Challenges in sharing Krishna consciousness globally part 1, The Monk’s Podcast 132 with Shyamananda Prabhu

Podcast: Summary Podcast: Video:

Hare Krishna. Hare Krishna.

Welcome back to the Monks Podcast. It's been quite some time. Thank you so much for coming back again.

What is the topic today? So I thought we could discuss about how Krishna Consciousness is actually universal or how Krishna Consciousness can not only be made accessible to East and West, but also can integrate the best of the East and the West. We see in today's world, there's a lot of polarisation, a lot of sectarianism and that leads to conflict even within countries, within families and within our movement also, to some extent, it's happening. So how can we, three things first, how is Krishna Consciousness universal? How can that universality be made accessible? And then how can that universality help in resolving some of the sectarian conflicts in today's world? Something like that I thought we could discuss.

What do you think? Quite interesting. So are you assuming that just because everybody is spirit soul, therefore everybody will accept that there can be one culture, one umbrella culture for everyone? Is that your angle? I don't think so at all. Again, this leads to a problem of what do we, how do we, what do we actually mean by the word culture? Because that's also ambiguous.

But broadly, in today's world, people often say that we are a part of the same global family, we are a part of the same human family, some people say even we are the part of the earth family. So at a foundational level, Krishna Consciousness is universal because we understand we are all, all living beings are souls. So, and if you understand that there is one ultimate reality, one divinity, Krishna, known by different names, but then so those foundational truths of Krishna Consciousness are the basis of its universality.

We all are souls, we all are, we are all parts of one, one God and we are all meant to, we can find our life's greatest fulfilment in loving Him. So we could say these three foundational truths are, are universal in Krishna Consciousness. So I would start from that foundation and then move ahead.

What do you think? Yeah, that, that I can agree. One of the things which inspired me when I just opened the Krishna book for the first time and later I came to know that Prabhupada acknowledged George Iser's contribution, but there was also a foreword by George and he wrote, it is still there for everyone to read, everyone is looking for Krishna. So, so later, of course, after reading Prabhupada's books and conversations and reading his classes, that whatever may be your hearts, whatever your heart is searching for, you will find that fulfilment in Krishna.

You are a part of Krishna. So therefore, this culture is universal. At least that's how I understood.

Well, that's a big leap. Therefore, that we are all searching for Krishna, from there to say this culture is universal, this philosophical principle is universal. How do you leap to this culture is universal? Or what do you mean by the word culture? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So there culture, two things. Many times I would hear seniors, I am talking of three decades ago, that Krishna consciousness will be spread through cultural conquest. Now, conquest can be a bit of a difficult word.

But we just say that by using culture. So, then I kind of noted some points as to what can be called culture. And this is just any mundane dictionary which says that an umbrella term which encompasses social behaviour, norms, knowledge, beliefs, art, laws, customs, capabilities, habits of individuals in a group.

So culture is a big bag in the sense it's like a hugely elastic bag. And more things you put rather than the bag getting kind of torn or something, the bag simply becomes bigger and bigger. Are you getting what I'm saying? Okay, good way of putting bag becomes bigger and bigger.

So like dance is culture, food is culture. Food eating habits is culture. Then talking is culture.

What is culturally appropriate, inappropriate and that becomes. And then, so I will come to my favourite part. This is my launchpad for today's discussion.

I was asking myself and two visuals came in my mind. Is culture a painting or is culture a river of flowing water? So if it is a painting, then the painting was already done. Maybe it's a huge mural, it's a masterpiece.

And like some of the European paintings of the Renaissance period, you really need expert guidance to even interpret the meaning. Because every look and cranny of that is crammed with so many motives, so many ideas, some things which could not be expressed at the time were hidden sort of. So that means you have a static thing and you are trying to understand that.

If it is a flowing river, then that famous Greek philosopher saying you can never step into the same river twice. So that means it is always flowing. It is water, but it is flowing.

The pebbles are also pebbles, but they're also new ones coming because of the flow of the water. So what was appropriate when Prabhupada approached the counterculture? Should that be used again? Because the success rate is there for us to really love it. Oh, this thing was a huge success.

Some things Prabhupada said, mourning Mangalati, chanting, following the Ram, following the Vedanta principles. So that's like a painting kind of thing. They will not be dislodged no matter what.

So in respect to others, serving properly prasadam in a very happy, satisfied kind of environment with a lot of humility. I remember once we had a discussion on prasadam and our seniors, one senior devotee told us that you should ask, would you like to take some prasadam in such a way that even if he's not hungry, he would agree to take. And it was because he was saying this is culture.

The way you are inviting someone, that is culture. One sannyasi told his assistant that I would like to have such and such sannyasi godbrother with me for breakfast prasadam. So go and ask him during Mangalati time, would he like to come? So he asked him and he said, no, I am busy.

So he came back and told his spiritual master that he's not available. So he said, how did you ask him? Did you ask him in a way I would have asked him? So he said, well, since you asked me that, are you coming for prasadam? And he said, no. So this disciple was later relating that it was a matter of that culture where you ask someone in such a way that you really convey the inner feeling that he really wants you, he wants your company, he wants your association.

So these are very small points and I could say that they are not like a really rigid understanding. But I'm sure most of the devotees in ISKCON would be encountering, experiencing these small things about culture, culture, culture throughout the day. So your thoughts on this? Beautiful.

A lot of points you made. Let me take the last point first. So I would say this is where we could transcend all differences if culture means the mode of interactions we have with each other.

So I was thinking of this verse, Sixfold Loving Exchanges. And especially, So it talks about three things. It talks about things, food and heart or thoughts, you could say.

