Contemplating Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura Wisdom-Quotes — Appearance Day Talk 2021

Podcast: Video:

Hare Krishna. I'm grateful to be here with all of you today.

And today is the auspicious occasion. Of the. Appearance day of Shri Bakta Sudhanshu Thakur.

So I'll be speaking based on some of the quotes of his that have. Struck me quite a bit in my study of his life and his teachings. So I'll take one team and I'll talk about five or six quotes.

And I'd invite all of you after I finish each quote, I'll speak something on it. And I would invite you also to share something if you like. After each quote, I'll stop a little bit.

I'll speak about my understanding of the quote and something from Bakta Sudhanshu Thakur's life. Also, which which may relate with that quote. So one thing that has been that has struck me quite a bit.

In the last few months is that not last few months of the last few years, but especially in the last few months. We often use the idea of a half and logic or the court. Which proper would quote proper would say that people take from the Bhagavad Gita, what they like.

And that there is not going to as it is proposed that that is going to as you like or as you are. So while that is that is definitely happening, the Bhagavad Gita. But I, I fear that that may have happened with us also in our study of the Acharyas.

So with respect to Shri Prabhupada and even with respect to Bakta Sudhanshu Thakur, often we think of him as Sinha Guru. And yes, he was a Simha Guru. Simha is a lion guru.

At the same time, he was much more. So what may have happened is that are we taking from our Acharyas, those teachings that help us look down at others? Or are we taking from them those teachings that help us lift others up? So we often talk about how the Acharyas have condemned false, condemned deviant philosophies and how they have refuted anyone who had came up with some speculations or concoctions. At the same time, both Prabhupada and Shri Bakta Sudhanshu Thakur, they were personally very loving and caring.

And if you look at those devotees, those who were attracted to him and became dedicated to them, they were inspired by their very cultured, loving behaviour also in a very significant way. In fact, in some cases, far more than the confrontational attitude. So I have here collected some quotes which give a more, you could say, balanced picture of Shri Sudhanshu Thakur.

Not just as a confrontational refuter of false philosophies, but as a very compassionate and considerate, considerate teacher, Acharya, who wants us to follow in his footsteps. So the first of the quotes is, he says, let me not desire anything, but the highest good for my worst enemies. This is a remarkable thought in itself.

We may have heard thoughts like this, but how often do we think like this, desire the highest good for our worst enemies? Sometimes it is very easy, at least for me, even within the devotee community, if somebody opposes what I'm trying to do or what I'm suggesting, it's so easy to condemn them. If we are on the liberal side, they say these people are so conservative. They are so old-fashioned.

They are so regressive. And if we are conservative, we may condemn these people as deviants. These people are so loose.

And they are actually not our enemies. They are also fellow devotees. So we sometimes become so critical of them.

So what to speak of them? We have so many other people who are practising bhakti and may have adopted different philosophies. Let's look at, try to, let's look at and try to understand what this quote means. When we talk about saintliness, saintliness is not a vocation.

It's a disposition. It's OK. Saintliness is, it's more of, you can't just take it as a, OK, I start practising bhakti.

We can become devoted and we try to become devoted. We try to develop goodness. We try to develop faithfulness.

But saintliness is not something which is a vocation. It's a disposition. Adveshta sarva-bhutana maitra-karuna eva cha.

Krishna says the non-envious friend of all living beings. And that is not at all easy to do. So this is a, it's a disposition of the heart.

And normally when you talk about disposition of the heart, it's not just about how we love God. It's also about how we love God's children. And love means not just in a theoretical sense that, oh, I want to deliver everyone.

I want to, I want to get everyone to chant Hare Krishna. I want to get everyone to get Bhagavad Gita. Yes, that's good.

But actually, how are we in our dealings? Now, do we actually desire to do good to others or do we simply want to give them something by which we can get a notch for our own ego? I distribute so many books. I give so many classes. So how do we conduct ourselves with others? Now, we know that it's quite easy, literally speaking, to respect those who respect us.

But how do we treat those who disrespect us? That is often a test of saintliness. Humility is tested most by those who are not humble with us. Those who are arrogant, those who are dismissive, that's what actually that's who tests our humility.

So now this doesn't actually mean simply caving into their demands or doing what they're doing, but it is desiring their welfare and praying for their welfare. So what is the answer Thakur was once asked? Are you trying to convert us? And he said that if you spoke authoritatively, but also compassionately said, if you truly understand the message that I'm imparting to you, you'd understand, you would not use judgemental words like conversion. You'd understand that what you are considering as a conversion is actually for your own highest good.

I explained the philosophy to him. So people may have their suspicions at that time. It is important for us to not just have benevolent intentions, but also try to make sure that our good intentions come out to them in proper behaviour.

So that they feel attracted. The world doesn't care about our beliefs or even our practises in terms of our personal spiritual practises, what time we wake up, what time we chant or complete our rounds. The world cares about how we behave, how courteous are we with them, how a conduct comes out.

Now, now it is said that the Prema Maitri Krupopeksha Iha Karoti Samadhimah. That shouldn't we neglect the envious? Yes, we neglect the envious. But why? Not out of condemnation, but out of compassion.

Not that they are so terrible, but let them not offend further. If we had a condemnation, that's a terrible person. If Prabhupada had that attitude, he wouldn't have been able to reach out to the hippies in the counterculture.

So Upeksha, Upeksha, Bhaktivinoda Thakur explains that neglect of the envious is not because they are to be condemned because if we go close to them, they may offend Krishna further, they may offend Guru further. So let them not offend further. That's the key point.

So when we understand this principle, it becomes relatively easier to actually stay connected. This is easier. So we serve them from a distance with our prayers.

And that is important. But as we know, Bhaktivinoda Thakur would say that if two devotees, if they would have some differences and he would bring them together and ask them to glorify each other, ask them to glorify each other. What was the idea over there? That when we are forced to look at others' good qualities, what happens is whatever our differences, they get sidelined.

Now, I will talk later about how there are differences and they need to be seen. But the point is, a devotee is known also by one's intention. And it's our intention to do good to others.

I can say for myself at least that it's so and I often get caught in the intellectual level, trying to persuade and convince others. And I may not be forceful or aggressive in my tone, but the aspect of the heart where it's ultimately not just one head speaking to another head, it's ultimately Krishna in our heart, who through our heart is reaching to their heart. And for that to happen, even if we have some opposite view, at that time, the benevolent intention has to be maintained.

As we know, Vaishnava is a paradukha dukhi. There are many incidents of this, but Krishna Siddhakar was himself very firm with respect to philosophy. Philosophically, he was very strong in refuting anyone who conveyed anything which is different from the Siddhanta.

That was his name. But at the same time, culturally, he was very personal, very respectful. At one time, Bhaktivinoda Siddhakar was working, one of his patrons, major patrons was the king of Manipur.

At that time, India was under British rule. But in some parts of India, there is still the kings were operating within the British rule, rulership. And the king had a position with the king.

