Brahminical culture what it was and how it was preserved through two kinds of brahmanas

Podcast:

Hare Krishna. I’m grateful to be here with all of you today at the Lotus Feet of the Lord.
And. We are discussing the Bhagavatam, the pastime of. Krutu Maharaj and instructions therein.
Now, in this purport, we can see Prabhupada’s compassion overflowing. Prabhupada is giving so many important points in the purports. It’s like a treasure trove which we need to unearth.
So we can only look at some of the points over here, given my finite intelligence and finite time that we have. So let’s I’ll focus on three main points in today’s class. So first is what is the Brahmanical culture that Prabhupada is talking about? And second is how the qualities of the Brahmanas preserve that culture.
And lastly, we’ll discuss how what role can we play in trying to preserve these higher spiritual values that are the centre of Brahmanical culture. So. There’s a European philosopher who said, so first is what is Brahmanical culture? The European philosopher who commented 200 years ago, he says the problem with the world is that the foolish are cocksure and the wise are full of doubts.
So what happens is that if you consider materialistic people. Now, all of us have some level of materialism within it. That’s why I don’t want to generalise.
But people who have who are who think that there is nothing beyond material life or even if there is, it’s not relevant to me. Either the non-material doesn’t exist or it is irrelevant. Such people are deeply convinced that if I just get a bigger house, if I just become fitter, if I just earn more money, if I just can do this, that will make me happy.
And it is because of that conviction that they have energy. So in general, we sometimes may think that, oh, in the Rajoguna, in the mode of passion, people are working so hard. What are they working for? Temporary things.
As people work for 16 hours, 18 hours, 20 hours. Nowadays, in some ways, the work from home culture is good because you don’t have to spend time commuting. But in other ways, it can be counterproductive because one may never be disconnected from one’s work.
So what happens is that the Brahminical culture is meant to remind us that there is a higher purpose to life. Yes, making money is important. We can’t survive without money.
But more important than making money or rather making money is important. What we are making with money is even more important. What are we using money for? So there are valuables and there are values.
So the Brahminical culture is meant to remind us that if we want happiness in life, gaining valuables alone is not enough. We need to gain values. Ultimately, without proper values, we will not be happy.
Because no matter how much we have, what will happen is we will crave for more. And there will always be more to crave for. And that will lead to dissatisfaction.
That insatiable desire keeps a person distressed. Distress may not be a heartbreak or devastating loss of something. It could just be a chronic sense of dissatisfaction that gnaws us and keeps us restless.
So the Brahminical culture is meant to remind us that our values, what is it that we truly value in life? What is it that we pursue in life? Our values are more important than the valuables that we may get externally. That the things we have externally, they matter in our life. But the thoughts that we have internally, they matter even more.
The world urges us to improve the things that we have. But it is only a spiritual centred culture that not only encourages us, but equips us to improve our thoughts. So what does improving our values and improving our thoughts actually mean? It essentially means that we recognise that our essence, our spiritual essence, we as souls actually need something more to find fulfilment in life.
And for that purpose, there is in the broad Vedic culture, there is education, then there is culture and then there is ultimately devotion. Prabhupada talks about these three in the fourth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. The first two, three verses he emphasises quite a bit.
So the idea is why these three things specifically? Education is helpful for intellectually reminding us that there is something higher to life. The physical dimension is constantly visible to us. And we can see tempting objects, we can see disturbing things.
So that’s what actually consumes our consciousness. But it’s only when we get education, when we hear spiritual wisdom, hear philosophy, then we understand there is something more to life. And that something more also matters more than what is visible.
So that education is vital. And that’s why we have regular classes. Prabhupada wrote so many books and we have a literary culture.
So that’s education. Now that culture, sometimes the culture may seem a little alien. OK, this kind of dress from is it ethnic dress from India? Is it a spiritual dress? Is this food spiritual? Is this food or just cultural? But here culture as expressed in this context or what it means is that environment which supports the rising of consciousness.
Just like if we have to take an example from biology, we may have a yeast culture or a bacteria culture. What does that mean? That is the place where yeast can grow or bacteria can grow. So if it’s a spiritual culture, it is not just specific externals.
Yes, they can be helpful. But the more important point is that cultural environment, which helps the growth of spirituality. So, for example, food, which is very passionate, you know, which is unhealthy, which is tasty, but unhealthy, that food is not the most conducive for spiritual growth.
Dresses in which one’s body is exposed. Those are going to drag the consciousness down to the material level. So that is the cultural aspect.
And then ultimately there is devotion. So so we could say that through education, we understand there is something higher. Through culture, we are provided pathways to progress toward the higher.
But it is devotion that helps us develop attraction to the higher. It’s like I have a map. First, I need if I’m in Denver and say from here, I want to go to L.A. First, I need a map to go there.
I need to somehow have knowledge. OK, this is here. That is this place called L.A. That’s where I want to go.
That’s education. And culture is, OK, this is the pathway. Maybe I can go by car.
Maybe I can go by plane. So there’s a pathway. But more important than education, the culture is devotion.