So that which sustains us, that which we… So objects, sustenance and the hearts, thoughts, emotions, feelings. So and it's significant that Prabhupada also says in the Purport over there that the Krishna Consciousness Movement is sustained by these, is nourished or… nourished by these Sixfold Loving Exchanges. So if we consider how people interact with each other as the key to culture or as the… there could be many aspects of culture, but if that is what we consider as the key to culture, then there will be very little room for disagreement in the sense that everybody wants to feel valued, feel welcomed, feel not necessarily respected in an egoistic sense, but accepted, appreciated, valued.

And this applies across the gamut of human society. One of the reasons why people take to a spiritual movement or they explore spirituality nowadays is because they want a sense of community. They want to belong to something bigger, especially with the family units, either becoming smaller or even fragmenting.

People want to be something, part of something bigger. So if we consider, in we read Chaitanya Charita Amrut, for example, now what attracts the heart over there is not the specifics of which food they ate, not the specifics of how they dressed, those are part of it. But actually what touches the heart is the way they sweetly deal with each other.

So this is, if we could, sometimes in the name of discussing culture, we lose this part that you are wrong and you are doing something wrong. And in order to protect culture, we may behave in a way that is actually very, or we may speak or act in a way that is very contrary to the spirit of the culture. Any thoughts on this? I like the way you put these three things, our Rupa Goswami Prabhupada gave.

And that is also one favourite thing of me to analyse. Dadati, Granati refers to objects, as you rightly said, gifting, gifting culture. Then Bhumte Bhojate is an invitation to come for prasad or a meal, lunch, supper, dinner, whatever and accept invitation.

So, gift also is a package, but inside that there should be love. Food also, you go to a notation because there is love involved. And Guhyamakhyati has the additional element of trust.

So, you may readily accept a gift of say a medallion or some chandan, tilak from Udwarka. Prabhu, there is a book for you, the latest book by Giridhar Maharaj and I got it for you. So, you take it.

Would you like to join us for some special prasadam? We have a special Bengali treat or a special Marwari prasadam or continental or Italian. But to ask someone that, do you need help? I see that for the last few days, you were having a little bit of a sullen look on your face or are you not keeping well? Do you need some assistance? So, that is, you are enquiring in confidence. And of course, Prabhupada gives it a very spiritual kind of a bend that that Guhyamakhyati Prachiti is how do I surrender to Krishna? So, yeah.

And then if somebody has asked you the question and then you say that, okay, since you asked me in confidence, I'm going to tell you exactly what it is. So, there is object, invitation, food is not the main thing. It is mostly the love.

Of course, if it is Mahaprasad, the food element also is there. Yes, yes. But with Guhyamakhyati Prachiti, there is the element of trust.

Would you trust someone with your hearts? Whatever, tragedy or problems. So, I never thought of these three as progress. Of course, the third is the closest.

But you could say that they are progressive. You can accept gifts from many people. But how many people would we invite for a meal or something like that? Exactly.

So, now, somehow there is so much discussion on culture, but this aspect, I never thought about it. I know that this is so important. So, now we could say that, yes, there are aspects to cultures, just food, dress and language and terminology and things like that.

So, if we start with this as the foundation, our purpose is that we want to relate with Krishna and we relate with each other in relationship with Krishna. So, how we are sustaining our relationships, that is the essence of Krishna consciousness. And ultimately, Krishna consciousness is about relationships, relationship with Krishna.

So, we could say, without getting into the technicalities of the word culture, if we start by saying that, if Krishna consciousness is our ultimate value, what is it that furthers Krishna consciousness the most? My understanding, it would be the relationships. It is the greatest pain or agony is caused when not many devotees may leave because suddenly they start doubting, is Krishna God? Or they suddenly start doubting, am I the body or am I the soul? But usually, when somebody, somebody close to them, some devotee does not behave in a proper way, behaves harshly, behaves in an improper way. Now, there could be any, improper could be a very broad limit.

But in one generally, when people have faith crisis, it is not so much because of the philosophy, it is because of the dealings. So, we could say that, what is, if we consider the word culture, I sometimes use this word culture in a different sense, like there is bacteria culture, yeast culture. So, that which sustains the bacteria or the yeast, that's what we call as bacteria-yeast culture.

So, if we consider Krishna conscious culture, that means that which sustains Krishna consciousness, that which helps Krishna consciousness to flourish. So, my understanding would be, this would be the central aspect. How, how do we relate with each other, in a way that we both feel enriched and encouraged to further connect with Krishna? Any thoughts on this? Yeah, if you say that, it's mostly based on the relationships.

So, how do you transplant that culture? Say, there is a place where there is no culture and you are introducing something. Or there is a place, there is already, there is some kind of culture, which according to you could be the wrong culture, different culture, whatever. So then, is there scope, is there scope for adjustments? Or there is a straight transplant? Okay, so that's a, that goes back to your point about the two metaphors, you said painting and the river.

I thought of it from, I'll come to your examples, but I just thought of, generally when people talk about a tradition, say for example, if you can say something like, something which both of us love, English language. So, there are scholars of, there are linguists who say that if you are writing, making a dictionary or you are writing a book about writing rules. So, broadly there are two traditions, they say.

They call it, there is a, not two traditions, two schools of thought. There is a descriptive school of thought and there is a prescriptive school of thought. So, say for example, don't end a sentence with two, don't split infinitives.

There are so many rules like that. So now, some English scholars consider that their primary job is to make sure, to give prescriptions and to make sure the prescriptions are implemented. Okay.