And the king had given him freedom to do research, to write books. The king was like a patron. So, he had given a comfortable room in his palace.

Bhaktivinoda Siddhakar lived very simply in that room in the palace. And at that time, in India, there was a prominent teacher, prominent spiritual leader, he was known as Tagore. Rabindranath Tagore is considered to be like a classic poet of India, of Bengal especially.

Pride of Bengal. And he wrote many beautiful poetry. So, the whole Tagore family was very respected.

Rabindranath Tagore's father was also one of the pioneers of the Indian independence movement. So, they had come to the king's palace. Now, while they, the Tagore family expressed some devotional sentiments, some of their philosophy was off.

Philosophically, they were off. And there are places where Bhaktivinoda Siddhakar has pointed out where their philosophy was off. But when they came to that place, Bhaktivinoda Siddhakar came to know about it.

And he personally said that, okay, the king wanted to host them also. So, he told the king that let them have my room. And he went to another place.

He said, I will go for some speaking engagements. And he went elsewhere. Now, this was not just a practical gesture.

It is not just a practical activity. It is, we may have philosophical differences, but culturally, we need to respect each other. We have the same example of Prabhupada also.

Prabhupada, when he met, I'll just add a slide over here. Now, we had Prabhupada with Dr. Mishra, Mishra of the yoga studio. When Prabhupada came to America.

So, Prabhupada stayed with Mishra of this yoga studio. And he was an advaitin. He was an impersonalist.

So, Prabhupada and him would have often strong arguments. And because Prabhupada spoke against him, Prabhupada spoke a different, Prabhupada said that his philosophy is off. He stopped Prabhupada from speaking and Prabhupada couldn't do kirtans.

As I mentioned, Prabhupada said, there's no point in staying here. So, as soon as he got an opportunity, he went to the Lower East Side and he continued his preaching. But many years later, they met each other and they had a very cordial talk.

And Giriraj Maharaj, who was serving Prabhupada at that time, he was in surprise because he was a Mayavadi and Prabhupada would strongly be against Mayavadi. And then Prabhupada told him something, which was remarkable. Prabhupada said, philosophically, we argue like anything, but culturally, we are friends.

So, Prabhupada did not reduce the person to, this is your philosophy and therefore, I'll condemn you because your philosophy is wrong. There is a place for philosophical discussion. And Prabhupada, when he was speaking the philosophy, whether it was in his class or his books, he was strong about it.

But he did not reduce people to simply philosophical labels. He behaved in a culturally appropriate way with them. So, culturally, we are friends, Prabhupada said.

So, Bhaktasiddhākura is saying that even if somebody is our worst enemy, now worst enemy for a devotee, whom would we consider an enemy? We don't consider anyone an enemy, ideally speaking. We want the good for everyone. But somebody who is opposing us in our services, who has the opposite philosophy and conceptions, we may consider them an opponent.

But even with them, it's not just an intention in the heart. It's culturally, we are friends. Now, of course, that brings us to the next quote, where we'll talk about does that mean we associate with impersonalists? Not exactly.

We'll discuss a little bit deeper about what association means. But this is the first quote, which I find that it's quite reflective of a different mood or a different aspect of a different facet of Bhaktasiddhākura's persona. His personality.

So, any reflections on this? The definition of the mati-mādhikārī given in the 11th canto of Bhagavatam, he says that because the verse says that mati-mādhikārī is defined by their ability to love the Lord, develop friendship with the devotees, give mercy to the innocent and upekśa, to be neglectful, to give space to those who are envious, which you talked about. And he said that the definition of this is that they pray for the envious from a distance. And that is, I believe, the BBT commentators, they say that is the quality of their saintliness, the quality of their vaishnava attributes or something, in the terms of how they deal with the envious, that they're actually praying for them.

But they have to do it from a distance because those persons, by definition, can't be approached. I think you really brought that out, that it's not that we're saying, oh, you know, they're so fallen or this or that, so I avoid them. It's like, well, they need mercy, but they can't actually digest it right now.

So I have to pray for them from a distance. That's what Jiva Goswami asserts is the quality of the saintly behaviour of the Vaishnava in relationship to those who are envious. Yes, beautiful.

So the idea is a devotee is actually doing whatever is good for them, that at that place, the only thing, only good we can do for them is offer our prayers. If you offer them anything more, they will not take it. They can't digest it, as you rightly said.

And I like the way you phrased upeksha as giving space to them. It's not neglecting them, it's not condemning them, but giving them their space while we continue our practise of bhakti. Thank you, Prabhu.

Thank you. Mother Nidja, you would like to go? I'm sorry. No, go right ahead, Prabhu.

Prabhuji, thank you for sharing. Can we attribute that, that aspect of seeing only one dimensional bhakti sit down to Saraswati Thakur? Because we are a preaching movement, and sometimes we wear the hat of preaching or are a preacher, and then we are not able to switch off to being on the other side, just what you narrated about the cultural side of the more human side. Is that primarily the reason you think as a practitioner, or is it more of a spiritual level itself? Well, this is a question.

And why do we appreciate one side of Bhakti Thakur? See, it's nothing wrong, because when I say that we appreciate one side, we all have a particular nature and actually we will be attracted to certain things. And there is nothing wrong intrinsically in that. We say about Prabhupada also that he has built a house big enough in which the whole world can live.

The problem comes when we start thinking this is the only aspect of Bhakti Thakur that matters or this is all that he was. And if we do not abide by that aspect, then we are not being faithful to him. So, so being attracted to a particular aspect of an acharya that is auspicious, any aspect of an acharya we are attracted to that's auspicious.

But the problem comes when we start thinking that is the normative aspect or that is all that there is to an acharya. So there are definitely times when Bhakti Thakur was strong. But that is not the only thing to do.

So to some extent, we could say that in the early days of our movement, we were a young movement. And there is a certain passion for conversion that we are, we know the truth and we are going to save the whole world. And we are right and others are wrong.

To some extent, that was natural in the early years of our life, early years of our movement. Ravindra Swaroop Prabhu, in one of my conversation with him, he told me that when we joined the movement, there is a saying that don't trust anyone above 30. That is the saying in the general counterculture world.

Anyone above 30. So he says over the years, now what I have realised is that even within the devotee community, don't trust anyone below 40 or 50. What he says is that initially we have a very theoretical knowledge about Krishna Consciousness.

He says it's only when we become more realised, then we start actually realising that, oh, this is this. This is like this. It is like this.

So it is not actually Ravindra Swaroop Prabhu, it is Bhurijan Prabhu. So that we have to actually go deeper. OK, this is what it said.

How is this to be lived? And I live it the way I think it is meant to be lived. What happens? Do I attract people or do I alienate people? So so I think to some extent, it was also the the ethos at that particular time when we accepted things. And in some ways, we just the the hippies were a part of the counterculture.