In this case, I should have the desire to go to L.A. Otherwise, both the map and the plane ticket, both are not of much use. And so the brahmanas, brahmanas are brahma janati brahmana, those who are aware of life’s spiritual reality, not just aware of, they live in awareness of life’s spiritual reality. Being aware means I know, but I don’t really care for it.
I don’t really think much about it. It’s awareness, living in awareness. That is what this life’s spiritual side is what matters.
So brahmanas are expected to provide for all these three things. They are supposed to provide education. They are the teachers of society.
And they teach people about life’s higher spiritual values. And then the culture is they embody the culture. They live purely.
They live by purely, we’re not talking about puritanical, holier than thou attitude, but they conduct themselves in a way that they demonstrate how to tread the path to higher consciousness. And most importantly, now, both of these can be there. There can be a lot of education and there can also be culture in terms of following the practises.
But if the heart is not directed to a transcendence, then such brahmanas won’t be very effective. In fact, they can be counterproductive. And that is why Prabhupada in the purport mentions ultimately that a brahmana is one who knows Krishna.
Vedaisya sarvair aham eva vedyo. Of course, there are other forms of worship. There are the devatas that are worshipped.
And those who administer that worship are also brahmanas in one sense. And there are other conceptions of the absolute. Those who pursue that are also brahmanas in one sense.
But they are not brahmanas in the fullest sense. So quite often Shri Prabhupada connects everything in the scripture with the conclusion of scripture. And that is how we make sure that we don’t miss that conclusion.
So this is so the brahmanical culture is the social arrangement by which people through education, culture and devotion are inspired to pursue life’s higher values, to pursue spirituality. And another part of brahmanical culture is that brahmanas will do all this, but society needs to support them and especially the Kshatriyas support them. The Kshatriyas are the administrators of society, the kings, others.
So they are meant to support the brahmanas. So the brahmanas don’t have to be too worried about worldly things and they can focus on higher pursuits. Now, the second part was, OK, so what preserves brahmanical culture? And here certain qualities are mentioned.
So, for example, it is mentioned that they are, that they are sanyami, that they are restrained. And then there are Shraddha, Tapo, Mangala, Mauna, Sanyami, Samadhina. So these are.
So how do the brahmanas maintain brahmanical culture? So it is, brahmanical culture doesn’t mean that it is a culture meant for brahmanas. It is a culture meant to prepare people to pursue brahman. Brahman is spiritual reality.
So it’s and because brahmanas are vital for this, that’s another reason why the word brahmanical culture is used. But it is not a brahmana centred culture in that sense. It is a brahman centred culture, spiritual centred culture.
So these qualities are mentioned, similar qualities are mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita, Shamo, Damas, Tapah, Shaukhyam, Shantirarcham, Vimucham, Gyanam, Vigyanam, Astikyam, Brahmakarma, Sambhavujam. So why do these qualities matter? Shraddha is faith. Tapo is austerity.
Mangala, Mauna. Mangala, I’ll elaborate on this. This is auspicious silence.
Significant. What do you mean by auspicious silence? Mangala, Mauna and Sanyami. Sanyami is restraint, restraint of mind and senses.
And then not just restraint, but Samadhinah. We restrain ourselves from the material, but then they’re absorbed in the spiritual. Samadhinah.
And then by this, what happens is Darshaye. They’re able to see. Artha Darshaye.
Artha is value or purpose. So they’re able to see the purpose of life. And how clear they can see the purpose is? Adarsha Iva Vabhasate.
Just as if one has a mirror in front of oneself, one can, especially a clean mirror, one can see one’s face clearly. So it is the Brahmanas who have these qualities. They can see the purpose of life as clearly as we may perceive our own face in a mirror.
So actually we need to perceive before we can pursue. So both are related. Now here Shraddha, Tapo, Mangala, Mauna, Sanyami, Samadhinah.
The Brahmanas, what their defining characteristic is the virtues that they embody. These virtues enable them to live in a way that they can lead society. So Chanakya Pandit says that a Brahmana should not be too close to the king and should not be too far away from the king.
And there were in the past, there are broadly you could say two kinds of Brahmanas. Many kinds, but two kinds. One were the Rajya Pandits.
The Rajya Pandits would be the royal priests or the royal scholars. They would be in the king’s court every day. They would be a part of the king’s support staff, you could say, king’s advisory board or whatever.
And apart from that, the Raj Pandits, these are the royal priests. So if you consider the Ramayana, Vasishtha Muni was the royal priest of Dashrath Maharaj. He was always there.
He didn’t stay in a palace. He had his own hermitage. But that was within the city, very close to the heart of the city.
And he was serving that family, taking care of their needs. So needs could be, he would provide them wisdom, education. He would especially perform the ritual sacrifices, the name giving ceremony, the wedding ceremony and other ceremonies.
So these are the Raj Pandits. And in the second, there can be many intermediaries. The second is the forest dwelling Brahmanas.
So these are the Vanachari Brahmanas. The Vanachari can refer to those who is a particular stage, like we have Anaprastha Vanachari. But Vanachari refers to generally one who stays in the forest.
So the forest dwelling Brahmana, the forest dwelling sages sometimes they would be called. Now, what is the difference between the two of them? That one of them is physically quite close to the king. The other is physically far away from the king.