And some scholars consider that actually language is what people use. So, what is the use of, language is what people use to interact with each other. So, that purpose has to be served.

So, look at how people speak. So, when they study language, their focus is more of descriptive, that this is how people are speaking. So, gradually words which are being used in common language, the hybro-intellectuals may frown on those words, but eventually they become commonplace.

They become commonplace and they come into the dictionary also. Maybe sometimes with some scare quotes or something that this is not approved. But the point is there is a descriptive and there is a prescriptive.

This is how the language is spoken and this is how the language should be spoken. So, sometimes the descriptive changes the prescriptive. That is what was considered wrong English 100 years ago, may be considered standard English today.

And sometimes the prescriptive changes the descriptive. People learn, okay, this is not the way to speak. So, for example, recently I did this podcast with Hanumet Prasad Maharaja over Shakespeare.

So, I was reading a little bit about English and English literature and history. So, it seems there was a time in English history where constantly there was a debate between should you use can I or shall I or may I? And it is like a favourite thing of people to correct. No, you should not, not may, it should be can or not may, shall.

So, shall I, can I, so. Now, it sounds almost pedantic. It's becoming to a large extent inconsequential as far as I know.

So, that aspect that is it prescriptive or is it descriptive? So, this is slightly changes from your point that, so I would say the painting metaphor is that it's largely, it's there. And this is what it is. We just have to understand it.

So, I would say the painting metaphor goes toward the prescriptive. This is what it is. That if culture is like, of course, in a painting we are not entering into the painting.

A culture, we want to participate in the culture, prescriptive. But this would be the river metaphor. It's constantly changing.

And what we do is, if you want to bathe in the river, if you want to travel in the river, want to swim in the river, then we need to go with the flow of the river. To some extent, at least. So, that broadly we could say is, to some extent, descriptive way.

So, prescriptive indicates that it's unchanging. And this is what you have to conform to because it is something unchanging. Descriptive indicates that it is changing.

So, I just conclude this point by saying that, those languages which insisted on being too prescriptive ended up becoming dead languages. So, English is spread widely because it has not been too prescriptive. Although, of course, English also has its own idiosyncrasies, some typical grammar rules, pronunciations and things like that.

But still, there are words which came from, say, Spanish. English used them and again loaned back to Spanish. Oh, really? So, any thoughts about this prescriptive-descriptive? Yeah, it kind of sparked off a chain of thoughts that some devotees felt that when Prabhupada started his Second Avenue Centre, he gave the whole culture.

Eating habits, you would cook personally. And as the devotees would, like first time the boys and girls, they cleaned up everything. They dyed the carpet and they decorated and Prabhupada said, Oh, you are progressing.

So, what I understood when I read that was, your desire to serve Krishna is now kind of getting ignited. You would like to make this place a bit more decorative. As much as possible.

How much a storefront can be made into a temple. So, Prabhupada would begin the lecture with what the boys would call bells. He did not tell them what exactly it was.

But it was just Prabhupada ringing the bell and saying the Mangala Ashram and praying to his spiritual master. So, never for a moment Prabhupada gave them the idea that I am doing this because I like it, or because I want it, or because it is so nice, it's groovy, it is interesting. It was always, I am here as an emissary of my Guru Maharaj.

I have come here because he wanted me to. He's telling one Spanish lady, I mean Hispanic lady, Spanish speaking, Hispanic lady, that I would like to go back. But I am duty bound.

So, this is that aspect of culture where Prabhupada would translate something into his behaviour. That these are the principles which I am following and therefore I am behaving like that. So, in that sense, what you said, prescriptive.

At the same time, when young practitioners, young in the sense, young in the sense of practise, their practise was young and he would accommodate so many things. He would say, oh, this is nice. It is nicely done.

It is very good. It's very good. It's very good.

So, some of the things which we deal with today, as a kind of controversial thing today, that Prabhupada says this in the purport, but I saw Prabhupada allowing this. Now, should that be seen as allowance given in the beginning, but Prabhupada really wanted something else? Or actually from his heart, Prabhupada made it a descriptive thing that as you rightly said, if somebody is speaking wrong English, who says it is wrong? Well, there's an academy which says it's wrong. Well, what about the common man in the street? And he is just going on with the same language.

So, even though they push, they protest, but afterwards it comes back. I mean, it comes in the main flow. So, when we understand that Prabhupada allowed something, Prabhupada disallowed, didn't allow something, but the why, if the why comes, as you rightly said, to relationships, to improving our understanding of each other, then we can take something or we can reject something.

Depending upon what stories the senior disciples have. Somebody said, I saw Prabhupada didn't allow that at all. Somebody said, no, that time we allow it.

The case comes to my mind is what was discussed in the Shastric committee that should we be fasting till noon for Ram Navami or till evening? It seems there are devotees who have experience of both. Yes. So, fasting comes as a cultural item.

But for this particular festival or Vishnu Tattva appearance, should it be till this day, this time or that time? So, then it becomes, I don't know what issue it becomes. Is it a geological issue or is it a historical issue? What exactly do we call that? Yeah, I think it just reveals that maybe our presumptions of that, sometimes people say that truth is one, falsehoods are many. But is it that simple? Is truth is one, we could say ultimately Krishna is one ultimate reality.

But Krishna Himself manifests as Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan. So, sometimes truth itself may be a complicated matter. If Prabhupada said both things.

So, truth might not be uniform, truth itself might be multiform. Based on now that goes into a lot of complicated subjects. But just coming to your point that what you said about prescriptive and descriptive, that is a significant hermeneutic issue.

