feel encouraged for different reasons in other places to let them feel that inspiration to serve and really give themselves to the mission as they thought they would be able to.
Yeah. So basically, since I started traveling abroad, I started in 2014, before that I was traveling in India. So I just realized how, especially when I came to Australia and then America, that bhakti needs to be customized or to appeal to people and stay, not just appeal, but to even be accessible.
Otherwise, in the initial enthusiasm, we may start off, some people may start off, but they will not be able to sustain themselves. Yeah. And I think that is a challenge for every tradition, how it stays relevant.
So now, Prabhupada, the bhakti tradition started from India, but Prabhupada started our movement in America, Krishna Consciousness Movement, and then he came back to India. So maybe, maybe I could talk about, you know, what I’ve observed about the Indian mind and I’ve experienced, but in general, maybe could you speak some things which you had to tweak or some things about the American mind or in general, the Western mind, because of which certain things needed to be tweaked so that the presentation became accessible and appealing. Well, ironically, one of the things that it really appeals to a Westerner is the mission, you know, American nationalism, which in one sense looks like nationalism from anywhere else, Americans love their country.
And yet they see their country as a vanguard of a bigger idea, which is freedom. And so America is equated with freedom. And so when you’re defending America, you’re defending freedom, this higher principle.
So Americans are very attracted to this idea of serving a higher principle. And most of the people I know that joined the Krishna Consciousness Movement from a Western background, they’re attracted to that idea of a movement of a mission of really doing something for the good of others, and sacrificing that all those things are natural for an American to be allured by. The challenge is that in today’s kind of modern expression of the movement, there’s a very shallow idea of what it means to be a member, basically, you just follow, you know, the basic rules of regulations around not doing any of the forbidden activities, so to speak, you chant rounds, you own a set of Bhagavatam, and you keep them on your shelf.
And you go to the temple on Sunday. And that’s the extent to which you’re really asked to be a part of the mission. And so for a Western person, they want to live a mission based lifestyle, they want to know that they’re really contributing to this higher principle.
But that’s not really the ask anymore at the temple when you go as opposed to 40 years ago, when Srila Prabhupada was present, and there was this, you know, the bar was set very high, that if you’re not contributing to the expansion of the mission, you’re really not even a part of the movement. So we really got back to that messaging at the Harmony, in the Harmony Collective, that’s what we focused on. And we kind of give less attention to the more temple-based experiences like deity worship, and big festivals, etc, etc.
We don’t give so much attention to those things, which are more for a general congregation, and many people from India who are just looking for a comfortable experience, not necessarily a Krishna conscious one, but just something familiar to them when they come to the West, those things appeal to them. But Westerners want to know that they’re a part of the mission still. So we’ve really emphasized that, and it’s worked so far, that at least for the group of devotees that feel comfortable with us.
That’s interesting when you talk about America being a land of liberty. I have seen that in even the, if I read some American newspapers or American magazines, I see that there is, of course, every country has its national spirit. And activism itself is quite big.
I think, among West, in the Western world, activism has seen the biggest in America, in some ways. New Zealand also has seen it quite big, but in general. So even now, the zeal for outreach is there in the movement, but often it is more in insider terms.
Insider terms means, you know, how big a temple we have built, or maybe how many books we are distributed. And sometimes these do not seem to be directly contributing to the welfare of the world. They seem to be contributing only to the expansion of the organization.
Yeah, kind of points on our scorecard. Yeah, point on a scorecard, that’s true. So is this a result of, when you say that the movement is not exactly involved in these things, or that is not highlighted now, so much, is that a result of historical circumstances? So now, if I consider the American media or the American mind, broadly speaking, that there is, within America also, there is political polarization between the left and the right.
So does everyone share that activist mood? Now, what I have seen is mostly people who are left oriented, they come to us, those invited in some alternative yoga, or something like that. People who are more right oriented, they are usually affiliated with the traditional religions of the country. So then if the people who are on the left, they come to us, they may not at all like a very strong authority structure.
Because left means you are a little subversive to authority. Yeah, that’s very true. Yeah, oftentimes I say, what brings westerners to Krishna consciousness is what keeps them from Krishna consciousness, which is that… Sorry, what? What brings a western person to Krishna consciousness is what keeps them from Krishna consciousness.
That’s clever. Can you elaborate? The rebellious element is attractive, right, that I’m going to do something alternative, I’m going to do something that others aren’t doing. But then when, as you pointed out, a natural hierarchy and authority structure within Krishna’s community.
And so when they face that, then that’s also discouraging. So they’ve come, but it’s hard for them to enter into a deep way, really surrendering themselves, especially to an in-person authority. That’s a hard thing for a western person to stomach.
To your points you were speaking about, I had this one thought that ultimately what we’re trying to do is address impersonalism, this tendency to avoid deep relationships with each other. And so on the Indian side, you get the tendency to find escape in the ritual, right, the deity worship and the prayers and the whole ceremony of devotion. And then on the western side, because of the influence of Judeo-Christian thought, impersonalism is expressed by over-glorification of the spiritual master and other personalities who are not in front of you.
Basically the Jesus effect that our real heroes were way, way long ago, thousands of years, and we’re all imperfect in this place. So we just have to kind of tolerate each other, but not develop real substantial deep relationships. And so the impersonalism has its effect on both sides.
I never thought of Jesus, that Jesus factor being a manifestation of impersonalism in a sense that you don’t have to have a deep personal connection with the people immediately around you. That’s right. In some ways that could also explain Prabhupada’s appeal then.
Prabhupada was so high up as compared to everyone else that submitting to his authority was not that difficult. But after Prabhupada departed, then submitting to any other authority became quite difficult. Yes, and increasingly, you’re not Prabhupada, so I don’t have to listen to you, becomes the mood of people in general.
And so this lack of cooperation in the name of Prabhupada, ironically he wanted to see more cooperation, but in his name we justify our lack of cooperation. So then how do we deal with this specifically? So I have seen that in the West, even the devotee community, their relationships are much more horizontal. Say, if I see the spiritual master deals with the disciples in India, it’s much more vertical.
Yes. Often, you know, the disciple will sit on a chair, on the floor, the spiritual master will sit on the chair. But in the West, the spiritual master and disciple, both of them meet, and I first, I had a cultural shock first time when I’d gone to meet one spiritual master and his assistant was in another room.