And both of them would serve different functions in society. Both of them would help preserve Brahmanical culture, but both of them would do it differently. The Raj Pandits would be immediately accessible to the king.
Anytime there is an issue, they could go to Raj Pandits and ask. And in one sense, the Raj Pandits, the royal priests, they would be more dependent on the king. Now, whether they got official salary, the way nowadays employers get salary or not, that is something which requires much more historical investigation.
Generally, Brahmanas don’t draw a salary. That’s the broad understanding. But still, they were in one sense maintained directly by the king.
So while there was accessibility, ready accessibility, they also were much more dependent on the king. And therefore, they could not afford to displease the king too much. Because if they displease the king, there are consequences.
The immediate consequence would be that their family would starve. The king stops supporting them. What are they going to do? So now even the king was aware of this.
The kings were also trained to respect the Brahmanas. At the same time, everybody has plans, ambitions and somebody comes in the way of that. There is going to be annoyance, even anger with respect to that.
So even the Ravana, when he is contemplating what to do about Ram’s imminent attack on Lanka, he has a panel of advisors. And unfortunately, in that panel, the Brahmanas who are there have long ago been silenced. The Brahmanas have been reduced to people who simply perform rituals for him.
So these were Brahmanas. Brahmanas are meant to worship Lord Vishnu, Lord Krishna. But these are the Brahmanas who were performing sacrifices for the defeat of Lord Ram, who was not different from Lord Vishnu.
They were performing sacrifices so that Ravana would be victorious. So this is an example of Brahmanas come too close to the king. They lose their Brahmanical purpose.
They had that education. They had that culture. They were performing the rituals.
But their devotion had been suppressed. Their devotion was lost. And that’s the danger of coming too close to the Brahmanas.
These were called Yathudanas. And they were in the past. See, when we talk about fire sacrifices, they were religious, but they were in one sense less religious and more technological.
Yes, they were religious in the sense that they involved chanting of mantras and invoking of higher deities. But largely it was technology. Technology is what? Technology is basically accessing powers to do things which we can’t do ourselves.
The accessing power is latent in nature, by which, so if I’m speaking now, if somebody is not here, they can’t hear this class. But through technology, they can see the class on Zoom. So the sacrifices were performed just to gain access to higher levels.
And that’s why even the demons would perform sacrifices. So these were Brahmanas, who we could say have lost their independence because of being too close to the king and not being able to do what is good for the king. In fact, they end up doing what is opposite of what the Brahmanas are meant to do.
So the other extreme and the other is that this is the danger. There’s accessibility, but there is silence. And this will be not Mangala Mauna.
This is Amangala Mauna. Mauna is silence. So now sometimes, okay, this is none of my business.
It says like some people, you know, don’t poke your nose in other’s business sometimes. I was just talking with one devotee and he was telling that, you know, this devotee pokes his nose in everyone else’s business. And then I talked with that devotee.
He says that is my business. The idea was that poking my nose in other’s business is my business. If there’s nothing else to do, what will I do with my life? That was an idea.
You know, when we talk about gossip, how can we define gossip? In many ways, but one is gossip is when we hear something we like about someone we don’t like. It’s delicious. Now I want to share this with everyone.
So what happens is that there are times when this is none of my business. If something bad has happened with somebody, even if somebody has done something bad, unless I am either their guide or their authority, I don’t have to go about speaking to everyone. So there is time when it’s important to maintain silence.
Prabhupada says that, for example, Vidura did not tell the Pandavas about Krishna’s departure. Because he said bad news goes on its own. And Vidura had come to the Pandavas’ place, there primarily to enlighten and deliver Dhritarashtra.
And if he had given the news of Krishna’s departure, the Pandavas would have been shattered and his energy would have been diverted to pacifying the Pandavas. So there is time when silence is auspicious, when mauna is mangala. Even a brahmana is not meant to be overbearing with the king.
He should know that this is the king’s jurisdiction. The daily administration is the king’s jurisdiction. And a brahmana should not poke their head in a Kshatriya’s business.
There are, you could say, jurisdictions. This is the Kshatriya’s jurisdiction. This is the brahmana’s jurisdiction.
Broadly the Kshatriya looks after material welfare of the citizens and the brahmana looks after spiritual welfare. So, but when the Kshatriya is doing something, when the king is doing something, which is inauspicious, materially and spiritually, then the brahmana has to speak. So one said, so the brahmanical culture is compromised and lost if the brahmanas come too close to the Kshatriyas.
If the spiritual intellectuals, they come too close to the material administrators. On the other hand, so this is where those brahmanas who are forest dwelling, who are at a distance from the administrators, they have an advantage. Even they, in one sense, are dependent on the king.
If the king wants, the king can just send the army and destroy their hermitage. The king can. And that’s what sometimes demoniac rulers do that.
That’s what Kamsa tried to do. Hiranyakashipu tried to do. Destroy all the, everything related to the brahmanic culture.
Destroy the fire sacrifices, destroy the hermitages. Ravana even devoured, he was a cannibal. He would devour the brahmanas.
So even the brahmanas who live in the forest are in one sense dependent on the king, but not so directly. They are living in the forest. They get most of their subsistence from the forest.