That do we understand Prabhupada's words through his actions or do we understand his actions through his words? What is higher priority? So, that means the words that he gave are the standards and the actions that he did were adjustments or the actions that he did are the, now we won't say the words are the adjustments, but the actions that he did are what he recognised is necessary to do in today's world. And therefore, we also need to see his words in the light of his actions. So, again the achar would be more of descriptive and the prachar would be more of prescriptive.

So, now is the acharya's primary definition, the one who teaches, does the acharya's primary legacy, are the acharya's primary legacy the teachings, sorry, the lived example or the written words? So, that also becomes a big question. So, this is, I am not sure whether there is any resolution to it, but any thoughts on this? So, what exactly was the main point what you said? No, so again with respect to Prabhupada also there is prescriptive-descriptive when we talk about it. So, that prescriptive-descriptive also can be connected in our traditional terminology with prachar and achar.

Prabhupada said this, but he did this, like you give the example of that. Prabhupada, we could give many examples of Prabhupada, like Prabhupada spoke strongly against say, let's take an example where we can say it's a clear adjustment or a concession, like Prabhupada didn't approve of a couple who were married separating. But if somebody has already made up their mind, Prabhupada didn't insist, they stay together.

Because he knew that as we say the context that they would still go ahead and separate and unless they would be committing an offence by disobeying the Guru. So, that we could say is Prabhupada. Prabhupada being, so what should we do? We could say as his followers we do both.

We can emphasise the sanctity of marriage when we are in official capacity as teachers. But when we are dealing at the individual level, we may also have to manifest the sensitivity of the case. So, here we could make sense of the difference between the two.

That it depends. There is a principle being taught and then how the principle has to be applied is seen according to time, place, circumstance. Or how much the principle has to be insisted on can be seen according to time, place, circumstance.

Can we talk about some other examples of say, difference between his words and his actions? Anything come into your mind right now? Yeah, say for example, Prabhupada made certain statements about blacks, which seem to be in today's world is very politically incorrect, very almost offensive. But then Prabhupada never acted that way with anyone. And he had disciples from African backgrounds who gave their life to him and they felt valued and accepted and loved and cherished by him.

So, in this case, we could say that his achar is, I don't want to use the word trumps, but achar eclipses, again prachar is a very sacred word, but his actions far overshadow his words. So, that could be an example. And I don't think anybody would oppose this point.

That here is a clear example of Prabhupada's actions need to be given far more importance than his words. So, if we consider, now just going back to this point that Prabhupada, how did he further Krishna Consciousness? He furthered Krishna Consciousness or he spread Krishna Consciousness. We say it's his purity.

Of course, that is true. But it was, did Prabhupada further Krishna Consciousness because he taught devotees, like you said, to clean up and to wear a particular dress or to adopt a particular lifestyle? Or was it that because Prabhupada lovingly connected with devotees and that loving interactions, that was what inspired people to take to Krishna Consciousness? So, if you consider the primary motive, force in Krishna Consciousness, and motive means the force, not motive in the sense of, the primary force that moves, motive in the sense of force that moves, the primary impetus for people to take to Krishna Consciousness during Prabhupada's time was Prabhupada's loving dealings. Devotees wax eloquent about their interactions with Prabhupada.

And so, again, I feel the thrust of the way to resolve the prescriptive-descriptive conflict which could go on is that to focus on the point that there had to be loving interactions and then whatever further those loving interactions is what is conducive for Krishna Consciousness. So, any thoughts on this? So, basically, whatever Prabhupada did was part of Vaikuntha culture, that in Vaikuntha, everybody is loving, everybody is cooperative, everybody is you first, not me. And that is what you see through Prabhupada's, even some of his smallest incidents or smallest actions, like I think Jadurani Mataji telling Prabhupada that Swamiji, could you just step aside because I want to start painting at this particular corner.

For service, you can step on my head. So, it was a simple thing. If it was Prabhupada said, all right, come over here, then this would have been completely forgotten.

But because he gave that kind of a reply, which immediately gave dignity to her service, importance to serving Krishna, importance from the servitor because he is serving the Supreme Lord. So, these are the things which kind of, these are the threads which come from that. Or Prabhupada being asked that Swamiji, you are going to America, I heard, an Indian gentleman asked him.

No, Srimad Bhagavatam is going to America and I am just carrying it. So, since we are seeing everything from our so-called culture lens, can I tempt you with some kind of a pilot project? These two examples that for my service, you can step on my head also and Bhagavatam is going. For serving Krishna, you can step on my head also.

So, what are you conveying by these two examples? How exactly, how is this related to the topic of the culture or universality? Like I began with that Vaikuntha culture is where you give Krishna's service top billing, top priority. So, it is not me that is important, it is serving Krishna that is important. And since you are serving Krishna by this painting, if it is necessary, you can even step on my head.

So, he is simultaneously giving himself a very low position and giving her service a very high position. Are you getting what I am saying? As I said, if you would have just stepped aside and said, okay, you come here and do whatever you want to do, this would have been a completely forgotten incident. But because of his statements that you are important because you are serving Krishna, your service is important because you are serving Krishna.

And therefore, if you feel I am in the way, then you can even step on my head. Then it doesn't matter. You don't need to give me that much importance.

Now, of course, she will give. But as a part of culture, see like, if somebody is always given importance, we talk in life, the life of dictators, how they become insecure if the awe, reverence, puja, la patishta, profit, fame, adoration doesn't come. So, it was part of the culture that Prabhupada would diffuse it.

Time and again, he would show that he talked of first class, second class, third class, fourth class. I think some students said, so which class do you belong to? I belong to the 10th class. Or I am the servant of all the classes.