And normally, so then I needed something, I asked him, we have a copy of this book and he wanted to get the book. So he actually got up from his room and went to his assistant’s room. Normally in India, you just put a ring, a bell or something and call.
And then when he went to the other room, the disciple, the disciple’s assistant continued sitting and was chatting. So then I was completely shocked on seeing that. And then, now neither of them, now the disciple was not being disrespectful and nor did the spiritual master feel affronted by that.
But that was a unforgettable experience for me about how the dynamics vary so much. Yeah. So how do we deal with, you know, giving instructions and following and getting people to follow things if we don’t have a, we don’t want to resort to authority structure? Yeah, I had an experience in Mayapur that I always look back to when remembering how to approach authority with devotees from the West, especially.
We were in a workshop and the workshop was about mediation. So one devotee who, she’s a professional mediator and mediation has a certain etiquette. There’s a kind of procedure to follow.
And so she had taught us that procedure and now we were going to model that with each other. So there was three of us and then one person that was going to watch the mediation happening and kind of critique it and offer adjustments for the people doing the mediation. So I was my, in that group of four people, it was my service to first be the critiquer.
So I was to watch the person mediating and give them adjustments and feedback. And so after the mediation, you know, model, I started offering this, the feedback to the devotee who’d been the mediator and she became very upset. She started getting very angry and she said, who are you to tell me these things? You know, you’re not, and then she referenced the devotee who was leading the workshop.
You’re not Vrajalila, you know, she’s the one who’s supposed to be teaching us and I don’t need you to. And then thankfully the other devotee stepped in and she said, Mataji, he’s supposed to be doing this. She asked, you know, one person to offer feedback.
So that’s all he’s doing. It’s okay. And she’s, you know, you saw her calm down, but she still didn’t really appreciate or accept it.
And so from that, I have a mantra that I tell myself, that leadership should always be approached and never assumed. That each time we go into the role of offering some adjustment for someone or hold any position of responsibility in their life, we have to approach that as though it’s the very first time. And from, in that kind of sensitive space, there’s a chance we won’t upset them.
Still, we might upset them, but we have, we, if we have any kind of entitlement towards our authority, you know, so-called over them, then a Western person smells that right away and they push back against it. So when you say approached, that basically means we, in that particular interaction, we see what their mood is, how receptive they are, and then we present ourselves. So assume means, this is the dynamic of the relationship and we start off with that.
I’m the president, I’m the boss, I’m the husband, I’m the mother, whatever it might be, I’m in charge and you’re supposed, you have to listen to me, that mood of entitlement. And the word entitlement usually has a negative connotation to it. And in the Indian context, they wouldn’t call it entitlement.
They would just call it, they would be considered to be just natural. Hmm. Yeah, I’ve seen it many times where you have an Indian devotee who’s in a position of authority, say temple president or what have you, and they’re approaching a new Westerner, somebody who’s basically a bhakta.
And so they’ll tell them, they’ll give them an instruction, wash the pots or, you know, whatever the instruction might be. And the Western person immediately gets upset. Like, who’s this person who’s telling me what to, I don’t need to listen to this guy.
I don’t have to be here. And the Indian devotees think, I thought you’re here to be of some service and to, you know, you said you wanted to do something for Krishna. So I’m asking you to do so.
There’s, there’s a disconnect as to what the problem is. Hmm. So does this actually interfere with eventually people becoming committed? Because one of the challenges which we have faced, and I haven’t spent any time in the West also that when in India, generally if somebody starts practicing bhakti and they start practicing bhakti seriously, you can assume that they’re going to continue practicing over a period of a long time also, almost lifelong.
But it doesn’t seem to be like that. Even if somebody’s practicing, they may not practice very seriously, or they may not practice it sustainably. In the West, you’re saying? In the West, yeah.
So do we need to just moderate our expectations of what level of commitment people may have during our Western outreach or over a period of time people do become seriously committed? That’s a very perceptive observation in my experience. Oftentimes what people are looking to run away from Maya more than they’re looking to run towards Krishna. And when we come with Krishna consciousness, the religious presentation is very much, okay, you do these things, follow four regular principles, chant these rounds, read this book, and all your problems are now solved.
And the experience that people have is that their problems are not solved. In fact, their problems seem exacerbated in some situations by the practice of Krishna consciousness. And often the guides tell do those activities more then.
That’s right. The only thing that’s wrong is that you’re not doing those things right. So you just need to increase those things and then it will solve your issue.
And then again, it just exacerbates, it gets worse. So the chant and be happy, that’s kind of where that idea comes from. And so we’ve started saying, chant and be honest, that through chanting Hare Krishna and practicing Bhakti, you’ll gain the strength to face the difficult things in your heart.
And it will still be difficult to face those things and your life will still have problems. You’ll have an inner strength though, that comes from the chanting, that comes from the practice, which will allow you to address those things in a healthy way. I remember there’s a young woman and she was sending me a friend request on Facebook.
And because she was a single woman and we didn’t have any friends in common, I don’t accept those friend requests. But then I saw a message from her in my inbox. And it just said one thing, it said, why when I chant Hare Krishna, does it feel like my life is falling apart? And I started laughing.
And I replied back, I said, that means you’re doing it right. And we have a friendship now, she’s begun to practice regularly. She’s over in the UK, she’s over in London, and she regularly hears Bhagavatam now, she attends some of our Harmony Collective online sanghas, etc.
And once she was told that, yeah, it’s actually a good thing that you’re experiencing difficulty in your practice, it means that you’re learning, you know, you’re starting to clean the heart, Cheto, Darpana, Marjanam. It reframed her perspective on what success is and allowed her to feel good about her practice. But when she thought that the practice was just going to, you know, bippity boppity boppity, make everything bad go away, by the wave of the magic wand.
That was disappointing for her until she had that expectation readjusted. So what you’re saying is that if your life is falling apart by chanting, it’s not actually that life is falling apart, it is that already the life is apart, but you’re, you confront it, that’s chanting to be honest. You start realizing.
In the mode of goodness, knowledge comes. So by chanting, we rise toward the mode of goodness. And then you can pursue what is actually happening.
Sorry, just one more important idea to what we’ve been discussing in terms of the institution. Institutionally, it’s very easy to tell somebody just chant Hare Krishna, read Bhagavad Gita, and everything will go well. And the tendency of an Indian is to accept that and want things to look like they’re going well.
So even if they’re not, they’re going to continue to practice and kind of put on a show that it’s working, and I’m chanting and being happy. But internally, they’re experiencing the same difficulties. So as a leader, then it’s easy for me to just pretend that everything is going well.