They get fruits and roots and other things from the forest. And they can just need protection in the case of some aggressors coming over there. So these brahmanas, because they are at a distance from the king, they can give more dispassionate advice.
They can even speak strongly when it is required. So if you go back to the Ramayana, Valmiki Muni’s ashram was outside the main city of Ayodhya. And that’s why when Lakshmana Sita went, they went in a chariot over there.
So Valmiki Muni lived outside the ashram. Still it was broadly within Lord Ram’s kingdom, but not within his capital, not within his day-to-day area of operation. And when the kings had to make major decisions, major decisions, they would not rely only on their Raj Panditas.
They would go to these Vanachari brahmanas. Why? Because that distance gives some perspective. They are not dependent.
So they will give me advice which is not too much tainted by self-interest. Here the word used is, Yath Brahmanityam Virajam Sanatanam. So Virajam.
Raja means contamination. Raja literally means rajas, the mode of passion. So Virajam means not contaminated by the mode of passion, not contaminated by immediate concerns.
It is focused on long term concerns. So these brahmanas can give advice based on long term concerns. And that’s why the kings would go to the sages to hear from them, to enquire from them.
Now the distance and therefore the physical distance and also the, you could say, the non-dependence that came with it, that gave them freedom to speak candidly. So that was the advantage. But the disadvantage is that because they are so far away from the kingdom, from the capital at least, that their advice could sometimes be impractical.
Because they are not really involved in worldly concerns. So that’s why it is not for everyday things the king would concern them. It is for major decisions and major decisions also require a long time to implement.
So these two kinds of brahmanas, those royal priests and the forest dwelling priests, both of them would act as a balance. So the royal priest would be immediately accessible and would give advice for some concerns which needed some immediate action. And those who were forest dwelling would be more distanced and they would give long term advice.
So now for both of these, these virtues are important for both of these kind of brahmanas. They have to have shraddha that there is a higher reality, that I should be pursuing that higher reality. And if I live according to virtue, then virtue will protect me.
Tapo, they all have to perform austerity. The degree of austerity that a sage living in the palace would perform and the degree of austerity a sage living in the forest would perform might be different. But if they are not ready to perform austerity, what would happen is they will want more and more things.
And when they want more and more things, they will become more and more dependent. So mangala mauna means what to not speak about, what to understand that this is not my business. That is also an important quality of a brahmana.
And then what happens is no one, if you look at the Mahabharata also, when the Pandavas are negotiating with the Kauravas, they say just they are actually entitled to at least half the kingdom. But they say we will settle for five villages. It’s interesting.
The five Pandavas were united. It’s like five fingers. This is five fingers in a handwork for one purpose.
The five Pandavas would work like that for one purpose. And yet these five Pandavas did not ask for one village. They said five villages.
Everyone needs their space. No matter how close we are to someone, the five Pandavas are very close to each other. But still each of them needed their space.
And that’s why five villages, not one village. So the idea is that mangala mauna, the Kshatriyas need their space and the brahmanas need to give Kshatriyas their space. That’s why keep to your business, not others’ business.
And sanyamayi samadhina. Sanyamayi is again, it is restrain oneself and stay connected to spirituality. So it is primarily the brahmanical qualities that preserve brahmanical culture.
So now, of course, we can say that there are the support systems required. The Kshatriyas should be there supporting. That is true.
But the Kshatriyas will be inspired to support the brahmanas when they see that these brahmanas are pursuing something higher and that there is something higher to pursue in life. And that’s why the qualities are most important. If you see, Buddha was a king, a royal prince, and he renounced everything.
And yet, eventually Buddhism became hugely influential. One reason was that, whereas in those times, the priests were performing rituals. They had become quite materialistic.
Whereas the followers of Buddha and his followers, this is around a few hundred years before Jesus, around 5th century BC is the time when Buddha came. So actually from 5th century BC to 5th century AD, for about a thousand years in Indian history, large parts of India were ruled by kings who had affiliated themselves with Buddhism. Although the Vedic culture was there, they had affiliated themselves with Buddhism.
And why were these kings attracted or affiliated with? Because they saw that the Buddhist monks were actually Buddhist, not just monks, but the Buddhist pages, Buddhist followers, they were actually living a detached life. They were actually pursuing something higher. So the Kshatriyas will be inspired.
The Kshatriyas have greater material power. Why would they submit to someone who has lesser material power than them? Far lesser material power than them. It is only when the Kshatriyas are convinced that there is something higher than material power and these people have that.
So the Brahminical virtues are what are vital for the preservation of Brahminical culture in society at large. So now that was the second part. So what preserves Brahminical culture? How is Brahminical culture preserved? And what damages it? The Brahmanas become compromised.
Either they don’t speak the truth because they are too dependent on the king or they speak truth that is so impractical that the king feel that these people, I can’t learn anything from them. So now the last part is how does this apply to all of us? So broadly speaking, Sri Prabhupada started the Krishna Consciousness Movement because he wanted, he wanted to revive and messenge Brahminical culture. Initially he said that I have come looking for Brahmanas.