So counterculture means they wanted to be rejected. They had already rejected mainstream culture. And there is education, mainstream society, mainstream government, mainstream religion.

So to a large extent, they were attracted with those aspects of Srila Prabhupada's teachings, which which helped them, which which helped them philosophically strengthen their rejection of those things, which is fine to some extent. But not everything about mainstream society is bad. There are many things, of course, which are mundane.

But even in mundane, there is goodness, passion and ignorance. We can't reduce everything to ignorance. So and and you could say Prabhupada spoke.

As things were presented to him, Prabhupada spoke to the audience that he had. If we see Prabhupada's many of his lectures in India were actually Hindi and not all of them have been translated to English and not all of them have been that accurately rendered in English also. His mood when he's speaking in Hindi is addressing Indians is significantly different.

He's not that cutting. He's basically encouraging people to practise bhakti. And he does, of course, again, again, he confronts, but that's not the only thing he does.

I think these are those factors, the factors because of which that has happened. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you. Yes.

Oh, mother, go ahead, please. No, that's OK. But please go ahead.

Thank you. Chaitanya. Please accept my humble obeisance.

All glory to Sri Prabhupada. Thank you for your class. And in relation to what you brought to us until now, I need to ask the following question, if I may.

Related to interfaith meetings. You said preaching like a lion and also considering the cultural way of behaving. When we are having dealings with the other human beings.

What I need to ask is the following. If the Hare Krishna's are invited for an interfaith meeting. What should we say? Yes or no to the invitation? And if we say yes, how should should we behave? Should we preach like lions or should or while preaching like lions? Should we also consider that sometimes we are preaching to people who may be much more advanced than we are? OK.

When we went to interfaith meetings, there are times we could say at one level, every every occasion is an opportunity for for preaching in today's world. And the word preaching itself has a strong negative connotation, like a hope taking a holier than thou attitude, putting ourselves on a higher pedestal. But in our moment, the word is still quite common.

So but in interfaith meetings, the mood is very rarely, very rarely of conversion. It is more of networking. It is more of relationship building.

So generally, usually interfaith meetings are about sharing wisdom from each other's tradition and developing a relationship. If people are committed to a particular tradition already and they're coming to an interfaith forum, that means they're already at some level of maturity in their particular religious practises. Then the mood over there is not so much to convert, but to connect.

So we connect for various reasons. We are part of a society and we may in future, if we face some big problems, we might need their help. So when the anti-cult movement became very strongly critical of our movement at that time, it was several Christian organisations, which are several Christian scholars who came to support.

This is not a cult. This is actually this is an ancient tradition. Now they had their motives.

They felt that if one religion can be called as a cult, tomorrow another religion, their religion could also be called as a cult. Whatever be the reason, but they came to our help at that time. And one reason that happened was because devotees were friendly with them.

So even when we are interacting with people, each forum has a particular purpose. So generally interfaith forums, it's we present our perspective. This is what our philosophy is.

We don't have to hide that. But we can present that part of the philosophy, which is not likely to raise a confrontational mood over there. So we don't have to water down the truth, but we can present that part of the truth.

Our philosophy is vast and we can present that part of the truth, which is most relevant for the audience over there. So, yes, if we have that maturity and that inclination, we can go for interfaith. But the mood is not so much of conversion, but of connection.

OK. OK, Prabhu, thank you very much for your wonderful answer. Hare Krishna.

Thank you so much. I was thinking of when Srila Prabhupada was in different venues in California and France, when audiences, student audiences and young people were very much disturbed to see Prabhupada on a higher seat. So Prabhupada would either not sit on the Vyasasan for a programme or I think one time when he was on a so-called higher seat, he got down and sat on the floor, actually.

And when the audiences were sometimes very confrontational, like, you know, who do you think you are? You're talking about first class men and this and that, different classes. And Prabhupada would say, I'm fifth class. So Prabhupada would kind of like tame the audience with his compassion, you know, seeing where they were at.

He wasn't like, you know, whipping them with a philosophy when he saw where they were at. So he definitely preached in a special way to to help them to be more receptive to Krishna consciousness. And I was also thinking of Bhakti Sri Damodar Maharaj when he was preaching to the scientists.

I mean, they had a lot of misconceptions, but Maharaj's idea, he was making friends with them. But he was also presenting Krishna consciousness in scientific and mathematical terms that they could appreciate. And he he was very, very respectful to them, even though many times there were, you know, like complete differences and maybe even offences.

But he just was friendly and he gave them the greatest hospitality in any of his conferences. So thank you very much. A beautiful point.

Thank you. In that past time, Prabhupada said I'm the fifth class. He said I'm the servant of all the classes.

So it's a beautiful pastime. Thank you very much for sharing all these thoughts. So I had four or five.

Of course, I'm not sure how many we can take. But it was wonderful to see all these responses. OK.

Yeah. So now when we say we are culturally friends with. Oh, sorry.

This is not being shared. When we say culturally, we are friends with the. With everyone.

So now what does that mean? So here is another quote from Bhakti Siddhanta Thakur. Pay due respects to the extroverts of the world, but do not be appreciative of their manners and conduct. They are to be shaken off from your mind.

Now, Bhakti Siddhanta Thakur had a very distinctive vocabulary. At that time, not many Indians would speak English so much or so well. And the British would would not interact with Indians so much because they had a racial sense of racial superiority.

So Indians who learn English, most of their English learning was from reading books. It is not so much from live conversation. So in that sense, the English English usage, sometimes when we read Bhakti Siddhanta Thakur directly, it will be a little difficult to understand what he's saying.

His vocabulary was high, but also because it was based more on reading than an actual talking in English. So it can seem a little different. So now when he's using the word extroverts, he's not using it in the sense here of introverts and extroverts because that's just a disposition.

We don't get it. It's not just simply saying that extroverts are to be neglected. But he's using that in a specific sense that one of the first articles that Bhakti Siddhanta Thakur wrote was called as Bengali Samajikta, Sociality in Bengal.

So he analysed the society over there and then he makes the point that Indians have a sense of inferiority. They say, oh, this Western civilisation has progressed so much. It has progressed in leaps and bounds like this.

So what has exactly happened? So he talks about it, two things over there, that there are two different ways of measuring success. And one of them is when you said don't be impressed by the externals. What he means is that there are varying definitions of success.

We interact with the world broadly in two ways. You can see this diagram over here, that there's a physical level of reality at the mental level. And then there is the spiritual level.

Now, the spiritual level of the soul exists and we interact with the world in two ways. We have our working senses, with working senses concerned with what am I doing in the world? And then what can I do in the world? And then we have the knowledge acquiring senses. In Sanskrit they are called the Gyan Indriyas and the Karma Indriyas, other ones.

So what can I learn from the world? So what Bhakti Siddhanta Thakur says is that the Western civilisation is focused more on the Karma Indriyas, on the working senses. So what can we do in the world? And he says that wherever attention goes, their energy flows. Paraphrasing what he says.