When internally people are having struggles, and to have those down to earth conversations about what those struggles are, and practically the work that it takes to kind of hold the person’s hand as they walk through those, that takes so much, you can’t do that for 300, 3000 people, if you’re just one person. So in the in the West, at Harmony Collective, our community, we’re only about 30-40 people in total. And amongst those, there’s four or five people who really take responsibility for the relationships and the advancement of everybody else.
And that’s about all we can handle. Because when you’re, when you’re walking somebody through the thick of it, it takes that kind of attention that that you can’t offer to an enormous group. You know, this one point when you mentioned about Indians, sometimes, if Indians already have some structure to their life, they have a family support, social support, a professional stability or whatever, then chanting gives them the strength and the particular challenge or particular wound that we are facing.
If there’s already a supportive structure, then chanting helps us to also access that supportive structure. So but if there is no supportive structure, then chanting alone doesn’t seem to help much. So it may not be that, say, just the, just the increased practice of this increased practices are not solving the problem, they have the problems.
I have seen many devotees who face some anxiety and stress, and they start chanting 64 rounds for a week or a month. And they seem to gain a lot of strength by that. So it can be that it works, but it’s not only that alone that is working.
Yeah, that that’s a certain level of faith that instead of hiding from Krishna, or hiding from Maya, you’re right, you’re going towards Krishna earnestly, that that does work, that is the process. But that to actually have that faith, oftentimes, it’s not there in somebody. And this is another one benefit of Indians in general is that especially when they’ve come to the West, they’re much more materially stable than your average Westerner coming to Krishna consciousness, they have a good job, they have they come from a supportive family, they were top academically in their country.
And that’s what afforded them the opportunity to come to the West. So they’re generally much more put together persons. And so as you’re saying, what then when you add the Krishna element, it can do a lot more a lot more quickly.
But the average Western person’s life is so topsy turvy. And the Krishna conscious experience seems like an easy escape route. And that’s not how it really works.
It’s actually so that you can get yourself stable, and move towards Krishna with a desire to attain him rather than to avoid the difficulties of your material life. Yeah, you could also say that even the difficulties of material life can be of different categories. It is more of a complete disruption of my life.
Or it’s, it could be a sense of incompleteness in my life. If I’m reasonably materially stable, and then I feel that there has to be something more to my life. Then the one when one is approaching Krishna, that approach may be significantly different from, well, my whole life is falling apart.
I need some support. So then, then also one might come seriously. But in so relatively speaking, if one already has material stability, and then they come to Krishna, then they’re coming for Krishna, for Krishna, for Krishna’s sake.
That’s right. Whereas when, when the material disrupted and that time one comes to Krishna, that’s often for just protecting oneself from the consequences of that material disruption. And then again, as soon as that material disruption goes down a little bit, or otherwise, in the devotee community, we experience some disruption.
Then we feel what did I come here for? Yeah, right. It’s the same in here as it is out there. So why bother? That’s interesting.
And so I think that’s also why Prabhupada had this, he recognized and in so many of his purports, he spoke to the idea of needing to approach the higher echelons of Western society, that the kind of the low hanging fruit of those who are kind of disenfranchised and disillusioned by the material energy, they are attracted in the beginning, but they often go away. Whereas someone who’s situated well in their sense of self in the material world, if they can be attracted to Krishna, it’s something that doesn’t leave them, as you pointed out with many Indians who begin practicing. And the same is the case for Westerners from that sphere who begin practicing, but it’s much more difficult to attract them, because the external cultural elements don’t do anything for them.
So this is a good point. I have been talking with several devotees across the world, and almost all of them said that our movement has never really attracted mainstream Western people, people who are already well situated in respectable positions in society. Is that a matter of our presentation? Or is it that unless that people, unless they are looking for some radical alternative, they will not turn toward us? Is it because of something we are doing wrong? Or is it because just where people are, they’re unlikely to explore us? It’s both, certainly.
Again, yeah, they’re unlikely to explore us, because they’re thinking they’re perfect, powerful and happy. You know, they’re well situated in the material world, they’re in one of the best countries and having a position within that country. So there’s less impetus, there’s less suffering.
On our side, though, Tamal Krishnamurthy has a nice quote, he says, the world won’t take you seriously until you take it seriously. So the kind of escapism that has passed as Krishna consciousness so often in the West, that’s not attractive to a person who’s capable in the world. They want to know that they’re going to be allowed to make a difference, as I mentioned at the beginning of the conversation, what Americans are attracted to.
So if you can help, and University of Michigan, we had some success in our outreach there. When we were able to sit and have conversations personally with the young people who are coming, they’re going to a top university in the US, and they have some ambition for changing the world. And when you help them see that the best way to change the world is through Krishna consciousness, then they take it, and they run with it.
And so I know there’s about six devotees now that are from that era of our outreach. But I realized that we weren’t going to be able to impact the whole campus of the University of Michigan and other such places in the infrastructure that showed the value of Krishna consciousness. If we had Gurukuls, if we had farms, if we had economic opportunities for the people of our communities that were real alternatives to the modern industrial situation, which most people recognize is not working, then good thinking people would be coming to us.
But for lack of that, we just have a philosophy and a and it doesn’t really give that intellectual initiative for somebody unless they just have some piety, you know, that and that Krishna connection is felt by them right away. Those are the people that are coming from those strata of society in the Western world right now. Two distinct points you made over here.
First is that people are already comfortable and successful, so they don’t feel the need. And if there are people who want to do something more, they don’t see us as the avenue of doing something more. We say that the material world is Maya and it’s all to be given up.
So let’s look at both of these first. Now, even when people are relatively comfortable and successful, still, if at all, now mental health problems are huge. So even people who are successful are also not necessarily happy, but quite often they may not explore us.
They may go to, they may go to maybe the religion of their birth. Evangelical Christianity is also quite strong in America. In fact, among all the first world countries, America is the most religious.
So Europe seems to be quite atheistic. Australia and New Zealand also not that aggressively atheistic, but still it is, I would say if Europe would be at the bottom, maybe not all of Europe, maybe it’s more like Caucasian Europeans. Islam has also come in quite a big quantity in Europe and they are quite aggressively religious.
That’s a different thing. But if you put Europe, then you could have Oceania, but America is at the top in the hierarchy. So people are quite religious in the sense that are not those who want to be, they are, and I’ve seen that many Christians, they are in respectable positions in society.