What he meant by looking for Brahmanas, it is not that he wanted to convert people to a caste system. Prabhupada was strongly against that, completely against that. But that meant that those people who are spiritually inclined, those people who have the, who have the values, who have the culture, who have the background from this and previous lives, to pursue spiritual things in life, he wanted to train them, he wanted to create a forum for them.
And eventually, of course, Prabhupada wanted the whole social organisation centred at Varanashram, where there were people who were not so spiritually focused and they would also be accommodated within Prabhupada’s system. In India, Prabhupada’s followers were mostly life members and those life members were not serious seekers. They were not really chanting 16 rounds every day, but Prabhupada accommodated.
So the point is that Prabhupada did want Brahmanas. So what does it mean that these three things again, if you go back, education, culture and devotion. So each one of us in our particular area of influence, we try to gain education and we try to share that education with others.
It means we study scripture, we hear and we talk with others, whatever opportunity we get in an appropriate way. And we try to raise people’s consciousness. And it’s important that we raise our own consciousness, raise the consciousness of devotees also around us, because sometimes because our movement is functioning in the material world, our movement has a transcendental purpose, but it is functioning in the material world.
So in the material world, things can always go wrong. And you can say it’s not a matter of if, it’s just a matter of when they will go wrong. So then sometimes what may happen is that even we may get too consumed by the material upheavals in our movement.
And then we forget that actually I’m here for a spiritual purpose. So Krishna is reciprocal. If we come to Krishna, whatever Krishna is like a Kalpataru, he is like a desire-fulfilling priest.
So what we come to Krishna for, that’s what we will get. So if somebody comes to Krishna’s movement for respect, well, in which other organisation you go, you just go and everybody bows down to you. It doesn’t happen so easily, isn’t it? If somebody wants respect, they’re just around for a few years, they’ll get a lot of respect if they want to.
If somebody wants money, if somebody tries to serve Krishna, well, money can also come. If somebody wants controversy, they’ll get controversy also. Lot more controversy than maybe even in the material world.
So we can get wealth, we can get followers, we can get fame, we can get various material things. We can get controversy and we can get Krishna also. That is something which we will not get anywhere else.
But it depends on us. So if we start, if within the material upheavals that will inevitably happen in the spiritual movement, if we get too caught in them, if the education, culture and devotion are not proper within us, we will get too affected by the material upheavals. And then we will not be able to attain Krishna.
We will be in Krishna’s movement, but we will be looking at things other than Krishna in the moment. Now we may have to look if there are some controversies, those who are in authority need to resolve the controversies. But everybody doesn’t have to become consumed by the controversies.
So what we can do is through whatever level is possible for us, through our education, through our culture, by culture I broadly mean the way we conduct ourselves and through the direct devotional practises, which increase our attraction to the Lord, we try to focus ourselves on spiritual values. And if we do that, then we will stay connected with Krishna, not only stay connected, become increasingly connected with Krishna and will inspire others also to become increasingly connected. And that is the way ultimately to not only preserve Brahmanical culture, but to fulfil the purpose of Brahmanical culture.
Prabhupada says in the Bhagavad Gita introduction that even if one person becomes a pure devotee, he says, my purpose of writing the Bhagavad Gita will be fulfilled. And of course, even if people don’t, even if we say I’m very far away from becoming pure devotee, even if we are progressing towards that, there is a beautiful letter of Prabhupada where he says, I am never displeased with any member of ISKCON. I’m pleased that you are at least a member of ISKCON.
That is the implication. So Prabhupada said that at whatever level we connect with him, Prabhupada is happy. Of course, Prabhupada wants us to rise higher and higher and is provided the resources to rise higher and higher in our consciousness.
To the extent we keep that spiritual purpose in mind, and to that extent, what will happen is we will also be able to understand Adarshate, you know, that Abhashate, Adarsh Abhashate, Ivabhashate. So what will happen is, OK, in this particular situation, what am I supposed to do? Should I get caught in this controversy? Should I neglect it? Should I just move somewhere else? What should I do? How should I pursue the purpose of my life? That will become clearer for us. If we focus too much on the material issues, then what will happen is, oh, this is wrong here.
And that is wrong there. And that is wrong there. Now, we will never find any perfect place in the material world.
And if there were a perfect place in the material world and we found such a place, we wouldn’t be allowed entry because we are not perfect. So to some extent, we need to choose our battles. And when we try to educationally, culturally and devotionally, stay centred on spiritual spirituality, then how to navigate our circumstances and how to continue toward Krishna, that knowledge will arise from within.
That our own education, culture, devotion will become like that mirror. In that, we will see, OK, this is what, this is where I am at. This is where I need to go.
And thus, Dadami buddhi yogam tam ye namo apayantite. Krishna will give us the intelligence from within by which we can keep progressing towards him. So I’ll summarise.
I spoke broadly on Brahmanical culture today. So I started by what is Brahmanical culture? It is not a culture centred on Brahmanas, but on the Brahman, the pursuit of Brahman. And that is required because material pursuits leave us dissatisfied.
And that there are higher things to pursue in life that is embodied primarily by the Brahmanas. And it is provided by society through education. That is like giving a map to know there is another place I can go to.
Then culture is like providing the path to go there. And then devotion is kindling a desire for going to that higher place. So how is this Brahmanical culture preserved? Broadly by two kinds of Brahmanas.