Yeah, that was not just humour. That was not just, he was actually thinking like that. So, when we talk culture as just an outward superficial thing, then we just discuss the events.

But when we discuss the inner core of culture, because I feel that that is what is universal. The debate between what foods to eat, what foods are totally Vedic, which are some are non-Vedic, that will go on endlessly. But then if there is a shell, there is a core.

Okay, now I think I've got some bearing on something. There's a cultural shell and there's a cultural core. So, the shell will have things of attire, music, song, dance, architecture, and so many things.

Without the core, that won't sustain. The shell won't sustain. So, now this is where what is the shell and what is the core might become a little bit of a debate.

So, but I appreciate this point. What you're saying is Krishna's service is the most important. That is the core.

So, Prabhupada would say that in his class. But with this behaviour, he backed it up, kind of. Publicly, Prabhupada would proclaim, I am 10th class or I am servant of all.

So, he backed it up with his declaration. Yeah, I'm just trying to understand how this would deal with the specific concerns and that this is a very endearing and inspiring examples of humility and saintliness. And how would that relate with the issue of which aspects of Krishna consciousness are, can be, as you say, can be adjusted according to time, place, circumstance.

So, anything that places Krishna, so we could say, whatever is required for placing Krishna at the centre, what is required for doing the service of Krishna, that is core. Yes. But somebody might say that, you know, serving Krishna means wearing a particular kind of dress.

Serving Krishna means doing a particular kind of things. So, the cultural core is that we should serve Krishna. So, broadly, in my interactions with devotees, if I may just mention this before we move ahead, especially western devotees, there are five items which they find as, which create obstacles for people to, there could be many, to connect with, to see the universe as Krishna consciousness.

There's the dress, there's the food, there's the music, then there are the names itself that we have. Our, the names of people themselves are like very long from a western perspective, difficult to pronounce. And then our forms of addressing each other.

I don't know how the last, how much the last important is, but these are what make people feel that they are joining a Hindu group or an Indian group. And that makes them, do I really want to do that? So, if we consider the shell and the core, so would we put these as part of the shell? Okay. Now that you have brought it to something which was very close to my question that I said about a pilot project, let us say two of us are supposed to guide someone who is going to present Bhagavad Gita as it is in an area of the world that nobody has gone there before.

They have their language, customs, they are not primitives. They use, it's like a, may not be the first world type economy, but it is not completely primitive also. But everything is alien to what happens in India today.

The culture, food, habits, language, everything is different. So, this is where we test our hypothesis, so to say, what would be our first guideline to a team of devotees going there? That should they, should they change to the dress code of that particular place or should they have the, whatever it's called, ISKCON, devotional attire or whatever. So, there are proper statements where he says that, no, you can dress according to the local, local climate.

So, my core is bringing Krishna in their lives and my shell is what kind of temperatures I am going to function in. If it is 110 degrees Fahrenheit or it is 38 degrees or more, then something very light as the local people wear would be the attire of choice. If it was freezing cold for six or eight months in a year, then obviously we have to have a proper insulation for the body.

Is it not? I'm just making a beginning. We're just talking of the dress code here. So, I would say it's a matter of common sense at one level.

Now, Prabhupada himself stuck to his Bengali dress wherever he went. So, now this brings a question that certainly if we are going to initially present, we would definitely not emphasise the dress or even the food for that matter. That's okay.

We would focus on the core teachings of Krishna. In fact, the concept of that our consciousness doesn't come from matter or that there is an ultimate reality who is loving, that is Krishna. So, that is what we would emphasise.

So, we could say that we will present the core first and that's important, but then would the shell have to come after that? So, to be very honest, the thought which came to my mind is, okay, for the first four or five years, we will try to behave like you. We will use your dress. We'll use some food items from the local thing.

But internally, we are convinced that this is not the right thing for me to eat. This is not the right clothing for me to wear. And okay, you people are advancing two rounds, four rounds, eight rounds, 16 rounds, six months, one year, Niksha initiation.

So, now when do you start wearing traditional Bengali sarees or South Indian sarees or North Indian bangles or whatever? So, Prabhupada, as you rightly said, Prabhupada never changes sannyasi dress. But in cold weather, devotees made a nice woollen coat for him. That is the, I think life comes from life book has those pictures of Prabhupada wearing that coat and Venice beach, early morning walks.

So, depending upon the need, he would accept something which is, as you rightly said, just common sense. Beautifully put. So, there was an old BDG.

I think it was a lecture by Prabhupada and a painting. I hope that painting is there somewhere. It showed practically all the regions of the world in a Harinam Sankirtan.

Maybe I'll try to find and show you that. So, it has Arabs. It has Chinese.

It has Mongoloids, Caucasians, Indians, Africans. Then the Mongoloid means Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipinos. So, maybe at that time, the artist had that kind of a impression that we could do it.

A whole global society of Krishna devotees, but all of them are not wearing the same dress. Even their hairstyle, even their facial hair, some keep, some have not kept. So, it is there.

So, once devotees asked, what about facial hair? Prabhupada said, yeah, devotees used to have hair, but I prefer like this. So, he preferred the clean-shaven thing. He made it very clear.

He would himself be very… Have you ever seen Prabhupada's picture with weeks or fortnight of facial hair growth? He would keep like that. So, that would be that. Is that coming as a part of the core or is that part of a personal preference of Srila Prabhupada? That's a very good question.

You know, we could start from something more fundamental, more personal, not personal. Prabhupada liked kachoris. Is that a preference or is that a principle? Because Prabhupada liked kachoris, so all of us have to like kachoris.