They may not be intellectually respected for their Christianity, but there are many mainstream scientists who are Christians. And so in that sense, if people are respectable, people are situated, if they want something more, they are more likely to go toward the religion of their birth rather than come to us. Isn’t it? Sure.
And the second point relates with what you said that we seem to just reject the world and that’s why we don’t attract people. So here, maybe I would like to contrast our outreach with Buddhism. In some ways, we introduce Kirtan to the Western world.
Prabhupada introduced vegetarianism to the Western world and many of these have, they have become quite cool. But somehow in the mainstream Western mind, Buddhism seems to be quite cool to accept, but maybe some forms of yoga, but quite often yoga is also associated more with Buddhism than with the Vedic tradition sometimes in the Western mind. So is there some, even Buddhism has come from the East and we also come from the East.
Buddhism also has this idea of the world being place of distress. So in some cases it is also quite world rejecting. So what do you feel is the main difference? Is it that our philosophy itself is intrinsically unappealing or is it something which, about our presentation? You were mentioning, you’re pointing out Buddhism and its popularity, which I think is a great observation that in the West, there’s this comfort with Buddhism and that comfort, although the present, they do beat us on presentation for sure.
You go to a Buddhist temple and it’s clean, right? You go to your average Hare Krishna temple and it’s very unkempt, let’s say. It’s just very like, not, in general, it’s very hodgepodge even, we can use that word, just not very orderly. What do you mean? Actually, Iskcon temples are relatively considered to be much more cleaner and aesthetically appealing as compared to most Indian temples, at least in India.
So what do you mean by unkempt? Yes, the standard in India and the standard in America is very different in terms of cleanliness and aesthetic. So if you go to your average Iskcon temple on a Sunday and there’s all kinds of posters and all kinds of books and things, you know, people, things running everywhere. People are dressed in all matter of different clothing.
It’s hard to make sense of. But if you go into a Buddhist center, the ones I’ve been to, everything is very clean. There’s very little stuff to begin with.
And what is there is clean and orderly. There’s mats set out. You sit down, it’s very clear.
I’m to sit in one of these places. So it’s understanding, if you’re a brand new person walking in, you kind of have a natural feel for where you belong and what’s going to be happening. So without getting in, because that’s another whole discussion, but I’d rather discuss the principles with you.
Ultimately, what appeals to Buddhism is that there’s no person that you have to surrender to. And in Bhakti philosophy, you can’t get around without, you know, spoiling the actual philosophy without adulterating the presentation. You can’t get around the idea that you’re meant to be surrendering yourself to a person.
God is a person. And in order to connect and serve that person, you have to connect and serve one of his servants, the spiritual master. There’s this emphasis on surrender to people.
And in Buddhism, you’re just surrendering to the void, you know, to the nothingness that we’re all a part of. And so it’s very comfortable from that place because of that lack of personhood. Is it in terms of the emotional aspect of surrender? Or is it in terms of the rules and regulations specifically? Both, both.
You know, Buddhism, what is the philosophy of Buddhism? Nobody can tell you except that ultimately nothing means anything. So in the immediate, I can be doing anything and it’s not a big deal. I can still be eating meat.
I can still be taking intoxication. I can still be sleeping with whoever I want to be sexually. And the same can actually be said for Bhakti, but that’s not the impression that people get.
They get the impression that if you’re hanging out with us, you have to be following these rules. And if you’re not following these rules, you’re wrong and you’re bad and you don’t belong here. So a big challenge in the West and something we’ve done a pretty good job of at Harmony Collective is depressurizing the situation that the real, the real power of Bhakti is the positive.
And if you take up the good habits, then the bad habits, they fade automatically in due course of time. You don’t have to actively, you know, reject them so much as just try to connect more and more to the practice. But again, the religious presentation from the institution, that’s not always how it comes off.
It’s much more so based on these kind of rules and regulations. Externally following them means you’re a good person and not means you’re a bad person. So this is quite thought provoking for me.
The point which you made about not emphasizing the doads, what you should not do, what you should not do. I’ve been reading Buddhism and how Buddhist teachers are presenting. So Buddhism has these three main causes of bondage, they say, or three poisons or three evils.
So it’s translated as ill will or anger. Then there is illusion and there is craving. So craving, ill will and illusion.
Now it’s interesting in the ill will or anger, they talk about how we are destroying the ecology. This is a prominent Buddhist teacher I was reading. He was talking about how we are destroying the ecology, how we are insensitive to other human beings.
It was almost a track against capitalism of how workers are exploited. But an obvious implication of ill will in terms of meat eating, not mentioned at all. So in that sense, it’s a very non-demanding kind of spirituality.
That’s right. That’s right. Although it’s as you’re pointing out, the implications are there for any thinking person.
How can you read that without recognizing that it’s an indictment on so many of your personal habits? But in the West, there’s always this cognitive dissonance. That’s the wonderful element of the West is that you can pretend away the repercussions of your choices. Literally everything we’re eating, wearing, driving, living in, using, is causing suffering for so many other people.
But we whitewash it and we pretend as though those repercussions aren’t there. And Buddhism, especially the way it’s presented, allows for that same kind of cognitive dissonance, that fairy tale of I’m following a spiritual practice, but I’m not responsible for any particular principle. It’s just based on my own inspiration and my own kind of creation of what it means to be faithful.
That’s true. Another point about Buddhism is also that it’s more about, you could say, functional or pragmatic spirituality than philosophical spirituality. That’s right.
Sometimes I just couldn’t, when I talk with Buddhists, I read Buddhist books. First thing that struck me was that it was so unphilosophical. So unphilosophical.
Sorry? No, yeah. I’m just laughing at the way you’re putting it. Yeah.
But the point was for many people, that’s what is appealing. I don’t care about the nature of reality. What I care about is what will add value to my life right now.
Just some stress relief. That’s all they want. Just reduce the swelling, reduce the tension.
Yeah. No, I know. I feel mindfulness can offer something more also.
It can, if you can start thinking more about a deeper purpose for your life. So stress relief is one thing, but still, the point is you’re not thinking about any ultimate reality. So, and in contrast with that, exactly, if you see that there is so much philosophy in our books and in our presentation, but there is practically very little value addition to my life as it is now, which is talked about.