Those who stay close to the king and they advise the king on immediate affairs. But they are often somewhat dependent on the king. And there are Brahmanas who stay away from the king in the forest.
Because of the distance, they are less dependent and they can give advice with greater candour, but it might be impractical. So the balance of these two Brahmanas, and they are both embodying Brahmanical virtues, by which they show that they are living for something higher than the material. That is what inspires those who have material power to submit themselves.
So this is how Brahmanical culture is preserved. And last day I discussed about what can we do? In whatever situation we are in, we try to internalise education, culture and devotion so that we stay spiritually centred and we keep moving toward Krishna. Whatever happens in the broader world or even in the devotional world around us, we stay as a positive influence and we inspire others also to be positively purposeful in moving toward Krishna.
Thank you very much. Hare Krishna. Are there any comments, reflections, questions? Yes, please.
Is it that the Brahmanas who are living in the cities are more self-interested and the Brahmanas living outside are more objective? Well, I wouldn’t put it that black and white. I say that there’s plus and minus. And it’s not just self-interested.
You could say that nobody is completely self-uninterested. Even the Brahmanas who are outside also, they don’t want to antagonise the king unnecessarily. So in the material world, there is no perfectly positive thing.
Every positive comes with negative. We won’t get any perfect arrangement. We just get the arrangement with the least intolerable trade-off.
With the least intolerable trade-off. I get this, but I lose this over here. So there’s always a trade-off.
But OK, this is, both trade-offs are bad, but this is less bad among them. It’s like that. So the point is that those who are close to the king, they are also, while they have immediate, they have their worldly concerns.
You could say maybe their worldly concerns are more than others. But there is also an awareness of the dynamics of how a state works. And therefore, their advice is also more realistic.
So that’s why I hesitate to use the word self-interested and objective in two categories. Their advice is likely to be more pragmatic, realistic, but it is also likely to be more, you could say, as you said, self-interested or more motivated, more personal, with a greater personal motivation. But on the other hand, the forest dwellings, I guess, there may not be so much personal interest at stake for them, but there may not be much practicality in their advice.
So, yes. Now, would that apply to our moment also? Yes, to some extent, that is true. That if someone is, someone may be an intellectual, somebody is a scholar, but they are directly a part of the institutional machinery of the moment, then generally institutions are conservative.
Conservative means not necessarily the values are always conservative, but institutions always work to conserve themselves. And that’s not wrong. That has, Prabhupada said, keep the wheels moving.
So that’s required. But how far can we go to conserve? For when in our moment’s history, distribution just stopped because of various reasons. Then devotees started selling incense and drawings and other things like that.
OK, but was that what Srila Prabhupada started the movement for? So how far does one go in that direction? That’s the question which the institution wanted to preserve itself. And that was good, preserving itself. But how far does one go for that? That’s something just to be considered.
So those who are involved in the institutional machinery, they, because of both having greater immediate concerns and greater immediate awareness, it is difficult for them to suggest radical changes. Now, those who are a little away from the institutional machinery, they can see with greater, you could say, a bigger perspective. But then they may not realise the challenges that if somebody has to implement this, what are the challenges they will have to face? If I am a part of the Back to God editorial team.
So we have been discussing for many years how we can make the Back to God magazine more relevant, more appealing and more reachable. Prabhupada wanted it to be like in India, there was Illustrated Weekly and Times. There are very pretty papers, Prabhupada had written letters.
I want this magazine to become like that. So almost all the, like those devotees, scholars, who are not directly connected with the movement, their academic scholars, more aware of the contemporary world. One of the suggestions they’ve all given is that you have to change the name.
But nobody in today’s world, it is, first of all, God has itself become not such a popular name. You know, in Star Wars, instead of may the force be with you, may God be with you. All the theatres will become empty.
So and Godhead is even more abstract. They said that if you want this magazine to be relevant, it has to begin with the name. And that is in one sense valid.
But within his call, this is the name that Prabhupada gave to Back to God. So when we suggested this to somebody, they said, tomorrow, where are you going to stop? You should say, change the name of this con also. Because this con is too religious.
We don’t want Krishna in the name. So, you know, that’s the challenge. There’s no, I wouldn’t say one side is right and the other side is wrong.
But it’s difficult to implement. So somehow there has to be a discussion and a balance will come in. Yes, in some cases, those who are detached, they may be able to give better advice.
But it may not necessarily be better in terms of its applicability. Now, what is the use of good advice if it is if it is too good to be applied by those for whom it’s intended? OK. So any other comments, questions? What is Tilak for? Well, at a very there are multiple levels of understanding this.
One is that it is a it is a cultural identifier. Those who are devoted to practising in this tradition, every tradition has its identifiers in terms of dress or some particular. So this is a cultural identifier.
From a more spiritual perspective, this indicates the foot of God. So we are placing the foot of God on our head, which suggests that we are accepting him as our master and we are his servants. From more practical perspective, this Tilak, it is made of a particular kind of clay, which is very soothing and cooling.
So applying it can help us to keep a cool head. There’s a lot in the world which can make our head hot. This can keep our head cool.
OK. Thank you. Any comments? Thank you.