Exactly. Like in some places, people don't like fried foodstuff so much. I don't think there's an area like that.

Everybody has some kind of… But let's say, for example, for argument's sake, there is an area where people don't prefer fried foodstuff. And if it is Prabhupada's appearance day, should we say that everybody has to eat at least four kachoris or six kachoris in order to show your allegiance? So, where does loyalty begin? Where does blind acceptance start? Where does the shell kind of replace the core? And then so much of energy and so much of discussion and so many things are just put on the superficial element, the shell elements. And as you rightly said, if the… OK, let me make a very adventurous statement.

You get 10 out of 10 on the shell, but if you fail in the core, we find people leaving. And even if you falter a little bit on the shell items, but if the core is kept intact, there could be some solution. That's beautifully put.

So, one of the things… So, again, we could put, I think, without any controversy, we can put relationships at the core, not just from the perspective of Krishna consciousness being a relation, but Rasa and Rasa theology are also central to our particular Gaudiya tradition. So, we could say that whatever helps in furthering the relationships, sweet-loving interactions, that is what is the most conducive for the upliftment of consciousness. And that would be at the core.

So, yes, if one of the things that people feel, how culture alienates is that if some people don't feel included, if some people feel that you're just speaking a language that I don't understand, you're using not just a different language in the sense of different countries' languages, but even you're using a jargon which I don't understand, then I feel as if I'm not wanted over here. So, the idea again, this boils down to relationships and when people feel valued and welcomed. And so, this is a very, I would say, understated aspect of culture and the debates about what culture is.

And if we could emphasise that adequately, and then whatever is required for fostering loving relationships, that can be, or whatever is required or whatever aids in fostering loving relationships, that could be what is furthered and that is what could be developed further. So, yeah. So, then just now, maybe this is a whole different topic and we may need a different podcast for this.

But do you have any points to reflect on what I said just now? No, nothing to add. So, now the question of where do Prabhupada's preferences end and where do his principles begin, that is not something. So, we could say that, we can look at it in terms of his teaching.

What did he teach? Did he write in his books that all of you have to eat kachoris? No, he didn't. We could say that, okay. So, again it comes to that achar and prachar.

This is what he acted. But did he teach that? So, if he did not, we could say that was his personal preference. Now, as far as having no facial hair, did Prabhupada talk about it in his books? Maybe, but that's not a very prominent theme in his books.

We could say that. So, one way we could differentiate between preference and principle could be by looking at not just how frequently he did it himself, because something he might have done throughout his life, but we could say that, how much did he emphasise that as something which his disciples have to do? I have a slightly interesting thing about this. So, just one, I'll conclude.

Yeah, sure, sure. For example, Prabhupada took massage every day. So, does having faithful to Prabhupada mean that everybody, all of us should have somebody who gives us a massage? Well, for that you have to have two heart attacks.

That's a qualification. Okay. So, just an interesting part is Prabhupada's Guru Maharaj was famous for not eating mangoes because of that incident where at age four, because he, I think he attempted to eat or he didn't offer or he, I don't think he ate, but I think Bhaktivinoda just asked him that, did you offer? And he said, no, I forgot.

And he said, how can you eat without offering? So, that was just a simple statement, but back came the reaction that I'm an offender, so I will not eat. Now, keeping that intact for the next six decades of your life is no easy thing at all. Nobody has, nobody has told him to do that.

He can change it anytime he wanted. He could have changed it anytime he wanted. So, Prabhupada didn't make a big deal out of it.

He told the story. Beautiful. And said, how great my Guru is because that's what he is.

But he relished mangoes. There's a letter saying that, oh, such and such person is telling me that the mangoes are available here. So, I must come to his temple.

I must go to his temple. So, I think that kept him, at least I'm thinking that as very human, as very, in the sense he's respecting his Guru for what he has done. But he's keeping things at his own level that, OK, I like mangoes and there is no harm in eating them.

So, you don't show your loyalty to Bhakti Siddhantri Thakur by not eating mangoes, but you show your loyalty by becoming a staunch follower of Gaudiya Vaishnav theology. If you accept the conclusions of the Acharyas, that keeps you more in the centre of the, of culture rather than merely following something which has no bearing on the preaching of Krishna consciousness all over the world. Beautiful.

So, now, so, you know, in one sense, there are many things in our practise of Krishna consciousness which are central. But how central were they in his teachings? So, that means, again, Prabhupada mentions every time the devotees do kirtan with Mrudanga and Kartal. Yes.

Now, did Prabhupada at any time ban any instruments? I know that in the early days, Prabhupada would welcome all musicians when they would go to Tompkins Square Park and other public kirtans. So, everybody would come and Prabhupada would welcome them and everybody would bring their own musical instruments. Everybody had their own gig, they said.

They would get that. Now, of course, in the temple, Prabhupada had a particular standard for kirtans. But are there instances when Prabhupada banned any particular instruments that you cannot use this in kirtans that you know of? I don't know of any statement where Prabhupada said this is not allowed, that is not allowed.

So. That's interesting. So, I think this is a big thing which would also determine this cultural and universal dialectic is that what just Prabhupada did many things.

Now, with respect to just to play the devil's advocate at Bhakti Sankar Thakur point, that is very clearly because of a particular incident happening in his life that he did that. So, there is no reason for that to be universalised or absolutised. But there are other things which could be that Prabhupada did them and they are also mentioned in his books occasionally.

So, then what we would ultimately have to do is, again, Prabhupada wanted people to become Krishna conscious. So, now Krishna conscious, what does it help, what helps them to become Krishna conscious and what holds them back from becoming Krishna conscious? Maybe that will be the ultimate criteria for deciding what would be the culture conducive for Krishna consciousness. So, in India, maybe I'll just make this one point and then you can respond it.