And naturally they have succeeded a lot in doing things with their working senses. But he says the Indian sages realised the nature of the world that no matter how much we improve it, it is a place of distress. And the real improvement is understanding the nature of the world and ultimately spiritualising our consciousness.

That doesn't mean India was apathetic. India was also very prosperous materially and that's why so many invaders came. But it's a matter of priority.

The priority was on developing the knowledge acquiring senses. The priority was on understanding what is the nature of the world? What can I learn from the world? So he says that if we evaluate from the perspective of those who consider success based on the working senses, what people have done with the knowledge acquiring senses. So you see the two arrows.

One arrow is going out. I think that may not be visible over here. And this arrow is coming in.

So what am I learning from the world? And what am I doing in the world? So if we are too concerned with what am I doing in the world, then we may not be able to understand the value of what we have learned from the world. So he says that the sages of India focused on understanding the nature of the world so that we can understanding of a nature beyond the world of a spiritual nature. And that's why there are varying definitions of success.

When we are working senses centred, when we are gyane, karmic sense centred, material position, material transformation, that is what is primarily stressed. How much have we acquired? How much have we controlled? Whereas when a civilisation is centred on knowledge acquiring senses, it is focused not so much on material position as on spiritual realisation. So why am I talking about this? So when he says about the extroverts, do not be appreciative of their manners and conduct.

They are to be shaken off from your mind. What he means is that those who have achieved a lot of success in terms of the external world. So extrovert, he says, is those whose definition of success is based on their working senses.

What have we done in the world? If that is the basis for somebody's definition of their life success, to such people, we shake them off from your mind. Don't be too impressed by them. Their external might be impressive, but don't get carried away by it.

Why? Because ultimately we can't choose the nature of the world. We may choose certain things and if we can achieve, it's OK, but it's not going to last forever. It's all temporary.

So at the same time, he says, pay due respects. He's not dismissing. Pay due respects to the extroverts of the world.

This is a significant point. We can be courteous, but we don't have to, we can be, we can be cautious because you don't want to get impressed by them. You don't want to take their association.

So when you say we don't take their association, what does it mean? It doesn't mean we have to disrespect them. It just means we don't let their desires become our desires. We can be courteous with them.

And when he says you do respect science and technology, which is which is brought about by the extroverts, those who define success in terms of what they have done in the external world. That has its value, that has its merit. So do respect, but do not be appreciative.

Now, here appreciative means don't be impressed by them. That's why I said we have to be careful. We have to be careful.

He may not be using the words in the same sense in which we use them. Don't get impressed. Don't get enamoured.

Don't get carried away by their manners and conduct. They are to be shaken off from your mind. So we can, we can, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

We can be different without being disrespectful. So pay due respect to the extroverts he's saying. So now here we talk about it a little more that the essence of association is actually when are we associating with someone? It is not by physical proximity or polite behaviour.

Just because you talk courteously, that doesn't mean we are associating with them. When are we associating with someone? Two things. When there is transfer of desires or there is adaptation of values.

So if their desires become ours or what they value, we start valuing that. That is when we are associating with them. So a devotee may go to a forum where there may be non-devotees.

Sometimes functionally, we may have to go there. We may have non-devotee. We may have friends or family members who may not be practising bhakti.

We may have to associate with them. Sometimes we may have to go for social occasions. So when we go there, we offer due respect.

But it's just going there. Are we associating with them? Not necessarily. If their desires are becoming ours and more fundamentally, even desires will come, they'll stay temporary, they'll go away.

But if their values start becoming ours, that is when we are associating with them. So sometimes a devotee for a particular purpose, the Prabhupada said that never associate with Mayavadis. But when the devotees came to Jagannath Puri for the first time and they were not allowed into the temple.

So at that time, there is the Shankaracharya of Jagannath Puri. He was quite appreciative of devotees. And Prabhupada knew about that.

Prabhupada interacted with him at a forum where many sadhus were together. And Prabhupada told his disciples go to him and they got a letter of recommendation from him saying that these non-Indians, they may be non-Indians, but they are greatly devoted. They should be allowed entry into the temple.

So now what happened is, were they associating with the Mayavadi over there? Well, no, they didn't go there to get the desires or get the conceptions, get the values of them. They were going there for a service. So and when they were there, they were polite, they were respectful.

So what we understand is that association is, we don't have to look down at people, we don't have to demean them. Even if they are very different from us, their definitions of success are different from ours. We can still be polite with them.

Like Bhagavad Gita Maharaj told me that Prabhupada told him, he said Prabhupada, you say that you sometimes use strong words about scientists. Should we use similar words when we interact with them? Prabhupada said no, you be courteous with them. You be gentle kindly with them.

You tell them about Krishna Consciousness in their language, but be courteous with them. So polite behaviour doesn't necessarily mean we are associating with them. So even those who, when we say we are culturally friends, that means basically we behave politely.

It doesn't mean that we take in their desires or we adapt their values. So if you understand this, then this code is great sense that now they are to be shaken off from your mind. We don't take in their desires or we don't take in their values.

Now shaken off from your mind means not that we are disrespecting them in our mind also. It just means that when we associate people, some impressions may come in. So are we letting them stay? Oh, this is what they value, this is what they value.

It's useful to know as information when we are interacting with them in future, but we don't internalise those things. So pay due respects, but don't be impressed. So this is the second code.

Now, maybe we can have one or two reflections. And then we can move on. How should we go ahead? How much time do we have? Well, we normally go for an hour.

But because today is a special day, if you are willing and have time to go, maybe like 20 minutes past nine here. So it would be 8.50 now. What is the time now? 8.50 here.

OK, so maybe one or two reflections. The fourth and fifth codes are very beautiful. I would like to get to them.

OK, well, I mean, I had a reflection. I just think it's really an important aspect that you're bringing out here about being very clear about the differentiation between between conducting ourselves and and actually being, you know, not offending actually other living entities in the sense that we're not we're not assuming that we understand their internal condition, that that we can interact with them, conduct ourselves in a sort of external way, which is proper. But to actually assume that we understand beneath the surface who they are, where they've been, you know, in so many lifetimes.

But to also just respect that their living entity in the Supreme Lord is is overseeing their evolution. So to not to just be clean in our dealings where we're not actually personally developing some sort of character analysis of them, judging them. But we're conducting ourselves in a very just a clean way.

That's a good thought that sometimes we put a label, Mayavadi, atheist or whatever. But sometimes for them, they may be with that group, not because of the philosophy. They may be there because of the culture.

They may because of the community. They may because they will be there because they have opportunity for service. For many people, even when they belong to a particular spiritual group, the philosophy may be a very small part of why they are there in that group.

And sometimes we take the philosophy and reduce that person to a philosophical label. People can quite multifaceted. So, yes, it's a good point that we we don't presume a knowledge of their internals, but just function in a way that is polite and appropriate.