Well, there are multiple books. I wonder if you could comment on that, try to help us understand and use Prabhupada better. OK.
Yeah. So how can understanding Prabhupada better help us have greater faith in his books? Yes, this is a huge issue for deliberation in our moment. I’m a part of the Shastric Advisory Council and we have published an elaborate paper and course on hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics is basically how do we understand scripture? In this case, how do you understand Prabhupada’s books? Because, see, generally if you read Prabhupada’s books, there is so much wisdom and it’s sound. And in many ways it works. If we practise it, we see changes in our life.
So both in terms of its logical soundness and its practical effectiveness, it is powerful. So by reading Prabhupada’s books itself, we can get more and more faith in Prabhupada. At the same time, during reading Prabhupada’s books, there are certain statements that we will come across, which can come off as not only just objectionable, but for some people unbearable.
Statements which arise from statements about, say, particular demographic groups, statements about particular cultural actions and things like that. And that is what might destabilise people’s faith. So for this, that’s why it is, there is achar and there is prachar.
There is Prabhupada’s example and Prabhupada’s teachings. And there has to be a synergy between the two of them. We look, we understand Prabhupada’s teachings better by looking at how he lived those teachings.
And we look, we understand Prabhupada’s life better through his teachings. So there is the achar and the prachar. Now, if we look only at the prachar.
So, for example, Prabhupada sometimes makes statements like, say, women are less intelligent. And that can be outrageous for people in today’s world. But if you look at how people, Prabhupada conducted himself, he never made anyone feel, any woman feel less intelligent.
I was talking with His Holiness Giriraj Maharaj and he said that, I heard every single one of the soundbites that are available that Prabhupada says such things, says these things. This is not one, not in one of those, because Giriraj Maharaj is probably the only person on the planet, the person on the planet who has spent maximum time with Prabhupada. So he said, I knew the nuances of Prabhupada’s voice.
I knew the way Prabhupada would speak. He says, not once did I notice any sign of derision or condemnation in what Prabhupada would say. So he said, my realisation is that when Prabhupada is saying women are less intelligent, he’s not saying it to put women down.
He often compares women with children and children need to be protected. He says he’s saying this to men, again, not for men to put women down, but for men to come forward and take the responsibility as men for doing their own in society, which includes protecting women. So this is a very different understanding from what we might get by simply by reading the words.
And similarly, there are many other things which we come to know from the context. So recently one devotee came to me and he’s very disturbed. He says, he’s from a Jew background.
And he said, Prabhupada says, Prabhupada said that Hitler is not such a bad person. It is the British with their publicity, they spoiled it. How could Prabhupada say something like this? He’s extremely disturbed.
And I can understand his great grandparents, where both sides were killed in the Holocaust. So then I explained to him that Prabhupada said there have been great demons like Ravana, Hiranyakashipu and Prabhupada includes Hitler in that list. So those are the statements also that Prabhupada has made.
But why? So why did Prabhupada make a statement like that? So for that, again, we need context. Prabhupada lived most of his life in Bengal. He was from Bengal.
And in the 1940s, when the Second World War was at its peak, that time, one of the worst famines in the history of India happened. And estimates vary between 1 million to 3 million people were killed. And this famine was not caused by nature.
It was caused by British mismanagement. So what happened was Japan was attacking from the east and British realised we don’t have the defence forces. So they followed what is called a scorched earth policy.
That means they just burned all the grains available over there so that the Japanese wouldn’t have the grains. And then they would have to wait for food supply and their progress would be checked. But in that process, all the Bengali natives, they were left with no food.
And then on top of that, what they did was whatever grains were available in other parts of India, instead of giving it to Bengal, where there was such famine and starvation, they shipped it to other parts of the world where British troops were fighting. And then after that, people were literally dying on the streets because of lack of food. And then the Indian Governor General, he was no great lover of India, but at least he had some humanitarian concern.
He said, people are dying. There are ships going with grains coming from Britain and Europe and they were going towards to supply the British forces in the Pacific Ocean. No, in the Indian Ocean.
He said, stop some of the ships and provide some food. So Winston Churchill said, nothing doing. He said, people are dying.
So Churchill’s reply was, if people are dying, why has Gandhi not died till now? Because he considered Gandhi to be basically a pest because Gandhi was obstructing his rule. So at that time, India saw the utter brutality of the British. And at that time, what had happened, see, at that time, what the Holocaust was not known.
Even Churchill and other leaders of the Allies, it’s only after the war ended and they saw the Holocaust, they realised how terrible it was. So from the Indian perspective, British were terrible. And from the Indian perspective, what happened was that what the Germans were doing wrong was not known.
And because the Germans were opposed to the British, there are some Indian leaders, Subhash Chandra Bose especially, he allied with the Germans. So many Indians at that point saw the Germans, the Germans could be a potential liberators from this brutal British rule. And Germans had also adopted some kind of Indian terminology.
They used the word Aryan, they had Swastik, although they distorted it. So the point was, and Subhash Chandra Bose and Prabhupada went to the same school, same college. And so there was that context in which Prabhupada made certain statements.
He said that Hitler was not such a bad person. It was the British who spoiled him. So now, is this Prabhupada speaking the absolute truth? If we ask Prabhupada, Prabhupada would not claim the absolute truth.