So in that sense, it’s people who are already philosophically interested. They will, they will immediately, they will be those who are looking for philosophical substance. They’ll be quite attracted to bhakti as is presented by us.
But those who are looking more to add value to their life right now, they may not be attracted. Now, in contrast, with respect to Indians, although we have a lot of philosophy, we also have a lot of practices. And those practices add cultural value to the lives of Indians.
I go to get to a temple, I have something with my children can learn, some verses, some shlokas, they learn some culture, especially in the West. Well, the kind of cultural value that our movement adds to an average Indian emigrate’s life in America, that kind of value addition in this world sense is not there for Western people to see. It is there in a sense, but it is not there for them to see.
That’s why it’s more intangible. Sorry? It’s more intangible. Intangible.
And it’s so, now there is pragmatic spirituality. And then there is where there is, there is almost a utilitarian attitude towards spirituality, where, you know, whatever exists out there doesn’t matter. I just care about this world and whether it can help me improve this world, improve myself in this world.
So I call this something like a psychological version of Karmakanda. Karmakanda was the idea that we get material benefits by worshipping God, in terms of, we get a bounty, somebody not having a child, they can have a child, somebody gets agricultural crops or whatever. But here psychological, we get psychological bounty in the sense that my agitation, stress goes down, I feel calmer, maybe I become kinder, I start forgiving more, I learn to tolerate more.
So, in some ways, this, maybe this is an approach we need to take, but then there are also, as we caution that we don’t, we don’t become reduced to a utilitarian kind of spirituality. So what kind of top? Yeah. So yeah, go ahead.
I consider this a lot myself. And I love your, we actually have too much philosophy. We, we have too much to point to in that direction.
And it, it again plays to that impersonal element, that rather than getting into the nitty gritties of people’s lives, and dealing with them in an individual way, we can just point to the philosophy, oh, it’s your karma. For instance, right, instead of somebody’s having a problem in their life, and they want somebody to help them, they say, oh, it’s your karma. So don’t worry about it, just come to the temple, Chanhari Krishna, distribute some of Prabhupada’s books, give a donation, and you’ll be fine.
Now, if we look at the Christians who you pointed to, and you made the, rightly, that that’s the natural kind of traditional spiritual community for a Western person. But also look at what the Christians do to reach out to people. They have hospitals, they have hospices, they run AA meetings, if you get injured severely, they’ll send somebody to your house, just to sit with you and talk, and kind of help you get through the stress of that experience.
They have all these… That doesn’t have an agenda to convert? Of course they do. But people know that they don’t mind because they’re helping them. They’re there to help them.
That’s the first concern. And then, you know, Jesus is kind of brought in later. And if the person accepts, they accept.
And if they don’t, still, they help the person in a very kind of tangible way. So, in our own communities, that’s one thing to consider, is how are we really connecting with people and meeting them in the problems that they’re considering. But another element to that Christian idea of, and what you pointed to, the lack of apparent practicality of Krishna consciousness, is that when you talk to Christians, they have almost no philosophy.
They have nothing to speak about but their own personal experience with Christianity. So, they call it testimony, that they’re testifying about what their life has become, now that they’re practicing Christianity. And in Krishna consciousness, there’s this apprehension that, because I’m not a pure devotee, because I’m still contaminated, I’m still dealing with my anarthas, I can’t share my own experience.
I have to share, you know, I have to talk the philosophy purely. I have to quote Bhagavad Gita. I can only say what Prabhupada says.
And it’s very intangible for the everyday person. So, if we can encourage people who are practicing bhakti to feel empowered, to share what benefits have come to their life from the practice, that’s the easiest way to get the everyday common person to recognize, oh yeah, maybe I can get that same benefit. So, the philosophy is that we want to maintain the backbone being the philosophy, but we also want this element of testimony of the everyday man to be a permissible element of the culture of what it means to share Krishna consciousness.
Fascinating. If you consider the time when Srila Prabhupada was there, at that time also the hippies, most of the people who came to Prabhupada were from the counterculture at that time. So, there was an element of rebellion, there was an element of activism, and he was able to attract people.
So, in some ways, that phase of counterculture is not there, but still that phase of activism is still there, isn’t it? That mood of activism is still there. So, what was it during Prabhupada’s times that the rebellious or the activist mentality, we were able to connect at that time and we’re not able to connect now? Well, in one sense, it’s because at that time the counterculture looked different. Sociologically, the hippie movement was a rejection of the golden era, which was the people right after World War II who enjoyed all this prosperity materially, and then their children said, no, that’s not working, that’s boring, and that’s pointless ultimately.
So, then there became all these attractions to Eastern ideas, but the underlying desire was still personal enjoyment, my own essential happiness. So, that gave way to the hedonism of the 80s. They abandoned spiritual culture and just went all out and you can look at it in the drugs and the music.
If you look at the drugs and the music of the 60s and 70s, it was very like ethereal and soft. The major drug was marijuana and all the music had a very soft tone. But then in the 80s, you have very heavy drugs like cocaine and heroin and methamphetamine, and you have rock and roll music as you know it today, this very loud, banging, almost obnoxious, jarring energy.
And now, after those two extremes of the love didn’t work and hedonism didn’t work, now you have where we’re at today, which is just this general apathy where people are just trying to get by day to day without feeling too harassed. So, any ideal to extreme seems to be unnecessary and dangerous. And they’re looking for something very pragmatic and down to earth.
Okay. I remember when I read George Harrison’s biography by Yoshua Green, Yogeshwar Prabhu. So, he says that initially he appreciated the counterculture and he spoke quite strongly in favor of it.
But actually, when he came to Haight-Ashbury and he saw, he later on regretted having endorsed it. And even Prabhupada said that he wanted to distance our movement, our movement shouldn’t be solely identified with the hippie. So, it seems that that downslide started from the 70s itself.
So, the early 60s was more of idealistic kind of counterculture, but the downside started thereafter. Because all those hippies, they sold out. The same, the hippies, they’re now the CEOs of today’s companies.
So, then your average 30-year-old today looks and sees, well, that whole love thing doesn’t really work. It’s just another ploy for the same exploitation at the end of the day. And that person sold out like they, you know, they’re angry at their parents, but now we’re angry at our parents.
So, again, it comes back to that pragmatism. When you start flaunting very high ideals, it’s the first sign for someone in today’s western culture, it’s the first sign that you’re going to cheat them because you’re hiding behind this high ideal rather than being honest about where you’re at in your own life. So, this testimony is so compelling, whereas philosophy actually raises a red flag that this is just going to be some way to trick me.