Thank you. Yeah. And in that we're actually being compassionate and we understand that that that just as Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswat Thakur said, that there is a supreme reformer and he's he is reforming and evolution of every living every soul.

So to not limit them, not and not assume that the process is just stopped at a certain point. But there's always something that's a compassion, that's compassion, that we believe in their evolution. That's another deep thought.

Well, there are other questions Vijay Prabhu had asked about interfaith. So Anupama Prabhu has pioneered interfaith quite a bit in our movement. He's our communication director.

I think all of you know him quite well. He comes to Denver also. So I asked, you know, what is your consciousness when you go for this interfaith programmes? So he says, I just want to I just want to learn.

I just want to I am fascinated by seeing how God is acting in various traditions. So it's not that this God acted in the past. Now, God may not be acting in exactly the same ways acting in our tradition.

They may not even be conceiving God in the same way. Sometimes we focus too much on the correctness of conception, the correctness of practise. And these are important, no doubt.

But ultimately, God's God doesn't stop acting in somebody's life just because they don't have the correct conception of the correct practise. God is still acting. So how God is acting in a particular person's life.

If we understand that, then we can assist. Otherwise, you simply just go in and say this is wrong conception. This is wrong practise.

Just give it up and do this. So in one sense, service attitude in connecting with others means not just just giving God's message to them, but understanding how God is acting in their lives right now and then which part of God's message can help them, help them move ahead in their lives. So, yes, this beautiful point.

Thank you. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you so much. Very, very reassuring.

And, yeah, I find it to be reassuring what you're this last point you're sharing. I experience in throughout the years and, you know, different fields of outreach. When when I meet someone that's just maybe doesn't have so much maturation or experience in spiritual disciplines and practise, they may just be open to hear the Krishna conscious bhakti, Bhagavad Gita perspective.

And they're just like, hey, just please tell me, please fill me in. However, for those who have a certain my experiences, for those who have a certain maturity in life. In their character, their behaviour, their discipline, they may even have a very strict discipline.

Maybe it's not exactly in the same form as our as our bhakti, Gaudiya tradition. And I find that with those individuals, if I have this idea that while I'm interacting with them, especially if it's regular interaction, let's say I see them, you know, frequently. And if there's this agenda like, all right, I'm going to convert them, you know, and I'll kind of, quote, unquote, tolerate listening to them.

But I'm going to wait till I can have my one up. And really put them in their place. If I have even that internal agenda, it's distorted.

It gets blurry. It's yeah, it's just not like Brindu was saying, it's not clean. There's this like, even they may be going with it.

So I find it to be humbling and revealing to, you know, have the confidence in the tradition and in the vows and the practise and the Siddhanta Tattva that I've accepted. And then when with that, when with those persons, to be patient and to be actually open to see how Krishna is, how Krishna is teaching me proper, how to say it? Yeah. Proper mannerism and kind of even learning from there.

You know, there's a certain we may not be taking association, but just an appreciation of their experience of discipline and their character. Anyways, you really elaborated on it quite on point, and I'm just appreciating because it's an experience I've had. The phenomena of just kind of people who don't have so much development yet.

They're just open to hear. So I can just give Bhagavad Gita verses and give the Vaishnav Sadachara perspective. And then there's those who've been 10, 20 years with a particular discipline and then how to interact with them in a cordial manner without that kind of hidden agenda.

I'm going to have one up. I'm going to wait till I can get in there and then have one up from them. Yes, that's true.

Thank you for sharing your experience. It reminded me of one more thing that in Prabhupada, if some committed Christians came to him, that means somebody who is either a priest or something like that, Prabhupada didn't try to convert them. Prabhupada encouraged them to follow the Bible deeper, follow the Bible better, to become more spiritual in their practises within their tradition.

So, yes, it's important to meet people where they are at. Thank you, bro. So I'll move to the next point.

This is this is an amazing quote. He says those favoured by God find their paths set by thorns. This is an extraordinary thing and this is quite opposite to the way we normally conceive.

We go to God, please remove the problems in my life. And why would those favoured by God find their paths set by thorns? It is, of course, true. We have the example of Haridas Thakur.

He was persecuted so many times. He was beaten up in so many marketplaces. We, of course, have the example of Jesus Christ.

He was crucified. So they find their path set by thorns. So what exactly is happening over here? So here, where do the thorns come? Basically, at one level, the world's nature is things go down.

Nothing good stays good for a long time. Entropy is a scientific principle, but it's also a universal principle that things move toward greater and greater disorder. So if you want to maintain anything good, it requires sacrifice.

If you want to build something good, it requires even greater sacrifice. And the greatest good requires the greatest sacrifice. So sacrifice itself brings some thorns in our life.

Now, that is an obstacle, obstacle from inside us, obstacle from outside us. And it's significant that Bhagavad Gita also anticipates this in 9 chapter 13 and 14 verses. Krishna talks about how those who are devoted to him, their mind doesn't wander anywhere.

They're completely devoted to him. And yet what he says is, they worship him with great determination. They serve him with great determination.

If their mind is not distracted at all, why do they need determination? We often need determination because our mind wanders here, there and everywhere in the universe. But we need determination. So we need determination for that purpose.

Their mind may not wander, but still doing anything in the world requires effort. It requires overcoming opposition. So what it means is that actually this is to be expected.

And this is predicted in our scriptures also that when we try to do good, we will face opposition. So in general, it's the world's nature that when you try to do something good, the world's nature opposes it. And specifically, sometimes when you try to do good to others, ignorant people, they often oppose us.

They often oppose what is good for us. So at such times, it is actually very difficult to persevere in our lives. So His Holiness Radhanath Maharaj once told me that the nature of the world is that those people for whom we give our lives, they will act in ways that take our life.

So it's not that they are deliberately against us, but that's the way things work out in this world. So the people for whom we are trying to do good, sometimes they hurt us and that can be very painful. But then we may ask, OK, that is the world's nature.

That's people's nature. But where is God over here? Why is God not helping us? And that is very important. This is God's purpose is not just to help us.

God's purpose is to help us change. So that why doesn't God just simply remove the thorns? He can remove the thorns, but then we will not grow. He wants us to grow in inner strength.

He wants us to grow in inner devotion. So my favourite example for this is like a baby bird in a shell. So we all have the shells of our conceptions of bhakti.

So and we are living inside those shells and coming out of that shell requires effort. But if somebody helps us, if there's a baby bird and somebody breaks the shell and lets them come out, let the baby bird out quickly, the struggle is avoided. But the baby bird's wings don't grow enough.

The baby may come out of the shell, but its wings are not strong enough to raise its body up and to fly. So that help is actually harmful. So similarly, we have particular conceptions.

This is who I am. This is what I'm meant to do. This is how I'm going to serve Krishna.

This is how things in the world are. But often we are living inside a shell. And we need to expand our conception of life.

We need to come out of the shell. And that involves some struggle. So Krishna's help is not that he breaks the shell from outside.