In India also, we see that Krishna Bhakti was very widespread across the country and Krishna Bhakti had its own regional expressions. So, I don't know if say Dukaram Maharaj in Maharashtra and say Kanak in Karnataka or Narsimha Mehta in Gujarat, did all of them wear the same dress? Not at all. Not at all.

Categorically you can say not at all? Yeah, they had their own regional attire, their regional, like turban would be different style. In fact, in India, at least in Marathi, there is a saying that, oh, there is such a variety of people and that would be expressed as saying 18 pagdi, 18 pagad jati. So, there are people of, people would be described as having this particular turban.

So, the turban would be like somebody from Kutch or from Surat or from Rajwadi or from Mankathiamad. You can spot that person in the marketplace in India just by his huge turban. Eighteen kinds of turbans were there.

Yeah, so that was how it became. So, Dukaram Maharaj is always shown in that particular Maharashtrian attire. Kanak Das is shown in that attire, Narsimha Mehta in Gujarat.

Mirabai is always shown in that Rajputana dress. Tulsi Das is shown in that particular dress of North India. So, this is a very valid point that they use that same kind of dress.

One thing is that they did not travel so much from, like somebody from, there are two, three instances where like Guru Nanak came to Maharashtra, Nandher, therefore there is a big Sikh Gurudwara there and I think Nandher also went right up to the northwest frontier, what is Pakistan today. So, there are devotees, Acharyas or preachers who travelled. Shankaracharya travelled throughout India three times it is said.

Madhavacharya travelled right up to Badrinath, but their dress was not changed. At least, right now we don't have that much of evidence, but what we have from paintings, but that's a very good point what you're making. Anand, being closer to our tradition, is there any evidence that when Lord Chaitanya travelled to South India or North India, I presume that even 500 years ago, people would have had their own dresses.

So, Chaitanya Chaitanya said they all started chanting Hare Krishna and became inundated with love for Krishna. There is no description as far as we know that they adopted, of course we can't say Lord Chaitanya's dress because Lord Chaitanya was a Sannyasi. Exactly, there is no question of adopting anything.

Okay, yeah, but if he says, that is Bhagavatam, but what is Chaitanya Mahaprabhu saying, Kurma Brahman, that wherever jara dekho tare kao krishna, this is the first part of that, where he says, be where you are. Yeah. So, in one sense, the idea of cultural change, that was not, that we don't see that in, there is no common culture in terms of dress among the various saints of India, and nor is it that when those saints went to different parts and they attracted followers, that they specifically insisted that their followers, I don't know if Ramacharya, Madhacharya, Ramacharya and Shankaracharya, they travelled a lot.

We don't have, as you said, we don't have any evidence of they getting their followers to change their dress or something like that. Now, one, am I right in what you are paraphrasing what you said? What is that Kurma, because I am right now seeing that Mahaprabhu is saying you stay where you are. Yeah, something like that.

Well, what he is saying is, don't speak like that again. Better to remain at home and chant the Holy Name of Krishna always. Kriya raya krishna nama nirantara laiva.

That was what you said? Okay, sir. Now, I thought, sthane sthita is slightly different, that is Bhagavatam. Now, the congregation preaching ministry has a quote from Chaitanyam Charita Amrit, which says, you know, that stay where you are and practise Krishna Bhakti.

Stay in your ashram. So, I wonder where that quote is. But maybe that is more in terms of the ashram.

That is not in terms of the dress. Now, there is one question which is probably a complicated question that one devotee told me that in some ways the people whom Prabhupada met, they were not the, you could say, the best specimens of western culture. In one sense, even the basic human hygiene and basic habits, those were also not there.

Not necessarily in terms of morality, but just in terms of cleanliness and hygiene and things like that. So, in that sense, teaching the culture was necessary for them. Necessary for Prabhupada.

But if Prabhupada, now that becomes a very big hypothetical question, that Prabhupada did change the culture that people adopted at that time. Now, it's interesting, in India, when Prabhupada met life members and different life members became, actually none of his life members really became his disciples, very few. So, because even the entire Indian culture is not really dhoti, kurta, even for religious attire, isn't it? So, I don't think Prabhupada made that an issue in India also.

If somebody was in a South Indian lungi or something like that, and they were having that, and they would be watching, I don't think Prabhupada would have objected to that, as far as I can understand. Two small reactions to what he said. In fact, somebody pointed out that Prabhupada not going the Gaudiya Mata way, as they went to the nobility of England and tried to impress them with the talks, and then slowly would get a place to preach and then a temple and whatever, that was seen as a wrong example of doing things.

Prabhupada started right from the bottom, even if they were rejected from Western society or they were not the proper specimen. In fact, Prabhupada says that this is the reason for my success, that we didn't go to, like Prabhupada didn't aim for a senator who could become a devotee first or a millionaire or Wall Street merchant or something like that. He said that because we are getting these people and they are accepting it, that's one reason of our success.

Secondly, Sachinathan Swami gave one nice talk, Prabhupada festival offering and said that his father was told by Prabhupada that, Mr. So-and-so, you can become Krishna conscious in your suit, coat, tie and shoes. So to those either parents of devotees or others who would object that, why are you doing this? Why are you doing that? Prabhupada would always give this kind of a reply that you can become Krishna conscious by clothes don't really matter. So sometimes what Prabhupada would say is like, I think Govinda Dasi, her name was changed.