Based on the cultural context he was in, he spoke certain statements. So we have to help devotees that there is content and there is context. So content cannot be understood solely on its own.
We have to look at the content in its context. And that is why understanding Prabhupada is important to understand his words. Otherwise words alone, which are meant to help us come towards Krishna may make us think, do I really want to go towards Krishna? And that could become a problem.
So that’s one take which I have that on your point that we need to understand Prabhupada to better understand his words. And Prabhupada’s life can help us see in what context Prabhupada said those words. Does that address your question? Thank you.
Hare Krishna. Malini Mataji, do you have any comments? Do you have any comments, Malini? I really appreciate the distinction you made. And I really appreciate the distinction you made.
And this is one type of problem I would say enlightening for me. And, yeah, it’s one of the things in society, in a spiritual society, if you think about hearing the Lord’s Advice in a spiritual ground, you might be in it at the same time. And also in a spiritual society, in a Christian church, in a Christian institution and all of that.
And where has this Brahman gone without really trusting or deciding in society? And where has this Brahman gone without really following that? So this is what I would go back to. And I would want to know that. And then another question I have is about, you know, we speak about unsolicited advice.
So in the term of Brahman’s dharma, I imagine that they were not doing unsolicited advice. They were only focused on Krishna. And then when the king would come to them, that’s when they would advise them.
And that’s what I was wondering. Are they co-activating their advice or only focussing on Krishna? And when the king comes to them, then they share what they have to share. Yeah, okay.
Thank you. I have read your service. There are two things with respect to unsolicited advice.
In one sense, you could say all preaching is unsolicited advice. Isn’t it? It is we who are going and giving books to people. So in one sense, it is, we could say we are in the business of giving unsolicited advice.
But there is a way to do that where it’s not that we put ourselves in a holier-than-thou position. Prabhupada also wanted us to develop personal relationships. Prabhupada says the Krishna consciousness movement is nourished by the six-fold loving exchanges.
He says in the Tadati Pratigranati verse in Nectar of Instruction. So the idea is that we are not just telling people what to do. We are inviting them to join a loving, welcoming community where they will be naturally inspired to move towards Krishna.
So instead of using the word, I would say unsolicited advice. I mean, because it’s very difficult to decide what is solicited, unsolicited in one sense. But there has to be a basic understanding of human nature and human psychology.
Some people are more welcoming towards advice. Some people may be less welcoming towards advice. So then accordingly, the Brahmanas also have to adjust.
If a person is welcoming, then even without being solicited, somebody can give some inputs. But if some people are like, touch me not, then OK, in this case, well, maybe this is not where I can contribute the most. So I would say it will depend on individual kings or individual administrators also.
And as far as our movement and those who are sort of on the fringes or slightly at a distance, well, a lot of positive changes in our movement have happened from the fringes. In one sense, Bhaktivedanta Maharaj did a lot of contemporary outreach. And he did that because of the various history of New Vrindan and other things.
For some time, he was outside the movement. And that’s how he started IFAST. And he reached to a lot of influential people.
And he was quite non-conservative in the kind of dresses he would wear and the kind of ways he would approach. So that has had its advantages. Even in general, if there is too much oversight, then there cannot be a lot of resourcefulness about what can be done.
So that’s a challenge. And if basically those who are a little bit at a distance from the movement, they can be resourceful. OK, this is what needs to be done.
Let’s do it. So much of, there is a significant amount of bhakti outreach that is happening through yoga, that is happening through coaching, that is happening through Ayurveda and health. All this is happening.
But all this is happening, you could say, at the fringes of the movement. And that is good because we don’t want our movement simply to be about coaching or yoga or Ayurveda. Our movement is about Krishna.
But these can open pathways towards Krishna. So the idea is that at the fringes there can be a little more innovation. The word innovation has a negative connotation, but Prabhupada said that.
We need to think of new ways to attract people towards Krishna. New ways to provide people pathways to connect with Krishna. So that will usually happen at the fringes.
So if the fringe does not constantly criticise the core, you people are doing nothing. As I said, the core is going to be, maybe the core is not the right word. The centre, the administrative centre of the movement is going to be conservative.
The administrative periphery of the movement can be more radical, can be more innovative, can be more resourceful in dealing with contemporary challenges and tapping contemporary opportunities. But if both recognise their role and both don’t criticise each other, if the administrative centre, they are constantly criticising, this person is whimsical, this person is going off, this person is going off, then people will lose the spirit to try something new for Krishna. On the other hand, if those who are doing new things, if they start criticising, those who are continuing, then who is going to continue? The core practises are also important.
So that’s why anya ninda dishunya, one of the characteristics of Vaishnavas is to avoid criticism of others. So it doesn’t say that anya ninda dishunya ipsita sangvalabhya. It’s not that they don’t criticise others.
It’s that they don’t have the tendency to criticise others. Yeah, the propensity to criticise others. So if they can avoid, then both these can play valuable roles in the future of our movement.
So thank you very much. Shila Prabhupada ki, Vantraj Srimad Bhagavatam ki, Gaur Bhakta Vindaki, Jai Gaur Premanand.