In the baby bird, nature puts the baby bird in a shell and the shell protects up to a particular time. It's a remarkable example of the shell. The same shell that protects the baby bird for a particular time, then restricts the baby bird and the baby bird has to break through.

So we all have particular conception of bhakti. And I had a very funny experience about this. Sometimes devotees send me their classes and they say, can you review this class? And how was this class? They want to learn something more about speaking.

So one devotee sent his class to me and he asked me, can you review it? And I reviewed it and I sent some points to him. I said, you know, these were good points. These were interesting.

And then I told him this point was very, I felt this was very harsh. And then he said something to me which really embarrassed me. He said, this point was from your class 15 years ago.

So what happens is now, maybe at that point, I was filled with conviction about that point. But in a sense, Krishna Avelika, I have outgrown that shell, my concept. Maybe I become a little less judgemental, little less sweeping in my condemnation.

So at that time, that gave me some comfort, but you have to evolve. So God's purpose is to help us change. So why are there thorns? Because through those thorns, we grow inner strength, we develop inner resilience.

So if we expect that God, this is the way I am, this is the way I'm going. And God will help remove obstacles from my path that may not work. And we see Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur's life itself, the kind of, we can say he didn't just face thorns.

You know, he faced spears and swords. There were attempts to assassinate him. And for what reason? What happens is that religion is meant ultimately for spiritual growth.

But for many people, religion is not just for spiritual growth. It is also for political power. It is also for social influence.

And when Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur started including within the Vaishnav Sangha, people from lower castes, those whose powers were secured by the caste hierarchy, they felt threatened. And when he had a pilgrimage of devotees from all over the country, in fact, not just the country, the subcontinent, he had followers from Burma, which right now is in a lot of political turmoil, but in Myanmar. So he had people from there coming to Vrindavan and the Vrindavan temples closed down.

And, you know, he needed security at that time because there were threats to his life. So he himself, when he's saying this, their path is set with thorns. He has experience of that.

He was favoured by God. He was empowered. But their path is set by thorns.

Now, of course, we understand the acharyas, they are already evolved souls. And they may not need evolution, but they teach by their example for us. So is God there to help us? God is there with the baby bird.

And God helps the baby bird by giving it the strength to break the shell and come out. Similarly, if you think God should help me, this is the way I am, this is the way I'll go. And God should help me.

Maybe he will not. Maybe we may not get his help. Maybe we'll be disappointed.

But what is there for me to learn? What is there? How can I change? How can I become a better devotee, a better human being, a better instrument in the Lord's hands? If we have that attitude, then we will find that Krishna's help will be there for us. And that's how we all grow. So the obstacles, the thorns are not just meant to indicate that we should stop.

It is not that Krishna is deliberately sending the thorns to make our life miserable. Rather, that is the necessary impetus for us to grow, for us to change in our lives. And we see in Prabhupada's life how many thorns were there.

But he persevered. And quite often, remembering the obstacles that these great Acharyas faced, we can get inspiration. Once Prabhupada was told by one of his disciples, Bhaktivinod Thakur, he preached in Bengal.

Bhaktivinod Thakur preached in India. And you have preached all over the world. Therefore, you are greater than all of them.

Prabhupada said, never think like this. Never think like this. It is by their grace that I have been successful.

Prabhupada said that a father is very pleased when their parents are very pleased when their children excel them, do better, exceed them, do better than them. It is their blessings. So having said that, if we study Indian history, Prabhupada had a difficult time preaching in India.

But during Bhaktivinod Thakur's time, the preaching was even more difficult. Because at that time, the whole country was in the mood of independence. We have to get independence.

And the way the independence movement had grabbed the national imagination at that time, a few things paralleled that. So at that time, to inspire people to do something else is much, much more difficult. So what Bhaktivinod Thakur achieved at that time, it is remarkable.

So you could put it in a way that we can say that Bhaktivinod Thakur's success was lesser than Prabhupada's externally. But then what was Bhaktivinod Thakur's preaching arena, his outreach arena was much tougher. It's like suppose we see a dancer dancing and say one dancer dances for one full hour, goes on dancing.

Another dancer dances for 15 minutes. And we think, okay, the first dancer seems to be much more skilful, much more energetic, much better. But then later we find for the second dancer's dancing floor is littered with glass, broken glass.

Then we'll realise that even dancing for 15 minutes there is extremely difficult. But to some extent, Bhaktivinod Thakur's preaching arena was littered with broken glass when he preached in India. It is because at that time the whole national mood was different.

The national mood was we want independence. And at that time to get people even to turn towards Krishnayada was difficult. What to speak of and convince them to practise bhakti and to preach bhakti.

And at that time to do this, it was it was remarkable. So Prabhupada was spectacularly successful in his own way. But Bhaktivinod Thakur was also no less successful if you consider his time.

That 64 Gaudiya Matsya established in India itself and then three outside. One in Myanmar, in Burma, one in London and one in Munich, Germany. So he was successful in his own way.

And his European mission could also have been much more successful. But those are the times the Second World War was happening, was about to happen. And the whole political atmosphere was very surcharged.

So his own life was set with thorns. But his own service was set by thorns. But still, he not only walked through it, but he achieved extraordinary success in continuing and spreading Lord Chaitanya's mission.

Any quick reflections? I think you should keep going. I'm interested in the next part. Yeah.

I skipped one quote, but this is a very important quote. Don't criticise devotees or non devotees. First, look at your condition and try to purify yourself.

Is there any lust in you? Is there any kutinati, deceit in you or not? Be worried for that. Don't worry for others. Sri Guru and Lord Sri Krishna are responsible for others.

You cannot do anything to help them. So you have no right to criticise. I found this last phrase most striking.

How often do we think, do I have the right to criticise? We just presume because I know the truth and they don't know the truth. So I have a right to criticise. But it's something more.

Are we in a position to actually help them? If you're not in a position to help them, then criticising may be not the best thing to do. Now, this is quite radically different. Just look at the ambit.

He said, don't criticise devotees or non devotees. Now, Sri Guru and Lord Krishna are responsible for others. Be responsible for yourself.

Now, some of you may think, am I not responsible? And am I not a representative of Sri Guru and Krishna? Yes, I am. But am I in a position to help others? So Satsvarupa Maharaj told me at now, of course, again, there are different devotees. They may have different understandings of how outreach is to be done.

But let me just make this point that. So what he said to me is that we have no right to. So the right to criticise what he says.

So he says that we have no right to destroy. The worldview that is sheltering others, unless we are there to help them construct a new worldview, a better worldview. So now I'm paraphrasing his words and I would say I would attribute this to him.

This is a thought I heard from him. You know, whatever worldview people have, even if it is an atheistic worldview, that is sheltering them right now. Now, you may say it's a very bad shelter.

Yes, it is. But we have no right to destroy the world that is sheltering others unless we are there to help them build a better worldview. It's like somebody staying in a particular home.