Oh, okay. So, then if we also have a lot of lofty ideals then, and that could lead to. So many.
Yeah. So, it’s not just that it is, it’s not just that this is too difficult for me. It is also that I don’t really believe that you are, even you are doing this.
Is it like that? That’s right. Oh, definitely. Because look at the everyday, you know, you meet the average devotee and now you ask what’s different.
In 1975, you could point to Srila Prabhupada and Srila Prabhupada was such a sterling example, such a contrast to the material energy. Not to say that there aren’t pure devotees present today, but Srila Prabhupada, we know, is by Krishna’s grace, an exceptionally bright beacon of spiritual truth. Everybody recognized it in his presence.
And so, we don’t have such a person today to point to. And that’s, you know, that’s not saying something offensive, that’s saying something clear, that there is not a Prabhupada to point to right now. And for lack of that, there’s this hiding behind the philosophy and an unwillingness to speak about where we are as people and as a movement in an honest way.
But the ethic of today, when you talk about millennials and zennials, so basically, or not zennials, millennials and Generation Z, so basically, anybody from age 16 to 35, the young people of today and the leaders of tomorrow, basically, the group that we have the most opportunity to appeal to, the main ethic of theirs is transparency. They don’t really care who you are philosophically, as long as you’re honest. If you’re out in front about what you’re about, that’s what they appreciate.
And then things should line up, who you say you are and what you’re doing, they have to line up perfectly. Even if what you say you are is not something very good from a moral or value based sense, if you’re honest about who you are, that wins you trust from a millennial or from somebody, especially Generation Z, the younger generation. Because for so long, leaders have touted ideals and philosophy and morality as a way to cheat people.
So if the explanation doesn’t meet the experience, that’s the standard of purity today, that the explanation must meet the experience. And if it doesn’t, then that creates mistrust. That also gels with the more horizontal approach rather than the more vertical approach.
Totally. Yeah, totally. I’m just an everyday guy like you.
I’ve been around 40 years. So I have some more wisdom, but frankly, I’m still just struggling like you are. So nobody’s too much more or too much less.
That’s the Western experience. So even if it’s not true, you see that the savvy spiritual leaders, they still accept that idea, because it’s what allows people to trust them and come close enough to recognize, actually, there is something different about this person. They are unique to me.
But before that intimacy is established, being able to recognize it’s not possible. That means we need to first establish some kind of similarity before we establish the dissimilarity. We connect at a human level first.
And then we talk about the various spiritual levels of consciousness and how somebody might get a more evolved level of consciousness. That’s right. Yeah, totally.
You could put another way is that now maybe authenticity comes before authority or authenticity is the source of authority. Excellent. Yeah, I like that a lot.
Going back to what we spoke earlier, right, that authority must be approached by your own honest effort, right? Not that you assume authority or that you are entitled to it. But by your authentic desire to help that person, that creates the authority of you in their life. So do you see this happening, actually, in terms of, there are customizations happening and are we able to reach Western people at least in a small number, in a small but significant number? You mentioned earlier that the Harmony Collective has also become a place for devotees who maybe were not able to connect with the culture of the temple.
So, but are we also able to reach out to younger, newer people? Yeah, somewhere like the Bhakti Center in New York City is a good example of this. They’ve been for a decade and a half now, at least, they’ve been working very hard to crack the nut of New York City young people. And they’ve really tuned into something now.
And there’s a momentum that they’ve developed. And it’s based around this dynamic of close, friendly, honest, interpersonal relationships. The young leaders there, Veerabhadra Ram and Jai Giridhari and others, they’re very affable people.
They’re very ready to get into a heart-to-heart conversation with anybody, whether they’re off the street, or somebody practicing Krishna consciousness for 20 years. And that openness is attractive. That openness is what reassures a Western mind that they’re not going to get cheated by this person.
This person’s not trying to use some power structure to exploit them. So that’s possible. But that work takes a long time.
Again, the Bhakti Center, you might see now that there’s so many young people coming and very enthusiastic and lots happening. But that’s taken 15 years to develop. It’s not something that happens overnight.
So Harmony Collective, we’ve been around five years. And now, slowly, some other members of the community, aside from just the very core, are starting to understand what it is that we do well, what it is that really attracts others to Krishna consciousness this way. And they’re starting to be able to contribute to that dynamic.
So hopefully, in another five years, we can see a larger community more mature and capable of kind of attracting a larger audience having built up. But right now, we’re still very much in the phase of just taking care of the few precious relationships we have. Okay.
So now, till now, I think we talked more about the, we could say the cultural obstacles for the Western mind to appreciate Bhakti. Are there any intellectual obstacles also that come up which need to be addressed? Oh, gosh. Yeah, scientific.
Our head has been in the sand for 30 years around modern science. And Srila Prabhupada wanted that we address those things. But our culture, really, since the time of Sariputta Prabhu, we haven’t done much to speak to that situation.
And so we’ve really fallen behind there in even being able to have the conversation in a healthy way. Which area could we really contribute? Because in some ways, if you talk about evolution creation, that’s already a very polarizing thing. And we don’t really have much to add specifically from our traditions perspective.
So what I found is in science and spirituality, if you take the broad subject, consciousness studies is a big area. So I wrote a book on reincarnation, and I spent a lot of time doing research and writing, because I had the thought that what do we have this thing to offer? Actually, the idea of God, of course, we have a sweeter, more intimate conception of God. But at a rational level, the conception of God is basically similar.
So we don’t really have strikingly more to add to that. I just don’t dialogue. So then I talk about the idea of the soul.
So there is this interesting polarization. Christianity accepts the soul, but doesn’t accept reincarnation. Buddhism accepts reincarnation, but doesn’t accept the soul.
So it’s puzzling what actually reincarnates. They have some ideas, some accumulation of samskaras or something like that, they say. But the point is that I felt that the soul and its reincarnation could be a distinct thing that we contribute to the mainstream dialogue, to the mainstream discourse on science and spirituality.
But I found that somehow, reincarnation is ranked among those far out beliefs, which include extrasensory perception, which include astrology, which include maybe clairvoyance and everything else like that. So it is not considered really respectable intellectually. Of course, it’s a spectrum, if I want to put something like in the alternative crowd, astrology and reincarnation are implicitly accepted.
But in the mainstream, we could say that for extrasensory perception, there is some amount of acceptance. At least it’s worth investigating. Don’t accept it, but it’s worth investigating.