Her father said, at least you could have kept her name. So the father was feeling that by changing the name, he has kind of changed the relationship or he is now taking away my daughter from me and devotees would say that he's my spiritual father. So parents would feel like that.

So Prabhupada kept the, because Naam Parivartan or something like that is a thing mentioned in the Diksha ceremony. Your name has to change. So we have all our Sanyasis, great Acharyas, their name was something else, but their name was changed.

So because the original name was Vasudev and now you become Madhvacharya, that's why there is no problem. What if the original name was David or Harold or Bartholomew or anything and then it becomes a Vaishnava or a Krishna conscious culture name, is that the reason why it should be jarring or it should not be done? So this remains a difficult thing to understand because some people, some proponents would say no, that the name change gives you that confidence that now I'm a devotee, now I can perform devotional service. But that's not true.

Just the name change should not be giving confidence or something. If the name change touches the core, it becomes the whole thing. If it remains as the shell, then even people who have had their names changed or whatever, like we have few people who came, took the name, changed the name, but now they are saying no, I would rather be called by my previous whatever name.

So mere name change doesn't give you that. That's the only point I'm trying to make that. Prabhupada would assure someone that no, no, no, I tell you, this is not necessary.

The real thing is that to accept chanting of Hare Krishna, that would be emphasised as the most important part. So I think we discussed about address, we discussed about name. Now we have discussed about, I think we discussed a little bit about food is not that big an issue with respect to music.

So my understanding is that when I first saw Hare Krishna rock bands, I was a little taken aback. But then over a period of time, what struck me is that it's a matter of remembering Krishna. So now rock, we could call it as a little bit more passionate form of music.

But if somebody is, what do you say, sitting on a piano and playing a piano or something like that, which is not like that passionate kind of music. And if that they're singing some songs in English about Krishna and they're remembering Krishna by that. So I would say for us Indians, Krishna is familiar and rock music is unfamiliar.

So the mind, naturally, our attention might go more towards the rock music. And okay, this is new, this is exciting, this is something odd. It can be either way, positively or negatively.

That's what might catch the attention. But for somebody whom a particular genre of music is common, that gives them a sense of comfort, a sense of acceptance. And then, okay, what is being conveyed in this music? So if the music is unfamiliar and what is being conveyed to the music is also unfamiliar, then it becomes like a double unfamiliarity that has to be navigated.

They may appreciate the music, but to evoke the deeper emotions from that music might be a little more difficult. So overall, it seems that we are… Do you want to add some more points or I'll try to summarise? Yeah, I think we should summarise now. Yeah, so overall, it seems that… So we discussed this broadly, the topic of how Krishna consciousness is universal or how the universality of Krishna consciousness can be presented or retained.

Broadly, that was the topic we discussed. So what are the universals in Krishna consciousness? That, say, we are… our core identity is non-material. We are parts of Krishna and in loving Krishna, we are part of one God, Krishna, and in loving Him, we can find the supreme fulfilment.

And then you may… we talked about various things, but you said culture is… that culture is how we deal with each other. Say if somebody is inviting for a… how do we deal with them? So how relationships are conducted? Maybe that is the essence of culture. And then we discuss the six-fold loving exchanges and giving gifts.

Sharing gifts is good, it's a bond. Caring food is a closer bond. Caring heart is even a closest bond.

So from that perspective, whatever helps in the bonding of the heart, in the relationships, the experience of rasa, that is what is central to the culture of Krishna consciousness. So that is what will encourage people to become Krishna conscious. And then we discussed about the prescriptive-descriptive aspect when you have two metaphors, whether something is changing and we go along with the change like a river, culture is like that, or something is unchanging like a painting and we simply appreciate it.

So English also has this prescriptive-descriptive conflict. And ultimately, there are certain core principles which have to be maintained. So we have to be prescriptive about them.

But then there are some certain things which will be descriptive. And then what could be descriptive with respect to that, you discussed that, how Prabhupada… Vaikuntha culture means putting Krishna's service in the centre. Now Prabhupada put very… other things he put at a lower point.

So that means that to decide what is the core, we can't just focus on… So the prescriptive-descriptive of Prabhupada's life could be what Prabhupada taught and what Prabhupada wrote. So how do we… what Prabhupada taught and how Prabhupada lived. So we could say in principle how Prabhupada… what Prabhupada did is the norm because he is Acharya.

Or we might say what Prabhupada spoke is the norm. But we could give arguments for both things. Say if Prabhupada did certain things like eating kachori, liking kachori.

But we don't have to take that as a norm. So there are some… even when what he did, some things could be his personal preferences, some things could be his… could be principles. So to understand that again, we have to look back at his teachings.

So overall, what would be the stress would be whatever helps people come closer to Krishna. So whether it is… so that is how the culture has been in the tradition also. Whether… so if you talk about a particular dress, yes, it has to be… there has to be some common sense.

Prabhupada did wear dhotis always. But then he wore warm clothes, warm upper clothes whenever he was in a cold weather, cold part of the world. So we discussed about food and music and other things and dress elaborately.

But the point is that there are many examples of Prabhupada where he focused on the making sure that people came closer to Krishna. So and then we discussed in the broader Indian tradition also, there doesn't seem to be… there seems to be one culture of one common dress of all saints or saints causing their followers to change their dresses. So with respect to dress, there seems to be a room for diversity.

And ultimately, the universality of Krishna consciousness is that everybody gets to develop their love for Krishna. So whatever particular context or particular excel might be required, that can be adopted accordingly. Any points you would like to add? No, just be summarised.

Thank you very much. This is a very stimulating discussion. Thank you.

Hare Krishna.