And if that home is all that is giving them shelter, we just go and it's a terrible home. I want to demolish the home for you. Are you helping them build another home? That's an important thing to understand.

Or if you consider a blanket, somebody's cold and they are they are having one torn, tattered sheet. That is what is comforting them. This is so tall and thin and tattered.

Now, we may be wanting to give them a nice thick comforter. But if we just pull away their sheet and then leave them cold, they may oppose it. So instead of trying to destroy their worldview, they are trying to pull away their tattered sheet.

Try to just put the comforter on them. Let them experience the warmth, let them experience Krishna. And then when they experience that, they may realise, hey, I don't need this sheet.

This comforter is much better. So rather than destroying their worldview, try to give them a glimpse of the better world, give them a glimpse of the spiritual world. And when we do that, then we are actually helping them.

So now this again seems radical, but it's not that radical. When the Gita says the same thing, we consider Gita 326 as what? Na buddhi vedam janaiyat ajnanam karma saminam. Joshi sarva karmani vidvan yukta samacharan.

Don't disturb the minds of, it's interesting, Krishna says, these people are ignorant and attached. And he says, you may be enlightened and detached, still don't disturb their minds. Engage them in a way that they can be elevated.

Now, of course, sometimes that may mean challenging their constructions, no doubt. But engage them in a way that they can be elevated. So we need to, we can say, going back to the earlier point, see how God is acting in somebody's life and see how we can assist them.

So sometimes we just focus too much on destroying people's worldview. And if they are very strongly holding that worldview, we don't succeed in destroying it. We may think I destroyed it, but we didn't.

As they say, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. So people's worldview doesn't change. All that happens is they start becoming hostile towards us.

These people are so judgemental. These people are so intolerant. So now, does that mean we never correct? No, I'm not saying that at all.

It's important. So when do we have the right to find faults? When do we have the right to criticise? In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says in 16.2 that the characteristics of the godly people are that they are averse to fault finding. Apaishunam is the Sanskrit word.

So when we are finding faults, some of these lines, boxes have gone off a little, lines have gone off. But when can we find faults? He says, rather the godly people, they are averse to fault finding. He doesn't say they never find faults, but they are averse.

That means that they don't like to do it. So fault finding can be a temptation. It can be a temptation of the ego.

There are hardly any words which give as much satisfaction to the human heart as four words. I told you so. I told you so.

You are wrong and I am right. So criticism as a temptation of the ego. So sometimes we feel very good.

Oh, I found something wrong you did and I want to criticise you. So it is a temptation of the ego. Then it just becomes alienating for the other person.

So I told you so. That may gratify our ego, but it simply alienates other person, alienates others. So when can we do fault finding? When it is an obligation.

When we get no joy in doing so. I don't get any joy in correcting you. Sometimes we say I don't get any joy, but actually internally we get some joy.

So but actually this is a duty. I need to help you and I'm here to help you. And in order to help you, yes, they are doing things like this, but this will have these results and that won't be good.

So better do it like this. If you are objective in explaining things, you are objective in explaining things, not judgemental. Then, yes, there are times you need to find faults.

Now, what happens is. I'll conclude with this point and. Maybe some of you want to comment on this, do that.

So this is a big question. How is trust created? So far, what happens is if you want to correct someone, the trust necessary to correct. So one is.

It comes through a saintly purity and the other is it comes through a gradual investment in a relationship. So in my understanding, those who are saints like Shila Prabhupada, like Bhaktsansh Vapur, they have such saintly purity that they have some kind of mystical power around them where even people who they criticise, they just can make out this person is my well-wisher. This person wants my good.

And we see on many occasions when Prabhupada spoke strongly to people, what happened was because of the saintly purity that created that trust and that didn't, they didn't take offence. But quite often when we do the same thing, we don't have a saintly level of purity and we have to create that necessary trust. And that trust has to be created by a gradual investment in the relationship.

So only when we have invested in that relationship by that repeated investment slowly, but surely we start, they start, the other person starts seeing us as a well-wisher. And then when we when we challenge them or correct some of the misconceptions, that's when actually we move forward. We can actually help them.

Otherwise, we may alienate them. So going back once again to this quote, what he says is that first try to develop this saintly purity. Is there any lust? Is there any deceit in you? So by deceit, my understanding, why are you talking about deceit over here? Is it do you really want to take this person to Krishna or do you really do you want this person to submit to you? So in this context, deceit means do you want to prove that I am right and you are wrong? Or do I really want to take this person to Krishna? Now, for most of us, of course, we want them to go to Krishna, but we want them to go to Krishna through me.

That means they should accept my authority and then they will go to Krishna. So sometimes, sometimes there is the word Kutinati and deceit can appear very strong. We will call it deceit in that sense.

But it is that sometimes we want to give God glory, but we all we want, but we also want power over others. And if that happens, then then maybe we don't have the right to criticise. So, of course, if you have a particular responsibility, a particular project where something is something has to be done, then we may have to do this.

But in general, we prioritise no change. It's easy to label and condemn others, but it's not very helpful. It's tough to examine and change ourselves, but that's what is ultimately helpful.

So, yes, criticism may be required at times. If we have to get certain things done, if we have to train others, but it can get to be careful. It's not a temptation.

Anya nindadi sunyata ipsita sangalabdha. In the Nectar of Instruction it is said, the saintly people are free from the inclination to criticise others. And Bhakti Sahanas Thakur is reiterating the same thing.

So I'll quickly summarise. I spoke on four quotes from Bhakti Sahanas Thakur today. The first quote emphasised this point that you have the best desire, the best, even for your worst enemies.

So we talked about our saintliness is not just seen by how we love Krishna, but also how we love other living beings, including those who disrespect us. So then we had nice reflections in that connection that when we keep a distance from the envious, it is not because we condemn them, but because we can only serve them by praying from a distance. And the second quote of Bhakti Sahanas Thakur was about how we can give due respect to the extroverts, but don't be impressed by them and shake them off their mind.

So what extroverts meant was people who are driven by their by their working senses and who consider life success in terms of what they have done in the world, not so much what they have learned about the world. So the spiritual tradition is focused not so much on material possession as on spiritual realisation. So then we mentioned about association is not just physical proximity or polite behaviour, but it is more of transfer of desires or adaptation of values.

So we know they're not associating with people when we are simply being polite with them. So we can be culturally friends and we can have political, philosophical differences also. And third quote was about how those who are favoured by God have their paths set by thorns.

So why the thorns? The world itself is a tough place. Nothing good is easy to do. And something which is the supreme good requires the great supreme sacrifice, we can say.

And people oppose us. But then we say, why doesn't God remove the thorns? Yes, God is there to help us, but not just help us do what we are doing. It is to help us change, to evolve.

So for a baby bird who is trying to break a shell, God is not going to come from outside and break the shell. God is going to come inside and give strength to the baby bird. So God helps us to develop inner resilience, inner connection, transcendence.