Then there is near-death experiences. And then there is past life memories. Because one reason is near-death experiences are also something which Christianity accepts.
Past life memories, they don’t accept because they don’t accept reincarnation. So Christians have put in a lot of funds in near-death studies, studies of near-death experiences. And there are several professional journals, peer-reviewed journals, a journal of near-death or something like that.
So I felt at that time that the soul and the reincarnation could be a way to enter into that space of science and spirituality. But somehow now I felt that I could have spent the same time instead of writing on reincarnation, writing on consciousness. So Buddhism has really done a lot of work on consciousness.
And it seems conscious. Now, of course, consciousness is like the current main battle turf between materialists and non-materialists. There are scientific researchers who say that consciousness cannot be reduced to materialistic phenomena, to brain chemicals or whatever.
And others say that can be reduced, but at least it’s a topic of discussion. And we have something to add to that discussion. So that is one major area I feel.
What are your thoughts about this? I was going to ask you, what would you see us being able to bring to the consciousness discussion? Three broad things. First is that the whole concept of the subtle body and that is discussed more in Sankhya than in art and specifically in the Gaudiya Vaishnava Bhakti tradition. But the main problem with accepting the idea of a non-material source of consciousness within mainstream science is that how does something non-material interact with the material without violating the laws of material nature? Because in some ways, material science considers the laws of physics as sacrosanct, as inviolable.
That’s right. And it’s essentially wrong also because causal completeness, that every material phenomena can be explained in terms of material causes. That is one of the grounding assumptions of science.
So that area of how it could be explained, but how can some non-material source of consciousness affect a material body without violating the laws of physics? That our whole concept of Maya, when Sadaputra’s last book was Maya, the world as a virtual reality. So there he gives the example of how when we play a video game, you know, we may just press some buttons over here, but we are not actually entering into the world. Whatever happens in the digital world happens by the laws of digital logic or whatever you want to say.
But our influence is there on it. So say somebody is playing a video game, certain things happen automatically, certain things happen volitionally, we make them happen. But within the parameter of the video game, everything is working according to the laws of the video game.
But we have a capacity to intervene over there. So the enemy might be shooting, the enemy is a robot or whatever, the robot is shooting in a particular way, and I’m shooting back. So now I’m using my intelligence, the robot is basically shooting back according to its programming.
But within the video game, the two of us are interacting almost at an equal level. So I think that is a big area where how a conscious being could actually interact with matter without violating the laws of nature. Through Sankhya, we could explain that in a significant way.
Yeah, I like that. The elements, the intelligence, mind, false ego. Yeah, the concept is a nice as an interface, the software, so to speak.
I like that. Yes. That’s interesting.
You mentioned, so you said three things, there’s two others. Okay. So with respect to, with respect to consciousness studies, that’s one.
No, actually, I was talking about three areas, the existence of God. The second was soul and reincarnation. Third was consciousness.
Consciousness itself is the most relevant for us. And soul and reincarnation is what I worked on. And existence of God.
I have not seen that as a major obstacle for people. If people are atheistic, or especially, maybe they’re anti-theistic, they’re aggressively atheistic, then they will not even come toward us at all. Yeah, that’s right.
So establishing the existence of God rationally, it does not, that is not something which is a very, very pressing need for us. It is, of course, required, but people who have some kind of spiritual inclination will come to us already. So getting into the evolution, creation, confrontation, sometimes that can alienate more people than attract.
Absolutely. And that’s, that would be my answer to your question is that it’s not really necessary to discuss these things with most people. It’s because when again, the emphasis on discussing our philosophy, the irony of all the emphasis that we put on philosophy is that most people don’t have any philosophy in their life right now.
So when you give them a philosophy, they don’t even know how to interface with it. It’s very intimidating. It’s practically threatening to them.
Something like giving a child a sports car. It’s a sports car, but the kid doesn’t know how to drive it. So what good are they going to do? So we present a philosophy.
People aren’t looking for a philosophy. They don’t have one to begin with. They don’t understand the value of the philosophy.
So getting back to personal experience, that’s what they’re really wondering. What’s this going to do for me? So when we bring in these controversial issues that weren’t even necessarily invited in, then it just antagonizes them that much more. We talk about people not being philosophically minded so much.
Now, in general, if I see, say the intellectual level of a New York Times editorial, as compared to a Times of India editorial, I do find that the NY Times is much more, much deeper. The analysis is deeper, broader as compared to India, an equivalent Indian newspaper. And they also discuss, I saw in the current Corona crisis, I saw an article on the moral meaning of the plague.
Which is quite interesting, the way they spoke it, moral meaning of the plague. So the idea is that there are people who are also very thoughtful. And they are considering these issues, but maybe they are not the kind of people who come to us.
That’s for sure. Unfortunately. Yeah, it’s also an intellectual exercise for so many people.
Because, you know, it’s just like playing a video game for them, that they’ll read this article, and it’s from the New York Times, so it feels good. They can say something cool while they’re at the bar, out with friends. They can reference this article, and it makes them seem intellectual.
But an intellectual, at least the Vedic version of intellectual means that you have integrity to the knowledge which you’re taking in. That there’s an implication to the knowledge, and you’re responsible to that implication. The austerity of knowledge, Tapogyan.
So as you pointed to earlier, the description of Buddhism, and the clear implication is that you should not eat meat. But how few people take that on when they’re reading that material. So that it’s so easy in the West today to just interact with something in this impersonal way, to use it for your own purposes.
And I think that’s where a lot of the intellectualism comes also. So again, when you get into those intellectual debates, there’s always somebody else that said something else that somebody can quote. And the authority structures are, you know, horizontal.
So the New York Times, and the India Times, and the Bhagavad Gita, they’re all the same. So then it comes back to your own personal experience. And that’s something that people can’t refute.
I experienced this when I chant the Mahamantra, who can tell you that you don’t. When you say, Prabhupada says, when he says, the Bhagavatam says, then they can refute that. But when you say, when I chant Hare Krishna, this is how I feel, they’re not allowed to tell you by the ethic of modernity, they’re not allowed to tell you that you’re wrong.
So we need more devotees, more people having the experience of Krishna, through these mediums of the Bhagavatam, the Holy Name, etc. testifying personally, that it’s happening for me, and it can happen for you. The only reason it’s not is that you’re not doing it.