And the last quote was, do not criticise devotees or non devotees. If you cannot, you cannot help them. So you have no right to criticise.

So I talked about if they're destroying a person's worldview without being there to construct their work, construct a better world view for them, then maybe we have to be careful. We may be doing more harm than good. So like pulling off a tattered sheet, first within the comforter, and then we do have to criticise at times.

But if criticism is gratifying our ego, then we need to pause. We get no joy in criticising. It is primarily as a duty to ensure that things are done properly or that a person is trained properly.

Then that is the time we can criticise. And last point I made was that saints, so generally when we have to correct someone, the trust to correct someone, where does it come from? Saints may be able to develop, often are able to develop that by their purity within moments of interacting with someone. But often for us, we may have to invest gradually in the relationship before we can correct others.

Thank you very much. Are there any reflections or questions or should we stop here? I'm OK with both. It's already beyond time.

I think we'll stop. Yeah. Let's continue.

Sorry? Let's let's continue if you're if you can. OK. Yes, we have.

There are a few hands up. We have Nandasunapuru and Makansarapuru. Yes, please.

Nandasunapuru, go ahead. Just I think you're not unmuted yet. Somehow we're not hearing you, Nandasunapuru.

Can you type if possible then? Yeah, let's have Makansarapuru go ahead. Good morning, Papaji. Thank you for your talk this morning.

So nice to see you. I felt like a lot of the points that you made today, I can see in my own life as a longtime devotee and practitioner of a different tradition. I was thinking back to all of the really wonderful association that Krishna has provided to bring me to Krishna consciousness.

Many people on this very call, including yourself, for kind of recognising perhaps an opportunity to introduce the teachings of Prabhupada and the texts and the concepts and teachings. So I really think that what resonated with me the most in that journey was the trust and the care that the devotees and my friends in the Krishna consciousness movement graciously shared and allowed for me to engage in exploration. So it was never a devotee trying to tear down any of the beliefs and practises of Buddhism, but really just maintaining an open door for exploration together.

And I think I hope that those explorations benefited the other devotees and I guarantee that they opened many doors for my heart for Krishna consciousness. So I just wanted to share that. Thank you for your talk, Papaji.

I think this is the first time we're seeing each other. So good to see you. Good to see you.

Congratulations and wonderful to know that you had an experience of this non-judgemental welcoming attitude in the Denver Yatra. Thank you for sharing. Thank you.

Yes. Good to see you, Papaji. Thank you.

You want to try your mic again? I think when you took your headphones out, it worked. Can you hear me now? My question was, OK, so is it OK if I ask a question? Yes. OK, so the.

So I can say myself that I've been guilty of unnecessarily criticising devotees, but I'm trying to kind of stop that habit. And my question is, if we're associating, if we have friends who are devotees who may criticise devotees, what is the proper action in that situation? Because I think like being around it can implicate us and then also like agreeing with the criticism can implicate us. But also we don't want to leave the friendship or like that.

So that's my question. OK. You see, don't criticise devotees.

We have to also be careful to understand what it means. There is always a possibility in the material world that anybody can go off track. And if somebody is going off track, then it is to some extent important for us to if we are in a role to help them, help them.

Otherwise, if they're going off track and. If they're going off track is hurting us, maybe they are not in a position where they are in a superior position to us where we can't help them. But they're going off track is hurting us.

Then we can express our concerns. And if somebody else is going through that situation and then they are expressing their situation or their their troubles. We say when we say don't criticise devotees, that doesn't mean we have to stay gagged and never voice our concerns.

There's a difference between voicing our concerns and criticising. So and it may be if you're interacting with the first or second time with someone, it will be difficult to understand whether somebody is simply voicing their concern or they're criticising. And especially if it's about someone we don't like.

We will say, oh, actually, is this voicing the concern? It's about somebody we like. So they are criticising. So you understand what I'm saying, that, you know, it's very easy to go in that direction.

So if we are really interacting with people in over a period of time, we understand where people are coming from. And it is just nature that some people have a more critical mentality than others. And that's there in the material world.

And that's and it's not that devotees come to our movement dropping down from the spiritual world. They come from the material world itself. So therefore, that mentality will be carried on.

So if something has happened and a devotee is hurt by what has happened and at that time they are just venting out. And if we if we are a close friend for them, then we don't have to simply walk away because you're criticising them. And then as as devotees, we need to be there for each other.

And it's one thing if I'm emotionally wounded, I'm expressing my heart. So one thing which we need to do is that if. If somebody is expressing some negative mentality once in a while because of a negative interaction and somebody is regularly, it is regularly speaking negative or somebody.

And quite often they speak negative without giving any solution. Simply just to pull things down, then it is difficult. So then I think the overall influence.

So we could say that the two of us are friends and then they are down here. And maybe just by talking with us, unburdening their hearts, we can help them rise up a little bit. But if by interacting with them, we are going down.

And say we are losing our faith, our inspiration, our enthusiasm. All things are terrible and things are going to stay terrible. And then it's like somebody is drowning and they are asking a hand for us to help.

But if we give them the hand, they are so heavy that they will pull us down, whether intentionally or intentionally. Then maybe the best way we can help them is pull our hand free and maybe run to someone else and ask them to help. So maybe if somebody's negative mentality is so much critical and critical mentality so much that it's disrupting our faith.

Then it's disturbing us, disturbing either our faith or our morale. Both can be there. Faith may not be disturbed, but our enthusiasm, our morale is disturbed.

Then maybe we may not be the right person to help them. In economics, one of the sayings is that the first way you can help the poor is not by not joining their ranks. This doesn't mean you look down on the poor, but how can we help the poor if, say, if we don't, if we don't, if tomorrow we don't have any money ourselves, if we are jobless, if we are hopeless.

So if somebody is in distress, if we if we are getting negatively infected by affected by what they are doing, then maybe we are not the person to help them. But don't criticise other means. It doesn't mean we have to be gagged.

We have to gag ourselves. In with a close friend, sometimes we may need to unburden our hearts. And it's one thing to unburden our hearts when we are hurt with a close friend.

And it's quite another to go on a public tirade where we be on social media or in front of everyone. We start start just giving one side of the story and criticising or demonising others. So with a little discernment, discernment, I think we can understand when somebody is criticising or when somebody is just expressing their hurt or voicing their concerns.

And also by we can also introspect what is what is the effect of what they are doing on us. And based on that, we can decide whether we are the right person to help them or it's maybe they are best or better helped by somebody else. Does it address your concern? Yeah, that was very helpful.

Thank you. No, Prabhu, I'm just grateful for your regular presentation and your mood of authentic introspection and how you learn from the Acharyas and Shastra and just appreciating your own internal discipline of constantly engaging in the process of Vaishnav introspection and then sharing that with the world at large. So yeah, grateful for your sincere and authentic process of practising bhakti.

Thank you. I hope one day I become sincere and authentic. I'm grateful for the opportunity.

Thank you very much.