When you say that there’s a gap between intellectualism, and like something is just read for intellectual titillation. On the other hand, you also said that people value authenticity. So that’s right.
Isn’t that there’s two different things? That seems contradictory. Yeah. So again, often, the bar for authenticity is very low.
It’s not that you’re being authentic to a certain value. It’s just that you’re telling people where you’re at. I’m trying to think there’s, you know, Trump is a living, breathing example of this, that he’s a roaring contradiction in so many ways.
But because he just kind of, you know, speaks from his heart, then people accept it. Although there’s so many contradictions flying all around him, if you look at the words he’s using, because he’s kind of unabashed about who he is, then people accept it. That’s a good example.
I never thought of Trump as an example of authenticity, because he’s presented in such a negative way in the media. But yeah, who he shows is who he is, in many ways, he doesn’t… Who I am is who I am and deal with it. And so many people love that.
Even the people that hate him that that’s how he is, because that’s how they are. And it’s just not working out as well for them as it is for him. What do you mean? That’s how the way they are, the way he is the way they are? Because many others are quite politically correct.
And moderating their speech and everything. Well, they’re political. Well, you I’m sure you’ve, you’ve seen those criticisms of the left, that they judge everybody else about their judgments.
And in that way, they’re judging also, right? Yeah, of course. And so the accuser becomes the abuser. And so that the left is just the other side of that authenticity coin, that we’re going to do everything perfectly.
But if you don’t do things as we do in order to honor you, but if you don’t do what we do, then we’re not willing to honor you. So they’re, they’re a roaring contradiction much more so than Trump is in that way. That’s true.
So again, all of this plays back to my, it’s just my personal realization over the last year and a half or so, that we have to bring in this element of testimony into the Bhakti culture. And it’s interesting when the Pramana, the scriptural pastime history that I look to for this is that famous exchange between Vyasadeva and Narada. When Vyasadeva is told by Narada that you didn’t talk about Krishna enough, and that’s why you’re feeling bad.
So talk about Krishna more, and then everything will work. And then the very next thing that Narada Muni himself does is talk about himself. In that passage of the Bhagavatam, he goes from chastising, not glorifying Krishna directly.
But then Narada himself begins to share his own story in Krishna consciousness. He begins to testify to the effect of Bhakti, that direct connection with Krishna in his life. So Krishna is being directly glorified, but through Narada Muni’s personal experience.
And this is the synthesis that’s missing right now in our communities. We’re glorifying Krishna by the Bhagavatam, by Prabhupada, by the past histories of great efforts of devotees, either it be Prabhupada’s disciples or the Bhagavatam, etc. But we’re shying away from sharing what’s going on in our own personal lives, the magic that Krishna is bringing into it.
And if we learn how to share that in a healthy way, where it doesn’t compromise the philosophy or put ourselves on a pedestal we don’t belong, but at the same time gives the everyday person a way to see themselves in that practice, and how they could benefit from the same experiences. Then that’s the magic that will get the movement happening again. Yeah, I think this will have to come more at an individual level than at a collective or institutional level.
Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. What you’re doing right now, I mean, you’re a great example of this.
So many people love your Bhagavad Gita daily discussions, and it’s because they can see you’re having these realizations. These are things you’re churning yourself. You’re reading an ancient text, you’re taking the wisdom of the Acharyas, but then you’re trying it on in your everyday life, you know, you’re putting your specs on, and then you’re describing what you’re seeing to people, and people really appreciate that.
They love that down-to-earth experience of these high philosophical ideas. Thank you. I think that’s what you’re also doing in your own way, quite an effective way over there.
So, maybe we’ll try to summarize, and then if any threads are remaining, we’ll try to take them up. Sure. Basically, when we discussed about broadly keeping the Bhakti tradition relevant or doing Western outreach, so I started by discussing about the differences between, mainly say, the difference between, say, the Indian mind and the Western mind, and the approach is required for that.
So, one aspect was the horizontal vertical, and you talked about authenticity being very important. And then we mentioned also that with respect to the culture, people have a sense of activism and missionary, and in terms that they can see in the world. So, how does whatever I practice add value to my life and add value to the world? And in some ways, we seem to be quite insider in our definitions of adding value and quite world-rejecting.
Very abstract. Yeah. Now, that doesn’t apply so much for Indian immigrants, because cultural value gets added to their lives.
And for the Western people, they don’t really care so much for the culture. So, it’s what will the culture do for me? The culture doesn’t have intrinsic value. If the culture had intrinsic value, they would probably go to their own religions of birth or whatever.
Yes. So, Christianity and Buddhism, we discussed, relatively speaking, that Christianity and Buddhism both are quite utilitarian in their own ways. So, something like a psychological karma kanda, not focusing so much on the philosophical aspect.
And sometimes we seem to focus too much on the philosophical aspect. Yes. And then you mentioned about that in Christianity, emphasis on testimony a lot.
And that personal experience of people, because they don’t have philosophy, they focus on experience. And somehow that appeals to people. So, in our case, you mentioned about impersonalism coming out with Indians in terms of focusing on rituals and practices a lot.
Whereas in the West, it comes on creating a Jesus figure and offering the reverence to them, but then equality. So, to some extent that has happened with Prabhupada also, but then subsequent authority structure is not that respected. So, the very thing that brings people to Krishna also keeps them away from Krishna, that rebellious mentality.
They rebel against their authority structures, but when they encounter authority structure here, that becomes difficult. So, authority needn’t be assumed, it has to be approached and cultivated. And then with respect to intellectual obstacles, discuss about scientific.
So, the evolution creation is large, not only irrelevant, it’s unproductive because we don’t have anything special to add to the discussion. I can counterproductive because it just is so polarizing. And soul and reincarnation is you, we have something distinctive to say, but where the current mainstream mind is, is the, is the, is consciousness studies.
And then toward the end, you mentioned about how wherever the models are working, it is more through personal relationships, where you help people be at an individual level, we help people to grow spiritually. And it’s when that happens, that’s what helps the community to gradually grow and it is gradual. So, any other points you felt which are salient? No, that’s a wonderful summary.
I’m so glad we covered all that. Yes. So, thank you very much for joining today.
It’s been wonderful talking with you. Love to see you. I’m glad you’re safe over there.
And please keep us all enlightened with continuing to share your realizations. Oh, I’m happy to be of service in whatever way I can. And thank you.
I will look forward to having you in a few Sundays at Harmony Collective over Zoom.